text:
# IMSc/2002/12/42 Half-monopoles and half-vortices in the Yang-Mills theory

## Abstract

It is demonstrated that there are smooth Yang-Mills potentials which correspond to monopoles and vortices of one-half winding number. They are the generic configurations, in contrast to the integral winding number configurations like the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole.

Keywords: Monopole, Poincaré-Hopf index, one-half winding number
PACS numbers: 14.80.Hv, 11.15.-q, 11.15.Tk

In this letter, we demonstrate Yang-Mills field configurations of monopoles and vortices with half the usual charges. We show that these are the generic field configurations, in contrast to the integral winding number configurations such as the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole. In Refs.  and , the monopole configuration was related to the singularities of the eigenvector fields of the real symmetric matrix

$$S_{ij}(x)=B_i^a(x)B_j^a(x),$$
(1)
where $`B_i^a=ϵ_{ijk}(_jA_k^a\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{abc}A_j^bA_k^c)`$ is the $`SO(3)`$ magnetic field. Such singularities arise due to indeterminacy of the directions of the eigenvectors, and so it is crucial that the eigenvalues become degenerate at the points of singularity . The topology of the configuration can be traced to these singularities. We refer to these points of singularities as the ‘centres’ of the topological configurations. For the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole ,

$$S_{ij}=\alpha (r^2)\delta _{ij}+\beta (r^2)x_ix_j$$
(2)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are functions of the distance $`r`$ from the origin only. One of the eigenfunctions is the radial vector $`x_i`$, with unit winding number. This has indeterminate direction at the origin $`r=0`$. But there is no contradiction because $`SI`$ (the identity matrix) at the origin, and any vector is an eigenvector.

Note that the entries of the matrix $`S`$ are smooth in the co-ordinates $`x_i`$ at the origin. Singularities arise in spite of this, due to the eigenvalue equation.

The ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole has some exceptional features which are not generic. The first of these is that two eigenvalues are degenerate everywhere. Secondly, the entries of the matrix $`S`$ are quadratic in the co-ordinates. Thus, in the Taylor series expansion of $`S_{ij}(x)`$ about the origin, linear terms are missing. Both these features are a consequence of the rotational invariance of the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole. (This rotational invariance is under simultaneous and equal rotations in physical and isospin spaces.)

In this letter, we analyse the generic case, i.e., we consider $`S_{ij}(x)`$ with linear terms in the Taylor expansion about the origin. We find the novel feature of half-integral winding number configurations and obtain the interpretation of such configurations.

As we are interested in the eigenfunctions, we may appropriately subtract a multiple of the identity matrix from $`S_{ij}`$. Also an overall scale is irrelevant. We will refer to the matrix after these changes as $`T_{ij}`$.

We first illustrate the possibility and meaning of configurations with half a winding number using a $`2\times 2`$ real symmetric matrix field $`T_{ij}(x,y)`$. The paradigm is provided by the matrix

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x& y\\ y& x\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
The eigenvalues are $`\lambda _\pm =\pm r`$, where $`r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}`$. We denote the corresponding eigenfunctions by $`\zeta _i^\pm `$. The eigenfunction $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta _1^+\\ \zeta _2^+\end{array}\right)`$ has $`\zeta _1^+/\zeta _2^+=y/(rx)`$. Thus the normalised eigenfunction has the simple form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta _1^+\\ \zeta _2^+\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
in the polar co-ordinates. Here $`\theta =\mathrm{tan}^1(y/x)`$.

The occurrence of half the polar angle in (4) is significant. If we go round the origin once, the eigenvector changes the sign. It is not possible to define the vector field $`\zeta _i^+(x)`$ continuously everywhere. There is necessarily a discontinuity (change of sign) across a “branch cut” starting from the origin. The choice of this branch cut is arbitrary, except that it starts at the origin. If we consider the complex vector $`\zeta _1^++i\zeta _2^+=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta /2)`$, the phase changes by $`\pi `$ when we go around the origin once. In this sense, the winding number is half. We call this configuration a half-vortex. It can be checked that such a phase change takes place for the other eigenvector $`\zeta _i^{}(x)`$ too (Fig. 1).

We emphasise that the entries of the matrix $`T_{ij}`$ are smooth even at the origin. In spite of this, the eigenvalue equation gave a discontinuous eigenvector field.

It is easy to see that only half-integral winding number is possible in this case. The eigenvector of a real symmetric matrix is real and hence a non-degenerate eigenvector, after normalisation, is ambiguous only up to a sign. Therefore, when taken continuously around a closed path, the only possible change in the eigenvector on return to the initial point is by an overall sign. This indeed happens in the present case.

We now argue that this describes the situation in the generic case too. The most general $`2\times 2`$ real symmetric linear in the co-ordinates is

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ax+by& cx+dy\\ cx+dy& ex+fy\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
For the eigenvalue problem, we can subtract a multiple of identity matrix from $`T`$ given above. Subtracting $`\frac{1}{2}((a+e)x+(b+f)y)I`$, we get a symmetric matrix. We now choose the oblique system of co-ordinates

$$2x^{}=(ax+by)(ex+fy),y^{}=cx+dy.$$
(6)
(In the generic case these are linearly independent and a valid choice of new co-ordinates.) With this we are back to the paradigm considered in (3).

Therefore, on considering the Taylor series expansion of the entries $`T_{ij}`$ about the point of degeneracy, say $`x=0`$, $`y=0`$, it is clear that so long as the terms linear in $`x`$ and $`y`$ are present, we get the phenomenon of one-half winding number described above.

The situation will be totally different in the case where the entries are quadratic in the co-ordinates. The simplest example is the one analogous to the case of ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole:

$$T_{ij}=x_ix_j.$$
(7)
Now the eigenvectors are $`\widehat{r}`$=$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta \end{array}\right)`$ and $`\widehat{\theta }`$=$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)`$. For both of these eigenvectors, the winding number around the origin is one, and the vector fields can be defined continuously everywhere (except for the singularity at the origin).

