format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It has long been believed that particle confinement at the strong coupling regime should be a phenomenon dual to monopole confinement in a (color)superconductor in weak coupling. Therefore, the study of monopole confinement in weak coupling may shed some light on particle confinement and other phenomena in the dual confined theory. Since dualities are better understood for supersymmetric theories and, in particular, for finite ones, it is interesting to consider the monopole confinement in these theories or deformations of them. Therefore in the present work we study monopole confinement in an $`𝒩=2^{}`$ super Yang-Mills theory with the addition of some $`𝒩=1`$ or $`𝒩=0`$ deformation terms.

Since the papers of Seiberg and Witten , quite a lot work - has been done analyzing different aspects of confinement in supersymmetric theories. Usually, one starts with a microscopic $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(N)`$ super Yang-Mills (SYM) theory (with some possible matter fields) and then obtains an effective $`𝒩=2`$ $`U(1)^{N1}`$ SYM theory with an $`𝒩=1`$ deformation term. In this theory, each $`U(1)`$ factor is broken to $`Z`$, resulting in $`(N1)`$ infinite towers of Nielsen-Olesen flux tubes or strings, which gives rise to confinement of Dirac monopoles. However, as was pointed out in , a similar phenomenon is not expected to happen to quark confinement in QCD. It is then believed that only some of these strings might be stable, which could correspond to $`Z_N`$ strings in the microscopic theory.

On the other hand, in  solitonic monopoles and $`Z_k`$ strings were obtained directly as solutions of the same theory with two gauge symmetry breakings. In order to do that, we considered $`𝒩=2`$ super Yang-Mills theories with an arbitrary simple gauge group $`G`$, a massive hypermultiplet, and an $`𝒩=0`$ deformation mass term. This hypermultiplet was considered to be in the symmetric part of the tensor product of $`k`$ fundamental representations, with $`k2`$. We considered this theory in weak coupling and showed the existence of vacuum solutions which produce the symmetry breaking

$$GG_S[G_0\times U(1)]/Z_lG_\varphi [G_0\times Z_{kl}]/Z_{l,}$$

where $`G_0`$ is a subgroup of $`G`$ and $`Z_l`$ is a common discrete subgroup of $`G_0`$ and $`U(1)`$ as explained in . The first symmetry breaking happens when the $`𝒩=0`$ deformation mass parameter $`m`$ vanishes. Then, the theory has solitonic monopoles which should fill representations of $`G_0^\text{v}`$, the dual group of $`G_0`$. The second symmetry breaking happens when $`m>0`$. Since in this phase $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(G/G_\varphi )=Z_k`$, there exist $`Z_k`$ strings or flux tubes. Moreover, since the $`U(1)`$ factor is broken, the monopole magnetic lines in this $`U(1)`$ direction can no longer spread radially over space. However, since the monopole magnetic flux is an integer multiple of the “fundamental” $`Z_k`$ string flux, these lines can form $`Z_k`$ strings and monopoles become confined.

It is interesting to note that, when $`k=2`$, the complex scalar $`\varphi `$ which produces the second symmetry breaking that allows the existence of $`Z_k`$ strings is in the same representation as that of a diquark condensate. One then could think of $`\varphi `$ as being itself this diquark condensate, and therefore we would have a situation quite similar to the one in an ordinary superconductor, described by the Abelian Higgs theory with the scalar being a Cooper pair. In addition, if the gauge group is $`SU(N)`$, the scalar in the adjoint representation of the vector supermultiplet could also be thought to be a quark-antiquark condensate. These two kinds of condensates are indeed expected to exist in the color superconducting phase of (dense) QCD at the weak coupling . The effective theory describing these condensates is not well known. It should be a $`SU(3)`$ Yang-Mills-Higgs theory with some scalars in color sextet and color octet representations. Therefore, one could think that the theory used in  or in the present paper, when the gauge group is $`G=SU(3)`$, as been a toy model for an effective theory of these condensates. Then, one can conclude that the effective theory for these condensates could have monopoles, flux tubes, and monopole confinement, depending on the form of the potential.

Although the monopoles in  should fill representations of the non-Abelian group $`G_0^\text{v}`$, monopole confinement happened through flux tubes in a $`U(1)`$ direction inside the non-Abelian group $`G`$. The motivation of the present paper is to consider monopole confinement through the formation of flux tubes due to breaking of the full non-Abelian group $`G`$, although in the present case (stable) monopoles are not expected to fill representations of non-Abelian groups. In order to do that, we shall consider the bosonic part of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory in the weak coupling regime and add some $`𝒩=2`$, $`𝒩=1`$, or $`𝒩=0`$ deformation mass terms. These SYM theories are usually denoted by $`𝒩=2^{}`$, $`𝒩=1^{}`$, and $`𝒩=0^{}`$, respectively. In  was pointed out that the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory should have a weakly coupled Higgs phase with magnetic flux tubes and this phase should be dual to a strongly coupled confining phase in the dual theory. One of the aims of the present paper is to analyze some properties of these magnetic flux tubes. In section 2, we obtain the lower bound for the string tension and corresponding Bogomol’nyi-Prasad-Sommerfield (BPS) string conditions for a Yang-Mills theory with three complex scalars in the adjoint representation. Then, in section 3, we analyze the possible vacuum solutions and corresponding gauge symmetry breaking which happen depending on the mass deformation terms which are added to the $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory. We show that in this theory there are vacuum solutions which produce the spontaneous symmetry breaking,

$$GU(1)^rC_G,$$

where $`r`$ is the rank of $`G`$ and $`C_G`$ its center. The first symmetry breaking happens in the $`𝒩=4`$ and *$`𝒩=2^{}`$* theories. Then, the second symmetry breaking happens when one adds to the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory an $`𝒩=1`$ or an $`𝒩=0`$ deformation term (or both). In section 4, we analyze the Coulomb or free-monopole phase which occurs in the first symmetry breaking. In this phase there are BPS monopole solutions. In section 5, we analyze the Higgs or color superconducting phase which occurs when the second symmetry breaking happens. In this phase the monopoles chromomagnetic lines cannot spread out radially over space. However, since in this phase

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1(G/C_G)=C_G,$$

when $`C_G`$ is nontrivial, these flux lines can form topologically nontrivial $`Z_N`$ strings. We then construct the $`Z_N`$ string ansatz. Some $`Z_N`$ string solutions have been considered in  for different $`SU(N)`$ gauge theories. We show that the flux of the magnetic monopoles can be expressed as an integer linear combination of the string fluxes. Therefore, in the Higgs phase the monopole magnetic lines can form $`Z_N`$ strings and the monopole can become confined, as in . We then obtain for the monopole-antimonopole system a bound for the threshold length for the string-breaking. In section 6 we consider $`G=SU(N)`$ and analyze how the monopole magnetic flux could be considered to be formed by a set of a string and an antistring in the fundamental representation. For the $`SU(3)`$ gauge group we show that, besides the monopoles-antimonopole system, the monopoles with strings attached could form a confining system with three different monopoles. In section 7, we show that the BPS string tensions satisfy the Casimir scaling law.

