text:
# Long Josephson junctions with spatially inhomogeneous driving

## I Introduction

Long Josephson oscillators operating in the flux-flow regime nei  are presently considered as possible devices for applications in superconducting millimeter-wave electronics ksh ,km . In comparison to single fluxon oscillators they have higher output power, wider bandwidth, and easier tunability, but they have a wider linewidth of the emitted radiation from the junction lwss ,kosh ,kosh2 . The phase dynamics in long Josephson junctions has been intensively studied both numerically and analytically. As classified in cdlsg97 , the studies can be divided into two categories. In the first category one can find sine-Gordon solitons created by a small magnetic field confined to the boundaries of the junction and propagating along the junction under the influence of the bias current. In this case one can extract detailed information about the physics of the problem from the McLaughlin and Scott theory scott  as the aim of that theory was to investigate the steady-state motion of fluxons (and other solutions of the sine-Gordon equation) under small perturbations. In the second category one can find dense soliton chains distributed along one dimension of the junctions driven by dc and (or) ac currents. The physics of this category cannot be treated by the McLaughlin-Scott perturbation theory for solitons as the perturbations (bias current and magnetic field) are no longer small compared to the sine-Gordon terms. However, namely this regime is interesting for practical flux flow oscillators ksh ,km ,kosh ,kosh2 . The latter regime is called the ”flux-flow” regime and is characterized by excitations which travel on top of a fast rotating background so that the effective nonlinearity in the system is drastically reduced due to fulfilling the following conditions: $`\eta _0/\alpha 1`$ and (or) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ (where $`\eta _0`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are dimensionless total dc bias current through the junction, the damping and the magnetic field, respectively). It should be noted, that the ”flux-flow” regime has nothing to do with motion of well-distinguishable flux-quanta: the soliton chain is so dense, that one should speak about transmission of quasi-linear waves in a long Josephson junction in this case.

For the flux-flow regime two main approaches are known. One is the approach by Kulik kulik  (that has also been used, e.g., in cgssv98 , ss99 ), that is based on linear mode theory and perturbative analysis around rotating background ($`\varphi =\varphi _0+\psi `$, $`\psi 1`$). Another approach has been suggested in Ref. jaw  and is also based on known form of a solution around which one can make a perturbative expansion, but in a different manner: the unidirectional fluxon train is accompanied by two plasma waves, that allows to satisfy boundary conditions. Using either of the approaches one can compute the current-voltage characteristic of FFO in the second order approximation for spatially homogeneous dc and ac driving. However, if the bias current has inhomogeneous spatial distribution, it is not clear how to derive the corresponding solutions, since the approaches are based on the ”anzats”, some known form of the initial solution, around which the perturbative analysis has to be done. It is known from Zhang  that the use of inhomogeneous driving (unbiased tail) may lead to decrease of a dynamical resistance and therefore to reduction of a linewidth. Also recently importance of accounting of magnetic field fluctuations for the analysis and design of FFO has been experimentally demonstrated koshisec . Further theoretical lwp  and experimental koshpc  investigations have shown that not only usual dynamical resistance $`R_d=dV/dI`$, but also the dynamical resistance with respect to the magnetic field $`R_d^H=dV/dH`$ (that may also be attributed to the dynamical resistance of control line $`R_d^{CL}=dV/dI_{CL}`$) is important for calculation of the linewidth of FFO. Therefore in FFO designs one should care about minimization of both above mentioned dynamical resistances and the present theoretical state of the problem should be reconsidered in order to improve characteristics of practical flux flow oscillators since nobody payed attention before to the value of $`R_d^H`$.

The aim of this paper is to present the approach that allows to systematically study the regime of large magnetic fields and bias currents and to describe the dynamics of the Flux Flow oscillator with spatially inhomogeneous driving (and, as particular example, with unbiased tail). This approach allows to perform the detailed analysis of FFO and to find an optimal profile of the bias current distribution and an optimal length of unbiased tail in order to maximize the output power of FFO and to reduce the linewidth.

## II Basic equations and the Poincare method

The electrodynamics of a long Josephson junction in the presence of magnetic field is described by the perturbed sine-Gordon equation

$$\frac{^2\varphi }{t^2}+\alpha \frac{\varphi }{t}\frac{^2\varphi }{x^2}=\eta (x)\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )$$
(1)
subject to the boundary conditions

$$\frac{\varphi (0,t)}{x}=\frac{\varphi (L,t)}{x}=\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(2)
In this equation space and time have been normalized to the Josephson penetration length $`\lambda _J`$ and to the inverse plasma frequency $`\omega _p^1`$, respectively, $`\alpha `$ is the loss parameter, $`\eta (x)`$ is the normalized dc bias current density and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the normalized magnetic field. In accordance with RSJ model lik ,barone  one takes the loss parameter $`\alpha =\frac{\omega _p}{\omega _c}`$, where $`\omega _p=\sqrt{2eI_c/\mathrm{}C}`$, $`\omega _c=2eI_cR_N/\mathrm{}`$, $`C`$ is the capacitance, $`R_N`$ is the normal state resistance ($`R_N=V/I_{qp}`$, $`V`$ being voltage and $`I_{qp}`$ – the quasiparticle component of the current), $`I_c`$ is the critical current, $`\eta (x)=J(x)/J_c`$ ($`I=\underset{0}{\overset{l}{}}J(x)𝑑x`$, $`I_c=\underset{0}{\overset{l}{}}J_c(x)𝑑x`$, $`I`$ is the bias current), $`l`$ is the dimensional length of the junction, $`L=l/\lambda _J`$.

As it has been mentioned in the introduction, the flux-flow regime is characterized by the fulfilling of the following conditions: $`\eta _0/\alpha 1`$ and (or) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$, where $`\eta _0=_0^L\eta (x)𝑑x/L`$ is the dimensionless total dc bias current.

Instead of linear mode theory and perturbative analysis around rotating background kulik ,cgssv98 , ss99 , one can use more general Poincare method lwp : obtain the solution as the series with respect to the naturally arising in the flux-flow regime small parameter $`ϵ=\left(\frac{\alpha }{\eta _0}\right)^21`$. Let us change variables in Eq. (1), $`\tau =\frac{\eta _0}{\alpha }t`$, $`z=\frac{\eta _0}{\alpha }x`$:

$$\frac{^2\varphi }{\tau ^2}+\beta \frac{\varphi }{\tau }\frac{^2\varphi }{z^2}=\frac{\beta }{\eta _0}\eta (z)ϵ\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ),$$
(3)
where $`\beta =\alpha ^2/\eta _0`$.

The steady-state solution of this equation may be found in the form: $`\varphi (\tau )=\varphi _0(\tau )+ϵ\varphi _1(\tau )+ϵ^2\varphi _2(\tau )+\mathrm{}`$ ($`|\varphi _0(\tau )|ϵ|\varphi _1(\tau )|ϵ^2|\varphi _2(\tau )|\mathrm{}`$). Substituting this into Eq. (3) one can find the zero order equation:

$$\frac{^2\varphi _0}{\tau ^2}+\beta \frac{\varphi _0}{\tau }\frac{^2\varphi _0}{z^2}=\frac{\beta }{\eta _0}\eta (z).$$
(4)
It is easy to see, that the steady-state solution of this equation is: $`\varphi _0(\tau )=\tau +\gamma zg(z)=\frac{\eta _0}{\alpha }t+\mathrm{\Gamma }xg(x)`$, $`\gamma =\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }/\eta _0`$, where:

$$g(x)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{2}{Lk_m^2}_0^L\eta (x)\mathrm{cos}k_mxdx,$$
(5)
$`k_m=\pi m/L`$, so in the $`0`$-order approximation the current-voltage characteristic is given by the ohmic line: $`v(\eta _0)=d\overline{\varphi }/dt=\mathrm{\Omega }_J(\eta _0)=\eta _0/\alpha `$ (due to Josephson relation the voltage is proportional to the Josephson frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J`$, here $`\overline{\varphi }`$ means averaging in time). To get higher order equations let us decompose $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _0(\tau ,z)+ϵ\varphi _1(\tau ,z)+ϵ^2\varphi _2(\tau ,z)+\mathrm{})`$ into Taylor expansion. From the structure of the considered linear recurrent equations it is clear that the steady-state solution $`\varphi _n(\tau ,z)`$ may be presented in the form: $`\varphi _n(\tau ,z)=\omega _n\tau +\varphi _{np}(\tau ,z)`$, where $`\varphi _{np}(\tau ,z)`$ is periodic nongrowing component.

Collecting together all linearly growing components $`\omega _n\tau `$ one can get: $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi (\tau ,z))=\mathrm{sin}(\{\omega _0\tau +ϵ\omega _1\tau +ϵ^2\omega _2\tau +\mathrm{}+\gamma zg(z)\}+ϵ\varphi _{1p}(\tau )+ϵ^2\varphi _{2p}(\tau )+\mathrm{})`$. Now one can linearize $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$ as: $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )\mathrm{sin}(\omega _J\tau +\gamma zg(z))+ϵ\varphi _{1p}(\tau ,z)\mathrm{cos}(\omega _J\tau +\gamma zg(z))+ϵ^2\varphi _{2p}(\tau ,z)\mathrm{cos}(\omega _J\tau +\gamma zg(z))+\mathrm{}`$, where $`\omega _J=\omega _0+ϵ\omega _1+ϵ^2\omega _2+\mathrm{}`$ is the oscillation frequency ($`\omega _0=1`$), and $`\omega _1`$, $`\omega _2`$,…, $`\omega _n`$,…, $`\varphi _{1p}(\tau ,z)`$, $`\varphi _{2p}(\tau ,z)`$, …, $`\varphi _{np}(\tau ,z)`$, … are unknown functions that is required to obtain. One can consider the solution up to the 4-th order (in kulik -ss99  the solution up to the 2-nd order has been derived, but in principle it can be done up to any order, all equations may be solved recursively), and then the following equations for $`\varphi _1(\tau ,z)`$$`\varphi _4(\tau ,z)`$ may be written:

$$\frac{^2\varphi _1}{\tau ^2}+\beta \frac{\varphi _1}{\tau }\frac{^2\varphi _1}{z^2}=\mathrm{sin}(\omega _J\tau +\gamma zg(z)),$$
(6)
$$\frac{^2\varphi _2}{\tau ^2}+\beta \frac{\varphi _2}{\tau }\frac{^2\varphi _2}{z^2}=\varphi _{1p}(\tau )\mathrm{cos}(\omega _J\tau +\gamma zg(z)),$$
(7)
$$\frac{^2\varphi _3}{\tau ^2}+\beta \frac{\varphi _3}{\tau }\frac{^2\varphi _3}{z^2}=\varphi _{2p}(\tau )\mathrm{cos}(\omega _J\tau +\gamma zg(z)),$$
(8)
$$\frac{^2\varphi _4}{\tau ^2}+\beta \frac{\varphi _4}{\tau }\frac{^2\varphi _4}{z^2}=\varphi _{3p}(\tau )\mathrm{cos}(\omega _J\tau +\gamma zg(z)).$$
(9)
The boundary conditions (2) are taken into account in the solution of the zero order equation and Eqs. (6)-(9) should be solved for zero boundary conditions: $`\frac{\varphi }{x}|_{x=0,L}=0`$. The solutions of linear Eqs. (6)-(9) may easily be derived recursively, substituting the solution in the form: $`\varphi _n(\tau ,z)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_{nm}(\tau )\mathrm{cos}\overline{k}_mz`$. The computer simulations of Eq. (1) have been performed on the basis of an implicit difference scheme (similar to one, presented in the Appendix of Zhang ) with adaptively varying time step and calculation time.