It is interesting to consider the case where

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x^2a^2& xy\\ xy& y^2\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
Now the double degeneracy is at two points, viz. $`x_0=\pm a,y_0=0`$. Around each point the Taylor series expansion has the form

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2X& Y\\ Y& 0\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{higher}\mathrm{order}\mathrm{terms}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y}$$
(9)
where $`X=x_0(xx_0)`$ and $`Y=x_0(yy_0)`$. The leading term has precisely the form of the paradigm we considered (up to a multiple of the identity matrix). So we get half a winding number around each point of degeneracy. We may conveniently choose the line joining the two centres as the branch cut. The winding number along a curve enclosing both centres is one. Indeed, as $`a0`$, we recover from (8) the winding number one configuration considered in (7). In this limit of $`a0`$ , the pair of half winding number configurations merge together to give winding number one configuration (Fig. 2).

Let us also consider the matrix

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x^2a^2& ay\\ ay& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
This again has the same two points of degeneracy as the matrix in (8). However, in the present case the winding numbers are $`\pm 1/2`$ respectively. (The configuration around $`(a,0)`$ is related to our paradigm in (9) by reflection about the $`X`$-axis: $`YY`$. So it has the winding number $`1/2`$.) In the limit $`a0`$, the eigenvectors are now $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$, and each of them has a vanishing winding number.

We have considered $`2\times 2`$ matrices though the $`S_{ij}`$ relevant for the Yang-Mills theory are $`3\times 3`$ matrices. We regard the matrix in (3) as a block of the $`3\times 3`$ matrix

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}x& y& 0\\ y& x& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(11)
Then the interpretation is that we have a vortex with one-half winding number centred on the $`z`$-axis and extending indefinitely along it. To justify this interpretation, we have to exhibit an Yang-Mills potential which will give rise to $`T_{ij}`$ as considered in (11). It has been shown in Ref.  that in the generic situation where the $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`B_i^a`$ is invertible and smooth, there exists a smooth $`A_i^a`$ which will reproduce such a $`B_i^a`$. So for the case here, $`A_i^a`$ can be constructed as a Taylor series expansion about the origin. We will present such a series for a different example below. We will also discuss the finiteness of energy (per unit length) there.

We now show that monopoles of one-half winding number also occur. The paradigm in this case is provided by the $`3\times 3`$ real symmetric matrix

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& x\\ 0& 0& y\\ x& y& 2z\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
Here the eigenvalues are $`\lambda _\pm =r(\mathrm{cos}\theta 1)`$ and $`\lambda _0=0`$. In the spherical co-ordinates, the corresponding eigenfunctions are

$$\zeta ^+=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ \mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\end{array}\right),\zeta ^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\end{array}\right),\zeta ^0=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(13)
Comparing $`\zeta _i^\pm `$ with the radial vector and with the normalised Higgs in the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole, viz. $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, we notice that essentially the angle $`\theta `$ is replaced by $`\theta /2`$. This leads to one-half winding number in the present case. This phenomenon is illustrated for $`\zeta _i^+`$ in Fig. 3. In effect, the configuration in the upper half of the sphere for winding number one is mapped onto the entire sphere to give one-half winding number. We refer to such a configuration as a half-monopole. Note that the vector field $`\zeta _i^+`$ is singular (indeterminate in direction) all along the positive $`z`$-axis. This is possible because $`T_{ij}`$ has a double degeneracy there. This has the interpretation of a vortex (of winding number one) along the positive $`z`$-axis terminating at the origin and giving rise to a monopole. Because of this vortex, the vector field is not continuous on the sphere, and therefore one-half winding number is possible. If the vector field were smooth on the sphere, the winding number would have been only integral.

In an analogous way, $`\zeta _i^{}`$ corresponds to a vortex of unit winding number along the negative $`z`$-axis, terminating at the origin. Finally $`\zeta _i^0`$ is again a vortex of winding number one extending indefinitely along the $`z`$-direction.

That the monopole centre (point of triple degeneracy) is a terminating point of vortex centre (line of double degeneracy) is a generic situation. In fact, the generic situation is as follows. The configuration $`\zeta _i^A`$, for each $`A`$, will have double degeneracy along two lines terminating at the centre. Each such line will be the centre of a vortex of winding number half. This will be elaborated elsewhere. It may also be noted that for the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole, which is not generic due to rotational invariance, we have double degeneracy everywhere.

If we formally compute the Poincaré-Hopf index of the vector field $`\zeta _i^+`$, we get it to be $`1/2`$. The index for $`\zeta _i^A`$ is given by $`M=_S𝑑S^ik_i^A`$, where the integration is over a surface $`S`$ enclosing the centre and $`k_i^A`$ is the Poincaré-Hopf current

$$k_i^A=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{lmn}\zeta _l^A_j\zeta _m^A_k\zeta _n^A\text{(no sum over }A\text{)}.$$
(14)
We have in the present case (see Eq. (13))

$$k_i^+=\widehat{x}_i\frac{1}{4r^2}\mathrm{cosec}\frac{\theta }{2}.$$
(15)
The vector field $`\zeta _i^+`$ is not smooth at the north pole of the sphere. Therefore, the definition of the index $`M`$ is only formal. Nevertheless, this singularity is of zero measure in the integration over $`S`$ and we get the winding number to be $`1/2`$. Note that the “magnetic field” $`k_i^+`$ of this half-monopole is not spherically symmetric, in contrast to the case of the Dirac monopole. It has only an axial symmetry.

In Ref. , it was shown that the Poincaré-Hopf current for the eigenvector $`\zeta _i^A`$ can be expressed as the curl of an Abelian vector potential $`\omega _i^A`$:

$$k_i^A=ϵ_{ijk}_j\omega _k^A\text{Dirac string contributions},$$
(16)
where

$$\omega _i^A=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ABC}\zeta _j^B_i\zeta _j^C.$$
(17)
Here the indices $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$, having the values 1,2 and 3, label the three eigenvectors. The Abelian vector potential corresponding to $`\zeta _i^+`$ is

$$w_i^+=\widehat{\varphi }_i\frac{1}{2r}\mathrm{sec}\frac{\theta }{2}.$$
(18)
This potential has the Dirac string along the negative $`z`$-axis. This Dirac string is unphysical, in the sense that it does not contribute to the “magnetic field” $`k_i^A`$ (see Eq. (16)). In contrast, the vortex line along the positive $`z`$-axis is physical, and, because of it, the monopole does not have spherical symmetry.

Similarly, we get the Poincaré-Hopf index for $`\zeta _i^{}`$ as $`1/2`$. In the case of $`\zeta _i^0`$, notice that it spans a two-dimensional vector space as we vary $`\varphi `$. Therefore the index computed over $`S`$ will be zero (three-dimensional winding number is zero). On the other hand, it makes sense to calculate the index over a two-dimensional surface. For any such surface not containing the $`z`$-axis, we get winding number one.