## 2 String BPS conditions

Let us start with a Yang-Mills-Higgs theory with three complex scalars $`\varphi _s,s=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$, in the adjoint representation of an arbitrary gauge group $`G`$ which we shall consider to be simple, connected, and simply connected. Let $`\varphi _s=M_s+iN_s`$ where $`M_s`$ and $`N_s`$ are real scalars and pseudo-scalars, respectively. Let us consider the Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{4}G_{a\mu \nu }G_a^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\left(D_\mu \varphi _s^{}\right)_a\left(D^\mu \varphi _s\right)_aV$$

where $`V`$ is for the moment an arbitrary positive potential. In , a theory was considered with a complex scalar in the adjoint and another complex scalar initially in an arbitrary representation, and the non-Abelian string BPS conditions for an arbitrary gauge group were obtained. Let us repeat this procedure for the case with three scalars in the adjoint. Let $`D_\mu =_\mu +ieW_\mu `$, $`D_\pm =D_1\pm iD_2`$, and $`B_i=\epsilon _{ijk}G_{jk}/2`$ is the non-Abelian magnetic field. Let us consider a static configuration with cylindrical symmetry and not depending on $`x_3`$. Then, generalizing the Bogomol’nyi procedure , we obtain that the string tension $`T`$ must satisfy

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2x\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(E_{ia}\right)^2+\left(B_{ia}\right)^2+\left|\left(D_\mu \varphi _s\right)_a\right|^2\right]+V\right\}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^2x\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[\left|\left(D_{}\varphi _s\right)_a\right|^2+\left(B_{3a}\right)^2\pm e\left(\varphi _{sb}^{}if_{abc}\varphi _{sc}\right)B_{3a}\right]+V\right\}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^2x\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(B_{3a}\right)^2\pm d_aB_{3a}\pm X_aB_{3a}+V\right\}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2x\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[B_{3a}\pm d_a\right]^2\pm X_aB_{3a}\frac{1}{2}\left(d_a\right)^2+V\right\}},`$
where

$$d_a\frac{e}{2}\left(\varphi _{sb}^{}if_{abc}\varphi _{sc}\right)X_a,$$
(1)
and the quantity $`X_a`$ is a real scalar which transforms in the adjoint representation. We could consider that

$$X_a=\frac{e}{2}\left[m_{N_s}\text{Im}\left(\varphi _{sa}\right)+m_{M_s}\text{Re}\left(\varphi _{sa}\right)+c\delta _{a,0}\right],$$

where $`m_{N_s}`$, $`m_{M_s}`$ and $`c`$ are real mass parameters and the last term could only exist if $`G`$ contains a $`U(1)`$ factor generated by $`T_0`$ (and therefore $`G`$ would not be simple). If

$$V\frac{1}{2}\left(d_a\right)^2,$$
(2)
it follows that

$$T\pm d^2xX_aB_{3a}.$$
(3)
Since $`T0`$, we take the upper (lower) sign if the above integral is positive (negative). The equality happens when

$`B_{3a}`$ $`=`$ $`d_{a,}`$ (4)
$`D_{}\varphi _s`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (5)
$`V{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(d_a\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (6)
$`E_{ia}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{1a}=B_{2a}=D_0\varphi _s=D_3\varphi _s=0,`$ (7)
and we recover the non-Abelian string BPS conditions in  for the particular case in which all scalars are in the adjoint. As in , for simplicity we shall consider that $`m_{M_3}`$ could be the only nonvanishing mass parameter in $`X_a`$ and we shall rename it $`m`$. Note that if we had chosen to set that only $`m_{N_3}0`$, then $`X_a`$ would allow a nonvanishing pseudoscalar vacuum solution which would result in the magnetic charge of the monopole and the flux of the string being Lorentz scalars and not pseudoscalars as usual. Moreover, we shall consider $`G`$ to be simple since we are interested in string solutions associated with the breaking of a non-Abelian group and not due to the breaking of $`U(1)`$ factors. Hence $`X_a`$ does not have the term $`c\delta _{a,0}`$. Threfore, we shall consider

$$X_a=\frac{em}{2}\text{Im}\left(\varphi _{3a}\right).$$

We shall consider the potential

$$V=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(d_a\right)^2+f_{sa}^{}f_{sa}\right],$$
(8)
with $`d_a`$ given by Eq. (1) and

$`f_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(e[\varphi _3,\varphi _1]\mu \varphi _1\right),`$
$`f_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(e[\varphi _3,\varphi _2]+\mu \varphi _2\right),`$ (9)
$`f_3`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(e[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]\mu _3\varphi _3\right).`$
This potential fulfills condition (2). For this potential, the BPS condition (6) is equivalent to the condition

$$f_s=0,s=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}.$$

This is the potential of the bosonic part of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory with some mass term deformations which break completely the supersymmetry. If we set $`m=0`$, $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry is restored and we obtain the potential considered in . If further $`\mu _3=0`$, we recover the potential of $`𝒩=2`$ with a massive hypermultiplet in the adjoint representation. Finally, if also $`\mu =0`$, we obtain $`𝒩=4`$. As usual, we shall denote by $`𝒩=2^{}`$, $`𝒩=1^{}`$, and $`𝒩=0^{}`$ to the theories which are obtained by adding deformation mass terms to $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory.

Note that the term $`X_a`$ is necessary if one wants to have a BPS string which is not tensionless. Therefore this term generalizes the rôle of Fayet-Iliopolous terms in theories with $`U(1)`$ factors by giving tension to the BPS string. However, $`X_a`$ in general breaks supersymmetry.

## 3 Phases of the theory

The vacua of the theory are solutions of

$$G_{\mu \nu }=D_\mu \varphi _s=V=0.$$
(10)
The condition $`V(\varphi _s)=0`$ is equivalent to

$$d_a=0=f_{sa}.$$
(11)
We shall only consider the theory in the weak coupling regime, and therefore we shall not consider the quantum corrections to the potential. We are looking for vacuum solutions which produce the symmetry breaking

$$GU(1)^rC_{G,}$$

where $`r`$ is the rank of $`G`$ and $`C_G`$ its center. For the first phase transition magnetic monopoles will appear. Then, in the second phase transition magnetic flux tubes or strings (if $`C_G`$ is non-trivial) will appear and the monopoles will become confined. In order to produce this symmetry breaking we shall look for vacuum solutions of the form

$`\varphi _1^{\text{vac}}`$ $`=`$ $`a_1T_+,`$
$`\varphi _2^{\text{vac}}`$ $`=`$ $`a_2T_{},`$ (12)
$`\varphi _3^{\text{vac}}`$ $`=`$ $`a_3T_3,`$
$`W_\mu ^{\text{vac}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
where $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are complex constants, $`a_3`$ is a real constant, and

$`T_3`$ $`=`$ $`\delta H,\delta {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda _i}{\alpha _i^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha >0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\alpha ^2}},`$
$`T_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}\sqrt{c_i}E_{\pm \alpha _i},`$
with $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\lambda _i`$ being simple roots and fundamental weights, respectively, and

$$c_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(K^1\right)_{ij},$$

with $`K_{ij}=2\alpha _i\alpha _j/\alpha _j^2`$ being the Cartan matrix. The generators $`T_\pm `$, $`T_3`$ form the so called principal $`SU(2)`$ subalgebra of $`G`$. The vacuum configuration $`\varphi _3^{\text{vac}}`$ breaks $`G`$ into $`U(1)^\text{r}`$ and then $`\varphi _1^{\text{vac}}`$ or $`\varphi _2^{\text{vac}}`$ breaks it further to $`C_G`$. Note that this is not the only possible vacuum configuration which produce the above symmetry breaking. However, in this paper we shall restrict ourselves to analyzing this configuration. We shall adopt the conventions

$`[H_i,E_\alpha ]`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^iE_\alpha ,`$
$`\left[E_{\alpha ,}E_\alpha \right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\alpha ^2}}H,`$
where the upper index in $`\alpha ^i`$ means the $`i`$ component of the root $`\alpha `$. Let

$$\alpha _i^\text{v}\frac{2\alpha _i}{\alpha _i^2},\lambda _i^\text{v}\frac{2\lambda _i}{\alpha _i^2},$$

be the simple coroots222 In this paper the definition of $`\alpha _i^\text{v}`$ differs from the one adopted in  and  by a factor of 2.  and fundamental coweights, respectively. Then using the relations

$`\lambda _j^\text{v}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _i^\text{v}\left(K^1\right)_{ij},`$
$`\lambda _i^\text{v}\alpha _j`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij},`$
we obtain from the vacuum equations $`d=0=f_s`$, that

$`\left(a_3{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{e}}\right)a_i`$ $`=`$ $`0,\text{for }i=1,2,`$
$`a_1a_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _3a_3}{e}},`$
$`ma_3`$ $`=`$ $`\left|a_2\right|^2\left|a_1\right|^2.`$
Independently of the values of the mass parameters, this system always has the trivial solution $`a_1=a_2=a_3=0`$, which corresponds to the vacuum in which the $`G`$ is unbroken. Let us analyze other possible vacuum solutions in which $`G`$ is broken.