## III The 4-th order approximation for the homogeneous case

Since the peculiarities of the derivation of the 2-nd order approximation (solution of equations (6),(7)) for homogeneous case have been considered in detail in lwp , the only solution given in original notations of Eqs. (1),(2) is presented below. The current-voltage characteristic $`v(\eta _0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_J(\eta _0)=d\overline{\varphi }/dt`$ may be obtained in the form: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J(\eta _0)=\eta _0/\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }_2(\eta _0)+\mathrm{\Omega }_4(\eta _0)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2(\eta _0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4(\eta _0)`$ are the second and the fourth order corrections of frequency (voltage), respectively. As it has been demonstrated in lwp , one has to solve transcendental equations for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4`$ in order to derive the voltage $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J`$ as function of the bias current $`\eta _0`$. However, in homogeneous case one can express the bias current $`\eta _0`$ as function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J`$: $`\eta _0(\mathrm{\Omega }_J)=\alpha \left\{\mathrm{\Omega }_J\mathrm{\Omega }_2(\mathrm{\Omega }_J)\mathrm{\Omega }_4(\mathrm{\Omega }_J)\mathrm{}\right\}`$ that gives an analytical expression for $`\eta _0(\mathrm{\Omega }_J)`$ and allows to avoid the solution of the transcendental equation.

For the homogeneous case the 2-nd order correction as function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J`$ may be presented in the form:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{2\delta _{0,n}}{2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_J[I_{Sn}^2+I_{Cn}^2]}{(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_J)^2+[k_n^2\mathrm{\Omega }_J^2]^2}\right],$$
(10)
$$I_{Sn}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }L(1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Gamma }L)\mathrm{cos}(\pi n))}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }L)^2(\pi n)^2},I_{Cn}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }L\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Gamma }L)\mathrm{cos}(\pi n)}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }L)^2(\pi n)^2}.$$
(11)
Correspondingly, the 4-th order correction may be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_4=\frac{1}{2\alpha }\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[A_{31i}I_{Ci}B_{31i}I_{Si}\right],$$
(12)
$`A_{31i}={\displaystyle \frac{2\delta _{0,i}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_J\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[A_{22m}J_{Smi}+B_{22m}J_{Cmi}\right](k_i^2\mathrm{\Omega }_J^2)\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[A_{22m}J_{Cmi}B_{22m}J_{Smi}\right]}{(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_J)^2+(k_i^2\mathrm{\Omega }_J^2)^2}}`$
$`B_{31i}={\displaystyle \frac{2\delta _{0,i}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_J\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[A_{22m}J_{Cmi}B_{22m}J_{Smi}\right]+(k_i^2\mathrm{\Omega }_J^2)\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[A_{22m}J_{Smi}+B_{22m}J_{Cmi}\right]}{(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_J)^2+(k_i^2\mathrm{\Omega }_J^2)^2}}`$
$`A_{22m}={\displaystyle \frac{2\delta _{0,m}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_J\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[B_{1n}J_{Cnm}A_{1n}J_{Snm}\right](k_m^24\mathrm{\Omega }_J^2)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[A_{1n}J_{Cnm}+B_{1n}J_{Snm}\right]}{(2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_J)^2+(k_m^24\mathrm{\Omega }_J^2)^2}}`$
$`B_{22m}={\displaystyle \frac{2\delta _{0,m}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_J\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[A_{1n}J_{Cnm}+B_{1n}J_{Snm}\right]+(k_m^24\mathrm{\Omega }_J^2)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[B_{1n}J_{Cnm}A_{1n}J_{Snm}\right]}{(2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_J)^2+(k_m^24\mathrm{\Omega }_J^2)^2}}`$
$`A_{1n}=(2\delta _{0,n}){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_JI_{Cn}(k_n^2\mathrm{\Omega }_J^2)I_{Sn}}{(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_J)^2+(k_n^2\mathrm{\Omega }_J^2)^2}},`$
$`B_{1n}=(2\delta _{0,n}){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_JI_{Sn}+(k_n^2\mathrm{\Omega }_J^2)I_{Cn}}{(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_J)^2+(k_n^2\mathrm{\Omega }_J^2)^2}},`$
$`J_{Cnm}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }L\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Gamma }L\mathrm{cos}\pi (m+n)}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }L)^2[\pi (m+n)]^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }L\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Gamma }L\mathrm{cos}\pi (mn)}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }L)^2[\pi (mn)]^2}}\right\},`$
$`J_{Snm}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }L(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Gamma }L\mathrm{cos}\pi (m+n))}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }L)^2[\pi (m+n)]^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }L(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Gamma }L\mathrm{cos}\pi (mn))}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }L)^2[\pi (mn)]^2}}\right\}.`$
As one can guess, in order to obtain $`J_{Cmi}`$ and $`J_{Smi}`$, one has to interchange indexes in $`J_{Cnm}`$ and $`J_{Snm}`$, respectively; functions $`I_{Sn}`$ and $`I_{Cn}`$ are given by (11).

The current-voltage characteristic $`\eta _0(\mathrm{\Omega }_J)=\alpha \left\{\mathrm{\Omega }_J\mathrm{\Omega }_2(\mathrm{\Omega }_J)\mathrm{\Omega }_4(\mathrm{\Omega }_J)\right\}`$ is presented in Fig. 1 for $`\alpha =0.1`$, $`L=5`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=3`$. It follows from the analysis that if the deviation from the ohmic line is located in the area where $`\eta _0/\alpha >2`$, it is usually enough to use the 2-nd order approximation only. It is seen, that the account of the fourth order correction gives more precise description of the height of Fiske steps. For description of Fiske or Eck steps that occur below the boundary $`\eta _0/\alpha >2`$ the 4-th order correction becomes of importance and significantly improves the approximation, see the inset of Fig. 1, where it is seen that the 4-th order approximation describes the step missed in the 2-nd order approximation (around $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J0.95`$). It should be noted that for larger magnetic fields the second order approximation coincides well with the results of computer simulation for rather small damping (e.g. for $`\alpha =0.040.01`$, see Fig. 2 for $`\alpha =0.04`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5`$, $`L=5`$), but it is not easy to catch all Fiske steps in computer simulations in this case.

## IV The 2-nd order approximation for the inhomogeneous case

For inhomogeneous case, unfortunately, one can not avoid the solution of the transcendental equation and for simplicity let us consider the inhomogeneous case in the second order approximation only. For the second order correction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ of the current-voltage characteristic in the inhomogeneous case one can get the following transcendental equation:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{2\delta _{0,n}}{2}\left[\frac{(\eta _0/\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }_2)[I_{Sn}^2+I_{Cn}^2]}{((\eta _0+\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_2))^2+[k_n^2(\eta _0/\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }_2)^2]^2}\right],$$
(13)
$$I_{Sn}=\frac{1}{L}_0^L\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Gamma }xg(x))\mathrm{cos}(k_nx)𝑑x,I_{Cn}=\frac{1}{L}_0^L\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Gamma }xg(x))\mathrm{cos}(k_nx)𝑑x.$$
(14)
It should be noted, that both in the homogeneous and inhomogeneous cases the equation for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ is given by the same formula (13) with the only difference that in homogeneous case $`g(x)=0`$ in (14) and functions $`I_{Sn}`$ and $`I_{Cn}`$ may be evaluated analytically (11).

As an example of spatial distribution of the bias current let us consider the unit-step function (unbiased tail): $`\eta (x)=\eta _s\sigma (xx_0)`$, $`\eta _s=\frac{\eta _0L}{Lx_0}`$. In this case ($`k_n=\pi n/L`$):

$$g(x)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{2\eta _s}{\pi nk_n^2}\mathrm{sin}k_nx_0\mathrm{cos}k_nx=\frac{\eta _s}{6L}\{\begin{array}{cc}(Lx_0)(x_0(2Lx_0)3x^2),\hfill & x<x_0,\hfill \\ x_0(2L^26xL+3x^2x_0^2),\hfill & x>x_0\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
The transcendental equation (13) with $`g(x)`$ given by (15) may easily be solved and the voltage-current characteristic of FFO $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J(\eta _0)=\eta _0/\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }_2(\eta _0)`$ may be found. In Fig. 3 the results of computer simulation of Eq. (1) are presented for $`\alpha =0.3`$, $`L=5`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5,5`$, $`x_0=2.5`$ (long unbiased tail) and $`x_0=0`$ (no unbiased tail). One can see, that in the case where the driving is homogeneous ($`x_0=0`$) the current-voltage characteristic is absolutely antisymmetric with respect to the bias current and the sign of magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not play any role. Contrary, in the case with unbiased tail ($`x_0=2.5`$) the current-voltage characteristic becomes asymmetric: if the bias is applied at the end, where vortices exit the junction, the radiation is amplified, if the bias is applied at the end, where vortices enter the junction, the radiation is suppressed. The comparison between analytically derived IVC on the basis of Eq. (13) and results of computer simulation is presented in the inset of Fig. 3 for $`\alpha =0.3`$, $`L=5`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5`$, $`x_0=2.5`$.

As it is seen from Fig. 4, not only the location of unbiased tail, but also its length plays an important role: the amplitude of the main harmonic has maximum as function of the length of unbiased tail (for the considered parameters the maximum is located around $`x_0=2.5`$; it follows from Eq. (7) that the second order correction of the IVC $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ is proportional to the amplitude of the first harmonic $`\varphi _1(x,t)`$). In the inset of Fig. 4 the results of computer simulation of IVC minus ohmic part is given for different values of $`x_0`$ and it is also seen that the main resonance is higher for $`x_0=2.5`$. It should be noted, however, that an optimal length of unbiased tail will be different for different parameters of the long Josephson junction (such as length, damping and magnetic field) and special investigations should be performed for optimization of designs of practical FFOs.

It is clearly seen from Fig. 4 and the inset of Fig. 3, that the second order approximation of IVC in the inhomogeneous case gives rather good coincidence with the results of computer simulation, but the discrepancy increases with the increase of the length of unbiased tail, which is due to the fact that the deviation of IVC from ohmic line occurs for larger values of $`\alpha /\eta _0`$ and the small parameter $`ϵ=(\alpha /\eta _0)^2`$ becomes larger leading to worse applicability of the approximation.

Let us perform the analysis of voltage-field characteristic of FFO to study the dependence of $`R_d^H=dV/dH`$ (or $`r_d^\mathrm{\Gamma }=dv/d\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in dimensionless notation) on the length of unbiased tail. From the plots of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, presented in Fig. 5, we do not see so significant dependence of $`R_d^H`$ from the length of the unbiased tail as it was for $`R_d`$. For smaller bias current the curve $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ consists from several branches with positive derivative. However, for larger currents $`\eta _01`$ it is intriguing to see that there is a range of parameters, where the derivative ($`R_d^H`$) takes negative values. As it has been demonstrated in lwp , if fluctuations of bias current $`\eta _F(t)`$ and magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_F(t)`$ are correlated (such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_F(t)=\sigma \eta _F(t)`$, $`\sigma `$ is a numeric coefficient), the linewidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ of FFO is proportional to $`(R_d+\sigma R_d^H)^2`$ (where $`R_d=dV/dI`$, $`R_d^H=dV/dH`$) and if $`R_d<\sigma R_d^H`$ one can see the plato on the plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(R_d)`$ (see kosh2 ), that is, with further decrease of $`R_d`$ the linewidth does not change. It is obvious that if $`R_d>0`$ and $`\sigma R_d^H<0`$ (meaning that the noises of bias current and magnetic field are anticorrelated) the linewidth may be significantly decreased. Certainly, in real situations even if $`|R_d|=|\sigma R_d^H|`$ (or, alternatively, if $`R_d`$ and $`\sigma R_d^H`$ are both positive, but very small), the linewidth will never be zero since other noise sources (e.g., technical fluctuations) that were not taken into account in lwp  would become of importance and the saturation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(R_d,R_d^H)`$ should be observed. It follows from estimations that FFO operating in the considered range of parameters (small length and large damping) will have rather small power that may be not enough for practical applications. Nevertheless, since there is still a lack of understanding about nature of magnetic field fluctuations, it could be interesting to experimentally study this case for $`\sigma R_d^H<0`$ to check if bias current and magnetic field fluctuations are correlated or not. In the case of negative $`\sigma R_d^H`$ this question may easily be resolved: if the noises are correlated the linewidth is proportional to $`(R_d+\sigma R_d^H)^2`$ and may be significantly reduced if $`|R_d||\sigma R_d^H|`$; if the noises are uncorrelated, the linewidth is proportional to $`R_d^2+(\sigma R_d^H)^2`$ and the sign of $`\sigma R_d^H`$ will not affect the linewidth. It could be interesting to study the possibility to achieve stable generation regimes for $`\sigma R_d^H<0`$ for practical FFOs, but as preliminary results demonstrate the curves of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ are similar to that presented in Fig. 5 for $`\eta _0=0.5`$, i.e. they have positive derivatives. However, the optimization of practical FFO designs with respect to working parameters is out of scope of the paper and will be presented elsewhere.

