text:
# Novel Phases in the Field Induced Spin Density Wave State in (TMTSF)2PF6

## Abstract

Magnetoresistance measurements on the quasi one-dimensional organic conductor (TMTSF)2PF6 performed in magnetic fields $`B`$ up to 16 T, temperatures $`T`$ down to 0.12 K and under pressures $`P`$ up to 14 kbar have revealed new phases on its $`PBT`$ phase diagram. We found a new boundary which subdivides the field induced spin density wave (FISDW) phase diagram into two regions. We showed that a low-temperature region of the FISDW diagram is characterized by a hysteresis behavior typical for the first order transitions, as observed in a number of studies. In contrast to the common believe, in high temperature region of the FISDW phase diagram, the hysteresis and, hence, the first order transitions were found to disappear. Nevertheless, sharp changes in the resistivity slope are observed both in the low and high temperature domains indicating that the cascade of transitions between different subphases exists over all range of the FISDW state. We also found that the temperature dependence of the resistance (at a constant $`B`$) changes sign at about the same boundary. We compare these results with recent theoretical models.

preprint: draft

Layered organic compounds tetramethiltetraselenafulvalene (TMTSF)$`{}_{2}{}^{}X`$, where the anion $`X`$ is ClO4, AsF6, PF6 etc are unique material systems with a very rich phase diagram (for a review see Refs. ). Conduction in this materials is highly anisotropic, with ratio of the components $`\sigma _{xx}:\sigma _{yy}:\sigma _{zz}10^5:10^3:1`$. At ambient pressure, below temperature of 12 K, the PF6-compound becomes dielectric with antiferromagnetic spin ordering in the spin density wave state. As pressure increases, the temperature of the antiferromagnetic ordering decreases and at about $`P=6`$ kbar a superconducting state sets in. Magnetic field $`B`$ applied in the least conducting direction $`z`$, first quenches the superconducting state and, further induces a cascade of phase transitions between FISDW states accompanied by the quantum Hall effect .

A so called ‘standard’ model was suggested  to explain the metal-SDW transition in magnetic field. Later it was developed into a ‘Quantized Nesting Model’ in Refs.  to describe a cascade of the first order transitions between different FISDW sub-phases. According to this model, electrons condense in the SDW state whose period determines a nesting vector in the momentum space. Under the assumption of the electron-hole symmetry, $`x`$component of the nesting vector $`Q_x`$ is quantized as

$$Q_x=2k_FN\frac{eBb}{h},$$
(1)
where $`k_F`$ is Fermi wave vector, $`b`$ is the size of the elementary cell in $`y`$ direction, and $`N`$ is an integer. As magnetic field varies, $`N`$ changes by an integer, causing step-like changes in the nesting vector, which result in the sequence of the first-order phase transitions.

According to the recent analysis , however the electron-hole symmetry in the SDW state is not fulfilled unless $`N=0`$ in Eq. (1). As a result, (i) the nesting vector is not strictly quantized and (ii) the step-like changes in the nesting vector may disappear above a certain temperature transforming into oscillations. Correspondingly, as temperature increases, the first order transitions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }N1`$ may disappear, whereas FISDW state still persists. Thus, in contrast to the ‘Quantized Nesting Model’ which predicts the first order phase transition to exist over the whole range of temperatures where FISDW develops, the ‘novel model’ predicts the first order phase transitions may disappear above a certain temperature, $`T_0`$. The latter possibility depends on the parameter $`\mathrm{}\omega _c/(2\pi k_BT_0)`$ , where $`\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency.

In order to verify the theoretical predictions of the two models above, we studied temperature dependence of the magnetoresistance in (TMTSF)2PF6 at various pressures. Specifically, we measured, at different pressures, a temperature evolution of the hysteresis intrinsic to magnetoresistance traces of $`R(B)`$. We observed that the hysteresis indeed disappears above a temperature $`T_0`$ whereas FISDW state still persists. We found such behavior to manifest itself over the whole explored range of the existence of the FISDW. According to our results, the total $`PBT`$ phase diagram of the FISDW state can be subdivided into two domains, the ‘low-$`T`$’ domain where the first order phase transitions between FISDW sub-phases take place, and the ‘high-$`T`$’ domain where the transitions between the FISDW states do not exhibit first order behavior. This observation is in agreement with the ‘novel model’; in the latter case, the ‘low $`T`$-phase’ is treated as a ‘quantum FISDW’ state with step-like changes in the nesting vector, whereas the ‘high $`T`$-phase’ is treated as the ‘semi-classical FISDW’ state where the nesting vector oscillates. We also found that as temperature decreases and crosses the boundary between the two domains, the behavior of the resistivity changes qualitatively, from ordinary insulating-like ($`dR/dT<0`$) through the ‘high-$`T`$’-domain, to the metallic-like ($`dR/dT>0`$) through the ‘low-$`T`$’-domain. Around the $`T=T_0`$-boundary, $`R(T)`$ exhibits a maximum.

Experimental. Three samples (of a typical size $`2\times 0.8\times 0.3`$ mm3) were grown by a conventional electrochemical technique. Measurements were made using either four Ohmic contacts formed at the $`ab`$ plane or eight contacts at two $`ac`$ planes; in all cases $`25\mu `$m Pt-wires were attached by a graphite paint to the sample along the most conducting direction $`a`$. The sample and a manganin pressure gauge were inserted into a Teflon cylinder placed inside a nonmagnetic 18 mm o.d. pressure cell  filled with Si-organic pressure transmitting liquid. The cell was mounted inside the liquid He4, He3, or He3/He4 chamber, in a bore of a 16 T superconducting magnet. For all measurements, the magnetic field was applied along the least conducting direction, $`z`$, of the crystal. Sample resistance was measured by four probe ac technique at 132 Hz frequency, with current 1-4 $`\mu `$A to avoid nonlinear effects. The out-of phase component of the measured voltage was found to be negligible in all measurements, indicating Ohmic contacts to the sample.

The sample temperature was varied slowly, at a rate less than 0.25 K/min in order to avoid breaking the sample. The measured changes in the sample resistance were fully reproducible during the full run of measurements including temperature sweeps; this indicated that the sample quality did not change. The magnetoresistance was measured either at a constant $`T`$ and varying magnetic field $`B`$, or at a constant $`B`$ and varying $`T`$. Sample temperature was determined by RuO2 resistance thermometer with a pre-calibrated magnetoresistance. Measurements were done in magnetic fields up to 16 T and for temperatures in the range from 1.4 to 30 K (mainly) and down to $`0.12`$ K (partly). The most detailed results were obtained for pressures 7, 8, 10 and 14 kbar.

Figure 1 shows magnetoresistance traces measured (a) at $`P=10`$ kbar in the temperature range 0.6-4.2 K and (b) at 8 kbar, 0.12 K. In agreement with earlier observations , when magnetic field exceeds the critical value (which is 0.16 T in our case), the superconductivity is quenched and the sample resistance starts gradually increasing. Further, this smooth dependence transforms into step-like changes in $`R`$. As temperature decreases, the step-like changes become steeper and appear at progressively lower fields. This behaviour is also consistent with earlier observations  and is interpreted as transitions between different sub-phases in FISDW . This interpretation is further supported by the hysteresis between $`R(B)`$ traces for the field ramping up and down, which is clearly seen in Fig. 1. The hysteresis is also consistent with earlier observations  and signals the onset of the first order phase transitions.

As temperature increases, the hysteresis weakens and tends to disappear as illustrated in the inset to Fig. 1 a. Nevertheless, the steps in $`R(B)`$ persist to higher temperatures, being therefore non- or at least partly correlated with the hysteresis. In order to quantify the hysteresis strength, we calculated the maximal width of the hysteresis loop $`\delta B`$ for each curve and plotted it in Fig. 2 as a function of temperature; in this determination, the $`L/R`$ time constant of the magnet was carefully measured and taken into account.

For three groups of the data in Fig. 2 the hysteresis width decreases linearly with temperature and vanishes at a certain temperature $`T_0`$; above $`T=T_0`$ it remains equal to zero. The falling part of these dependences were fitted with linear curves (solid lines), which appear to have the same slope. We plotted linear curves with the same slope through other single data points (dashed lines) in order to estimate $`T_0`$ for all transitions at different pressure values.

Measurements at two other pressures, 7 and 14 kbar have shown qualitatively similar results. At $`P=7`$ kbar the steps (transitions) shift to lower fields and persist up to higher temperatures. The hysteresis, $`\delta B`$, is bigger than that at 8 and 10 kbar and disappears at slightly higher temperature. At $`P=14`$ kbar, the trend is opposite: $`T_0`$ becomes lower than that for 10 kbar.

The above three features, (i) the existence of the hysteresis in $`R(B)`$ at low temperature, (ii) its disappearance above a certain temperature $`T_0`$ and (iii) the persistence of the steps in $`R(B)`$ to temperatures higher than $`T_0`$, are observed in our experiments for several transitions (see Figs. 1, 2). It seems likely that these features are generic also to other transitions in the FISDW part of the phase diagram and that the hysteresis for higher $`N`$-values was not observed in our measurements just because $`T_0`$ for these transitions is lower than our lowest accessible temperature, 1.4 K (for the majority of measurements).

Figure 3 represents the results of temperature sweeps taken at six fixed magnetic fields for $`P=7`$ kbar. Starting from high temperatures, the resistance increases as $`T`$ decreases, then passes through a maximum at a certain temperature $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and further decreases towards low temperatures. Triangles mark the onset of the phase transition at each curve. The similar $`T`$dependences measured at $`P=10`$ and 14 kbar were qualitatively similar to those shown in Fig. 3 but shifted to lower temperatures.

$`BT`$ phase diagram in Fig. 4 summarizes the results of all measurements, at $`P=7`$ kbar (the main panel) and at $`P=10`$ kbar (the inset). The closed squares depict the onsets of the steps in $`R(B)`$ obtained from magnetic field sweeps at fixed temperatures and triangles are for the temperature sweeps $`R(T)`$ at fixed field. In addition to the data taken directly, the open squares show the lower temperature data, $`T=0.12`$ K, taken at $`P=8`$ kbar which has been recalculated to correspond to the data at $`P=7`$ kbar (main panel) and to 10 kbar (inset). In this procedure, the data for 8 kbar were shifted in magnetic field according to the pressure coefficient $`d(B^1)/dP=0.015`$ T-1kbar-1 which we determined from the higher temperature data at $`T=1.4`$ K for $`P=7`$, 10, and 14 kbar. The hysteresis width is obtained from Fig. 2 and is depicted by the split lines.

In general, the $`PBT`$ phase diagram in Fig. 4 is qualitatively similar to that previously reported , but, in addition, displays the boundaries of hysteresis domains vs temperature. The hysteresis domains for different transitions collapse above $`T=T_0`$; this was determined for seven transitions and the corresponding points are denoted with open circles. The separatrix points $`T_0`$ thus subdivide the phase boundaries into the two regions: the low temperature domain ($`T<T_0`$) of the hysteretic behaviour and the high temperature domain ($`T>T_0`$) where the FISDW transitions develop without a hysteresis. The disappearance of the hysteresis with rising temperature at one fixed pressure was mentioned earlier  but to the best of our knowledge no studies of this effect followed. The subdivison of the phase diagram is qualitatively consistent with the ‘novel model’ for the FISDW , where the low-temperature domain corresponds to the ‘quantum FISDW’ sub-phase and the high temperature domain corresponds to the ‘semiclassical FISDW’. According to the model, in the former sub-phase the transitions between different phases take place with jumps in the nesting vector, are of the first order, and are accompanied by hysteresis of various physical quantities. In the latter sub-phase, the transitions between different phases take place without any jumps in the nesting vector, and are therefore not first order phase transitions.

The $`BT`$ phase diagram on the main panel in Fig. 4 is plotted for pressure of 7 kbar. For $`P=10`$ kbar (inset), the phase diagram looks qualitatively similar but the new phase boundary is shifted to lower temperature by about (0.5 - 1) K.