From this system we can conclude that if $`\mu =0`$, there exist nonvanishing solution only if $`\mu _3=0=m`$, which means that we recover $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory. In this case, $`a_1=0=a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ can be arbitrary which implies that $`G`$ is broken to $`U(1)^r`$ if $`a_3`$ is nonvanishing. But then if we add an $`𝒩=1`$ or $`𝒩=0`$ deformation to the $`𝒩=4`$ potential, by considering either $`\mu _3`$ or $`m`$ nonvanishing, then the only solution is the trivial $`a_1=a_2=a_3=0`$ and $`G`$ returns to be unbroken. Therefore monopole confinement does not happen when $`\mu =0`$, at least for vacuum configurations such as Eq. (12).

For the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory, in which $`\mu 0`$ and $`\mu _3=0=m`$, the situation is as in the $`𝒩=4`$ case, with the solution $`a_1=0=a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ arbitrary, which results in $`G`$ broken to $`U(1)^r`$ for $`a_30`$. Let us analyze the vacuum solutions when we add deformation terms to $`𝒩=2^{}`$

### i) Adding the $`𝒩=1`$ deformation term ($`\mu 0`$, $`\mu _30`$, and $`m=0`$).

In this case, there are non trivial solutions satisfying

$`a_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{e}},`$
$`a_1a_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _3\mu }{e}},`$
$`|a_1|^2`$ $`=`$ $`|a_2|^2,`$
which results in a vacuum which breaks $`GC_G`$.

### ii) Adding the $`𝒩=0`$ deformation term ($`\mu 0`$, $`\mu _3=0`$, and $`m0`$ ).

If $`\mu _3=0`$, then either $`a_1=0`$ or $`a_2=0`$. We shall take $`a_1=0`$. Then, there are two possible situations:

* $`m\mu <0`$ $``$ If we consider $`a_20`$, then $`a_3=\mu /e`$ which would imply $`|a_2|^2<0`$. Therefore in this case, we must have $`a_2=0=a_3`$ and $`G`$ remains unbroken.
* $`m\mu >0`$ $``$ In this case there is the nontrivial solution

$`a_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{e}},`$ (13)
$`\left|a_2\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m\mu }{e}},`$ (14)
which also results in a vacuum which breaks $`GC_G`$.

### iii) Adding the $`𝒩=1`$ and *$`𝒩=0`$* deformation terms ($`\mu 0`$, $`\mu _30m`$).

In this case there are nontrivial solutions with

$$a_3=\frac{\mu }{e}$$

and $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ satisfying

$`a_1a_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _3\mu }{e}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m\mu }{e}}`$ $`=`$ $`|a_2|^2|a_1|^2.`$
Once more $`G`$ is broken to $`C_G`$.

In summary, in the $`𝒩=4`$ and $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory, the gauge group $`G`$ can be broken to $`U(1)^r`$ which corresponds to the Coulomb phase. If we add to $`𝒩=2^{}`$ a $`𝒩=1`$ or $`𝒩=0`$ deformation (or both), the gauge group can be further broken to $`C_G`$, which gives rise to the Higgs or color superconducting phase. Let us analyze each of these phases in the next sections.

## 4 Coulomb phase

In this phase $`G`$ is broken to $`U(1)^r`$ and there exist solitonic monopole solutions. As we have seen, this phase can only occur for the $`𝒩=4`$ and $`𝒩=2^{}`$ cases. That could happen, for example, for energy scales in which one can consider $`\mu _3=0=m`$. In this phase $`a_1=0=a_2`$ and $`a_30`$. In principle $`a_3`$ is an arbitrary nonvanishing constant. However, we shall fix

$$a_3=\frac{\mu }{e}$$

in order to have the same value as in the Higgs phase. The vacuum solution $`\varphi _3^{\text{vac}}`$ singles out a particular $`U(1)`$ direction which we call $`U(1)_\delta `$. Since for any root $`\alpha `$, $`\delta \alpha 0`$, we can construct a monopole solution for each root $`\alpha `$. The asymptotic field configuration for the monopole associated to the root $`\alpha `$ can be written as

$`\varphi _3(\theta ,\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`g_\alpha (\theta ,\phi )\varphi _3^{\text{vac}}g_\alpha (\theta ,\phi )^1=a_3g_\alpha (\theta ,\phi )\delta Hg_\alpha (\theta ,\phi )^1,`$
$`B_i(\theta ,\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_i}{er^2}}g_\alpha (\theta ,\phi )T_3^\alpha g_\alpha (\theta ,\phi )^1,`$ (15)
$`\varphi _1(\theta ,\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _2(\theta ,\phi )=0,`$
where

$$g_\alpha (\theta ,\phi )=\mathrm{exp}(i\phi T_3^\alpha )\mathrm{exp}(i\theta T_2^\alpha )\mathrm{exp}(i\phi T_3^\alpha ),$$

with the $`SU(2)`$ generators

$$T_1^\alpha =\frac{E_\alpha +E_\alpha }{2},T_2^\alpha =\frac{E_\alpha E_\alpha }{2i},T_3^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^\text{v}H.$$

The associated monopole magnetic charge is

$$g\frac{1}{|\varphi _3^{\text{vac}}|}𝑑S_l\text{Tr}\left[\text{Re}\left(\varphi _3\right)B_l\right]=\frac{2\pi }{e}\frac{\delta \alpha ^\text{v}}{|\delta |},$$
(16)
with

$$\delta ^2=\frac{h^\text{v}\left(h^\text{v}+1\right)r}{24},$$

where $`h^\text{v}`$ is the dual Coxeter number of $`G`$. Clearly $`g`$ is equal to the monopole magnetic flux in the $`U(1)_\delta `$ direction, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{mon}}`$. It is also convenient to define magnetic fluxes associated to each $`U(1)`$ factor of the unbroken group $`U(1)^r`$. As explained in , in the sphere with $`r\mathrm{}`$, the little group of $`\varphi _3(\theta ,\phi )`$ varies within $`G`$ by conjugation with the gauge transformations $`g_\alpha (\theta ,\phi )`$. Therefore the magnetic flux associated with the Cartan generator $`\lambda _i^\text{v}H`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},r`$, can be defined as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{mon}}^{(i)}𝑑S__l\text{Tr}\left[g_\alpha (\theta ,\phi )\lambda _i^\text{v}Hg_\alpha (\theta ,\phi )^1B_l\right]=\frac{2\pi }{e}\lambda _i^\text{v}\alpha ^\text{v},$$
(17)
which are topologically conserved charges .

These are BPS monopoles with masses given by the central charge of the $`𝒩=2`$ algebra . For monopoles with vanishing fermion number, their masses are $`M_{\text{mon}}=|g||\varphi _3^{\text{vac}}|`$. Not all of these monopoles are stable. The stable or fundamental are the ones with lightest masses . For the present symmetry breaking, the fundamental monopoles are associated with the simple roots for the simple-laced algebras or to the long simple roots for the non-simply-laced ones. Their masses are

$$M_{\text{mon}}^\text{L}=\frac{2\pi }{e|\delta |}|\varphi _3^{\text{vac}}|.$$
(18)
Note that, since $`G`$ is completely broken to $`U(1)^\text{r}`$, differently from , here the stable monopoles do not fill representations of a non-Abelian unbroken group.

## 5 Higgs or color superconducting phase

In the Higgs or color superconducting phase, $`G`$ is broken to its center $`C_G`$. That can happen when $`𝒩=2^{}`$ is broken by a $`𝒩=1`$ or $`𝒩=0`$ deformation term (or both). In this phase, the monopole chromomagnetic flux lines cannot spread out radially over space. A phenomenon like that is expected to happen in the interior of very dense neutron stars . However, since for simply connected $`G`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1\left(G/C_G\right)=C_G.$$
(19)
If $`C_G=Z_N`$, these flux lines can form topologically nontrivial $`Z_N`$ strings. Then, the monopoles of $`𝒩=2^{}`$ become confined in this phase, as we shall show below.

