text:
# Phenomenological theory of spinor Bose-Einstein condensates

## Abstract

It was reported that Bose-Einstein condensation induces a spontaneous magnetization in spinor bosons. This phenomenon is called Bose-Einstein ferromagnetism (BEF). We propose a phenomenological model consistent with the prediction of BEF and show that BEF might be attributed to the intrinsic magnetic moment of particles. Taking BEF into account, the phase diagram of an optically trapped spinor condensate is reexamined.

preprint: mpi-pks/0211018

Alkali-metal atoms, such as 87Rb, 23Na, 7Li, in which Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) has been experimentally realizedcornell , have an internal degree of freedom attributed to the hyperfine spin $`F`$. Accordingly, the order parameter of Bose condensed alkali atoms could have $`2F+1`$ components. Thus, although the superfluid properties of this system are considered to be essentially the same as those of superfluid 4He, one can expect that the hyperfine spin degrees of freedom could bring about remarkable differences between the two systems.

Earlier experiments leading to BEC in alkali atoms were performed in magnetic traps. A relatively strong external magnetic field $`H`$ was applied to confine the BEC system. Because the atomic spin direction adiabatically followed $`H`$, the spin degree of freedom was frozen. As a result, the alkali atoms behaved like scalar particles although they carried spinleggett . In 1998, Stamper-Kurn et al. succeeded in cooling 23Na in a purely optical trap and achieved BECketterle . With $`H`$ sufficiently small, the spin degree of freedom can become active and the spinor nature of the condensate can be manifestedkett2 .

The optical trap provides great opportunities to investigate spinor Bose gases experimentally. Furthermore, it stimulates enormous theoretical interest in studying various spin-related properties, e.g. the magnetismho ; ohmi ; pu , of the gases. For an $`F=1`$ Bose gas, the effective interactions $`V(𝐫)`$ between the atoms were derived asho ; ohmi ,

$`V(𝐫)={\displaystyle \frac{c_0}{2}}\psi _\sigma ^{}\psi _\sigma ^{}^{}\psi _\sigma ^{}\psi _\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{2}}\psi _\sigma ^{}\psi _\sigma ^{}^{}𝐅_{\sigma \gamma }𝐅_{\sigma ^{}\gamma ^{}}\psi _\gamma ^{}\psi _\gamma ,`$ (1)
where $`\psi _\sigma (𝐫)`$ is the field annihilation operator for an atom in hyperfine state $`|F,\sigma `$ ($`\sigma =1,0,1`$) at position $`𝐫`$. Repeated sub-indices represent summation taken over all the hyperfine states. Besides a spin-independent scattering, a Heisenberg-like exchange interaction between hyperfine spins appears in the Hamiltonian, where the components of $`𝐅=(F_x,F_y,F_z)`$ are $`3\times 3`$ spin matrices. According to the pioneering work of Hoho  and Ohmi and Machidaohmi , this term determines the phase diagram of the spinor condensate: the ground state can be either ferromagnetic or “polar”, depending on whether $`c_2`$ is negative or positive, respectively. However, recently Eisenberg and Lieb (referred to as EL hereafter)eisenberg  claimed that this scenario ignored an intrinsic ferromagnetism of spinor bosons.

The intrinsic ferromagnetism in spin-$`1`$ ideal bosons was predicted by Yamadayamada  and recently studied in the context of atomic Bose-Einstein condensation by Simkin and CohenSimkin . They calculated the magnetization $`M(H)`$ and found that once BEC takes place, $`M`$ remains finite even if $`H=0`$, suggesting the system is magnetized spontaneously. This phenomenon is called Bose-Einstein ferromagnetism (BEF). Caramico D’Auria et al. pointed out that the coexistence of BEC with BEF also appears in interacting bosonscaramico . Moreover, rigorous proofs presented by Sütősuto  and ELeisenberg  show that a polarized state is among the degenerate ground state of spinor bosons. EL studied a Bose model with a spin-independent, totally symmetric interaction $`v`$ between particles,

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}_i^2+v(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_N),`$ (2)
where $`𝐫_i`$ denotes the spatial coordinate of particle $`i`$. The specific model of Caramico D’Auria et al. has the same symmetry as the above Hamiltonian.

