text:
# A Roadmap For Meson Spectroscopy

## I Introduction

The rapidly evolving field of hadron spectroscopy is increasingly motivated by firm expectations of seeing new types of matterkey . The “ordinary” mesons are thought to be confined quark-antiquark pairs in spin singlet/triplet states and with orbital and radial excitation. Non-perturbative QCD in addition predicts that for each ordinary meson there are higher lying states with excited gluonic energy (hybrids) and that there should also be mesons composed essentially of pure glue energy (glueballs). Further complicating the experimental situation are possible four quark mesons (molecules) or dynamically generated resonances not having any clear relation to the quark picture.

In the most recent Particle Data Group report pdg  there are about 100 well established meson states composed of light quarks $`(u,d,s)`$ and glue. Of these, 56 have been assigned into constituent quark multiplets pdg . Since the vast majority of the observed meson states lie in energy below 2.5 GeV a straightforward method of separating the ordinary mesons from hybrids, glueballs etc. would be very useful. Previous work godfrey  in understanding the meson spectrum has either centered on detailed quark models or on the search for SU(3) flavor nonets. Both approaches are sensitive to details such as mixing between nonets or with hybrids and glueballs. Although such considerations are crucial to a complete understanding, the proposed classification is based on some simple observations and is relatively model independent.

First we draw some motivation from the well-understood heavy onia mesons composed of $`b`$ and $`c`$ quarks. These states are classified by the orbital angular momentum and radial excitation of the heavy quarks. The spin dependence is much smaller than the quark motion energies and therefore each state of orbital and radial excitation consists for $`L>0`$ of four nearly degenerate states (e.g. $`\chi _0`$, $`\chi _1`$, $`\chi _2`$ and $`h`$). For $`L=0`$ the group is just two states. The corresponding Regge trajectories look very different when plotted conventionally as total angular momentum $`J`$ vs. $`E^2`$. Here it is evident that there is a “fundamental” orbital angular momentum trajectory $`L=L(E^2)`$ that breaks into a family of trajectories when the spin is turned on. Nothing spectacular happens in the case of light quarks except that the spin splittings are somewhat larger. Thus our first principle will be to consider all light quark states of the same orbital and radial excitation quantum numbers to form natural groups. For $`L>0`$ and three light quarks there are expected to be sixteen members of each group (and eight members for $`L=0`$ groups). Clearly, a few such groups accounts for a lot of mesons.

For light quarks (and actually also true for heavy quark bound states) the confining interaction dominates the meson dynamics. The confining interaction closest to QCD is the QCD string/flux tube. The flux tube has all the proper QCD relativistic corrections collin  as well as the correct Regge slope of $`1/2\pi a`$ dan . A string tension of a= 0.16 GeV2 yields the universal Regge slope of 1 GeV-2. In addition the long range excited glue spectrum is correctly predictedted . The light quark QCD flux tube spectroscopy can be exactly numerically calculatedcollin ; ted  and analytically accurately estimated charlie  by,

$$E^2/2\pi a=L+2n1/2,$$
(1)
where $`E`$ is the meson excitation energy and $`L`$ takes the values $`0,1,2,`$… and $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ . We should note the factor $`L+2n`$ which implies degenerate tower states of either even or odd $`L`$.

The effect of an attractive short-range interaction will be to lower $`E`$ for a given $`L`$. For large $`L`$ the short-range interaction, $`V(r)=k/r`$, shifts coulomb  the Regge trajectory to smaller $`E^2/(2\pi a)`$ by $`k/2`$. For $`L=0`$ this shift is somewhat larger. In Fig. 1 we show by the solid lines the Regge trajectories due to confinement alone. These trajectories given by Eq. (1) consist of the leading $`(n=1)`$ and evenly spaced daughter trajectories all of slope $`1/2\pi a`$ (or unit slope in this graph). This structure is numerically accurate for a straight string and also for a dynamically curved string ted2 . The dashed curves represent mesons with both confinement and with short range (taking $`k=1`$) interaction.

## II Ordinary Mesons

We first consider the light quark mesons pdg  that have been assigned to constituent quark configurations. We subdivide these according to their assigned orbital and radial quantum numbers $`L`$ and $`n`$ pdg . Taking $`2\pi a=1`$ GeV-2 we plot $`E^2/2\pi a`$ for each of these mesons in Fig.1. In this calculation we have subtracted 0.1 GeV for each strange quark to roughly account for the differing quark masses.

The “fundamental” Regge plot of Fig.1 shows that all of the 56 assigned quark model states indeed fall into a few well defined groups. All of the expected states of the 1S, 2S, and 1P groups are present (32 mesons). The 1D group has currently 12 of the 16 expected and the 3S 4 of 8 states. We see that the 2P, and 1F groups each has 4 out of the expected 16. One expects the remaining mesons in these groups to be present. We also indicate several groups expected at higher energies.

## III New Matter

In the conservative meson summary table pdg  there are several mesons that have no logical place in Fig 1. The $`f_0(.60)`$ is probably a dynamical state and the $`f_0(.98)`$ and $`a_0(.98)`$ are surely some sort of four quark/molecule state associated with the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. Much has been written on the nature of these states pdg . Between 1 and 2 GeV there are the 1P, 2S, 1D, 3S, and 2P groups. Although there are numerous missing states in these groups there is no place for the $`f_0(1.50)`$ which may well be a glueball. There is also mounting evidence for two exotic mesons of $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ (at 1.4 and 1.6 GeV) which by their quantum numbers cannot be ordinary mesons. One of these is an excellent candidate for a hybrid meson. Considerable further speculation is certainly possible but will not be pursued here.

## IV Summary

Using some general organizing concepts we outline the number, quantum numbers, and approximate energies of the expected quark-antiquark (ordinary) mesons. From orbital and radial motion dominance we find that all (56) of the mesons currently pdg  assigned as constituent quark model states fall into well defined groups as shown in Fig.1. For massless (ultra-relativistic) quarks and with linear confinement the allowed eigenstates generally lie on straight Regge trajectories with parallel daughter trajectories mgo . The QCD string seems to be similar to QCD at large distances giving the simple spectrum (1). As seen in Fig. 1, the observed meson groups organize neatly into these fundamental trajectories when supplemented by the expected short range interaction. These groupings represent, in a model-independent way, what one might expect in the way of ordinary mesons. This should be a useful tool in the identification of the new matter states.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896 and in part by the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.


format: text

text:
# On some sequences of functions and their applications in physics

## 1 Introduction

During the last decades many attempts have been made in order to explain and formalize mathematically a large set of phenomena that, at first glance, are not well described by traditional theories. Among those attempts we can find the whole theory of self-organized criticallity (that now seems to be over at least in the criticallity part) and some statistical theories. Probably the most popular in recent years has been the Daróczy-like entropy (Daróczy 1970), and its correponding Statistical Mechanics formalism known as Tsallis entropy (Tsallis 1988):

$$S_q=k_B\frac{1{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{W}{}}}p_i^q}{q1},$$
(1)
where $`W`$ is the total number of configurations, $`p_i`$ are the associated probabilities and $`k_B`$ is some suitable constant. It is based in a special parameter $`q`$, which is adjusted to the phenomena the theory tries to represent. When $`q1`$ the Boltzmann entropy is obtained. In Papa (1998), an inverse formalism was applied to find the limit when $`q1`$. In this way, an infinite set of entropies(and consequentely Statistics) of the same type was found. The necessity of a deeper criteria to choose a formalism to represent physical systems was pointed out. In particular, it was shown that for the special functional form of equation (1), integrating an infinite number of times the numerator and the denominator separately leads to the same result as differentiating once (i.e., to apply the replica trick or, even simpler, L’Hôpital’s rule). So, letting the number of integrations go to infinity, we achieve a limit that is independent of the parameter $`q`$, without considering the limit of $`q`$ approaching some specific value. The aim of this paper is to state and prove a general Lemma providing general conditions to apply this technique.

## 2 The lemma

For a real continuous function $`f:`$ and a point $`x_0`$, we denote by $`I_n^f(x)`$ the sequence of functions defined inductively as follows:

$`I_0^f(x)=f(x)`$
$`I_{n+1}^f(x)={\displaystyle _{x_0}^x}I_n^f(t)𝑑t.`$
To keep the notation as simple as possible, we do not write explicitely the dependence of the sequences of functions above on the point $`x_0`$. The point used as lower limit of integration should be obvious in what follows. We use the usual notation $`f^{(j)}(x)`$ to denote the $`j`$-th derivative of $`f(x)`$. With this basic notation, we can state the lemma:

###### Lemma 1

Let $`f:`$, $`g:`$ be real functions, analytic in a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`x_0`$. Suppose $`f^{(j)}(x_0)=g^{(j)}(x_0)=0`$, for $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},K`$ and $`g^{(K+1)}(x_0)0`$. Let $`V=[x_0R,x_0+R]U`$, $`R>0`$, be an interval where $`f^{(j)}(x)0`$ and $`g^{(j)}(x)0`$, $`xV`$, $`xx_0`$, for $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},K+1`$. Then,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{I_n^f(x)}{I_n^g(x)}=\frac{f^{(K+1)}(x_0)}{g^{(K+1)}(x_0)}$$

uniformily in $`V\backslash \{x_0\}`$, where the sequences of functions $`I_n`$ are constructed using $`x_0`$ as the lower limit of integration.

### Proof:

Since $`f`$ and $`g`$ are analytic in V, we have for $`xV`$

$`f(x)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(j)}(x_0)}{j!}}(xx_0)^j`$
$`g(x)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{(j)}(x_0)}{j!}}(xx_0)^j.`$
$`f^{(j)}(x_0)=g^{(j)}(x_0)=0`$, for $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},K`$, implies

$`f(x)={\displaystyle \underset{j=K+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(j)}(x_0)}{j!}}(xx_0)^j`$
$`g(x)={\displaystyle \underset{j=K+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{(j)}(x_0)}{j!}}(xx_0)^j.`$
Since both series converge uniformly, we can integrate term by term to get

$`I_n^f(x)={\displaystyle \underset{j=K+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(j)}(x_0)}{(j+n)!}}(xx_0)^{(j+n)}`$
$`I_n^g(x)={\displaystyle \underset{j=K+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{(j)}(x_0)}{(j+n)!}}(xx_0)^{(j+n)}`$
and then, for $`xx_0`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{I_n^f(x)}{I_n^g(x)}}={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \underset{j=K+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(j)}(x_0)}{(j+n)!}}(xx_0)^{(j+n)}}{{\displaystyle \underset{j=K+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{(j)}(x_0)}{(j+n)!}}(xx_0)^{(j+n)}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{f^{(K+1)}(x_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+2+n}}\left[f^{(K+2)}(x_0)(xx_0)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(K+1+j)}(x_0)}{(K+1+j+n)\mathrm{}(K+3+n)}}(xx_0)^j\right]}{g^{(K+1)}(x_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+2+n}}\left[g^{(K+2)}(x_0)(xx_0)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{(K+1+j)}(x_0)}{(K+1+j+n)\mathrm{}(K+3+n)}}(xx_0)^j\right]}}.`$
Since

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(K+1+j)}(x_0)}{(K+1+j+n)\mathrm{}(K+3+n)}}(xx_0)^j`$ and $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{(K+1+j)}(x_0)}{(K+1+j+n)\mathrm{}(K+3+n)}}(xx_0)^j`$
converge uniformily in $`V`$, there exists a constant $`C>0`$ such that for all $`xV`$,

$`\left|f^{(K+2)}(x_0)(xx_0)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(K+1+j)}(x_0)}{(K+1+j+n)\mathrm{}(K+3+n)}}(xx_0)^j\right|C`$
$`\left|g^{(K+2)}(x_0)(xx_0)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{(K+1+j)}(x_0)}{(K+1+j+n)\mathrm{}(K+3+n)}}(xx_0)^j\right|C`$
and that implies

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{I_n^f(x)}{I_n^g(x)}=\frac{f^{(K+1)}(x_0)}{g^{(K+1)}(x_0)},xV\backslash \{x_0\}.$$

## 3 Conclusion

We showed that under quite general conditions, the physically relevant limit can be reached from a special generalized functional form, without considering the limit to the value of the parameter that recover this point through traditional methods (replica trick or L’Hôpital’s rule). This curious fact imposes very strong constraints to functions used to generalize known physical quantities. Extra conditions are necessary to choose one of them.