In order to have finite string tension, these string solution must satisfy the vacuum equations asymptotically, which implies that

$`\varphi _s(\phi ,\rho \mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`g(\phi )\varphi _s^{\text{vac}}g(\phi )^1,`$
$`W_I(\phi ,\rho \mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`g(\phi )W_I^{\text{vac}}g(\phi )^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ie}}\left(_Ig(\phi )\right)g(\phi )^1,`$
where $`\rho `$ is the radial coordinate and capital Latin letters $`I,J`$ denote the coordinates $`1`$ and $`2`$; $`\varphi _s^{\text{vac}}`$ and $`W_I^{\text{vac}}`$ are given by Eq. (12) and $`g(\phi )G`$. In order for the field configuration to be single valued, $`g(\phi +2\pi )g(\phi )^1C_G`$. Considering

$$g(\phi )=\mathrm{exp}i\phi M,$$

then $`\mathrm{exp}2\pi iMC_G`$. That implies that $`M`$ must be diagonalizable and we shall consider that

$$M=\omega H.$$

Then, in order to $`\mathrm{exp}2\pi i\omega HC_G`$,

$$\omega =\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}l_i\lambda _i^\text{v},$$

where $`l_i`$ are integer numbers; that is, $`\omega `$ must be a vector in the coweight lattice of $`G`$, which has the fundamental coweights $`\lambda _i^\text{v}`$ as basis vectors, and is equivalent to the weight lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{w}\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^\text{v}\right)`$ of the covering group of the dual group $`\stackrel{~}{G}^\text{v}`$ . In principle, we could have other possibilities for $`M`$ like some combinations of step operators, which however we shall not discuss here.

With the above choice for $`g(\phi )`$, the asymptotic string configuration can be written as

$`\varphi _s(\phi ,\rho \mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi \omega H}\varphi _s^{\text{vac}}e^{i\phi \omega H},`$ (20)
$`W_I(\phi ,\rho \mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{IJ}x^J}{e\rho ^2}}\omega H,I=1,2.`$ (21)
Note that not all of these strings are necessarily stable.

We can consider the string ansatz

$`\varphi _1(\phi ,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi \omega H}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}\left(f_1^i(\rho )E_{\alpha _i}\right)e^{i\phi \omega H}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}e^{i\phi \omega \alpha _i}f_1^i(\rho )E_{\alpha _i},`$
$`\varphi _2(\phi ,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi \omega H}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}\left(f_2^i(\rho )E_{\alpha _i}\right)e^{i\phi \omega H}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}e^{i\phi \omega \alpha _i}f_2^i(\rho )E_{\alpha _i},`$
$`\varphi _3(\phi ,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi \omega H}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}\left(f_3^i(\rho )\lambda _i^\text{v}H\right)e^{i\phi \omega H}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}f_3^i(\rho )\lambda _i^\text{v}H,`$
$`W_I(\phi ,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{IJ}x^I}{e}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}g_i(\rho )\lambda _i^\text{v}H,`$
$`W_0(\phi ,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`0=W_3(\phi ,\rho ),`$
which results that

$$B_3(\phi ,\rho )=\frac{1}{e\rho ^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\lambda _i^\text{v}H\frac{g_i\left(\rho \right)}{\rho }.$$

These functions must satisfy the boundary condition

$`f_n^i(\rho \mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`a_n\sqrt{c_i},\text{for }n=1,2,`$
$`f_3^i(\rho \mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`a_{3,}`$
$`g_i(\rho \mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`l_i,`$
for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, in order to recover the asymptotic configuration (20), (21) and

$`f_n^i(\rho =0)`$ $`=`$ $`0,\text{for }n=1,2\text{ and }i\text{ such that }\omega \alpha _i=l_i0,`$
$`g_i(\rho =0)`$ $`=`$ $`0,\text{for }i=1,\mathrm{},r,`$
in order to eliminate the singularities at $`\rho =0`$. One can put the ansatz in the BPS conditions (4)-(7) and obtain first order differential equations similar to the ones in . Otherwise one can put in the equations of motion for the non-BPS cases. As in , the BPS conditions are consistent with the equations of motion only when $`m`$ vanishes. However, in the case in which $`𝒩=2^{}`$ is broken by an $`𝒩=0`$ deformation, we must take the limit $`m0`$ in order to maintain the symmetry breaking $`GC_G`$, similarly to the Prassard-Sommerfeld limit  for the BPS monopole.

As in  we shall consider that $`\varphi _3`$ is constant and equal to its asymptotic value; i. e.,

$$\varphi _3(\phi ,\rho )=\frac{\mu }{e}T_3.$$
(22)
For the BPS string, using the above ansatz and boundary conditions, one obtains Eq. (22) directly from the BPS condition $`D_{}\varphi _3=0`$, which implies that $`f_3^i(\rho )=\text{const}=a_3=\mu /e`$. Hence the lower bound for the string tension given by Eq. (3), for $`X=em\text{Re}(\varphi _3)/2`$, can be written as

$$T\frac{me}{2}\left|\varphi _3^{\text{vac}}\right|\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{st}}\right|=\frac{m\mu }{2}\left|\delta \right|\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{st}}\right|$$
(23)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{st}}\frac{1}{\left|\varphi _3^{\text{vac}}\right|}d^2x\text{Tr}\left(\text{Re}\left(\varphi _3\right)B_3\right)=\frac{e}{\mu \left|\delta \right|}𝑑l_I\text{Tr}\left(\text{Re}\left(\varphi _3\right)W_I\right)=\frac{2\pi }{e}\frac{\delta \omega }{|\delta |}$$
(24)
is the string flux in the $`U(1)_\delta `$ direction. The bound in Eq. (23) holds for the BPS strings. For the case of $`𝒩=2^{}`$ broken by an *$`𝒩=0`$* deformation, the limit $`m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ would imply $`T\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Then, if one wants to have a BPS string with finite $`T`$, one should also take $`\mu \mathrm{}`$, similarly to the case of the BPS $`Z_k`$ strings in . A similar limit was considered in . That is exactly like the London limit in the Abelian Higgs theory describing superconductors where one takes to infinity the mass of the scalar. On the other hand, when $`𝒩=2^{}`$ is broken by an $`𝒩=1`$ deformation (i.e. $`m=0`$, $`\mu 0`$, and $`\mu _30`$), from Eq. (23) we see that the BPS string will be tensionless. The same happens in general for the BPS strings associated with a coweight $`\omega `$ such that $`\delta \omega =0`$, and therefore $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{st}}=0`$.

Similarly to the monopole, we can define string fluxes associated with each Cartan element $`\lambda _i^\text{v}H`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{st}}^{(i)}d^2x\text{Tr}\left[\lambda _i^\text{v}HB_3\right]=\frac{2\pi }{e}\lambda _i^\text{v}\omega .$$
(25)
Therefore, from Eq. (24) or (25), we can conclude that the string fluxes take values in the coweight lattice of $`G`$. Let us now check if the magnetic fluxes of the monopoles are compatible with the ones of the strings. Since an arbitrary coroot $`\alpha ^\text{v}`$ can always be expanded in the coweight basis as $`\alpha ^\text{v}=_{i=1}^rn_i\lambda _i^\text{v}`$ where $`n_i`$ are integer numbers, one can conclude that the magnetic fluxes (16) or (17) of the monopoles can in principle be expressed as an integer linear combination of the string fluxes (24) or (25). Therefore, in the Higgs phase, the monopole magnetic flux lines can no longer spread radially over the space, since $`G`$ is broken to the discrete group $`C_G`$. However, they can form one or more flux tubes or strings, and the monopoles can become confined. We shall call this set of strings attached to a monopole as confining strings. This set of confining strings must have total flux given by Eq. (24) or (25) with $`\omega =\alpha ^\text{v}`$. That means that this set of confining magnetic strings belongs to the trivial topological sector of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(G/C_G)`$ since $`\mathrm{exp}2\pi i\alpha ^\text{v}H=1`$ in $`G`$. The fact that the set of confining strings must belong to the trivial sector is consistent with the fact that the set is not topologically stable and therefore can terminate at some point. However, since it has a nonvanishing flux, it must terminate in a magnetic source; i. e., a monopole. It is important to stress the fact that a string configuration belonging to the topological trivial sector does not imply that its flux must vanish as we can see from Eq. (24). All these results are generalizations of some well-known results for the $`Z_2`$ string of $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills-Higgs theory, as explained in . In this theory there are at least two complex scalars in the adjoint representation which produce the symmetry breaking $`SU(2)U(1)Z_2`$, similarly to our case. In the Higgs phase, string configurations can in principle exist with flux $`2\pi n/e`$ for any integer $`n`$, although only the ones with $`n=\pm 1`$ are topologically stable. The ones with odd $`n`$ belong to the topologically nontrivial sector while the ones with even $`n`$ belong to the trivial sector. Therefore string configurations belonging to the same topological sector do not have necessarily the same flux and therefore are not related by (nonsingular) gauge transformations . The string configuration with $`n=2`$, belonging to the trivial sector and which can be formed by two strings with $`n=1`$, is the one which can terminate in the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole with magnetic charge $`g=4\pi /e`$ and can produce the monopole-antimonopole confinement . In more algebraic terms one can say that this set of integer numbers $`n`$ forms the coweight lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{w}`$ of $`SU(2)`$, the subset of even numbers $`2n`$ form the $`SU(2)`$ coroot lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}`$, and the quotient $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{w}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}Z_2`$ corresponds to the center of $`SU(2)`$. Therefore this quotient has two elements which are represented by the cosets $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}`$ and $`1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}`$. Each coset corresponds to a string topological sector, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}`$ been the trivial one. These results also holds for an arbitrary group $`G`$, where

