text:
# Hydrogen infrared recombination lines as a diagnostic tool for the geometry of the circumstellar material of hot starsBased on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA

## 1 Introduction

Hot massive stars are characterized by the presence of ionized circumstellar matter, which is in the majority of cases due to a stellar wind. The presence of this ionized gas is easily detected at ultraviolet wavelengths through P Cygni profiles of resonance lines of e.g. C iv, Si iv and N v, while at optical and infrared wavelengths free-bound and free-free continuum emission as well as H i recombination line radiation can be observed. Both the strength and the shape of the lines formed in the circumstellar gas are sensitive to the densities, velocities and the geometry of the gas. For instance, the P Cygni profiles in H$`\alpha `$ seen in hot stars with dense winds are indicative of a roughly spherical outflow whose terminal velocity can be derived from the blue edge of the absorption part of the profile (e.g. Castor & Lamers 1979). The ionized disks surrounding Be stars show a characteristic double-peaked emission line structure, and can be explained by almost Keplerian rotation with hardly any radial expansion (Struve 1933; Limber & Marlborough 1968). The situation is less clear in the case of the so-called B\[e\] stars, partly due to the mixed nature of the stars in this group (see Lamers et al. 1998). However, most of these stars are believed to be surrounded by a flattened envelope.

While the wind diagnostics at UV and optical wavelengths are well studied and an extensive literature exists, the situation is less well documented at infrared wavelengths. This is mostly due to the unavailability, until recently, of high quality infrared spectra. As infrared instrumentation becomes more sensitive, the stellar population of highly obscured regions becomes accessible, such as the galactic centre or star forming regions. Since traditional wind diagnostics are no longer usable in these regions, infrared observations must be used to characterize the stellar populations and their circumstellar matter.

In this *Letter*, we present a simple diagnostic diagram which allows one to constrain the geometry of the ionized part of the circumstellar envelope of hot stars by means of measuring line flux ratios in a few well-chosen H i recombination lines. We calibrate this new diagnostic tool using well-studied, and *optically bright* hot stars observed with the Short Wavelength Spectrometer (SWS, de Graauw et al. 1996) on board of the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO, Kessler et al. 1996). The ISO spectra we use were presented by Lenorzer et al. (2002).

This paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 we introduce the sample of stars and the observations; Sect. 3 discusses the line fluxes and the Hu(14-6)/Br$`\alpha `$ versus Hu(14-6)/Pf$`\gamma `$ diagram. Sect. 4 summarizes the results of this paper.

## 2 The sample of stars and the ISO spectra

The ISO database contains infrared spectra of a wide range of hot stars, observed in different programmes. In Lenorzer et al. (2002) a homogeneous sample of ISO-SWS hot star spectra is presented, and line fluxes are derived. We use the results of that study in the present analysis. All stars discussed here were observed in at least the 2.4-4.1 $`\mu `$m spectral region (band 1 of SWS; de Graauw et al. 1996). Fig. 1 displays representative spectra of the three classes of stars to which our diagnostic can be applied (i.e. Hu(14-6) can be measured): the Luminous Blue Variables (LBVs), the B\[e\] stars and the Be stars. Before discussing the ISO spectra, we briefly summarize the main properties of these three classes of objects.

*LBVs* are a rare class of hot massive post-main-sequence stars characterized by a dense ionized stellar wind ($`\dot{M}10^5`$M$`{}_{}{}^{}/`$yr) expanding at modest speed (v$`{}_{\mathrm{exp}}{}^{}=100300`$ km/s) (Humphreys & Davidson 1994). The LBVs show variability on a range of timescales and amplitudes, whose nature is not understood (e.g. van Genderen 2001). Recent high quality observations in the radio (Skinner et al. 1997) and in H$`\alpha `$ (Vakili et al. 1997 and Chesneau et al. 2000) show that the wind of P Cygni is variable and clumpy, however its overall geometry does not strongly differ from spherical. The near-IR spectrum of LBV’s is dominated by free-bound and free-free emission from the wind, as well as by strong recombination lines of H and He. Many LBVs also show forbidden lines indicative of an extended low-density region. LBVs are known for the presence of extended, mostly dusty nebulae that are the result of large mass ejection in the (recent) past.

*B\[e\]* stars are a poorly characterized class of hot stars surrounded by large amounts of ionized and neutral/molecular material. The luminosity class of B\[e\] stars can range from dwarf to supergiant. At infrared wavelengths, a large excess due to the presence of hot circumstellar dust is observed (e.g. Swings 1974); in addition, hot CO gas is detected in some stars (MgGregor et al. 1989). B\[e\] stars have prominent H i recombination lines and strong forbidden lines. Spectropolarimetric observations suggest that the circumstellar material is not distributed spherically symmetric, but rather disk-like (see e.g. Bjorkman et al. 1998).

*Be* stars are rapidly rotating B type dwarfs or giants that show, or have shown, H$`\alpha `$ emission. The H$`\alpha `$ line is often double-peaked and the line width scales with the projected rotational velocity of the photosphere (see e.g. Dachs et al. 1986). The infrared spectrum is dominated by a large excess due to ionized circumstellar gas of high density, as well as by strong H i (and, for the hottest Be stars, He i) recombination line emission. Interferometric, direct imaging as well as polarimetric observations show that the gas must be located in a highly flattened circumstellar disk (e.g. Quirrenbach et al. 1997). Be stars show no circumstellar dust (with only a few exceptions) and also lack molecular line emission and forbidden lines. These observations are consistent with the presence of high-density gas in a flattened disk.

In Fig. 1 we show three ISO-SWS spectra, of the LBV P Cygni, of the B\[e\] star HD 45677, and of the Be star $`\gamma `$ Cas, respectively (Lenorzer et al. 2002; see also Lamers et al. 1996a,b; Malfait et al. 1998, and Hony et al. 2000 for detailed discussions of the ISO data). The spectra have been continuum subtracted and normalized to the line integrated flux of Br$`\alpha `$ to facilitate comparision. The three spectra show a remarkable range in line flux behaviour. While the LBV shows very large line flux ratios between lines, the B\[e\] and Be stars do this to a much lesser extent. These observations suggest that if the line spectrum is mostly due to a stellar wind, the H i line fluxes roughly scale with the Einstein coefficients; this is much less the case in the B\[e\] and Be star, where lines of very different intrinsic strength show similar line fluxes. This behaviour suggests that optical depths effects are important. The optical depth being dependent on the density squared, the line ratios are mainly probing the density distribution of the circumstellar material. Moreover, in the optically thick case the line ratios are probing the dependence in emitting surface with the wavelength which is also a function of the density stratification. In addition, non-LTE effects may play a modest role, as discussed by Hony et al. (2000).

It must therefore be possible to infer the density of the circumstellar material from the H i IR recombination lines without resolving them. In Sect. 3, we will present a simple diagram which quantifies this density probe.

## 3 Line flux ratio diagnostic

Fig. 2 presents a diagram in which the line flux ratio of Hu(14-6)/Br$`\alpha `$ versus Hu(14-6)/Pf$`\gamma `$ is plotted for different types of emission line objects. The aim of this diagram is to provide a simple means to investigate the nature of circumstellar gas in highly obscured sources.

The diagram shows a clear trend in that both line flux ratios typically increase from LBV to B\[e\] to Be stars. This trend can be understood in terms of the span in mass absorption coefficient between Hu(14-6), Pf$`\gamma `$ and Br$`\alpha `$. In an optically thin medium one expects the plotted line flux ratios to follow Menzel Case B recombination theory. However, in an optically thick medium the plotted ratio becomes independent of mass absorption coefficient as the flux in any line is dominated by the size of the emitting surface. For optically thick lines the line flux ratio of two lines can be written as:

$$\frac{I_1}{I_2}=\frac{B(\nu _1,T)S_{\mathrm{eff},1}}{B(\nu _2,T)S_{\mathrm{eff},2}}$$
(1)
where B($`\nu `$,T) is the Planck function and Seff is the effective radiating surface in the line. If Seff is similar for both lines and the Rayleigh-Jeans approximation is applied, Eq. 1 reduces to: $`I_1/I_2=\nu _1^2/\nu _2^2`$.

This limit is indicated by a filled star in Fig. 2 and falls close to the locus of the Be stars. Note that we have assumed that the lines are in LTE and that the emitting medium is isothermal. Several Be stars deviate somewhat from the optically thick limit suggesting that there is a contribution from optically thin gas. This is to be expected since Be star disks can extend to 10-100 R and, depending on the density gradient in the disk, optically thin gas must contribute. Inclination may also play a role in that disks seen edge-on are expected to have a larger contribution from optically thin material than do disks seen face-on. Finally, it is known that disks of Be stars are of transient nature, their densities change with time, such that their position in the diagram is expected to vary more or less along the diagonal.