## V Conclusions

In the present paper the approach for description of the dynamics of dense soliton chain in long Josephson junctions for the case of large bias current and magnetic field is outlined. The approach allows to perform the detailed analytical study of flux flow oscillators with spatially inhomogeneous driving and to find an optimal profile of the bias current distribution in order to maximize the output power and to minimize the linewidth. Practically important example of FFO with unbiased tail has been considered and the existence of an optimal length of the unbiased tail has been demonstrated. The possibility to significantly reduce the linewidth by the design of FFOs with anticorrelated bias current and magnetic field fluctuations has been discussed.

## VI Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank V. P. Koshelets, V. V. Kurin, M. Yu. Levitchev, J. Mygind and I. A. Shereshevsky for helpful discussions. The work has been supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project N 99-02-17544, Project N 00-02-16528 and Project N 00-15-96620) and by INTAS (Project N 02-0367 and Project N 02-0450).


format: text

text:
# References

Evidence against a glass transition in the 10-state short range Potts glass
Claudio Brangian1, Walter Kob2, and Kurt Binder1

1 Institut für Physik, Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7,

D-55099 Mainz, Germany

2 Laboratoire des Verres, Université Montpellier II, F-34095 Montpellier, France

We present the results of Monte Carlo simulations of two different 10-state Potts glasses with random nearest neighbor interactions on a simple cubic lattice. In the first model the interactions come from a $`\pm J`$ distribution and in the second model from a Gaussian one, and in both cases the first two moments of the distribution are chosen to be equal to $`J_0=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=1`$. At low temperatures the spin autocorrelation function for the $`\pm J`$ model relaxes in several steps whereas the one for the Gaussian model shows only one. In both systems the relaxation time increases like an Arrhenius law. Unlike the infinite range model, there are only very weak finite size effects and there is no evidence that a dynamical or a static transition exists at a finite temperature.

PACS numbers: 64.70.Pf, 75.10.Nr, 75.50.Lk

In recent years generalized spin-glass-type models such as the $`p`$-spin model with $`p3`$ or the Potts glass with $`p>4`$, have found a large attention 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 ; 6 ; 7 ; 8 ; 9 ; crisanti00 ; 10 ; 11 ; 12  as prototype models for the structural glass transition 13 ; 14 ; 15 ; 16 ; 17 ; 18 . In the case of infinite range interactions, i.e. mean field, these models can be solved exactly and it has been shown that they have a dynamical as well as a static transition at a temperature $`T_D`$ and $`T_0`$, respectively 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 ; 6 ; 7 ; 8 ; 9 ; crisanti00 ; 10 ; 11 ; 12 . At $`T_D`$ the relaxation times diverge but no singularity of any kind occurs in the static properties, whereas at $`T_0`$ a nonzero static glass order parameter appears discontinuously. Close to $`T_D`$ the time and temperature dependence of the spin autocorrelation function is described by the same type of mode coupling equations 3 ; 7  that have been proposed by the idealized version of mode coupling theory (MCT) 14 ; 15  for the structural glass transition which suggests a fundamental connection between these rather abstract spin models and real structural glasses.

Now it is well known that for real glasses the divergence of the relaxation times predicted by MCT is rounded off since thermally activated processes, which are not taken into account by this version of the theory, become important 14 ; 15 . This is in contrast to the mean field case because there these processes are completely suppressed since the barriers in the (free) energy landscape become infinitely high if $`T<T_D`$. To what extend the static transition that exists in mean field can be seen also in the real system, is a problem whose answer is still controversial 9 ; 16 ; 17 ; 18 .

In the present paper, we investigate whether the transitions present in the case of a mean field 10-state Potts glass are also found if the interactions are short ranged. The mean field model has recently been studied in great detail by means of Monte Carlo methods and the results are in good qualitative agreement with the main predictions of the one-step replica symmetry breaking theory 1 ; 2 ; 4 ; 6 , although very strong finite size effects occur, the nature of which are not fully understood 11 .

The Hamiltonian of the short range model is

$$=\underset{i,j}{}J_{ij}(p\delta _{\sigma _i\sigma _j}1).$$
(1)
The Potts spins $`\sigma _i`$ on the lattice sites $`i`$ of the simple cubic lattice take $`p`$ discrete values, $`\sigma _i\{1,2,\mathrm{},p\}`$, and the index $`j`$ runs over the six nearest neighbors of site $`i`$. The exchange constants $`J_{ij}`$ are taken either from a bimodal distribution

$$P(J_{ij})=x\delta (J_{ij}J)+(1x)\delta (J_{ij}+J)$$
(2)
or a Gaussian distribution

$$P(J_{ij})=[\sqrt{2\pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }J)]^1\mathrm{exp}\{(J_{ij}J_0)^2/2(\mathrm{\Delta }J)^2\}.$$
(3)
In both cases the first two moments are chosen to be $`J_0=[J_{ij}]_{av}=1`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J)^2=[J_{ij}^2]_{av}[J_{ij}]_{av}^2=+1`$. (For $`p=10`$, a sufficiently negative $`J_0`$ is necessary to avoid ferromagnetic order and we have indeed found that neither the magnetization nor the magnetic susceptibility show any sign of ferromagnetic ordering 12 ).) For the distribution given by Eq. (2) this choice means $`J=\sqrt{2}`$ and $`x=(11/\sqrt{2})/20.146`$. We carry out Monte Carlo runs with the standard heat-bath algorithm 19  making up to $`10^8`$ Monte Carlo steps (MCS) per spin (for equilibration as well as production), with lattices of linear dimensions $`L=6`$, $`L=10`$ and $`L=16`$, and using periodic boundary conditions. The average over the quenched disorder $`[\mathrm{}]_{av}`$ is realized by averaging over $`100`$ independent realizations of the system for $`L=6`$ and $`10`$ and over 50 realizations for $`L=16`$. For $`T=1.3`$ and 1.4 and $`L=10`$ only 10 realizations were used. In the following we will set the Boltzmann constant $`k_B1`$ and measure temperature in units of $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$.

In Fig. 1 we show the temperature dependence of the energy per spin $`e(T)`$ and of the specific heat $`c(T)`$, for the model given by Eq. (2). Both quantities seem to be essentially independent of system size, in stark contrast to the results for the mean field case 11 . Furthermore we see that for $`T2`$ the energy is basically constant and we have found that at low $`T`$ the temperature dependence of the specific heat is of the form $`(\mathrm{\Delta }/T)^2\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }/T)`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }14`$, i.e. a dependence expected for a two-level system with asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus we conclude that this data does not show any evidence that in the temperature range investigated a static transition occurs.

A similar conclusion is reached from the $`T`$dependence of the spin glass susceptibility $`\chi _{SG}=N[q^2]_{av}/(p1)`$. Here the symmetrized order parameter $`q`$ is defined as 10 ; 11

$$q=\sqrt{\frac{1}{p1}\underset{\mu ,\nu =1}{\overset{p1}{}}(q^{\mu \nu })^2}\text{with}q^{\mu \nu }L^3\underset{i}{}(\stackrel{}{S}_{i,\alpha })^\mu (\stackrel{}{S}_{i,\beta })^\nu ,\mu ,\nu =1,2,\mathrm{},p1,$$
(4)
and the spins $`\stackrel{}{S}_{i,\alpha }`$ refer to the simplex representation of the Potts spin $`\sigma _i`$ in replica $`\alpha `$ simplex\_ref . (Note that in order to define an order parameter it is necessary to consider two replicas of the system, i.e. two systems with the same realization of the disorder.) Figure 2a shows the $`T`$ dependence of $`\chi _{SG}`$ and we see that this quantity is almost independent of $`L`$. Furthermore we recognize that $`\chi _{SG}`$ remains finite even as $`T0`$. Figure 2b shows the (scaled) first moment of $`q`$ and we conclude that it decreases like $`1/\sqrt{L^3}`$, i.e. shows a trivial size dependence for all $`T`$. Also an analysis of fourth order cumulants (not shown here) confirms the conclusion that no static transition occurs 12 . Similar results are found for the model with Gaussian distribution, Eq. (3).

In order to see whether this model has a dynamic transition at a finite temperature we consider the time autocorrelation function of the Potts spins:

$$C(t)=[L^3(p1)]^1\underset{i=1}{\overset{L^3}{}}[\stackrel{}{S}_i(t^{})\stackrel{}{S}_i(t^{}+t)]_{av}.$$
(5)
The time dependence of $`C(t)`$ is shown in Fig. 3a for various temperatures. We see that at intermediate temperatures $`C(t)`$ has a plateau at around 0.6 with a width that increases quickly with decreasing $`T`$. Such a behavior is very reminiscent of the time and $`T`$ dependence of glass forming systems close to the MCT temperature $`T_D`$ 3 ; 10 ; 11 ; 12 ; 13 ; 14 ; 15 ; 16 . However, as we will show below, in this case the reason for the existence of a plateau is very different. Interestingly enough $`C(t)`$ shows at low temperatures a second plateau, and also its length increases rapidly with decreasing temperature. Such a multi-step relaxation has so far been seen only for few glass forming systems garrahan00  and is a rather unusual behavior. Below we will come back to this feature and discuss its origin in more detail. That the time dependence of $`C(t)`$ is basically independent of the system size is demonstrated in the inset of Fig. 3a. Also this behavior differs strongly from the one found for the mean field model 11 .

In order to study the slowing down of the dynamics of the system we can define relaxation times $`\tau _i`$ via $`C(\tau _1)=0.4`$, $`C(\tau _2)=0.08`$ and $`C(\tau _3)=0.05`$. These definitions characterize the relaxation times for the different processes seen in Fig. 3a. The temperature dependence of $`\tau _i`$ is shown in Fig. 3b. We see that this dependence can be described very well by an Arrhenius law with an activation energy around 28.2 and 14.6 (straight lines). Such a $`T`$dependence is not in agreement with the expectation from MCT which predicts around $`T_D`$ a power-law dependence. The observation that the activation energies are close to $`p|J|14.1`$ and $`2p|J|28.3`$ suggests instead that the relaxation of the spins is given by the breaking of one and two bonds, respectively. This interpretation is also supported by the time dependence of the autocorrelation function of individual spins 12 , since these functions typically fall in three classes: Those that are relaxing fast (spins that have only negative bonds), those that relax on intermediate times (one bond needs to be broken) and those that relax slowly (two bonds that have to be broken). Using these arguments and the concentration of ferromagnetic bonds, $`x`$, one can estimate also the height of the plateaus 12  which is predicted to be 0.61 and 0.13, which is in very good agreement with the height that can be estimated from Fig. 3a to be 0.59 and 0.12, respectively.