The authors wish to thank The International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy, since their collaboration was made possible during a visit to the centre.

## References


text:
# REFERENCES

CERN-TH-2002-213

FAU-TP3-02-24

Wilsonian flows and background fields

Daniel F. Litim ***Daniel.Litim@cern.ch and Jan M. Pawlowski jmp@theorie3.physik.uni-erlangen.de

Theory Division, CERN
CH-1211 Geneva 23.
Inst. für Theoretische Physik III, Universität Erlangen,
Staudtstraße 7, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany.

Abstract
We study exact renormalisation group flows for background field dependent regularisations. It is shown that proper-time flows are approximations to exact background field flows for a specific class of regulators. We clarify the r$`\widehat{\mathrm{o}}`$le of the implicit scale dependence introduced by the background field. Its impact on the flow is evaluated numerically for scalar theories at criticality for different approximations and regularisations. Implications for gauge theories are discussed.

1. Introduction

Renormalisation group (RG) techniques are pivotal for the study of theories which are strongly coupled and/or have diverging correlation length. For practical purpose renormalisation group flows should be easily accessible by analytical means and should have good numerical stability within given truncations. Such flows provide a promising starting point for the study of more involved theories like (non-)Abelian gauge theories or even quantum gravity. The formulation of gauge theories is simplified by using background fields. Within the ERG approach background field techniques have been applied to non-Abelian gauge theories , to the superconducting phase transition  and to a study of UV fixed points of Euclidean quantum gravity .

The full power of the background field method can be exploited by identifying the background field with the mean field. Then, background field flows offer remarkable simplifications for both analytical and numerical implementations. Analytic methods like heat kernel techniques are applicable and simplify the evaluation of the operator traces . However, identifying the background field with the mean field entails an inherent approximation on the flow: the outcome of an integration step provides an approximation to the input for the next integration step. Proper-time flows  are subject to a similar approximation , the main difference being that an additional contribution to the flow due to the field dependence of the regularisation is also neglected . For these reasons, it is important to investigate the implications and limits of these approximations, both for ERG flows with background fields, and related generalised proper time flows.

In the present work we address the details of such an approach. We sketch the derivation of a general background field flow in scalar theories, which serve as a testing ground for the properties and limits of the background field approach. We detail their connection to proper time flows derived in  and discuss the inherent approximation from a formal point of view. These approximations are linked to terms proportional to the scale derivative of the full inverse propagator. Their impact is studied numerically by a calculation of critical exponents in $`3d`$ scalar theories to leading order in a derivative expansion. Our results for different regularisations and approximations are discussed in the light of their conceptual differences. Implications for gauge theories are emphasised at various places.

2. Generalities

We briefly summarise the key steps of the derivation of the flow equation within the background field formulation. Consider the generating functional of a scalar theory with classical action $`S[\varphi ]`$ and a cut-off term $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_k[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi \overline{\varphi })R(\varphi \overline{\varphi })`$. Typically, the infra-red regulator $`R`$ tends to a mass for small momenta $`p^2/k^21`$ and decays exponentially for large momenta $`p^2/k^21`$ . In $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_k`$, $`\varphi `$ is the full field and the background field $`\overline{\varphi }`$ is an auxiliary field at our disposal. A common choice for the background field $`\overline{\varphi }`$ is the mean field: $`\overline{\varphi }=\varphi _J`$. Note, that in gauge theories formulated in background field dependent gauges even the gauge fixed action $`S`$ depends on both, $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$. The full field $`\varphi =\overline{\varphi }+(\varphi \overline{\varphi })`$ is split into the background field $`\overline{\varphi }`$ and the fluctuation field $`(\varphi \overline{\varphi })`$. In general, only these fields transform homogeneously under renormalisation group transformations. We allow for background field dependent regulator $`R`$ and define the regularised generating functional

$`Z_k[J,\overline{\varphi }]={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi \mathrm{exp}\left(S[\varphi ]\mathrm{\Delta }S_k[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]+J(\varphi \overline{\varphi })\right)}.`$ (1)
The propagating field is the fluctuation field $`(\varphi \overline{\varphi })`$, which is coupled to the external current. The flow equation for the generating functional in (1) is given by $`_tZ[J,\overline{\varphi }]=_t\mathrm{\Delta }S_k[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]_J`$. This equation depends linear on the propagator of the fluctuation field $`(\varphi \overline{\varphi })`$, as necessary for one loop exact flows . The flow of $`Z_k`$ can be turned into a flow for the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]=J(\varphi \overline{\varphi })\mathrm{ln}Z[J;\overline{\varphi }]+\mathrm{\Delta }S_k[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]`$:

$`_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]+R}}_tR,`$ (2)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n,m)}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]=\frac{\delta ^n}{(\delta \varphi )^n}\frac{\delta ^m}{(\delta \overline{\varphi })^m}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }].$$

The flow (2) is both consistent and complete, in the sense coined in . It is a straightforward task to show that standard perturbation theory is contained in the integrated flow (2). For these considerations, the background field acts as a spectator. The next question is how the effective action depends on $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$. If $`R`$ is independent of $`\overline{\varphi }`$, the effective action only depends on the full field $`\varphi `$. In case we take a $`\overline{\varphi }`$-dependent $`R`$, the effective action is not a functional of the full field $`\varphi `$, but a functional of both fields. This can be summarised in the equation

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(0,1)}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]+R}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta R}{\delta \overline{\varphi }}},`$ (3)
which controls the background field dependence of the effective action. Eq. (3) resembles the flow equation (2). The term on the right-hand side vanishes for $`R0`$. In gauge theories the situation is slightly more complicated. As mentioned before, the action $`S`$ depends on both, the fluctuation field and the background field, in background field dependent gauges. Consequently (3) receives additional contributions from $`S^{(0,1)}(\varphi ,\overline{\varphi })0`$. These terms are even present for vanishing regulator $`R=0`$, e.g. . An exception is provided by axial gauges, where the background field only enters the regulator term .

Now we want to find a particularly simple form of the flow (2), subject to an appropriate choice of the class of regulators $`R`$. The flow (2) depends on the two operators $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2,0)}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]`$. For all purposes, in particular for its numerical treatment, we would like to choose a regulator $`R`$ which commutes with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]`$, or at least comes as close as it gets. The obvious choice would be to take $`R`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2,0)}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]`$. However, the dependence on $`\varphi `$ implies that (2) would then contain additional flow terms to any loop order, as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2,0)}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]`$ depends on arbitrary powers of $`\varphi `$. This spoils the applicability of the flow. To maintain (2), the regulator $`R`$ only can depend on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}[\overline{\varphi },\overline{\varphi }]`$. There are other choices, guided by renormalisation group arguments, which lead to regulators that depend only linearly on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2,0)}[\overline{\varphi },\overline{\varphi }]`$, see . We parametrise the regulators as

$$R(\overline{x})=\overline{x}r(\overline{x})$$
(4)
and define

$`x:=\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2,0)}[\varphi ,\varphi ]`$ (5)
and $`\overline{x}=x[\varphi =\overline{\varphi }]`$. The corresponding flow is

$`_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]+R[\overline{x}]}}\left(_{\overline{x}}R[\overline{x}]_t\overline{x}2\overline{x}^2_{\overline{x}}r[\overline{x}]\right)`$ (6)
Eq. (6) can be used in two ways. First we can expand it about a background field $`\overline{\varphi }`$ which has physical importance, e.g. the vacuum configuration. Such a procedure should stabilise the flow as already the chosen expansion points contains some non-trivial physical information. Of course this means that this information has to be at hand. Second, we can use (6) at $`\overline{\varphi }=\varphi `$, where the background field is the mean field. In this case we deal with the flow of the effective action

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]:=\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ,\varphi ].`$ (7)
Then, the flow on the right-hand side of (6) solely depends on the propagator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2,0)}[\varphi ,\varphi ]`$ and its $`t`$-derivative. Inserting this in (6) at $`\overline{\varphi }=\varphi `$ we arrive at

$`_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]=\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{xr^{}}{1+r}}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{r+xr^{}}{x(1+r)}}\dot{x},`$ (8)
where $`\dot{x}=_tx`$ and $`r^{}=_xr`$. We rush to add that (8) is not closed. The propagator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}[\varphi ,\varphi ]`$ is that of the fluctuation field, which is not identical to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}[\varphi ]=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}[\varphi ,\varphi ]+2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1,1)}[\varphi ,\varphi ]+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0,2)}[\varphi ,\varphi ]$$

for $`R0`$. This can be seen from (3). The same holds true for background field flows of gauge theories in axial gauges . For gauge theories within background field dependent gauges, the situation is even more involved, since the cut-off term is not the only source for a non-vanishing right-hand side of (3). From now on we discuss the consequences of

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}[\varphi ]\stackrel{!}{=}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2,0)}[\varphi ,\varphi ]$$
(10)
which is equivalent to the requirement

$$2\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(1,1)}[\varphi ,\varphi ]+\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(0,2)}[\varphi ,\varphi ]\stackrel{!}{=}0.$$
(11)
It has to be seen, what results can be obtained within such an approximation and where it approaches its limits. We emphasise that (Ex2) is trivially satisfied without background fields. Furthermore, in scalar theories and gauge theories within axial gauges , the background field only enters the regulator term. Hence, (3) vanishes in the infra-red limit which guarantees that (Ex2) is automatically satisfied in the same limit. Applications of the flow (8) to gauge theories or gravity in the approximation (Ex2) and neglecting flow terms $`\dot{x}`$ have been studied in , while the inclusion of flow terms $`\dot{x}`$ has been considered in .