The locus of an optically thin isothermal gas emitting line radiation according to Menzel case B and for temperature greater than $`10^4`$ K is indicated by the dashed area in Fig. 2 (from Storey & Hummer 1995). This region is close to that of the LBVs, suggesting that the bulk of the line emission from these stars is due to optically thin gas. This may be expected, since the winds are rapidly expanding and the density decreases as r-2 or steeper (in the innermost regions). The high mass loss rate in a roughly spherical outflow causes a large emission measure and thus large line fluxes for the strongest lines, and a detectable signal even for the intrinsically much weaker lines.

The B\[e\] stars occupy a region in Fig. 2 which spans in between most of the Be and the LBV stars. If our interpretation of the line flux ratios in terms of densities is correct, this would imply that the B\[e\] stars have contributions from both optically thick and thin regions to the line flux. This is qualitatively consistent with the notion that B\[e\] stars have circumstellar disks (with high densities) but that the presence of forbidden line emission shows that an extended region of lower-density ionized gas must also be present. Perhaps the scale-height of the disks surrounding B\[e\] stars is larger, or their disk radii are larger compared to the Be stars.

It is interesting to discuss the location of some well-studied, enigmatic objects in Fig. 2. The LBV $`\eta `$ Car is located near the Menzel case B limit, suggesting that the wind dominates the line emission from this star, and not the extended nebula. Detailed non-LTE model calculations indeed show that the UV to near-IR spectrum of $`\eta `$ Car can be fitted well using a very dense wind (Hillier et al. 2001). The peculiar star MWC349 is also located near the case B limit, again suggesting that the lines are formed in an optically thin medium. Polarimetry of MWC349 however shows that a dusty disk is present (Yudin 1996), but this disk is not contributing significantly to the emission from the ionized gas. This is consistent with the observed radio continuum spectrum of MWC349, which has the canonical $`\nu ^{0.6}`$ slope expected for a spherically symmetric constant velocity wind (Rodriguez et al. 1986).

The example of MWC349 illustrates the care that needs to be taken when interpreting observations using our diagnostic diagram: stars close to the Menzel case B location may have a disk, however the H i lines are mainly not formed in the disk. The same care has to be taken when interpreting stars in the upper right corner of Fig. 2, where the line flux ratios are close to unity. For these, the conclusion must be that the lines are opaque and that the geometry of the main H i line emitting region is likely a disk. However, from the line flux ratio’s alone one can not exclude geometries other than a disk, such as an optically thick (expanding) shell. Note that one may likely distinguish between these different geometries using kinematic information from resolved line profiles.

In first order, both Pf$`\gamma `$ and Br$`\alpha `$ probe the emission measure of the gas. This explains why the stars are more-or-less concentrated around the diagonal. So, in principle one can do the analysis using only one of the two line ratios. However, both lines have a specific advantage. The pro of Br$`\alpha `$ is that it is the strongest line, while the advantage of Pf$`\gamma `$ is that it suffers less from possible contamination by nebular emission. Plotting the line fluxes relative to Hu(14-6), the strongest Humphreys series line in the L’-band, provides a better contrast between contributions from optically thin and thick material than does Br$`\alpha `$ relative to Pf$`\gamma `$. We note that if reddening is significant it will affect Hu(14-6)/Pf$`\gamma `$ by shifting it to the right in the diagram by about $`0.07\times \mathrm{log}(`$Hu(14-6)/Pf$`\gamma `$$`)`$ per magnitude of extinction. Hu(14-6)/Br$`\alpha `$ is not significantly affected as the wavelength separation between these two lines is very modest.

## 4 Conclusion

A considerable fraction of the massive stars of our galaxy is obscured by dust. Dust extinction is preventing us from using powerful criteria, developed at UV and optical wavelength ranges, to infer physical properties of hot stars. At wavelengths longwards of about 5 microns, emission from warm dust is typically dominating the spectra. It is therefore crucial to develop diagnostic tools in the near-infrared window in order to understand the nature and evolution of hot stars surrounded by dust, as it is the case, for instance, during the early stages of their lives in giant molecular clouds. The diagram presented in Fig. 2 provides such a tool. It gives a simple means to use line fluxes observed in the infrared L’ window to constrain aspects of the density and spatial distribution of circumstellar gas around hot stars which may greatly help identifying the nature of such obscured sources.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank S. Hony and C. Neiner for useful discussions, and B. Vandenbussche and P. Morris for invaluable help in obtaining and analysing the ISO observations. We acknowledge support from an NWO ’Pionier’ grant. This work was partly supported by NWO Spinoza grant 08-0 to E.P.J. van den Heuvel.


format: text

text:
# Phase Diagram of the Extended Hubbard Model with Pair Hopping Interaction

## I Introduction

The one dimensional (1D) extended Hubbard model with nearest-neighbor repulsion $`V`$, in addition to the on-site repulsion $`U`$ (hereafter $`UV`$ model) has been extensively studied during the last two decades as an important theoretical test-bed for studying low-dimensional strongly correlated electron systems with rich phase structures. Considerable attention has been focused on stuying of the ground state (GS) phase diagram of the $`UV`$ model at half-filling, using analytical studies and numerical simulations  The sketch of the phase diagram consists of a Mott insulating phase ($`U>2|V|`$) with dominating spin-density wave correlations, an insulating long-range-ordered (LRO) charge-density-wave (CDW) phase ($`2V>U>0`$), and metallic phases with dominating singlet (SS) and triplet (TS) superconducting correlations. In the physically most interesting region of repulsive interactions ($`U,V>0`$), the weak-coupling perturbative renormalization group studies  show that there is a continuous phase transition between SDW and CDW along the line $`U=2V`$. In the strong coupling limit ($`U,V>>1`$) the SDW-CDW transition is discontinuous (first order) and the phase boundary is slightly shifted away from the line $`U=2V`$ . Estimates for the location of the tricritical point, where the nature of the transition changes, have ranged from $`U_c1.5`$ to $`U_c5`$ (and $`V_cU_c/2`$).  Recently increased interest towards the $`UV`$ Hubbard model was triggered by Nakamura, who found numerically that for small to intermediate values of $`U`$ and $`V`$, the SDW and CDW phases are mediated by the bond-ordered charge-density-wave (BO-CDW) phase. The SDW-CDW transition splits into two separate transitions: (i) a Kosterlitz-Thouless spin gap transition from SDW to BO-CDW and (ii) a continuous transition from BO-CDW to CDW.

An analogous sequence of phase transitions in the vicinity of the $`U=2V`$ line is the intrinsic feature of extended $`UV`$ Hubbard models with bond-charge coupling . The bond located ordering in these models is directly connected with the site-off-diagonal nature of the bond-charge coupling. Models of correlated electrons with bond-charge coupling have currently attracted a great interest as models showing unconventional, “kinematical” mechanisms of superconducting correlations . Among the models with correlated “kinematics” models with pair-hopping interaction are the subject of current studies . In this paper we consider the ground state phase diagram of extended $`UV`$ Hubbard model supplemented with the pair hopping term. The Hamiltonian of the model is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{n,\sigma }{}}(c_{n,\sigma }^{}c_{n+1,\sigma }+c_{n+1,\sigma }^{}c_{n,\sigma })\mu {\displaystyle \underset{n,\sigma }{}}c_{n,\sigma }^{}c_{n,\sigma }`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U{\displaystyle \underset{n,\sigma }{}}\widehat{\rho }_{n,\sigma }\widehat{\rho }_{n,\sigma }+V{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\widehat{\rho }_n\widehat{\rho }_{n+1}`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`W{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(c_{n,}^{}c_{n,}^{}c_{n+1,}c_{n+1,}+h.c),`$ (3)
where $`\widehat{\rho }_{n,\sigma }=c_{n,\sigma }^{}c_{n,\sigma }`$, $`\widehat{\rho }_n=_\sigma \widehat{\rho }_{n,\sigma }`$, and $`c_{n,\sigma }^{}`$ ($`c_{n,\sigma }`$) denotes the creation (annihilation) operator for an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ at site $`n`$. In Eq. (3), $`t`$ and $`\mu `$ denote the hopping integral and the chemical potential respectively, with $`U`$ being the on-site Coulomb-Hubbard repulsion and $`V`$ the intersite interaction. $`W`$ is the pair hopping interaction.

It is notable that the $`U`$, $`V`$, and $`W`$ terms could be obtained from the same general tight-binding Hamiltonian  by focusing on a selected term of the two-particle interaction. The sign of the Coulomb-driven coupling constants is typically repulsive $`U,V,W>0`$, and usually $`WU,V`$. However, below we will treat these parameters as the effective (phenomenological) ones, assuming that they include all the possible renormalizations, and their values and signs could be arbitrary.