In this communication, we propose a phenomenological model for the spinor Bose condensate. First of all, this model shows in a simple way that BEF can really take place at the same critical temperature as BEC. The results obtained are consistent with available theories. Then the phase diagram of optically trapped alkali atoms is reexamined, taking BEF into account. Furthermore, we try to understand the nature of BEF by analyzing the phenomenological model.

To begin with, we derive an appropriate Ginzburg-Landau free energy density functional for second-order phase transitions that describes the coexistence of BEC and BEF. Generally, such a free energy density consists of three different parts: $`f_t=f_b+f_m+f_c`$, corresponding to the Bose condensed phase, the ferromagnetic phase and the coupling between the two phases (we omit the free energy of the normal Bose gas). Following Ginzburg and Pitaevskiiginzburg , the free energy density of an isotropic spin-$`F`$ Bose-Einstein condensate is given as

$`f_b={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}𝚿^{}𝚿\alpha |𝚿|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}|𝚿|^4`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _s}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}^{}𝐅_{\sigma \gamma }𝐅_{\sigma ^{}\gamma ^{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ,`$ (3)
where $`𝚿^{}(𝚿^T)^{}=(\mathrm{\Psi }_F^{},\mathrm{\Psi }_{F1}^{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }_F^{})`$ is the complex order parameter and $`|𝚿|^2=𝚿^{}𝚿`$. Here the order parameter is defined as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma =\psi _\sigma `$, but we note that other forms of the order parameter are possible (see Leggettleggett ). The free energy density should have the same symmetry as the underlying Hamiltonian. The first three terms describe a system without any spin-dependent interactions, as given by Eq. (2). The fourth term has SU(2) symmetry as does the $`c_2`$ term in Eq. (1), and describes the spin-exchange interaction.

The free energy density of the ferromagnetic phase can be expanded in powers of $`M^2`$: $`f_m=aM^2/2+bM^4/4`$, where $`M`$ is the order parameter of the ferromagnetic state and is proportional to the magnetization density. In the usual theory of phase transitions, $`a`$ changes sign at the ferromagnetic transition temperature and $`b>0`$note . Here, we assume that $`M`$ is induced by the BEC itself, rather than by any other additional mechanisms, so $`f_m`$ should have a minimum at $`M=0`$. That is, the ferromagnetic state would disappear if it were not coupled to the Bose condensed state. Therefore, $`f_m(M^2)f_m(0)=0`$ for all values of $`M`$, so both $`a`$ and $`b`$ are positive. Near the critical temperature only the leading term need be considered, and $`f_m`$ takes the form,

$$f_m=\frac{a}{2}M^2.$$
(4)
Physically, $`f_m`$ should contain the energy of the magnetic field inside a magnetized mediumbook . We suppose that the condensate only couples linearly to the ferromagnetic order,

$$f_c=gM\underset{\sigma =F}{\overset{F}{}}\sigma |\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma |^2,$$
(5)
where $`g`$ is the coupling constant. This is the simplest coupling term that satisfies the physical situation, as indicated later. Our discussions are confined to the thermodynamic limit and to one domain. Equations (4) and (5) comprise the basic ansatz of this work. We assume $`a`$ and $`g`$ are independent of the temperature.

The total free energy for the Bose condensate can be written as $`F_T=f_t𝑑V`$. Taking the variation with respect to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma `$ and $`M`$, we derive

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma (\alpha +gM\sigma )\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma +\beta |𝚿|^2\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma `$
$`+\beta _s\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}^{}𝐅_{\sigma \gamma }𝐅_{\sigma ^{}\gamma ^{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma =0,`$ (6a)
$`aMg{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =F}{\overset{F}{}}}\sigma |\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma |^2=0.`$ (6b)
Eq. (6a) consists of a set of equations with respect to the spin index $`\sigma `$. Eq. (6b) ensures that the magnetization is induced by the condensate itself.