3. Exact proper time flows

Next, we discuss the link of (8) to the proper time renormalisation group (PTRG). It was shown in , that PTRG flows are not exact. For the derivation we follow the arguments detailed there: a general PTRG flow at an effective cut-off scale $`k^2`$ can be expanded in a set of flows

$`_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]=\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{k^2+x/m}}\right)^m.`$ (12)
Here, $`x=\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}[\varphi ]`$ in the spirit of (5). The parameter $`m`$ describes different implementations of the proper-time regularisation. A general PTRG flow can be seen as a linear combinations of flows with different $`m`$. Another difference to (5) stems from the fact, that the proper time flow is derived without relying on background fields. In  we showed, that the proper time flows (12) represent approximations to exact background field flows and devised an exact generalised proper time flow. Eq. (12) lacks additional terms proportional to $`t`$ derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}`$. Moreover it relies on the approximation (Ex2). Now we present the corresponding $`R`$ with the leading term as in (12). We choose a regulator $`R`$ with $`r[x]`$ given by

$`r_m[x]=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{m}\left(\frac{mk^2}{x}\right)^m{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[m,m;m+1;\frac{mk^2}{x}]\right)1.`$ (13)
The function $`r_m`$ is a solution of the differential equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{xr^{}}{1+r}}=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{mk^2}}\right)^m.`$ (14)
This equation comes from matching the ERG flow -by neglecting the terms proportional to $`_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}`$\- to the proper time flow (12). The flow equation (8) with the regulator function $`r`$ as in (13) takes the form

$`_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_k=\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{k^2+x/m}}\right)^m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{r_m}{x(1+r_m)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{k^2+x/m}}\right)^m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right]\dot{x}.`$ (15)
Eq. (15) reduces to (12) if the term proportional to $`\dot{x}`$ on the right hand side is dropped. An interesting case is provided by the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$, where $`\left(1+x/(mk^2)\right)^m\mathrm{exp}(x/k^2)`$. In this limit $`r[x]`$ takes the form

$`r_{\mathrm{}}[x]=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{Ei}[\frac{x}{k^2}]\right)1.`$ (16)
The flow for the regulator $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$ reads

$`_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_k=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x}{k^2}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x}{k^2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{Ei}[\frac{x}{k^2}]\right)\right]\frac{1}{x}\dot{x}.`$ (17)
Eq. (17) boils down to the $`m\mathrm{}`$ limit of the proper time flow (12), when neglecting $`\dot{x}=_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}`$.

To conclude, apart from terms proportional to $`\dot{x}=_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}`$ the ERG flows (15) resemble the proper time flows (12). Therefore, a general proper time flow like (12) is the approximation to a background field ERG flow, where $`(i)`$ terms proportional to $`\dot{x}`$ are neglected and $`(ii)`$ implicitly the difference between fluctuation field and background field has been neglected, resorting to (Ex2).

This suggests to compare results of the (non-exact) PTRG to results from flows with the regulator argument $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}`$. Here, one can use optimisation criteria for this set of regulators . Note that the choice (13) was only one particular example of the general set of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}`$-dependent regulators. Applications of the proper-time RG are based on flows (12), and approximations thereof. It would be interesting to see how these results are affected by the additional flow terms as given in (15).

The above analysis is also linked to a further observation made in . The flows (12) and (15) can be matched to generalised Callan-Symanzik flows. The difference has two sources: First, the flows deviate by terms proportional to $`_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}`$ and higher scale derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ itself. Second, the Callan-Symanzik flow is defined without background fields and the argument $`x=\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}`$ is just the propagator of the full field. This has to be compared to (15), which is not a closed equation, and to (12), which is not exact. This leaves us with a representation of the missing terms made by the approximation (Ex2) without resorting to background fields at all.

4. Implicit scale dependences

Up to now, we have discussed the implications of using a background field dependent regularisation. In general, we are led to flows that contain terms proportional to $`_t\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$. A priori, it is difficult to estimate the numerical importance of those additional flow terms. Moreover, the validity of the approximation (Ex2) cannot be taken for granted. Hence, it would be most useful to gain some intuition for these matters, in particular in view of future numerical applications. Here, we study the relevance of $`_t\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ terms for $`O(N)`$ symmetric scalar theories at criticality in three dimensions, using ERG flows with background fields in different approximations. In the following we discuss flows for regulators of the form

$`R=(k^2(1X)q^2)\theta (k^2(1X)q^2),`$ (18)
where $`q^2`$ is plain momentum squared and $`X`$ encodes some intrinsic scale or background field dependence. For $`X=0`$, it reduces to an optimised regulator as introduced in . We consider the flow equation for the effective potential $`U_k`$ to leading order in the derivative expansion. The flow equation is best written in dimensionless variables $`u=U_kk^d`$ and $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^a\varphi _ak^{2d}`$. For the choice (18) of the regulator, the momentum integration can be performed analytically and leads to

$`_tu+du(d2)\rho u^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(N1){\displaystyle \frac{(1X_1)^{d/2}(1X_1\frac{1}{2}_tX_1)}{1X_1+u^{}}}\theta (1X_1)`$ (20)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1X_2)^{d/2}(1X_2\frac{1}{2}_tX_2)}{1X_2+u^{}+2\rho u^{\prime \prime }}}\theta (1X_2)`$
where $`X_1,X_2`$ are Goldstone and radial parts of the matrix $`X`$ in field space. For simplicity, we have rescaled the irrelevant factor $`4v_d/d`$ on the right-hand side of (20) into the potential and the fields.

Since $`X`$ is at our disposal it can be used to enhance the stability of the flow. The standard case $`X=0`$ (plain momentum regularisation) has been discussed in . We discuss the following natural choices for $`X`$:

* One can consider a regularisation which naturally includes an expansion about the minimum of the effective potential. We choose $`q^2+X=\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2,0)}[\varphi _0,\varphi _0](q^2)`$. Additionally, we take $`\varphi _0=0`$, which defines the $`k`$-dependent mass $`m_k^2`$ at vanishing field. We have

$`X_1=X_2=m_k^2/k^2.`$ (21)
The flow (20) with the choice (21) is denoted as flow $`A`$. Here, the regularisation introduces additional scale-dependent contributions to the flow, triggered by the running of the mass term at vanishing field. In consequence, no explicit background field dependence is introduced due to the regulator.
* A second choice for $`X`$ is given by $`q^2+X=\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2,0)}[\varphi ,\varphi ]`$, the full field-dependent propagator. This entails that our flow is essentially diagonal, the operator trace only involves the full propagator and its scale derivative. However, this forces us to concentrate on the flow of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]`$ as defined in the previous section in (7) within the approximation (Ex2). We have

$`X_1=u^{}(\rho ),`$ $`X_2=u^{}(\rho )+2\rho u^{\prime \prime }(\rho ).`$ (22)
The flow (20) with the choice (22) is denoted as flow $`B`$. Notice that the choice (22) corresponds to a cutoff in momenta and a cutoff in field amplitude, because the flow is suppressed once $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}>k^2`$. In contrast to flow $`A`$, the regularisation of the flow $`B`$ depends explicitly on the background field.
* Finally, we also compare the flows $`A`$ and $`B`$ to the exact proper time flow (17) for $`m=\mathrm{}`$. The operator $`X`$ is given by (22), and the flow is referred to as the flow $`C`$. It differs from flow $`B`$ only in the choice for the regularisation.

The structure of the flow (20) depends significantly on the choices $`X=0`$, (21) or (22). For $`X=0`$, the flow has a potential pole when $`u^{}`$ or $`u^{}+2\rho u^{\prime \prime }`$ approach $`1`$. This is a direct consequence of the IR regularisation. For (21), the pole is shifted away because the choice for $`X`$ corresponds precisely to the most negative value for $`u^{}`$ or $`u^{}+2\rho u^{\prime \prime }`$, respectively. This is even more pronounced for the field-dependent choice (22), because the denominator in (20) become trivial and field-independent. Still, the additional flow terms on the right-hand side of (20) imply potential poles, e.g. .

Next, we study the impact of the implicit scale dependence on the flow. This is done by partially considering the additional terms coming from the scale derivatives of $`X`$ in (20). The full scale derivative is proportional to

$`k^2_t(k^2X)=2X+_tX.`$ (23)
The first term on the right-hand side displays the explicit scale dependence of $`k^2`$, whereas the second term contains the implicit scale dependence of $`X`$ bound to vanish at a fixed point. Our first approximation is based on dropping the entire scale derivative of $`k^2X`$ by setting

$`k^2_t(k^2X)=0.`$ (24)
This is referred to as flows $`A^{}`$, $`B^{}`$ and $`C^{}`$, the prime indicating the additional approximation (24) on $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$. In particular, the flow $`C^{}`$ reads

$`_tu+du(d2)\rho u^{}=(N1)\mathrm{exp}\left(u^{}\right)+\mathrm{exp}\left(u^{}2\rho u^{\prime \prime }\right),`$ (25)
where we have absorbed an irrelevant numerical factor $`2v_d`$ into the fields. This flow has been studied numerically in .3d critical exponents have also been computed from (12) for other values of $`m`$, e.g. . The second kind of approximation consists in neglecting the intrinsic dependence on $`_tX`$, defined by

$`k^2_t(k^2X)=2X.`$ (26)
This is referred to as flows $`A^{\prime \prime }`$, $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`C^{\prime \prime }`$, the double-prime indicating the additional approximation (26).

On a fixed point, we have $`_tX=0`$, because $`X`$ is a dimensionless function. Using (23) and (26), we conclude that the fixed point solutions of the unprimed and the double-primed flows are identical. More generally, the fixed point solutions of any two flows are identical, if the flows differ only by a dimensionless flow term, which vanishes on a fixed point. For the $`A`$-flows, the function $`X`$ is field-independent. From the explicit form of the flows $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$, we conclude that the non-universal fixed point solutions $`_tu=0`$ are related by a simple rescaling of the fields and the effective potential. An analogous statement cannot be made about universal critical exponents. Indeed, critical exponents describe the approach towards the critical point. In the vicinity of the fixed point, the RG trajectories are strongly sensitive to the functions (23), (24) or (26). Despite the close similarity or even equality of the fixed point solutions, in general their critical exponents are all different.

5. Results

In Tab. 1, we have computed the critical exponent $`\nu `$ for the flows $`A`$, $`A^{}`$, $`A^{\prime \prime }`$, $`B^{}`$, $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`C^{}`$ for all $`N`$ between $`2`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. Results have been given for the physically most interesting cases $`N=0,1,2,3`$ and $`4`$. The critical exponent $`\nu `$ describes the approach towards the critical point. In the vicinity of the fixed point, the RG trajectories are strongly sensitive to the explicit form of the flow, which is quite different for the different cases introduced above. For $`N=2`$, the critical exponent is known to be $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$. The universal large-$`N`$ result reads $`\nu =1`$. All flows in all approximations reproduce the known result at $`N=2`$. Except for the flows $`A^{}`$ and $`A^{\prime \prime }`$, the same holds also true for the large-$`N`$ limit. All results given in Tab. 1 are within $`20\%`$ of the physical values, and some results are significantly closer. The results also depend on the choice of $`R`$. Within the present truncation the variation with $`R`$ is of a similar order of magnitude .

| $`N`$ | $`A`$ | $`A^{}`$ | $`A^{\prime \prime }`$ | $`B^{}`$ | $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ | $`C^{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`2`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}`$ |
| 0 | .592 | .583 | .649 | .565 | .574 | .582 |
| 1 | .650 | .626 | .738 | .587 | .607 | .626 |
| 2 | .708 | .666 | .825 | .605 | .636 | .669 |
| 3 | .761 | .699 | .901 | .620 | .663 | .710 |
| 4 | .804 | .725 | .962 | .631 | .688 | .749 |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ | 1 | .828 | 1.21 | 1 | 1 | 1 |

Table 1: Critical exponents $`\nu `$ to leading order in the derivative expansion from various flows.