We emphasize that the occurrence of several plateaus in the spin autocorrelation function (Fig. 3a) is an immediate consequence of the bond distribution, Eq. (2), and hence no such plateaus are expected to occur for the Gaussian bond distribution, Eq. (3). This expectation is indeed born out by the numerical data shown in Fig. 4a since $`C(t)`$ does not show any sign for a plateau for any of the temperatures investigated. If one uses again various definitions of relaxation times $`\tau _i(T)`$, this time the values 0.1, 0.05 and 0.02, their $`T`$dependence is found again to be Arrhenius like, see Fig. 4b. However, in contrast to the results for the $`\pm J`$ distribution the activation energies depend continuously on the definition of $`\tau _i`$. Thus one finds that the dynamical transition that the same model exhibits for the infinite range of interactions is completely wiped out for the nearest neighbor case and we conclude that neither a remnant of the static glass transition nor of the dynamic transition exists.

Obviously the dynamical behavior of the present model is not similar to the one of a supercooled liquid close to its glass transition. But such a similarity can be expected to occur if we consider a variant of the model that interpolates between the short range version of the Potts glass and its infinite range version. E.g. we could choose interactions that have a finite range but that extend further than the nearest neighbors. For such a model we expect that a “rounded” version of the dynamic transition will occur, i.e., the autocorrelation function develops a long-lived plateau and the relaxation time exhibits the onset of a power law singularity, before it crosses over to a simple Arrhenius behavior. This is the behavior found for large but finite mean field systems 3 ; 10 ; 11 ; 12 . Much less can be expected to be seen in the static properties of that model: For any finite range of the interaction, no nonzero order parameter can appear stillinger88 , and a jump singularity in $`\chi _{SG}`$ cannot occur either. All what remains is a rounded kink in the entropy vs. temperature curve at the rounded static transition, thus avoiding the Kauzmann 20  catastrophe of a vanishing configurational entropy. In fact, this description is nicely consistent with all known facts about the structural glass transition. Thus, if the analogy between the latter and the behavior of medium range Potts glasses goes through, the search for a static glass transition will remain elusive! This is a somewhat surprising conclusion, since for $`p=2`$ the model reduces to the Ising spin glass, where one knows that a (second-order) glass transition temperature occurs at $`T_c>0`$ 21 , and also for the $`p=3`$ Potts glass there seems to be at least a divergent $`\chi _{SG}`$ as $`T0`$ 22 ; 23 . However, for large values of $`p`$ the static and dynamic properties seem to be very different.

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under grant N SFB 262/D1. We thank the John von Neumann Institute for Computing (NIC) at Jülich for a generous grant of computing time at the CRAY-T3E.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the most successful approaches to the confinement phenomena in QCD is the based on the so–called dual superconductor mechanism . The key role in the mechanism is played by Abelian monopoles which are identified with the help of the Abelian projection method  based on the partial gauge fixing of non–Abelian gauge symmetry up to a residual Cartan (Abelian) subgroup. The monopoles appear in the theory due to compactness of the Cartan subgroup. According to the numerical results  the monopoles are condensed in the low temperature (confinement) phase. The condensation of the monopoles leads to formation of the chromoelectric string which implies confinement of color. The importance of the Abelian monopoles is stressed by the Abelian dominance phenomena which was first observed in the lattice $`SU(2)`$ gluodynamics. In the so-called Maximal Abelian projection the monopoles make a dominant contribution to the zero temperature string tension . At high temperatures, (deconfinement phase) the monopoles are responsible for the spatial string tension .

We propose to describe the dynamics of the Abelian monopoles in the $`SU(2)`$ gluodynamics considering the lattice as a kind of a ”monopole detector”. For the sake of simplicity we are working in the deconfinement phase dominated by static monopoles while monopoles running in spatial directions are suppressed. We investigate the physics of the static monopole currents which is effectively three dimensional.

## 2 Ideology

We suppose that the lattice with a finite lattice spacing $`b`$ is embedded in the continuum space-time. Each lattice cell, $`C_s`$, detects the total magnetic charge, $`k_s`$, of ”continuum” monopoles inside it:

$`k_s={\displaystyle \underset{C_s}{}}\text{d}^3x\rho (x),\rho (x)={\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}q_a\delta ^{(a)}(xx^{(a)}),`$ (1)
where $`\rho `$ is the density of the continuum monopoles, $`q_a`$ and $`x_a`$ is the position and the charge (in units of a fundamental magnetic charge, $`g_M`$) of $`a^{\mathrm{th}}`$ continuum monopole. We stress the difference between continuum and lattice monopoles: the continuum monopoles are fundamental objects while the lattice monopoles are associated with non–zero magnetic charges of continuum monopoles located inside lattice cells, $`k_s0`$.

Before going into details we mention that our approach is similar to the blocking of the monopole degrees of freedom from fine to coarser lattices , which allows to define perfect quantum actions for topological defects. Another similarity can be observed with ideas of Ref.  where the blocking of the continuum fields to the lattice was proposed. Our approach is based on blocking of the continuum topological defects to the lattice, and, as a result, is more suitable for the investigation of the lattice monopoles. Indeed, blocking of the fields  leads to non–integer lattice magnetic currents which makes a comparison of the numerical results with the analytical predictions difficult.

Below we show that properties of the Abelian lattice monopoles – found in numerical simulations of hot $`SU(2)`$ gluodynamics – can be described by the continuum blocking proposed above. Suppose the dynamics of the continuum monopoles in the high temperature gluodynamics is governed by the standard $`3D`$ Coulomb gas model:

$`𝒵={\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^N}{N!}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \text{d}^3x^{(a)}\underset{q_a=\pm 1}{}}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{g_M^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{a,b=1}{ab}}{\overset{N}{}}}q_aq_bD(x^{(a)}x^{(b)})\right\},`$ (2)
where $`\zeta `$ is the so–called fugacity parameter and $`D(x)`$ is the inverse Laplacian in continuum. In this simple model the continuum monopoles are supposed to be point–like while the monopole core in $`SU(2)`$ gluodynamics is of a finite size . However our results presented below show that this simplification works at high temperatures.

Below we choose the v.e.v. of the continuum monopole density, $`\rho `$, and the Debye mass, $`m_D`$, as suitable parameters of the continuum model (instead of $`g_M`$ and $`\zeta `$). In the leading order of the dilute gas approximation we have : $`\rho =2\zeta `$ and $`m_D=g_M\sqrt{2\zeta }`$. It is worth mentioning that the $`3D`$ Debye mass corresponds to a magnetic screening mass in four dimensions.

We are interested in basic quantities characterizing the lattice monopoles: the v.e.v. of the squared magnetic charge, $`k_s^2`$, and the monopole action, $`S_{mon}(k)`$. In addition to the parameters of the continuum model both these quantities should depend on the lattice monopole size, $`b`$. Note that we study the quantity $`k_s^2`$ instead of the density, $`|k_s|`$, since the analytical treatment of the density is difficult. However philosophically both these quantities are equivalent.

In the dilute gas approximation we get :

$`k_s^2(b)=\rho b^3P(b/\lambda _D,L),`$
$`P(\mu ,L)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{q}ZZ}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{u}^2}{\stackrel{}{u}^2+\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}[u_i(q)/2]}{u_i(q)}}\right]^2,u_i(q)={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi q_i}{L}},`$
where $`L`$ is the lattice size. The scale for the monopole size is given by the (magnetic) Debye screening length, $`\lambda _D=1/m_D`$. In a leading order we get for small and large lattice cubes:

$`k_s^2(b)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\rho b^3+\mathrm{},\hfill & b\lambda _D;\hfill \\ C\rho \lambda _Db^2+\mathrm{},\hfill & b\lambda _D.\hfill \end{array}`$ (5)
This expression is written in a thermodynamic limit where $`C2.94`$.

Analogously we may derive an effective action for the monopoles. Substituting the unity,

$`1={\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_sZZ}{}}\delta \left(k_s{\displaystyle _{C_s}}\text{d}^3x\rho (x)\right),`$ (6)
into the Coulomb gas partition function (2) and integrating over all continuum monopoles we get in the dilute gas approximation :

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kZZ}{}}e^{S_{mon}(k)},S_{mon}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\rho b^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,s^{}}{}}k_s_{s,s^{}}(b/\lambda _D)k_s^{},`$
$`_{s,s^{}}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{m}=0}{\overset{L}{}}}^1({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \stackrel{}{m}}{L}},\mu )\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi i(\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{s}^{},\stackrel{}{m})/L\right\},`$
$`(\stackrel{}{u},\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{r}ZZ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{sin}^2(u_i/2)}{(\stackrel{}{u}+2\pi \stackrel{}{r})^2+\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{j=1}{ji}}{\overset{3}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}(u_j/2)}{u_j+2\pi r_j}}\right)^2,`$
where we omit higher–order corrections. According to this equation the leading order contribution to the monopole action is quadratic in monopole fields.

Similarly to the density of the squared monopole charge the monopole action depends on the ratio $`b/\lambda _D`$:

$`S_{mon}(k)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{4\rho }\frac{1}{b^3}\underset{s}{}k_s^2+\mathrm{},\hfill & b\lambda _D;\hfill & \\ \frac{1}{4\rho \lambda _D}\frac{1}{b^2}\underset{s,s^{}}{}k_sD_{s,s^{}}k_s^{}+\mathrm{},\hfill & b\lambda _D,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (9)
where $`D_{s,s^{}}`$ is the inverse Laplacian on the lattice. Leading contribution to the monopole action is given by the massive (Coulomb) terms for small (large) lattice monopoles.

## 3 Analytics vs. Numerics

To study numerically the monopoles of various lattice sizes we use the extended monopole construction . The size of the extended monopole is $`b=na`$, where $`n`$ is the lattice blocking size and $`a`$ is the lattice spacing of the fine lattice on which the fields of the $`SU(3)`$ gluodynamics are defined. We study only the static components, $`k_4`$, of the $`4D`$ monopole currents, $`k_\mu `$. The lattice blocking is performed only in spatial directions, $`n_s=1\mathrm{}8`$. We simulate $`SU(2)`$ gluodynamics on the lattices $`48^3\times L_t`$ with $`L_t=4\mathrm{}12`$ at temperatures $`T/T_c=1.6\mathrm{}4.8`$. The size of the lattice monopoles is measured in terms of the zero temperature string tension, $`\sigma _{T=0}`$.

First we check the density of squared lattice monopole charge $`vs.`$ lattice monopole size, $`b`$, Figure 1.

According to eq.(5) the function $`k^2(b)/b^2`$ must vanish at small monopole sizes and tend to constant at large $`b`$. This behaviour can be observed in our numerical data, Figure 1, up to some jumps for densities with different $`n_s`$. We ascribe these jumps to the lattice artifacts emerged due to finiteness of the fine lattice spacing, $`a`$, and finite volume effects. In Figure 1 the monopole size, $`b`$, is measured in units of the zero string tension, $`\sigma _{T=0}`$. The large-$`b`$ asymptotics of $`k^2(b)/b^2`$ is approximated by averaging of the appropriate $`n_s=8`$ data. According to eq.(5) the large-$`b`$ asymptotics can be used to extract the dimensionless quantity,

$`R(T)={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{T=0}}{\lambda _D(T)\rho (T)}},`$ (10)
which is discussed in the next Section.