Possible phase transitions of the spinor Bose gas can be investigated by solving Eq. (6). For a spatially uniform system, the first term in Eq. (6a) can be dropped. We take the bosons to have spin $`F=1`$. It has been suggested that the condensate should be ferromagnetic even without the spin-exchange interactioneisenberg ; yamada ; Simkin ; caramico . To treat this case, we first set $`\beta _s=0`$. Two nontrivial solutions deserve further discussionnote2 .

(I) Normal Bose-Einstein condensates. This solution corresponds to BEC without spontaneous magnetization.

$$|𝚿|^2=\frac{\alpha }{\beta },M=0,$$
(7)
with the free energy density

$$f_t^I=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha ^2}{\beta }.$$
(8)
In this case, we have $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2=|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2`$ but cannot determine the proportion of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2`$ to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2`$. Thus, the system might be in “polar”, “planar” or “equal spin” statesvollhardt .

(II) Bose-Einstein ferromagnets. This solution describes BEC with a spontaneous magnetization:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta \frac{g^2}{a}}},|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2=|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2=0,`$
$`M={\displaystyle \frac{g}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta \frac{g^2}{a}}}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{a}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2.`$ (9)
In this case the Bose condensate is fully polarized and the free energy density is

$$f_t^{II}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha ^2}{\beta \frac{g^2}{a}}.$$
(10)
Comparing Eqs. (10) and (8), it can be seen that the BEF solution is indeed energetically favored in spite of a positive magnetization energy $`f_m`$. The magnetization results in a net energy decrease by $`f_t^If_t^{II}g^2\alpha ^2/(2a\beta ^2)`$note3 , suggesting that $`M0`$ occurs spontaneously. This magnetization depends on the onset of BEC, with its magnitude proportional to the condensate density, as predicted in previous theoriesyamada ; Simkin ; caramico .

As usualginzburg , $`\alpha `$ can be expanded in powers of $`T_cT`$ near the Bose condensation temperature $`T_c`$: $`\alpha (T)\alpha ^{}(T_cT)`$; $`\beta `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ are positive constants. According to Eq. (9),

$$M=\frac{g}{a}|𝚿|^2=\frac{g}{a}|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2T_cT.$$
(11)
The results are consistent with those obtained from a microscopic interacting boson modelcaramico , suggesting that the phenomenological model describes the behavior of the spinor condensates quite well.

The realization of BEC in optically trapped alkali-metal atoms makes the study on BEF not only theoretically interesting, but also experimentally attainable. We now turn our attention to such a specific BEC system. In this case, the $`\beta _s`$ term should be turned on. Using the notation $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_0,\mathrm{\Psi }_1)=(\varphi _1e^{i\theta _1},\varphi _0,\varphi _1e^{i\theta _1})`$, the $`\beta _s`$ term becomes $`\beta _s\varphi _0^2[\varphi _1^2+\varphi _1^2+2\varphi _1\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1+\theta _1)]+\beta _s(\varphi _1^2\varphi _1^2)^2/2`$isoshima . Without considering BEF, only this term determines the relative phases of the three component condensate wave functions: $`\theta _1+\theta _1=\pi `$ for $`\beta _s>0`$ and $`\theta _1+\theta _1=0`$ for $`\beta _s<0`$. It therefore determines the ground state of the condensate: it is ferromagnetic for $`\beta _s<0`$ and “polar” for $`\beta _s>0`$ho . However, this phase diagram is modified by BEF. After some algebra, the free energy density reduces to $`f_t^P=\alpha ^2/(2\beta )`$ for “polar” states and to $`f_t^F=\alpha ^2/[2(\beta +\beta _sg^2/a)]`$ for ferromagnetic states. Consequently, the phase diagram illustrated in Fig. 1 results, with a phase boundary at a finite value of $`\beta _s`$, given by

$$(\beta _s)_c=\frac{g^2}{a}.$$
(12)
Equation (12) implies that there is a critical $`\beta _s`$ value leading to the “polar” state.