Interest in models with pair-hopping coupling comes from the unusual mechanisms of Cooper pairing provided by this interaction. In the absence of the on-site and nearest-neighbor couplings ($`U=V=0`$), the model Eq. (3) reduces to the Penson-Kolb (PK) model . The PK model is possible the simplest model which captures the essential physics of an electron system showing the $`\eta `$-superconductivity in the ground state. In the $`\eta `$-paired state, the eigenstates of the correlated electrons are constructed exclusively in terms of doublon (on-site singlet pair) creation operators . We consider two different realizations of the $`\eta `$-paired state, constructed in terms of zero size Cooper pairs with center-of-mass momentum equal to zero ($`\eta _0`$-pairing) and $`\pi `$ ($`\eta _\pi `$-pairing), respectively.

In the case of an “attractive” ($`W<0`$) pair-hopping interaction the PK model describes a continuous evolution of the usual BCS type superconducting state at $`\left|U\right|,\left|W\right|t`$ into a local pair $`\eta _0`$-superconducting state at $`\left|W\right|/t\mathrm{}`$ . In the case of repulsive ($`W>0`$) pair-hopping interaction, in contrast, the transition into the $`\eta _\pi `$-paired state takes place at finite $`W_c`$ and is of first order (level-crossing type) .

In this paper we address the question, whether the pair-hopping coupling could lead to the superconducting ordering in the physically most relevant region of parameters $`U,VW>0`$. In this communication we present the weak-coupling ground state phase diagram of the model Eq. (3). As we show in this paper, the “attractive” ($`W>0`$) pair-hopping coupling enlarges the region of coupling constant corresponding to the metallic phase with dominating SS and TS instabilities. However, in the repulsive sector of the phase diagram, along the line $`U=2V>0`$, only the insulating LRO BO-CDW phase, is realized at $`|U2V|<|W|`$. In the case of a “repulsive” ($`W>0`$) pair-hopping coupling, the BO-SDW phase corresponding to a bond located staggered magnetization is together with the $`CDW`$ the most divergent instability in the system. We also present quantitative arguments in favour of an additional phase transition at $`W4t`$ from the insulating BO-SDW to the $`\eta _\pi `$-superconducting phase.

The outline of the paper is as follows: In section II we present the continuum limit bosonized version of the model. In section III we discuss the weak coupling phase diagram. Section IV is devoted to a discussion of the ground state phase diagram and a summary.

## II Continuum limit theory and bosonization.

In this section we derive the low-energy effective field theory of the lattice model Eq. (1) at half-filling. Considering the weak-coupling case $`|U|,|V|,|W|t`$ , we linearize the spectrum and pass to the continuum limit by use of the mapping

$$a_0^{1/2}c_{n,\sigma }i^nR_\sigma (x)+(i)^nL_\sigma (x).$$
(4)
Here $`x=na_0`$, $`a_0`$ is the lattice spacing, and $`R_\sigma (x)`$ and $`L_\sigma (x)`$ describe right-moving and left-moving particles, respectively. These fields can be bosonized in a standard way :

$`R_\sigma (x)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi a_0)^{1/2}e^{i\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{R,\sigma }(x)},`$ (5)
$`L_\sigma (x)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi a_0)^{1/2}e^{i\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{L,\sigma }(x)},`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{R(L),\sigma }(x)`$ are the right (left) moving Bose fields. We define $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma =\mathrm{\Phi }_{R,\sigma }+\mathrm{\Phi }_{L,\sigma }`$ and introduce linear combinations, $`\phi _c=(\mathrm{\Phi }_{}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{})/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\phi _s=(\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{})/\sqrt{2}`$, to describe the charge and spin degrees of freedom, respectively. Then, after a rescaling of fields and lengths, we rewrite the bosonized version of the Hamiltonian (3) in terms of two decoupled quantum SG theories, $`=_c+_s`$, where

$`_{c(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dx\{{\displaystyle \frac{v_{c(s)}}{2}}[(_x\phi _{c(s)})^2+(_x\vartheta _{c,(s)})^2]`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{c(s)}}{\pi a_0^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{8\pi K_{c(s)}}\phi _c(x)\right)\}.`$ (8)
Here $`\theta _{c(s)}(x)`$ are the dual counterparts of the fields $`\varphi _{c(s)}(x)`$: $`_x\theta _{c(s)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{c(s)}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{c(s)}`$ is the momentum conjugate to the field $`\varphi _{c(s)}`$. Here we have defined

$`K_c`$ $`=`$ $`(1g_c)^{1/2}1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_c,m_c={\displaystyle \frac{g_u}{2\pi }},`$ (9)
$`K_s`$ $`=`$ $`(1g_s)^{1/2}1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_s,m_s={\displaystyle \frac{g_{}}{2\pi }},`$ (10)
$`v_{c(s)}=v_FK_{c(s)}^1`$ are the velocities of the charge and spin excitations, $`v_F=2ta_0(1W/\pi t)`$, and the small dimensionless coupling constants are given by

$`g_s=g_{}`$ $`=`$ $`(U2V+2W)/\pi v_F,`$ (11)
$`g_c`$ $`=`$ $`(U+6V+2W)/\pi v_F,`$ (12)
$`g_u`$ $`=`$ $`(U2V2W)/\pi v_F.`$ (13)
The relation between $`K_c`$ ($`K_s`$), $`m_c`$ ($`m_s`$), and $`g_c`$ ($`g_s`$), $`g_u`$ ($`g_{}`$) is universal in the weak coupling limit.

In obtaining (8) the strongly irrelevant term $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{8\pi K_c}\phi _c)\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{8\pi K_s}\phi _s)`$ describing umklapp scattering processes with parallel spins was omitted. The mapping of the Hamiltonian (3) onto the quantum theory of two independent charge and spin Bose fields, allows a study of the ground state phase diagram of the initial electron system using the far-infrared properties of the bosonic Hamiltonians (8). Depending on the relation between the bare coupling constants $`K`$ and $`m`$ the infrared behavior of the quantum SG field exhibits two different regimes :

For $`\left|m\right|2(K1)`$ we are in the weak coupling regime; the effective mass $`M0`$. The low energy (large distance) behavior of the gapless charge (spin) excitations is described by a free scalar field. The corresponding correlations show a power law decay

$`e^{i\sqrt{2\pi K^{}}\phi (x)}e^{i\sqrt{2\pi K^{}}\phi (x^{})}`$ $``$ $`\left|xx^{}\right|^K^{},`$ (14)
$`e^{i\sqrt{2\pi /K^{}}\theta (x)}e^{i\sqrt{2\pi /K^{}}\theta (x^{})}`$ $``$ $`\left|xx^{}\right|^{1/K^{}},`$ (15)
and the only parameter controlling the infrared behavior in the gapless regime is the fixed-point value of the effective coupling constants $`K_{c(s)}^{}`$.

For $`\left|m\right|>2(K1)`$ the system scales to a strong coupling regime: Depending on the sign of the bare mass $`m`$, the effective mass $`M\pm \mathrm{}`$, which signals the crossover into a strong coupling regime and indicates the dynamical generation of a commensurability gap in the excitation spectrum. The field $`\phi _{c(s)}`$ gets ordered with the vacuum expectation values

$$\phi _{c(s)}=\{\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\pi /8K_{c(s)}}(m>0)\hfill \\ 0(m<0)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(16)
The ordering of these fields determines the symmetry properties of the possible ordered ground states of the fermionic system.

Using Eqs. (11)-(13) and (16), one easily finds that there is a gap in the spin excitation spectrum $`(M_s\mathrm{}`$) for

$$U2V+2W<0.$$

In this sector of coupling constants, the $`\phi _s`$ field gets ordered with vacuum expectation value $`\phi _s=0`$. At $`U2V+2W0`$ the spin excitations are gapless and the low-energy properties = of the spin sector are described by the free Bose field system with the fixed-point value of the parameter $`K_s^{}=1`$.

The charge sector is gapped for

$$U>\mathrm{max}\{2V+2W,2|V|\}$$

and for

$$U<2V+2W\text{but}\text{ }2V+W>0.$$

In the former case $`M_c\mathrm{}`$ and the vacuum expectation value of the charge field $`\phi _s=0`$, while in the latter case $`M_c\mathrm{}`$ and $`\phi _s=\sqrt{\pi /8K_c}`$.