$$C_G\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{w}\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^\text{v}\right)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}\left(G^\text{v}\right)},$$
(26)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(G^\text{v})`$ been the root lattice of the dual group $`G^\text{v}`$ or, equivalently, the coroot lattice of $`G`$, which has the simple coroots $`\alpha _i^\text{v}`$ as basis vectors. If the order of $`C_G`$ is $`N`$, then this quotient can be represented by the $`N`$ cosets

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(G^\text{v})\text{and}\lambda _{i,\text{min}}^\text{v}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(G^\text{v}),$$
(27)
where $`\lambda _{i,\text{min}}^\text{v}`$ are the minimal fundamental coweights of $`G`$. A fundamental coweight is minimal if

$$\lambda _{i,\text{min}}^\text{v}\psi =1,$$

where $`\psi `$ is the highest root and there exist exactly $`(N1)`$ of them. The minimal coweights $`\lambda _{i,\text{min}}^\text{v}`$ are associated with a special outer automorphism of the extended Dynkin diagrams . For $`SU(N)`$, all fundamental weights $`\lambda _i`$ are minimal.

From Eqs. (19) and (26) it implies that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1(G/C_G)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{w}\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^\text{v}\right)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}\left(G^\text{v}\right)},$$
(28)
and we can conclude that each string topological sectors is associated with a coset in Eq. (27), with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(G^\text{v})`$ being the trivial topological sector. It is important to note that for $`G=SU(N)`$, this result is equivalent to considering the string topological sectors to be associated with the $`N`$-ality of the representations. However the above result holds for arbitrary $`G`$.

Since the confining string configuration linking a monopole to an antimonopole belongs to the trivial topological sector, it can break when it has enough energy to create a new monopole-antimonopole pair. As was done in , one can obtain a bound for the threshold length $`d^{\text{th}}`$for the string breaking, using the relation

$$2M_{\text{mon}}^\text{L}=E^{\text{th}}=Td^{\text{th}}\frac{me}{2}\left|\varphi _3^{\text{vac}}\right|\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{st}}\right|d^{\text{th}},$$
(29)
where $`E^{\text{th}}`$ is the string threshold energy and $`M_{\text{mon}}^\text{L}`$ is the mass of the lightest monopoles, given by Eq. (18). In the above relation we used the string bound given by Eq. (23) and did not consider a possible energy term proportional to the inverse of the monopole distance, known as the Lucher term. The modulus of the string flux, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{st}}|`$, must be equal to the modulus of the magnetic charges $`|g|`$ of each confined monopoles. Let us consider that $`|g|=2\pi |\delta \beta ^\text{v}|/|\delta |`$ with $`\beta ^\text{v}`$ being an arbitrary coroot. Therefore one can conclude from Eq. (29), using Eq. (18), that

$$d^{\text{th}}\frac{4}{me|\delta \beta ^\text{v}|}.$$

## 6 Monopole confinement for $`SU(N)`$ broken to $`Z_N`$

Let us consider $`G=SU(N)`$. Since $`SU(N)`$ is simply laced, we do not need to distinguish between weights and coweights, roots and coroots. We have seen that the magnetic lines of a given monopole with magnetic charge $`g=2\pi \delta \alpha ^\text{v}/|\delta |`$ can form a set of flux tubes or strings. However, there are countless different string configurations with this magnetic flux. It is not clear at the moment which could be the preferable one. The most “economical” sets would be the ones formed by a strings and an antistring as we shall see below.

For $`SU(3)`$, the quotient (26), which is equivalent to $`C_{SU(3)}=Z_3`$, possesses three elements which can be represented by the cosets $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(SU(3))`$, $`\lambda _1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(SU(3))`$ and $`\lambda _2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(SU(3))`$. One can, for example, construct string solutions associated with each of the three weights $`\lambda _1,\lambda _1\alpha _1,\lambda _1\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ of the fundamental representation. Since all of them belong to the coset $`\lambda _1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}`$, these string solutions belong to the same topological sector. However, one can observe from Eq. (24) that they do not have the same flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{st}}`$, similarly to the $`Z_2`$ strings of $`SU(2)`$ theory. Therefore these string solutions are not related by gauge transformations since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{st}}`$ is gauge invariant. One can construct the corresponding antistring solutions associated with the negative of these weights, which form the complex-conjugated representation $`\overline{3}`$ and which belong to the coset $`\lambda _2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}`$. The magnetic fluxes of the monopoles associated with the six nonvanishing roots of $`SU(3)`$ can easily be written using these strings in the following way: for the monopole $`\alpha _1`$ we can attach the strings $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _1+\alpha _1`$. For the monopole $`\alpha _2`$ we can attach strings $`\lambda _1\alpha _1`$ and $`\lambda _1+\alpha _1+\alpha _2`$. For the monopole $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2`$ we can attach the strings $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _1+\alpha _1+\alpha _2`$. And similarly for the other three monopoles associated with the negative roots, just changing the signs. The remaining three combinations of strings and antistring have vanishing fluxes $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{st}}^{(i)}`$.

One could draw the above set of strings attached to monopoles as shown in Fig.1, where the circles represent the monopoles and the arrows are the string flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{st}}^{(i)}`$. We represented the strings associated with weights in the fundamental representation by an arrow going out of the monopole and for the antistrings we reversed the sense of the arrow and simultaneously changed the sign of the weight. Then, in addition to the monopole-antimonopole pairs one could also conjecture about the formation of a confined system with the monopoles $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$ and $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ as shown in Fig. 2. Note that since these monopoles are not expected to fill the three dimensional fundamental representation of $`SU(3)`$, that system is not exactly like a baryon. With this configuration of monopoles with strings attached, one could also think of putting one string in the north pole and the on the other in the south pole, forming a configuration similar to the bead described in .

In principle one could also think of attaching to the monopole $`\alpha _1`$ the strings $`2\lambda _1`$ and $`2\lambda _1+\alpha _1`$ which belong to the six-dimensional symmetric tensor representation and its complex conjugate. However, one can conclude directly from the expression for the fluxes and string tension that, in the BPS case, the string $`2\lambda _1`$ can decay in two strings $`\lambda _1`$ and the string $`2\lambda _1+\alpha _1`$ can decay in the strings $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _1+\alpha _1`$. A similar result has been conjectured in some different theories .