On a technical level, the integration of the flows $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ is significantly more difficult than the standard flow $`X=0`$ or the primed flows, because they involve higher order flow terms on their right-hand sides. For the flow $`A`$, this dependence is simple enough to be diagonalised explicitly . For the flow $`B`$, the study is simplified by noticing that the fixed point solution of $`B`$ and $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ are identical. Once the fixed point solution is found, the critical exponents can be computed directly. For the computations, we make use of a polynomial approximation, either about vanishing field or the minimum of the potential. The critical exponents showed good convergence except for the flow $`B`$, where no definite result has been found within the polynomial expansion.

Consider the cases $`A`$, $`A^{}`$ and $`A^{\prime \prime }`$. By construction, all $`A`$-flows automatically fulfil the requirement (Ex2). Comparing the results for $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$, we conclude that the intrinsic scaling contributes between $`210\%`$ to the value for $`\nu `$. Notice that the values in the second row are slightly closer to the physical values , despite the fact that the underlying approximation is less accurate than the one leading to the flow $`A`$. In the flow $`A^{\prime \prime }`$, we have neglected only the term in (23) proportional to $`_t(m_k^2/k^2)`$. In comparison to $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$, we notice a strong increase for the critical exponent about $`1020\%`$. Conversely, retaining only the term $`_t(m_k^2/k^2)`$ of (23) in the flow would have lead to a decrease of $`\nu `$ by roughly the same amount (data not displayed). Hence, we found that both terms of (23) contribute strongly and with opposite sign to universal quantities. We also notice that the limit $`N=2`$ more stable than the large-$`N`$ limit, which is not reproduced by $`A^{}`$ and $`A^{\prime \prime }`$. This shows that maintaining (Ex2) and the correct large-$`N`$ limit is not compatible with the approximations (24) or (26).

Next we consider the flows $`B^{}`$ and $`B^{\prime \prime }`$. By construction, all $`B`$-flows are subject to the approximation (Ex2). The $`B`$-flows are sensitive to a non-trivial background field dependence of the regulator. The flows $`B^{}`$ and $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ reproduce the correct limits for $`N=2`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. This shows that the approximation (Ex2) is compatible with (24) or (26) for background field dependent regulators, even in the large-$`N`$ limit. Numerically, the results for $`B^{}`$ and $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ are below the physical values. Also, the values for $`B^{}`$ are smaller than those for $`B^{\prime \prime }`$. This is qualitatively the same as for the $`A`$-flows.

Structurally, the flow $`C^{}`$ differs from $`B^{}`$ only in the choice for the regulator, which is given by (4) with (16) in the former, and by (18) with (22) in the latter. The flow $`C^{}`$ differs from $`A^{}`$ in the additional background field dependence. This affects the numerical values for the critical exponents. This does not affect the limits $`N=2`$ or $`N=\mathrm{}`$, in agreement with the reasoning given above for the $`B`$-flows. The $`C^{}`$ results agree with those given in . It is very intriguing that the values obtained for $`A^{}`$ and $`C^{}`$ are both very close to the physical values, and very close to each other, ranging within $`.23\%`$ for $`N[0,4]`$. In the light of our discussion above, we expect that the additional terms found in (15) should modify the results for the critical indices.

6. Conclusions

We have studied the implications of background field dependent flows. Conceptually, the r$`\widehat{\mathrm{o}}`$le of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}`$ has been threefold. First of all, its appearance in the regulator has lead to an important simplification. The background field flow becomes essentially diagonal leading to a natural expansion in the eigenfunctions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}`$. Secondly, the deviation from this property is proportional to $`_t\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}`$ leading to additional flow terms. Their numerical treatment was more difficult than the standard flow. Thirdly, the regulator cuts off both large momentum and large field amplitude contributions to the flow. We expect that the background field flows presented here are useful for examining ‘local’ properties such as critical exponents as done in the present case. Global flows have to be studied separately as more care is required concerning the irrelevance of the neglected terms.

Numerically, a coherent picture has emerged as well. The implicit dependences leave the qualitative result unaffected, supporting the viability of the approximation (Ex2). Still, the corrections are quantitatively large and cannot be neglected for high precision computations. Best agreement with experimental data is achieved for the flows $`A^{}`$ and $`C^{}`$, despite the fact that implicit dependences are suppressed in both cases. This deserves further study, in particular in view of the full background field dependence.

More work has to be done for a study of non-universal quantities and for applications to non-Abelian gauge theories. There, most notably, the anomalous dimension of the gauge field is far from being small, the latter being a property coming to our help in the present work.

Acknowledgements

JMP thanks CERN for hospitality and financial support. The work of DFL has been supported by the European Community through the Marie-Curie fellowship HPMF-CT-1999-00404.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It was recently discovered that Type IIB superstring theory admits a maximally supersymmetric plane-wave background . Moreover, the string theory in this background is tractable, despite the fact that the background contains a nonvanishing RR field, in the light-cone GS formalism . In that approach the world-sheet theory consists of free massive bosons and fermions. Subsequently, there was a proposal to relate the string states and their interactions to holographically dual calculations in terms of certain limiting operators and their correlation functions in $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory .

The string interactions are encoded (using the language of light-cone-gauge string field theory) in a cubic interaction vertex. This vertex has been formulated in a pair of very nice papers by Spradlin and Volovich  . Their work generalizes the flat-space light-cone-gauge field theory results of   to the plane-wave geometry.

This paper has two goals. First, we wish to make the formulas for the Neumann coefficients that enter in the interaction vertex more explicit. Specifically, one wants explicit formulas for the inverse of a certain infinite-dimensional matrix. We succeed in expressing the inverse matrix in a factorized form in terms of a certain infinite component vector, but we have not yet obtained explicit formulas for the vector. However, even this step is useful for our second goal: exploring the large $`\mu `$ (large curvature) limit of the geometry, which is required for making contact with perturbative gauge theory computations.

## 2 Review of basic formulas

The type IIB superstring in the maximally supersymmetric plane-wave background is described in light-cone gauge by a free world-sheet theory. The eight bosonic and eight fermionic world-sheet fields each have mass $`\mu `$, a parameter that enters in the description of the plane-wave geometry and the RR five-form field strength. The mass term has two important consequences. One is that it leads to a mixing of left-movers and right-movers. The other is that the zero modes are also described by harmonic oscillators of finite frequency. Altogether, a convenient labeling of the bosonic lowering and raising operators arising from quantization of the free world-sheet theory is $`a_m^I`$ and $`a_m^I`$, where $`m`$ runs from minus infinity to plus infinity and $`I=1,\mathrm{},8`$. These satisfy ordinary oscillator commutation relations

$$[a_m^I,a_n^J]=\delta _{mn}\delta ^{IJ}.$$
(1)
There are also fermionic oscillators $`b_m^\alpha `$ and $`b_m^\alpha `$, which will not be discussed in this paper.

The spectrum of the free string theory is described by the light-cone Hamiltonian

$$H_2=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\omega _mN_m$$
(2)
where $`N_m`$ is the number of excitations of level $`m`$ oscillators

$$N_m=\underset{I=1}{\overset{8}{}}a_m^Ia_m^I+\mathrm{fermionic}\mathrm{terms}$$
(3)
where the frequencies are given by

$$\omega _m=\sqrt{m^2+\mu ^2\alpha ^2}.$$
(4)
The second term in the square root is actually $`(\alpha ^{}\mu p_{})^2`$, but we set the Regge slope $`\alpha ^{}=2`$ and define $`\alpha =2p_{}`$. (In flat space, we used the symbol $`p^+`$ rather than $`p_{}`$, but in curved space a lower index is preferable.) The physical spectrum is given by the product of all the oscillator spaces subject to one constraint

$$\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}mN_m=0.$$
(5)
In flat space this constraint reduces to the usual level-matching condition for left-movers and right-movers.

The three-string interaction vertex for type IIB superstrings in flat space was worked out in  and  and generalized to the plane-wave geometry in  and . The formula can be written rather elegantly in terms of functionals, but to make its meaning precise it is desirable to expand it out in terms of oscillators. A convenient notation is to use a tensor product of three string Fock spaces, labeled by an index $`r=1,2,3`$. Then the three string interaction vertex contains a factor

$$|V_B>=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{I=1}{\overset{8}{}}a_{mr}^I\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}a_{ns}^I\right)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}>.$$
(6)
The quantities $`\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}`$, called Neumann coefficients, are the main objects of concern in this paper. Their definition here differs from that used in  and  by factors of $`\sqrt{mn}`$. The definition given here is more natural for the $`\mu 0`$ generalization. The three string vertex also contains a similar expression $`|V_F>`$ made out of the fermionic oscillators and a “prefactor” that is polynomial in the various oscillators. We will not consider either of these in this paper.

In describing the Neumann matrices, it is convenient to consider separately the cases in which each of the indices $`m,n`$ are either positive, negative or zero. Henceforth, the symbols $`m,n`$ will always denote positive integers. Negative integers will be indicated by displaying an explicit minus sign. One result of , for example, using matrix notation for the blocks with positive indices, is

$$\overline{N}^{rs}=12(C_rC^1)^{1/2}A^{(r)T}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1A^{(s)}(C_sC^1)^{1/2}.$$
(7)
Here $`C_{mn}=m\delta _{mn}`$ and $`(C_r)_{mn}=\omega _{rm}\delta _{mn}`$, where $`\omega _{rm}=\sqrt{m^2+(\mu \alpha _r)^2}`$. These are simple diagonal matrices. The great challenge is to understand the rest of the formula. The definitions of $`A^{(r)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$, and other expressions that appear here, are collected in the appendix.