In the sectors of coupling constants corresponding to the gapless charge excitation spectrum the properties of the charge degrees of freedom are described by the free Bose field

$$_c=\frac{v_c}{2}\left[K_c^{}(_x\phi _c)^2+\frac{1}{K_c^{}}(_x\vartheta _c)^2\right],$$

with the fixed-point value of the parameter

$$K_c^{}1+\sqrt{2(U+2V)(W+2V)}/\pi v_F.$$
(17)
Especially important is the line $`U=2V+2W`$ corresponding to the fixed-point line $`m_c=0,K_c1<0`$. Here the infrared properties of the gapless charge sector are described by a free massless Bose field with the bare value of the Luttinger liquid parameter $`K_c`$.

To clarify the symmetry properties of the ground states of the system in different sectors we introduce the following set of order parameters describing the short wavelength fluctuations of the

$``$ site-located charge and spin density:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{CDW}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^n{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\rho _{n,\sigma }`$ (18)
$``$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2\pi K_c}\phi _c)\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2\pi K_s}\phi _s)`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SDW}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^n{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\sigma \rho _{n,\sigma }`$ (20)
$``$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2\pi K_c}\phi _c)\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2\pi K_s}\phi _s),`$ (21)
$``$ bond-located charge–density:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{BOCDW}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^n{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}(c_{n,\sigma }^{}c_{n+1,\sigma }+h.c.)`$ (22)
$``$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2\pi K_c}\phi _c)\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2\pi K_s}\phi _s)`$ (23)
$``$ The bond-located spin–density:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{BOSDW}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^n{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\sigma (c_{n,\sigma }^{}c_{n+1,\sigma }+h.c.)`$ (24)
$``$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2\pi K_c}\phi _c)\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2\pi K_s}\phi _s).`$ (25)
In addition we consider two superconducting order parameters corresponding to the

$``$ singlet and triplet superconductivity:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SS}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{}^{}(x)L_{}^{}(x)R_{}^{}(x)L_{}^{}(x)`$ (26)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{K_c}}}\theta _c)\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2\pi K_s}\phi _s),`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{TS}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{}^{}(x)L_{}^{}(x)+R_{}^{}(x)L_{}^{}(x)`$ (28)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{K_c}}}\theta _c)\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2\pi K_s}\phi _s).`$ (29)
## III Weak-coupling phase diagram

With these results for the excitation spectrum and the behavior of the corresponding fields, Eqs. (14)-(16), we now discuss the weak-coupling ground state phase diagram of the model (3). Below we will focus on the new phases appearing in the phase-diagram due to the effect of the pair-hopping coupling. The phase diagram consists of 5 sectors (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Sectors $`A,B,C1,C2`$ are present in the phase diagram of the $`UV`$ Hubbard model .

Sector A

* $`U>\mathrm{max}\{2V+2W,2|V|\}`$,

corresponds to the ordinary Mott insulating phase: The charge excitation spectrum is gapped, the spin sector is gapless. The ordering of the field $`\phi _c`$ with vacuum expectation value $`\phi _c=0`$ leads to a supression of the superconducting, CDW, and BO-SDW correlations. The SDW and Dimer correlations show a power-law decay at large distances

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SDW}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{SDW}(x^{})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{BOCDW}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{BOCDW}(x^{})`$ (30)
$``$ $`\left|xx^{}\right|^1.`$ (31)
Sector B

* $`U<2V2|W|`$ and $`2V+W>0`$

corresponds to the long-range ordered CDW insulating phase. The charge and spin excitations are gapped. The fields $`\phi _{c(s)}`$ get ordered with vacuum expectation values $`\phi _s=0`$ and $`\phi _c=\sqrt{\pi /8K_c}`$ , and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{CDW}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{CDW}(x^{})\mathrm{constant}.$$
(32)
Sector C1

* $`U<\mathrm{min}\{2V2W;2V\}\text{and}2V+W<0`$

corresponds to the Singlet Superconducting (SS) phase. There a gap exists in the spin excitation spectrum and the spin field is ordered with $`\phi _s=0`$. The charge excitation spectrum is gapless with the fixed point walue of the parameter $`K_c^{}>1`$. The SDW, BO-SDW, and the TS instabilities are suppressed. The CDW, BO-SDW, and the SS instabilities show a power-law decay at large distancesr. However since $`K_c^{}>1`$ the SS instability

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{SS}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{SS}(x^{})\left|xx^{}\right|^{1/K_c}$$
(33)
dominates in the ground state.

Sector C2

* $`2|V|<U<2V2W\text{and}2V+W<0`$

corresponds to the Luttinger liquid phase with dominating superconducting instabilities. None of the conditions of charge and spin gap is satisfied here. In this sector, the system shows the properties of a Luttinger liquid with dominating superconducting instabilities TS and SS. The singlet superconducting and triplet superconducting correlations show the same power law decay at large distances and the TS instability dominates because of the weak logarithmic corrections.

Finally we analyze the sectors describing the new phases. These new phases essentially appear along the SDW-CDW transition line $`U=2V>0`$ of the $`UV`$ Hubbard model. In the weak-coupling limit, the transition from the Mott insulating phase at $`U>2V`$ to the CDW insulator at $`U<2V`$ is mediated by the Luttinger liquid phase with gapless spin and charge excitations. AT $`U=2V`$ the Mott insulator charge gap closes and at $`U2V<0`$ the charge and the spin gap opens simultaneously. In the very presence of the pair-hopping interaction, the SDW-CDW transition splits into two transitions: Along the line $`U=2V2W`$ the spin gap opens, while at $`U=2V+2W`$ the Mott insulator charge gap closes, and for $`U<2V+2W`$ the CDW charge gap opens. In the case of an attractive pair-hopping interaction $`W<0`$ (Fig. 1) the spin gap opens in the presence of a Mott insulator charge gap. Therefore, in sector D

* $`|U2V|<2|W|2V+W>0`$,

the charge and spin channels are gapped and both, charge and spin fields are ordered, $`\phi _c=\phi _s=0`$. In this case the long-range ordered $`BOW`$ phase

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{BOCDW}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{BOCDW}(x^{})\mathrm{constant}$$
(34)
is realized in the ground state.

In the case of a repulsive pair-hopping coupling $`W>0`$ (Fig. 2), the transition within the charge degrees of freedom, takes place before the spin gap opens. Therefore, in sector D1

* $`|U2V|<2|W|\text{and}U+2V>0`$,

the generation of a gap in the charge excitation spectrum, accompanied by the ordering of the field $`\phi _c`$ with vacuum expectation value $`\phi _c=\sqrt{\pi /8K_c}`$ , leads to a supression of the superconducting, SDW, and BO-CDW ordering. The CDW and BO-SDW correlations show a power-law decay at large distances

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{CDW}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{CDW}(x^{})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{BOSDW}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{BOSDW}(x^{})`$ (35)
$``$ $`\left|xx^{}\right|^1.`$ (36)
Therefore, this sector of the phase diagram corresponds to the insulating phase with coexisting CDW and BO-SDW instabilities.

Let us now discuss the $`\eta _\pi `$-superconducting phase. In models with “kinematical” mechanisms of Cooper pairing, transition to an $`\eta `$-paired phase is typically the finite-bandwidth phenomenon . In the case of pair-hopping interaction, the transition point is determined by the competition between the single-electron and doublon delocalization energies. After the transition the contribution of the one-electron hopping term to the ground state energy almost vanishes and the ground state energy is determined by the created strongly correlated two-particle $`\eta _\pi `$-pair band . Simultanously, after the transition the spin gap opens in the system while the charge gap (at half-filling) closes . In the case of the PK model the transition point $`W_c(U=V=0)1.8t`$ , while in the case of the on-site Hubbard repulsion, $`W_c(V=0)1.8t+\alpha U`$, where $`\alpha `$ is of the order of unity . In both cases the insulating CDW +(BO-SDW) phase is unstable toward transition to the $`\eta _\pi `$-superconducting state . Due to the finite-bandwidth nature of the transition to a $`\eta _\pi `$-paired state, it could not be consistently studied within the continuum-limit (infinite band) approach. Nevertheless, the existence of a transition is clearly traced in the additive renormalization of the Fermi velocity (bandwidth) by the pair-hopping term $`v_F=2ta_0(1W/\pi t)`$. In the narrow stripe along the frustration line $`|U2V|W`$, the effects of the on-site and nearest-neighbor repulsion cancel each other. The dimensionless coupling constants controlling the spin degrees of freedom (11) are exactly the same as in the case of the PK model. Therefore we conclude that along the frustration line $`U=2V`$ an additional phase transition with increasing $`W`$ from the BO-SDW to the $`\eta _\pi `$-superconducting takes place with $`W_cW_c(U=V=0)2t`$. Numerical studies of this sector of the phase diagram are currently in progress and will be published elsewhere.