The dashed line in Fig. 4 connects the $`T_0`$values (circles). In order to check whether the dashed line splits not only the phase boundaries but the overall $`BT`$ parameter space, we plotted onto the same phase diagram the $`B,T`$-coordinates of the maxima on $`R(T)`$ curves from $`T`$sweeps similar to that shown in Fig. 3.

The maxima in $`R(T)`$ dependences in the FISDW regime were observed earlier  and were associated with a non-linear temperature dependence of the $`\sigma _{xy}`$ caused by the transition from the QHE to metallic regime . In this interpretation, the maxima should correspond to the onset of the QHE regime. On the other hand, the hysteresis behaviour if associated with jumps in the nesting vector , should manifest in the QHE regime only. Therefore, $`T_{max}`$ is expected to be $`T_0`$. It is surprising that in our case $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ almost coincide with $`T_0`$ for different pressures, even though $`T_0`$ varies with pressure.

To summarize, from studies of the temperature and magnetic field dependences of the resistivity of the quasi-1D organic conductor, we found that its $`PBT`$ phase diagram splits in two domains, where the transitions between different FISDW states take place (i) with a hysteresis as the first order phase transitions (for low temperatures), and (ii) without hysteresis (for high temperatures). This result is not expected within the ‘Quantized nesting model’ and is consistent with the recent suggestion by Lebed  that the period of the spin structure in FISDW state can be either partially quantized or not quantized at all. We experimentally plotted the new phase boundary where such behavior occurs. We found that the $`PBT`$ boundary separating the two domains almost coincides with a line at which the $`dR/dT`$ changes sign.

###### Acknowledgements.

A. V. K. and V. M. P. are grateful to A. G. Lebed and V. M. Yakovenko for fruitful discussions. The work was partially supported by INTAS, RFBR, NATO, NSF, NWO, Programs “Statistical physics”, “Integration”, “The State support of the leading scientific schools”, and COE Research in Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Japan.


format: text

text:
# Factorization of Unitary Matrices

## 1 Introduction

Matrix factorization is a live subject of linear algebra. It seems that no general theory is yet available although many results appear almost every day. However our goal will not be so ambitious to present a general theory of matrix factorizations but to tackle the problem of factorization of unitary matrices. Unitary matrices are a first hand tool in solving many problems in mathematical and theoretical physics and the diversity of the problems necessitates to keep improving it. In fact the matrix factorization is closely related to the parametrization of unitary matrices and the classical result by Murnagham on parametrization of the $`n`$-dimensional unitary group $`U(n)`$ is the following: an arbitrary $`n\times n`$ unitary matrix is the product of a diagonal matrix containing $`n`$ phases and of $`n(n1)/2`$ matrices whose main building block has the form

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}cos\theta & sin\theta e^{i\phi }\\ sin\theta e^{i\phi }& cos\theta \end{array}\right)$$
$`(1)`$
The parameters entering the parametrization are $`n(n1)/2`$ angles $`\theta _i`$ and $`n(n+1)/2`$ phases $`\phi _i`$. For more details see .

A selection of a specific set of angles and/or phases has no theoretical significance because all the choices are mathematically equivalent; however a clever choice may shed some light on important qualitative issues. This is the point of view of Harari and Leurer  who recommended a standard choice of the Cabbibo angles and Kobayashi-Maskawa phases for an arbitrary number of quark generations and accordingly they propose a new parametrization (factorization) which, up to a columns permutation, is nothing else than Murnagham parametrization with the change $`\theta \pi /2\theta `$ and $`\phi \phi +\pi `$.

However there are some problems that require a more elaborate factorization. To our knowledge one of the first such problems is that raised by Reck $`etal.`$  who describe an experimental realization of any discrete unitary operator. Such devices will find practical applications in quantum cryptography and in quantum teleportation. Starting from Murnagham parametrization they show that any $`n\times n`$ unitary matrix $`A_n`$ can be written as a product

$$A_n=B_nC_{n1}$$

where $`B_nU(n)`$ is at its turn a product of $`n1`$ unitary matrices containing each one a block of the form (1) and $`C_{n1}`$ is a $`U(n1)`$ matrix. Consequently the experimental realization of a $`n\times n`$ unitary operator is reduced to the realization of two unitary operators out of which one has a lesser dimension. The experimental realization of a $`U(3)`$ matrix, sketched in Fig. 2 of their paper, suggests that it would be preferable that phases entering the parametrization should be factored out, the device becoming simpler and the phase shifters, their terminology for phases, being placed at the input and output ports respectively.

A mixing of the Murnagham factorization and that of Reck $`etal.`$ is that proposed by Rowe $`etal.`$  in their study on the representations of Weyl group and of Wigner functions for $`SU(3)`$. The last parametrization is also used by Nemoto in his attempt to develop generalized coherent states for $`SU(n)`$ systems .

Another kind of factorization is that suggested by Chaturvedi and Mukunda in their paper  aiming at obtaining a more ”suitable” parametrization of the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix. Although the proposed forms for $`n=3,4`$ are awfully complicated by comparison with other parametrizations existing in literature, and for this reason it cannot be extended easily to cases $`n5`$, the paper contains a novel idea namely that that an $`SU(n)`$ matrix can be parametrized by a sequence of $`n1`$ complex vectors of dimensions $`2,3,\mathrm{},n`$. Fortunately there is an alternative construction as it may be inferred from the construction of an $`SU(3)`$ matrix as a product of two matrices each of them generated by a three- and respectively two-dimensional complex vector  in a much more simple form than that presented in ref..

One aim of this paper is to elaborate this alternative construction in order to obtain a parametrization of $`n\times n`$ unitary matrices as a product of $`n`$ diagonal matrices containing the phases and $`n1`$ orthogonal matrices, each of them generated by a $`n`$-dimensional real vector. As a byproduct we obtain the Weyl form  of a unitary matrix $`W=w^{}dw`$ where $`w`$ is a unitary matrix, $`w^{}`$ its adjoint and $`d`$ a diagonal matrix containing phases. The Weyl factorization was the key ingredient in finding the ”radial” part of the Laplace-Beltrami operator on $`U(n)`$ and $`SU(n)`$  and this explicit form could help in finding completely the Laplace-Beltrami operator on unitary groups.

The paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 2 we derive a factorization of $`n\times n`$ unitary matrices as a product of $`n`$ diagonal matrices interlaced with $`n1`$ orthogonal matrices generated by real vectors of dimension $`2,3\mathrm{},n1`$. The explicit form of orthogonal matrices is found in Sect.3 and the paper ends with Concluding remarks.

## 2 Factorization of unitary matrices

The unitary group $`U(n)`$ is the group of automorphisms of the Hilbert space $`(𝐂^n,(,))`$ where $`(,)`$ is the Hermitian scalar product $`(x,y)=_{i=1}^{i=n}\overline{x_i}y_i`$. If $`A_nU(n)`$ by $`A_n^{}`$ we will denote the adjoint matrix and then $`A_n^{}A_n=I_n`$, where $`I_n`$ is the $`n\times n`$ unit matrix. It follows that $`detA_n=e^{i\phi }`$, where $`\phi `$ is a phase, and $`dim_RU(n)=n^2`$.

First of all we want to introduce some notations that will be useful in the following. The product of two unitary matrices being again a unitary matrix it follows that the multiplication of a row or a column by an arbitrary phase does not affect the unitarity property. Indeed the multiplication of the $`j^{th}`$ row by $`e^{i\phi _j}`$ is equivalent to the left multiplication by a diagonal matrix whose all diagonal entries but the $`j^{th}`$ one are equal to unity and $`a_{jj}=e^{i\phi _j}`$. The first building blocks appearing in factorization of unitary matrices are diagonal matrices written in the form $`d_n=(e^{i\phi _1},\mathrm{},e^{i\phi _n})`$ with $`\phi _j[0,2\pi ),j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ arbitrary phases, and all off-diagonal entries zero. We introduce also the notation $`d_k^{nk}=(1_{nk},e^{i\psi _1},\mathrm{},e^{i\psi _k})`$, $`k<n`$, where $`1_{nk}`$ means that the first $`(nk)`$ diagonal entries are equal to unity, i.e. it can be obtained from $`d_n`$ by making the first $`nk`$ phases zero . Multiplying at left by $`d_n`$ an arbitrary unitary matrix the first row will be multiplied by $`e^{i\phi _1}`$, the second by $`e^{i\phi _2}`$, etc. and the last one by $`e^{i\phi _n}`$. Multiplying at right with $`d_k^{nk}`$ the first $`nk`$ columns remain unmodified and the other ones are multiplied by $`e^{i\psi _1},\mathrm{},e^{i\psi _k}`$ respectively. A consequence of this property is the following: the phases of the elements of an arbitrary row and/or column can be taken zero or $`\pi `$ and a convenient choice is to take the elements of first column non-negative numbers less than unity and those of the first row real numbers. This follows from the equivalence between the permutation of the $`i^{th}`$ and $`j^{th}`$ rows (columns) with the left (right) multiplication by the unitary matrix $`P_{ij}`$ whose all diagonal entries but $`a_{ii}`$ and $`a_{jj}`$ are equal to unity, $`a_{ii}=a_{jj}=0,a_{ij}=a_{ji}=1,ij`$ and all the other entries vanish. In conclusion an arbitrary $`A_nU(n)`$ can be written as a product of two matrices, the first one diagonal, in the form

$$A_n=d_n\stackrel{~}{A_n}$$
$`(2)`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{A_n}`$ is a matrix with the first column entries non-negative numbers.

Other building blocks that will appear in factorization of $`\stackrel{~}{A_n}`$ are the rotations which operate in the $`i,i+1`$ plane of the form

$$J_{i,i+1}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}I_{i1}& 0& 0\\ 0& \begin{array}{cc}cos\theta _i& sin\theta _i\\ sin\theta _i& cos\theta _i\end{array}& 0\\ 0& 0& I_{ni1}\end{array}\right),i=1,\mathrm{},n1$$
$`(3)`$
The above formula contains the block (1) with phase zero unlike other parametrizations -, in our parametrization the phases will appear only in diagonal matrices.

Let $`v`$ be the vector $`v=(1,0,\mathrm{},0)^tS_{2n1}𝐂^n`$ where $`t`$ denotes transpose and $`S_{2n1}`$ is the unit sphere of the Hilbert space $`𝐂^n`$ whose real dimension is $`2n1`$. By applying $`A_nU(n)`$ to the vector $`v`$ we find

$$A_nv=a=\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{11}\\ \\ \\ \\ a_{n1}\end{array}\right)$$

where $`aS_{2n1}`$ because $`A_n`$ is unitary. The vector $`a`$ is completely determined by the first column of the matrix $`A_n`$. Conversely, given an arbitrary vector of the unit sphere $`wS_{2n1}`$ this point determines a unique first row of a unitary matrix which maps $`w`$ to the vector $`v`$. Therefore $`U(n)`$ acts transitively on $`S_{2n1}`$. The subgroup of $`U(n)`$ which leaves $`v`$ invariant is $`U(n1)`$ on the last $`n1`$ dimensions such that

$$S_{2n1}=\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑡}\mathrm{𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒}U(n)/U(n1)$$

A direct consequence of the last relation is that we expect that any element of $`U(n)`$ should be uniquely specified by a pair of a vector $`bS_{2n1}`$ and of an arbitrary element of $`U(n1)`$. Thus we are looking for a factorization of an arbitrary element $`A_nU(n)`$ in the form

$$A_n=B_n\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& A_{n1}\end{array}\right)$$
$`(4)`$
where $`B_nU(n)`$ is a unitary matrix whose first column is uniquely defined by a vector $`bS_{2n1}`$, but otherwise still arbitrary and $`A_{n1}`$ is an arbitrary element of $`U(n1)`$. For the $`SU(3)`$ group such a factorization was obtained recently . Iterating the previous equation we arrive at the conclusion that an element of $`U(n)`$ can be written as a product of $`n`$ unitary matrices

$$A_n=B_nB_{n1}^1\mathrm{}B_1^{n1}$$
$`(5)`$
where

$$B_{nk}^k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_k& 0\\ 0& B_{nk}\end{array}\right)$$

$`B_k,k=1,\mathrm{},n1`$ ,are $`k\times k`$ unitary matrices whose first column is generated by vectors $`b_kS_{2k1}`$; for example $`B_1^{n1}`$ is the diagonal matrix $`(1,\mathrm{},1,e^{i\phi _{n(n+1)}})`$.

