text:
# Solution of the Two-Channel Anderson Impurity Model – Implications for the Heavy Fermion UBe13 –

(December 21, 2001)

## Abstract

We solve the two-channel Anderson impurity model using the Bethe-Ansatz. We determine the ground state and derive the thermodynamics, obtaining the impurity entropy and specific heat over the full range of temperature. We show that the low temperature physics is given by a line of fixed points decribing a two-channel non Fermi liquid behavior in the integral valence regime associated with moment formation as well as in the mixed valence regime where no moment forms. We discuss relevance for the theory of UBe13.

In recent years a large number of alloys have been observed to deviate from the Fermi liquid behavior, with the low temperature thermodynamics and transport physics described by logarithmic or fractional power laws. Among these are heavy fermion materials based on Ce3+ or U4+ ions containing inner shell $`f`$-electrons that do not delocalizecox98 . We shall concentrate henceforth on U based materials, in particular UBe13. Hund’s rules and spin-orbit coupling in the presence of a cubic crystalline electric field lead to modeling of the U ion by a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_6`$ Kramers doublet in a $`5f^3`$ configuration to be represented by the fermionic creation operator $`f_\sigma ^{}`$ and a quadrupolar (non-magnetic) doublet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ in $`5f^2`$ configuration represented by the operator $`b_{\overline{\alpha }}^{}`$. The doublets hybridize with conduction electrons in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8`$ representation carrying both spin ($`\sigma =,`$) and quadrupolar ($`\alpha =\pm 1`$) quantum numbers. Strong Coulomb repulsion requires single occupancy of the localized levels, $`f_\sigma ^{}f_\sigma +b_{\overline{\alpha }}^{}b_{\overline{\alpha }}=1`$. The resulting hamiltonian is the two channel Anderson impurity modelcox98 ; cox87 ; ramirez94 ; schiller98 ; kroha98 ,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_{\text{bulk}}+H_{\text{imp}}+H_{\text{hybr}}`$
$`H_{\text{bulk}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \psi _{\alpha \sigma }^{}\left(x\right)\left(i_x\right)\psi _{\alpha \sigma }\left(x\right)𝑑x}`$
$`H_{\text{imp}}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _sf_\sigma ^{}f_\sigma +\epsilon _qb_{\overline{\alpha }}^{}b_{\overline{\alpha }}`$
$`H_{\text{hybr}}`$ $`=`$ $`V\left[\psi _{\alpha \sigma }^{}\left(0\right)b_{\overline{\alpha }}^{}f_\sigma +\psi _{\alpha \sigma }\left(0\right)f_\sigma ^{}b_{\overline{\alpha }}\right]`$
The spectrum is linearized around the Fermi level and the Fermi velocity is set to one with the resulting density of states being $`\rho =1/(2\pi )`$. We shall study the model in the grand canonical ensemble with the chemical potential $`\mu `$ coupled to the total number of electrons, $`N=\psi _{\alpha \sigma }^{}\psi _{\alpha \sigma }𝑑x+f_\sigma ^{}f_\sigma `$. The magnetic and quadrupolar impurity doublets are at energies $`\epsilon _s`$ and $`\epsilon _q`$ respectively. The last term gives the hybridization of the host with the impurity. The bar over $`\alpha `$ indicates that the index transforms according to the conjugate representation.

The model has been intensely studied recently via a new Monte Carlo method schiller98  and by conserving slave boson theory kroha98 . However, many open questions remain. In this letter we shall present the solution of the model via a Bethe-Ansatz construction, applicable in the past only to the single channel case tsvwig . We shall give a complete determination of the energy spectrum and the thermodynamics, allowing us to follow the evolution of the impurity from its high temperature behavior with all four impurity states being equally populated down to the low energy dynamics characterized by a line of fixed point hamiltonians $`H^{}(ϵ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ where $`\epsilon =\epsilon _s\epsilon _q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\pi \rho V^2`$ (we shall hold $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ fixed in what follows).