## IV Discussion and summary

To summarize, we have presented the weak-coupling ground state phase diagram for 1D extended $`UV`$ Hubbard with pair-hopping in the case of a half-filled band. We have shown that the model has a very rich phase diagram which includes the singlet-superconducting phase, a metallic phase with dominating SS and TS instabilities and four different insulating phases corresponding to the Mott antiferromagnet, the CDW insulator, the bond-ordered CDW and the bond-ordered SDW phase. In addition, we argued for the existence of a phase transition to the $`\eta _\pi `$-superconducting phase within the narrow stripe at $`|U2V|2tW`$.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

GIJ gratefully acknowledges the kind hospitality at the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems where part of this work has been done. He also acknowledges support by INTAS-Georgia grant N 97-1340. SS would like to thanks Marco Ameduri for a critical reading of the manuscript.


text:
# Hidden Mass Hierarchy in QCD

## 1 Introduction

The monopole condensation is one of the most favored mechanisms  of the confinement, for review see, e.g., . In the field theoretical language, one usually thinks in terms of a Higgs-type model:

$$S_{eff}=d^4x\left(|D_\mu \varphi |^2+\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^2+V(|\varphi |^2)\right)$$
(1)
where $`\varphi `$ is a scalar field with a non-zero magnetic charge, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the field strength tensor constructed on the dual-gluon field $`B_\mu `$, $`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the dual gluon. Finally, $`V(|\varphi |^2)`$ is the potential energy ensuring that $`<\varphi >0`$ in the vacuum. Relation of the “effective” fields $`\varphi ,B_\mu `$ to the fundamental QCD fields is one of the basic problems of the approach considered but here we would simply refer the reader to Ref.  for further discussion of this problem. At this moment, it suffices to say that the “dual-superconductor” mechanism of confinement assumes formation of an Abrikosov-type tube between the heavy quarks introduced into the vacuum via the Wilson loop while the tube itself is a classical solution of the equations of motion corresponding to the effective Lagrangian (1).

By introducing scalar fields, one opens a door to the standard questions on the consistency, on the quantum level, of a $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ theory. Here, we mean primarily the problem of the quadratic divergence in the scalar mass. At first sight, these problems are not serious in our case since (1) apparently represents an effective theory presumably valid for a limited range of mass scales.

However, if we ask ourselves, what are the actual limitations on the use of the effective theory (1) we should admit that there is no way at the moment to answer this question on pure theoretical grounds and we should turn instead to the experimental data, that is lattice measurements. This lack of understanding concerns first of all the nature of the non-perturbative field configurations that are defined as monopoles. First, it is not clear apriori which $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the $`SU(2)`$ 111for simplicity we will confine ourselves to the case of $`SU(2)`$ as the color group. is to be picked up for the classification of the monopoles. Even if we make this choice on pure pragmatic basis and concentrate on the most successful scheme of the monopoles in the maximal Abelian projection  we still get very little understanding of the field configurations underlying the objects defined as monopoles in this projection, for discussion see, e.g., . In particular, nothing can be said on the size of the monopole which presumably limits application of (1) on the ultraviolet side.

Direct measurements of the monopole size were reported recently  and brought an unexpectedly small value of the monopole radius:

$$R_{mon}0.06\mathrm{fm},$$
(2)
where the monopole radius is defined here in terms of the full non-Abelian action associated with the monopole and not in terms of the projected action. If we compare the radius (2) with the temperature of the confinement-deconfinement transition:

$$T_{deconf}300\mathrm{MeV}$$
(3)
then we would come to the conclusion that there are different mass scales coexisting within the effective scalar-field theory (1). And the question, how this mass hierarchy is maintained is becoming legitimate.

Although comparison of (2) and (3) is instructive by itself, we will argue that the actual hierarchy mass scale can be much higher on the ultraviolet side. Namely, we will emphasize later that even at the size (2) the monopoles are very “hot”, i.e. have action comparable to the action of the zero-point fluctuations. For physical interpretation, it is natural to understand by the radius such distances where the non-perturbative fields die away on the scale of pure perturbative fluctuations. And this radius is to be considerably smaller than (2).

Also, estimate (2) means that the asymptotic freedom is not yet reached at quite small distances and the question arises as to how reconcile this observation with such phenomena as the precocious scaling.

We cannot claim at all understanding answers to these questions but feel that it is important to start discussing them. Our approach is mostly phenomenological and we are trying to formulate which measurements could help to find answers to the puzzles outlined above. The theoretical framework which we are using is mainly the polymer approach to the scalar field theory, see, e.g., Refs. .

## 2 Monopole condensation: overview of the theory

### 2.1 Compact $`U(1)`$

The show case of the monopole condensation is the compact $`U(1)`$ . The crucial role of the compactness is to ensure that the Dirac string does not cost energy (for a review see, e.g., ). The monopole self energy reduces then to the energy associated with the radial magnetic field $`𝐁`$. The self energy is readily seen to diverge linearly in the ultraviolet:

$$M_{mon}(a)=\frac{1}{8\pi }𝐁^2d^3r\frac{c}{8e^2}\frac{1}{a},$$
(4)
where $`c`$ is a constant, $`a`$ is the lattice spacing, $`e`$ is the electric charge and the magnetic charge is 222The notation $`g`$ is reserved for the non-Abelian coupling, the magnetic coupling is denoted as $`g_m`$. $`g_m=1/2e`$. Thus, the monopoles are infinitely heavy and, at first sight, this precludes any condensation since the probability to find a monopole trajectory of the length $`L`$ is suppressed as

$$\mathrm{exp}(S)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{c}{e^2}\frac{L}{a}\right).$$
(5)
Note that the constant $`c`$ depends on the details of the lattice regularization but can be found explicitly in any particular case.

However, there is an exponentially large enhancement factor due to the entropy. Namely, trajectory of the length $`L`$ can be realized on a cubic lattice in $`N_L=7^{L/a}`$ various ways. Indeed, the monopole occupies center of a cube and the trajectory consists of $`L/a`$ steps. At each step the trajectory can be continued to an adjacent cube. In four dimensions there are 8 such cubes. However, one of them has to be excluded since the monopole trajectory is non-backtracking. Thus the entropy factor,

$$N_L=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{ln}7\frac{L}{a}\right),$$
(6)
cancels the suppression due to the action (5) if the coupling $`e^2`$ satisfies the condition

$$e_{crit}^2=c/\mathrm{ln}71,$$
(7)
where we quote the numerical value of $`e_{crit}^2`$ for the Wilson action and cubic lattice. At $`e_{crit}^2`$ any monopole trajectory length $`L`$ is allowed and the monopoles condense.

This simple theory works within about one percent accuracy in terms of $`e_{crit}^2`$ . Note that the energy-entropy balance above does not account for interaction with the neighboring monopoles.

### 2.2 Monopole cluster in the field-theoretical language

The derivation of the previous subsection implies that the monopole condensation occurs when the monopole action is ultraviolet divergent. On the other hand, the onset of the condensation in the standard field theoretical language corresponds to the zero mass of the magnetically charged field $`\varphi `$. It is important to emphasize that this apparent mismatch between the two languages is not specific for the monopoles at all. Actually, there is a general kinematic relation between the physical mass of a scalar field $`m_{phys}^2`$ and the mass $`M`$ defined in terms of the (Euclidean) action, $`MS/L`$ where $`L`$ is the length of the trajectory and $`S`$ is the corresponding action 333It is worth emphasizing that the results of the lattice measurements are commonly expressed in terms of Higgs masses and interaction constants, see . However, these masses are obtained without subtracting the ln7 term (compare Eq (8)) and, to our belief, are not the physical mass for this reason. Where by the physical masses we understand the masses in the continuum limit. In particular, the physical masses determine the shape of the Abrikosov-like string confining the heavy quarks.:

$$m_{phys}^2aM\frac{\mathrm{ln}7}{a},$$
(8)
where terms of higher order in $`ma`$ are omitted. Here by $`m_{phys}^2`$ we understand the mass entering the propagator of a free particle,

$$D(p^2,m_{phys}^2)(p^2+m_{phys}^2)^1,$$

where $`p^2`$ is either Euclidean or Minkowskian momentum squared.

In view of the crucial role of the Eq. (8) for our discussion, let us reiterate the statement. We consider propagator of a free scalar particle in terms of the path integral:

$$D(x_i,x_f)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{paths}exp(S_{cl}(path)),$$
(9)
where for the classical action associated with the path we would like to substitute simply the action of a point-like classical particle, $`S_{cl}=ML`$ where $`M`$ is the mass of the particle and $`L`$ is the length of the path. Then we learn that there is no such representation (with replacement of $`S_{cl}`$ by $`iS_{cl}`$)) for the propagator of a relativistic particle in the Minkowski space because of the backward-in-time motions 444I am indebted to L. Stodolsky for an illuminating discussions on this topic.. However, in the Euclidean space the representation (9) works. The physical mass is, however, gets renormalized compared to $`M`$ according to (8).