We now present the Taylor series expansion of $`A_i^a`$ about the origin which leads to $`T_{ij}`$ considered in (12). Consider first the matrix $`(B)_{ia}=B_i^a`$. In the symmetric gauge $`(B)_{ia}=(B)_{ai}`$ , we have $`(B^2)_{ij}=S_{ij}`$, so that, for the case given in (12),

$`B=I+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& x\\ 0& 0& y\\ x& y& 2z\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{}.`$ (22)
Here the ellipsis indicates terms of higher order in the coordinates. The most general Taylor expansion of $`A_i^a`$ about the origin is:

$`A_i^a=a_{ai}+b_{aij}x_j+c_{aijk}x_jx_k+\mathrm{}.`$ (23)
To obtain $`B_i^a`$ as given in (22), it suffices to take

$`a_{ai}=0,b_{aij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{aij},`$ (24)
$`c_{aijk}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ϵ_{ijp}M_{pk}^a+ϵ_{ikp}M_{pj}^a),`$ (25)
where

$`M_{31}^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}},M_{32}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}},M_{33}^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (26)
and all other $`M_{ij}^a`$ are zero. Thus our solution for the gauge field is

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}xy/3& zy^2/3& y+yz\\ z+x^2/3& xy/3& xxz\\ y& x& 0\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{},`$ (30)
where $`(A)_{ia}=A_i^a`$.

We now address the question of finiteness of the energy of the half-monopole, given by $`E=d^3xS_{ii}/2`$. As $`S_{ij}`$ can be expanded in Taylor series about the origin, the energy is finite in the ultraviolet. Also the infrared finiteness of the energy resides in the scale factors of $`S_{ij}`$, such as $`\alpha (r^2)`$ and $`\beta (r^2)`$ in Eq. (2), and these can be chosen appropriately to get a finite energy. Note that the one-half winding number is due to the tensorial structure of $`S_{ij}`$, the eigenvectors $`\zeta _i^A`$ being unaffected by the scale factors.

In both two and three dimensions, we have seen that the phenomenon of one-half winding number is due to the generic linear terms in the Taylor expansion of $`S_{ij}`$. Nevertheless, there are crucial differences in the origin of this phenomenon in the two cases. In two dimensions, the ambiguity in the sign of the eigenvector was the underlying reason. The line of discontinuity (the “branch cut”) was arbitrary, except for the starting point. In three dimensions, lines of double degeneracy terminating at the centre of the monopole were necessary to give the necessary discontinuity in the form of a vortex. But these lines of double degeneracy are rigid, in contrast to the branch cuts in two dimensions.

To conclude, we have pointed out in this letter that vortex and monopole configurations of one-half winding number are present in the Yang-Mills theory. They arise from smooth Yang-Mills potentials, and are indeed the generic configurations in contrast to the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole.

Note added in proof. Some of the works which discuss vortices of half-integer winding number in other contexts are given in Ref. .


format: text

text:
# An exploding glass ?

## I Introduction

The onset of dynamic self-similarity, i.e., the emergence of solutions that blow-up (or decay) with appropriate scaling laws, has been a very widely studied topic (see e.g.,  and references therein). Focusing has been extensively examined through a dynamic renormalization framework. The key idea lies in appropriately dynamically rescaling space, time and the amplitude of the solution , so that self-similar blowup solutions appear as steady states of the renormalized equation. A benchmark model for blowup is the nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equation , with which a large number of studies have been concerned .

In a recent study  we revisited NLS focusing using a template-based, dynamic renormalization approach motivated by the template-based symmetry reduction of . Our procedure can be generally applied in equations that (may) possess solutions with dynamic self-similarity. Alternative such examples can be found in  and in the more systematic study of . While essentially equivalent to other dynamic renormalization techniques, this approach provided a natural setting for studying the parametric onset of dynamic self-similarity as a steady state bifurcation problem for a PDAE: a PDE (in the “co-exploding” frame) coupled with an algebraic constraint. The latter imposes the instantaneous rescaling rate by comparing the evolving solution with rescaled versions of an (essentially arbitrary) template function. At steady state of the PDAE, one recovers the self-similar shape as well as the asymptotic “explosion rate” $`G`$. One also recovers -as with any correct dynamic renormalization approach- the scaling rates for time, space, and for various observables of the system as a function of (original or rescaled) time: the self-similarity exponents. The method can be applied to both types of self-similar solutions ; it was used in  to locate both the Barenblatt and the Graveleau solutions of the nonlinear diffusion equation.

The interesting twist is that, in this rescaled setting, the appearance of solutions that blow up (in the NLS setting, in finite time) becomes a steady state bifurcation problem: the bifurcation from branches of solutions with $`G=0`$ to branches with nonzero $`G`$. The nature of this bifurcation was computationally explored in , complementing earlier analytical and numerical studies . A good analogy to this setting could be given by the bifurcation, from a ring of stationary solutions, of nonzero-speed rotating waves in a pattern formation probem with O(2) symmetry .

The purpose of this note it to propose, at a phenomenological level, a connection between focusing dynamics of NLS close to criticality, on the one hand, and the onset of macroscopic glassy dynamics on the other. Our particular “glassy example” is a thought experiment involving hard-sphere jamming: it arises from modeling the continuing insertion of hard spheres in a fluid of such spheres. We will show that this non-parametric example exhibits dynamics consistent with critical blowup (i.e., with the dynamics exactly at the onset of self-similarity) in NLS. We will then go one step further in this phenomenological analogy, and consider the case of a distinguished parameter. We will speculate about the “explosion-slowdown” connection beyond criticality, motivated by a “normal form” for the parametric dependence of the NLS explosion rate. Beyond criticality, NLS solution observables explode at finite time; one might conversely think for glasses that time “blows up” at finite values of the system observables. We will conclude by a brief discussion, and outline computational experiments that might confirm or disprove the proposed analogy.

## II A Critical Example: the Sphere Jamming Problem

As a paradigm of glassy behavior, we examine the evolution of the density of a fluid of hard spheres in the neighborhood of the close packing limit.

We are interested in the insertion probability of an additional sphere in a fluid of hard spheres: its “materialization” is “accepted” if the new sphere does not overlap with any of the previously existing ones in the fluid.

