text:
# Untitled Document

Rest mass or inertial mass?

R. I. Khrapko

Moscow Aviation Institute
4 Volokolamskoe Shosse, 125871, Moscow, Russia.
khrapko\_ri@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT

Rest mass takes the place of inertial mass in modern physics textbooks. It seems to be wrong. But this phenomenon is hidden away by the facts that rest mass adherents busily call rest mass mass, not rest mass, and the word mass is associated with a measure of inertia. This topic has been considered by the author in the article ”What is mass?” . Additional arguments to a confirmation of such a thesis are presented here.

“Einstein’s theory of the universe, based on the principle that all motion is relative, and showing that mass varies with its velocity, while space-time is a fourth dimension.”
A. S. Hornby et al.

The end of 20-th century was marked by a great mish-mash of definitions of mass.

1. Rest mass

All was clear in the beginning of the century when the theory of relativity was not yet created. Mass, $`m`$, denoted something like amount of substance or quantity of matter. And at the same time mass was the quantitative measure of inertia of a body.

Inertia of a body determines momentum P of the body at given velocity v of the body, i. e. it is a proportionality factor in the formula

$$\text{P}=m\text{v}.$$
$`(1)`$
The factor $`m`$ is referred to as inertial mass.

But mass as a measure of inertia of a body can be defined also by the formula

$$\text{F}=m\text{a}:$$
$`(2)`$
By this formula, the more is mass, the less is the acceleration of a body at given force. Masses $`m`$ defined by the formulae (1) and (2) are equal because the formula (2) is a consequence of the formula (1) if mass does not depend on time and speed. Thus,

> “mass is the quantitative or numerical measure of body’s inertia, that is of its resistance to being accelerated” .

The same value of mass can be measured by weighing a body, that is by measuring of the attraction to the Earth or to any other given body (which mass is designated $`M`$). Thus, the same mass $`m`$ appears in the Newton gravitational law

$$F=\frac{\gamma Mm}{r^2},$$
$`(3)`$
but here $`m`$ is referred to as gravitational (passive) mass. This fact expresses an equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses. Due to this equivalence, the acceleration due to gravity does not depend on the nature and the mass of a body:

$$g=\frac{\gamma M}{r^2}.$$
$`(4)`$
Thus,

> “mass is the quantity of matter in a body. Mass may also be considered as the equivalent of inertia, or the resistance offered by a body to change of motion (i. e. acceleration). Masses are compared by weighting them.” .

2. Inertial mass at high speeds

However, the special theory of relativity has shown that no body can be accelerated up to the speed of light because the acceleration of a body decreases to zero when the speed of the body approaches the speed of light, however large the accelerating force is. This implies that inertia of a body increases to infinity when the speed of the body tends to the speed of light, though the “amount of substance” of the body obviously remains constant.

More correctly, special relativity has shown that the momentum P of a body at any speed is parallel to velocity v. Therefore the formula $`\text{P}=m\text{v}`$ is valid at large speeds, if the coefficient $`m`$, that is inertial mass, is accepted to be increased with speed in the fashion:

$$m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}},$$
$`(5)`$
where c is the speed of light. That is, the expression

$$\text{P}=\frac{m_0\text{v}}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}$$
$`(6)`$
is valid for the momentum of a body.

In these formulae $`m_0`$ is the value of mass which was spoken about in the beginning. For a determination of the value, the body should be slowed down and, after it, the formula (1) or (2) must be applied at small speed. The value received by this method is called rest mass. This mass, by definition, does not vary on accelerating a body. Therefore, the formulae (1), (2), (3) must be written as follow: $`\text{P}=m_0\text{v}`$, $`\text{F}=m_0\text{a}`$, $`F=\gamma Mm_0/r^2`$. However, for small speeds, due to formula (5), inertial mass is equal to rest mass, $`m=m_0`$, and consequently the record (1), (2), (3 ) is correct in the “before special relativity section”.

To emphasize the fact that inertial mass $`m`$ depends on speed it is named relativistic mass: it appears to have different values from points of view of various observers if the observers have relative velocities. Meanwhile, there is a preferred value of inertial mass $`m_0`$. This value is observed by an observer which has no velocity relative to the body. Such a property of inertial mass is similar to the property of time: observers which are in motion relative to a clock measure longer time intervals then the time interval measured by an observer relative to whom the clock is at rest. This time interval is called the proper time. Thus,

> “mass is the physical measure of the principal inertial property of a body, i. e., its resistance to change of motion. At speeds small compared with the speed of light, the mass of a body is independent of its speed. At higher speeds, the mass of a body depends on its speed relative to the observer according to the relation:
>
> $$m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}},$$
>
> where $`m_0`$ is the mass of the body by an observer at rest with respect to the body, $`v`$ is the speed of the body relative to the observer who finds its mass to be $`m`$.” .

If you wish to check up the formula (6), you should measure velocity v and momentum P of a body. The momentum of a body is measured by the following operation. A moving body is braked by a barrier, and during its braking the force $`\text{F}(t)`$ acting on the barrier is measured. The initial momentum of the body, by definition, is equal to the integral

$$\text{P}=\text{F}(t)𝑑t.$$
$`(7)`$
It is postulated that this integral does not depend on details of braking, that is on a form of function $`\text{F}(t)`$.

We should notice that the formulas (5) and (6) remain valid for object which has no rest mass, $`m_0=0`$, for example, for photon or neutrino (if one assumes that rest mass of neutrino is equal to zero). Such objects have inertial mass and momentum, but they should move with the speed of light. It is impossible to stop them: they disappear if being stopped. Nevertheless, despite their speed is constant, their inertial mass appear to be different for various observers. However, in the case of such objects, no preferred value of inertial mass exists. Or, it is possible to say, the preferred value of inertial mass is equal to zero.

We have detected the increase of inertia of a body at large speed by a reduction of its acceleration at large speed. Thus we have referred to formula (2). And it is allowable. However, just because of the increase of inertial mass with the body velocity, the formula (2) can change its form. The point is that at fixed acceleration, a force directed in parallel with the velocity should supply not only the increase of speed of available mass

$$m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}.$$
$`(5)`$
It should also supply an increase of mass:

$$\text{F}=\frac{d}{dt}\text{P}=\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{m_0\text{v}}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}\right)=\frac{m_0\text{a}}{\sqrt{(1v^2/c^2)^3}}.$$
$`(8)`$
The coefficient

$$\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{(1v^2/c^2)^3}}$$

is called “longitudinal mass” .

If the force is perpendicular to the velocity and so does not change speed and inertial mass of a body, the formula $`F=ma`$ does not change its form:

$$\text{F}=\frac{m_0\text{a}}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}.$$
$`(9)`$
Using this circumstance, R.Feynman put forward a simple operational definition of inertial mass $`m`$. “We may measure mass, for example, by swinging an object in a circle at a certain speed and measuring how much force we need to keep it in the circle.” .

When the force has an arbitrary direction, the proportionality factor in formula (2) must be considered as a certain operator (tensor) which transforms vector a to vector F: $`\text{F}=\widehat{m}\text{a}`$. The operator $`\widehat{m}`$ depends on speed and a direction of the velocity of a body and, generally speaking, changes a direction of a vector. It is easy to accept. You see, velocity v is a property of a body, but a force F acting at the body is an external agent with respect to the body. It is clear that a result of the influence of the force, that is an acceleration of a body, can depend on a correlation between directions of the vectors F and v.

3. Gravitational mass at higher speeds

At the same time the general theory of relativity has shown that not only inertia of a body, but also its weight increases with speed by the law (5). Indeed, the acceleration due to gravity of a body falling downwards with speed $`v`$ is, roughly speaking,

$$g=\frac{\gamma M(1v^2/c^2)}{r^2}.$$

So, the weight of the body, according to (8), is

$$F=\frac{m_0g}{\sqrt{(1v^2/c^2)^3}}=\frac{\gamma Mm_0}{r^2\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}.$$

So that inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass at any speed $`v`$ of a body.

The exact formula for the acceleration can be received within the framework of the general theory of relativity as it is shown in Sec. 8:

$$g=\frac{\gamma M(1v^2/c^2)}{r\sqrt{r(rr_g)}},r_g=2\gamma M/c^2.$$
$`(10)`$
This formula is a relativistic generalization of the formula (4).

4. Energy

Furthermore, special relativity has shown that an increment of inertial mass, $`mm_0`$, multiplied on square of the speed of light is equal to kinetic energy of a body:

$$(mm_0)c^2=E_k.$$
$`(11)`$
> “A result of the theory that mass can be ascribed to kinetic energy is that the effective mass of the electron should vary with its velocities according to the expression
>
> $$m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}.$$
>
> This has been confirmed experimentally.” .

Therefore if we attach a rest energy $`E_0=m_0c^2`$ to a body at rest, the complete energy $`E=E_0+E_k`$ of a body appears to be proportional to inertial mass:

$$E=mc^2.$$
$`(12)`$
This famous Einstein formula proclaims an equivalence between inertial mass and energy. The two, up to now, different concepts are incorporated in a single one.

Thus,

> “the formula $`E=mc^2`$ equates a quantity of mass $`m`$ to a quantity of energy $`E`$. The relationship was developed from the relativity theory (special), but has been experimentally confirmed” .

We should notice that the formula (12), as well as formulae (5) and (6), are valid for an object which has no rest mass and rest energy, $`m_0=0`$.