One can easily extend the above construction of strings attached to monopoles to the $`SU(N)`$ case. In this case the quotient (26) has $`N`$ elements which can be represented by the cosets

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(SU(N))\text{and}\lambda _i+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(SU(N)),i=1,2,\mathrm{},N1.$$

The representation corresponding to the fundamental weight $`\lambda _k`$ can be obtained by the antisymmetric tensor product of $`k`$ fundamental representations associated with $`\lambda _1`$. Once more one can consider the strings associated with the weights of the fundamental $`N`$ dimensional representation,

$$\lambda _1\text{and}\lambda _1\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}\alpha _j,l=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},N1,$$

which belong to the $`\lambda _1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(SU(N))`$ coset, and with the negative of these weights which form the complex-conjugated representation $`\overline{N}`$, which belongs to the $`\lambda _{N1}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(SU(N))`$ coset. Since $`N\times \overline{N}=\text{adj}+1`$, one can write the fluxes of monopoles (not all of them stable) associated with the $`N(N1)`$ nonvanishing roots, in terms of a string and an antistring. For example for the monopole associated with the $`SU(N)`$ root $`\alpha _p+\alpha _{p+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{p+q}`$ one could attach strings associated with the weights $`\lambda _1\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _{p1}`$ and $`\lambda _1+\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{p+q}`$. As for the $`SU(3)`$ case, one could in principle form a confining configuration formed by the monopoles associated with the $`N1`$ simple roots $`\alpha _i`$ and the negative of the highest root $`\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _{N1}`$.

Since, for $`SU(N)`$, $`\lambda _{Nk}=\lambda _k+\beta `$, where $`\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(SU(N))`$, each weight in the coset $`\lambda _{Nk}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(SU(N))`$ is the negative of a weight in $`\lambda _k+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(SU(N))`$, and therefore the bound of a string tension, given by Eq. (23), associated with a weight in $`\lambda _k+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(SU(N))`$ should be equal to the one associated with the negative weight in $`\lambda _{Nk}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(SU(N))`$.

## 7 String tension and Casimir scaling law

The string tension is one of the main quantities to be determined in quark confinement in QCD. In these last 20 years quite a lot of work has been done trying to determine this quantity. There are mainly two conjectures for the string tension: the “Casimir scaling law”  and the “sine law” . In these two conjectures the gauge group $`G=SU(N)`$ is considered and a string in the representation associated with the fundamental weight $`\lambda _k`$ which can be obtained by the antisymmetric tensor product of $`k`$ fundamental representations associated with $`\lambda _1`$. For the Casimir scaling conjecture, the string tension should satisfy

$$T_k=T_1\frac{k(Nk)}{N1},k=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},N1,$$
(30)
where $`T_1`$ would be the string tension in the $`\lambda _1`$ fundamental representation. On the other hand, for the sine law conjecture,

$$T_k=T_1\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi k}{N}\right)}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{N}\right)},k=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},N1.$$

There are some papers  using different approaches like MQCD, AdS/CFT, etc., giving some support to this last conjecture. On the other hand, several lattice studies  have appeared in the literature in the last years giving support to both conjectures.

All these conjectures are concerned with the chromoelectric strings. However, as we mentioned in the introduction, one expects that chromomagnetic strings could be related to chromoelectric strings by a duality transformation. Therefore one could ask if the tensions of our chromomagnetic strings satisfy one of the two conjectures.

Let us start with a general gauge group $`G`$. From Eqs. (23) and (24), we obtain that the string tension satisfies the bound

$$T_\omega \frac{m\mu \pi }{e}\left|\delta \omega \right|,$$

where $`\omega `$ must belong to one of the cosets (27). Let

$$\omega =\lambda _k^\text{v}\beta _\omega ,$$

where $`\lambda _k^\text{v}`$ is a minimal fundamental coweight and $`\beta _\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(G^\text{v})`$. Remembering that $`\lambda _k^\text{v}`$ is a fundamental weight of $`\stackrel{~}{G}^\text{v}`$ and the quadratic Casimir associated with this fundamental representation is

$$C(\lambda _k^\text{v})=\lambda _k^\text{v}\left(\lambda _k^\text{v}+2\delta \right),$$

it follows that

$$T_\omega \frac{m\mu \pi }{e}\left|\frac{1}{2}\left[C(\lambda _k^\text{v})\lambda _k^\text{v}\lambda _k^\text{v}\right]\delta \beta _\omega \right|.$$
(31)
Clearly for a string configuration in the trivial topological sector, i.e. $`\omega =\beta _\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{r}(G^\text{v})`$, the above string tension bound does not have the first term.

Let us now consider $`G=SU(N)`$. The quadratic Casimir associated with the representation with fundamental weight $`\lambda _k`$ is

$$C(\lambda _k)=\frac{N^21}{2N}\left[\frac{k\left(Nk\right)}{N1}\right].$$

Moreover,

$$\lambda _k=e_1+e_2+\mathrm{}+e_k\frac{k}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}e_j,$$

where $`e_ie_j=\delta _{i,j}`$. Therefore

$$\lambda _k\lambda _k=\frac{k\left(Nk\right)}{N}.$$

Hence, for $`SU(N)`$,

$$T_{\lambda _k\beta _\omega }\frac{m\mu \pi }{e}\left|\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\left(N1\right)^2}{2N}\frac{k\left(Nk\right)}{N1}\right)\delta \beta _\omega \right|$$
(32)
Therefore the first term on the right-hand-side of this inequality or, equivalently, the BPS string tension associated with $`\omega =\lambda _k`$ can be written as

$$T_{\lambda _k}^{\text{ BPS}}=T_{\lambda _1}^{\text{ BPS}}\frac{k\left(Nk\right)}{N1},k=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},N1,$$
(33)
where

$$T_{\lambda _1}^{\text{ BPS}}=\frac{m\mu \pi }{2e}\frac{\left(N1\right)^2}{2N}$$

is the BPS string tension associated with $`\omega =\lambda _1`$. Hence we explicitly showed that the BPS string tensions associated with an arbitrary $`SU(N)`$ fundamental weight $`\lambda _k`$ satisfy the Casimir scaling conjecture, given by Eq. (30). However, in the Casimir scaling law conjecture (and also in the sine law conjecture), it is believed that the string tension should be the same for all weights in a given topological sector. But from Eq. (31) or (32), we can see that the first term depends only on the coset or topological sector but the second term is proportional to $`\delta \beta _\omega `$ and therefore depends explicitly on which weight is being considered. As we have seen, that result is exactly like the $`SU(2)`$ case, where the strings in a given topological sector (i.e., $`n`$ even or odd) do not have same magnetic flux and consequently string tension. On the other, hand only the strings with $`n=\pm 1`$ are stable and satisfy Eq. (33). As we have mentioned before, not all of the strings associated with weights in a given coset are expected to be stable. Therefore, it would be interesting to determine the stability conditions for these string solutions, similarly to what was done for the BPS monopoles  and BPS $`U(1)`$ string solutions .

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank T. Hollowood, T. Kibble, and M. Strassler for discussions and FAPERJ for financial support.

fig. 1

fig. 2


text:
# Half-metallic ferromagnetism and structural stability of zincblende phases of the transition-metal chalcogenides

## Abstract

An accurate density-functional method is used to study systematically half-metallic ferromagnetism and stability of zincblende phases of 3d-transition-metal chalcogenides. The zincblende CrTe, CrSe, and VTe phases are found to be excellent half-metallic ferromagnets with large half-metallic gaps (up to 0.88 eV). They are mechanically stable and approximately 0.31-0.53 eV per formula unit higher in total energy than the corresponding nickel-arsenide ground-state phases, and therefore would be grown epitaxially in the form of films and layers thick enough for spintronic applications.

Half-metallic ferromagnets are seen as a key ingredient in future high performance spintronic devices, because they have only one electronic spin channel at the Fermi energy and, therefore, may show nearly 100 % spin polarizationsptr ; HMM . Since de Groot et al’s discoveryheusler  in 1983, a lot of half-metallic ferromagnets have been theoretically predicted and some of them furthermore have been confirmed experimentally NiMnSb ; CrO2 ; Fe3O4 ; LSMO . Much attention has been paid to understanding the mechanism behind the half-metallic magnetism and to studying its implication on various physical propertiesphys ; groot1 . However, it is highly desirable to explore new half-metallic ferromagnetic materials which are compatible with important III-V and II-VI semiconductors. For this purpose, effort has be made on the metastable zincblende (B3) phases such as the transition-metal pnictides epi-mnx ; mnasdot ; nhmm ; cras ; cras1 ; crsb ; crsb1 ; mnx ; shirai ; lbg ; xu . Although zincblende phases of MnAsmnasdot , CrAscras ; cras1  and CrSbcrsb  have been successfully fabricated as nanodots, ultrathin films and ultrathin layers in multilayers, it has not been possible to grow the zincblende half-metallic ferromagnetic phases as high-quality layers or thick films. This is due to the metastable zincblende phases being about 1 eV per formula unit higher in energy than the ground state nickel-arsenide (B81) phases. However, spintronic devices require thick films or layers. Therefore, it is important to explore theoretically other half-metallic ferromagnetic materials, which on the one hand are compatible with the binary tetrahedral-coordinated semiconductors, and on the other hand are not only low in energy with respect to the corresponding ground-state structures but also mechanically stable against structural deformations.