For the hard sphere system we will consider that our thought experiment proceeds at constant volume, and the pressure increases, presumably diverging in the limit of random close packing .

Let us define the “density” (i.e., volume fraction), $`\eta `$ as

$$\eta =\frac{N}{V}\frac{\pi \sigma ^3}{6}$$
(1)
Here $`N`$ is the number of spheres, each of diameter $`\sigma `$ and $`V`$ is the volume of the box. This system undergoes a crystallization transition at $`\eta _m`$0.495 . The equation of state changes when one crosses this density, even though we shall be dealing with fluid phases at all times. The thermodynamics of these systems are governed by the radial distribution function at contact, i.e., $`g(\sigma ^+)`$. For $`\eta \eta _m`$ an excellent approximation is,

$$g(\sigma ^+)=\frac{(1\eta /2)}{(1\eta )^3}$$
(2)
This is known as the Carnahan-Starling approximation . For $`\eta >\eta _m`$, Torquato  has proposed the following approximation,

$$g(\sigma ^+)=g_m(\sigma ^+)\frac{(\eta _c\eta _m)}{(\eta _c\eta )}$$
(3)
where $`\eta _c`$ is the random close packed density, the ultimate limit for hard spheres, and $`g_m(\sigma ^+)`$ is the contact value of the radial distribution function at $`\eta _m`$. We now use that

$$A(V)A(V=\mathrm{})=_{\mathrm{}}^VP𝑑V$$
(4)
where $`A`$ is the Helmholtz energy, $`P`$ the pressure, and $`V`$ the volume, and further use the identity

$$\frac{PV}{Nk_BT}=1+4\eta g(\sigma ^+).$$
(5)
The probability $`p_{ins}`$ for particle insertion (i.e., taking a system of N particles in volume V and adding one more particle to it) is then computed through

$$\mathrm{ln}p_{ins}=A_{\mathrm{ex}}(N+1)A_{\mathrm{ex}}(N),$$
(6)
where $`A_{\mathrm{ex}}(N)=A(N)A_{ID}(N)`$, and $`A_{ID}(N)`$ is the Helmholtz energy of an ideal gas system with $`N`$ particles in volume $`V`$.

Here we begin to perform a thought experiment: we attempt to add speres to the fluid at a constant attempt rate. If this attempt rate is slow compared to the relaxation of the fluid after each new addition, we can exploit thermodynamic considerations (the insertion probability based on the equilibrium radial distribution function) to extract a form of dynamics. A “kinetic” evolution of the density of spheres, based in part on our arbitrary (but slow) attempt rate, and in part on the equilibrated (for each density) radial distribution function, would then arise, in the form of the ordinary differential equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta }{dt}}\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\eta (89\eta +3\eta ^2)}{(1\eta )^3}\right]\hfill & \eta 0.495,\hfill \\ \mathrm{exp}\left[16.543+3.576\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{0.644\eta }{0.6440.495}\right)3.576\left(\frac{\eta }{0.644\eta }\frac{0.495}{0.6440.495}\right)\right]\hfill & 0.495\eta 0.644,\hfill \end{array}`$ (9)
The right hand side in Eq. (9) represents essentially the probability of insertion of an additional sphere in the fluid of spheres. This relation is meant as an equation with a non-dimensional time (rescaled by the “sphere materialization attempt rate”, $`\dot{N}\pi \sigma ^3/(6V)`$ \[attempts/sec\]). We repeat that these attempts are executed quasistatically, so that equilibrium ideas can be used to evaluate $`p_{ins}`$.

We examine briefly the transient behavior induced by the top line of Eq. (9). The function of the exponent $`f=\eta (89\eta +3\eta ^2)/(1\eta )^3`$ can be well-approximated by the Taylor series $`f8\eta +15\eta ^2+24\eta ^3+35\eta ^4+O(\eta ^5)`$, while the $`\mathrm{exp}(f)`$ is practically indistinguishable (in the range of values of interest) from $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha \eta \beta \eta ^2)`$, with $`\alpha =8`$ and $`\beta =15`$. Hence a very accurate approximate solution is given by

$`\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +2\sqrt{\beta }\mathrm{Erfi}^1\left[\frac{2\sqrt{\beta }(t+C)\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\alpha ^2}{4\beta })}{\sqrt{\pi }}\right]}{2\beta }},`$ (10)
where $`C`$ is an appropriate constant chosen by the initial condition $`\eta (t=0)`$. Notice that already in this transient dynamics the exponential (asymptotic) behavior of the imaginary error function Erfi ($`\mathrm{Erfi}(z)\mathrm{exp}(z^2)/z`$, for large z), already preludes the logarithmic slowdown as higher densities are approached.

We now turn to the case of approach to the maximal concentration of 0.644, described by the bottom panel of Eq. (9). The latter equation can be cast in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta _r}{d\tau }}=\eta _r^{a_s}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{C_s}{\eta _r}}\right],`$ (11)
where $`\eta _r=6.711(0.644\eta )`$ is a rescaled measure of the density (in fact of its “distance” from the maximal density); $`\tau =2.263t`$ is a rescaled time. The constants of the equation are $`a_s=3.576`$, and $`C_s=15.456`$.

One can straightforwardly identify Eq. (11) with the normal form equation at criticality of a relevant observable (the blowup rate) of the NLS equation which we will now discuss. In the following section, motivated by this analogy, we proceed to give the relevant background, examining in more detail the dynamics of focusing in the NLS setting.