The monopole action for the static monopole currents, $`k_sk_{s,4}`$, at high temperatures was found numerically in Ref. . The leading order terms in the action are quadratic:

$`S_{mon}(k)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}f_iS_i(k),`$ (11)
where $`S_i`$ are two–point operators of the monopole charges (see Ref.  for details). An example of the monopole action for certain parameters is shown in Figure 2(a). In the same Figure we show the fitting of the action by the Coulomb action,

$`S_{mon}(k)=C_C{\displaystyle \underset{s,s^{}}{}}k_sD_{s,s^{}}k_s^{},`$ (12)
which follows from eq.(9). Here $`C_C`$ is the fitting parameter. This one-parametric fit works almost perfectly.

According to eq.(9) the pre-Coulomb coefficient $`C_C(b,T)`$ at sufficiently large monopole size , $`b\lambda _D`$, must scale as follows:

$`C_C(b,T)=R(T)b^2,`$ (13)
where $`R`$ is defined in eq.(10). We present the data for the pre-Coulomb coefficient and the corresponding one-parameter fits (13) in Figure 2(b). The agreement between the data and the fits is very good.

## 4 Check of Coulomb gas picture

In this Section we present our results for the quantity $`R`$, eq.(10), which we have obtained both from the large–$`b`$ behaviour of the density $`k^2(b)`$ and from the monopole action (in these cases we call the quantity $`R`$ as $`R_\rho `$ and $`R_{act}`$, respectively). From a numerical point of view the quantities $`R_\rho `$ and $`R_{act}`$ are independent. Thus a natural condition of a self–consistency of our approach is $`R_\rho =R_{act}`$. We check the self–consistency in Figure 3(a) plotting the ratio of these quantities. It is clearly seen that the ratio is independent on the temperature and very close to unity, as expected. The details of our calculations and further discussions will be presented in Ref. .

Another interesting quantity is the ratio

$`R_{sp}(T)={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{sp}(T)}{\lambda _D(T)\rho (T)}}R(T){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{sp}(T)}{\sigma _{T=0}}},`$ (14)
where $`\sigma _{sp}`$ is the spatial string tension. In the dilute Coulomb gas of monopoles we have the following relations :

$`m_D\lambda _D^1=g_M\sqrt{\rho },\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{8}{g_M}}\sqrt{\rho },`$ (15)
which imply $`R_{sp}=8`$. Using results of Ref.  for the spatial string tension in hot gluodynamics, $`\sigma _{sp}(T)`$, we get the quantity $`R_{sp}`$ as a function of the temperature, $`T`$, Figure 3(b). If the Coulomb picture works then $`R_{sp}`$ should be close to $`8`$. From Figure 3(b) we conclude that this is indeed the case at sufficiently large temperatures.

## 5 Conclusion

In order to describe the lattice monopole dynamics we have proposed to consider the lattice as a measuring device for the continuum monopoles. We have suggested that at high temperatures the static lattice monopoles can be described by a continuum Coulomb gas model. As a result we are able to draw the following conclusions:

* The continuum Coulomb gas model can describe the results of the Monte Carlo simulations for the density and action of the lattice monopoles. The dependence of these quantities on the physical sizes of the lattice monopoles is in agreement with the analytical predictions.
* The parameters of the continuum Coulomb gas model obtained from investigation of the monopole density and action are consistent with each other and – at sufficiently high temperatures – with known results for the spatial string tension.
* The lattice monopole action is dominated by the mass and Coulomb terms for, respectively, small and large lattice monopoles.
* At sufficiently high temperatures the spatial string tension is dominated by contributions from the continuum static monopoles.

## Acknowledgments

Authors thank E.–M. Ilgenfritz, M.I. Polikarpov, H. Reinhardt and V.I. Zakharov for interesting discussions. M. N. Ch. is supported by the JSPS Fellowship P01023. M. N. Ch. thanks the organizers of the Workshop for the kind hospitality extended to him and for the miraculous atmosphere in Stará Lesná.


text:
# 1 Motivation

## 1 Motivation

The recent measurements performed at CEBAF/TJNAF on the deuteron structure functions and tensor polarization up to momentum transfer values yet never reached, was the starting motivation for a series of works in relativistic dynamics. Indeed the measurement of the electromagnetic form factors at values $`Q^2`$ 6 (GeV/c)2, much greater than the nucleon mass, lets no hope for any attempt to describe this physics without relativity. There are even very few chances that meson-nucleon dynamics could still be used while the distances involved are smaller than the nucleon itself $`R_N`$0.86 fm. A recent and complete reviews of both the experimental and theoretical works can be found in  and references therein.

This motivation has always been present in theoretical physics since the first days of quantum mechanics. It relies on the need for having a proper relativistic wavefunction of simple systems – an essential ingredient in the NN̄, qq̄, qqq, …physics – and for clarifying the kind of modifications that Lorentz invariance brings into the non relativistic dynamics.

Our first contribution in this field consisted in a series of papers  which, in the framework of the Explicitly Covariant Light-Front Dynamics (ECLFD), led us to predict the deuteron structure functions and polarization observables. These calculations, though performed in a perturbative way over the wavefunctions of the Bonn model , turned to be quite successful in the deuteron case and have recently found a natural application in describing the NN correlation functions in nuclei (see Prof. Antonov contribution to this School and ). The success encountered in these first works and some clear advantages of the ECLFD itself in describing relativistic composite systems, convinced us to go deeper inside this approach both in developing formal aspects of the theory and in studying in detail the properties of its solutions. This effort has up to now resulted in studying the bound states solutions of two scalar and two fermions systems in the ladder approximation. Doing so, we have in mind the description of ”genuine relativistic systems” (those for which $`Bm`$, $`\beta 1`$) as well as the a priori non relativistic ones when probed in relativistic regions (e.g. deuteron).

In this contribution, we first present the leading ideas of the ECLFD formalism (Section 2) and then summarize the main results of our recent works - on this topic, both in the scalar (Section 3) and fermionic (Section 4) case. We put special emphasis in the following items: i) the size and nature of relativistic effects ii) the comparison with the non relativistic solutions and other relativistic approaches iii) the problem of constructing the non zero angular momentum states and iv) the solution of the OBEP models for fermions and their stability properties with respect the cutoff.

## 2 The formalism

Light-Front Dynamics is an hamiltonian formulation of the quantum field theory, specially well adapted to the description of relativistic composite systems. In its explicitly covariant version, proposed by V.A. Karmanov  and recently reviewed in , the state vector is defined on a space-time hyperplane whose equation is given by $`\omega x=\sigma `$ with $`\omega ^2=0`$. Wavefunctions - defined as the Fock components of the state vector \- are the usual formal objects of this theory and are directly comparable to their non relativistic counterparts.

As in any hamiltonian formalism, the dynamical equations are provided by the eigenvalue equations of the two Casimir operators of the Poincaré group, respectively the square of the four-momentum $`\widehat{P}^\mu `$ and of the Pauli-Lubanski $`\widehat{S}_\mu `$ four-vectors

$`\widehat{P}^2\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ $`=`$ $`M^2\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ (1)
$`\widehat{S}^2\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ $`=`$ $`M^2J(J+1)\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ (2)
These operators are quadratic forms of the ten generators $`\{\widehat{P}_\mu ,\widehat{J}_{\rho \sigma }\}`$ of the Poincaré group:

$`\widehat{P}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{P}_\mu \widehat{P}^\mu `$
$`\widehat{S}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\widehat{P}^\nu \widehat{J}^{\rho \sigma }`$
Different ways of constructing the generators set would lead to different relativistic theories  which will be furthermore strictly equivalent if they were solved in their full complexity. This choice is provided by integrating the Noether conserved currents over a suitable 3D space-time surface. We remind that Noether theorem associates to each continuous space-time transformation

$$xx^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }x+a$$
(3)
letting invariant a lagrangian density

$$(x)=_0(x)+_{int}(x)$$
(4)
a 4-current $`j^\mu `$ satisfying the continuity equation

$$_\mu j^\mu =0$$
(5)
This latter is calculated from a particular $`(x)`$ according to very precise recipes. Integrating over an arbitrary 4D volume $`V`$ (figure 1), equation $`(\text{5})`$ is equivalent to assert the nullity of flux across its boundary $`V`$

$$_Vj^\mu 𝑑S_\mu =0$$
(6)
where $`dS^\mu `$ denotes the normal to $`V`$.

Equation (6) leads to a conservation law only if $`V`$ is such that ”lateral flux” vanishes. In the usual approach of dynamics – denoted ”instant-form” in Dirac classification $`V`$ is the space-time volume limited by the hyperplane t=cte (see figure 3). In Light-Front Dynamics – denoted ”front-form” in $`V`$ is limited by two space-time planes $`\omega x=\sigma `$ (see figure 3).

Let us illustrate the procedure in case transformation (3) is a translation

$$x_\nu x_\nu ^{}=x_\nu +a_\nu $$

Noether theorem provides a set of four 4-currents $`\left\{T^{\mu \nu }\right\}_{\nu =0,3}`$ given by

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\frac{}{(_\mu \varphi )}^\nu \varphi g^{\mu \nu }$$

and satisfying

$$_\mu T^{\mu \nu }(x)=0$$

They constitute the energy-momentum tensor. Integrating the continuity equation over an arbitrary space-time $`V`$ one gets

$$_Vd^4x_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0$$

and choosing $`V`$ like in figure 3 gives

$$\left[𝑑\stackrel{}{x}T^{0\nu }(x)\right]_{upper}+\left[𝑑\stackrel{}{x}T^{0\nu }(x)\right]_{lower}=0$$

That means the four quantities

$$\widehat{P}^\nu (t_0)=𝑑\stackrel{}{x}T^{0\nu }(x)$$

are independent of the hyperplane $`t=t_0`$ position.

Alternatively, by choosing space-time planes $`\omega x=\sigma `$, one obtains the $`\omega `$-dependent generators

$$\overline{)\widehat{P}^\mu (\sigma )=T^{\mu \nu }(x)\delta (\omega x\sigma )\omega _\nu d^4x}$$
(7)
with

$$_\sigma \widehat{P}^\mu (\sigma )=0$$

Equation (7) is the starting point of the Light-Front Dynamics.

In the instant-form approach, the spatial components depend only on the non interacting part of the lagrangian and are called kinematical. The zero-th component is the interaction Hamiltonian and governs the dynamics

$`P^0`$ $`=`$ $`H_{int}`$
$`\stackrel{}{P}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{P}_0`$
In LFD, all generators split into a free part ($`\widehat{P}_0^\mu `$) and an interaction-dependent one ($`\widehat{P}_{int}^\mu `$)

$$\overline{)\widehat{P}^\mu (\sigma )=\widehat{P}_0^\mu +\widehat{P}_{int}^\mu (\sigma )}$$

with the interaction dependent part being along the $`\omega `$-direction

$$\overline{)\widehat{P}_{int}^\mu (\sigma )=\omega ^\mu H_{int}(x)\delta (\omega x\sigma )d^4x}$$

This can be turn to profit to obtain a maximum number of seven non interacting generators, an advantage that was already noticed by Dirac in his seminal paper  about the different forms of relativistic dynamics.

Once obtained the generators, (1) provides the dynamical equation determining the mass of the system $`M^2`$. After some algebra, one is led to

$$\overline{)(M^2P_0^2)\mathrm{\Psi }>=2P_0\omega _{int}(\omega \tau )\mathrm{exp}(i\sigma \tau )𝑑\tau \mathrm{\Psi }>}$$
(8)
where $`_{int}(k)`$ denotes the Fourier transform of the hamiltonian density

$`_{int}(k)={\displaystyle _{int}(x)\mathrm{exp}(ikx)d^4x}`$
We will consider hereafter the $`\sigma `$-stationary solutions and set $`\sigma =0`$ in (8). The evolution of states towards $`\sigma `$ is given in .