If you wish to check up the formula (11) and simultaneously to make sure that special relativity is valid, you must measure the inertial mass and the rest mass of a moving body as it was explained above and, besides this, you must measure kinetic energy of the body:

$$E_k=\text{F}(l)𝑑\text{l}.$$

Here $`\text{F}(l)`$ is the force acting on the barrier during the body braking and $`\text{F}(l)d\text{l}`$ is a scalar product of the force F and an infinitesimal vector $`d\text{l}`$ of displacement of the barrier. (See ).

The formula (11) connects inertial mass, rest mass and kinetic energy. Using formula (6), it is easy to connect inertial mass, rest mass and momentum:

$$m_0^2=m^2P^2/c^2.$$
$`(13)`$
For zero rest mass particles we receive:

$$mc=P,\mathrm{or}E=Pc.$$

5. System of bodies

If several bodies are considered to be a system of bodies, then, as is known, their momenta and their inertial masses are summed up. For two bodies this take the form:

$$\text{P}=\text{P}_1+\text{P}_2,m=m_1+m_2.$$
$`(14)`$
In other words, momentum and inertial mass are additive.

The case of the rest mass is entirely different. Equations (13), (14) imply that rest mass of a pair of bodies with rest masses $`m_{01}`$, $`m_{02}`$ is equal not to the sum $`m_{01}+m_{02}`$ but to a complex expression dependent on the momenta $`\text{P}_1,`$ $`\text{P}_2`$:

$$m_0=\sqrt{\left(\sqrt{m_{01}^2+P_1^2/c^2}+\sqrt{m_{02}^2+P_2^2/c^2}\right)^2(\text{P}_1+\text{P}_2)^2/c^2}.$$
$`(15)`$
Thus, rest mass is, generally speaking, not additive. For example, a pair of photons each having no rest mass does have a rest mass if the photons move in different directions while the pair has no rest mass if the photons move in the same direction.

Nevertheless, the three quantities, P, $`m`$, $`m_0`$, satisfy the conservation law. That is, they remain constant with time for a closed system.

However, it seems to be unsuitable to consider rest mass of a system of bodies because of the nonadditivity of rest mass. It is meaningful to speak only about a sum of rest masses of separate bodies of system. So, when one speaks that “rest mass of final system increases in an inelastic encounter” , the rest mass after the encounter is compared with the sum of rest masses of bodies before the encounter, but not with the system rest mass which is conserved thanks to the nonadditivity. Just so, when one speaks about the mass defect at nuclear reactions, for example, at synthesis of deuterium, $`p+n=D+\gamma `$, the sum of the rest masses of proton and neutron is compared with the sum of the rest masses of deuterium and $`\gamma `$-quantum, but not with the system rest mass determined by the formula (15).

6. A comparison of masses

And here a problem arises. Which of the two masses, the rest mass or the inertial mass, must we name by a simple word mass, designate by the letter $`m`$ without indexes, and recognize as a ”main” mass? It is not a terminological problem. A serious psychologic underlying reason is present here.

To decide which of the masses is the main mass let us repeat once again properties of both masses.

Rest mass is a constant quantity for a given body and denotes “amount of substance of a body”. It corresponds to a rudimentary Newton belief that the masses stayed constant. But, rest mass is not equivalent to the energy of a moving object, is not equivalent to gravitational mass, rest mass is nonadditive and is not used as a characteristic of a system of bodies or particles. This last circumstance prevents the conservation law displaying. Particles moving with the speed of light have no rest mass. The operational definition of rest mass of a particle assumes its deceleration up to a small speed without use of an information about current condition of the particle.

Inertial mass is the relativistic mass. Its value depends on observer’s velocity. Inertial mass is equivalent to energy and to gravitational mass, Inertial mass is additive, it satisfies the conservation law. The operational definition of inertial mass is based on the simple formula $`\text{P}=m\text{v}.`$

From our point of view, inertial mass has to be called mass and to be designate $`m`$, as it is done in the present article.

7. Underlying psychologic reason

Unfortunately, plenty of physicists considers the rest mass as a main mass, designates it by $`m`$, instead of $`m_0`$, and discriminates the inertial mass. These physicists agree, for example, that the mass of gas which is at rest increases with temperature since its energy increases with temperature. But, probably, there is a psychologic barrier that prevents them from explaining this increase by an increase of masses of molecules owing to the increase of their thermal speed.

These physics sacrifice the concept of mass as a measure of inertia, sacrifice the additivity of mass and the equivalence of mass and energy to a label attached to a particle with information about “amount of substance” because the label corresponds the customary Newton belief in invariable mass. And so they think that a radiation which, according to Einstein , “transfers inertia between emitting and absorbing bodies” has no mass.

Now inertial mass is excluded from textbooks and from popular science literature , but this phenomenon is hidden by the fact that rest mass adherents busily call rest mass mass, not rest mass, and the word mass is associated with a measure of inertia.

The main psychologic difficulty is to identify mass and energy (which varies), to accept these two essences as one. It is easy to accept the formula $`E_0=m_0c^2`$ for a body at rest. But it is more difficult to accept a validity of the formula $`E=mc^2`$ for any speed. The famous Einstein relation between mass and energy, that is a symbol of 20-th century, seems “ugly” to L. B. Okun’ .

Rest mass adherents are not, probably, capable to accept an idea of relativistic mass the same as early opponents of special relativity could not accept the relativity of time. The lifetime of an unstable particle varies with velocity as its inertial mass:

$$\tau =\tau _0/\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}.$$

It is appropriate to quote here from Max Planck:

> ‘An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with youth. For this reason a suitable planning of school teaching is one of the most important conditions of progress in science.’

Unfortunately, the great idea of relativistic mass is carefully isolated from youth. Now the article  is rejected by editors of the following journals: “Russian Physics Journal”, “Kvant” (Moscow), “American Journal of Physics”, “Physics Education” (Bristol). “Physics Today”. The present paper has been rejected by “Russian Physics Journal”, “Kvant” (Moscow), “American Journal of Physics”.

8. Schwarzschild space

Here we will arrive at the formula (10) considering Schwarzschild space-time  with the interval:

$$ds^2=\frac{rr_g}{r}c^2dt^2\frac{r}{rr_g}dr^2r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)$$

We get the equations of radial geodesic lines from the formulae using the connection coefficients $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$:

$$\frac{d^2t}{ds^2}+\frac{r_g}{r(rr_g)}\frac{dr}{ds}\frac{dt}{ds}=0,$$
$`(16)`$
$$\frac{d^2r}{ds^2}\frac{r_g}{2r(rr_g)}\left(\frac{dr}{ds}\right)^2+\frac{(rr_g)c^2r_g}{2r^3}\left(\frac{dt}{ds}\right)^2=0.$$
$`(17)`$
First integral of the equation (16) is:

$$\frac{rr_g}{r}\frac{dt}{ds}=ϵ=Const.$$
$`(18)`$
We will record now an expression for the acceleration a taking into account (18) and the fact that relationships between distance $`l`$ and time $`t`$, on the one hand, and coordinates $`r`$, $`t`$, on the other, are given by the formulae

$$dl=\sqrt{\frac{r}{rr_g}}dr,d\tau =\sqrt{\frac{rr_g}{r}}dt:$$

$$a=\frac{d}{d\tau }\frac{dl}{d\tau }=\sqrt{\frac{r}{rr_g}}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{r}{rr_g}\frac{dr}{dt}\right)=\frac{1}{ϵ^2}\sqrt{\frac{rr_g}{r}}\frac{d^2r}{ds^2}.$$

In this way, we have expressed the acceleration $`a`$ in terms of $`d^2r/ds^2.`$ Now we can use the equation (17) and then, having reverted to $`l`$ and $`t`$, we can arrive at

$$a=\frac{r_g(c^2v^2)}{2r\sqrt{r(rr_g)}},v=\frac{dl}{d\tau }.$$
$`(10)`$
I thank G.S.Lapidus and V.P.Visgin. Their attention has helped me to improve this paper text.

References

1. R. I. Khrapko, ”What is Mass?”, Physics - Uspekhi, 43 (12), (2000).

2. R. I. Khrapko, ”What is Mass?”, Uspekhi Phizicheskikh Nauk, 170 (12), 1363 (2000) (in Russian).

3. R. I. Khrapko, ”What is mass?”,
http://www.mai.ru/projects/mai\_works/index.htm, No. 2 (in Russian).

4. A. S. Hornby, E. V. Gatenby, H. Wakefield, The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Vol.3, p.48 (ISBN 5-900306-45-3(3)).

5. McGraw-Hill encyclopedia of science & technology, V. 10 (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1987), p. 488.

6. Chambers’s Technical Dictionary, (W. & R. Chambers, Ltd., London, 1956), p. 529.

7. Van Nostrand’s scientific encyclopedia (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1989), p. 1796.

8. M. Jammer, Concept of mass (Harvard University Press, Cambridge- Massachusetts, 1961).

9. R. P. Feynman et al., The Feynman Lectures on Physics, V. 1 (Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 1963), p. 9-1.