The still arbitrary columns of $`B_k`$ will be chosen in such a way that we should obtain a simple form for the matrices $`B_k^{nk}`$, and we require that $`B_k`$ should be completely specified by the parameters entering the vector $`b_k`$ and nothing else. In the following we show that such a parametrization does exist and then $`A_nU_n`$ in Eq.(5) will be written as a product of $`n\times n`$ unitary matrices each one parametrized by $`2k1,k=1,\mathrm{},n`$, real parameters such that the number of independent parameters entering $`A_n`$ will be $`1+3+\mathrm{}+2n1=n^2`$ as it should be.

In other words our problem is to complete an $`n\times n`$ matrix whose its first column is given by a vector $`b_nS_{2n1}`$ to a unitary matrix and we have to do it without introducing supplementary parameters. For $`n=3`$ this was found by us in  in an other context and here we give the construction for arbitrary $`n`$.

If we take into account the property (2) the problem simplifies a little since then

$$B_n=d_n\stackrel{~}{B}_n$$

where the first column of $`\stackrel{~}{B}_n`$ has non-negative entries. Denoting this column by $`b_1`$ we will use the parametrization

$$b_1=(cos\theta _1,cos\theta _2sin\theta _1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{}sin\theta _{n1})^t$$
$`(6)`$
where $`\theta _i[0,\pi /2],i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$; we call $`\theta _i`$ angles. Thus $`B_n`$ will be parametrized by $`n`$ phases and $`n1`$ angles. According to the above factorization $`\stackrel{~}{B}_n`$ is nothing else than the orthogonal matrix generated by the vector $`b_1`$. Thus with no loss of generality $`B_n=d_n𝒪_n`$ with $`𝒪_nO(n)`$. In this way the factorization of $`A_n`$ will be

$$A_n=d_n𝒪_nd_{n1}^1𝒪_{n1}^1\mathrm{}d_2^{n2}𝒪_2^{n1}d_1^{n1}I_n$$

where $`𝒪_{nk}^k`$ has the same structure as $`B_{nk}^k`$, i.e

$$𝒪_{nk}^k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_k& 0\\ 0& 𝒪_{nk}\end{array}\right)$$

Consequently the factorization of unitary matrices reduces to the parametrization of orthogonal matrices generated by an arbitrary vector of the real $`n`$-dimensional sphere and in the next section we show how to do it.

## 3 Parametrization of orthogonal matrices

An operator $`T`$ applying the Hilbert space $``$ in the Hilbert space $`^{}`$ is a contraction if for any $`v`$, $`Tv_{^{}}v_{}`$, i.e. $`T1`$, . For any contraction we have $`T^{}TI_{^{}}`$ and $`TT^{}I_{}`$ and the defect operators

$$D_T=(I_{}T^{}T)^{1/2},D_T^{}=(I_{^{}}TT^{})^{1/2}$$

are Hermitian operators in $``$ and $`^{}`$ respectively. They have the property

$$TD_T=D_T^{}T,T^{}D_T^{}=D_TT^{}$$
$`(7)`$
In the following we are interested in a contraction of a special form, namely that generated by a $`n`$-dimensional real vector $`b𝐑^𝐧`$, i.e. $`T=(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)^t`$, where $`b_i`$ are the coordinates of $`b`$; its norm is $`T=(b,b)`$ and $`T`$ will be a contraction iff $`(b,b)1`$, i.e. if $`b`$ is a point inside the unit ball of $`𝐑^n`$. If $`(b,b)=1`$, that is the case we are interested in, $`T`$ is an isometry, i.e.

$$T^{}T=1,\mathrm{and}D_T=0$$

and in this case $`D_T`$ is an orthogonal projection. A direct calculation shows that $`det(\lambda I_nD_T^{}^2)=\lambda (\lambda 1)^{n1}`$ such that the eigenvalue $`\lambda =0`$ has unit multiplicity and the eigenvalue $`\lambda =1`$ is degenerated. From the second relation (7) we have

$$D_T^{}T=D_T^{}b=TD_T=bD_T=0$$

i.e. $`b`$ is the eigenvector of $`D_T^{}`$ corresponding to $`\lambda =0`$ eigenvalue.

The orthogonal matrix $`𝒪_n`$ which brings the operator $`D_T^{}`$ to a diagonal form

$$𝒪_n^tD_T^{}𝒪_n=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& I_{n1}\end{array}\right)$$

is the orthogonal matrix we are looking for because it is generated by an arbitrary $`n`$-dimensional real vector of unit norm. The multiplicity of $`\lambda =1`$ eigenvalue being $`n1`$ the form of the matrix $`𝒪_n`$ is not uniquely defined. Indeed if $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ are the eigenvectors of $`D_T^{}`$

$$D_T^{}v_1=D_T^{}b=0,D_T^{}v_k=v_k,k=2,\mathrm{},n$$
$`(8)`$
orthogonal eigenvectors will be also the vectors

$$v_1\mathrm{and}a_k=Rv_k,k=2,3,\mathrm{},n$$

where $`RO(n)`$ is an arbitrary rotation acting only on the last $`n1`$ eigenvectors. Thus there is a continuum of solutions for the orthogonal basis that diagonalizes $`D_T^{}`$. In this situation we have to make a choice between the possible bases. Our criteria was that the resulting orthogonal matrix $`𝒪_n`$ should have as many as possible vanishing entries. We found such a matrix that have $`(n1)(n2)/2`$ null entries and the result is expressed by the following lemma:

Lemma 1:The eigenvectors of the eigenvalue problem Eq.(8) which are the columns of the orthogonal matrix $`𝒪_nSO(n)`$ generated by the vector parametrized by Eq.(6) are given by

$$v_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}cos\theta _1\hfill \\ sin\theta _1cos\theta _2\hfill \\ \hfill \\ \hfill \\ \hfill \\ sin\theta _1\mathrm{}sin\theta _{n1}\hfill \end{array}\right),v_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}sin\theta _1\hfill \\ cos\theta _1cos\theta _2\hfill \\ cos\theta _1sin\theta _2cos\theta _3\hfill \\ \hfill \\ \hfill \\ cos\theta _1sin\theta _2\mathrm{}sin\theta _{n1}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

$`(9)`$
$$v_{k+2}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0_k\hfill \\ sin\theta _{k+1}\hfill \\ cos\theta _{k+1}cos\theta _{k+2}\hfill \\ \hfill \\ \hfill \\ cos\theta _{k+1}sin\theta _{k+2}\mathrm{}sin\theta _{n1}\hfill \end{array}\right),k=1,\mathrm{},n2$$

where $`0_k`$ means that all the first $`k`$ entries are zero and $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}n2`$. Alternatively

$$v_{k+1}=\frac{d}{d\theta _k}v_1(\theta _1=\mathrm{}=\theta _{k1}=\pi /2)k=1,\mathrm{},n1$$

The full $`O(n)`$ group is obtained by multiplying $`𝒪_n`$ given by Eqs.(9) with the diagonal matrix which has all the entries but the last one $`1`$ and $`d_{n,n}=1`$.

Proof: Elementary checking shows that $`(v_i,v_j)=\delta _{ij},i,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and thus $`v_k`$ are linearly independent. Because the multiplicity of the null eigenvalue is unity it follows that $`v_k,k=2,\mathrm{},n`$, are orthogonal eigenvectors corresponding to $`\lambda =1`$ eigenvalue.

Lemma 2 The orthogonal matrices $`𝒪_n`$ ( $`𝒪_{nk}^k`$) at their turn can be factored into a product of $`n1`$ (n-k-1) matrices of the form $`J_{i,i+1}`$; e.g. we have

$$𝒪_n=J_{n1,n}J_{n2,n1}\mathrm{}J_{1,2}$$
$`(10)`$
where $`J_{i,i+1}`$ are $`n\times n`$ rotations introduced by Eq.(6).

Remark. If the angles that parametrize $`𝒪_n`$ are $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _{n1}`$, then the angles that parametrize $`𝒪_{n1}^1`$ are denoted e.g. by $`\theta _n,\mathrm{},\theta _{2n3}`$, etc. and the last angle entering $`𝒪_2^{n1}`$ will be $`\theta _{n(n1)/2}`$.

Putting together all the preceding information one obtains the following result

Theorem: Any element $`A_nU(n)`$ can be factored into an ordered product of $`2n1`$ matrices of the following form

$$A_n=d_n𝒪_nd_{n1}^1𝒪_{n1}^1\mathrm{}d_2^{n2}𝒪_2^{n1}d_1^{n1}$$
$`(10)`$
where $`d_{nk}^k`$ are diagonal matrices and $`𝒪_{nk}^k`$ orthogonal matrices whose columns are given by formulae like (9) generated by real $`(nk)`$-dimensional unit vectors. Using factorization (10) the above formula can be written as a product of $`n`$ diagonal matrices and of $`n(n1)/2`$ rotations $`J_{k,k+1}`$.

The condition $`_{i=1}^{n(n+1)/2}\phi _i=0`$, imposed on $`\phi _i`$ the arbitrary phases entering the parametrization of $`A_n`$, gives the factorization of $`SU(n)`$ matrices.

If $`w_n=𝒪_nd_{n1}^1𝒪_{n1}^1\mathrm{}d_2^{n2}𝒪_2^{n1}d_1^{n1}=𝒪_nd_{n1}^1w_{n1}`$ then

$$W_n=w_n^{}d_nw_n$$
$`(11)`$
is one (of the many possible) Weyl representation of unitary matrices.

If all the phases entering $`A_n`$ are zero $`\phi _i=0,i=1,\mathrm{},n(n+1)/2`$, one gets the factorization of rotations $`R_nSO(n)`$

$$R_n=𝒪_n𝒪_{n1}^1\mathrm{}𝒪_2^{n1}$$
$`(12)`$
and the full group $`O(n)`$ is obtained by multiplying (12) with a diagonal matrix $`d=(1,\mathrm{},1,1)`$ that has one entry equal to $`1`$.

Remark. The above factorization is not unique and we propose it as the standard (and simplest) representation. Equivalent factorizations (parametrizations) can be obtained by inserting matrices like $`P_{ij}`$ as factors in the formulae (10)-(12) since the number of parameters remains the same and only the final form of the matrices will be different. As concerns Eq.(11) we made the choice that leads to the simplest form for the matrix elements of $`W_n`$ as polynomial functions of sines and cosines which enter the parametrization of orthogonal matrices. For example instead of $`w_n=𝒪_nd_{n1}^1w_{n1}`$ we could take $`w_n=𝒪_nW_{n1}`$, where $`W_{n1}`$ is at its turn given by a formula like Eq.(11) and so on.