Strictly speaking, the Landau expansion holds mathematically only near $`T_c`$. In order to get the ground state phase diagram, we need decrease the temperature to zero, when the free energy density can be directly derived from the Hamiltonian via the Gross-Pitaevskii approximation. Because of the existence of BEF, we argue that the energy due to the magnetization, as expressed in Eqs. (4) and (5), should be included in the $`T=0`$ free energy density functional. Then the Gross-Pitaevskii equation for the $`F=1`$ bosons described by Eq. (1) reads:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma (\mu +g^{}M\sigma )\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma +c_0|𝚿|^2\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma `$
$`+c_2\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}^{}𝐅_{\sigma \gamma }𝐅_{\sigma ^{}\gamma ^{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma =0,`$ (13a)
$`a^{}Mg^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =F}{\overset{F}{}}}\sigma |\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma |^2=0.`$ (13b)
Here $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. Equations (13) have similar forms as the phenomenological equations (6), but their parameters have different meaningspitaevskii , so here $`a`$ and $`g`$ are marked with a star. From Eq. (13), a phase diagram similar to Fig. 1 can be produced and the phase boundary becomes $`(c_2)_c=(g^{})^2/a^{}.`$ The Gross-Pitaevskii approximation is quite accurate in describing the ground state of Bose gases.

We now discuss the origin of BEF. The possibility that BEF arises from an explicit spin-exchange interaction, like the $`c_2`$ term in Eq. (1), has been ruled outeisenberg ; yamada ; Simkin ; caramico . Our phenomenological model shows clues that BEF may be attributed to intrinsic magnetic moments of particles. Since spinor bosons carry magnetic moments $`𝐦`$, an effective magnetic field $`𝐁=\mu _0𝐌`$ is created inside a polarized body, owing to the superposition of the intrinsic field of all the magnetic moments. $`\mu _0`$ is the permeability of vacuum and $`𝐌=𝐦|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2`$ is the magnetization. Naturally, $`f_m=B^2/(2\mu _0)=\mu _0M^2/2`$ can be regarded as the energy of the effective field. On the other hand, the magnetic moment of the condensed bosons does respond to the magnetic field regardless if the field is external or internal, so the spin direction should follow the internal field $`𝐁`$. Eq. (5) just is the general form of the coupling between the condensate density and the internal magnetic field: $`f_c=\mu _0mM|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2=𝐌𝐁=\mu _0M^2`$. Within this interpretation, $`f_m+f_c=\mu _\mathrm{𝟎}M^2/2`$, which is just the self-energy of a magnetized body with magnetization $`𝐌`$book . Contrarily, in the “polar” or “equal spin” states the magnetic moments of the particles are fully compensated: $`M=0`$. Then at the mean-field level, an internal reference particle cannot sense the moments of other particles, and the magnetic self-energy is zero. Obviously the ferromagnetic state is energetically favorable at $`T=0`$. At finite temperature, the ferromagnetic state can be destroyed due to an entropy increase. However, once Bose-Einstein condensation takes place, the temperature inside a condensate is absolutely zero and the ferromagnetic state remains stable. This accounts for the dependence of BEF on the onset of BEC. We note that such a interpretation coincides with the prediction of Yamada and Caramico D’Auria et al., because in their calculations of magnetization at a given field, the magnetic moment of spinor bosons was included.

Simkin and Cohen attributed BEF to the Bose-Einstein statisticsSimkin . However, we notice that although the Bose-Einstein statistics does not exclude a ferromagnetic state in spinor bosons, it cannot lead to a spontaneous polarization. According to EL, the “fully” polarized state is among the degenerate ground states but the degeneracy cannot be lifted spontaneously if we do not consider the magnetic moment of particles. Rojorojo  studied a two-component bosonic system which can be mapped into a “pseudo-spinor” Bose gas with $`F=1/2`$ (without magnetic moments) and showed that the ground state is not polarized when the interaction is component-independent.