10. R. I. Khrapko et al., Mechanics (MAI, Moscow, 1993) (in Russian).

11. E. F. Taylor and J. A. Wheeler, Spacetime Physics (Freeman, San Francisco, 1966).

12. A. Einstein, ”Ist die Tragheit eines Korpers von seinem Energiegehalt abhangig?” Ann. d. Phys. 18, 639, (1905).

13. R. Resnick et al., Physics, V.1 (Wiley, New York, 1992).

14. M. Alonso, E. J. Finn, Physics (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1995).

15. L. B. Okun’, ”The concept of mass (mass, energy, relativity)”, Physics - Uspekhi, 32(7), p. 637, (1989).

16. M. Planck, The Philosophy of Physics (George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1936), p. 90.

17. L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields (Pergamon, New York, 1975).


format: text

text:
# Recent Results from the HDMS Experiment

## 1 The HDMS experiment

HDMS operates two ionization HPGe detectors in a unique configuration . A small, p-type Ge crystal is surrounded by a well-type Ge crystal, both being mounted into a common cryostat system (see Figure 1 for a schematic view). Two effects are expected to reduce the background of the inner target detector with respect to our best measurements with the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment . First, the anticoincidence between the two detectors acts as an effective suppression of multiple scattered photons. Second, we know that the main radioactive background of Ge detectors comes from materials situated in the immediate vicinity of the crystals. In the case of HDMS the inner detector is surrounded (apart from the thin isolation) by a second Ge crystal - one of the radio-purest known materials.

In order to house both Ge crystals and to establish the two high-voltage and two signal contacts, a special design of the copper crystal holder system was required. The cryostat system was built in Heidelberg and made of low radioactivity copper, all surfaces being electro-polished. The FETs are placed 20 cm away from the crystals, their effect on the background is minimized by a small solid angle for viewing the crystals and by 10 cm of copper shield.

### 1.1 Detector Performance at LNGS

The HDMS prototype was installed at LNGS in March 1998. Figure 1 shows the detector in its open shield. The inner shield is made of 10 cm of electrolytic copper, the outer one of 20 cm of Boliden lead. The whole setup is enclosed in an air tight steel box and flushed with gaseous nitrogen in order to suppress radon diffusion from the environment. Finally a 15 cm thick borated polyethylene shield surrounds the steel box in order to minimize the influence of neutrons from the natural radioactivity and muon produced neutrons in the Gran Sasso rock.

The prototype detector successfully took data over a period of about 15 months, until July 1999. The individual runs were about 0.9 d long. Each day the experiment was checked and parameters like leakage current of the detectors, nitrogen flux, overall trigger rate and count rate of each detector were checked. The experiment was calibrated weekly with a 133Ba and a 152Eu-228Th source. The energy resolution of both detectors (1.2 keV at 300 keV inner detector and 3.2 keV at 300 keV outer detector) were stable as a function of time. The zero energy resolution is 0.94 keV for the inner detector and 3.3 keV for the outer one.

The energy thresholds are 2.0 keV and 7.5 keV for the inner and outer detector, respectively.

Due to the very special detector design, we see a cross-talk between the two detectors. The observed correlation is linear and can be corrected for off-line . After correction for the cross talk and recalibration to standard calibration values, the spectra of the daily runs were summed. Figure 2 shows the sum spectra for the outer and inner detector, respectively (the most important identified lines are labeled).

In the outer detector lines of some cosmogenic and anthropogenic isotopes, the U/Th natural decay chains and 40K are clearly identified. The statistics in the inner detector is not as good, however the X-ray at 10.37 keV resulting from the decay of 68Ge, some other cosmogenic isotopes, 210Pb and 40K can be seen. The region below 10 keV is dominated by the X-rays from cosmogenic radio nuclides. In addition a structure centered at 32 keV is identified. Its origin is not yet clear and is currently under investigation.

After 363 days of pure measuring time the statistics in the inner detector was high enough in order to estimate the background reduction through the anti-coincidence with the outer detector.

Figure 3 shows the low-energy spectrum of the inner detector before and after the anti-coincidence. The cosmogenic X-rays below 11 keV are preserved, since in this case the decays are occuring in the inner detector itself. The same is valid for the structure at 32 keV, also a 3H spectrum with endpoint at 18.6 keV is presumably present. If the anti-coincidence is evaluated in the energy region between 40 keV and 100 keV, the background reduction factor is 4.3. The counting rate after the anti-coincidence in this energy region is 0.07 events/(kg d keV), thus very close to the value measured in the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment with the enriched detector ANG2 . In the energy region between 11 keV and 40 keV the background index is with 0.2 events/(kg d keV) a factor of 3 higher.

### 1.2 Dark Matter Limits

The evaluation for dark matter limits on the WIMP-nucleon cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{scalar}}^{\mathrm{W}\mathrm{N}}`$ follows the conservative assumption that the whole experimental spectrum consists of WIMP events. Consequently, excess events from calculated WIMP spectra above the experimental spectrum in any energy region with a minimum width of the energy resolution of the detector are forbidden (to a given confidence limit).

The parameters used in the calculation of expected WIMP spectra are summarized in . We use formulas given in the extensive review  for a truncated Maxwell velocity distribution in an isothermal WIMP–halo model (truncation at the escape velocity, compare also ).

After calculating the WIMP spectrum for a given WIMP mass, the scalar cross section is the only free parameter which is then used to fit the expected to the measured spectrum using a one-parameter maximum-likelihood fit algorithm.

To compute the limit for the HDMS inner detector we took only the last 49 days of measurement. We omit the first 260 days in order to reduce the contaminations due to long-lived cosmogenically produced materials. These have life times of typically $``$ 200 days. The energy threshold of the measurement was 2 keV. The resulting preliminary upper limit exclusion plot in the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{scalar}}^{\mathrm{W}\mathrm{N}}`$ versus MWIMP plane is shown in Fig. 3.

Already at this stage, the limit is competitive with our limit from the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment. In the low mass regime for WIMPs the limit has been improved due to the low energy threshold of 2 keV reached in this setup.

Also shown in the figure are limits from the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment , limits from the DAMA experiment  and the most recent results in form of an exclusion curve from the CDMS experiment . The filled contour represents the 2$`\sigma `$ evidence region of the DAMA experiment .

### 1.3 Outlook for the HDMS Experiment and conclusions

The prototype detector of the HDMS experiment successfully took data at LNGS over a period of about 15 months. Most of the background sources (with exception of the 32 keV structure in the inner detector) were identified. The background reduction factor in the inner detector through anticoincidence is about 4. The background in the low-energy region of the inner detector (with exception of the region still dominated by cosmogenic activities) is already comparable to the most sensitive dark matter search experiments.

For the final experimental setup, important changes were made. The crystal holder was replaced by a holder made of ultra low level copper, the soldering of the contacts was avoided, thus no soldering tin was used in the new setup and finally the inner crystal made of natural Germanium in the described prototype was replaced by an enriched 73Ge crystal. In this way, the 70Ge isotope (which is the mother isotope for 68Ge production) is strongly de-enriched (the abundance in natural Germanium is 7.8%).

After a period of test measurements in the low-level laboratory in Heidelberg, the full scale experiment was installed at LNGS in August 2000. The energy threshold of the inner detector is unchanged at 2.0 keV and the energy resolution has slightly improved with respect to the prototype detector .

The projected final sensitivity of the detector can be seen in Fig. 3.


text:
# Monte Carlo Simulations of Short-time Critical Dynamics with a Conserved Quantity

## I Introduction

About ten years ago, in a pioneering work by Janssen, Schaub and Schmittmann, short-time universal scaling behavior of non-equilibrium critical dynamics starting from a high temperature state was systematically explored with renormalization group methods . In a few years, extension of the calculations to different critical dynamics was carried out by Oerding and Janssen in a series of works . Some evidences for the short-time dynamic scaling were also observed in Monte Carlo simulations . Meanwhile, it was found that the power law decay of the magnetization starting from a completely ordered state emerges already in relatively early times, e.g., see , and it can be used to estimate the dynamic exponent $`z`$ . In recent years short-time critical dynamics has been systematically investigated with Monte Carlo simulations . Simulations have extended from regular classical spin models  to statistical systems with quenched disorder , quantum spin systems , lattice gauge theories , the hard-disk model  and dynamic systems without detailed balance . The references given here are only a part of recent ones and not complete. A relatively complete list of the relevant references before 1998 can be found in a recent review, Ref. . All numerical and analytical results confirm that there exists a rather general dynamic scaling form in critical dynamic systems already in the short-time regime of dynamic evolution.

Traditionally, it is believed that the short-time behavior of dynamic systems depends essentially on microscopic details. To understand short-time universal behavior, one should distinguish two different time scales, the macroscopic and microscopic time scales. The short-time dynamic scaling form emerges only after a time scale $`t_{mic}`$, which is sufficiently large in microscopic sense, but still very small in macroscopic sense. $`t_{mic}`$ is a time that the system needs to sweep away the effect of microscopic details. In Monte Carlo simulations, for example, if a sweep over all spins on a lattice is considered to be a microscopic time unit, $`t_{mic}`$ is usually the order of 10 to 100 Monte Carlo time steps . For the simple Ising and Potts models with only nearest neighbor interactions, sometimes $`t_{mic}`$ is negligible small (e.g., one Monte Carlo time step or two). Compared with typical macroscopic time scales characterized by $`\tau ^{\nu z}`$ or $`L^z`$ around the critical point, $`t_{mic}`$ is indeed very small.

The physical origin of the short-time dynamic scaling is the divergent correlation time near a critical point. The divergent correlation time induces a memory effect, and the memory effect can be described by a scaling form. How does this scaling form look like? As pointed out by Janssen, Schaub and Schmittmann , one should introduce new critical exponents to describe the dependence of the scaling behavior on the macroscopic initial conditions. Actually, for arbitrary initial conditions even a characteristic function is needed . Furthermore, to describe the scaling behavior of some special dynamic observables, we also have to introduce new exponents, for example, the persistence exponent .