Examples. An element $`A_4U(4)`$ factors as

$$A_4=d_4𝒪_4d_3^1𝒪_3^1d_2^2𝒪_2^2d_1^3$$

where $`d_4=(e^{i\phi _1},e^{i\phi _2},e^{i\phi _3},e^{i\phi _4})d_3^1=(1,e^{i\phi _5},e^{i\phi _6},e^{i\phi _7})d_2^2=(1,1,e^{i\phi _8},e^{i\phi _9})`$, $`d_1^3=(1,1,1,e^{i\phi _{10}})`$ and $`𝒪_4`$, $`𝒪_3^1`$ and $`𝒪_2^2`$ are the following matrices

$$𝒪_4=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}cos\theta _1\hfill & sin\theta _1\hfill & 0& 0\\ sin\theta _1cos\theta _2\hfill & cos\theta _1cos\theta _2\hfill & sin\theta _2& 0\\ sin\theta _1sin\theta _2cos\theta _3\hfill & cos\theta _1sin\theta _2cos\theta _3\hfill & cos\theta _2cos\theta _3& sin\theta _3\\ sin\theta _1sin\theta _2sin\theta _3\hfill & cos\theta _1sin\theta _2sin\theta _3\hfill & cos\theta _2sin\theta _3& cos\theta _3\end{array}\right)$$

$$𝒪_3^1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1\hfill & 0& 0& 0\\ 0\hfill & cos\theta _4& sin\theta _4& 0\\ 0\hfill & sin\theta _4cos\theta _5& cos\theta _4cos\theta _5& sin\theta _5\\ 0\hfill & sin\theta _4sin\theta _5& cos\theta _4sin\theta _5& cos\theta _5\end{array}\right)$$

$$𝒪_2^2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1\hfill & 0& 0& 0\\ 0\hfill & 1& 0& 0\\ 0\hfill & 0& cos\theta _6& sin\theta _6\\ 0\hfill & 0& sin\theta _6& cos\theta _6\end{array}\right)$$

The formula (10) for $`𝒪_4`$ is

$$𝒪_4=J_{3,4}J_{2,3}J_{1,2}=$$

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& cos\theta _3& sin\theta _3\\ 0& 0& sin\theta _3& cos\theta _3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& cos\theta _2& sin\theta _2& 0\\ 0& sin\theta _2& cos\theta _2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}cos\theta _1& sin\theta _1& 0& 0\\ sin\theta _1& cos\theta _1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

The Weyl form of a $`2\times 2`$ unitary matrix is

$$W_2=w_2^{}d_2w_2=d_{1}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}𝒪_2^td_2𝒪_2d_1^1=$$

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\phi _1}cos^2\theta +e^{i\phi _2}sin^2\theta & cos\theta sin\theta e^{i\phi _3}(e^{i\phi _1}e^{i\phi _2})\\ & \\ cos\theta sin\theta e^{i\phi _3}(e^{i\phi _1}e^{i\phi _2})& e^{i\phi _2}cos^2\theta +e^{i\phi _1}sin^2\theta \end{array}\right)$$

where $`d_2=(e^{i\phi _1},e^{i\phi _2})`$, $`d_1^1=(1,e^{i\phi _3})`$ and $`𝒪_2=U`$, and $`U`$ is the matrix (1).

## 4 Concluding remarks

In this paper we proposed a new factorization of unitary matrices which can be useful in many domains of mathematical and theoretical physics. For example the construction of coherent states for $`SU(n)`$ can be developed similarly to that for the $`SU(3)`$ group given in . The $`SU(n)`$ matrices are obtained from the above parametrization by imposing the condition $`_{i=1}^{i=n(n1)}\phi _i=0`$ upon the phases and let us denote by the same letter $`A_n`$ an arbitrary element of $`SU(n)`$. We consider the first $`n1`$ columns of $`A_n`$ as vectors $`v_k`$ whose entries are given by

$$(v_k)_i=A_{i,k},i=1,\mathrm{},n,k=1,\mathrm{},n1$$

and consider a set of $`n(n1)`$ annihilation operators that we view as the components of $`(n1)`$ annihilation vector operators

$$(a_k)_i=a_{ik},i=1,\mathrm{},n,k=1,\mathrm{},n1$$

with the usual commutation relations

$$[a_{ik},a_{jl}]=0,[a_{ik},a_{jl}^{}]=\delta _{ij}\delta _{kl}$$

The key element in defining coherent states is the generating function

$$|v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n1}>_{n_1,\mathrm{},n_{n1}}=\sqrt{n_1!\mathrm{}n_{n1}!}exp\underset{1}{\overset{n1}{}}(a_i^{},v_i)|0>$$

where $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_{n1}`$ are the integers that index the representation, $`|0>`$ is the vacuum vector and we used the standard notation $``$ for the adjoint of the annihilation operator.

Another problem could be the finding of Laplace-Beltrami operators on unitary groups that is an old problem . The Laplace-Beltrami operator on $`S_{2n1}`$ can be written easily as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{sin^2\theta _1\mathrm{}sin^2\theta _{k1}cos\theta _ksin^{2(nk)1}\theta _k}\frac{}{\theta _k}(cos\theta _ksin^{2(nk)1}\theta _k\frac{}{\theta _k})+$$

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{sin^2\theta _1\mathrm{}sin^2\theta _{k1}cos^2\theta _k}\frac{^2}{\phi _k^2}+\frac{1}{sin^2\theta _1\mathrm{}sin^2\theta _{n1}}\frac{^2}{\phi _n^2}$$

where we used the parametrisation $`v_n=(e^{\phi _1}cos\theta _1,\mathrm{},e^{\phi _n}sin\theta _1\mathrm{}sin\theta _{n1})S_{2n1}`$ With factorization (10) the mathematical tractability problem for $`SU(3)`$  and other unitary groups can be resolved. A complete treatment of such problems will be given elsewhere.

Our proposal is largely based on several simple ideas suggested earlier by many people and we have written the factorization in the simplest possible way. We suggest it to become the standard one since any other existing parametrization can be brought to this form by multiplying with permutation matrices like $`P_{ij}`$ and/or diagonal matrices with entries containing phases.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges a partial financial support of the Rumanian Academy through the grant No.49/2000.


text:
# Abelian monopole and vortex condensation in lattice gauge theories

## 1 Introduction

To give a possible explanation of color confinement G. ’t Hooft  and S. Mandelstam  suggested long time ago that vacuum in gauge theories behaves like a magnetic (dual) superconductor. The dual superconductivity hypothesis relies upon the very general assumption that the dual superconductivity of the ground state is realized if there is condensation of Abelian magnetic monopoles. Indeed, lattice calculations have given evidence of Abelian magnetic monopoles condensation .

On the other hand numerical evidence has emerged  in favor of the so called center vortex picture where the vacuum consists of a coherent condensate of magnetic flux tubes. Also this theoretical proposal has been advanced long time ago .

In this paper we compare the dual superconductivity scenario with the vortex condensate picture both in Abelian and non Abelian pure gauge lattice theories. A partial account of results discussed in the present paper has been reported in Ref. . In this work we do not consider the center vortices. Instead we study the Abelian vortices which eventually give rise to a coherent condensate of Abelian magnetic flux tubes.

Monopole or vortex condensation can be detected using order/disorder parameters . At zero temperature we employ a disorder parameter defined in terms of a gauge-invariant lattice effective action introduced  using the lattice Schrödinger functional . At finite temperature the disorder parameter has been defined  in terms of a thermal partition functional.

For the sake of clarity let us recall our implementation of the gauge-invariant lattice Schrödinger functional previously discussed in Ref. . Let us consider the continuum Euclidean Schrödinger functional in Yang-Mills theories without matter field:

$$𝒵[𝐀^{(f)},𝐀^{(i)}]=𝐀^{(f)}\left|e^{HT}𝒫\right|𝐀^{(i)}.$$
(1)
In Eq. (1) $`H`$ is the pure gauge Yang-Mills Hamiltonian in the temporal gauge, $`T`$ is the Euclidean time extension, while $`𝒫`$ projects onto the physical states. $`A_k^{a(i)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ and $`A_k^{a(f)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ are static classical gauge fields, and the state $`|𝐀`$ is such that

$$𝐀|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }[𝐀].$$
(2)
Inserting an orthonormal basis $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ of gauge invariant energy eigenstates in Eq. (1)

$$𝒵[𝐀^{(f)},𝐀^{(i)}]=\underset{n}{}e^{E_nT}\mathrm{\Psi }_n[𝐀^{(f)}]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}[𝐀^{(i)}].$$
(3)
Since we are interested in the lattice version of the Schrödinger functional, it makes sense to perform a discrete sum in Eq. (3) for the spectrum is discrete in a finite volume. Eq. (3) shows that the Schrödinger functional is invariant under arbitrary static gauge transformations of the fields $`𝐀^{(f)}`$ and $`𝐀^{(i)}`$.

Using standard formal manipulations and the gauge invariance of the Schrödinger functional it is easy to rewrite $`𝒵[𝐀^{(f)},𝐀^{(i)}]`$ as a functional integral

$$𝒵[𝐀^{(f)},𝐀^{(i)}]=𝒟A_\mu e^{_0^T𝑑x_4{\scriptscriptstyle d^3x_{YM}(x)}},$$
(4)
with the constraints:

$`𝐀(x_0=0)=`$ $`𝐀^{(i)},`$
$`𝐀(x_0=T)=`$ $`𝐀^{(f)}.`$
Strictly speaking we should include in Eq. (4) the sum over topological inequivalent classes. However, it turns out that  on the lattice such an average is not needed because the functional integral Eq. (4) is already invariant under arbitrary gauge transformations of $`𝐀^{(i)}`$ and $`𝐀^{(f)}`$.

On the lattice the natural relation between the continuum gauge fields and the corresponding lattice links is given by

$$U_\mu (x)=\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\left\{iag_0^1𝑑tA_\mu (x+at\widehat{\mu })\right\}$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{P}`$ is the path-ordering operator, $`a`$ is the lattice spacing and $`g`$ the bare gauge coupling constant.

The lattice implementation  of the Schrödinger functional, Eq. (4), is now straightforward:

$$𝒵[U^{(f)},U^{(i)}]=𝒟U_\mu e^S.$$
(7)
In Eq. (7) the functional integration is done over the links $`U_\mu (x)`$ with the fixed boundary values:

$$U_k(x)|_{x_4=0}=U_k^{(i)},U_k(x)|_{x_4=T}=U_k^{(f)};(k=1,2,3).$$
(8)
Links in temporal direction are not constrained. $`S`$ is the standard Wilson action modified  to take into account the boundaries at $`x_4=0,T`$. For SU(N)

$$S=\beta \underset{x,\mu >\nu }{}W_{\mu \nu }(x)\left\{1\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{Tr}[1U_{\mu \nu }(x)]\right\},\beta =\frac{2N}{g^2},$$
(9)
where $`U_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ are the plaquettes in the $`(\mu ,\nu )`$-plane and the weights $`W_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ are given by

$$W_{\mu \nu }(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1/2\hfill & \text{spatial plaquettes at }x_4=0,T\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(10)
It is possible to improve the lattice action $`S`$ by modifying the weights $`W_{\mu \nu }`$’s . Note that, due to the fact that $`U^{(i)}U^{(f)}`$, one cannot impose periodic boundary conditions in the Euclidean time direction. On the other hand one can assume periodic boundary conditions in the spatial directions.

Let us consider, now, a static external background field $`𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})=𝐀_a^{\mathrm{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})\lambda _a/2`$, where $`\lambda _a/2`$ are the generators of the SU(N) Lie algebra. We introduce a new functional:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}]=\frac{1}{T}\mathrm{ln}\left\{\frac{𝒵[U^{\mathrm{ext}}]}{𝒵[0]}\right\},$$
(11)
where

$$𝒵[U^{\mathrm{ext}}]=𝒵[U^{\mathrm{ext}},U^{\mathrm{ext}}],$$
(12)
and $`𝒵[0]`$ is the Schrödinger functional Eq. (12) with $`𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ ($`U_k^{\mathrm{ext}}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$). The lattice link $`U_k^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is obtained from the continuum background field $`𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ through Eq. (6).

From the previous discussion it is clear that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}]`$ is invariant for lattice gauge transformations of the external links $`U_k^{\mathrm{ext}}`$. Moreover, from Eq. (3) it follows that

$$\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }[𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}]=E_0[𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}]E_0[0]$$
(13)
where $`E_0[𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}]`$ is the vacuum energy in presence of the external background field. In other words $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}]`$ is the lattice gauge-invariant effective action for the static background field $`𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}`$.