The blocks with both indices negative are related in a simple way to the ones with both indices positive by

$$\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}=\left(U_r\overline{N}^{rs}U_s\right)_{mn},$$
(8)
where

$$U_r=C^1(C_r\mu \alpha _r).$$
(9)
In the case of $`\overline{N}^{33}`$ these are the only nonvanishing terms. For the other Neumann coefficients the other nonvanishing terms are

$$\overline{N}_{m0}^{3r}=\overline{N}_{0m}^{r3}=\sqrt{2\mu \alpha _r}ϵ^{rs}\alpha _s\left[\left(C_3C^1\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1B\right]_mr,s=1,2$$
(10)
$$\overline{N}_{m0}^{rs}=\overline{N}_{0m}^{sr}=\sqrt{2\mu \alpha _s}ϵ^{st}\alpha _t\left[\left(C_rC^1\right)^{1/2}A^{(r)T}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1B\right]_mr,s,t=1,2$$
(11)
and

$$\overline{N}_{00}^{rs}=\delta ^{rs}+\frac{\sqrt{\alpha _r\alpha _s}}{\alpha _3}\mu \sqrt{\alpha _r\alpha _s}ϵ^{rt}ϵ^{su}\alpha _t\alpha _uB^T\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1Br,s,t,u=1,2$$
(12)
$$\overline{N}_{00}^{3r}=\overline{N}_{00}^{r3}=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _3}}r=1,2$$
(13)
The asymmetry between string number three and the other two strings is a reflection of the fact that the $`\mu `$ dependence of the formula breaks the cyclic symmetry that is present in the flat space case. Evidently, crossing symmetry no longer holds in the plane-wave geometry.

To make the formulas useful for comparison with the dual gauge theory, it would be helpful to have explicit formulas in which the various matrix multiplications and inversions have been analytically evaluated. The quantities that we especially would like to evaluate explicitly are the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1`$, the vector

$$Y=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1B,$$
(14)
and the scalar

$$k=B^T\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1B.$$
(15)
In the case of flat space ($`\mu =0`$) the results are known. Specifically

$$\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}=\frac{mn\alpha }{m\alpha _s+n\alpha _r}\overline{N}_m^r\overline{N}_n^s\mathrm{for}\mu =0$$
(16)
where $`\alpha =\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3`$ and

$$\overline{N}_m^r=\frac{\sqrt{m}}{\alpha _r}f_m(\alpha _{r+1}/\alpha _r)e^{m\tau _0/\alpha _r}\mathrm{for}\mu =0,$$
(17)
$$f_m(\gamma )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m\gamma )}{m!\mathrm{\Gamma }(m\gamma +1m)}$$
(18)
and

$$\tau _0=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _r\mathrm{log}|\alpha _r|$$
(19)
In particular, still for $`\mu =0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1=\frac{1}{2}(1\overline{N}^{33})`$, $`Y_m=\overline{N}_m^3`$, and $`k=2\tau _0/\alpha `$.

## 3 Neumann coefficients for $`\mu 0`$

In this section we will derive the generalization of eq.(16) that holds for the plane-wave geometry. The method of derivation is a fairly straightforward generalization of the one used for flat space in . We begin by defining

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_+=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}A^{(r)}U_r^1A^{(r)T}$$
(20)
and then considering the product

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_+C^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_+=(U_3+\underset{1}{\overset{2}{}}A^{(r)}U_rA^{(r)T})C^1(U_3^1+\underset{1}{\overset{2}{}}A^{(s)}U_s^1A^{(s)T})$$
(21)
Using various identities given in the appendix, this simplifies to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_+C^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_+=U_3C^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_++\mathrm{\Gamma }_+C^1U_3^1\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1\alpha _2BB^T.$$
(22)
The next step is to use eqs. (49) and (60) to deduce that

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_+=\mathrm{\Gamma }_++\mu \alpha BB^T$$
(23)
Substituting this into the previous equation and multiplying left and right by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1`$ gives

$$C^1U_3^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1U_3C^1=C^1+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1\alpha _2YY^T+\mu \alpha ZY^T$$
(24)
where we have defined

$$Z=(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1U_3)C^1B.$$
(25)
The next step is to eliminate $`Z`$ from eq. (24). This is achieved by multiplying the equation on the right with the vector $`B`$. This gives a linear equation for $`Z`$, whose solution is

$$Z=\frac{1}{1+\mu \alpha k}(C^1U_3^1\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1\alpha _2k)Y.$$
(26)
Substituting this back into eq. (24) and simplifying gives the formula

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1,C_3\}=C+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha _1\alpha _2}{1+\mu \alpha k}CU_3^1YY^TCU_3^1.$$
(27)
If we had explicit formulas for the vector $`Y`$ and the scalar $`k`$, this formula would give us the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1`$. It can be recast as a formula for the Neumann coefficient matrix $`\overline{N}_{mn}^{33}`$. The result is

$$\overline{N}_{mn}^{33}=\frac{mn\alpha _1\alpha _2}{1+\mu \alpha k}\frac{\overline{N}_m^3\overline{N}_n^3}{\omega _{3m}+\omega _{3n}}$$
(28)
where

$$\overline{N}_m^3=\left[(C^1C_3)^{1/2}U_3^1Y\right]_m.$$
(29)
Some further simple manipulations give the generalization

$$\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}=\frac{mn\alpha }{1+\mu \alpha k}\frac{\overline{N}_m^r\overline{N}_n^s}{\alpha _s\omega _{rm}+\alpha _r\omega _{sn}}$$
(30)
where

$$\overline{N}_m^r=\left[(C^1C_r)^{1/2}U_r^1A^{(r)T}Y\right]_m.$$
(31)
This is the desired generalization of the flat-space formula eq. (16). However, we are still lacking a generalization of the explicit formula (17) as well as an explicit formula for $`k`$.

## 4 An Involution

We are primarily interested in the case in which the mass parameter $`\mu `$ is positive. In particular, in the next section we will explore asymptotic properties for $`\mu `$ large and positive. The formulas for $`\mu `$ large and negative are different. We can be quite explicit about this by relating the two cases. For this purpose we define $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_+=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(\mu )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}=Y(\mu )`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{k}=k(\mu )`$. The expression $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_+`$ was already introduced in eq. (20). In fact, we found that

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_+=\mathrm{\Gamma }_++\mu \alpha BB^T.$$
(32)
This equation can be inverted to give

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_+^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1\frac{\mu \alpha }{1+\mu \alpha k}YY^T.$$
(33)
Multiplying by $`B`$ on the right one deduces that

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}=\frac{1}{1+\mu \alpha k}Y$$
(34)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{k}=\frac{k}{1+\mu \alpha k}.$$
(35)
These formulas are of interest because they allow for nontrivial checks of various formulas. Each one must transform into another correct equation under the transformation $`\mu \mu `$. We have checked this in every case, and no new equations beyond those already presented are generated in this way.

## 5 Large $`\mu `$ asymptotics

In the duality between string theory and gauge theory, it is necessary to consider large $`\mu `$ in order to make contact with perturbative gauge theory calculations. Therefore in this section we shall work out some of the leading terms in the asymptotic expansions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1`$, $`Y=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1B`$, and $`k=B^TY=B^T\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1B`$. Some preliminary studies of these expansions, which we will extend, have been made previously in   .

As will become evident, the leading (large $`\mu `$) term in the expansion of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1`$ is given by the first term on the right-hand side of eq. (27). Therefore let us extract this term by defining

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1=\frac{1}{2}CC_3^1+R$$
(36)
The first term has the expansion

$$\frac{1}{2}CC_3^1\frac{C}{2\mu \alpha _3}+\frac{C^3}{4(\mu \alpha _3)^3}+\mathrm{}$$
(37)
We will find that the leading term in $`R`$ is of order $`\mu ^4`$.

To analyze the asymptotic behavior for large positive $`\mu `$, let us begin by inserting eq. (36) into eq. (27). This gives

$$\{R,C_3\}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha _1\alpha _2}{1+\mu \alpha k}CU_3^1YY^TCU_3^1.$$
(38)
We now making an ansatz for the large $`\mu `$ structure of $`R`$, with an unknown coefficient. Specifically, let us try

$$Ra_R\frac{\pi }{(\mu \alpha _3)^4}\left(\frac{\alpha _1\alpha _2}{\alpha _3}\right)^2C^3BB^TC^3+\mathrm{}$$
(39)
This term is of order $`\mu ^4`$. The next term in the expansion would be of order $`\mu ^6`$. In similar fashion one can argue that at large $`\mu `$

$$k=B^TY\frac{1}{\mu \alpha }\frac{a_k}{\pi (\mu \alpha _1\alpha _2)^2}+\mathrm{}$$
(40)
Inserting these expansions into eq. (38), one learns that

$$a_Ra_k=\frac{1}{64}.$$
(41)
While this relation is easy to derive, it is much more difficult to determine $`a_R`$ and $`a_k`$ separately.111In the first version of this paper I claimed to prove that $`a_R=a_k=x=1/8`$. However, this is not correct. I am grateful to the authors of  for bringing the error to my attention.

Let us consider now the asymptotic expansion of $`Y`$. In view of the above equations, it should have the structure

$$Y=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1B\frac{1}{\mu \alpha _3}\left[\frac{1}{2}C+\left(\frac{1}{4}x\right)\frac{C^3}{(\mu \alpha _3)^2}+\mathrm{}\right]B.$$
(42)
Note that the leading term is of order $`\mu ^1`$ and the first correction is of order $`\mu ^3`$.

The value of $`x`$ is of particular interest, since a certain dual field theory calculation gives a result that is proportional to $`\frac{1}{2}4x`$. Based on the light-cone field theory formulas described here, it was estimated numerically to be approximately 1/16 in , and that is presumably correct. The field theory analysis of  gave a nonvanishing result corresponding to the value $`x=0`$. Daniel Freedman informs me that he has repeated the field theory calculation, using a different regularization method, and that he finds a vanishing result, corresponding to the value $`x=1/8`$. I hope to obtain an exact analytic expression for $`Y`$ from which one could read off the exact value of $`x`$, but as yet this has not been achieved.

## Acknowledgments

I wish to acknowledge helpful discussions with D. Freedman, I. Klebanov, M. Spradlin, and A. Volovich. I am also grateful to C. Callan, W. Lee, T. McLoughlin, I. Swanson, and X. Wu for their collaboration on related topics. The hospitality of the Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences and the Aspen Center for Physics, where portions of this work were carried out, is also appreciated. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Dept. of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-92-ER40701.

## Appendix

The light cone momenta in the three-string vertex are proportional to $`\alpha _r`$, where we take $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2>0`$, $`\alpha _3<0`$ and $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3=0`$. We also define $`\beta =\alpha _1/\alpha _3`$, which satisfies $`1<\beta <0`$.