The short-time dynamic scaling form is not only conceptually interesting but also practically important. It provides new techniques for the measurements of both dynamic and static critical exponents as well as the critical temperature, for a review, see Ref. . Since the measurements are carried out in the short-time regime of dynamic evolution, the dynamic approach does not suffer from critical slowing down. ***In the literature, sometimes it is stated that the short-time dynamic approach can eliminate critical slowing down. Rigorously speaking, this statement is not correct. Critical slowing down always exists, at least for local dynamics, and it is the physical origin of the dynamic scaling. But in the short-time dynamic approach we do not have the problem of generating independent configurations. Therefore, we do not suffer from critical slowing down. Averaging is over both initial configurations and the random forces. This is very different from the time averaging in the measurements in equilibrium. Compared with those non-local methods which are invented to overcome the critical slowing down in Monte Carlo simulations in equilibrium, e.g., the cluster algorithms, the dynamic approach does study the original local dynamics and can be applied to disordered systems.

In fact, the dynamic scaling in non-equilibrium critical dynamics is not an exclusive phenomenon in the world. In many other non-equilibrium dynamic processes, universal or quasi-universal scaling behavior has been also observed. An example is phase ordering dynamics . In this case, a real equilibrium state and a macroscopic time scale like $`\tau ^{\nu z}`$ do not exist. Therefore, ’short-time’ is not addressed. Another example is aging in complex systems such as glasses and spin glasses. Aging is just a kind of scaling or quasi-scaling. Dynamic scaling behavior around a spin glass transition  is very similar to that around a standard critical point. For example, the experimental measurements of the remanent magnetization in spin glasses support not only the power law scaling behavior but also the scaling relations between the exponents .

After such a slightly lengthy review, we come to what we are going to do in this paper. Even though renormalization group calculations have been extended to different critical dynamics, up to now, Monte Carlo simulations are limited in dynamics of model A . Actually, due to severe critical slowing down, Monte Carlo simulations for long-time behavior of critical dynamics beyond model A are also in the preliminary stage. The short-time dynamic approach provides powerful methods for numerical measurements of not only dynamic exponents, but also static exponents as well as the critical temperature. Simulations of dynamic systems beyond model A in equilibrium are usually difficult. Therefore, it is important to investigate short-time scaling behavior of these dynamic systems with Monte Carlo methods.

Dynamics of model A is a kind of relaxational dynamics without relevant conserved quantities . If we consider only dynamic relaxational processes, dynamics with different relevant conserved quantities is classified into model B, C and D. In this paper, taking the three-dimensional anti-ferromagnetic Ising model for example, with Monte Carlo methods we study dynamics with a conserved quantity, which is not an order parameter but coupling to the order parameter. According to Ref. , this is called model C. In the next section, we introduce the model and analyze the power law scaling behavior in the short-time regime. In section 3, we present the numerical results. Finally come the concluding remarks.

## II Short-time dynamic scaling

### A The model

We consider an antiferromagnetic Ising model on a three-dimensional cubic lattice. The Hamiltonian of the model is

$$H/kT=K\underset{<ij>}{}S_iS_j,$$
(1)
where $`S_i`$ is an Ising spin and the sum is over nearest neighbors. For dynamics of model A and in equilibrium, on a cubic lattice the antiferromagnetic Ising model is equivalent to the (ferromagnetic) Ising model. Now, we keep the magnetization as a constant in dynamic evolution. Here the order parameter is not  the magnetization but the staggered magnetization. We will denote the magnetization by $`m_s`$ and the staggered magnetization by $`M(t)`$. For equilibrium states, it is expected that for $`m_s=0`$, the universality class is the same as that of the standard Ising model without a conserved magnetization. For a non-zero $`m_s`$, according to Ref. , the critical exponent $`\nu `$ is different from that of $`m_s=0.0`$, but it does not depend on the value of the non-zero $`m_s`$. For critical dynamics, the dynamic exponent $`z`$ and the exponent $`\theta `$ for $`m_s=0`$ are the same as those of the standard Ising model, but for non-zero $`m_s`$ they are different. Again, $`z`$ and $`\theta `$ do not depend on the value of the non-zero $`m_s`$. These conclusions are drawn from renormalization group calculations based on the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory coupling to a conserved current . It is interesting to compared these results with Monte Carlo simulations.

In this paper, we study only dynamic relaxation starting from disordered states with a zero or small initial staggered magnetization $`m_0`$. We measure how the staggered magnetization and its second moment as well as the auto-correlation evolve in the dynamic process. The heat-bath algorithm is used in simulations. In order to keep $`m_s`$ as a constant, in a flip we simply exchange the values of two spins. Here we should point out that if our model is not the anti-ferromagnetic but the ferromagnetic Ising model, the (conserved) magnetization $`m_s`$ is the order parameter and then the dynamics for $`m_s=0`$ belongs to model B .

In dynamics without any relevant conserved quantities, i.e., dynamics of model A, updating schemes are irrelevant in the sense of universality. Different updating schemes lead to the same critical exponents, either in an equilibrium or a non-equilibrium state. However, for dynamics with relevant conserved quantities, it is different, at least for non-equilibrium short-time behavior. In a recent work by one of the authors , for example, the Monte Carlo dynamics with a conserved order parameter for the two-dimensional Ising model is investigated. It is found that if in a flip we exchange the values of two neighboring spins, the dynamics is very slow. However, if we release the condition such that the order parameter is not locally conserved but only globally conserved (for example, in a flip we exchange the values of two randomly separated spins), the dynamic exponent $`z`$ is much smaller. For the dynamics studied in this paper, i.e., with a conserved quantity which is not the order parameter, the situation is somewhat similar. If in a flip we exchange the values of two neighboring spins, dynamic evolution is somewhat slow. Therefore, as a first approach, we decide to keep the magnetization $`m_s`$ only globally conserved. In a flip we exchange the values of two randomly separated spins. Except for the updating schemes, all computational techniques adopted here are the same as those in the simulations of model A .

### B Short-time dynamic scaling

For critical dynamic systems, traditionally it is believed that universal scaling behavior exists only in the long-time regime of dynamic evolution. However, in recent years it is discovered that starting from macroscopic initial states, universal scaling behavior emerges already in the macroscopic short-time regime of dynamic processes after a microscopic time scale $`t_{mic}`$ . A typical example is that a magnetic system initially in a high temperature state with a small initial order parameter $`m_0`$, is suddenly quenched to the critical temperature $`T_c`$ or nearby (without external magnetic field) and then released to dynamic evolution of model A . A generalized dynamic scaling form can be written down, for example, for the $`k`$th moment of the order parameter,

$$M^{(k)}(t,\tau ,L,m_0)=b^{k\beta /\nu }M^{(k)}(b^zt,b^{1/\nu }\tau ,b^1L,b^{x_0}m_0).$$
(2)
Here $`t`$ is the time variable, $`\tau `$ is the reduced temperature, $`L`$ is the lattice size. $`\beta `$ and $`\nu `$ are standard static exponents and $`z`$ is the dynamic exponent. Important is that a new independent exponent $`x_0`$ is introduced to describe the scaling behavior of the initial order parameter $`m_0`$. If the scaling form above is valid, all relevant exponents can be extracted from the short-time behavior of relevant observables.

For the dynamic system with a conserved quantity discussed in the last subsection, we assume that a scaling form like Eq. (2) holds also. In this case, $`\tau =(KK_c)/K_c`$ and $`K_c`$ depends on the conserved magnetization $`m_s`$, i.e., there is a critical line $`K_c=K_c(m_s)`$. In principle, there are two possibilities for the critical exponents. In the case of strong universality, the value of an exponent for non-zero $`m_s`$ can be different from that for zero $`m_s`$, but does not depend on the value of the non-zero $`m_s`$. In the case of weak universality, an exponent may vary its value continuously along a critical line. For the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory coupling to a conserved current in Ref. , it is the case of strong universality.

Neglecting the finite size effect and noting that $`m_0`$ is small, we expand the right hand side of Eq. (2) and take only the first non-zero (linear) term under the condition of a small $`t`$. At the initial stage of time evolution, the staggered magnetization around the critical temperature behaves as,

$$M(t,\tau ,m_0)m_0t^\theta F(t^{1/\nu z}\tau ),\theta =(x_0\beta /\nu )/z.$$
(3)
At the exact critical point, $`\tau =0`$, $`M(t)`$ obeys a power law $`t^\theta `$. Numerical results and analytical calculations have revealed that the exponent $`\theta `$ is positive for almost all systems, i.e., the order parameter undergoes an initial increase. This makes the short-time behavior very prominent. The physical mechanism for this increase has not been very clear. At least the mean-field effect or symmetry breaking is not very relevant. Slightly away from the critical point, the power law behavior is modified by the scaling function $`F(t^{1/\nu z}\tau )`$. This fact allows us to locate the critical temperature and meanwhile to measure the critical exponent $`\theta `$.

Differentiation of Eq. (3) leads to

$$_\tau M(t,\tau ,m_0)|_{\tau =0}=m_0t^{c_d}_\tau ^{}F(\tau ^{})|_{\tau ^{}=0},c_d=1/\nu z+\theta .$$
(4)
From this power law behavior, one can determine the critical exponent $`1/\nu z`$.

Taking into account that the non-equilibrium spatial correlation length ($`t^{1/z}`$) is small at the initial stage of time evolution, from Eq. (2) it can be derived that the second moment at $`T_c`$ subjects to a finite size scaling

$$M^{(2)}(t,L)L^dt^y,y=(d2\beta /\nu )/z.$$
(5)
For simplicity, here we have set $`m_0=0`$. Another interesting dynamic observable is the auto-correlation

$$A(t)\frac{1}{L^d}\underset{i}{}S_i(0)S_i(t).$$
(6)
At the critical temperature $`T_c`$, $`A(t)`$ decays by a power law

$$A(t)t^\lambda ,\lambda =\frac{d}{z}\theta .$$
(7)
It is interesting that even though we have set $`m_0=0`$, $`\theta `$ (i.e., $`x_0`$) still enters the auto-correlation. This is because $`x_0`$ is actually the scaling dimension of the local order parameter.