Note that, since our definition of the lattice effective action uses the lattice Schrödinger functional with the same boundary fields at $`x_4=0`$ and $`x_4=T`$, we can glue the two hyperplanes $`x_4=0`$ and $`x_4=T`$ together. This way we end up in a lattice with periodic boundary conditions in time direction too. Therefore our lattice Schrödinger functional turns out to be

$$𝒵[U_k^{\mathrm{ext}}]=𝒟U_\mu e^S,$$
(14)
where the functional integral is defined over a four-dimensional hypertorus with the ”cold-wall”

$$U_k(x_4,\stackrel{}{x})|_{x_4=0}=U_k^{\mathrm{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(15)
Moreover, due to the lacking of free boundaries, the lattice action in Eq. (14) is now the familiar Wilson action

$$S_W=\beta \underset{x,\mu >\nu }{}\left\{1\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{Tr}[1U_{\mu \nu }(x)]\right\}.$$
(16)
We also impose that links at the spatial boundaries (we mean the spatial boundaries of each given time slice and not only spatial boundaries of the slice $`x_4=0`$) are fixed according to Eq. (15). In the continuum this last condition amounts to the usual requirement that the fluctuations over the background field vanish at infinity.

We want to extend our definition of lattice effective action to gauge systems at finite temperature. In this case the relevant quantity is the thermal partition function. In the continuum we have:

$$\text{Tr}\left[e^{\beta _TH}\right]=𝒟𝐀𝐀\left|e^{\beta _TH}𝒫\right|𝐀,$$
(17)
where $`\beta _T`$ is the inverse of the physical temperature, $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian, and $`𝒫`$ projects onto the physical states. As is well known, the thermal partition function can be written as :

$$\text{Tr}\left[e^{\beta _TH}\right]=_{A_\mu (\beta _T,\stackrel{}{x})=A_\mu (0,\stackrel{}{x})}𝒟A_\mu (x_4,\stackrel{}{x})e^{_0^{\beta _T}𝑑x_4{\scriptscriptstyle d^3\stackrel{}{x}_{YM}(\stackrel{}{x},x_4)}}.$$
(18)
On the lattice we have:

$$\text{Tr}\left[e^{\beta _TH}\right]=_{U_\mu (\beta _T,\stackrel{}{x})=U_\mu (0,\stackrel{}{x})}𝒟U_\mu (x_4,\stackrel{}{x})e^{S_W}.$$
(19)
Comparing Eq. (19) with Eqs. (14) and (15), we get:

$$\text{Tr}\left[e^{\beta _TH}\right]=𝒟U_k(\stackrel{}{x})𝒵[U_k(\stackrel{}{x})],$$
(20)
where $`𝒵[U_k(\stackrel{}{x})]`$ is the Schrödinger functional Eq. (14) defined on a lattice with $`L_4=\beta _T`$, with ”external” links $`U_k(\stackrel{}{x})`$ at $`x_4=0`$. We recall that, by definition, $`𝒵[U_k(\stackrel{}{x})]`$ includes the integration over $`U_4(0,\stackrel{}{x})`$.

We are interested in the thermal partition function in presence of a given static background field $`𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$. In the continuum this can be obtained by splitting the gauge field into the background field $`𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ and the fluctuating fields $`𝜼(x)`$. So that we could write formally for the thermal partition function $`𝒵_T[𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}]`$:

$$𝒵_T[𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}]𝒟𝜼𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}},𝜼\left|e^{\beta _TH}𝒫\right|𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}},𝜼.$$
(21)
Actually, to give a meaning to Eq. (21) one must define the states $`|𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}},𝜼>`$. For instance, in a perturbative approach, a meaningful definition of $`𝒵_T[𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}]`$ is given by the background field method. In the non-perturbative lattice approach the implementation of Eq. (21) could be obtained as follows. We write

$$U_k(\beta _T,\stackrel{}{x})=U_k(0,\stackrel{}{x})=U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{U}_k(\stackrel{}{x}),$$
(22)
where $`U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is related to $`𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ by Eq. (6) and the $`\stackrel{~}{U}_k(\stackrel{}{x})`$’s are the fluctuating links (related to the fluctuating fields $`𝜼(x)`$) . Thus Eq. (20) suggests the following definition

$$𝒵_T[𝐀^{\mathrm{ext}}]=𝒟\stackrel{~}{U}_k(\stackrel{}{x})𝒵[U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x}),\stackrel{~}{U}_k(\stackrel{}{x})],$$
(23)
where we integrate over the fluctuating links $`\stackrel{~}{U}_k(\stackrel{}{x})`$, while the $`U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ links are fixed. Note that in Eq. (23) only the spatial links exiting from sites belonging to the hyperplane $`x_4=0`$ are written as products of the external links $`U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ and the fluctuating links $`\stackrel{~}{U}_k(\stackrel{}{x})`$. They will be called ”frozen links”, while the remainder will be called “dynamical links”. From the physical point of view we are considering the gauge system at finite temperature in interaction with a fixed external background field. Therefore in the Wilson action $`S_W`$ we do not include the contribution of plaquettes built up with only frozen links. The temporal links $`U_4(x_4=0,\stackrel{}{x})`$ are not constrained and satisfy the usual periodic boundary conditions. We stress that p.b.c.’s in temporal direction are crucial to retain the physical interpretation of the functional $`𝒵_T[𝐀^{\text{ext}}]`$ as thermal partition function.

Now, it is easy to see that in Eq. (23) we have

$$𝒵[U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x}),\stackrel{~}{U}_k(\stackrel{}{x})]=𝒵\left[U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})\right].$$
(24)
Indeed, let us consider an arbitrary frozen link $`U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{U}_k(\stackrel{}{x})`$. This link enters in the Wilson action through the plaquette:

$$P_{k4}(x_4=0,\stackrel{}{x})=\text{Tr}\left\{U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{U}_k(\stackrel{}{x})U_4(0,\stackrel{}{x}+\widehat{k})U_k^{}(1,\stackrel{}{x})U_4^{}(0,\stackrel{}{x})\right\}.$$
(25)
Now we observe that the link $`U_4(0,\stackrel{}{x}+\widehat{k})`$ in Eq. (25) is a dynamical one, i.e. we are integrating over it. So that the dependence on $`\stackrel{~}{U}_k(\stackrel{}{x})`$ can be re-absorbed by a change of integration variable. Therefore we obtain

$$P_{k4}(x_4=0,\stackrel{}{x})=\text{Tr}\left\{U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})U_4(0,\stackrel{}{x}+\widehat{k})U_k^{}(1,\stackrel{}{x})U_4^{}(0,\stackrel{}{x})\right\}.$$
(26)
It is evident that Eq. (26) in turns implies Eq. (24). Then, we see that in Eq. (23) the integration over the fluctuating links $`\stackrel{~}{U}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ gives an irrelevant multiplicative constant. So that we are led to define the lattice thermal partition function in presence of a static background field as

$$𝒵_T\left[𝐀^{\text{ext}}\right]=_{U_k(\beta _T,\stackrel{}{x})=U_k(0,\stackrel{}{x})=U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})}𝒟Ue^{S_W}.$$
(27)
Note that the thermal partition function $`𝒵_T[𝐀^{\text{ext}}]`$, as defined by Eq. (27), is invariant for time-independent gauge transformations of the background field $`𝐀^{\text{ext}}`$. On a lattice with finite spatial extension we impose that the spatial links exiting from sites belonging to the spatial boundary of a generic time slice $`x_4`$ ($`x_40`$) are fixed according to the boundary conditions Eq. (15) used in the Schrödinger functional. Thus we see that, sending physical temperature to zero, the thermal functional Eq. (27) reduces to the zero-temperature Schrödinger functional Eq. (14) on a finite lattice.

Let us now introduce our disorder parameter to detect monopole or vortex condensation. At zero-temperature

$$\mu =e^{E_{\text{b.f.}}L_4}=\frac{𝒵\left[𝐀^{\text{ext}}\right]}{𝒵[0]},$$
(28)
where $`𝒵[𝐀^{\text{ext}}]`$ is the lattice Schrödinger functional with monopole or vortex static background field $`𝐀^{\text{ext}}`$. According to the physical interpretation of the effective action Eq. (11) $`E_{\text{b.f.}}`$ is the energy to create a monopole or a vortex in the quantum vacuum. If there is condensation, then $`E_{\text{b.f.}}=0`$ and $`\mu =1`$.

At finite temperature the disorder parameter turns out to be related to the monopole or vortex free energy . In particular, the finite temperature disorder parameter is defined by means of the thermal partition function in presence of the given static background field Eq. (27):

$$\mu =e^{F_{\text{b.f.}}/T_{\text{phys}}}=\frac{𝒵_T\left[𝐀^{\text{ext}}\right]}{𝒵_T[0]},$$
(29)
From Eq. (29) it is now clear that $`F_{\text{b.f.}}`$ is the free energy to create a monopole or a vortex. If there is condensation, then $`F_{\text{b.f.}}=0`$ and $`\mu =1`$.

As already stated, our disorder parameter is gauge-invariant for time-independent gauge transformations of the external background fields, since it has been defined in terms of the Schrödinger functional. Let us stress that gauge invariance for time-independent gauge transformations of the external background fields implies that we do not need to do any gauge fixing to perform the Abelian projection. Indeed, after choosing the Abelian direction, needed to define the Abelian monopole or vortex fields through the Abelian projection, due to gauge invariance of Schrödinger functional for transformations of background field, our results do not depend on the selected Abelian direction, which, actually, can be varied by a gauge transformation.

The plan of the paper is the following. In Sect. 2 we study the condensation of vortices and monopoles in the zero temperature lattice U(1) pure gauge theory. In Sect. 3 we compare Abelian monopole and vortex condensation for finite temperature SU(2) lattice gauge theory. Sect. 4 is devoted to finite temperature SU(3) gauge theory where, according to the choice of the Abelian subgroup, two different kinds of Abelian monopoles and vortices can be defined. Our conclusions are drawn in Sect. 5.

## 2 U(1)

In this Section we study the monopole and vortex condensation in lattice pure gauge U(1) theory at zero physical temperature. The disorder parameter Eq. (28) is defined in terms of the lattice effective action Eq. (11) with a Dirac magnetic monopole or a magnetic vortex background field.

Let us start with the case of the Dirac magnetic monopole background field. In the continuum the magnetic monopole field with the Dirac string in the direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is

$$e\stackrel{}{b}(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{n_{\mathrm{mon}}}{2}\frac{\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{n}}{r(r\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{n})},$$
(30)
where, according to the Dirac quantization condition, $`n_{\mathrm{mon}}`$ is an integer and $`e`$ is the electric charge (magnetic charge = $`n_{\mathrm{mon}}/2e`$). We consider the gauge-invariant background field action Eq. (11) where the external background field is given by the lattice version of the Dirac magnetic monopole field. By choosing $`\stackrel{}{n}=\widehat{x}_3`$ we get:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U_{1,2}^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\mathrm{cos}[\theta _{1,2}^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})]+i\mathrm{sin}[\theta _{1,2}^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})],\hfill \\ \hfill U_3^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\mathrm{𝟏},\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \theta _1^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\frac{n_{\text{mon}}}{2}\frac{(x_2X_2)}{|\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}|}\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}|(x_3X_3)},\hfill \\ \hfill \theta _2^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =+\frac{n_{\text{mon}}}{2}\frac{(x_1X_1)}{|\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}|}\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}|(x_3X_3)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
In Equation (32) $`(X_1,X_2,X_3)`$ are the monopole coordinates and $`\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}=(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{X})`$. In the numerical simulations we put the lattice Dirac monopole at the center of the time slice $`x_4=0`$. To avoid the singularity due to the Dirac string we locate the monopole between two neighboring sites. We have checked that the numerical results are not too sensitive to the precise position of the magnetic monopole.
To avoid the problem of dealing with a partition function we consider $`E_{\mathrm{mon}}^{}=E_{\mathrm{mon}}/\beta `$. It is easy to see that $`E_{\mathrm{mon}}^{}`$ is given by the difference between the average plaquette $`<U_{\mu \nu }>`$ obtained in turn from configurations without and with the monopole field:

$$E_{\text{mon}}^{}=V\left[<U_{\mu \nu }>_{n_{\text{mon}}=0}<U_{\mu \nu }>_{n_{\text{mon}}0}\right],$$
(33)
where $`V`$ is the spatial volume.