Within the interpretation that BEF is due to the magnetic moment, the magnetic dipole interaction between particles is implicitly involved. The dipole interaction is caused by the intrinsic field of magnetic moments which forms the internal magnetic field when magnetic moments are arranged parallel. The influence of magnetic dipole interactions on the properties of BEC has attracted considerable interest recentlynote4 . Although very weak, they can modify the ground state and the collective excitations of trapped condensates significantlypu ; note4 . Our approach gives a new perspective for studying the effect of the dipole interactions on the boson gas. It is worth noting that dipole interactions can hardly result in a ferromagnetic state in a real Fermi gas, because the interaction is too weak to approach the Stoner threshold.

The intermediate area in Fig. 1 denotes the “pure” Bose-Einstein ferromagnetic state. This provides a direct way of detecting BEF experimentally. Once we have one experimental example pertaining to this regime, i.e., $`c_2>0`$ and the ground state is still ferromagnetic, the existence of BEF could be confirmed. The parameter $`c_2(a_2a_0)/3`$ can be estimated from experimentsho , where $`a_2`$ and $`a_0`$ are s-wave scattering lengths corresponding to the total spin two and zero channel, respectively. According to the above arguments,

$$(c_2)_c=\mu _0𝐦^2,$$
(14)
It is a rather small value. This makes the direct examination of BEF a difficult task.

Up to now, all of our discussions are devoted to chargeless bosons. One can expect that charged bosons exhibit more complex properties. For example, there would be a competition between the Bose-Einstein ferromagnetism and the Meissner effect, even though there is no external magnetic field applied. The latter tends to reduce or even to kill the magnetization. So, the nature of the ground state for charged spinor bosons is in our view still an open question. Relevant topics have been studied in triplet superconductorsScharnberg .

In conclusion, we have proposed a phenomenological model consistent with the prediction that magnetic bosons undergo a spontaneous magnetization together with Bose-Einstein condensation. We remark that this phenomenon deserves special attention due to two reasons: (i) It is an intrinsic property of spinor bosons and may be attributed to the magnetic moment of particles. (ii) The spontaneous magnetization is parasitic to the Bose-Einstein condensation, reflecting that the entropy of the Bose condensate is zero.

QG is grateful to Dimo I. Uzunov for his guidance and valuable discussions and to Richard A. Klemm and J. Brand for their helpful suggestions and careful reading of the manuscript. Useful discussions with Y.-J. Wang and V.P. Mineev are also acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Fine tuned vortices in lattice 𝑆𝑈(2) gluodynamics ITEP-LAT/2002-26 MPI-PhT/2002-76

## 1 Monopoles and vortices

Lattice measurements allow for a direct study of field fluctuations in the vacuum state of Yang-Mills theories. Generically, the probability to find a field configuration is a product of the entropy and action factors:

$$P=\mathrm{exp}(𝔖)\mathrm{exp}(S),$$
(1)
where $`S`$ is the action and the entropy $`\mathrm{exp}(𝔖)`$ is the number of ways in which the field configuration can be realized. Let us mention two simple examples to illustrate (1). In case of instantons, the (classical) action is $`S_{inst}=8\pi ^2/g^2`$ while the entropy is provided by counting small (quantum) fluctuations in the instanton background. Another example is the zero-point vacuum fluctuations. They are dominated by the phase space, or by the entropy.

These two examples demonstrate relevance to various fluctuations of two distinct scales, that is of the lattice spacing $`a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^1`$. The latter is in physical units and does not depend on the lattice. The lattice spacing serves as an ultraviolet cutoff. In particular the average action density $`s`$ is ultraviolet divergent,

$$s(N_c^21)a^4,$$
(2)
where $`N_c`$ is the number of colors111 From now on we will consider only the $`SU(2)`$ case, $`N_c=2`$. . The ultraviolet divergence, $`a^4`$, is due to the zero-point fluctuations and is well known in field theory. On the other hand, the quasi-classical fluctuations, like instantons, are driven to the infrared scale of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^1`$.