Derivation of the Eq (8) is in textbooks 555 Actually, one finds mostly $`\mathrm{ln}2D\mathrm{ln}8`$ instead of $`\mathrm{ln}7`$. We do think that $`\mathrm{ln}7`$ is the correct number but in fact this difference is not important for further discussion. , see, e.g., . The central point is that the action for a point-like particle in the Euclidean space looks exactly the same as that of a non-interacting polymer with a non-vanishing chemical potential for the constituent atoms. The transition from the polymer to the field theoretical language is common in the statistical physics (see, e.g., ). The first applications to the monopole physics are due to the authors in Ref. . For the sake of completeness we reproduce here the main points crucial for our discussion later. Mostly, we follow the second paper in Ref. .

The scalar particle trajectory represented as a random walk and the corresponding partition function is:

$`Z={\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x\underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{N}e^{\mu N}Z_N(x,x)},`$ (10)
where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential and $`Z_N(x_0,x_f)`$ is the partition function of a polymer broken into $`N`$ segments:

$$Z_N(x_0,x_f)=\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{d}^4x_i\right]\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\frac{\delta (|x_ix_{i1}|a)}{2\pi ^2a^3}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}gV(x_i)\right\}.$$
(11)
This partition function represents a summation over all atoms of the polymer weighted by the Boltzmann factors. The $`\delta `$–functions in (11) ensure that each bond in the polymer has length $`a`$. The starting point of the polymer (11) is $`x_0`$ and the ending point is $`x_fx_N`$.

In the limit $`a0`$ the partition function (11) can be treated analogously to a Feynman integral. The crucial step is the coarse–graining: the $`N`$–sized polymer is divided into $`m`$ units by $`n`$ atoms ($`N=mn`$), and the limit is considered when both $`m`$ and $`n`$ are large while $`a`$ and $`\sqrt{n}a`$ are small. We get,

$$\underset{i=\nu n}{\overset{(\nu +1)n1}{}}\frac{1}{2\pi ^2a^3}\delta (|x_ix_{i+1}|a)\left(\frac{2}{\pi na^2}\right)^2\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2}{na^2}(x_{(\nu +1)n}x_{\nu n})^2\right\},$$
(12)
where the index $`i`$, $`i=\nu n\mathrm{}(\nu +1)n1`$, labels the atoms in $`\nu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ unit. The polymer partition function becomes :

$`Z_N(x_0,x_f)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{const}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{m1}{}}}\mathrm{d}^4x\right]\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi na^2}}\right)^{2m}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(x_\nu x_{\nu 1})^2}{na^2}}\right\}\right]`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{m}{}}}n(\mu +V(x_\nu ))\right\}.`$
The $`x_i`$’s have been re-labeled so that $`x_\nu `$ is the average value of $`x`$ in at the coarser cell. Using the variables:

$$s=\frac{1}{8}na^2\nu ,\tau =\frac{1}{8}a^2N,m_0^2=\frac{8\mu }{a^2},$$
(14)
one can rewrite the partition function (10) as

$$Z=\mathrm{const}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau }\underset{x(0)=x(\tau )=x}{}Dx\mathrm{exp}\{\underset{0}{\overset{\tau }{}}[\frac{1}{4}\dot{x}_\mu ^2(s)+m_0^2+g_0V(x(s))]\mathrm{d}s\}.$$
(15)
The next step is to rewrite the integral over trajectories $`x(\tau )`$ as the standard path integral representation for a free scalar field. For us it is important only that the $`m_0^2`$ term in the Eq. (15) is becoming the standard mass term in the field theoretical language:

$`𝒵`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{M=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M!}}Z^M`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{const}{\displaystyle D\varphi \mathrm{exp}\left\{\mathrm{d}^4x\left[(_\mu \varphi )^2+m_0^2\varphi ^2+g_0V(x)\varphi ^2\right]\right\}}.`$
The whole machinery can be easily generalized to the case of charged particles (monopoles) with Coulomb-like interactions.

### 2.3 Monopole condensation in non-Abelian case: expectations

If we try to adjust the lessons from the compact $`U(1)`$ to the non-Abelian case then the good news is that, indeed, all the $`U(1)`$ subgroups of the color $`SU(2)`$ are compact. Moreover, dynamics of any subgroup of the $`SU(2)`$ is governed by the same running coupling $`g^2(r)`$. Thus, we could hope that the following simple picture might work: if the lattice spacing $`a`$ is small we would not see monopoles because $`g^2(a)`$ falls below $`e_{crit}^2`$. However, going to a coarser lattice a la Wilson we come to the point where $`g^2(a^2)e_{crit}^2`$. Then we apply the entropy-energy balance which works so well in case of the compact $`U(1)`$ and conclude that the monopoles of a critical size $`a_{crit}`$ such that $`g^2(a_{crit})1`$ condense in the QCD vacuum.

This simple picture is open, however, to painful questions. First, monopoles are defined topologically within a $`U(1)`$ subgroup 666Note that a $`SU(2)`$-invariant definition of the monopoles is also possible . However, their dynamical characteristics have not beeen measured yet and such monopoles are not considered here.. However, it is only the $`U(1)`$ invariant action which has a non-vanishing minimum for a $`U(1)`$ topologically non-trivial object. There is no relation, generally speaking, between the full non-Abelian action and a $`U(1)`$-subgroup topology. As an illustration of this general rule, consider  the field configuration generated from the vacuum by the following gauge rotation matrix:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\phi }\sqrt{A_D}& \sqrt{1A_D}\\ \sqrt{1A_D}& e^{i\phi }\sqrt{A_D}\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
where $`\phi `$ is the angle of rotation around the axis connecting the monopoles and $`A_D`$ is the $`U(1)`$ potential representing pure Abelian monopole – antimonopole pair:

$$A_\mu dx_\mu =\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{z_+}{r_+}\frac{z_{}}{r_{}}\right)d\phi A_D(z,\rho )d\phi ,$$
(18)
where $`z_\pm =z\pm R/2`$, $`\rho ^2=x^2+y^2`$, $`r_\pm ^2=z_\pm ^2+\rho ^2`$. The action associated with the $`A_\mu ^a`$ generated in this way is vanishing since it is a pure gauge. In its Abelian part, however, the configuration looks as a Dirac string with open ends and monopoles at the end points. It is the “charged” vector fields which cancel the contribution to the non-Abelian field strength tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ coming from the “neutral” field (for details see ).

Therefore, there is no reason, at least at first sight, for the saturation of the functional integral at the classical solution with infinite action, see (4). This observation brings serious doubts on the validity of our simple dynamical picture.

## 3 Monopoles, as they are seen

### 3.1 Monopole dominance

On the background of the theoretical turmoil, the data on the monopoles indicate a very simple and solid picture. We will constrain ourselves to the monopoles in the so called Maximal Abelian gauge and the related projection (MAP). We just mention some facts, a review and further references can be found, e.g., in Ref. .

Since the monopoles of the non-Abelian theory are expected to actually be $`U(1)`$ objects one first uses the gauge freedom to bring the non-Abelian fields as close to the Abelian ones as possible. The gauge is defined by maximization of a functional which in the continuum limit corresponds to $`R(\widehat{A})`$ where

$$R(\widehat{A})=d^4x\left[(A_\mu ^1)^2+(A_\mu ^2)^2\right]$$
(19)
where $`1,2`$ are color indices.

As the next step, one projects the non-Abelian fields generated on the lattice into their Abelian part, essentially, by putting $`A^{1,2}0`$. In this Abelian projection one defines the monopole currents $`k_\mu `$ for each field configuration. Note that the original configurations which are used for a search of the monopoles are generated within the full non-Abelian theory. Upon performing the projection one can introduce also the corresponding Abelian, or projected action.

The relation of the monopoles to the confinement is revealed through evaluation of the Wilson loop for the quarks in the fundamental representation. Namely it turns out, first, that the string tension in the Abelian projection is close to the string tension in the original $`SU(2)`$ theory :

$$\sigma _{U(1)}\sigma _{SU(2)}.$$
(20)
Moreover, one can define also the string tension which arises due to the monopoles alone. To this end, one calculates the field created by a monopole current:

$$A_\mu ^{mon}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\underset{y}{}\mathrm{\Delta }^1(xy)_\nu m_{\alpha \beta }[y;k],$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$ is the inverse Laplacian, and sums up (numerically) over the Dirac surface, $`m[k]`$, spanned on the monopole currents $`k`$. The resulting string tension is again close to that of the un-projected theory:

$$\sigma _{mon}\sigma _{SU(2)}.$$
(22)
It might worth mentioning that these basic features remain also true upon inclusion of the dynamical fermions in $`SU(3)`$ case (full lattice QCD) .