From Eqs. (5) and (7), we are able to estimate the static exponent $`\beta /\nu `$ and the dynamic exponent $`z`$. Then we complete the measurements of all the exponents and the critical temperature. For details of the above scaling analysis and a more systematic extension, readers are referred to Refs.  and the recent review article Ref. .

## III Monte Carlo simulations

### A $`m_s=0`$

For the anti-ferromagnetic Ising model, in equilibrium the averaged magnetization is zero. If we notice that the order parameter is the staggered magnetization, the thermodynamic fluctuation of the magnetization goes to zero in the thermodynamic limit (infinite volume). In non-equilibrium dynamic processes without any conserved quantities, if one starts from initial states with a zero magnetization $`m_s`$, the magnetization will remain zero. This is the case for usual macroscopic initial states, e.g., the high temperature and low temperature states. The fluctuation of the magnetization in the dynamic processes is also zero in thermodynamic limit. Therefore, one expects that the equilibrium state of the dynamic process with a conserved magnetization $`m_s=0`$ is in a same universality class of the model without a conserved quantity, and so is the dynamic universality class as well. The critical temperature is also not changed.

We perform simulations for $`m_s=0`$ in order to confirm the above expectation and to demonstrate our computational techniques. The heat-bath algorithm is adopted in simulations since it is faster than the Metropolis algorithm in the short-time regime. Lattice sizes are $`L=64`$ and $`128`$. Within our maximum updating times, no finite size effects are observed. We remind the readers here that it is an advantage of the short-time dynamic approach that the finite size effects are easily controlled due to the small non-equilibrium spatial correlation length ($`t^{1/z}`$).

The critical temperature has been measured rather accurately in simulations in equilibrium (for the system without a conserved quantity). However, we also present data to determine it from short-time dynamics. With the short-time dynamic approach, in principle, any observables which are sensitive to the temperature around the critical regime can be used for the determination of the critical temperature.

In Fig. 1, time evolution of the staggered magnetization $`M(t)`$ is displayed with solid lines in log-log scale. The lattice size is $`L=128`$, and $`2500`$ samples of initial configurations have been used for averaging. In order to see the possible ’finite $`m_0`$ effects’, we have performed the simulations with $`m_0=0.01`$ and $`0.02`$. The coupling constant $`K`$ is $`0.22065`$, $`0.22165`$ and $`0.22265`$ (from below) for $`m_0=0.01`$, and $`0.22115`$, $`0.22165`$ and $`0.22215`$ for $`m_0=0.02`$. In principle, the closer $`K`$’s are used, the more accurate $`K_c`$ and the critical exponent $`1/\nu z`$ can be obtained. However, we suffer from large statistical fluctuation if the $`K`$’s are too close to each other. We use different $`K`$’s for $`m_0=0.01`$ and $`m_0=0.02`$ just to study the possible systematic errors.

To make use of Eq. (3) to locate the critical point, we first interpolate $`M(t)`$ quadratically to any $`K`$ around the three simulated ones, then search for a $`K`$ which gives the best power law behavior for the curve. This $`K`$ is $`K_c`$. The two dashed lines in Fig. 1 are the curves with the best power law behavior for $`m_0=0.01`$ and $`m_0=0.02`$. The corresponding $`K_c`$’s are $`K_c=0.22169(9)`$ and $`0.22163(5)`$ for $`m_0=0.01`$ and $`m_0=0.02`$ respectively. These two values are consistent each other and in agreement with that of the Ising model measured in equilibrium (without any conserved quantity), which is reported to be around $`0.22165`$ . We perform our measurements in a time interval $`[t_{mic},400]`$. The results are rather stable when we take $`t_{mic}`$ bigger than $`10`$.

With $`K_c`$ in hand, we measure the critical exponent $`\theta =0.108(5)`$ and $`0.100(5)`$ for $`m_0=0.01`$ and $`m_0=0.02`$. They are consistent with $`\theta =0.104(3)`$ in Ref.  and $`\theta =0.108(2)`$ in Ref.  for the Ising model without a conserved quantity. Rigorously speaking, the exponent $`\theta `$ is defined in the limit of $`m_0=0`$. We should extrapolate $`\theta `$ to $`m_0=0`$. However, since here there are some statistical errors, and especially the errors induced by the errors of the critical point $`K_c`$’s, it is not meaningful to do so. To reduce the errors induced by $`K_c`$, we could take $`K_c=0.22165`$ as input. Then we obtain $`\theta =0.106(6)`$ by extrapolating the results to $`m_0=0`$. In this paper, we simply consider $`\theta =0.108(5)`$ measured from $`m_0=0.01`$ as our final value of $`\theta `$.

In Fig. 2, time evolution of the second moment of the staggered magnetization is displayed with solid lines in log-log scale. Here the initial staggered magnetization $`m_0`$ has been set to zero. From below, $`K=0.22065`$, $`0.22165`$ and $`0.22265`$. The lattice size is $`L=64`$ and the number of samples for averaging is $`3200`$. Extra simulations for $`L=128`$ show that the finite size effect for $`L=64`$ is already negligible small. From the figure, we see that the second moment is apparently less sensitive to $`K`$, compared with the staggered magnetization itself. However, we still can locate the critical $`K_c`$ from the data. Measuring in a time interval $`[t_{mic}=20,700]`$, $`K_c=0.22164(22)`$. The curve corresponding to $`K_c`$ is shown by a dashed line in the figure. The error of $`K_c`$ here is bigger than that from the staggered magnetization. To reduce the error, simply increasing the samples for averaging is not enough, one must have longer maximum updating times and therefore larger lattices. These need much CPU times since the second moment is not self-averaging. To estimate the exponent $`y=(d2\beta /\nu )/z`$, for simplicity, we take $`K_c=0.22165`$ as input. The result is $`y=0.965(11)`$.

In the simulations for Fig. 2, we have also measured the auto-correlation function $`A(t)`$. The results are shown in Fig. 3. From below, $`K=0.22065`$, $`0.22165`$ and $`0.22265`$. It is impossible to locate the critical point from the auto-correlation. We measure the exponent $`\lambda =1.36(3)`$ at $`K_c=0.22165`$ in a time interval $`[20,100]`$. When $`t`$ is bigger than $`100`$, the fluctuation becomes large.

In order to determine the critical exponent $`\nu `$, we need $`_\tau M(t,\tau )|_{\tau =0}`$. From the data for Fig. 1, we can calculate this derivative approximately. The results are shown in Fig. 4 with solid lines in log-log scale. From below, the initial staggered magnetization is $`m_0=0.01`$ and $`0.02`$. It is known that the power law behavior of the derivative of $`M(t)`$ in shorter times is less clean than that of $`M(t)`$ itself . Therefore, we measure the slopes in a time interval $`[70,400]`$ and obtain $`c_d=1/\nu z+\theta =0.867(10)`$ and $`0.901(22)`$ for $`m_0=0.01`$ and $`0.02`$ respectively. The value from $`m_0=0.01`$ is more reliable.

In Table I, we list all the exponents we have measured. Taking the exponent $`\theta `$ as input, from $`\lambda `$ we estimate the dynamic exponent $`z`$. Then from $`y`$ and $`c_d`$ we calculate the exponents $`2\beta /\nu `$ and $`\nu `$. For comparison, available results for dynamics without a conserved quantity , i.e., the so-called model A dynamics, are also given, where the critical point $`K_c`$ and the exponent $`\nu `$ are measured from another dynamic process starting from a completely ordered state. Within statistical errors, all the exponents for dynamics with and without a conserved quantity agree well each other. The static exponents and $`K_c`$ are also consistent with those of the standard Ising model measured from simulations in equilibrium with the cluster algorithms . Here we should make a comment. Even for dynamics of model A, the static exponents and $`K_c`$ measured from the short-time dynamics are still not as accurate as those obtained with the cluster algorithms. One reason is that the best effort for the short-time dynamic approach has not been made. Another reason is that in the short-time dynamic approach we have to measure both the static and dynamic exponents together. It makes the work more difficult than measuring only the static exponents. However, it is clear if we are interested in both static and dynamic properties, the short-time dynamic approach is very efficient. The cluster algorithms are non-local and change already the dynamic universality class. On the other hand, the cluster algorithms can not straightforwardly apply to any systems, e.g., the systems with quenched randomness and lattice gauge theories.

### B $`m_s0`$

Encouraged by the success for $`m_s=0.0`$, we proceed to $`m_s0`$. The results in the last subsection show that the lattices sizes $`L=64`$ and $`128`$ are sufficient for our maximum updating times. The finite $`m_0`$ effect for $`m_0=0.01`$ is already invisible within the statistical errors. Therefore, in this subsection we will not systematically study the finite size and finite $`m_0`$ effects. However we have also performed some extra calculations to confirm the results presented. To locate the critical point $`K_c`$ and estimate the exponent $`\nu `$, we need data for several $`K`$’s in the neighborhood of the critical point. The results in the last subsection also show that the difference of these $`K`$’s should be around half a percent of $`K_c`$ or less.