## III NLS Background: the Focusing Transition

As mentioned above, the nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equation  is a famous example of an envelope equation that exhibits a transition from regular to self-similarly blowing up solutions. In the NLS

$`iu_t=u_{xx}|u|^{2\sigma }u,`$ (12)
focusing phenomena (e.g., finite time blowup) are known to occur as the parameters (more specifically in the case of Eq. (12), the power $`\sigma `$ of the nonlinearity) are varied. Here $`u`$ is a complex envelope field (e.g., a slow modulation of the electric field of light) , while the subscripts denote partial derivatives. Notice that the one dimensional version of the equation (in space) has been used, but the problem can also be considered in $`d`$-dimensions (where the second spatial derivative is exchanged with the Laplacian). It is then found  that while solitary wave solutions exist for all values of $`\sigma `$ in Eq. (12), for $`\sigma \sigma _c2`$ (and in general for $`d\sigma 2`$), such solutions are unstable towards blowup (collapse). In the latter case, the amplitude of the solution becomes infinite (in finite time), while the “width” of the solution shrinks to 0. The two processes occur in a self-similar fashion (and with rates that are proportional to each other). These singular solutions are of the form:

$`u(x,t)=L^{1/\sigma }e^{i\tau }v(\xi ,\tau ),`$ (13)
where $`\xi =x/L(t)`$ is the rescaled spatial variable and $`\tau `$ given by $`\tau _t=1/L^2`$ is the rescaled time. $`L(t)=2G(t^{}t)^{1/2}`$ is the stretching length, and $`L_\tau /L=G`$ is the blowup rate. $`t^{}`$ is the (finite) time at which blowup occurs. These solutions can be systematically analyzed from a dynamic renormalization point of view , in which they appear as (stable) steady states. Using the scaling of Eq. (13) or through the systematic procedure of deriving it , one obtains the renormalized PDE

$`iv_\tau =v_{\xi \xi }|v|^{2\sigma }viG(\tau )({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma }}v+\xi v_\xi ).`$ (14)
An appropriate algebraic constraint is given by

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}Re(v(\xi ,\tau ))T(\xi )𝑑\xi =C,`$ (15)
where $`C`$ is an essentially arbitrary constant and $`T(\xi )`$ is an arbitrary “template” function; this provides the algebraic equation that determines the instantaneous explosion rate $`G(\tau )`$. Other appropriate formulations of this algebraic constraint (e.g., the minimization of the distance of the evolving solution from scaled versions of the template) are equally acceptable and yield the right steady state. Essentially $`G`$ plays the role of a Lagrange multiplier that enforces the conservation of the overlap integral of Eq. (15), according to:

$`G={\displaystyle \frac{L_\tau }{L}}={\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left[W_{\xi \xi }+(U^2+W^2)^\sigma WW\right]T(\xi )𝑑\xi }{\frac{C}{\sigma }+_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\xi U_\xi T(\xi )𝑑\xi }}.`$ (16)
$`U`$ represents the real and $`W`$ the imaginary part of the solution $`v`$ of Eq. (14). Then, the bifurcation of the focusing branch (with $`G0`$) of solutions from the (unstable for $`\sigma >2`$) solitary wave one (with $`G=0`$) occurs as a supercritical Hopf-like bifurcation in a new type (mixed Hamiltonian- dissipative; see e.g., ) of dynamical system. In the relevant bifurcation diagram shown in Fig. 1, the appearance of the new (focusing) branch occurs, as the parameter $`\sigma `$ is varied, with an exponentially small dependence according to

$`ϵG^{ss}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{C}{G^{ss}}}),`$ (17)
where $`ϵ=(\sigma 2)/\sigma `$ and the superscript “ss” serves to denote that this equation yields the steady state value of $`G`$ (i.e., the parameter-dependent, asymptotic blowup rate). We can think of G as an observable of the transient solution of the PDAE set of Eqs. (14)-(16); it is the rate by which the width of the solution must be scaled (and proportional to the rate by which the amplitude of the solution must be scaled), so that the solution appears as steady. We will return later to the parametric dependence of the asymptotic blowup rate as a function of the parameter $`ϵ`$, and even the dynamical approach of $`G`$ to its steady state value in transient simulations.

We will now concentrate on the critical case $`\sigma =2`$, where the asymptotic $`G`$ is zero; indeed, at criticality, all the (appropriately) rescaled forms of the soliton are standing wave solutions of the NLS; hence, the soliton is neutral to scale perturbations. In this critical case, it is known from earlier work  that there is no solution with $`G0`$; if one starts close to (but not exactly on) a solution with $`G=0`$, the evolution of $`G`$ will follow the normal form dynamics  of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dG}{d\tau }}=G^a\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C}{G}}\right),`$ (18)
where $`a=1`$, and $`C3.1`$.

The steady state branch results in  and the dynamic results for the critical case normal form of Eq. (18) can be unified  in a single “normal form” equation containing the salient features of the onset of dynamic self-similarity for the NLS: namely

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dG}{d\tau }}ϵG^a\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C}{G}}\right).`$ (19)
This equation encapsulates the slow (logarithmic) approach to $`G=0`$ for the critical case of $`\sigma =2(ϵ=0)`$. Setting $`dG/d\tau =0`$ at supercritical $`\sigma `$, the equation will give the correct stable blowup solution. As a dynamic equation with an equal sign, for $`\sigma >2`$ it will predict the “relaxation” (in fact, reshaping) of the now unstable soliton into the stable blowup solution, and the subsequent asymptotic evolution of the latter towards infinite amplitude. The details of this normal form for the onset of dynamic self-similarity will be presented elsewhere . We now turn to the connections of this normal form at criticality with our particular glassy example.

## IV From Focusing to Jamming: Drawing Analogies

It is interesting to draw the parallels between Eq. (11) and Eq. (18), and between the two cases more generally. In our example of glassy behavior (the sphere problem), there is no free parameter. Hence, it is natural to expect that this example is exactly on the threshold (critical point) for the onset of glassy behavior (i.e., at “$`T=T_g`$”, or equivalently at $`\sigma =2`$). Naturally then one expects that the concentration approaches the close packing limit, but with a logarithmic (“glassy”) slowdown. The system “arrives” at such a limiting density in infinite time (i.e., the time explodes at finite density) but only at an extremely slow rate, as is the case for the weak collapse of NLS in the critical setting of $`\sigma =2`$.

Should a natural parameter be inserted in the system, we would expect that its behavior would exhibit a transition to dynamically self-similar “glassiness” as a critical parameter value is crossed. We expect that the more general NLS “normal form” dynamics could account for the glass transition as such a bifurcation: another onset of dynamic self-similarity. This time, however, instead of explosive acceleration, a progressive slowdown of the solution observables/rates is expected.