We shall find that the line of fixed points is characterized by a zero-temperature entropy $`S_{\text{imp}}^0=k_B\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{2}`$ and a specific heat $`C_\text{v}^{\text{imp}}T\mathrm{ln}T`$ typical of the 2-channel Kondo fixed point. However the physics along the line varies with $`\epsilon `$. Consider $`n_c=f_\sigma ^{}f_\sigma `$, the amount of charge localized at the impurity. For $`\epsilon \mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$, we find $`n_c1`$ signaling the magnetic integral valence regime. At intermediate temperatures a magnetic moment forms which undergoes frustrated screening as the temperature is lowered, leading to zero-temperature anomalous entropy and anomalous specific heat. For $`\epsilon \mu +\mathrm{\Delta }`$ it is the quadrupolar integral regime and a quadrupolar moment forms. In the mixed valence regime, $`|\epsilon \mu |\mathrm{\Delta }`$, similar low temperature behavior is observed though without the intermediate regime of moment formation. In more detail, each point on the line of fixed points is characterized by two energy scales, $`T_{l,h}(\epsilon )`$. These scales describe the quenching of the entropy as the temperature is lowered: the first stage taking place at the high temperature scale $`T_h`$, quenching the entropy from $`k_B\mathrm{ln}4`$ to $`k_B\mathrm{ln}2`$, the second stage at $`T_l`$, quenching it from $`k_B\mathrm{ln}2`$ to $`k_B\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{2}`$. In the integral valence regime, $`|\epsilon \mu |\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the two scales are well separated and as long as the temperature falls between these values a moment is present, (magnetic or quadrupolar depending on the sign of $`\epsilon \mu `$), manifested by a finite temperature plateau $`S_{\text{imp}}=k_B\mathrm{ln}2`$ in the entropy. It is quenched when the temperature is lowered below $`T_l`$, with $`T_lT_K`$ in this regime. For $`\epsilon =\mu `$ the scales are equal, $`T_l(\mu )=T_h(\mu )`$, and the quenching occurs in a single stage. In a subsequent paperjohannesson  we shall present the line of boundary conformal field theories corresponding to our Bethe-Ansatz solution, and show that the two scales parameterize the approach to the fixed points.

The Bethe-Ansatz wave functions consist of plane waves with momenta $`\{k_j\}`$, and amplitudes that are connected by a set of scattering matrices (S-matrices) derived from the Hamiltonian and obeying Yang-Baxter consistency conditions. The electron-impurity scattering matrix is,

$`𝐒_{1,0}=𝐈{\displaystyle \frac{i2\mathrm{\Delta }}{\left(k_1\epsilon \right)+i2\mathrm{\Delta }}}𝐐_{1;0}`$
where the index zero denotes the impurity. The operator $`𝐐`$ acts on quadrupolar (or flavor) space as an “annihilation-creation” operator, $`\left[𝐐\right]_{\alpha ;\beta }^{\alpha ^{};\beta ^{}}=\delta _{\alpha ;\beta }\delta ^{\alpha ^{};\beta ^{}}`$. This S-matrix is unitary and group invariant. To find the electron-electron S-matrix we solve the two particle problem and find a matrix equation constraining the possible form of the S-matrix,

$`\left(𝐒_{2,0}𝐈\right)\left(𝐒_{1,0}𝐒_{1,2}𝐈\right)=𝐏_{1,2}^q𝐏_{1,2}^s\left(𝐒_{1,0}𝐈\right)\left(𝐒_{2,0}𝐒_{1,2}\right)`$
where $`𝐏^q`$ is the flavor exchange operator and $`𝐏^s`$ the spin exchange operator, with $`\left[𝐏^q\right]_{\alpha ;\beta }^{\alpha ^{};\beta ^{}}=\delta _\alpha ^\beta ^{}\delta _\beta ^\alpha ^{}`$ and similarly for $`𝐏^s`$. Imposing in addition the Yang-Baxter conditions, we obtain an overdetermined set of equations admitting nevertheless a unique solution:

$`𝐒_{1,2}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(k_1k_2\right)i2\mathrm{\Delta }𝐏_{1,2}^s}{\left(k_1k_2\right)i2\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(k_1k_2\right)+i2\mathrm{\Delta }𝐏_{1,2}^q}{\left(k_1k_2\right)+i2\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
The Yang-Baxter conditions and the single occupancy constraint allow the consistent generalization of the solution to an arbitrary number of electrons, $`N`$. Imposing periodic boundary conditions, one is led via standard methods to Bethe-Ansatz equations (BAE) that allow the determination of the momenta and hence the spectrum: $`E=_{j=1}^Nk_j`$. The BAE are

$`e^{ik_jL}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma =1}{\overset{M^s}{}}}e_1\left(k_j\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^s\right){\displaystyle \underset{\delta =1}{\overset{M^q}{}}}[e_1\left(k_j\mathrm{\Lambda }_\delta ^q\right)]^1`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta =1}{\overset{M^s}{}}}`$ $`e_2\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^s\mathrm{\Lambda }_\delta ^s\right)={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e_1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^sk_j\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta =1}{\overset{M^q}{}}}`$ $`e_2\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^q\mathrm{\Lambda }_\delta ^q\right)=e_1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^q\epsilon \right){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e_1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^qk_j\right)`$
where $`e_n\left(z\right)=\left(zin\mathrm{\Delta }\right)/\left(z+in\mathrm{\Delta }\right)`$. $`M^s`$ is the number of down spins and the spin-rapidities $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^s`$ describe their dynamics. The same role is played by $`M^q`$ and the flavor rapidities $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^q`$. The momenta $`\{k_j\}`$ (charge-rapidities) analogously describe the charge dynamics.