We perform simulations for $`m_s=0.2`$ and $`0.4`$. For $`m_s=0.2`$ we obtain data for $`K=0.2405`$, $`0.2410`$, $`0.2415`$ and $`0.2420`$, which are shown in Fig. 5 with solid lines (from below) in log-log scale. For $`m_s=0.4`$ we obtain data for $`K=0.3310`$, $`0.3320`$, $`0.3330`$ and $`0.3340`$, which are shown in Fig. 6 with solid lines (from below) in log-log scale. The lattice size is $`L=128`$ and $`2500`$ samples of the initial configurations are used for averaging.

Following the procedure in the last subsection, searching for a curve with the best power law behavior in a time interval $`[t_{mic},400]`$, one can determine $`K_c`$ and the critical exponent $`\theta `$. Now we have data for four $`K`$’s and therefore have the choices to interpolate the staggered magnetization with three or four $`K`$’s. For $`K_c`$, both yield the same values within errors. With four $`K`$’s, we obtain $`K_c=0.24153(12)`$ for $`m_s=0.2`$ and $`K_c=0.33230(20)`$ for $`m_s=0.4`$ with $`t_{mic}=20`$. The corresponding curves are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 with dashed lines. For $`m_s=0.4`$, $`K_c`$ is very stable for different choices of $`t_{mic}`$. For $`m_s=0.2`$, $`K_c`$ increases slightly when we take bigger $`t_{mic}`$. The reason is that our maximum updating times are not long enough. After carefully analyzing the data and looking at the curves in the figure, we convince ourself that $`K_c=0.24153(12)`$ is the most reasonable.

In Fig. 4, $`_\tau M(t,\tau )|_{\tau =0}`$ is displayed with dashed lines for $`m_s=0.2`$ and $`0.4`$ (from above). The results are obtained with four $`K`$’s. For $`m_s=0.4`$, the resulting exponent $`\nu `$ is bad with three $`K`$’s. The reason is clear. $`K_c`$ is between $`K=0.3320`$ and $`0.3330`$. If we choose only three $`K`$’s, we have some systematic errors in interpolation.

With $`K_c`$ in hand, we perform simulations for $`m_0=0.0`$ and measure the second moment and the auto-correlation. A lattice size $`L=64`$ is used and the number of samples of initial configuration for averaging is $`7500`$. In Fig. 7, the second moment is displayed in log-log scale with solid lines for $`m_s=0.2`$ and $`m_s=0.4`$ (from above). For comparison, the second moment for $`m_s=0.0`$ is also plotted with a dashed line in the figure. Apparently, all three curves are parallel each other. The exponent $`y`$ is independent of $`m_s`$. In Fig. 8, the auto-correlation is displayed in log-log scale with solid lines for $`m_s=0.2`$ and $`m_s=0.4`$ (from below) and with a dashes line for $`m_s=0.0`$. In all the relevant figures for non-zero $`m_s`$, nice power law behavior is observed.

In Table I, all the exponents are summarized. Within the statistical errors, the static exponent $`2\beta /\nu `$ is independent of $`m_s`$. The values also coincide well with those obtained from dynamics of model A and measured in equilibrium for the standard Ising model. The static exponent $`\nu `$ for $`m_s=0.2`$ and $`0.4`$ are $`0.82(8)`$ and $`0.81(3)`$ respectively. Even though the first value carries a relatively big error, they are clearly different from $`\nu =0.64(2)`$ for $`m_s=0.0`$ and those measured from dynamics of model A and in equilibrium. However, $`\nu `$ is independent of the value of the non-zero $`m_s`$. These results are consistent with the theoretical calculations based on a $`\varphi ^4`$ theory coupling to a conserved current . With our accuracy, we can not detect any dependence of the dynamic exponent $`z`$ on $`m_s`$. This differs from the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory in Ref. . The exponent $`\theta `$ is $`0.129(5)`$ and $`0.148(4)`$ for $`m_s=0.2`$ and $`0.4`$ respectively . These two values are obviously different from $`\theta =0.108(5)`$ for $`m_s=0.0`$, and show the nontrivial dynamic behavior for nonzero $`m_s`$. However, with our data we should conclude that $`\theta `$ depends on the value of the non-zero $`m_s`$, even though there may be still some uncontrolled systematic errors. This point is different from the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory.

## IV Concluding remarks

We have reported our Monte Carlo simulations of short-time critical dynamics for the three-dimensional anti-ferromagnetic Ising model with a globally conserved magnetization (not an order parameter). The power law scaling behavior has been observed for the staggered magnetization (the order parameter), its second moment and the auto-correlation. All dynamic and static critical exponents are determined. For a conserved magnetization $`m_s=0.0`$, all the exponents are the same as those of model A. For a non-zero $`m_s`$, the static exponents behave qualitatively the same as those of the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory coupling to a conserved current . However, the dynamic exponents are somewhat different. The reason might be that the magnetization is not locally but only globally conserved. Therefore, it is interesting to study the dynamics, with a locally conserved order parameter or non-order parameter: in a flip, we exchange two spins in a local regime, the size of which must be much smaller than the lattice size.

Acknowledgements: B.Z. thanks deeply Oerding for suggesting the topic and inspiring discussions. This work is supported in part by DFG; TR 300/3-1 and Schu 95/9-2.


text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

One often hears that string orbifolds  describe strings propagating on quotient spaces (with some ‘stringy’ effects at singularities). Of course, a string orbifold is not described in terms of maps into a quotient space, but rather is set up in terms of group actions on covering spaces. For example, the partition function of a string orbifold is of the form

$$ZZ\left(\text{twisted sector}\right)$$

e.g., the partition function of a string orbifold on $`T^2`$ can be written

$$Z_{T^2}=\frac{1}{|G|}\underset{g,h,gh=hg}{}Z_{g,h}$$

where each $`Z_{g,h}`$ is a sigma model from a square into $`X`$, such that the sides of the square are related by the action of $`g,h\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as illustrated in figure 1.

We shall argue later that, in fact, the twisted sector sum and the functional integral within each twisted sector of a string orbifold partition function are are both duplicated by a sum over maps into something known as a quotient stack, an object which is closely related to the quotient space. Quotient stacks look mostly like quotient spaces, but have “extra information” over any singularities of the quotient space, which makes quotient stacks much better behaved than quotient spaces. The fact that a sum over maps into a quotient stack duplicates the sums in a string orbifold is a smoking gun for an interpretation of string orbifolds as sigma models on quotient stacks. We shall also outline how one can define a classical action for a sigma model on a stack, which reproduces string orbifolds in the special case of quotient stacks.

Of course, this is a rather strong conclusion to most physicists. Mathematicians, on the other hand, may find this result considerably more natural. After all, one way of thinking about quotient stacks is as extraordinarily overcomplicated ways of describing group actions on covers, which is the language used in string orbifolds. Also, quotient stacks have the structure of a ‘generalized space’ – many stacks can be considered to be slight generalizations of ordinary spaces, just as noncommutative geometry gives a way of generalizing ordinary geometry. In particular, one often hears111Readable references describing, in detail, differential geometry on stacks are hard to find. For this reason, reference  included a lengthy discussion of differential geometry on stacks. that one can do differential geometry on stacks, a necessary (but by no means sufficient) condition to be able to compactify a string.

Although we shall describe classical actions for strings on stacks, generalizing string orbifold actions, and describe how a sum over maps into a quotient stack duplicates both the twisted sector and functional integral sums in a string orbifold, we should emphasize that a tremendous amount of work remains to be done to check whether the notion of string compactification on stacks is indeed sensible. We have only set up the basics in .

One question one might well ask is simply, why bother? If at the end of the day, we are merely using quotient stacks as a radically overcomplicated way of describing group actions on covers, then there is hardly a point. Part of the reason for our interest in string orbifolds specifically is that this approach seems to give a new geometric understanding of certain physical features of string orbifolds. Another reason is that this has nontrivial implications for the role string orbifolds play in the rest of string theory – for example, constructions of moduli spaces of string vacua may need to be slightly rethought, considering that deformation theory of a string orbifold would have to be understood in terms of deformation theory of a quotient stack, instead of a quotient space.

The work outlined herein was originally done in an attempt to understand whether it is possible to compactify a string on a stack (here thought of as a slight generalization of a space). One sometimes hears that, for example, one can perform differential geometry on stacks, which would be one necessary condition; however, a tremendous amount of work must be done to check whether this notion is sensible. We shall outline the beginnings of a program to understand string compactification on stacks – specifically, we shall describe sigma models on stacks. Now, such a proposal is meaningless without interesting examples, string orbifolds appear to offer the first nontrivial examples.

It should also be said that there exists a group of mathematicians who already use quotient stacks to describe string orbifolds. Indeed, as described above, quotient stacks are an overcomplicated way to describe group actions on covering spaces, and also possess extra structure that gives them an interpreation as a sort of ‘generalized space,’ so that, for example, one can make sense of differential geometry on a quotient stack. However, as far as the author has been able to determine, the mathematicians in question have not done any of the work required to justify the claim that a string orbifold CFT coincides with the CFT for a string compactified on a quotient stack, or even to justify the claim that the notion of string compactification on a stack makes sense. They do not seem to have attempted to study sigma models on stacks, and do not even realize why this is relevant. They also do not seem to be aware of even the most elementary physical implications of such a claim, such as the fact that, to be consistent, any deformations of a string orbifold CFT would have to be interpreted in terms of deformations of the quotient stack, rather than the quotient space. Thus, mathematicians reading this paper should interpret our work as the beginnings of a program to fill in the logical steps that they seem to have omitted. In fact, this paper was written for a physics audience; mathematicians are encouraged to instead read lecture notes  we shall publish shortly.