On the lattice, there were also observed fluctuations which are defined as geometrical objects, that is closed worldlines and closed surfaces. We mean now monopoles and center vortices, for review see, e.g., Ref. . What is common for the monopoles and vortices is that they are defined not within the original theory but within a projected theory. In case of monopoles one projects the original $`SU(2)`$ to $`U(1)`$ theory and in case of the P-vortices – to $`Z(2)`$ gauge theory. In more detail, the monopoles and P-vortices are defined as follows222 Throughout this paper we consider only the case of so called indirect maximal center gauge, see, e.g., Ref. . . First, one fixes the maximal Abelian gauge by maximizing the functional:

$$R_{Abel}=\underset{x,\mu }{}Tr[U_{x,\mu }\sigma ^3U_{x,\mu }^+\sigma ^3],$$
(3)
where $`U_{x,\mu }`$ are link matrices. Next, Abelian projection is made by replacing

$$U_{x,\mu }U_{x,\mu }^{Abel}=\zeta _{x,\mu }/|\zeta _{x,\mu }|,\zeta _{x,\mu }=Tr[(1+\sigma ^3)U_{x,\mu }].$$
(4)
Then the monopoles are defined as the topological defects in $`U_{x,\mu }^{Abel}`$ fields. By construction they form a closed world-lines on the dual lattice.

Since the functional (3) leaves the $`U(1)`$ gauge freedom unfixed one can fix the gauge further by maximizing

$$R_{center}=\underset{x,\mu }{}(\mathrm{}eU_{x,\mu }^{Abel})^2$$
(5)
with respect to $`U(1)`$ gauge rotations. Then the maximal center projection amounts to replacing

$$U_{x,\mu }^{Abel}Z_{x,\mu }=sign\mathrm{}eU_{x,\mu }^{Abel}.$$
(6)
Plaquettes constructed in a standard way from $`Z_{x,\mu }`$ have values $`\pm 1`$. Finally, P-vortices are defined as union of all the negative plaquettes and are closed surfaces on the dual lattice.

Knowing only definitions of these geometrical objects, lines and surfaces, it is not easy to figure out what kind of physics can be revealed by their studies. However, there emerged phenomenology indicating that there are some physical objects detected through the projections. “Physical” in the present context means first of all that the area, (respectively, length) of the percolating vortices (monopoles) is in physical units, see, e.g., :

$$A_{vort}=6\rho _{vort}V_4,\rho _{vort}4(fm)^2,$$
(7)
$$L_{mon}=4\rho _{mon}V_4,\rho _{mon}6(fm)^3,$$
(8)
where $`V_4=a^4L^4`$ is the volume of the lattice.

Note that at this stage we do not have yet any information on the action and entropy factors entering Eq. (1) and one is free to speculate theoretically about them. The common viewpoint is that there are objects of the size of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^1`$ behind mathematically thin lines  or vortices  defined in the projected theories. The thin geometrical objects then mark these bulky structures and their position within the “thick” fluctuations is more or less accidental. The only indirect evidence in favor of the physical objects being thin is that both monopoles and vortices generate a linear piece in the heavy quark potential even at short distances .

On the other hand, one can try to measure the action and even the entropy associated with the geometrical objects directly. Such measurements have been performed mostly for the monopoles, see , and the results can be interpreted only as fine tuning . Namely, both the action and the entropy are ultraviolet divergent333 A caveat here is that we are interpreting the measurements on the presently available lattices only and consider appearance of negative powers of the lattice spacing $`a`$ as a sign of ultraviolet divergence. The actual limit $`a0`$ can be different if the observed pattern changes at smaller $`a`$.  but cancel each other to order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$:

$$|𝔖_{mon}S_{mon}|=|(𝔰_{mon}s_{mon})|L/a\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}L,$$
(9)
where $`L`$ is the length of the monopole trajectory. Moreover the action associated with the monopoles is measured on the lattice (see Ref.  for details) and turns out to be ultraviolet divergent. The entropy factor is then easy to calculate, $`𝔰_{mon}=\mathrm{ln}7`$ and this factor corresponds to the number of trajectories of the same length $`L`$.