We performed lattice simulations on $`16^4`$, $`24^4`$ and $`32^4`$ lattices using an APE100 computer. The spatial links belonging to the time slice $`x_4=0`$ and to the spatial boundaries of the other time slices ($`x_40`$) are constrained, therefore they are not updated during Monte Carlo simulation. Therefore we must consider only the “dynamical links” in the computation of $`E_{\text{mon}}^{}`$. This means that the generic plaquette $`U_{\mu \nu }(x)=U_\mu (x)U_\nu (x+\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })U_\nu ^{}(x)`$ contributes to Eq. (33) if the link $`U_\mu (x)`$ is a ”dynamical” one (i.e. it is not constrained in the lattice Schrod̈inger functional integration).
Since we are measuring a local quantity such as average plaquette $`<U_{\mu \nu }>`$ , a low statistics (from 1000 up to 5000 configurations) is required in order to get a good estimate of $`E_{\mathrm{mon}}^{}`$. Statistical errors have been estimated using the jackknife resampling method , modified to take into account the statistical correlations between lattice configurations.
In Fig. 1 we report our numerical results for $`E_{\mathrm{mon}}^{}`$ versus $`\beta `$ for three different lattice sizes.

We see that in strong coupling region ($`\beta 1`$), monopole internal energy derivative is zero, insensitive to the lattice size. This means that, according to Eq. (28), the disorder parameter $`\mu 1`$. On the other hand, near the critical coupling $`\beta _c1`$, $`E_{\mathrm{mon}}^{}`$ displays a sharp peak which increases by increasing the lattice volume. In the weak coupling region ($`\beta \beta _c`$) the plateau in $`E_{\mathrm{mon}}^{}`$ indicates that the monopole energy tends to the classical monopole action which behaves linearly in $`\beta `$.
In order to obtain $`\mu `$ we perform the numerical integration of $`E_{\mathrm{mon}}^{}`$

$$E_{\mathrm{mon}}=_0^\beta E_{\mathrm{mon}}^{}𝑑\beta ^{}$$
(34)
In Fig. 2 we display the logarithm of the disorder parameter $`\mu `$ versus $`\beta `$. In the confined phase we see that $`\mathrm{ln}\mu =0`$, so that Eq. (28) tells us that the energy required to create a monopole is zero and therefore monopoles condense in the confined U(1) vacuum. Correspondingly the disorder parameter $`\mu `$ is different from zero in the confined phase. Moreover numerical data suggest that $`\mu 0`$ when $`\beta \beta _c`$ in the thermodynamic limit. Note that the different curves for $`\mu `$ corresponding to increasing lattice sizes seem to cross, suggesting a first order phase transition. However, in order to extract the critical parameters and to determine the order of transition we need to perform a finite size scaling analysis, which will be addressed in a future work.

Let us now consider the case of U(1) magnetic vortices. The continuum gauge potential for a classical magnetic vortex along the $`x_3`$-direction with $`n_{\text{vort}}`$ units of elementary flux $`\varphi =2\pi /e`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_1^{\text{ext}}& =\frac{n_{\text{vort}}}{e}\frac{x_2}{(x_1)^2+(x_2)^2},\hfill \\ \hfill A_2^{\text{ext}}& =\frac{n_{\text{vort}}}{e}\frac{x_1}{(x_1)^2+(x_2)^2},\hfill \\ \hfill A_3^{\text{ext}}& =0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
The corresponding lattice links are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U_{1,2}^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\mathrm{cos}[\theta _{1,2}^{\text{vort}}(\stackrel{}{x})]+i\mathrm{sin}[\theta _{1,2}^{\text{vort}}(\stackrel{}{x})],\hfill \\ \hfill \theta _{1,2}^{\text{vort}}& =n_{\text{vort}}\frac{x_{2,1}}{(x_1)^2+(x_2)^2},\hfill \\ \hfill U_3^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\mathrm{𝟏}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
As in the monopole case we evaluated numerically the $`\beta `$-derivative, $`E_{\mathrm{vort}}^{}`$, of the energy to create a vortex. In Fig. 3 we compare the monopole and vortex energy derivative for a $`16^4`$ lattice . While we clearly see that in the strong coupling monopoles condense, the $`\beta `$-derivative of the vortex energy displays rapid oscillations whose amplitude seems to increase near the critical coupling. This means that we cannot obtain a reliable estimate of $`E_{\mathrm{vort}}`$ by a numerical integration of $`E_{\mathrm{vort}}^{}`$. However, we can safely say that our data do not show any signal of vortex condensation which would imply that $`E_{\text{vort}}^{}=0`$ at strong couplings.
Thus, we may conclude that in U(1) lattice theory the strong coupling confined phase is intimately related to magnetic monopole condensation.

## 3 SU(2)

In a previous work  we studied Abelian magnetic monopole condensation in finite temperature SU(2) lattice gauge theory. For SU(2) the maximal Abelian group is an Abelian U(1) group. In the continuum the Abelian monopole field is given by

$$g\stackrel{}{b}^a(\stackrel{}{x})=\delta ^{a,3}\frac{n_{\mathrm{mon}}}{2}\frac{\stackrel{}{x}\times \stackrel{}{n}}{|\stackrel{}{x}|(|\stackrel{}{x}|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{n})},$$
(37)
where $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is the direction of the Dirac string and, according to the Dirac quantization condition, $`n_{\text{mon}}`$ is an integer. The lattice links corresponding to the Abelian monopole field Eq. (37) can be readily obtained from Eq. (6). By choosing $`\stackrel{}{n}=\widehat{x}_3`$ we have:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U_{1,2}^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\mathrm{cos}[\theta _{1,2}^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})]+i\sigma _3\mathrm{sin}[\theta _{1,2}^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})],\hfill \\ \hfill U_3^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\mathrm{𝟏},\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \theta _1^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\frac{n_{\text{mon}}}{4}\frac{(x_2X_2)}{|\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}|}\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}|(x_3X_3)},\hfill \\ \hfill \theta _2^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =+\frac{n_{\text{mon}}}{4}\frac{(x_1X_1)}{|\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}|}\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}|(x_3X_3)},\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
where $`(X_1,X_2,X_3)`$ are the monopole coordinates, $`\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}=(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{X})`$ and the $`\sigma _a`$’s are the Pauli matrices.

As discussed in Sect. 1, at finite temperature the disorder parameter, Eq. (29), is defined by means of the thermal partition function $`𝒵_T[A^{\text{ext}}]`$ in presence of the Abelian monopole background field Eq. (37). Numerical results in Ref.  show that the monopole disorder parameter $`\mu `$ is different from zero in the confined phase and suggest that it tends to zero when approaching the critical coupling in the thermodynamic limit. Thus SU(2) confining vacuum does display the Abelian monopole condensation in accordance with dual superconductivity hypothesis.

Now we want discuss what happens if we consider an Abelian vortex background field. In SU(2) gauge theory, Abelian vortex field on the lattice is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U_{1,2}^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\mathrm{cos}[\theta _{1,2}^{\text{vort}}(\stackrel{}{x})]+i\sigma _3\mathrm{sin}[\theta _{1,2}^{\text{vort}}(\stackrel{}{x})],\hfill \\ \hfill U_3^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\mathrm{𝟏},\hfill \\ \hfill \theta _{1,2}^{\text{vort}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\frac{n_{\text{vort}}}{2}\frac{x_{2,1}}{(x_1)^2+(x_2)^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
Again, the derivative of the free energy required to create a vortex

$$F_{\text{vort}}^{}=\frac{}{\beta }F_{\text{vort}},$$
(41)
can be easily evaluated as the difference between the average plaquette $`<U_{\mu \nu }>`$ without the vortex background field (i.e. $`n_{\text{vort}}=0`$) and with the vortex background field ($`n_{\text{vort}}0`$)

$$F_{\text{vort}}^{}=V\left[<U_{\mu \nu }>_{n_{\text{vort}}=0}<U_{\mu \nu }>_{n_{\text{vort}}0}\right],$$
(42)
where $`V`$ is the spatial volume. In Eq. (42) we include only the contributions due to the dynamical links (see discussion after Eq. (33)).

A low statistics (from 2000 up to 10000 configurations) is required in order to get a good estimate of the derivative of the free energy. In Fig. 4 we display the derivative of the vortex free energy versus $`\beta `$ for $`n_{\text{vort}}=10`$ on lattices with $`L_t=4`$ and $`L_s=24`$. We see that $`F_{\text{vort}}^{}`$ vanishes at strong coupling and displays a rather sharp peak near $`\beta 2.2`$. We expect that this peak corresponds to the finite temperature deconfinement transition. In Fig. 4 we also display the absolute value of the Polyakov loop in time direction

$$P=\frac{1}{V}\underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\underset{x_4=1}{\overset{L_t}{}}U_4(x_4,\stackrel{}{x})$$
(43)
and, indeed, we can see that the peak in $`F_{\text{vort}}^{}`$ corresponds to the rise of the Polyakov loop.
In weak coupling region the plateau in $`F_{\text{vort}}^{}`$ indicates that vortex free energy tends to the classical vortex action which behaves linearly in $`\beta `$.

In Fig. 4 we display for comparison also the derivative of the Abelian monopole free energy for $`n_{\text{mon}}=10`$. It turns out that monopoles and vortices data agree within statistical errors. To appreciate better this last point we plotted in Fig. 5 the logarithm of the disorder parameter Eq. (29) for monopoles and vortices respectively. Fig. 5 shows clearly that monopoles and vortices agree quite perfectly. Our results strongly suggest that also Abelian vortices could play a role in the dynamics of confinement.

## 4 SU(3)

For SU(3) gauge theory the maximal Abelian group is U(1)$`\times `$U(1), therefore we may introduce two independent types of Abelian monopoles or Abelian vortices.

Let us consider the Abelian monopole field. The first type of Abelian monopole field is derived considering the $`\lambda _3`$ diagonal generator, we name it $`T_3`$ Abelian monopole (following Ref. ). On the lattice it is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U_{1,2}^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\theta _{1,2}^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})}& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\theta _{1,2}^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill U_3^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\mathrm{𝟏},\hfill \end{array}$$
(44)
with $`\theta _{1,2}^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ defined in Eq. (39).
The second type of independent Abelian monopole can be obtained by considering the diagonal generator $`\lambda _8`$. In this case we have the $`T_8`$ Abelian monopole:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U_{1,2}^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\theta _{1,2}^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})}& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\theta _{1,2}^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})}& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{2i\theta _{1,2}^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})}\end{array}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill U_3^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\mathrm{𝟏},\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \theta _1^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left[\frac{n_{\text{mon}}}{4}\frac{(x_2X_2)}{|\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}|}\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}|(x_3X_3)}\right],\hfill \\ \hfill \theta _2^{\text{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left[+\frac{n_{\text{mon}}}{4}\frac{(x_1X_1)}{|\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}|}\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{mon}}|(x_3X_3)}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
Analogously, we have the $`T_3`$ Abelian vortex:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U_{1,2}^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\theta _{1,2}^{\text{vort}}(\stackrel{}{x})}& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\theta _{1,2}^{\text{vort}}(\stackrel{}{x})}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right],\hfill \\ \hfill U_3^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill \\ \hfill \theta _{1,2}^{\text{vort}}& =\frac{n_{\text{vort}}}{2}\frac{x_{2,1}}{(x_1)^2+(x_2)^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
and the $`T_8`$ Abelian vortex:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U_{1,2}^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\theta _{1,2}^{\text{vort}}(\stackrel{}{x})}& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\theta _{1,2}^{\text{vort}}(\stackrel{}{x})}& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{2i\theta _{1,2}^{\text{vort}}(\stackrel{}{x})}\end{array}\right],\hfill \\ \hfill U_3^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})& =\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill \\ \hfill \theta _{1,2}^{\text{vort}}& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{n_{\text{vort}}}{2}\frac{x_{2,1}}{(x_1)^2+(x_2)^2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
Other Abelian monopoles and vortices can be generated by considering linear combinations of $`\lambda _3`$ and $`\lambda _8`$ generators. In particular we have also considered the following two linear combinations of $`\lambda _3/2`$ and $`\lambda _8/2`$

$$T_{3a}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\lambda _3}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\frac{\lambda _8}{2}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right],$$
(49)
and

$$T_3^{}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\frac{\lambda _3}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\lambda _8}{2}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right].$$
(50)
The linear combinations given in Eq. (49) and in Eq. (50) have been also considered in Ref.  and in Ref.  respectively.