Notice that one can further deduce, using appropriate integral asymptotic expansions , the asymptotics of the approach to the maximal density of 0.644. Using the transformations $`\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }=1.156\times 10^3\tau `$ and $`\eta _r\stackrel{~}{\eta }=15.646/\eta _r`$, one obtains the asymptotic expression for the time dependence of the density

$`\stackrel{~}{\eta }\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{\tau }\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0)\left[11.576{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{\tau }\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0)\right)}{\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{\tau }\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0)}}\right].`$ (20)
A very long time evolution (for times of $`O(10^6)`$) of the ODE of Eq. (9) is shown in Fig. 2, verifying the prediction for logarithmic slowdown as the close packing density is approached. One might argue that, what is referred to as “the colloidal glass transition” occurs when the observed rate becomes, say, twelve orders of magnitude slower than the initial rate. Using this argument, one would “declare” a colloidal glass transition from this diagram at a density of $`\eta 0.566`$, within the accepted range of $`0.560.58`$ . Notice, however, that in experimental studies of the colloidal glass transition, the particles are moving even for higher concentrations, and they only freeze (and the viscosity diverges) at a density of 0.644 .

Finally, we also mention in passing that using the results of , one can infer the leading order spatial and temporal dependence of the conditional pair distribution function. Its amplitude will grow as $`1/(\eta _c\eta )`$ i.e., logarithmically in time, while it will decay to leading order as $`1/r`$ in space (for large $`r`$). We will examine in more detail the spatial dependence of properties of the glass transition in a future publication.

## V Discussion

The description of the glassy state has been a puzzling problem for theorists for many decades . On the one hand, the transition to this state does not possess as clean-cut characteristics as other phase transitions ; on the other hand, however, it is clear that vitrification induces a significant change in the properties of a material. Furthermore, often but not always a critical (glass transition) temperature, $`T_g`$, can be identified .

For these reasons, the glass transition is often considered/studied as a dynamical transition. The relevant prism that is at present widely used  is that of mode coupling theory  that views the formation of the glass as a transition from ergodic to non-ergodic behavior in which structural arrest renders whole regions of phase space unavailable for microscopic configurations. In this framework, a macroscopic correlation function (in fact, the Fourier transform of the density-density correlation function) is the central object of study, and linear (or nonlinear) ordinary differential equations with delay are written for its time evolution. The existence of memory kernels in the time evolution results in the evolution towards a different “steady state” for long time asymptotics in the glassy state than in the liquid case. This dynamical transition is identified as the glass transition .

Motivated by the previous sections, we posit an alternative viewpoint on this transition. We showed an analogy between the logarithmic dynamics of the NLS at criticality, and the logarithmic behavior of the density in the sphere jamming problem. Based on this analogy, we argue that the non-parametric sphere-jamming problem is “critical” in its glassy dynamics. An important link in our analogy is the use (in our thought experiment) of “thermodynamic information” (an equilibrated radial distribution function) with a kinetic concept (a constant sphere addition attempt rate) to predict “glassy” dynamics. We conjecture that, when an equation corresponding to Eq. (19) becomes available, containing a distinguished parameter, dynamics analogous to the supercritical focusing NLS will emerge. While for NLS the rates of change of some observables accelerate with time (and the corresponding observables “explode” to infinity), for glasses the analogous rates will decelerate with time. When observables like density approach a finite value, the inverse of the distance of the observable from its limiting value again approaches infinity (see Eq. (20)); zeros and infinities in the two cases appear to be a matter of choice of observables.

Typical dynamic codimension-one bifurcations result in branches that are power-laws in the bifurcation parameter (see e.g., ). In contrast, in the NLS case, the onset of dynamic self-similarity is an exponentially small effect. We expect a similar structure in the “onset of glassiness” as a function of the distance from the corresponding critical point. One can contrast the explosion of the NLS amplitude as a function of time, to “time explosion” for the glassy case as a function of an observable such as density.

Even though qualitative, and of purely macroscopic nature, the conjecture carries a number of attractive features as an alternative viewpoint on the glass transition. A natural next step would involve the examination of the sphere model in the presence of an external tunable free parameter. Models of glassy dynamics possessing a distinguished parameter might also provide supporting evidence . In  we computationally converged on self-similar solutions through either integration or bifurcation analysis of the dynamically renormalized equation. It is possible to extend this procedure to operate on a microscopic (e.g. molecular dynamics) simulator of a process, when we believe that macroscopic equations of the type of Eqs. (14)-(16) exist, but are not available in closed form (e.g. see ). In our case we were fortunate to have a single closed equation in terms of a single observable (the density); in more complicated systems the “coarse dynamics” approach can be used to search for self-similar dynamics in the evolution of several moments of an evolving particle distribution without ever writing these equations in closed form. It is conceivable that a distributed macroscopic observable (like the density-density correlation function) can be used as the object for which self-similar dynamics in space as well as in time will be sought. Another interesting direction would be to explore possible analogies between multiple interacting blowup spots in the focusing/NLS setting and the effect of heterogeneities in glassy dynamics of extended systems. Finally, it would also be relevant to examine how this view of the glass transition could be related to the explosion-collapse duality arising in some focusing problems such as Bose-Einstein condensation .

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by AFOSR and NSF/ITR (I.G.K.), as well as NSF (DMS-0204585), the Clay Mathematics Institute and the University of Massachusetts (P.G.K.). We are grateful to P. Chaikin, W.B. Russel and especially P.G. Debenedetti for discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The recent developments in the analysis of chiral symmetry in lattice theory is based on the so-called Ginsparg-Wilson relation. Neuberger found an explicit construction of lattice fermion operator (the overlap operator), which was later shown to satisfy the Ginsparg-Wilson relation. This operator was then shown to satisfy an index theorem on the lattice under certain conditions. This index relation was used by Lüscher to derive the chiral anomaly as a Jacobian factor just as in continuum theory. These topological properties were later examined in further detail. See Refs. for reviews of these developments.

To be more specific, we here work on the Ginsparg-Wilson relation defined by

$`\gamma _5(\gamma _5D)+(\gamma _5D)\gamma _5=2a^{2k+1}(\gamma _5D)^{2k+2}`$ (1)
where $`D`$ is the lattice Dirac operator and $`k`$ stands for a non-negative integer; $`k=0`$ corresponds to the ordinary Ginsparg-Wilson relation.