In this letter we extend the exploration of the anatomy of the geometrically defined fluctuations to the case of vortices. Namely, we study the action density both on the plaquettes belonging to the vortex and on the adjacent plaquettes as a function of the lattice spacing $`a`$. Our main result is that the excess of the action density on the vortex is independent on the lattice spacing if expressed in the lattice units:

$$S_{vort}S_{vac}=0.540\pm 0.004[\mathrm{lattice}\mathrm{units}],$$
(10)
where $`S_{vort}`$ is the average value of the non-Abelian action density on the plaquettes belonging to the vortex and $`S_{vac}`$ is the plaquette action averaged over the whole lattice. Note that the action excess for a particular value of $`\beta =2.4`$ was first measured in Refs.  and we agree with these results. Our main new point is the measurement of the action of the vortices as function of the lattice spacing $`a`$. We also calculate the excess of the action on the plaquettes which are nearest to the P-vortex world-sheet. It turns out that this quantity is more or less consistent with zero, see next Section.

## 2 Numerical Results

We have performed our calculations in pure $`SU(2)`$ lattice gauge theory for $`2.35\beta 2.6`$. The lattice spacing $`a`$ is fixed using the standard values  of the lattice string tension, which in physical units is $`\sqrt{\sigma }=440\mathrm{MeV}`$. At each value of $`\beta `$ we have considered 20 statistically independent configurations generated on symmetric $`L^4`$ lattices. The lattice size was $`L=16`$ at $`\beta =2.35`$, $`L=24`$ for $`\beta =2.4`$, $`2.45`$, $`2.5`$ and $`L=28`$ at $`\beta =2.55`$, $`2.6`$. The indirect maximal center gauge  was employed, and the definition of the gauge is given above.

To fix the maximal Abelian and the maximal center gauges we have used the simulated annealing algorithm . For maximal Abelian gauge 20 gauge copies of each $`SU(2)`$ field configuration were considered and the simulated annealing algorithm was applied to each copy. For $`U(1)`$ gauge fixing only the configuration which corresponds to the maximal value of the functional (3) was considered. Furthermore, only one gauge copy of the Abelian configuration was taken into account for fixing maximal center gauge, since we checked that P-vortex density varies by less than $`1\%`$ for various $`U(1)`$ gauge copies.

First, we discuss the P-vortex density, $`\rho =N_{PV}/(6L^4a^2)`$, where $`N_{PV}`$ is the number of plaquettes occupied by P-vortices. The dependence of $`\rho `$ on the lattice spacing is shown on the Fig. 1. Note that all quantities are in physical units. It is clearly seen that $`\rho `$ tends to the limit (7) as $`a0`$.

Next we consider the average action density, $`S_{PV}`$, on the plaquettes dual to those forming P-vortices (we refer to these plaquettes as ’P-vortex plaquettes’ below). It occurs that it is much larger then the average plaquette action, $`S_{vac}=\beta (1TrU_P/2)`$. The dependence of the difference $`S_{PV}S_{vac}`$ on the lattice spacing is shown on Fig. 2 by circles.

In order to probe the internal structure of the vortices we measured the average action density near P-vortex world-sheet. In more details, we have studied two types of the nearest plaquettes: the first type, ’side plaquettes’, lie in the same plane as the P-vortex plaquette and have a common link with it; the second type, ’closest plaquettes’, have a common link with the P-vortex plaquette, but are perpendicular to it. The two types of the plaquettes are depicted in Fig. 3. The corresponding excess of the action is shown on Fig. 2 by the up and down triangles.