For reader convenience, let us summarize the main results of our previous investigation of Abelian monopole condensation  in SU(3). In Ref.  we found that there is condensation of Abelian monopoles in the non-perturbative vacuum and that SU(3) vacuum reacts moderately strongly in the case of the $`T_8`$ Abelian monopole (in particular the peak value of $`F_{\text{mon}}^{}`$ for $`T_8`$ Abelian monopoles is about two times higher than the corresponding peak for $`T_3`$ Abelian monopoles).

In the present paper we compare $`T_8`$ Abelian monopoles and vortices. In Fig. 6 the free energy derivative for monopoles (with $`n_{\text{mon}}=10`$) and vortices (with $`n_{\text{vort}}=10`$) is displayed versus $`\beta `$ for a lattice with $`L_s=32`$ and $`L_t=4`$. We also display the absolute value of the Polyakov loop in the time direction

$$P=\frac{1}{V}\underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}\frac{1}{3}\text{Tr}\underset{x_4=1}{\overset{L_t}{}}U_4(x_4,\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(51)
As can be argued from Fig. 6, $`F_{\text{vort}}^{}`$ behaves like $`F_{\text{mon}}^{}`$. Indeed, the free energy derivatives are zero within errors in the strong coupling region and display a sharp peak in correspondence of the rise of the Polyakov loop. In the weak coupling region the free energy derivatives are almost constant. The values of the plateau correspond to the beta derivative of the lattice classical action. Remarkably Fig. 6 shows that in the peak region the $`T_8`$ Abelian vortex displays a signal higher than the Abelian monopole. This is better appreciated if we look at the disorder parameter Eq. (29) (see Fig. 7), where $`\mathrm{ln}\mu `$ for Abelian vortices has a sizeable faster decrease. In the study of Abelian monopole condensation we found  that the color direction $`\widehat{8}`$ is slightly preferred with respect to the direction $`\widehat{3}`$ in the color space. It is worthwhile to see if this result holds also for Abelian vortex condensation. In Fig. 8 we compare the free energy derivative for the $`T_3`$ and $`T_8`$ Abelian vortices for the lattice with $`L_t=4`$ and $`L_s=32`$. As expected the $`T_8`$ Abelian vortex displays, in the peak region, a signal about a factor two higher.

Finally in Fig. 9 and in Fig. 10 we confront the $`T_3`$, $`T_{3a}`$, $`T_8`$ and $`T_3^{}`$ Abelian vortices. We find that $`T_3`$ and $`T_8`$ agree within statistical errors in the whole range of $`\beta `$ with $`T_{3a}`$ and $`T_3^{}`$ respectively. For the sake of completeness, in Fig. 11 we compare $`T_3^{}`$ and $`T_8`$ monopoles, showing that they agree within statistical errors.

We may conclude that, even for SU(3) gauge theory, our results strongly suggest that Abelian vortices play a role in the dynamics of confinement.

## 5 Conclusions

We investigated Abelian monopole and Abelian vortex condensation in U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) lattice gauge theories.
For U(1) pure lattice gauge theory we found that, in the confined phase, the vacuum can be interpreted as a coherent condensate of magnetic monopoles. On the other hand, we do not find convincing evidence of condensation of vortices.
For non Abelian SU(2) and SU(3) lattice gauge theories at finite temperature, by means of a lattice thermal partition functional, we introduced a disorder parameter for detecting Abelian monopole and Abelian vortex condensation in the confined phase. The disorder parameter is defined by means of a lattice thermal partition functional and is invariant for gauge transformations of the external background (monopole or vortex) field.

Our numerical results suggest that the disorder parameter for both Abelian monopoles and Abelian vortices is different from zero in the confined phase and tends to zero when approaching the critical coupling in the thermodynamic limit. Therefore in SU(2) and SU(3) Abelian vortices could play a role in the dynamics of confinement.
In particular for SU(2) gauge theory there is also a quantitative agreement between the measured values of free energies for monopoles and vortices.
On the other hand, remarkably, in SU(3) gauge theory it turns out that the Abelian vortex displays a signal higher than the Abelian monopole. Moreover, for the Abelian vortices we find that the non perturbative vacuum reacts moderately strongly to $`T_8`$ vortices with respect to $`T_3`$ vortices. This last point is in accordance with our finding in the study of SU(3) Abelian monopole condensation .

In conclusion it is worthwhile to observe that our results point to a different mechanism of confinement for U(1) lattice gauge theory with respect to SU(2) and SU(3) gauge theories. Indeed, in the U(1) Abelian case we find that the confining vacuum behaves as a coherent condensate of Dirac magnetic monopoles. In SU(2) and SU(3) it seems that there is condensation of Abelian magnetic monopoles and Abelian vortices. So that in SU(2) and SU(3) gauge theories one could look at the confining vacuum as a coherent Abelian magnetic condensate. Even more, for the SU(3) theory, it turns out that gauge field configurations leading to Abelian magnetic flux tubes, multiple of the elementary flux, seem to be favorite with respect to Abelian magnetic monopoles.

We would like to remark that it is important to perform a finite size scaling analysis both for SU(2) and SU(3). Indeed a finite size scaling analysis will allow us to determine the critical behavior of the disorder parameter in the thermodynamic limit.

We stress finally, that it should be interesting to extend our method to study center vortex condensation in SU(2) and SU(3) lattice gauge theories. First results in this direction have been reported in Ref. .


text:
# Cosmological Constraints on an Invisibly Decaying Higgs

## I Introduction

We have recently discussed the role of a light, stable, strongly self-coupled scalar field in solving the problems of the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) model for structure formation in the Universe, concerning galactic scales . Our proposal involves a particle physics-motivated model, where the DM particles are allowed to self-interact so as to have a large scattering cross section and negligible annihilation or dissipation. The self-interaction results in a characteristic length scale given by the mean free path of the particle in the halo. This idea was originally proposed to suppress small scale power in the standard CDM model  and has been recently revived, in a general context, in order to address the issues discussed above . Our model  is a concrete realization of this idea, which involves an extra gauge singlet as the self-interacting, non-dissipative cold dark matter particle. Following Ref. , we call this scalar particle phion, $`\varphi `$, and assume that it couples to the Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson, $`h`$, with a Lagrangian density given by:

$$=\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \varphi )^2\frac{1}{2}m_\varphi ^2\varphi ^2\frac{g}{4!}\varphi ^4+g^{}v\varphi ^2h,$$
(1)
where $`g`$ is the phion self-coupling constant, $`m_\varphi `$ its mass, $`v=246\text{GeV}`$ is the Higgs vacuum expectation value and $`g^{}`$ is the coupling between $`\varphi `$ and $`h`$. A model along these lines have been previously discussed . Clearly the interaction term between the phion and the Higgs boson arises from a quartic interaction $`\frac{g^{}}{2}\varphi ^2H^2`$, where $`H`$ is the electroweak Higgs doublet. As shown in , the $`\varphi `$ mass does not arise from spontaneous symmetry breaking since this would yield a tiny scalar self-coupling constant. The phion mass in (1) should be regarded as as a phenomenological parameter arising from a more encompassing theory.

As is well known, scalar particles have been repeatedly invoked as DM candidates ; however, our proposal has the salient feature that it brings about a connection with the SM Higgs boson which could arise in extensions of the SM. For instance, the hidden sector of heterotic string theories does give rise to astrophysically interesting self-interacting scalars . For reasonable values of $`g^{}`$, the new scalar would introduce a novel invisible decay mode for the Higgs boson. This could, in principle, provide an explanation for the failure in finding the Higgs boson at accelerators sofar, which will be tested at future colliders.

On the astrophysical front, recent observational data on large scale structure, cosmic microwave background anisotropies and type Ia supernovae suggest that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}1`$, of which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{baryons}0.05`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.65`$ ; the remaining contribution, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}0.3`$ (apart from neutrinos that may contribute a small fraction), comes from dark matter (DM), which determines the hierarchy of the structure formation in the Universe. The most prominent theories of structure formation are now $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and QCDM, which consist, respectively, of the standard Cold Dark Matter (CDM) model supplemented by a cosmological constant or a dark energy, i.e. a negative pressure component.

In the CDM model, initial Gaussian density fluctuations, mostly in non-relativistic collisionless particles, the so-called cold dark matter, grow during the inflationary period of the Universe and evolve, via gravitational instability, into the structures one observes at present. However, it has been found that the CDM model cannot sucessfully accomodate the data observed on all scales. For instance, N-body simulations predict a number of halos which is a factor $``$ 10 larger than the observed number at the level of Local Group . Furthermore, astrophysical systems that are DM dominated, e.g. dwarf galaxies  and low surface brightness galaxies  show shallow matter–density profiles with finite central densities. This is in contradiction with galactic and galaxy cluster halos in high resolution N-body simulations , which have singular cores, with $`\rho r^\gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$ in the range between 1 and 2. This can be understood as cold collisionless DM particles do not have any characteristic length scale leading, due to hierarchical gravitational collapse, to dense dark matter halos with negligible core radius.

It is relevant to stress that recent numerical simulations  indicate that self-interaction of DM particles does bring noticeable improvements on properties of the CDM model on small scales. We point out, however, that a numerical simulation that takes into account the salient features of our proposal is still missing.

At present, $`\varphi `$ particles are non-relativistic, with typical velocities $`v200`$ km s<sup>-1</sup>, and, therefore, it is impossible to dissipate energy creating more particles in reactions like $`\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi `$. Thus, as only the elastic channel is kinematically accessible, near threshold, the cross section is given by:

$$\sigma (\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi )\sigma _{\varphi \varphi }=\frac{g^2}{16\pi s}\frac{g^2}{64\pi m_\varphi ^2}.$$
(2)
A limit on $`m_\varphi `$ and $`g`$ can be obtained by demanding that the mean free path of the particle $`\varphi `$, $`\lambda _\varphi `$, is in the interval $`1\text{kpc}<\lambda _\varphi <1`$Mpc . Hence, we have:

$$\lambda _\varphi =\frac{1}{\sigma _{\varphi \varphi }n_\varphi }=\frac{m_\varphi }{\sigma _{\varphi \varphi }\rho _\varphi ^h},$$
(3)
where $`n_\varphi `$ and $`\rho _\varphi ^h`$ are, respectively, the number and mass density of $`\varphi `$ particles in the halo. Eqs. (2) and (3) imply:

$`\sigma _{\varphi \varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`2.1\times 10^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi }{\text{GeV}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\varphi }{\text{Mpc}}}\right)^1`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\varphi ^h}{0.4\text{GeV}\text{cm}^3}}\right)^1\text{GeV}^2,`$ (5)
which, in turn, leads to:

$$m_\varphi =13g^{2/3}\left(\frac{\lambda _\varphi }{\text{Mpc}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{\rho _\varphi ^h}{0.4\text{GeV}\text{cm}^3}\right)^{1/3}\text{MeV}.$$
(6)
In what follows, we shall see how the requirement that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi h^20.3`$, i.e. that the phion is a suitable DM candidate, and that the phion is able to explain small scale structure, leads to bounds on the couplings $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$.