We deal with a hermitian lattice operator

$`H=a\gamma _5D=H^{}=aD^{}\gamma _5`$ (2)
and the above algebra is written as

$`\gamma _5H+H\gamma _5=2H^{2k+2}`$ (3)
where $`k=0`$ corresponds to conventional Ginsparg-Wilson relation. We also assume that the operator $`H`$ is local in the sense that it is analytic in the entire Brillouin zone and free of species doublers, which is in fact shown for the free operator without gauge field. One can then confirm the relation

$`\gamma _5H^2=H^2\gamma _5.`$ (4)
The defining algebra is written in various ways such as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5H+H\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=0,`$
$`\gamma _5H+H\widehat{\gamma }_5=0,`$
$`\widehat{\gamma }_5^2=1`$ (5)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=\gamma _5H^{2k+1},`$
$`\widehat{\gamma }_5=\gamma _52H^{2k+1}.`$ (6)
We can also show

$`(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)\widehat{\gamma }_5`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _5(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5).`$ (7)
We now examine the action defined by

$`S={\displaystyle d^4x\overline{\psi }D\psi }{\displaystyle \underset{x,y}{}}\overline{\psi }(x)D(x,y)\psi (y)`$ (8)
which is invariant under

$`\delta \psi =iϵ\widehat{\gamma }_5\psi ,\delta \overline{\psi }=\overline{\psi }iϵ\gamma _5.`$ (9)
If one considers the field re-definition

$`\psi ^{}=\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\psi ,\overline{\psi }^{}=\overline{\psi }`$ (10)
the above action is written as

$`S={\displaystyle d^4x\overline{\psi }^{}D\frac{1}{\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}\psi ^{}}`$ (11)
which is invariant under naive chiral transformation

$`\delta \psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ\gamma _5\psi ^{},`$
$`\delta \overline{\psi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }^{}iϵ\gamma _5.`$ (12)
This chiral symmetry implies the relation

$`\{\gamma _5,D{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}}\}=0.`$ (13)
This naive chiral symmetry of the species doubler-free operator suggests the non-analytic behavior of the factor $`1/(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)`$ in the Brillouin zone. In fact, one can confirm that

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_5^2=1H^{4k+2}=0`$ (14)
has solutions at the momentum variables corresponding to would-be species doublers, in the case of free operator without the gauge field, and also in the presence of topologically non-trivial gauge field. See also Ref..

We next recall the charge conjugation properties

$`C\gamma ^\mu C^1=(\gamma ^\mu )^T,C\gamma _5C^1=\gamma _5^T,`$
$`C^{}C=1,C^T=C.`$ (15)
We then have111We define the CP operation by $`W=C\gamma _0=\gamma _2`$ with hermitian $`\gamma _2`$ and the CP transformed gauge field by $`U^{\mathrm{CP}}`$, and then $`WD(U^{\mathrm{CP}})W^1=D(U)^T`$. If the parity is realized in the standard way, we have $`CD(U^\mathrm{C})C^1=D(U)^T`$.

$`WD(U^{\mathrm{CP}})W^1=D(U)^T,W\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5(U^{\mathrm{CP}})W^1=[\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5(U)]^T,`$
$`WH(U^{\mathrm{CP}})W^1=[\gamma _5H(U)\gamma _5]^T,WH^2(U^{\mathrm{CP}})W^1=[H^2(U)]^T,`$
$`W\mathrm{\Gamma }_5(U^{\mathrm{CP}})W^1=[\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5(U)\gamma _5]^T,`$
$`W(\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma })(U^{\mathrm{CP}})W^1=[(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma })(U)]^T`$ (16)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_5^2}=\sqrt{(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5)^2}=\sqrt{1H^{4k+2}}.$$
(17)
Here we imposed the relation $`WD(U^{\mathrm{CP}})W^1=D(U)^T`$ or $`[CD(U)]^T=CD(U^\mathrm{C})`$ which is consistent with the defining Ginsparg-Wilson relation.

We also have the property

$`W\widehat{\gamma }_5(U^{\mathrm{CP}})W^1=\left[\gamma _5\widehat{\gamma }_5(U)\gamma _5\right]^T.`$ (18)
## 2 CP symmetry in lattice chiral gauge theory

We now examine the CP symmetry in chiral gauge theory

$$_L=\overline{\psi }_LD\psi _L$$
(19)
where we defined the (general) projection operators

$`D=\overline{P}_LDP_L+\overline{P}_RDP_R,`$
$`\psi _{L,R}=P_{L,R}\psi ,\overline{\psi }_{L,R}=\overline{\psi }\overline{P}_{L,R}.`$ (20)
It was pointed out by Hasenfratz that the conventional Ginsparg-Wilson operator when applied to chiral gauge theory has a difficulty with CP symmetry. We would like to examine this issue in more detail. Under the standard CP transformation222The vector-like theory is invariant under this CP transformation.

$`\overline{\psi }\psi ^TW,`$
$`\psi W^1\overline{\psi }^T`$ (21)
the chiral action is invariant only if

$`WP_LW^1=\overline{P}_L^T,W\overline{P}_LW^1=P_L^T.`$ (22)
It was shown in Ref.  that the unique solution for this condition in the framework of the Ginsparg-Wilson operators is given by

$`P_{L,R}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma }),`$
$`\overline{P}_{L,R}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm \gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma }),`$ (23)
but these projection operators suffer from singularities in $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as we have already noted. Namely, it is impossible to maintain the manifest CP invariance of the local and chiral symmetric doubler-free Lagrangian .

If one stays in the well-defined local Lagrangian

$$_L=\overline{\psi }P_+D\widehat{P}_{}\psi $$
(24)
where

$`P_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm \gamma _5),`$
$`\widehat{P}_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm \widehat{\gamma }_5)`$ (25)
it is not invariant under the standard CP transformation as

$`WP_\pm W^1=P_{}^T\widehat{P}_{}^T(U),`$
$`W\widehat{P}_\pm (U^{\mathrm{CP}})W^1={\displaystyle \frac{1\left[\gamma _5\widehat{\gamma }_5(U)\gamma _5\right]^T}{2}}=\left[\gamma _5\widehat{P}_{}(U)\gamma _5\right]^TP_{}^T,`$
$`\left[WP_+D(U^{\mathrm{CP}})\widehat{P}_{}(U^{\mathrm{CP}})W^1\right]^T=\gamma _5\widehat{P}_+(U)\gamma _5D(U)P_{}`$
$`=P_+D(U)\widehat{P}_{}(U)D(U)[\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5(U)]P_+D\widehat{P}_{}.`$ (26)
This generalizes the analysis of Hasenfratz in a more general setting333This analysis is extended to a more general class of operators defined by $`\gamma _5H+H\gamma _5=2H^2f(H^2)`$, where $`f(H^2)`$ is a regular and monotonous non-decreasing function . .