The state vector is decomposed into its Fock components $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta }`$ 222We consider two interacting fields with corresponding creation operators $`a_k^{}`$ and $`b_q^{}`$

$`\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle d^4k_1\mathrm{}d^4k_\alpha d^4q_1\mathrm{}d^4q_\beta }`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta }(k_1,\mathrm{},k_\alpha ,q_1\mathrm{}q_\beta )a_{k_1}^{}\mathrm{}a_{k_\alpha }^{}b_{q_1}^{}\mathrm{}b_{q_\beta }^{}0>`$
which are the wavefunctions. We can consider the set $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n_{\alpha \beta }}\{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta }\}`$ as the components of an infinite dimensional vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }=(\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\mathrm{\Psi }_3,\mathrm{})`$, coupled to each other via the interaction operator $`_{int}(\omega \tau )𝑑\tau `$. Equation (8) is thus an infinite system of coupled channels.

$`(M^2P_0^2)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_2\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_3\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)=2P_0\omega {\displaystyle _{int}(\omega \tau )𝑑\tau \left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_2\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_3\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)}`$
If we restrict ourselves to the two- ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_2\{\mathrm{\Psi }_{20}\}`$) and three-body ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_3\{\mathrm{\Psi }_{21}\}`$) wavefunctions, we obtain a system of two coupled equations for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ which constitutes the ladder approximation. By expressing $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, one gets an integral equation for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ with energy dependent kernel.

The construction of non zero angular momentum states in LFD is made difficult by the fact that generators of spatial rotations contain the interaction. Consequently the eigenvalue equation for $`\widehat{S}^2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_3`$ are non trivial dynamical equations with a level of complexity higher than the mass equation (8) one. To circumvent this difficulty we have made use of a kinematical angular momentum operator

$$\stackrel{}{J}=i\left(\stackrel{}{k}\times \frac{}{\stackrel{}{k}}+\widehat{n}\times \frac{}{\widehat{n}}\right)$$

whose eigenstates can be constructed by using the standard angular momentum algebra. The physical solutions are then obtained as a linear combination of the kinematical operator $`\widehat{A}^2(\stackrel{}{J}\widehat{n})^2`$ eigenstates, satisfying the so called ”angular condition”. This method was shown to restore – at least in a simple model - the rotational invariance of the theory to a high degree of accuracy . Its explanation requires long technical developments and will not be detailed here. The interested reader could find the first published results in .

An important property of Light-Front Dynamics is the fact that the vacuum of the theory is decoupled from any other Fock state despite the interaction. This ”emptiness of the vacuum” results into the absence of vacuum fluctuations diagrams and considerably simplifies the evaluation of certain processes.

An appreciable advantage of this formalism with respect to other relativistic approaches, is the clear link with the usual non relativistic dynamics: LFD wavefunctions have the same physical meaning of probability amplitudes than their non relativistic counterparts.

Among the drawbacks we note – apart from the psychological barrier of using a non conventional formalism – the appearance of contact (instantaneous) interactions for non scalar constituents and two direct consequences of solving the dynamical equations in a truncated Fock space: the $`\omega `$ dependence of the on-shell approximate amplitudes and the fact that the different projections of the non-zero angular momentum states along the $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ direction are non degenerate (the so called violation of the rotational invariance).

It could be of some help to say few words about the words in what concerns the Light-Front world. Historically it appeared first in Dirac classification with the particular choice of front surface $`tz=0`$. It reappeared in Quantum Field Theory in 1966, under the label ”Infinite Momentum Frame” calculations, when it was realized  that boosting the frame in which calculations of invariant amplitudes are made, gave easier results. In particular all diagrams related to vacuum fluctuations automatically vanished. Later on, it was shown  that this procedure was equivalent to use the LFD variables $`z\pm t`$ in the theory from the very beginning and constitutes now the so called standard LFD, developped by many authors .

The difference with respect to our approach is in the words ”Explicitly” and ”Covariant” which we will try to justify. To choose a front surface in the form $`\omega x=\sigma `$ is not only a mathematical ”delicatesse” but a way to carry everywhere in the theory the $`\omega `$-dependence of the formal objects in an explicit way. It has several advantages, all related to the fact that $`\omega `$ is a four vector with well defined transformation properties. For instance it provides explicitly covariant expressions for the on shell amplitudes, a property which is often hidden in the standard LFD formulation. The latter one is recovered by fixing the value $`\omega =(1,0,0,1)`$ but this value is associated to a particular reference frame and it is not valid in any other one, what implies a non covariant formulation. Another advantage of the covariant formulation is the fact that, because the $`\omega `$-dependence is explicit, it can be controlled at will and removed when calculating observables (e.g. in the form factors ).

If by covariance of a theory, we understand the fact that is based on a set of generators satisfying the Poincaré algebra, then the standard and the explicitly covariant approaches would be both covariant if they were solved in their full complexity. This is never the case in practice, in particular due to the Fock space truncation, and both formulations can lose this property when approximate schemes are used.

## 3 Two Scalar particles

It is always instructive to start by considering a simple model which could provide us with some physical insight with a lower formal cost. We have thus considered the Wick-Cutkosky (WC) model  describing two scalar particles ($`m`$) interacting by a scalar exchange ($`\mu `$) with a Lagrangian density $`_I=g\phi ^2\chi `$. We are interested in bound states of two particles with momenta $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$. In the reference frame $`\stackrel{}{k_1}+\stackrel{}{k_2}=0`$ the ECLFD equation reads

$$[4(k^2+m^2)M^2]\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{k},\widehat{n})=\frac{m^2}{2\pi ^3}\frac{d^3k^{}}{ϵ_k^{}}V(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}},\widehat{n},M^2)\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{k^{}},\widehat{n})$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}`$=$`\stackrel{}{k}_1`$, $`ϵ_k=\sqrt{k^2+m^2}`$, $`\omega =(1,\widehat{n})`$ in this particular frame with $`\widehat{n}^2=1`$ – and $`M`$ the total mass of the system, related to its binding energy $`B`$ by $`M=2mB`$.

The interaction kernel is333Strictly speaking, the Wick-Cutkosky model corresponds to the $`\mu =0`$ case. We consider here a trivial extension

$$V(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}},\widehat{n},M^2)=\frac{4\pi \alpha }{Q^2+\mu ^2}$$

with

$$Q^2=(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k^{}})^2(\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{k})(\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{k^{}})\frac{(ϵ_k^{}ϵ_k)^2}{ϵ_k^{}ϵ_k}+\left(ϵ_k^2+ϵ_k^{}^2\frac{M^2}{2}\right)\left|\frac{\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{k^{}}}{ϵ_k^{}}\frac{\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{k}}{ϵ_k}\right|$$
(12)
Relativistic effects are all included in the second and third $`\widehat{n}`$-dependent terms of $`Q^2`$. By formally setting $`\widehat{n}=0`$ in this expression – though $`\widehat{n}^2=1`$ ! – one recovers the non relativistic Coulomb kernel. By furthermore assuming $`B<<m`$, the kinematical left hand side term of (11) becomes $`4m(k^2+B)`$ and the ECLFD equation coincides with the non relativistic Schrodinger equation in momentum space for Coulomb interaction444We note a missprint in page 465 of  where the expression $`4mk^2+2mB`$ was instead written.

Equation (11) was solved  for several values of $`J`$ and $`\mu `$. For S- waves, the solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a scalar function depending on two scalar arguments $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(k,\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{k})`$, i.e. the LFD S-wave wavefunction has an angular dependence! For non-zero angular momentum states the solution was obtained on a basis of eigenfunctions of the $`\widehat{A}^2`$ operator, discussed in the previous section. In a truncated Fock space, these eigenfunctions were found to have different $`M^2`$ values  – a result also noticed in  – and a method was proposed to restore in the two-body sector the rotational invariance. Our main results concerning S-waves are summarized in what follows. The numerical values given hereafter all correspond to $`\mathrm{}=c=m=1`$ units.

##### Size and nature of relativistic effects

The size and nature of relativistic effects in the binding energies can be seen in figure 5. The LFD results for $`\mu =0`$ are compared to the non relativistic ones and to those given by the Klein-Gordon equation. One can see a quick departure from Schrodinger results and a clear repulsive character - smaller binding energy - contrary to Klein-Gordon (and Dirac) equations which produces attractive corrections to all orders. LFD energies are also compared to a first order perturbative calculations – equally valid for Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equation – which have the form

$$B_{pert}=\frac{m\alpha ^2}{4}\left(1\frac{4}{\pi }\alpha \mathrm{log}\frac{1}{\alpha }\right)$$
(13)
and turn to be relevant until $`\alpha 0.3`$.

It is worth noticing that sizeable relativistic effects are observed in a system for which both the binding energy and the average momentum are small. At $`\alpha =0.3`$, for instance, they account for a 100% effect in the binding energy whereas $`\frac{<k^2>}{m^2}2\%`$.

We would also like to notice that the large differences between the ECLFD and the non relativistic solutions are not of kinematical origin. In order to disentangle the different contributions to the relativistic energies $`B`$, equation (11) has been formally written $`K\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\epsilon }V\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and we have considered several approximations of it. The results are displayed in figure 5. We have first considered the case of a non relativistic kernel V – i.e. put $`\widehat{n}=0`$ in (12) and $`ϵ=m`$ – together with in curve a the non relativistic kinematics $`K=4m(k^2+B)`$ and in curve a’ the relativistic one $`K=4(k^2+m^2)M^2`$. Curves b and b’ are obtained in the same manner but putting $`ϵ=\sqrt{k^2+m^2}`$. The last one corresponds to the full ECLFD equation. These results show that – at least in what scalars are concerned – the main effect of a relativistic formalism is not in the kinetic energy but in the interaction kernel. The kinematical term $`K`$ has a very little influence on $`B`$, which furthermore goes on the opposite direction, whereas $`ϵ`$ and $`V`$ kernel contribution are both essential. One can thus conclude that kinematical corrections alone are not representative of relativistic effects. Even when they are included in the kernel, e.g. through $`ϵ_k`$, they can only account for half the effect.

##### Comparison with Bethe-Salpeter equation

The comparison with Bethe-Salpeter equation is done in figures 7 and 7. Figure 7 represents the LFD $`B(\alpha )`$ curves (solid line) for different values of $`\mu `$. They are compared with those provided by BS equation (dashed-line) in the same ladder approximation, whose kernel incorporates higher order intermediate states. Their results are seen to be close to each other. This fact is far from being obvious – specially for large values of coupling constant – due to the differences in their ladder kernel. A quantitative estimation of their spread can be given by looking into an horizontal cut of figure 7, i.e. calculating the relative difference in the coupling constant $`(\alpha _{LFD}\alpha _{BS})/\alpha _{LFD}`$ for a fixed value of the binding energy. The results, displayed in figure 7 for $`B=1.0,0.1,0.01`$, show that relative differences (i) are decreasing functions of $`\mu `$ for all values of $`B`$ (ii) increase with $`B`$ but are limited to 10% for the strong binding case $`B=m`$ which involves values of $`\alpha 5`$. This indicates the relatively weak importance of including higher Fock components in the ladder kernel even for strong couplings, as was noticed in .