### 3.2 Gauge-invariant properties of the monopoles.

Despite of the apparent gauge-dependence of the monopoles introduced within the MAP, they encode gauge-invariant information. In particular, we would mention two points: scaling of the monopole density and full non-Abelian action associated with the monopoles.

According to the measurements (see  and references therein) the monopole density $`\rho _{mon}`$ in three-dimensional volume (that is, at any given time) is given in the physical units. In other words, the density scales according to the renormgroup as a quantity of dimension 3. Numerically:

$$\rho _{mon}=0.65(2)(\sigma _{SU(2)})^{3/2}.$$
(23)
One important remark is in order here. While discussing the monopole density one should distinguish between what is sometimes called ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) clusters . The infrared, or percolating cluster fills in the whole lattice while the UV clusters are short. There is a spectrum of the UV clusters, as a function of their length, while the percolating cluster is in a single copy. The statement on the scaling (23) applies only to the IR cluster. We do not consider the UV clusters in this note.

Also, upon identification of the monopoles in the Abelian projection, one can measure the non-Abelian action associated with these monopoles. For practical reasons, the measurements refer to the plaquettes closest to the center of the cube containing the monopole. Since the self energy is UV divergent, it might be a reasonable approximation. The importance of such measurements is that we expect that it is the non-Abelian action which enters the energy-entropy balance for the monopoles.

The results of one of the latest measurements of this type are reproduced in Figure 1 (see ).

What is plotted here is the average excess of the action on the plaquettes closest to the monopole (monopoles are positioned at centers of cubes). The action is the lattice units. In other words, the corresponding mass of the monopole $`M_{mon}(a)`$ of order $`1/a`$ if the action of order unit.

As is emphasized in Ref. , the IR and UV monopoles are distinguishable through their non-Abelian actions. For the UV monopoles the action is larger, in accordance with the fact that they do not percolate (condense). This is quite a dramatic confirmation that the condensation of the monopoles in the Maximal Abelian projection is driven by the full non-Abelian action, not by its projected counterpart.

## 4 Fine tuning

Let us pause here to reiterate our strategy. We are assuming that the monopole condensation can be described within an effective Higgs-type theory like (1). In fact, even this broad assumption can be wrong but at this time it is difficult to suggest a framework alternative to the field theory. Next, we would like to fix the effective theory using results of the lattice measurements. Moreover we are interested first of all in interpreting data which can be expressed in gauge independent way. As the first step, we will argue in this section that the data on the monopole action  imply a fine tuning. By which we understand that

$$|M_{mon}(a)\frac{ln7}{a}|M_{mon}(a)$$
(24)
where $`M_{mon}(a)`$ is the monopole self energy 777 We hope that the notations are not confusing: there are two monopole masses being discussed. One is the standard magnetic field energy (see (4)) and the other is what we call physical mass, $`m_{phys}^2`$ and this mass determines propagation of a free monopole. and $`\mathrm{ln}7`$ is of pure geometrical origin (see (6)). Note that (24) looks similar to the fine tuning condition in the Standard Model.

### 4.1 Evidence

There are a few pieces of evidence in favor of the fine tuning (24):

a) Direct measurements indicate that the excess of the action is indeed related to the $`\mathrm{ln}7`$, as is obvious from Fig. 1. Let us also emphasize that it is only the full non-Abelian action which “knows” about the $`\mathrm{ln}7`$. The Abelian projected action is not related at all to the $`\mathrm{ln}7`$ . This illustrates once again that the dynamics of the monopoles in MAP is driven by the total $`SU(2)`$ action.

b) It is difficult to be more quantitative about the excess of the action basing on the direct data quoted above. In particular, we should have in mind that for finite $`a`$ there are geometrical corrections to the equation (6). Indirect evidence could be more precise. In particular, it is rather obvious that the scaling of the monopole density (see Eq. (23)) implies:

$$|M_{mon}(a)\frac{\mathrm{ln}7}{a}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}$$
(25)
so that the action per unit length of the monopole trajectory does not depend on the lattice spacing $`a`$.

c) Also, independence on the lattice spacing of the temperature (3) of the phase transition suggests strongly validity of the Eq. (25). Indeed, the measurements at the smallest $`a`$ available, $`a0.06fm`$, see Fig. 1, suggest

$$M_{mon}>4GeV,M_{mon}T_{deconf},$$
(26)
Moreover, it is well known that at the point of the phase transition the monopole trajectories change drastically. Such a sensitivity of the monopoles to the temperature is possible only if the effect of the self energy of the monopole is mainly canceled by the entropy factor, see (25).

Also, an analysis of the data in Ref.  suggests that

$$T_{deconf}d_{mon}^1,$$
(27)
where $`d_{mon}`$ is the distance between the monopoles in the infrared cluster, $`d_{mon}0.5fm`$ . Thus the temperature is not sensitive to our ultraviolet parameter which is the size of the monopole.

d) Phenomenological fits suggest :

$$M_{mon}M_{mon}^{Coul}(a)+const,const>0,$$
(28)
where by $`M_{mon}`$ we understand the action associated with the monopole. Note also that the Coulombic part of the mass, $`M_{mon}^{Coul}(a)`$ is of order $`1/g^2a`$.

Let us recall the reader that on the theoretical side our main concern was that there is no reason why $`M_{mon}(a)`$ cannot drop to zero. Now we see that our fears are not justified: the monopole self energy is even higher than it would be in the pure Coulomb-like case! As far as we concentrate on a single monopole there is no way to understand (28). But this is indeed numerically necessary for the fine tuning.

Thus, the fine tuning (24) seems to be granted by the data.

### 4.2 The origin of the huge mass scale

We are talking actually about small distances, by all the standards of QCD. The numerical value  of the size of the monopole (2) is much smaller than the inverse temperature of the phase transition.

The radius (2) is defined in terms of the derivative from the monopole action with respect to $`a`$, see . What we would like to emphasize here is that the actual “physical size” of the monopole can be much smaller than (2). By the physical size $`R_{phys}`$ we understand now the distances where the excess of the monopole action is parametrically smaller than the action associated with the zero-point fluctuations. It is the $`R_{phys}`$ where the asymptotic freedom actually reigns, not $`R_{mon}`$ quoted in (2).

No evidence exists at the moment that reaching $`R_{phys}`$ is in sight, see Fig. 1. Indeed, in the lattice units used in Fig. 1 the excess of the action density of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^4`$ would look like having zero at $`a=0`$ and approaching this zero as $`a^4`$. Having in mind the data showed in Fig 1 it is tempting to speculate that the onset of such a behavior is still far off from the presently available lattice spacings.

Moreover, as we will argue now it looks plausible that the $`R_{phys}`$ is shifted to the scale

$$R_{phys}(100GeV)^1.$$
(29)
Before giving arguments in favor of (29) let us ask ourselves, why the estimate (29) is difficult to accept, at least at first sight so. The reason is obvious: one thinks usually about non-perturbative effects in quasi-classical terms, which work in the instanton case. Thus, one assumes that the probability to find non-perturbative effects is exponentially small at small $`g^2(a)`$, $`exp(c/g^2(a))`$.

But the failure of such a logic in the monopole case is evident from the case of the compact $`U(1)`$, see above. Even the monopoles with infinite (Euclidean) action condense. Moreover, $`R_{phys}`$ is naturally determined by the running of the coupling which is logarithmic and can result in huge factors in the linear scale.

Let us make simple estimates. Namely, the $`U(1)`$ critical coupling is well known, $`e_{crit}^21`$. In the QCD case we can rewrite the condition (7) as a condition on the $`R_{phys}`$. In the realistic case we have at the LEP energies $`E^2(100\text{GeV})^2`$, $`\alpha 0.1`$. Then

$$M_{phys}\text{TeV}$$
(30)
and, remarkably enough, we are getting rather the weak interactions scale than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$.

Also, the $`SU(2)`$ lattice measurements typically refer to $`\beta 2.6`$ while our guess about $`R_{phys}`$ asks for measurements at $`\beta 4`$ which are absolutely unrealistic at the moment.

Thus, we come to a paradoxical conclusion that the presently available $`\beta `$ are too low to see dissolution of the monopoles at small distances. Moreover, because the running of the coupling is only logarithmic the scale of of the onset asymptotic freedom – which is defined now as the vanishing of the excess of the monopole action compared to the zero-point-fluctuations action– can be very far off.