The matrices $`A_{mn}^{(r)}`$, which appear in the Neumann coefficients, are given by

$$A_{mn}^{(1)}=\frac{2}{\pi }(1)^{m+n+1}\sqrt{mn}\frac{\beta \mathrm{sin}m\pi \beta }{n^2m^2\beta ^2},$$
(43)
$$A_{mn}^{(2)}=\frac{2}{\pi }(1)^{m+1}\sqrt{mn}\frac{(\beta +1)\mathrm{sin}m\pi \beta }{n^2m^2(\beta +1)^2},$$
(44)
and $`A_{mn}^{(3)}=\delta _{mn}`$. The indices $`m,n`$ range from 1 to infinity. Additional quantities that we need are

$$B_m=\frac{2\alpha _3}{\pi \alpha _1\alpha _2}(1)^{m+1}\frac{\mathrm{sin}m\pi \beta }{m^{3/2}}$$
(45)
and

$$C_{mn}=m\delta _{mn}.$$
(46)
Additional matrices that involve the mass parameter $`\mu `$ of the plane-wave geometry are

$$(C_r)_{mn}=\omega _{rm}\delta _{mn}=\sqrt{m^2+\mu ^2\alpha _r^2}\delta _{mn}$$
(47)
and

$$U_r=C^1(C_r\mu \alpha _r).$$
(48)
Note that

$$U_r^1=C^1(C_r+\mu \alpha _r)=U_r+2\mu \alpha _rC^1.$$
(49)
A crucial construct is the infinite matrix

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_+=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}A^{(r)}U_rA^{(r)T}.$$
(50)
Explicit formulas for its inverse are a main goal of our work. Related quantities that also are needed are the infinite vector

$$Y=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1B$$
(51)
and the scalar

$$k=B^T\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^1B.$$
(52)
The infinite matrices $`A_{mn}^{(r)}`$ and the infinite vector $`B_m`$ satisfy a number of useful relations which we record here

$$A^{(r)T}CA^{(s)}=\frac{\alpha _3}{\alpha _r}C\delta ^{rs}r,s=1,2$$
(53)
$$A^{(r)T}C^1A^{(s)}=\frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _3}C^1\delta ^{rs}r,s=1,2$$
(54)
The symbol $`T`$ means matrix transpose.

$$B^TCB=\frac{2}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}$$
(55)
$$B^TC^1B=\frac{2\pi ^2}{3\alpha _3^2}$$
(56)
$$B^T\frac{C^3}{C^2\lambda ^2}B=\frac{1}{\pi }\left(\frac{\alpha _3}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{cos}\pi \lambda (1+2\beta )\mathrm{cos}\pi \lambda }{\lambda \mathrm{sin}\pi \lambda }$$
(57)
Substituting the special value $`\lambda =i\mu \alpha _3`$, the last identity can be recast as

$$B^T\frac{C^3}{C_3^2}B=\frac{2}{\pi \mu \alpha _3}\left(\frac{\alpha _3}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\right)^2\left(\mathrm{coth}\pi \mu \alpha _1+\mathrm{coth}\pi \mu \alpha _2\right)^1.$$
(58)
Note that the large $`\mu `$ asymptotic behavior is very sensitive to the direction in which infinity is approached. In particular, if it is approached in the positive direction, which is the usual case of interest, the last expression reduces to $`\frac{1}{\pi \mu \alpha _3}\left(\frac{\alpha _3}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\right)^2`$ with exponential precision.

Some additional useful identities are

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{1}{\alpha _r}A^{(r)}CA^{(r)T}=0,$$
(59)
$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _rA^{(r)}C^1A^{(r)T}=\frac{\alpha }{2}BB^T,$$
(60)
where we have introduced

$$\alpha =\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3.$$
(61)


text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

Possible existence of strong magnetic fields in the early universe is one of the most interesting problems in high energy physics. Different mechanisms of the fields producing at different stages of the universe evolution were proposed. These mechanisms as well as the role of strong magnetic fields have been discussed in the surveys -. In particular, primordial magnetic fields, being implemented in a cosmic plasma, may serve as the seed ones for the present extra-galaxy fields.

The spontaneous vacuum magnetization at high temperature is one of the mechanisms mentioned. It was already investigated both in pure $`SU(2)`$ gluodynamics - and in the standard model (SM)  where the possibility of this phenomenon has been shown. The stability of the magnetized vacuum state was also studied . The magnetization takes place for the non-abelian gauge fields due to a vacuum dynamics. In fact, this is one of the distinguishable features of asymptotically free theories . In Refs. - the fermion contributions were not taken into consideration. However, at high temperature they affect the vacuum considerably. Quark posses both the electric and the color charges and therefore the quark loops change the strengths of the simultaneously generated magnetic and chromomagnetic fields .

In a supersymmetric theory new peculiarities should be accounted for. First is an influence of superpartners. These particles having a low spin have to decrease the generated magnetic field strengths. Second, s-quarks also possess the electric and the color charges, so the interdependence of magnetic and chromomagnetic fields is expected to be stronger as well as the fields due to their vacuum loops. Because of this mixing some specific configurations of the fields must be produced at high temperature.

In the present paper the spontaneous vacuum magnetization is investigated in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) of elementary particles. All boson and fermion fields are taken into consideration. In the MSSM there are two kinds of non-abelian gauge fields - the $`SU(2)`$ weak isospin gauge fields responsible for weak interactions and the $`SU(3)`$ gluons mediating the strong interactions. Magnetic and chromomagnetic fields are related to these symmetry groups, respectively. To elaborate this problem we calculate the effective potential (EP) including the one-loop and the daisy diagram contributions in the constant abelian chromomagnetic and magnetic fields, $`H_c=const`$ and $`H=const`$, at high temperatures. The values of the generated fields strengths are found as the minimum position of the EP in the field strength plane $`(H,H_c)`$.

Let us note the advantages of the used approximation. The EP of the background abelian magnetic fields is a gauge fixing independent one, while the daisy diagrams account for the most essential long-range corrections at high temperature. Therefore, such a type of EP includes the leading and the next-to-leading terms in the coupling constants. Moreover, as it was shown in , the daisy diagrams of the charged gluons and the W-bosons with their magnetic masses taken into consideration make the vacuum with nonzero magnetic fields stable at high temperatures. The stability reflects the consistency of the approximation. The EP of this type was used recently in investigations of the electroweak phase transition in an external hypercharge magnetic field  and the spontaneous generation of magnetic and chromomagnetic fields in the SM . The obtained results are in a good agreement with the non-perturbative calculations carried out in . This approximation will be used in what follows.

The abelian hypercharge magnetic field is not generated spontaneously. So, in our investigation we shall consider the non-abelian constituent of the magnetic field coming from $`SU(2)`$ gauge group. The generation mechanisms of the hypermagnetic field were studied in . Below it will be shown that at high temperatures either strong magnetic or the chromomagnetic fields are generated in the MSSM, similarly to the SM. The additional to the SM sector of the MSSM, s-particle sector, does not suppress this effect. It just decreases the strengths of generated fields. These fields are stable in the approximation adopted due to the magnetic masses $`m_{transversal}^2(gH)^{1/2}T`$ of the gauge field transversal modes . In this way the consistent picture of the magnetized vacuum state is derived.

The contents of this paper are as follows. In Sect. 2 the contributions of all bosons and fermions to the EP $`v^{}(H,T)`$ of external magnetic and chromomagnetic fields are calculated in a form convenient for numeric investigations. In Sect. 3 the field strengths are calculated. Discussion and concluding remarks are given in Sect. 4.

## 2. Basic Formulae

The full Lagrangian of the MSSM can be written as ()

$``$ $`=`$ $`L_{gs}+L_{\overline{gs}}+L_{leptons}+L_{sleptons}+L_{quarks}+L_{squarks}`$
$`+L_{Higgs}+L_{higgsino}+L_{int}+L_{SSB}+L_{gf}.`$
Here, $`L_{gs}`$ and $`L_{\overline{gs}}`$ is the kinetic part of gauge bosons and gauginos, correspondingly; $`L_{leptons}`$, $`L_{sleptons}`$, $`L_{quarks}`$ and $`L_{squarks}`$ give the kinetic part of the matter (fermions and s-fermions) fields and their interaction Lagrangians; $`L_{Higgs}`$ is the kinetic part and Higgs interactions with gauge bosons and gauginos; $`L_{int}`$ contains the interaction terms; $`L_{SSB}`$ is the soft-symmetry breaking (SSB) part; $`L_{gf}`$ is the gauge fixing terms.

In the MSSM there are mixings in the higgsino and gaugino sector resulting in the presence of chargino (mixing of charged higgsino and gaugino) and neutralino (mixing of neutral higgsino and gaugino) in the theory. Since the electrical and color neutral particles are not interacting with magnetic and chromomagnetic fields, we will not take the neutralino into consideration.

The MSSM Lagrangian of the gauge boson sector is (see )

$`L_{gs}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha F_\alpha ^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝐅_{\mu \nu }^\alpha 𝐅_\alpha ^{\mu \nu },`$ (2)
where the standard notation is introduced

$`F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =_\mu A_\nu ^\alpha _\nu A_\mu ^\alpha +gϵ^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c,`$ (3)
$`G_{\mu \nu }=_\mu B_\nu _\nu B_\mu ,`$
$`𝐅_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =_\mu 𝐀_\nu ^\alpha _\nu 𝐀_\mu ^\alpha +g_sf^{abc}𝐀_\mu ^b𝐀_\nu ^c.`$
The fields corresponding to the gauge $`W`$, $`Z`$bosons and photons, respectively, are

$`W_\mu ^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(A_\mu ^1\pm iA_\mu ^2),`$ (4)
$`Z_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g^2+g^2}}}(gA_\mu ^3g^{}B_\mu ),`$
$`A_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g^{}A_\mu ^3+gB_\mu }}}`$
and $`𝐀_\mu ^\alpha `$ is gluon field.

As usually, the introduction of gauge fields is being done by replacing all derivatives in the Lagrangian with the covariant ones,

$`_\mu 𝒟_\mu =_\mu +ig{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^\alpha }{2}}A_\mu ^\alpha +ig_s{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^\alpha }{2}}𝐀_\mu ^\alpha .`$ (5)
Here $`\tau ^\alpha `$ and $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ stand for the Pauli and the Gell-Mann matrices, respectively.

In the $`SU(2)`$ sector there is only one magnetic field, the third projection of the gauge field. In the $`SU(3)_c`$ sector there are two possible chromomagnetic fields connected with the third and the eighth generators of the group.

For simplicity, in what follows we shall consider the field associated with the third generator of the $`SU(3)_c`$.

To introduce the interaction with classical magnetic and chromomagnetic fields we split the potentials in two parts:

$`A_\mu =\overline{A}_\mu +A_\mu ^R,`$ (6)
$`𝐀_\mu =\overline{𝐀}_\mu +𝐀_\mu ^R,`$
where $`A^R`$ and $`𝐀^R`$ describe the radiation fields and $`\overline{A}=(0,0,Hx^1,0)`$ and $`\overline{𝐀}=(0,0,𝐇_3x^1,0)`$ correspond to the constant magnetic and chromomagnetic fields directed along the third axes in the space and in the internal color and isospin spaces.

To construct the total EP we used the general relativistic renormalizable gauge which is set by the following gauge fixing conditions :

$`_\mu W^{\pm \mu }\pm ie\overline{A}_\mu W^{\pm \mu }i{\displaystyle \frac{g\varphi _c}{2\xi }}\varphi ^\pm =C^\pm (x),`$ (7)
$`_\mu Z^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{i}{\xi ^{}}}(g^2+g^2)^{1/2}\varphi _c\varphi _Z=C^Z(x),`$
$`_\mu 𝐀^\mu +ig_s\overline{𝐀}=𝐂(x),`$
where $`e=gsin\theta _W`$, $`tan\theta _W=g^{}/g`$, $`\varphi ^\pm `$ and $`\varphi _Z`$ are the Goldstone fields, $`\xi `$ and $`\xi ^{}`$ are the gauge fixing parameters, $`C^\pm `$ and $`C^Z`$ are arbitrary functions and $`\varphi _c`$ is the value of the scalar field condensate. Setting $`\xi ,\xi ^{}=0`$ we choose the unitary gauge. In the restored phase the scalar field condensate $`\varphi _c=0`$ and the equations (7) are simplified.