## 2 String orbifolds do not live on $`X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

During the preparation of , we had numerous conversations with physicists claiming that string orbifolds describe strings on quotient spaces. As a result, we feel compelled to spend some time examining this more closely. Of course, no one would claim that a string orbifold is the same thing as a sigma model on a quotient space, if for no other reason than the fact that one sums over maps into the cover, instead of the quotient. However, some might argue that this is merely an artifact of the description, and to counter such arguments, we shall spend a bit of time examining the issue more closely. In the process, we shall also gain some perspective that will be useful later.

Given any space $`X`$, we can define a category of maps into $`X`$. Specifically,

1. Objects in this category are continuous maps $`f:YX`$ from any other topological space $`Y`$ into $`X`$.
2. Morphisms $`(Y_1\stackrel{f_1}{}X)(Y_2\stackrel{f_2}{}X)`$ are continuous maps $`\lambda :Y_1Y_2`$ such that the following diagram commutes:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Y_1& \stackrel{\lambda }{}& Y_2\\ \text{ }f_1\text{ }& & \text{ }f_2\text{ }\\ X& =& X\end{array}$$

It is a standard result that a topological space $`X`$ is determined by this category. In other words, if we know all of the maps into a space, we can reconstruct the space.

Let us consider string orbifolds. Can string orbifolds be literally interpreted as sigma models on quotient spaces? Not unless the orbifold group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts freely.

The most efficient way to study this problem is to first describe the twisted sector maps more elegantly. Instead of talking about maps from twisted sectors into $`X`$, as in figure 1, an equivalent and more elegant description is as a pair

$$\left(E\stackrel{\pi }{}\mathrm{\Sigma },E\stackrel{f}{}X\right)$$

where

| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the string worldsheet, |
| --- |
| $`E\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a principal $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-bundle, and |
| $`f:EX`$ is a continuous $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-equivariant map. |

In this description, a twisted sector is the same thing as an equivalence class of bundles. To see how to recover the original description, simply restrict $`E`$ to a maximally-large contractible open subset of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. (If we describe the Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in terms of a polygon with sides identified, such an open set would be the interior of the polygon.) Over a contractible open set, $`E`$ is trivializable, so pick some section $`s`$. The ordinary description of maps from twisted sectors into $`X`$ is precisely the action of $`f`$ on that section $`s`$, and the group elements acting at the boundary determine to what extent $`s`$ fails to be a global section. Precisely because $`f:EX`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-equivariant, knowing the action of $`f`$ on such a section $`s`$ completely determines $`f`$, i.e., there is no extra information contained in the map $`f:EX`$ that is not also contained in the twisted sector map into $`X`$.

Given such a pair $`(E\stackrel{\pi }{}\mathrm{\Sigma },E\stackrel{f}{}X)`$, we can derive a continuous map $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ into the quotient space. Specifically, for any point $`y\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, let $`e`$ be any point in the fiber of $`E`$ over $`y`$. If we denote the canonical projection $`XX/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by $`\pi _0`$, then define $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by, $`g(y)=(\pi _0f)(e)`$. It is straightforward to check that this is well-defined and continuous.

To what extent is a pair $`(E\stackrel{\pi }{}\mathrm{\Sigma },E\stackrel{f}{}X)`$ the same thing as a map $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$? Given the former, we can construct the latter; however, in a well-defined sense, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not act freely, then there are more maps of the former form than of the latter. In other words, pairs $`(E\stackrel{\pi }{}\mathrm{\Sigma },E\stackrel{f}{}X)`$ seem to be defining maps into a space related to $`X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ but containing “extra information” over any singularities.

In the next section, we shall argue that a string orbifold, although not quite a sigma model on a quotient space $`X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, appears to be literally a sigma model on something called a quotient stack $`[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$. (We shall argue this first by noting that a sum over maps into a “quotient stack” duplicates both the sum over twisted sectors and the functional integral within each twisted sector, a smoking gun for a sigma model interpretation, and then propose a classical action for a sigma model on a stack.)

What is a quotient stack? To be very brief, a quotient stack is an example of what is sometimes known as a “generalized space.” For example, instead of possessing a set of points, it has a category of points. In general, such spaces can be defined in terms of the category of maps into them. This is somewhat analogous to noncommutative geometry, where spaces are defined by the algebra of functions on them. Here, instead of working with the algebra of functions on the space, one works with the category of continuous maps into the space. This may sound somewhat cumbersome, but it is actually an ideal setup for string sigma models.

In passing, we should also mention that the idea of defining spaces in terms of the maps into them is a commonly-used setup in algebraic geometry (see discussions of “Grothendieck’s functor of points” in, for example, \[5, section II.6\] or \[6, section VI\]).

How are quotient stacks related to quotient spaces? For example, when the orbifold group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts freely, the quotient stack $`[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ and the quotient space $`X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are homeomorphic. So, one way of thinking about quotient stacks is that they look like quotient spaces, except that they have some “extra structure” over the singularities. That “extra structure” makes quotient stacks much better behaved than quotient spaces, and is responsible for features of string orbifolds than people have labelled “stringy” in the past.

## 3 Unravel definitions – path integral sums

Quotient stacks $`[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ are defined by the category of maps from all topological spaces into $`[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$. In particular, a continuous map from any topological space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ into $`[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ is a pair

$$\left(E\stackrel{\pi }{}\mathrm{\Sigma },E\stackrel{f}{}X\right)$$

where

| $`E\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a principal $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-bundle, and |
| --- |
| $`f:EX`$ is a continuous $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-equivariant map. |

But, we argued earlier that these are precisely the things one literally sums over in a string orbifold – by summing over maps into a quotient stack, one duplicates both the twisted sector sum as well as the sum over maps within each twisted sector. So, in other words, a string orbifold is literally a sum over maps from the worldsheet into the quotient stack $`[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$, a ‘smoking gun’ for an interpretation as a sigma model. Put another way, after unraveling definitions, string orbifolds appear to be sigma models on quotient stacks, at least judging by the path integral sum. In the next section, we shall describe a proposal for a classical action for a sigma model on a stack, and further justify this conclusion.

Some readers might find this conclusion to be somewhat extreme – after all, physicists have not explicitly considered stacks in the past. Indeed, part of the point of  was to set up the basics required for physicists to begin to consider string compactification on stacks. One needs some nontrivial examples of such compactifications to begin to take such a notion seriously, and string orbifolds appear to offer such an example.

## 4 Classical actions for sigma models on stacks

Now, just because a string orbifold is literally a sum over maps into $`[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ does not itself imply that a string orbifold is necessarily a sigma model on $`[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ – for that to be the case, we also need the action associated to each map to be the same, so that the path integral is the same weighted sum over maps. In this section we shall describe a natural proposal for a classical action for a sigma model on a stack, and check that this not only duplicates standard sigma models when the target stack is an honest space, but also duplicates string orbifolds (down to the $`|G|^1`$ factors in partition functions, when the target is a global quotient stack.

Let $``$ be a stack, with atlas $`X`$. (We shall only attempt to describe sigma models on stacks with atlases.) For readers not well-acquainted with stacks, for $`X`$ to be an atlas for $``$ implies that

* implicitly there is also a fixed map $`X`$ (which is required to be a surjective local homeomorphism)
* for any space $`Y`$ and map $`Y`$, the fibered product $`Y\times _{}X`$ is an honest space, not a stack.

For example, if $``$ is a space, not just a stack (spaces are special cases of stacks), then $``$ is its own atlas, and $`Y\times _{}X=Y`$ for any $`Y`$. For another example, suppose $``$ is a quotient stack $`[X/G]`$, with $`G`$ discrete and acting by diffeomorphisms on a smooth space $`X`$. In such a case, $`X`$ is an atlas for $`[X/G]`$. In this case, $`Y\times _{[X/G]}X`$ is a principal $`G`$-bundle over $`Y`$, partially specifying the map $`Y[X/G]`$, and the projection map $`Y\times _{[X/G]}XX`$ is the $`G`$-equivariant map from the total space of the bundle to $`X`$, specifying the rest of the map $`Y[X/G]`$.

Now, the natural description of a sigma model with target $``$, formulated on (base) space $`Y`$, is a sum over equivalence classes222A sigma model path integral is a sum over maps, after all, hence one must take equivalence classes in order to make sense out of such a sum. of maps $`Y`$, weighted by $`\mathrm{exp}(iS)`$, where the classical action $`S`$ is formulated as follows. Fix a map $`\varphi :Y`$. If we let333 Note that since both $`Y\times _{}X`$ and $`X`$ are ordinary spaces, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a map in the ordinary sense of the term. $`\mathrm{\Phi }:Y\times _{}XX`$ denote the second projection map (implicitly encoding part of the map $`\varphi :Y`$), then the natural proposal for the bosonic part of the classical action for a sigma model on $``$ is given by

$$d^2\sigma \left(\pi _1^{}\varphi ^{}G_{\mu \nu }\right)\pi _1^{}h^{\alpha \beta }\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu }{\sigma ^\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^\nu }{\sigma ^\beta }\right)$$
(1)
where $`h^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the worldsheet metric, $`\varphi ^{}G`$ denotes the pullback of the metric on $``$ to $`Y`$ (metrics on $``$ are described in terms of their pullbacks), $`\pi _1:Y\times _{}XY`$ is the projection map, and this action is integrated over a lift444Sensible essentially because the (projection) map $`\pi _1:Y\times _{}XY`$ is a surjective local homeomorphism. of $`Y`$ to $`Y\times _{}X`$.