It is amusing to notice 888The observation is due to M.I. Polikarpov. that in case of the $`SU(3)`$ gluodynamics on the lattice $`g^2=1`$, or $`\beta =6`$ corresponds to the lattice spacing $`a0.1fm`$ and the scale is:

$$R_{phys}^{SU(3)}(2\text{GeV})^1.$$

Thus, through dedicated studies of the monopoles in the $`SU(3)`$ case it is possible to clarify whether there is a crucial change in the monopole structure at the point $`g^2(a)1`$.

### 4.3 Supersymmetry

We are pursuing a pure phenomenological approach and are not in position now to discuss possible mechanisms ensuring the mass hierarchy within the effective scalar filed theory. Obviously, it is not a simple question. The same obvious, the supersymmetry could be an answer .

Generically, the supersymmetry would imply that there are magnetically charged fields with spin $`1/2`$ as well. Spin of the magnetically charged particles can be determined from the character of their trajectories. The random-walk representation (10) is true only for the scalar particles. For spinors, there is an intrinsic rigidity . To detect the rigidity, one can measure the correlation function between the vectors tangent to the trajectory.

Note that we expect that the particles in the IR cluster are scalars for sure. On the other hand, UV , or relatively short trajectories could correspond both to scalar and spinor particles. Detecting spinor particle propagating on the lattice would be a spectacular indication to the supersymmetry. And vice versa.

## 5 Naive limit $`a0`$

If we get convinced that there might exist mass hierarchy then we come to the next question which seems even more difficult. Namely, why there is no independent phenomenological evidence for the existence of large “ultraviolet” mass scale, like (29). Indeed, only at this scale we are guaranteed that zero-point fluctuations dominate over the non-perturbative (monopole) fluctuations. In an attempt to answer this question let us consider limit $`a0`$ assuming that in this limit we are still having the same behavior of the monopole action as at the presently available lattices. If, indeed, $`R_{phys}`$ is as small as indicated by, say, (29) then the validity of the approximation $`a0`$ seems granted.

### 5.1 Power-like dependences on the lattice spacing $`a`$

Coming back to the partition function (15), the monopole condensation corresponds to a negative $`m_0^2`$. The physical excitations should be redefined in terms of the new vacuum. The standard strategy to study these excitations is to measure various vacuum correlators of the field $`\varphi `$. At present time, however, there is a lot of data on the vacuum fields, also in terms of the monopole trajectories, but not on the correlators. There is no rigorous way to interpret these data. Still, at least naively, one can relate some of the vacuum characteristics to derivatives from the partition function with respect to the parameters, such as $`\mu `$, $`m_0^2`$. The idea goes back to the first paper in Ref. . We supplement this idea by the knowledge of the properties of the infrared monopole cluster, which represents the non-perturbative vacuum in our picture.

To get a relation for $`\rho _{mon}`$ let us differentiate first the partition function in the polymer representation with respect to the chemical potential $`\mu `$:

$$L=\frac{}{\mu }\mathrm{ln}𝒵$$
(31)
where $`L`$ is the length of the monopole trajectory. Since the density $`\rho _{mon}`$ scales:

$$L=\rho _{mon}V_4,$$
(32)
where $`V_4`$ is the 4-volume occupied by the lattice. On the other hand, differentiating the same partition function but in the field theoretical representation (15) with respect to $`m_0^2`$ we get the vacuum condensate:

$$\varphi ^2=\frac{}{m_0^2}\mathrm{ln}𝒵.$$
(33)
It is worth emphasizing that in the both cases (31) and (33) we keep only the contribution of the IR monopole cluster corresponding to the condensing Higgs field in the field-theoretic language.

Finally, since the parameters $`\mu `$ and $`m_0^2`$ are directly related, see Eq. (14), we get:

$$\varphi ^2=\frac{1}{8}\rho _{mon}a,$$
(34)
which is one of our main results. Note that, up to an overall numerical factor, Eq. (34) is quite obvious on the dimensional grounds.

Thus, let us assume that the scaling of the monopole density in the IR cluster $`\rho _{mon}`$ continues to be true for smaller lattice spacings as well, at least until we reach the mass scale sensitive to the non-local structure of the monopoles, see discussion above. Then we have the following simple picture:

$$\underset{a0}{lim}m_0^2\frac{\mu }{a}\mathrm{},\underset{a0}{lim}\varphi ^2\rho _{mon}a0,\underset{a0}{lim}m_V^2g^2\rho _{mon}a0.$$
(35)
It is worth emphasizing that the masses we are discussing here are gauge invariant since we started from the non-Abelian action per unit length. And we see that existence of the huge mass scale (30) might in fact be in no contradiction with the asymptotic freedom. Indeed, only the chemical potential has physical meaning and the scaling of the $`\rho _{mon}`$ indicates that it is of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. Moreover, the effect of the condensate on the gluon mass goes away as a power of $`a`$.

It is worth emphasizing that Eq. (35) implies that

$$\underset{a0}{lim}m_0^2\varphi ^2\text{const}.$$
(36)
In other words, the potential energy behaves smoothly as $`a0`$. And this is, in fact, the most adequate formulation of the emerging picture. It was possible to find the $`a`$-dependence for $`m_0^2`$ and $`\varphi ^2`$ separately only because of normalizing the kinetic energy to unit.

Note that the scaling laws (35) are still consistent with $`\rho _{mon}=const`$. Moreover, this seems to be sufficient to ensure the monopole dominance and

$$\underset{a0}{lim}\sigma _{mon}\text{const},$$
(37)
where the monopole string tension is calculated with the use of Eq. (21). Which means in turn that the parameters used to describe the structure of the string within the Abelian projection can be stable in the limit $`a0`$. Moreover, say,

$$\underset{a0}{lim}(m_V^2)_{Ab.proj.}\text{const},$$
(38)
is in no direct contradiction with (35) since the masses determined in terms of the Abelian-projected action are not directly related to the masses (35) determined in terms of the non-Abelian action.

Thus, the picture which emerges if we start with assumption (25) has some attractive features. In particular, it removes the ultraviolet scale from observables in an amusingly simple way. However, our estimates are indeed naive and the discussion is preliminary.

### 5.2 Phenomenology

Studying characteristics of the monopole trajectories on the lattice provides with a unique possibility to visualize field theory in the polymer representation. We have already seen that the measurements of the $`SU(2)`$ invariant action allowed for far reaching conclusions on the underlying Higgs-type models.

Let us list some predictions which could be checked directly on the lattice:

a) The monopole trajectories are random walk for any $`a`$ in the sense that there is no correlation between the vectors tangent to the monopole trajectory. This is true for scalar particles. As we mentioned above, it is important to check this prediction both for IR and UV monopole clusters.

b) monopole density scales, $`\rho _{mon}=const`$ and is independent of $`a`$ at least as far as the monopole action exceeds the average in the lattice units (and not in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^4`$).

c) as is known (see, e.g., ) the monopole trajectories intersect. It is natural to speculate that the distance between the self-intersections also scales, reflecting the scaling of the potential energy.

d) The intersections correspond in the field theoretical language to the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ interaction:

$$V(\varphi )=m_0^2\varphi ^2+\lambda \varphi ^4$$
(39)
As we argued, one expects that the potential energy is $`a`$-independent. This would imply that the effective scalar mass defined in terms of the second derivative of the potential at the minimum is also $`a`$-independent. Which could be checked through measurements.

e) It would be most interesting to try to generate the monopole trajectories within the polymer approach and compare the results with the simulations within the full QCD. In the simplest version, there are essentially two entries in the action in the polymer approach, that is the chemical potential and the interaction which is presumably Coulomb-like:

$$S=L\mu +g_m^2\underset{a,b}{}^{}\frac{a^2}{(r_ar_b)^2},$$
(40)
where the primed sum, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{a,b}^{^{}}`$, does not include the self-energy.

## 6 Conclusions

We have argued that data are emerging which indicate that QCD, when projected onto the scalar-field theory via monopoles corresponds to a fine tuned theory. Which is if course extremely interesting, if true, in view of the mystery of the fine tuning in the Standard Model. The monopoles which we considered are defined (“detected”) through the Maximal Abelian projection. However, the mass scales which exhibit mass hierarchy are gauge independent. The scales are provided by the $`SU(2)`$ invariant action per unit length of the monopole trajectory, on one hand, and by the temperature of the phase transition, on the other. More generally, we have found that the polymer approach allows to get a new insight into the mechanism of the monopole condensation.

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to S. Caracciolo, M.N. Chernodub, F.V. Gubarev, R. Hofmann, K. Konishi, K. Langfeld, S. Narison, M.I. Polikarpov and L. Stodolsky for discussions. Special thanks are due to M.N. Chernodub for numerous communications and thorough discussions of the results.

The paper was worked out mostly during the author’s stay at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa. The hospitality extended to the author by the members of the Theory group and especially by Prof. R. Barbieri is gratefully acknowledged.

## References