## II Phion density estimate

In the ensuing discussion, we shall bear in mind the most recent lower bound on the mass of the SM Higgs boson, as it emerges from the combined LEP data gathered at energies up to $`205.9\text{GeV}`$, $`m_h>112.3\text{GeV}`$ at $`95\%`$ confidence level . On the other hand, SM precision data indicates that $`m_h<188\text{GeV}`$ at $`95\%`$ confidence level  and $`m_h306\text{GeV}`$ at $`99\%`$ confidence level .

If $`g^{}`$ is sufficiently small, phions decouple early in the thermal history of the Universe and are diluted by subsequent entropy production. In Ref. , we have considered out-of-equilibrium phion production via inflaton decay in the context of $`N=1`$ Supergravity inflationary models (see. e.g.  and references therein).

On the other hand, for certain values of the coupling $`g^{}`$, it is possible that $`\varphi `$ particles are in thermal equilibrium with ordinary matter. In order to determine whether this is the case, we will make the usual comparison between the thermalization rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{th}`$ and the expansion rate of the Universe $`H`$.

The thermalization rate is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{th}=n<\sigma _{ann}v_{rel}>,$$
(7)
where $`n=1.2\times T^3/\pi ^2`$ is the density of relativistic phions and $`<\sigma _{ann}v_{rel}>`$ is the annihilation cross section averaged over relative velocities. On the other hand, the expansion rate is given by:

$$H=\left(\frac{4\pi ^3g_{}}{45}\right)^{1/2}\frac{T^2}{M_P}=1.66\times g_{}^{1/2}\frac{T^2}{M_P}.$$
(8)
At temperatures above the electroweak phase transition, $`T_{EW}300\text{GeV}`$, a typical value in many extensions of the SM where one hopes to find the required features to achieve successful baryogenesis , the order parameter (the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field) vanishes, $`v(T)=0`$, and therefore the $`\varphi \varphi h`$ coupling is non-operative. However, as mentioned above, this interaction term has its origin in the 4-point coupling, $`\varphi \varphi hh`$, which can bring, at high temperatures, the phion-Higgs system into thermal equilibrium. Using the temperature as the center-of-mass energy, the cross section is given by:

$$\sigma _{ann}v_{rel}\frac{g^2}{32\pi T^2},$$
(9)
which implies that phions are in thermal equilibrium for temperatures smaller than

$$T_{eq}\frac{g^2M_P}{32\pi ^3g_{}^{1/2}}.$$
(10)
Therefore, phions will never be in thermal equilibrium before the electroweak phase transition if $`g^{}\text{ }<10^7`$.

Thermal equilibrium can be achieved just below $`T_{EW}`$, when the trilinear coupling is operative, if $`g^{}`$ is such that the thermalization rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{th}`$, is larger than the Hubble expansion rate. We now compute the required bounds on $`g^{}`$.

The phion annihilation cross section at high energies ($`T\text{ }>m_h`$) is given by a relativistic Breit-Wigner resonance formula:

$$\sigma _{ann}v_{rel}=\frac{4\pi (s/m_h^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(h\varphi \varphi )\mathrm{\Gamma }_h}{(sm_h^2)^2+m_h^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^2},$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ is the total Higgs decay rate. At the resonance peak ($`s=m_h^2`$) it becomes

$$\sigma _{ann}v_{rel}=\frac{4\pi }{m_h^2}BR(h\varphi \varphi ).$$
(12)
Using

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(h\varphi \varphi )=\frac{g{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}v_{}^{2}(m_h^24m_\varphi ^2)^{1/2}}{32\pi m_h^2},$$
(13)
we obtain the decoupling temperature in the limit $`m_hm_\varphi `$

$$T_D150\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_hm_h^3}{g^2M_Pv^2}.$$
(14)
This implies that, in order to have a decoupling temperature of the order of the Higgs mass, the coupling constant should be fairly small:

$$g^{}10^{10},$$
(15)
where we have introduced the SM value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h=3.2\text{MeV}`$, obtained from the code HDECAY , used to compute the width of a $`115\text{GeV}`$ Higgs boson.

Therefore, if $`g^{}10^{10}`$, the phions will be brought into thermal equilibrium right after the electroweak phase transition. If this is the case, there are two possible scenarios depending whether they decouple while relativistic or otherwise.

In order to study these scenarios, we need to determine the decoupling temperature at $`Tm_\varphi T_{EW}`$, in which case the phion annihilation cross section involves virtual Higgs exchange ($`h^{}`$), as in Figure 1, and is given by :

$$\sigma _{ann}v_{rel}=\frac{8g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}v^2}{(4m_\varphi ^2m_h^2)^2+m_h^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^2}F_X,$$
(16)
where

$$F_X=\underset{m_h^{}2m_\varphi }{lim}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h^{}X}}{m_h^{}}\right),$$
(17)
and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h^{}X}`$ denotes the width for the decay $`h^{}X`$ ($`X\varphi \varphi `$, since we are dealing with inelastic scattering only), for $`m_h^{}=2m_\varphi `$. For the mass range of interest to us, $`m_\varphi 10100\text{MeV}`$, one has $`F_X10^{13}`$ .

In this case, the relationship between the coupling constant $`g^{}`$ and the decoupling temperature $`T_D`$ is given by

$$g^2=5.5\frac{(m_h/100\text{GeV})^4}{(T_D/\text{MeV})}.$$
(18)
If $`g^{}0.1`$, the phions decouple while relativistic and are as abundant as photons. Since we are interested in stable light phions, it is a major concern avoiding phion overproduction if it decouples while relativistic. In fact, in this case, there is an analogue of Lee-Weinberg limit for neutrinos (see e.g. ):

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi h^20.08\frac{m_\varphi }{1\text{eV}},$$
(19)
which results in a very stringent bound, $`m_\varphi \text{ }<4\text{eV}`$, and implies that the phion self-coupling constant should satisfy $`g\text{ }<2.5\times 10^{10}`$, in order to solve the small scale structure problem that exists with conventional collisionless cold dark matter.

In order that the phions decouple non-relativistically and their abundance reduces to acceptable levels without fine-tuning the self-coupling constant, $`g^{}>0.1`$ is required. In this case, using standard methods to compute the phion relic abundance , one obtains:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi h^2=\frac{1.07\times 10^9x_F}{g_{}^{1/2}M_P\sigma _{ann}v_{rel}},$$
(20)
where $`g_{}`$ denotes the number of degrees of freedom in equilibrium at annihilation and $`x_Fm_\varphi /T_F`$ is the inverse of the freeze-out temperature in units of the phion mass. The relevant crosss section is the phion annihilation cross section involving virtual Higgs exchange, Eq. (16), with $`F_X10^{13}`$ . The freeze-out temperature is determined by the solution of the equation

$$x_F\mathrm{ln}[0.038(g_{}x_F)^{1/2}M_Pm_\varphi \sigma _{ann}v_{rel}].$$
(21)
In order to get $`x_F1`$ and apply Eq. (20), one must have $`g^{}\text{ }>1.2`$, for $`m_\varphi =50\text{MeV}`$ and $`m_h=115\text{GeV}`$. However, due to the smallness of the cross section, the relic abundance of the phion is several orders of magnitude larger than the observed value. Hence, one concludes that a phion in this mass range is excluded.

The smallness of the phion annihilation cross section for $`m_\varphi 50\text{MeV}`$ is due to the small factor $`F_X10^{13}`$. However, this factor increases significantly with larger phion masses. Considering $`m_\varphi 1\text{GeV}`$, then it follows that $`F_X10^7`$. We find that the requirement $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi h^20.3`$ implies that $`m_\varphi \text{ }>500\text{MeV}`$ and $`g^{}\text{ }>2`$, a solution which holds only for $`m_h\text{ }<130\text{GeV}`$. Heavier phion and Higgs particles tend to make $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi h^2>0.3`$. We have verified that our solutions respect the condition $`x_F>3`$, meaning that the phion behaves as a cold dark matter candidate. Of course, our solutions are at the edge of validity of perturbation theory. Our results are depicted in Figure 2.

For these large values of the coupling constant, the decay width of the Higgs into phions is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(h\varphi \varphi )=5.23\left(\frac{m_h}{115\text{GeV}}\right)^1g{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\text{GeV}.$$
(22)
Hence, in this case the Higgs width is totally dominated by the invisible decay mode and this model can be easily tested at future colliders (see e.g. ).

## III Discussion and Conclusions

In this work, we have derived, from fairly general cosmological arguments, bounds on $`g^{}`$, the coupling constant of the Higgs boson to stable scalar particles, which contribute to Higgs decay via invisible channels. These particles, the phions, have all the required features to be regarded a successful self-interacting dark matter candidate and solve the difficulties of the CDM model on small scales.

We have found that, for $`g^{}\text{ }<10^{10}`$, the phions never reach thermal equilibrium and hence can only be produced by out-of-equilibrium decay of the inflaton field, as discussed in . In this case, the phion does not contribute to the invisible Higgs boson decay channel. For $`g^{}\text{ }>10^{10}`$, we have found that, if $`g^{}\text{ }<0.1`$, the phion decouples while still relativistic and a limit for its mass, $`m_\varphi \text{ }<4\text{eV}`$ can be derived, which, in turn, implies in a strong bound on the phion self-coupling constant, $`g\text{ }<10^9`$, if the phion is required to solve the CDM model problems on small scales. On the other hand, if $`g^{}\text{ }>1`$, the phion decouples while non-relativistic; however, its abundance is not cosmologically acceptable for phion masses in the range of $`50100\text{MeV}`$ due to the small annihilation cross section. For masses in the range of $`0.52\text{GeV}`$, we have found that abundances of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi h^20.3`$ require large values of the coupling $`g^{}2.5`$ and $`m_h\text{ }<130\text{GeV}`$. In this scenario, the Higgs width is dominated by the invisible $`h\varphi \varphi `$ mode and can be tested at future colliders.

Regarding the origin of the phion mass, it is possible that it arises from the cancellation between a tachyonic mass, due to the dynamics of fields in a more encompassing theory together with the contribution from the quartic interaction, $`g^2v^2`$. In fact, in case the only relevant fields are the phion and the Higgs boson, the phion mass is dominated by a term which arises from electroweak symmetry breaking, namely, $`m_\varphi g^{}v`$, and if the phion is to solve the small structure problem, this would imply $`g^{}5\times 10^5`$ which, in turn, brings us to the overproduction problem.

Finally, we comment on the recent observation  that CDM problems at small scales can be fixed only through s-channel annihilation of DM particles, that is $`\sigma _{ann}v_{rel}const`$ so that $`\sigma _{ann}v_{rel}=2.5\times 10^1(m/\text{GeV})\text{GeV}^2`$. We have verified that these conditions cannot be met in our model. On more general grounds, it is difficult to see how substantial amounts of annihilating DM could be obtained from any processes in the early Universe, given that the required cross section is so large, although it is clearly a quite interesting challenge to build concrete particle physics models that exhibit such features.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of us (O.B.) would like to thank L. Bettencourt, A. Krasnitz, L. Teodoro and M.S. Turner for discussions on the subject of this paper. R.R. would like to thank A. Natale and T. ter Veldhuis for discussions. R.R. is supported by CNPq (Brazil) and FAPESP (São Paulo). M.C.B. and O.B. acknowledge the partial support of FCT (Portugal) under the grant POCTI/1999/FIS/36285.