The values of the macroscopic magnetic and chromomagnetic fields generated at high temperature will be calculated by minimization of the thermodynamics potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which is introduced as follows

$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}logZ,`$ (8)
$`Z=Trexp(\beta ),`$ (9)
where $`Z`$ is the partition function, and $``$ is the Hamiltonian of the system. The trace is calculated over all physical states.

To obtain the EP one has to rewrite (8) as a sum in quantum states calculated near the nontrivial classical solutions $`A^{ext}`$ and $`𝐀^{ext}`$. This procedure is well-described in the literature (see, for instance, ) and the result can be written in the form

$`V=V^{(1)}(H,𝐇_3,T)+V^{(2)}(H,𝐇_3,T)+\mathrm{}+V_{daisy}(H,𝐇_3,T)+\mathrm{},`$ (10)
where $`V^{(1)}`$ is the one-loop EP; the other terms present the contributions of two-, three-, etc. loop corrections.

Among these terms there are some responsible for the dominant contributions of long distances at high temperature - so-called daisy or ring diagrams (see, for example, ). This part of the EP, $`V_{daisy}(H,𝐇_3,T)`$, is nonzero in case when massless states appear in a system. The ring diagrams have to be calculated when the vacuum magnetization at finite temperature is investigated. In fact, one first must assume that the fields are nonzero, calculate EP $`V(H,𝐇_3,T)`$ and after that check whether its minimum is located at nonzero $`H`$ and $`𝐇_3`$. On the other hand, if one investigates problems in the applied external fields, the charged fields become massive with the masses depending on $`(gH)^{1/2}`$, $`(g_s𝐇_3)^{1/2}`$ and have to be omitted.

The one-loop contribution to EP is given by the expression

$$V^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}TrlogG^{ab},$$
(11)
where $`G^{ab}`$ stands for the propagators of all quantum fields $`W^\pm `$, $`𝐀`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ in the background fields $`H`$ and $`𝐇_3`$. In the proper time formalism, $`s`$-representation, the calculation of the trace can be carried out in accordance with the formula

$$TrlogG^{ab}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s}trexp(isG_{ab}^1).$$
(12)
Details of calculations based on the $`s`$-representation and formula (13) can be found in .

To incorporate the temperature into this formalism in a natural way we make use the method of  which connects the Green functions at zero temperature with the Matsubara Green functions,

$`G_k^{ab}(x,x^{};T)={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^{(n+[x])\sigma _k}G_k^{ab}(x[x]\beta u,x^{}n\beta u),`$ (13)
where $`G_k^{ab}`$ is the corresponding function at $`T=0`$, $`\beta =1/T`$, $`u=(0,0,0,1)`$, $`[x]`$ denotes an integer part of $`x_4/\beta `$, $`\sigma _k=1`$ in the case of physical fermions and $`\sigma _k=0`$ for boson and ghost fields. The Green functions in the right-hand side of (13) are the matrix elements of the operators $`G_k`$ computed in the states $`|x^{},a`$ at $`T=0`$, and in the left-hand side the operators are averaged over the states with $`T0`$. The corresponding functional spaces $`U^0`$ and $`U^T`$ are different but in the limit of $`T0`$ $`U^T`$ transforms into $`U^0`$.

The terms with $`n=0`$ in (13) and (11) give the zero temperature expressions for the Green functions and the EP $`V^{}`$, respectively. So, we can split the latter into two parts:

$$V^{}(H,𝐇_3,T)=V^{}(H,𝐇_3)+V_\tau ^{}(H,𝐇_3,T).$$
(14)
The standard procedure to account for the daisy diagrams is to substitute the tree level Matsubara Green functions in (11) $`[G_i^{(0)}]^1`$ by the full propagator $`G_i^1=[G_i^{(0)}]^1+\mathrm{\Pi }(H,T)`$ (see for details ), where the last term is the polarization operator at finite temperature in the field taken at zero longitudinal momentum $`k_l=0`$.

Omitting the detailed calculations we notice that the exact one-loop EP is transformed into the EP which contains the daisy diagrams as well as the one-loop diagrams if one adds to the exponent a term containing the temperature dependent mass of a particle.

It is convenient for what follows to introduce the dimensionless quantities: $`x=H/H_0`$ $`(H_0=M_W^2/e)`$, $`y=𝐇_3/𝐇_3^0`$ $`(𝐇_3^0=M_W^2/g_s)`$, $`B=\beta M_W`$, $`\tau =1/B=T/M_W`$, $`v=V/H_0^2`$.

The total EP consists of several terms

$`v^{}={\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{2}}`$ $`+`$ $`v_{leptons}^{}+v_{quarks}^{}+v_{Wbosons}^{}+v_{gluons}^{}`$
$`+v_{sleptons}^{}+v_{squarks}^{}+v_{charginos}^{}+v_{gluinos}^{}.`$
These terms can be written down as follows (in dimensionless variables):

$``$ SM sector

\- leptons

$`v_{leptons}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^3}}e^{(m_{leptons}^2s+\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{4s})}(xsCoth(xs)1);`$ (16)
\- quarks

$`v_{quarks}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{f=1}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^3}}e^{(m_f^2s+\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{4s})}`$ (17)
$`(q_fxsCoth(q_fxs)ysCoth(ys)1);`$
\- $`W`$-bosons (see )

$`v_W^{}={\displaystyle \frac{x}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^2}}e^{(m_W^2s+\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{4s})}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{Sinh(xs)}}+4Sinh(xs)\right];`$ (18)
\- gluons (see )

$`v_{gluons}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{y}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^2}}e^{(m_{gluons}^2s+\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{4s})}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Sinh(ys)}}+2Sinh(ys)\right];`$ (19)
$``$ MSSM sector

\- s-leptons

$`v_{sleptons}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^3}}e^{(m_{sleptons}^2s+\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{4s})}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{xs}{Sinh(xs)}}1\right];`$ (20)
\- s-quarks

$`v_{squarks}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^3}}e^{(m_{squarks}^2s+\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{4s})}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{q_fxsys}{Sinh(q_fxs)Sinh(ys)}}1\right];`$ (21)
\- charginos

$`v_{charginos}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^3}}e^{(m_{charginos}^2s+\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{4s})}(xsCoth(xs)1);`$ (22)
\- gluinos

$`v_{gluinos}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^3}}e^{(m_{gluinos}^2s+\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{4s})}(ysCoth(ys)1).`$ (23)
Here, $`m_{leptons}`$, $`m_f`$, $`m_W`$, $`m_{gluons}`$, $`m_{sleponts}`$, $`m_{squarks}`$, $`m_{charginos}`$ and $`m_{gluinos}`$ are the temperature masses of leptons, quarks, W-bosons, gluons, s-leptons, s-quarks, charginos and gluinos, respectively; $`q_f=(\frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3})`$ are the charges of quarks.

Since we investigate the high-temperature effects connected with the presence of external fields, we used leading in temperature terms of the Debye masses of the particles, only ().

In present analysis the temperature masses of leptons, quarks, s-leptons, s-quarks, charginos, gluinos are taken as follows ()

$`\begin{array}{cc}m_{leptons}^2=\left(\frac{e}{\beta }\right)^2,\hfill & m_f^2=\left(\frac{e}{\beta }\right)^2,\hfill \\ m_{sleptons}^2=\left(\frac{e}{\beta }+\frac{M_{sleptons}}{M_W}\right)^2,\hfill & m_{squarks}^2=\left(\frac{e}{\beta }+\frac{M_{squarks}}{M_W}\right)^2,\hfill \\ m_{charginos}^2=\left(\frac{e}{\beta }+\frac{M_{charginos}}{M_W}\right)^2,\hfill & m_{gluinos}^2=\left(\frac{e}{\beta }+\frac{M_{gluinos}}{M_W}\right)^2,\hfill \end{array}`$ (27)
where the masses from SSB terms are taken as the low experimental limits of corresponding particle masses ()

$`\begin{array}{cc}M_{sleptons}=40GeV,\hfill & M_{squarks}=176GeV,\hfill \\ M_{charginos}=62GeV,\hfill & M_{gluinos}=154GeV.\hfill \end{array}`$ (30)
As it was established in numeric computation the spontaneous generation of fields depends on SSB masses fairly weak. Even in the case of zero SSB masses there is the generation of magnetic and chromomagnetic fields. In the limit of infinite SSB masses the picture conforms to the SM case.

The temperature masses of gluons and $`W`$-bosons are ()

$`\begin{array}{cc}m_W^2=15\alpha _{EW}\frac{x^{1/2}}{\beta },& m_{gluons}^2=15\alpha _S\frac{y^{1/2}}{\beta },\end{array}`$ (32)
$`\alpha _{EW}`$ and $`\alpha _S`$ are the electroweak and the strong interaction couplings, respectively.

In one-loop order, the neutral gluon contribution is trivial $`𝐇_3`$independent constant which can be omitted. However, these fields are long-range states and they do give $`𝐇_3`$dependent EP through the correlation corrections depending on the temperature and field. We include the longitudinal neutral modes only because their Debye masses $`\mathrm{\Pi }^0(y,\beta )`$ are nonzero. The corresponding EP is

$`v_{ring}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\beta ^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^0(y,\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\pi \beta }}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^0(y,\beta )\right)^{3/2}`$ (33)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^0(y,\beta )\right)^2}{32\pi ^2}}\left[log\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\beta (\mathrm{\Pi }^0(y,\beta ))^{1/2}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\gamma \right];`$
$`\gamma `$ is Euler’s constant, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^0(y,\beta )=\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^0(k=0,y,\beta )`$ is the zero-zero component of the neutral gluon field polarization operator calculated in the external field at finite temperature and taken at zero momentum

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^0(y,\beta )={\displaystyle \frac{2g^2}{3\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^{1/2}}{\pi \beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{4\pi ^2}}.`$ (34)
Equations (2. Basic Formulae)-(23) and (33) will be used in numeric calculations.

## 3. Combined generation of magnetic and chromomagnetic fields

To calculate the strengths of combined generated magnetic and chromomagnetic fields we use the perturbative computation method in . First of all we find the strengths of the fields $`x`$ and $`y`$ when the quark and the s-quark contributions ($`v_q^{}`$) are divided in two parts, $`v_q^{}(x,\beta )=v_q^{}_{y0}`$ and $`v_q^{}(y,\beta )=v_q^{}_{x0}`$, where $`v_q^{}(x,\beta )`$ is the quark and s-quark contribution in the case of single magnetic field, and $`v_q^{}(y,\beta )`$ is the one in the presence of chromomagnetic field, only.