A few examples should help clarify this description:

1. Suppose $``$ is an ordinary space. Then the path integral is a sum over maps into that space, and as $`Y\times _{}X=Y`$ (taking the atlas $`X`$ to be $``$ itself), we see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi `$, and so in this case the classical action proposed above duplicates the usual classical action,

$$Sd^2\sigma \left(\varphi ^{}G_{\mu \nu }\right)h^{\alpha \beta }\frac{\varphi ^\mu }{\sigma ^\alpha }\frac{\varphi ^\nu }{\sigma ^\beta }+\mathrm{}$$

as well as the path integral sum. Thus, the description above duplicates sigma models on ordinary spaces.
2. Suppose $`=[X/G]`$, where $`X`$ is smooth and $`G`$ is a nontrivial action of a discrete group by diffeomorphisms. Then the path integral is a sum over equivalence classes of maps $`Y[X/G]`$, which is to say, equivalence classes of principal $`G`$-bundles on $`Y`$ together with $`G`$-equivariant maps from the total space of the bundle into $`X`$. It is easy to check that the proposed classical action above duplicates the usual classical action for a string orbifold. Also, by summing over (equivalence classes of) maps $`Y`$, note we are summing over both twisted sectors as well as maps within any given twisted sector.

Now, for each such map $`\varphi :Y`$, there are $`|G|`$ lifts of $`Y`$ to the total space of the bundle (which is $`Y\times _{[X/G]}X`$), i.e., $`|G|`$ twisted sector maps, as they usually appear in physics.

Note we are only summing over equivalence classes of bundles, not all possible twisted sector maps. However, we can trivially sum over all possible twisted sector maps, at the cost of overcounting by $`|G|`$. Hence, we can equivalently describe this in terms of a sum over twisted sector maps, but weighted by $`|G|^1`$. Hence we recover both the path integral sum and the overall multiplicative factor of $`|G|^1`$ appearing in string orbifold partition functions, for example, the one-loop partition function

$$Z(T^2)=\frac{1}{|G|}\underset{\begin{array}{c}g,hG\\ gh=hg\end{array}}{}Z_{(g,h)}$$

Thus, we see that the natural definition of a sigma model on a stack duplicates not only sigma models on ordinary spaces, but also string orbifolds when the target is a quotient stack, even down to the $`|G|^1`$ factor appearing in partition functions.

We should take this opportunity to also note that this description of sigma models does not make any assumptions concerning the dimension of the base space $`Y`$ – classically there are analogues of ‘string’ orbifolds in every dimension, all obtained precisely by gauging the action of a discrete group on the target space of a sigma model.

So far we have only recovered known results; let us now try something new. Suppose the target $``$ is a gerbe. For simplicity, we shall assume that $``$ is the canonical trivial $`G`$-gerbe on a space $`X`$. Such a gerbe is described by the quotient stack $`[X/G]`$, where the action of $`G`$ on $`X`$ is trivial. Using the notion of sigma model on a stack as above, one quickly finds that the path integral for this target space is the same as the path integral for a sigma model on $`X`$, up to an overall multiplicative factor (equal to the number of equivalence classes of principal $`G`$-bundles on $`Y`$). As overall factors are irrelevant in path integrals, the result appears to be that a string on the canonical trivial gerbe is the same as a string on the underlying space. More generally, it is natural to conjecture that strings on flat gerbes are equivalent to strings on underlying spaces, but with flat $`B`$ fields. In particular, such a result would nicely dovetail with the well-known fact that a coherent sheaf on a flat gerbe is equivalent to a ‘twisted’ sheaf on the underlying space, the same twisting that occurs in the presence of a $`B`$ field. (For physicists, this is an alternative to the description in terms of modules over Azumaya algebras that has recently been popularized .)

So far we have only discussed classical actions for sigma models on stacks, but there is much more that must be done before one can verify that the notion of a sigma model on a stack is necessarily sensible. In effect, we have only considered local behavior, but in order to be sure this notion is sensible after quantization, one also needs to consider global phenomena. Such considerations were the source of much hand-wringing when nonlinear sigma models on ordinary spaces were first introduced (see for example ), and must be repeated for stacks.

## 5 More results

So far we have argued that a string orbifold is literally a sigma model on a quotient stack, as opposed to a quotient space. What does this do for us? We just saw that this naturally explained the structure of twisted sectors; next we shall outline how this also gives geometric perspectives on many other features of string orbifolds, previously considered “stringy.”

Specifically:

1. Smoothness. String orbifold CFT’s do not suffer from any singularities; they behave as if they were sigma models on smooth spaces. This led to the old lore that “strings smooth out singularities.” However, quotient stacks $`[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ are always smooth (for $`X`$ smooth and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acting by diffeomorphisms), and so one naturally expects that a sigma model on $`[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ should always be well-behaved. The old lore “strings smooth out singularities” is merely a consequence of misunderstanding the target space geometry; nothing “stringy” is really involved.
2. B fields. Another often-quoted fact concerning string orbifolds is that the B field should somehow have nonzero holonomy about shrunken exceptional divisors . Understanding string orbifolds as sigma models on quotient stacks gives a natural understanding of what is meant by such claims. Specifically, the “extra information” contained by a quotient stack over singularities of the quotient space is a gerbe555A gerbe is a formal structure corresponding to B fields, just as bundles correspond to gauge fields., that precisely duplicates standard results on B fields at quotient singularities. A gerbe is, after all, just a special kind of stack, so the reader should not be surprised to find information about B fields given in the geometry of stacks.
3. The role of equivariance. Bundles and sheaves on $`[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ are the same thing as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-equivariant bundles and sheaves on $`X`$. So, we now gain a new perspective on the role that equivariance plays in describing fields on string orbifolds.
4. Twist fields. Ordinarily the low-energy spectrum of a string compactification is determined by the cohomology of the target space. However, we argue in  that for stacks matters are slightly more interesting, and the low-energy spectrum is determined by the cohomology of an auxiliary stack, known as the associated inertia group stack $`I_{[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]}`$. (This result appears very obscure to most physicists, many of whom have traditionally expected an understanding of twist fields in terms of a cohomology of the quotient space; mathematicians familiar with stacks, on the other hand, will recognize this result.) This stack differs from $`[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ precisely when the quotient stack cannot be understood as an ordinary space. More to the point, $`I_{[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]}`$ naturally encodes the “twists” that give twist fields their name, and in fact has the form

$$I_{[X/\mathrm{\Gamma }]}\underset{[g]}{}\left[X^g/C(g)\right]$$

which of course compares well with orbifold Euler characteristics

$$\chi _{orb}(X,\mathrm{\Gamma })=\underset{[g]}{}\chi (X^g/C(g))$$

where $`[g]`$ denotes conjugacy classes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`C(g)`$ the centralizer of $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

In  we work through the points above in much greater detail, and also describe how some other features of string orbifolds are clarified.

So far, we have argued that understanding string orbifolds as sigma models on quotient stacks gives a natural geometric explanation to many features of string orbifolds that were previously considered “inherently stringy.”

But what new things can we do with quotient stacks? We shall list a few general directions:

1. Deformation theory. In constructing moduli spaces of string vacua, physicists have assumed string orbifolds describe strings on quotient spaces. If string orbifolds actually describe strings on quotient stacks, then these old arguments must be reconsidered – for example, a blowup modulus must be interpreted as some hypothetical Kähler modulus of the quotient stack, and not in terms of a (partial) resolution of the quotient space. We have given indirect evidence in  that such considerations might ultimately be equivalent to working with a resolution with a nonzero B field on the exceptional divisor, but a tremendous amount of work remains to be done to check whether this is actually the case.
2. New string compactifications. There are more stacks than just global quotient stacks. So, given our preliminary work on string compactification on stacks (bolstered by the nontrivial example of string orbifolds), one could begin seriously studying compactifications on other stacks.
3. M-theory666We use “M-theory” in the sense of, quantum theory underlying eleven-dimensional supergravity, as opposed to some hypothetical master theory. orbifolds. If one were careful, in the past one could have objected that orbifolds in M-theory could hardly be considered well-understood. After all, orbifolds in string theory possess twisted sectors, twist fields, and many other features which naively seemed to be “inherently stringy” – it was not at all clear how one could make sense of such things in M-theory. Now, however, we can understand these matters better. We can define an M-theory orbifold to be, M-theory compactified on a quotient stack. Then, for example, membranes on a quotient stack have an obvious twisted-sector-type structure. One might be able to do quite a bit more with this description – for example, it may be possible to directly understand the Horava-Witten  $`E_8`$ multiplets as arising naturally, whereas in their original description these multiplets had to be added in manually.

## 6 Conclusions

In this short note we have outlined some recent results on string orbifolds. Specifically, we have outlined how string orbifolds seem to be literally sigma models on quotient stacks (not quotient spaces). We have also described how, from this new perspective, many properties of string orbifolds that were formerly considered “stringy,” actually seem to have a simple geometric understanding in terms of the target space geometry.

However, a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, not only to better understand what it means to compactify a string on a stack (indeed, to check whether this is indeed a sensible notion), but also to understand the consequences of this perspective (such as deformation theory of string orbifolds). In the conclusions of  we have given a lengthy list of further topics that could be pursued.

## 7 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank P. Aspinwall, D. Ben-Zvi, S. Dean, J. Distler, T. Gomez, R. Hain, S. Katz, A. Knutson, D. Morrison, B. Pardon, R. Plesser, and M. Stern for useful conversations. In particular, we would especially like to thank T. Gomez for extensive communications concerning quotient stacks in particular, A. Knutson for numerous communications regarding related general mathematics, and D. Ben-Zvi for originally pointing out that the twisted “bundles” on D-brane worldvolumes should be understandable in terms of bundles on stacks, the observation which ultimately led to this work.