## 3  Majorana fermion

We next want to show that the general class of Ginsparg-Wilson operators have a difficulty to define Majorana fermions in the presence of chiral symmetric Yukawa couplings. We start with

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_RD\psi _R+\overline{\psi }_LD\psi _L+m[\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L+\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R]`$ (27)
$`+2g[\overline{\psi }_L\varphi \psi _R+\overline{\psi }_R\varphi ^{}\psi _L]`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }D\psi +m\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\psi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\psi }[A+(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma })A(\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma })+i(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma })B+iB(\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma })]\psi `$
where

$$\psi _{L,R}=P_{L,R}\psi ,\overline{\psi }_{L,R}=\overline{\psi }\overline{P}_{L,R}$$
(28)
with the projection operators in (23), and we used $`\varphi =(A+iB)/\sqrt{2}`$. We then make the substitution

$`\psi =(\chi +i\eta )/\sqrt{2},`$
$`\overline{\psi }=(\chi ^TCi\eta ^TC)/\sqrt{2}`$ (29)
and obtain

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi ^TCD\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\chi ^TC\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\chi `$ (30)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}}\chi ^TC[A+(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma })A(\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma })+i(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma })B+iB(\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma })]\chi `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^TCD\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\eta ^TC\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\eta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}}\eta ^TC[A+(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma })A(\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma })+i(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma })B+iB(\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma })]\eta .`$
This relation shows that we can write the Dirac fermion operator as a sum of two Majorana operators. One can then define the Majorana fermion $`\chi `$ (or $`\eta `$) and the resulting Pfaffian as a square root of the determinant of lattice Dirac operator. But this formulation of the Majorana fermion inevitably suffers from the singularities of the modified chiral operators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the Brillouin zone, as we have already explained.

We note that the condition,

$`CP_LC^1=\overline{P}_R^T,C\overline{P}_LC^1=P_R^T`$ (31)
which is required by the consistent $`CP`$ property, is directly related to the condition of the consistent Majorana reduction for the term containing scalar field $`A(x)`$,

$`C(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma })A(x)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma })=[C(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma })A(x)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma })]^T`$ (32)
in the Yukawa coupling444If $`(CO)^T=CO`$ for a general operator $`O`$, the cross term vanishes $`\eta ^TCO\chi \chi ^TCO\eta =0`$ by using the anti-commuting property of $`\chi `$ and $`\eta `$., if one recalls that the difference operators in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ do not commute with the field $`A(x)`$.

In other words, if one uses the projection operators which do not satisfy,

$`CP_LC^1=\overline{P}_R^T,C\overline{P}_LC^1=P_R^T`$ (33)
the consistent Majorana reduction is not realized. For the chiral symmetric Yukawa couplings such as in supersymmetry the Majorana reduction is thus directly related to the condition of the CP invariance, provided that parity properties are the standard ones.

## 4 Discussion and conclusion

We have shown that both of the consistent definitions of CP symmetry in chiral gauge theory and the Majorana fermion in the presence of chiral symmetric Yukawa couplings are based on the same condition,

$`CP_LC^1=\overline{P}_R^T,C\overline{P}_LC^1=P_R^T`$ (34)
and that the construction of projection operators, which are the unique solution,

$`P_{L,R}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma }),`$
$`\overline{P}_{L,R}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm \gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ (35)
inevitably suffers from singularities in the modified chiral operators (to be precise, in $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) for any Dirac operator $`D`$ satisfying the algebraic relation

$`\gamma _5H+H\gamma _5=2H^{2k+2}`$ (36)
with $`H=a\gamma _5D`$. We find it interesting that the breaking of CP symmetry and a conflict with Majorana reduction are directly related to the basic notions of locality and species doubling in lattice theory.

If one uses well-defined regular lattice operators

$`{\displaystyle 𝒟\psi _L𝒟\overline{\psi }_L\mathrm{exp}\left(\overline{\psi }P_+D\widehat{P}_{}\psi \right)}`$ (37)
with

$`P_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm \gamma _5),`$
$`\widehat{P}_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm \widehat{\gamma }_5)`$ (38)
the CP breaking in lattice chiral theory on the basis of Ginsparg-Wilson operator inevitably appears. As for the physical implications of this breaking of CP symmetry in pure lattice chiral theory, it was shown in Ref. following the formulation in that the effects of CP breaking are isolated in the (almost) contact term of fermion propagator, which is connected to the external fermion sources. The CP breaking effects in all the loop diagrams are under well-control and they are absorbed into the weight factors related to various topological sectors in the fermionic path integral. In the presence of the Higgs coupling and in particular in the presence of the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field, the analysis of CP breaking becomes more involved and it could be more serious.

It is also shown that this complication of CP breaking persists in the domain-wall fermion. In fact, it is shown that the domain-wall fermion in the limit $`N=\mathrm{}`$, when applied to chiral theory, is valid only for the topologically trivial sector and that it still suffers from the complications related to CP symmetry. In the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ limit, the domain-wall fermion is related to the Ginsparg-Wilson fermion by

$`{\displaystyle 𝒟\psi _L𝒟\overline{\psi }_L\mathrm{exp}\left(\overline{\psi }P_+D\widehat{P}_{}\psi \right)}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝒟q_L𝒟\overline{q}_L𝒟Q_L𝒟\overline{Q}_R\mathrm{exp}\left(\overline{q}P_+D\frac{1}{\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}P_{}q+\overline{Q}\widehat{P}_{}\frac{1}{\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}P_{}Q\right)}`$ (39)
where $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ stand for the standard variables in domain-wall fermion, and $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ stand for the Pauli-Villars fields. Note the appearance of the non-local operator $`D/(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)`$.

It is customary to use the domain-wall fermion for finite $`N`$ in practical applications, but we consider that the finite $`N`$ theory is not in a better situation with respect to CP symmetry either555One may argue that the domain wall variables $`q_L`$ and $`\overline{q}_L`$, which become non-local and cannot describe topological properties in the limit $`N=\mathrm{}`$, are not the suitable variables to describe physical correlation functions even for finite $`N`$, to the extent that the finite $`N`$ theory is intended to be an approximation to the theory with $`N=\mathrm{}`$., besides the ill-defined chiral symmetry.