In this Letter we make use of an accurate full-potential density-functional method to study systematically transition-metal chalcogenides in the zincblende and nickel-arsenide structures in order to find half-metallic ferromagnetic phases which could be realized in the form of films and layers thick enough. We shall show that CrTe, CrSe, and VTe in the zincblende structure are excellent half-metallic ferromagnets with wide half-metallic gaps. They will be proved to be mechanically stable and approximately 0.31-0.53 eV per formula unit higher in energy than the corresponding ground-state phases, and therefore would be grown epitaxially in the form of films and layers thick enough for spintronic applications.

We make use of the Vienna package WIEN2kwien2k  for all our calculations. This is a full-potential (linear) augmented plane wave plus local orbitals method within the density functional theoryDFT . We take the generalized gradient approximation in Ref PBE96  for the exchange-correlation potential. Relativistic effects are taken into account within the scalar approximation, but the spin-orbit coupling is neglected because it is proved to have little effect on our main conclusions. We use 3000 k points in the Brillouin zone for the zincblende structure and 2000 k points for the nickel-arsenide structure. When calculating the shear modulus constants of the zincblende phases we use 6000 k points. We set $`R_{mt}K_{max}`$ to 8.0 and make the expansion up to $`l=10`$ in the muffin tins. The self-consistent calculations are considered to be converged only when the integrated charge difference per formula unit, $`|\rho _n\rho _{n1}|𝑑r`$, between input charge density ($`\rho _{n1}(r)`$) and output ($`\rho _n(r)`$) is less than 0.0001.

In order to search for the better half-metallic ferromagnets in zincblende structure, we explore systematically all zincblende phases of 3d-transition-metal chalcogenides. We find that among all these zincblende compounds only the CrSe, CrTe and VTe phases are half-metallic ferromagnets. The ground-state phase of CrTe is a metallic ferromagnet in the hexagonal nickel-arsenide structure with experimental lattice constants a=3.998 Å and c=6.254 Åcrtesee ; crteset . Its experimental Curie temperature is Tc=340 K which decreases to zero at a pressure of 28 kbarcrtesee . In contrast, the ground-state phase of CrSe is an antiferromagnet in the nickel-arsenide structure with experimental lattice constants a=3.674 Å and c=6.001 Åcrse ; crtesee . Its Neel temperature was located at 320 K by specific heat measurementcrseneel . There has been not any experimental report on VTe, but it is shown by comparing the total energies of various phases that the nickel-arsenide ferromagnetic phase, with equilibrium lattice constants 4.13 and 6.07 Å, is the ground-state phase in this case. We predict the equilibrium lattice constants of the zincblende CrSe, CrTe, and VTe to be 5.833, 6.292, and 6.271 Å, respectively.

Figure 1 shows the band structures of the zincblende CrSe, CrTe, and VTe phases at their equilibrium volumes. For the minority spin bands we see that just below the Fermi energy there exist three $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{15}`$ bands which result mainly from the Te (Se) $`p`$ electrons, whereas just above the Fermi energy there exist two $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ bands which comprise mainly the Cr (V) $`e_g`$ electrons. For the majority-spin bands, there are also three $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{15}`$ bands below the Fermi energy originating mainly from the Te (Se) $`p`$ electrons, but the two $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ bands mainly of the Cr (V) $`e_g`$ electrons are below the Fermi energy. The bands crossing the Fermi energy are the majority-spin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{15}^{}`$. The three $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{15}^{}`$ bands are mainly of Cr (V) $`t_{2g}`$ character. There is strong interaction between the Te (Se) $`p`$ bands and the Cr (V) $`t_{2g}`$ bands. Figure 2 shows the spin-dependent total and partial DOS of the three zincblende phases. The zincblende phases of CrTe, CrSe, and VTe have large half-metallic gaps, 0.88, 0.61, and 0.31 eV, respectively.

The binding energy curves for CrSe, CrTe, and VTe in the zincblende structure are shown in Figure 3. All the three zincblende phases are ferromagnetic because the antiferromagnetism with the modulation vector  makes their equilibrium total energy per formula unit increase by 0.07, 0.12, or 0.13 eV, respectively, and other antiferromagnetic modulation vectors even lead to higher total energies. We summarize our main results in Table I. The metastable energy of a phase is defined as its total energy per formula unit minus that of the corresponding ground-state phases. There have been previous predictions of half-metallic ferromagnetism in transition-metal pnictides or chalcogenides from DOS calculationscrte3 . However, no detailed discussion of their energetics has been given. It is clear that the metastable energies of the three transition-metal chalcogenides are substantially smaller than those of the transition-metal pnictides.

An important question to address is whether these zincblende phases are mechanically stable, so that they would be grown experimentallyshear . In order to investigate this we have evaluated the tetragonal and trigonal shear constants, $`C^{}`$ and C44, respectively, by computing the change in energy of the zincblende phases under small volume-conserving strains (see Figure 4). Their values are given in table II together with the bulk modulus $`B`$ for comparison. We see that all the zincblende phases are stable against the tetrahedral and rhombohedral deformations. The three zincblende transition-metal chalcogenides have slightly smaller bulk moduli, but larger tetragonal shear moduli than the zincblende CrAs phase. They are softer than GaAs, which has bulk and tetragonal shear modulus of 61.3 and 59.7 GPa, but are harder than the zincblende CrAs phase which has already been fabricated successfully epitaxially. Importantly, however, their metastable energies are much smaller than that of the zincblende CrAs phase. Therefore, the zincblende phases of CrSe, CrTe and VTe would be realized in the near future by means of epitaxial growth.

In summary, using the accurate density-functional method we have made a systematic computation of all the 3d-transition-metal chalcogenides in the zincblende and nickel-arsenide structures and found the zincblende CrSe, CrTe and VTe to be excellent half-metallic ferromagnets. These zincblende phases have very large half-metallic gaps (up to 0.88 eV) and are approximately 0.31-0.53 eV per formula unit higher in energy than the corresponding nickel-arsenide ground-state phases. Moreover, they are mechanically stable and harder than the observed zincblende CrAs phase. Therefore, they would be grown epitaxially in the form of films and layers thick enough, and useful in spintronics and other applications.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in parts by Chinese Department of Science and Technology under the National Key Projects of Basic Research (No. G1999064509), by Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 60021403), and by British Royal Society under a collaborating project with Chinese Academy of Sciences.


text:
# 1 Introduction: the standard Penna model

## 1 Introduction: the standard Penna model

For biological ageing, the Penna model  presently is the most widespread computer simulation method. The genome of each individual is given by a string of 32 bits, representing dangerous inherited diseases (detrimental mutations) for the at most 32 time intervals during the life of this individual. A 0-bit means health, a 1-bit on position $`a`$ of the bit-string means a harmful mutation affecting the health from that age $`a`$ on. Three such diseases kill the individual at that age $`a`$ at which the third disease becomes active. Besides these deaths from genetic reasons, individuals also die at each time step with the Verhulst probability $`N/N_{max}`$ where $`N`$ is the total population and $`N_{max}`$ a constant parameter, often called the carrying capacity. At each time step, i.e. one iteration of the whole population, each living individual above a minimum reproduction age of 8 gives birth to children with the same genome as the mother except for one mutation in a randomly selected position. For more results from the Penna model we refer to . In particular, this model was used to compare various forms of sexual and asexual reproduction for diploids .