##### Weak binding limit and non relativistic solutions

An interesting result was obtained by studying the weak binding limit of B($`\alpha `$). We found that, except for the case of zero mass exchange, relativistic and non relativistic solutions differ even when describing zero binding energy systems. These results are displayed in figures 9 and 9. BS solutions, also included, display the same behaviour, indicating that this is not a pathology of the Light-Front formalism but seems rather a general feature of consistent relativistic theories. A system bound by a massive exchange would be described by different parameters whether one uses LFD (and BS) or Schrodinger approaches, no matter how small the binding energy will be. We concluded from that to the non existence of non relativistic limit for $`\mu 0`$.

We would like to mention here that an important part of these differences were taken into account by including in the Schrodinger equation energy dependent interactions .

##### The scalar deuteron

A straightforward application to this model, and a way to evaluate the modifications induced by a relativistic treatment of a semi-realistic model, was done by building a scalar model for deuteron. By adding a ”repulsive scalar” term555One should note that such a repulsive interaction cannot arise from a scalar exchange but can mimic some fermionic interactions one gets a relativistic version of the Nucleon-Nucleon MT potential .

$$V=V_R+V_A=\frac{\lambda _R}{Q^2+\mu _R^2}\frac{\lambda _A}{Q^2+\mu _A^2}$$
(14)
In the non relativistic limit, $`\lambda _R,\mu _R,\lambda _A,\mu _A`$ are adjusted to reproduce a realistic deuteron wavefunction with $`B=2.23`$ MeV and acceptable NN scattering parameters. If one inserts kernel (14) in the LFD equations, the binding energy is shifted from $`B=2.23`$ to $`B=0.96`$ MeV, a dramatic repulsive effect. One can recover the physical value for B by shifting $`\lambda _R=7.29\lambda _R=6.60`$ – all other parameters being unchanged – what makes a 10% difference in a coupling constant. The spectacular change in $`B`$ is partially due to the small value of the deuteron binding energy. It illustrates however well the difficulty to unambiguously determine a coupling constant in the strong interaction physics, even for systems widely considered as being a priori non relativistic.

##### Wavefunctions

The main modification when comparing LFD and NR wavefunctions with the same coupling constant is due to the change in the corresponding binding energies. A first requirement to compare them is thus to re-adjust one of the $`\alpha `$ values (we choose the NR one) in order to deal with states of equal $`B`$. Figure 11 shows the comparison of these wavefunctions, squared and integrated over the angular dependence $`\widehat{n}\widehat{k}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, for $`\mu =0`$ and a moderate coupling $`\alpha =0.5`$. One then has $`B_{LFD}`$=0.0267 and $`B_{NR}`$=0.0625 which has been re-scaled to the LFD value with $`\alpha =0.327`$. One can see small deviations ($``$5%) at $`k=0`$. In the relativistic region, the LFD solutions are systematically smaller than the NR ones and their differences increase reaching a factor 3 for $`k=2`$, despite the moderate values of B and $`\alpha `$. When dealing with highly relativistic systems – like e.g. mesons in the constituent quark model – both descriptions differ even for small values of $`k`$. Figure 11 shows the case $`B_{LFD}`$=0.84 and $`\alpha =5`$ where the squared wavefunctions at $`k=0`$ are $``$70% different.

## 4 Two fermions system

We have also obtained  recently the LFD bound state solutions for a system of two fermions interacting with the usual – scalar (S), pseudoscalar (PS), pseudovector (PV) and vector (V) – OBEP Lagrangians:

$`_s`$ $`=`$ $`g_s\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`_{ps}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{ps}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}i\gamma _5\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`_{pv}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{pv}}{2m}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu ^\mu \varphi \mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`_v`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}[g_v\gamma ^\mu A_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{f_v}{2m}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )]\mathrm{\Psi }`$
As in the scalar case, calculations were performed in the ladder approximation. The interaction kernel is provided by the Born scattering amplitude $``$ and – according to the Light-Front graph technique – has two contributions which differ from each other by the light-front time ordering.

Its analytical structure has the form

$$=\left\{A_1(k_1^{},k_1,\tau ^{})+A_2(k_1,k_1^{},\tau )\right\}\left[u_{\sigma _1^{}}(k_1^{})\widehat{O}_1\overline{u}_{\sigma _1}(k_1)\right]\left[u_{\sigma _2^{}}(k_2^{})\widehat{O}_2\overline{u}_{\sigma _2}(k_2)\right]$$

where $`\widehat{O}_i`$ are vertex operators depending on the type of coupling ($`\widehat{O}_i=\mathrm{𝟏},i\gamma _5,\mathrm{}`$) and $`A_1,A_2`$ scalar functions. In ”center of mass” variables, i.e. boosting to a reference frame in which $`\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2=0`$, the scalar part can be written as

$$A_1(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{},\widehat{n},M)+A_2(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{},\widehat{n},M)=\frac{1}{Q^2+\mu ^2}$$

with $`Q^2`$ given by (12) and the total amplitude reads

$$_{\sigma _1^{}\sigma _2^{},\sigma _1\sigma _2}=\frac{1}{Q^2+\mu ^2}\left[u_{\sigma _1^{}}(k_1^{})\widehat{O}_1\overline{u}_{\sigma _1}(k_1)\right]\left[u(k_2^{})_{\sigma _2^{}}\widehat{O}_2\overline{u}(k_2)_{\sigma _2}\right]$$

As in the scalar case, the two-fermion LFD wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are Fock components of state vector (10). Their spin structures depend on the quantum numbers of the state. For $`J^\pi =0^+`$ they have the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{s_1s_2}(k_1,k_2,p,\omega )=\overline{u}_{s_2}(k_2)\widehat{\varphi }\gamma _5U_C\overline{u}_{s_1}(k_1)$$
(15)
with

$$\widehat{\varphi }=\varphi _1+\left[\frac{2m\gamma _\mu \omega ^\mu }{\omega p}\frac{4m^2}{s}\right]\varphi _2$$

depending on two scalar functions $`\varphi _i`$. For $`J^\pi =1^+`$ they read

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{s_1s_2}^\lambda (k_1,k_2,p,\omega )=ϵ_\mu ^\lambda (p)\overline{u}_{s_2}(k_2)\widehat{\varphi }^\mu U_C\overline{u}_{s_1}(k_1)$$
(16)
in which

$`\widehat{\varphi }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_2)_\mu }{2m^2}}+\varphi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mu }{m}}+\varphi _3{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\mu }{\omega p}}+\varphi _4{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_2)_\mu \widehat{\omega }}{2m(\omega p)}}`$
$`+`$ $`\varphi _5{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma _5ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(k_1+k_2)_\nu (k_1k_2)_\rho \omega _\sigma }{2m^2\omega p}}+\varphi _6{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _\mu \widehat{\omega }}{(\omega p)^2}}`$
$`p`$ is the total momentum, $`U_C=\gamma _2\gamma _0`$ the charge conjugation operator, $`e_\mu ^\lambda (p)`$ the polarization vector and $`\widehat{\omega }=\gamma _\mu \omega ^\mu `$. They depend on six scalar fonctions $`\varphi _i`$.

To get easier links with the non relativistic wavefunctions one uses instead of $`\varphi _i`$ some linear combinations denoted $`f_i`$. For $`0^+`$ states, for instance, one simply has

$$\begin{array}{cccc}f_1\hfill & =& 2\sqrt{2}ϵ_k\hfill & \varphi _1\hfill \\ f_2\hfill & =& 2\sqrt{2}k\frac{m}{ϵ_k}\hfill & \varphi _2\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`f_1`$ tending to the usual NR wavefunction and $`f_2`$ being an extra component of relativistic origin with no counterpart. For $`1^+`$ states the combination is more involved  but the $`f_i`$ functions have similar properties. Thus $`f_1`$ tends to the non relativistic S-wave component $`u_S`$, $`f_2`$ tends to the D-waves $`u_D`$ and $`f_{36}`$ are extra components of relativistic origin.

One can see that in this $`f`$-representation, LFD provides a very interesting parametrization of the relativistic dynamics. One deals with similar formal objects, depending on similar arguments. In this way, relativity acts by modifying the usual wavefunctions and by introducing extra components which becomes negligible – or tends to zero – in the non relativistic regime.

In $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ representation (15-16) the two-body LFD equation reads

$`\left[M^2(k_1+k_2)^2\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}^\lambda (k_1,k_2,p,\omega \tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _1^{}\sigma _2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k_1^{}}{2ϵ_{k_1^{}}}\frac{d^3k_2^{}}{2ϵ_{k_2^{}}}𝑑\tau ^{}\delta (k_1^{}+k_2^{}p\omega \tau )}`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}(\omega p)\times \mathrm{\Phi }_{\sigma _1^{}\sigma _2^{}}^\lambda (k_1^{},k_2^{},p,\omega \tau ^{})`$ $`\times `$ $`V_{\sigma _1^{}\sigma _2^{},\sigma _1\sigma _2}(k_1^{},k_2^{},p,\omega \tau ^{};k_1,k_2,p,\omega \tau )`$
Inserting (15-16) in (17) one is left – after some lengthy algebra – with a set of coupled two-dimensional integral equations on the form

$$A_\alpha (k)\varphi _\alpha (k,u)=\underset{\beta }{}𝑑k^{}𝑑u^{}B_{\alpha \beta }(k,u,k^{},u^{})\varphi _\beta (k^{},u^{})$$
(18)
where $`u=\widehat{n}\widehat{k}`$. $`A_\alpha `$ contains kinematical terms and $`B_{\alpha \beta }`$ the interaction kernel. For $`J^\pi =0^+`$ there are two coupled equations whereas for $`J^\pi =1^+`$ their number is six but can actually be decoupled into 2+4 .

$`B_{ij}`$ results from integration over $`\phi ^{}`$, the azimutal angle between $`\widehat{k}`$ and $`\widehat{k}^{}`$, of more basic kernels $`\kappa _{ij}`$

$$B_{ij}(k,u,k^{},u^{})=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\frac{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{ϵ_k^{}}_0^{2\pi }\kappa _{ij}(k,u,k^{},u^{},\phi ^{})\frac{F^2(Q^2)}{Q^2+\mu ^2}\frac{d\phi ^{}}{2\pi }$$

which have the general structure

$$\kappa _{ij}(k,u,k^{},u^{},\phi ^{})=\frac{1}{4}\underset{\alpha \beta }{}L_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{Tr}\left\{𝐌_{ij}^{\beta \alpha }\right\}$$

$`F`$ is a vertex form factor (FF) depending on $`Q^2`$, $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ is a tensor depending on the kind of coupling, $`𝐌_{ij}^{\beta \alpha }`$ is a contraction of a product of ”$`\gamma `$-like” matrices with a tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ depending on the Jπ of the state.

$$𝐌_{ij}^{\beta \alpha }=\underset{\mu \nu }{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }S_i^\mu (\widehat{k}_2+m)O_2^\beta (\widehat{k}_2^{^{}}+m)S_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{\nu }(\widehat{k}_1^{^{}}m)\overline{O}_1^\alpha (\widehat{k}_1m)$$

where $`\widehat{k}=\gamma _\mu k^\mu `$ and $`S_i^\mu `$,$`S_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{\mu }`$ are some spin operators .