Now let us rewrite $`v^{}`$ in (2. Basic Formulae) as follows:

$$v^{}(\overline{x},\overline{y})=v_1(\overline{x})+v_2(\overline{y})+v_3(\overline{x},\overline{y}),$$
(35)
where $`\overline{x}=x+\delta x`$, $`\overline{y}=y+\delta y`$, and $`\delta x`$ and $`\delta y`$ are the field corrections connected with the interfusion effect of the fields in the quark and s-quark sector.

Since the mixing of fields due to quark and s-quark loop is weak (this is justified in numeric calculations) one can assume that $`\delta x1`$ and $`\delta y1`$, and write

$`v_1(\overline{x})=v_1(x+\delta x)=v_1(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{v_1(x)}{x}}\delta x,`$ (36)
$`v_2(\overline{y})=v_2(y+\delta y)=v_2(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{v_2(y)}{y}}\delta y,`$ (37)
$`v_3(\overline{x},\overline{y})=v_3(x+\delta x,y+\delta y)=v_3(x,y).`$ (38)
After simple transformations we can find $`\delta x`$ and $`\delta y`$:

$`\delta x={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{v_3(x,0)}{x}\frac{v_3(x,y)}{x}}{\frac{^2v_1(x)}{x^2}}},`$
$`\delta y={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{v_3(0,y)}{y}\frac{v_3(x,y)}{y}}{\frac{^2v_2(y)}{y^2}}}.`$ (39)
Hence we obtain $`\overline{x}=x+\delta x`$ and $`\overline{y}=y+\delta y`$.

These results on the field strengths determined by means of numeric investigation of the total EP are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

|  | MSSM | | | | SM |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\beta `$ | $`x`$ | $`\delta x`$ | $`\delta x/x`$, % | $`\overline{x}`$ | $`\overline{x}`$ |
| $`0.1`$ | $`0.3813`$ | $`1.58\times 10^2`$ | $`4.14`$ | $`0.3971`$ | $`0.7000`$ |
| $`0.2`$ | $`0.10021`$ | $`2.45\times 10^3`$ | $`2.44`$ | $`0.10265`$ | $`0.20075`$ |
| $`0.3`$ | $`0.046199`$ | $`7.19\times 10^4`$ | $`1.56`$ | $`0.046917`$ | $`0.069945`$ |
| $`0.4`$ | $`0.026804`$ | $`1.97\times 10^4`$ | $`0.73`$ | $`0.027000`$ | $`0.039964`$ |
| $`0.5`$ | $`0.017675`$ | $`1.19\times 10^4`$ | $`0.67`$ | $`0.017794`$ | $`0.029953`$ |
| $`0.6`$ | $`0.0120559`$ | $`5.20\times 10^5`$ | $`0.43`$ | $`0.0121079`$ | $`0.0199508`$ |
| $`0.7`$ | $`0.0086022`$ | $`2.82\times 10^5`$ | $`0.33`$ | $`0.0086303`$ | $`0.0099620`$ |
| $`0.8`$ | $`0.0065687`$ | $`1.72\times 10^5`$ | $`0.26`$ | $`0.0065859`$ | $`0.0099381`$ |
| $`0.9`$ | $`0.0052535`$ | $`1.13\times 10^5`$ | $`0.22`$ | $`0.0052648`$ | $`0.0099759`$ |
| $`1.0`$ | $`0.0043400`$ | $`8.10\times 10^6`$ | $`0.19`$ | $`0.0043481`$ | $`0.0099643`$ |

Table 1. The strengths of generated magnetic field.

In Tables 1 and 2, in the first column we show the inverse temperature. In the second one the strengths of magnetic and chromomagnetic fields are adduced for the case of the quark and the s-quark EP describing each of the fields separately. The next column gives the field corrections in the case of the total quark and s-quark EP. The fourth column presents the relative value of corrections. The following column gives the resulting strengths of magnetic ($`\overline{x}=x+\delta x`$) and chromomagnetic ($`\overline{y}=y+\delta y`$) fields, respectively. In the last column the strengths of generated fields in the SM are given for comparison ().

As it is seen, the increase of inverse temperature leads to decreasing the strengths of generated fields. This dependence is well in accordance with the picture of the universe cooling.

|  | MSSM | | | | SM |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\beta `$ | $`y`$ | $`\delta y`$ | $`\delta y/y`$, % | $`\overline{y}`$ | $`\overline{y}`$ |
| $`0.1`$ | $`0.510146`$ | $`5.28\times 10^6`$ | $`0.0010`$ | $`0.510151`$ | $`0.800301`$ |
| $`0.2`$ | $`0.133035`$ | $`1.73\times 10^6`$ | $`0.0013`$ | $`0.133037`$ | $`0.199761`$ |
| $`0.3`$ | $`0.0603172`$ | $`8.85\times 10^7`$ | $`0.0015`$ | $`0.0603181`$ | $`0.0899012`$ |
| $`0.4`$ | $`0.0347127`$ | $`5.20\times 10^7`$ | $`0.0015`$ | $`0.0347132`$ | $`0.0499116`$ |
| $`0.5`$ | $`0.0225367`$ | $`3.59\times 10^7`$ | $`0.0016`$ | $`0.0225371`$ | $`0.0398880`$ |
| $`0.6`$ | $`0.0161563`$ | $`2.26\times 10^7`$ | $`0.0014`$ | $`0.0161565`$ | $`0.0299018`$ |
| $`0.7`$ | $`0.0115808`$ | $`1.53\times 10^7`$ | $`0.0013`$ | $`0.0115810`$ | $`0.0199558`$ |
| $`0.8`$ | $`0.00859328`$ | $`1.19\times 10^7`$ | $`0.0014`$ | $`0.00859340`$ | $`0.0199267`$ |
| $`0.9`$ | $`0.00672412`$ | $`9.94\times 10^8`$ | $`0.0015`$ | $`0.00672422`$ | $`0.0098830`$ |
| $`1.0`$ | $`0.00547797`$ | $`9.01\times 10^8`$ | $`0.0016`$ | $`0.00547806`$ | $`0.0098250`$ |

Table 2. The strengths of generated chromomagnetic field.

From the above analysis it follows that in the considered temperature interval the presence in the system of both fields leads to increasing of each of them in contrast with the SM case. In the latter the strengths of the combined fields are decreased as compared to the separate generation. This is the consequence of the s-quark loop contributions depending as the quark loops on both of fields.

With temperature decreasing this effect becomes less pronounced and disappears at comparably low temperatures $`\beta 1`$.

## 4. Discussion

Let us discuss the results obtained. As we elaborated within the EP including the one-loop and the daisy diagrams, in the MSSM at high temperatures both the magnetic and chromomagnetic fields have to be generated. This vacuum is stable, as it follows from the absence of imaginary terms in the EP minima.

If quark and s-quark loops are discarded, both of the fields can be generated separately. All these states are stable, due to the magnetic mass $`g^2(gH)^{1/2}T`$ of the transversal gauge field modes. As it was already shown in , the imaginary part arises for the field strengths larger than the ones generated in the SM. As we have seen, the strengths of generated fields reduce due to the s-particle sector of the MSSM. This vacuum state is more stable as compare to the SM case.

The result on the stabilization of the charged gauge field spectra is very important. It has relevance not only to the problem of the consistent description of the generation of magnetic fields but also to the related problem on symmetry behavior in external magnetic fields investigated in the MSSM recently in .

As it is seen from Figs. 1 and 2, presenting the results of numeric computations within the exact EP, the strengths of the generated fields are increasing when the temperature is rising. It is also found, the dynamics of curves obtained in the SM  are in a good agreement with our numeric calculations.

The ground state possessing the magnetic and the chromomagnetic fields makes it reasonable to expect the existence of these fields in the electroweak transition epoch for both the SM and the MSSM. The state is stable in the whole considered temperature interval. The imaginary part in the EP exists for the external fields much stronger than the strengths of the spontaneously generated ones. The mixing of magnetic and chromomagnetic fields arising from the quark and the s-quark sectors of the EP is weak. In the MSSM, the change of the field minima in the inclusion of the field mixing does not exceed 4 per cents. In the SM these values do not exceed 2 per cents. This is due to the strong dependence of the s-quark loop on the strengths of both fields.

| $`\beta `$ | quarks | s-quarks | s-leptons | charginos |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`0.1`$ | $`8.09496\times 10^2`$ | $`1.29860\times 10^2`$ | $`1.08818\times 10^2`$ | $`1.90295\times 10^3`$ |
| $`0.2`$ | $`5.51654\times 10^3`$ | $`5.13130\times 10^4`$ | $`6.28152\times 10^4`$ | $`1.16324\times 10^4`$ |
| $`0.3`$ | $`1.13926\times 10^3`$ | $`6.77157\times 10^5`$ | $`1.13423\times 10^4`$ | $`2.20561\times 10^5`$ |
| $`0.4`$ | $`3.78190\times 10^4`$ | $`1.51991\times 10^5`$ | $`3.28547\times 10^5`$ | $`6.66057\times 10^6`$ |
| $`0.5`$ | $`1.60125\times 10^4`$ | $`4.51358\times 10^6`$ | $`1.24231\times 10^5`$ | $`2.60925\times 10^6`$ |
| $`0.6`$ | $`8.11555\times 10^5`$ | $`1.64583\times 10^6`$ | $`5.07024\times 10^6`$ | $`1.09729\times 10^6`$ |
| $`0.7`$ | $`4.16467\times 10^5`$ | $`6.18990\times 10^7`$ | $`2.28091\times 10^6`$ | $`5.06211\times 10^7`$ |
| $`0.8`$ | $`2.31108\times 10^5`$ | $`2.55271\times 10^7`$ | $`1.18256\times 10^6`$ | $`2.68001\times 10^7`$ |
| $`0.9`$ | $`1.42387\times 10^5`$ | $`1.18144\times 10^7`$ | $`6.76190\times 10^7`$ | $`1.55895\times 10^7`$ |
| $`1.0`$ | $`9.48895\times 10^6`$ | $`5.96475\times 10^8`$ | $`4.14475\times 10^7`$ | $`9.68813\times 10^8`$ |

Table 3. The contribution of quarks, s-quarks, s-leptons and charginos to the EP.

During the universe cooling the strengths of the generated fields are decreasing. This is in agreement with what is expected in cosmology.

One of the consequences of the results obtained is the presence of a strong chromomagnetic field in the early universe, in particular, at the electroweak phase transition and, probably, till the deconfinement phase transition. The influence of this field on the phase transitions may bring new insight to these phenomena. As our estimate showed, the chromomagnetic field is as strong as the magnetic one. So the role of strong interactions in the early universe in the presence of the field needs more detailed investigations as compare to what is usually assumed .

We would like to notice that in the literature devoted to investigations of the quark-gluon plasma in the deconfinement phase carried out by non-perturbative methods the vacuum magnetization at high temperature has not been accounted for (see, for instance, recent paper  and references therein). From the point of view of the present analysis (as well as other studies carried out already in perturbation theory -) these investigations are incomplete. The generation of the chromomagnetic field at high temperature has to be taken into consideration.