## 2 Model with good mutations

We have been often criticized for working only with bad mutations. In this case the bit position randomly selected in the parent’s genome has its bit set to one independently of its previous value. So the offspring genome is worse or equal to that of the parent, but never better. How can it then be compatible with the Darwinian evolution of more complex and fitter species? The answer is that the Penna model was invented originally  to describe ageing, which happens for homo sapiens within a century, and not to describe the evolution of homo over millions of years after the separation from other primates. On short time scales, nearly all mutations are bad; on long time scales, the rare good mutations dominate Darwinian evolution of fitter species. We now aim to include this effect of two time scales into the Penna model.

We start with the asexual Fortran program published in  with one bit-string of 32 bits as standard “genome”, and with one child born per surviving adult parent per iteration. When the child is born, a randomly selected bit of the standard genome becomes set (one) if it was zero before; it stays set otherwise. When in a first modification we allowed positive mutations (reversing a set bit to a zero bit) with probability 0.01, we found improved fitness as shown by a higher population, but no evolution over long times.

In our second modification, we return to the case where only bad mutations are allowed: genetic improvement will be represented now by the possibility of not counting some of them, as follows. Each individual gets a second such bit-string as memory for good mutations. At birth, this memory genome gets, with a low probability $`q`$, on that same bit position where the standard genome is mutated, a bit set to one if it was zero before (otherwise it stays at one). In the evaluation of the active number of mutations (three of which are lethal) those bit positions are ignored. That is, if an individual has a bit set in a given position of the standard genome and also a bit set in the same position of the memory genome, then that mutation is ignored (similar to recessive mutations in sexual reproduction ). Now we found the desired long-term evolution, but it approached the unrealistic ideal of no active mutations at all, which also means no ageing. The reason is that if a bit is set in the memory string of the parent, it stays necessarily set in the offspring one.

Only our third modification had the desired effect of allowing long-term improvement but still with ageing. At birth, the above memory genome gets, again on the same position as the mutation in the standard genome, a bit set to zero with probability $`q`$; if it was already zero it stays at zero. Thereafter, with an even smaller probability $`q^2`$, the same bit is set to one. Then, the two mutated bit-strings, i.e. the standard and the memory genome, are given on to the offspring. Only the standard mutations at positions where the memory bit is zero have detrimental effects. The mutation part of the modified program now is:

```
c             select a random position to mutate
c             in the standard genome
              ibm=ibm*16807
              p=bit(ishft(ibm,-59))
              gene1=ior(gene1,p)
              if(bad) goto 13
c             mutation at same position of the
c             memory bit-string
              ibm=ibm*mult
              if(ibm.lt.iprob) gen2f(i)= ior(gen2f(i),p)
              if(ibm.lt.ipro2) gen2f(i)=ieor(gen2f(i),p)
 13           continue

```

Here, ipro2 corresponds to the probability $`q`$, iprob to the probability $`q(1+q)`$, gene1 to the standard genome, and gen2f(i) to the new memory bit-string introduced here. Note that the same random bit p controls the mutations in the two bit-strings, the array $`\mathrm{bit}(\mathrm{i})=2^\mathrm{i}`$ previously defined. (Our random integers ibm used 64 bits and multiplication with mult = $`13^{13}`$. The logical variable bad is true only during the first 10 percent of the simulation).

Figure 1 shows for $`q=0.001`$ the effects of the new memory bit-string for good mutations. First we equilibrate the standard model, starting from a random standard genome where on average 16 of the 32 bits are set, and a completely empty memory genome. After one million iterations, the mutations in the memory genome are switched on, allowing for good mutations with probability $`q^2=10^6`$. From now on the average number of bad mutations in the whole standard bit-string (not counting those made recessive by the memory bit-string) goes down to a much lower value (from 16 to 5). The resulting higher fitness increases the population (not shown). We also see clearly that the improvement of the species proceeds mostly in rapid steps followed by longer intervals of constant number of mutations: “Punctuated equilibrium” as in reality . With $`q=0.1`$ or 0.01, this improvement proceeds faster (not shown).

Thus, the Penna model allows also an improvement of fitness over long time scales.

## 3 Model with mutation-dependent Verhulst factor

As out pointed in section 1, in the standard Penna model there is a random time-dependent killing factor $`V=N(t)/N_{max}`$, known as the Verhulst factor. At each iteration and for each individual $`i`$ a random number $`r_i`$ between zero and one is generated and compared with $`V`$: if $`r_iV`$, the individual dies independently of its age or genome. Its main purpose is to avoid the exponential increase of the population through a competion for food and space inside an environment that can carry at most $`N_{max}`$ individuals. However, in real populations the fitter the animal is, the higher is its probability to win a dispute. So this random killing factor is frequently criticized in the literature .

We now introduce a new Verhulst that mostly depends on each individual’s current number of mutations, $`\mathrm{mut}`$, active at it’s age:

$$V_i=\frac{N(t)}{N_{max}\times f_i(\mathrm{mut})},\mathrm{with}f(0)=1\mathrm{and}f(\mathrm{mut})=\frac{1}{n^{\mathrm{mut}}}.$$

Now if an individual has not yet accumulated any bad mutation at a given age, it still can be killed by the standard Verhulst probability at that age (since $`f(0)=1`$). However, whenever a new mutation appears, the carrying capacity for that individual is divided by some fixed constant $`n`$, which increases it’s probability to die by the same factor. Also we don’t consider anymore a limiting number of bad mutations: the individual dies either by this new Verhulst or because it reaches age 32.

Figure 2 shows the relative number of individuals with a bit set at a given age, for $`n=6`$ and for $`n=10`$. We see that before the minimum reproduction age $`R=8`$, for $`n=6`$ all individuals have bits set at ages zero and one, while for $`n=10`$ the fixation occurs only at age one. In fact, the smaller the value of $`n`$ is, the higher is the number of fixed bits before $`R`$. The shape of these curves is similar to those obtained with the standard model , although in that case the asexual populations always fix $`T1`$ bits before $`R`$, where $`T`$ is the limit number of allowed diseases. For this reason its longevities are smaller than in the present case, where there is no threshold for bad mutations.

Finally, figure 3 shows the mortality functions, $`q(a)`$, where $`D_a`$ is the number of deaths at age $`a`$:

$$q(a)=\mathrm{ln}\left[1\frac{D_a}{N_a}\right].$$

Again for the $`n=10`$ case, the mortality is roughly the same as the usual one, increasing exponentially with increasing age, for ages above the minimum reproduction age (here equal to 8). Such behaviour is known as the Gompertz low of mortality . For $`n=6`$, the result changes dramatically and the mortality decelerates at older ages, as observed for drosophilas , and may even decrease, as observed for medflies . (For a review on experimental results see ). A mortality plateau was also shown to occur within the analytical solution of a slightly modified version of the Penna model  where the strict death rule for a fixed number of accumulated mutations is relaxed, although not removed. It was also obtained before with the standard Penna model, but using more complicated strategies as for instance, assuming a rather unusual antagonistic pleiotropy . Alternative simulations by biologists thus far failed to get this mortality maximum .

It is important to say that in the figures presented here we have considered all the results except those for which there was, on average, less than one alive individual with a given age. For this reason, the statistics concerning extremely old individuals is poor. However, such cases correspond to the tails of the curves and don’t perturb the reliability of our mortality maximum. For instance, in the $`n=6`$ case, there is, on average, only one alive individual with age 25, but there are around 150 with age 18 and 730 with age 16, where the effect appears.

## 4 Conclusions

Introducing into the Penna bit-string model good mutations or a memory to discount the bad ones (which roughly plays the role of changing a dominant mutation into a recessive one), we obtain an improvement of the population fitness over long time scales. This improvement proceeds mostly in rapid steps followed by longer intervals of constant fitness, meaning that punctuated equilibrium can also be obtained within the Penna model.

We also modify the original model changing the completely random killing Verhulst factor into another one that increases exponentially with the number of active mutations. In this case we don’t consider anymore that a given limiting number of mutations kills the individual. Now some individuals can live longer, despite carrying a higher number of genetic diseases, than others which inherited a smaller one. With this modification we reproduce the main features of the original model and also obtain a mortality maximum at old ages.

Acknowledgements: To PMMH at ESPCI for the warm hospitality, to Sorin Tănase-Nicola for helping us with the computer facilities; SMO, PMCO and JSSM thank the Brazilian agencies FAPERJ and CNPq for financial support.