Kernels $`\kappa _{ij}`$ are in general calculated numerically. Only for some special cases it is interesting to deal with analytical expressions, which very soon turned out to be unreasonably lengthy. As an example we give below the scalar kernel for J=0+ states:

$`\kappa _{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _s\pi \left\{(\epsilon _k^2+\epsilon _k^{}^2)(m^2kk^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\phi ^{})+2\epsilon _k\epsilon _k^{}(\epsilon _k\epsilon _k^{}kk^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})\right\}`$
$`\kappa _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _s\pi m\left\{(\epsilon _k^2\epsilon _k^{}^2)(k^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}+k\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi ^{})\right\}`$
$`\kappa _{21}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _s\pi m\left\{(\epsilon _k^{}^2\epsilon _k^2)(k\mathrm{sin}\theta +k^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\phi ^{})\right\}`$
$`\kappa _{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _s\pi \left\{(\epsilon _k^2+\epsilon _k^{}^2)(m^2\mathrm{cos}\phi ^{}kk^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{})+2\epsilon _k\epsilon _k^{}(\epsilon _k\epsilon _k^{}kk^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})\right\}`$
where we denote $`\alpha _s=\frac{g_s^2}{4\pi }`$. Other analytical expressions have also been obtained and can be found in .

### 4.1 Results

In a series of works - still in progress we have separately studied, coupling by coupling, $`J^\pi =0^\pm ,1^\pm `$ states in the loosely bound (B$`<<`$m) and ultra relativistic ($`Bm`$) limits. We will restrict ourselves in this contribution to scalar (S) and pseudoscalar (PS) couplings with special emphasis in the stability problem – are equations soluble as they are provided by Quantum Field Theory or do they rather need some regularization? – and in their comparison with the non relativistic solutions.

#### 4.1.1 The stability problem

Let us solve the LFD equations in a compact domain $`[0,k_{max}]`$

$$\left[M^24(k^2+m^2)\right]f(k,u)=_0^{k_{max}}𝑑k^{}_1^{+1}𝑑u^{}B(k,u,k^{},u^{})f(k^{},u^{})$$

and ask ourselves what happens with $`M^2`$ when $`k_{max}\mathrm{}`$. In case the solution exists, we will say that equations are stable. In the opposite case, the theory would require some regularization procedure, for instance by means of vertex form factors, and it is then pertinent to inquire how the solutions depend on them. We have shown that the answer to this question critically depends on the type of coupling, on the $`J^\pi `$ quantum numbers of the state and on the value of the coupling constant $`\alpha `$.

Consider first the scalar coupling (Yukawa model) for J=$`0^+`$. We found  the existence of a critical coupling constant $`\alpha _c3.72`$, below which the solution exists, and above which the system ”collapses”. This behavior is illustrated in figure 13 where we have plotted the $`M`$ dependence on $`k_{max}`$ for two different values of $`\alpha `$. We showed the asymptotical behavior of solutions to be

$$f(k,u)=\frac{g(u)}{k^{2+\beta }}$$

with a relation $`\beta (\alpha )`$ provided by an eigenvalue equation that allows a precise determination of the critical value $`\beta (\alpha _c)=0`$.

This property was checked by a direct inspection of the numerical solutions of LFD equations – as it can be seen in figures 15 and 15 – and turns to be very accurate. It is worth noticing that – at least in the framework of this model – the coupling constant could be ”measured” in the tail of the wavefunction! The J=$`1^+`$ states, on the contrary, do not present any stable solution without vertex form factors. This can be seen in figure 13 where the divergency of the coupling constant as a function of $`k_{max}`$ is displayed for the two angular momentum projections of a J=$`1^+`$ state with $`B=0.05`$. One can also remark in this figure the non degeneracy of the different projections due to the Fock space truncation; for the scalar coupling and moderate values of $`k_{max}10`$, it remains however less than one percent.

For pseudoscalar coupling, the stability analysis was performed using the same methods than for the scalar one  and presents some peculiarities. Quite surprisingly, the equations for J=$`0^+`$ states were found to be stable without any regularization. The results were however strange in the sense that they lead to a quasidegeneracy of the coupling constants for binding energies which can vary over all the physical range $`[0,2m]`$. One gets for instance $`\alpha =49.5`$ for $`B=0.001`$ whereas $`\alpha =48.6`$ for a binding energy 500 times bigger $`B=0.5`$. The origin of this anomaly was found to lie in the second channel equation ($`\kappa _{22}`$). It has been understood analytically  with a simple model but leads to physically unacceptable results.

The case of other couplings (PV,V,T) has been examined in . Corresponding equations results into more singular kernels which all lead to unstable solutions without form factors.

#### 4.1.2 Comparison with non relativistic solutions

We will present the results for $`J=0^+`$ states – so with a two-component wavefunction – obtained with the scalar and pseudoscalar coupling. In each of them, we will consider a loosely bound (B=0.001) and a very relativistic (B=0.5) system. We have fixed for all the calculations an exchanged mass $`\mu =0.15`$.

##### Scalar coupling

For $`B=0.001`$, the LFD coupling constant is $`\alpha _{LFD}`$=0.331 whereas the non relativistic value is $`\alpha _{NR}`$=0.323. Like in the Wick-Cutkosky model discussed in the last section – scalar particles interacting by scalar exchange – relativistic effects are repulsive. They are responsible for only a 3% difference in the coupling constants, whereas in the purely scalar case this difference is sensibly greater ($`\alpha _{WC}`$=0.364). Wavefunctions – suitably re-scaled – are displayed in figure 17. One sees that component $`f_1`$ dominates over $`f_2`$ in all the interesting momentum range and that $`f_2`$ has a zero at $`k0.25`$. One can also remark that $`f_1`$ is very close to the NR wavefunction in the small momentum region but it sensibly deviates with increasing $`k`$; for $`k1.5`$ the difference represents more than one order of magnitude in the probability densities. The coupling between the two LFD amplitudes has a very small (0.1%) and attractive effect in the binding energy.

In the strong binding limit (B=0.5) the situation is quite similar with enhanced relativistic effects. One has $`\alpha _{LFD}`$=2.44 for $`\alpha _{NR}`$=1.71 and the differences in the wavefunctions – displayed in figures 19 and 19 – are already visible at $`k=0`$ (figure 19). One can see however in figure 19 that – even for deeply bound systems – $`f_1`$ component still dominates over $`f_2`$. To complete these results, we have displayed in figure 17 the LFD, NR and WC coupling constants for different values of the binding energy. One can see that the LFD results are systematically closer to the non relativistic values than $`\alpha _{WC}`$ are, as if the fermionic character of the constituents generates closer binding energies to the NR case, but larger differences in the high momentum components of the wavefunction, due to the different asymptotics of interaction kernels.

##### Pseudoscalar coupling

For pseudoscalar coupling the situation is more involved. First the use of vertex form factor – though not necessary for getting convergent solutions – is essential to ensure physically meaningful results. We have chosen, as in , a form factor

$$F(Q^2)=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+Q^2}\right)^n$$

with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.3`$ and $`n=1`$.

In the weak binding limit (B=0.001) one has $`\alpha _{LFD}=190`$ and $`\alpha _{NR}=166`$, a repulsif effect much stronger (15%) than in the scalar coupling. Corresponding wavefunctions are shown in figure 21. One can see that $`f_2f_1`$ at $`k0.3`$ and dominates above $`k`$=1. It is worth noticing the dramatic influence of the form factor in all these calculations: one has for instance $`\alpha _{LFD}`$=103 for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=5`$ and $`\alpha _{LFD}`$=1725 for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0.3 !

The coupling between the two components $`f_i`$ is also very important. By switching off the non diagonal kernels $`B_{12}=B_{21}=0`$ the coupling constant moves from $`\alpha _{LFD}=190`$ to $`\alpha _{LFD}=251`$. It has thus an attractive effect which tends to minimize the difference between LFD and NR results.

Quite surprisingly, in the strong binding limit (B=0.5) we have found $`\alpha _{LFD}`$=1462 and $`\alpha _{NR}`$=3065. Relativistic effects become now strongly attractive ($`\alpha _{LFD}<\alpha _{NR}`$). An essential part of this attraction is due to coupling $`f_1f_2`$ of the two components in the LFD wavefunction. By performing one channel calculations one has indeed $`\alpha _{LFD}`$=3001, what represents a strong reduction in the effect though it remains slightly attractive. We have checked if this happens for different values of the exchange mass $`\mu `$. For the same binging energy $`B=0.5`$ and $`\mu =0.5`$ one has $`\alpha _{LFD}`$=1728 and $`\alpha _{NR}`$=1400, repulsive once again. This told us the difficulty of talking about relativistic effects in general. They turn to depend not only on the kind of coupling but also on the binding energy of the system and, furthermore, on the mass of the exchanged particle.

The preceding results show a qualitative difference between S and PS cases. Pseudoscalar coupling is by construction relativistic: small and large spinor components are mixed to the first order. Moreover the coupling between $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ is essential even for very weakly bound systems. It is so interesting to study in this case the zero energy limit of the LFD and compare with the non relativistic results. We understand by that the static potential, with the same form factor, including delta function term. The results, displayed in figure 21, correspond to $`\mu =0.5`$ and two different cutoff parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the form factors. They show the same behavior that was found in the scalar case, i.e. that relativistic and non relativistic approaches did not coincide even for systems with zero binding energies as fas as they interact with massive exchanges.

## 5 Summary

We have presented the main ideas of the Light-Front Dynamics formalism in its explicitly covariant version. When applied to nucleon-nucleon system with perturbative wavefunctions, they led to results which are in good agreement with the TJNAF data, even for momentum transfers larger than the constituent masses. Recently, an interesting application of the Light-Front nucleon-nucleon wavefunctions was done to successfully describe the two-body correlations in light nuclei . These facts indicate the ability of this approach in describing composite relativistic systems and claim for further developments on this theory.

This work was pursued by calculating the Light-Front solutions in the ladder approximation for two-scalar and two-fermion systems and the main results obtained up to now have been summarized in this contribution. Among them we would like to stress the points that follow.

In the scalar case, we have found that the inclusion of relativity has a dramatic repulsive effect on binding energies even for systems with very small $`\frac{<k>}{m}`$ values. The effect is specially relevant when using a scalar model for deuteron: its binding energy is shifted from 2.23 MeV down to 0.96 MeV. This can be corrected by a 10% decrease of the repulsive coupling constant, what indicates the difficulty to determine beyond this accuracy the value of strong coupling constants within a non relativistic framework.

Light-Front wavefunctions strongly differ from their non relativistic counterparts if they are calculated using the same coupling constant. Once the interaction parameters are readjusted to get the same binding energy, both solutions become closer in the small momentum region but their deviations are sizeable at $`km`$.

The relativistic effets are shown to be induced mainly by the additional terms appearing in the interaction kernel. Kinematical corrections have only a small influence on the binding energy.

The Light-Front results are found to be quite close to those provided by Bethe-Salpeter equation, for a wide range of coupling constant, despite the different physical input in their ladder kernel.

Even in the zero binding limit, Light-Front and Schrodinger solutions differ ($`\mu 0`$) both for scalars and fermions. This leads to the conclusion that such systems cannot be properly described by using a non relativistic dynamics.

For the Yukawa model, we found a critical coupling constant below which the J=0+ solutions are stable without any regularization. For the pseudoscalar coupling, these solutions are also stable for all values of the coupling constant but lead to a quasidegenerate $`\alpha (B)`$ relation. The J=$`1^+`$ states are on the contrary unstable for both couplings.

Pseudoscalar coupling shows large deviations with respect to non relativistic solution. Wavefunction is dominated by relativistic components at $`k<<m`$, even for weakly bound systems. However form factors play there a determinant role.

The question about relativistic effects has no simple answer. The consequences of implementing the Lorentz invariance in a quantum mechanical description of a system are different, following: the nature of its constituents, the kind of interaction, the quantum numbers of the state, its binding energy, and even the mass of the exchanged particle! There are no simple recipes to perform a priori evaluations.

Acknowledgements: This work is partially supported by the Russian-French research contract PICS No. 1172. Numerical calculations were performed at CGCV (CEA) and IDRIS (CNRS). We thank the staff members of these two organizations for their constant support.