Moreover, as first observed in , the vortices and monopoles are strongly correlated with each other for $`\beta =2.4`$. We confirm the strong correlation of the monopoles and vortices for other values of $`\beta `$. Moreover, we measure the fraction of $`S_{PV}`$ which is due to the monopoles. We define $`S_{PV}^{mon}`$ as the average action density on the P-vortex plaquettes which have a common link with a monopole trajectory. It turns out that the quantity $`S_{PV}^{mon}S_{vac}`$ (shown on Fig. 2 by squares) is even larger than $`S_{PV}S_{vac}`$ implying that indeed a large fraction of the vortex action is due to the Abelian monopoles. If we exclude the P-vortex plaquettes which touch the monopole trajectory, the corresponding average action is lower than $`S_{PV}`$ (diamonds on the Fig. 2).

## 3 Discussions

We see that at presently available lattices the vortices appear as infinitely thin objects with no sign of any internal structure444 See, however, footnote (3) for a reservation. . Our measurements allow to conclude that the vortex thickness is

$$R_{vort}0.06\mathrm{fm},$$
(11)
where $`0.06\mathrm{fm}`$ is the smallest lattice spacing used in our simulations. Note that a similar estimate of the monopole size was obtained in .

Taken at face value, the lattice data imply that we are dealing with infinitely thin (and in this sense ”fundamental”) strings which populate the vacuum. Assuming that at the ultraviolet scale the surfaces can be considered independent of the rest of the vacuum, the ultraviolet divergence of the action is to be canceled by a corresponding entropy factor:

$$|𝔖_{vort}S_{vort}|=|𝔰_{vort}s_{vort}|A/a^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2A,$$
(12)
similar to the case of the monopoles .

It is worth emphasizing that we define thickness of the vortex in terms of the distribution of the non-Abelian action. One can define the vortex thickness in terms of the flux carried by the vortex. Then the vortex seems not to be localized to the cutoff scale. The corresponding discussion can be found in Refs. .

From the theoretical point of view, interpretation of the results obtained represents a challenge. Indeed, if one introduces random surfaces on the lattice with action proportional to the area they appear unstable with respect to the decay into branched polymers (see, e.g., Ref.  for review). In other words, the model of random surfaces collapses in fact to the theory of single non-interacting scalar particle. Note that this remark applies to the random surfaces with limited genus. The genus of the percolating P-vortices, on the other hand, grows with the lattice volume. However, this growth is associated with the distances of the order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^1`$  while the instability mentioned above develops at the ultraviolet scale, that is at the scale of the lattice spacing $`a`$.

The nearest extension of the bosonic string is the inclusion of an extrinsic curvature term . Namely, adding the curvature term one can get a fine tuned surfaces. Moreover, such a model is successful as a phenomenological statistical description of strings in four dimensions555 Consideration of bosonic strings with extrinsic curvature as a model for P-vortices can be found in Ref. .  .

A key to understanding the structure of the thin vortices could be provided by the observation of the strong correlation between the vortices and monopoles (which are originally defined as independent geometrical objects). In particular, basing on the fact that the monopole-associated plaquettes are ”hotter” than the average (see Sect. 2) one is tempted to assume that the monopoles are associated with the ‘creases’ of the P-vortex world-sheet and correspond to the extrinsic curvature term in the P-vortex action.

To summarize, we have observed surfaces whose thickness is smaller than the presently available resolution, $`a`$ and whose area scales in the physical units. Moreover, the thickness is defined in terms of the original non-Abelian action. The coexistence of the two scales, that is $`a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ can be called fine tuning. A remarkable feature of the surfaces is that they are associated also with the monopole trajectories. In turn the monopoles condense and in this sense correspond to the tachyonic mode in the field-theoretical language. Therefore, we can say that there are indications that in case of the four dimensional gluodynamics the tachyonic mode is confined to a two dimensional surface.

## 4 Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to V.G. Bornyakov, G. Marchesini and E.T. Tomboulis for useful discussions. This work is partially supported by grants RFBR 02-02-17308, RFBR 01-02-117456, RFBR 00-15-96-786, INTAS-00-00111, and CRDF award RPI-2364-MO-02. A.V.K. and S.N.S. are partially supported by CRDF award MO-011-0.