Analyzing the equations in the thermodynamic limit we find that the solutions fall into four classes: (i) real charge-rapidities; (ii) charge-spin strings: $`k_\pm =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k,s}\pm i\mathrm{\Delta }`$; (iii) spin-strings: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{s\left(m_s\right)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha \left(m_s\right)}+i\mathrm{\Delta }\left(1+m_s2n\right)`$, $`n=1,\mathrm{},m_s`$ (with arbitrary length $`m_s`$); (iv) flavor-strings: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{r\left(m_q\right)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha \left(m_q\right)}+i\mathrm{\Delta }\left(1+m_q2n\right)`$, $`n=1,\mathrm{},m_q`$ (with arbitrary length $`m_q`$). A generic full-solution consists of a combination of all four kinds.

Identifying the ground state and the excitations, we sum over the latter to derive the free energy. It is expressed in terms of an infinite set of functions of the variable $`\lambda =\frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{\Delta }}(k\mu )`$. These functions, $`\{\eta _b(\lambda ),\eta _u(\lambda ),\eta _s^n(\lambda ),\eta _q^n(\lambda )\}_{n=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}}`$, determine the distribution probabilities of the various excitations at temperature $`T`$ (entering the equations as $`\tau =\frac{\pi T}{4\mathrm{\Delta }}`$): the charge bound states, charge unbound states, spin excitations and flavor excitations, respectively. These distribution functions satisfy an infinite set of coupled non-linear integral equations: the thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz (TBA) equations,

$`\mathrm{ln}\overline{\eta }_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\tau }}+G\left[\mathrm{f}_{q2}\mathrm{f}_{\overline{u}}\right]`$
$`\mathrm{ln}\overline{\eta }_u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\tau }}+G\left[\mathrm{f}_{\overline{b}}+\mathrm{f}_{s1}+\mathrm{f}_{q1}\right]`$
$`\mathrm{ln}\eta _{sn}`$ $`=`$ $`G\left[\delta _{n,1}\mathrm{f}_{\overline{u}}+\overline{\delta }_{n,1}\mathrm{f}_{sn1}+\mathrm{f}_{sn+1}\right]`$
$`\mathrm{ln}\eta _{qn}`$ $`=`$ $`G\left[\delta _{n,1}\mathrm{f}_{\overline{u}}\delta _{n,2}\mathrm{f}_{\overline{b}}+\overline{\delta }_{n,1}\mathrm{f}_{qn1}+\mathrm{f}_{qn+1}\right]`$
where we have introduced the notations $`\overline{\eta }=1/\eta `$, $`\mathrm{f}_\alpha =\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\eta _\alpha \right)`$, $`\mathrm{f}_{\overline{\alpha }}=\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\overline{\eta }_\alpha \right)`$ and $`\overline{\delta }_{n,1}=1\delta _{n,1}`$. The convolutions (denoted by $``$) are defined with the kernel $`G(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{cosh}\lambda }`$. The magnetic field $`h_s`$ and the quadrupolar field $`h_q`$ determine the asymptotic conditions: $`lim_n\mathrm{}(K_{n+1}\mathrm{f}_{sn}K_n\mathrm{f}_{sn+1})=2h_s/T`$ and $`lim_n\mathrm{}(K_{n+1}\mathrm{f}_{qn}K_n\mathrm{f}_{qn+1})=2h_q/T`$, where $`K_n(\lambda )=\frac{2n}{(2\lambda )^2+(n\pi )^2}`$.

In terms of the distribution functions, the free energy $`F=F_{\text{bulk}}+F_{\text{imp}}`$ is given by:

$`F_{\text{bulk}}`$ $`=`$ $`TL{\displaystyle \rho \mathrm{f}_{\overline{u}}𝑑\lambda }2TL{\displaystyle \rho \mathrm{f}_{\overline{b}}𝑑\lambda }`$
$`F_{\text{imp}}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _qT\left[G\left(K_1\mathrm{f}_{\overline{u}}+K_2\mathrm{f}_{\overline{b}}+\mathrm{f}_{q1}\right)\right]_{\lambda =\frac{\pi }{J}}`$
where $`J=\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }}{\epsilon \mu }`$. Having solved for the distributions for given values of temperature and fields, one can compute the free energy of the impurity for any value of $`\epsilon `$. The bulk part of the free energy is divergent and requires the introduction of a regularization scheme. On the other hand, the impurity contribution to the free energy is regular and independent of the cut-off procedure.

We turn now to study the TBA equations, considering first the zero temperature limit for which it is convenient to introduce $`\xi =\tau \mathrm{ln}\eta `$. We then have, $`lim_{\tau 0^+}\tau \mathrm{f}=\xi ^+`$ and $`lim_{\tau 0^+}\tau \overline{\mathrm{f}}=\xi ^{}`$, where $`2\xi ^\pm =\xi \pm |\xi |`$, in terms of which we are able to solve explicitly the TBA equations. We find: $`\xi _b=\lambda ,\xi _{q2}=\xi _{q2}^{}=G\xi _b^{},\xi _u=\xi _u^+=\frac{\lambda }{2}\xi _{q2}`$ with all the other $`\xi `$’s vanishing (the result of the convolution giving $`\xi _{q2}`$ can be written down in terms of dilogarithms). Thus in the absence of external fields, the ground state is built out of a sea of charge-spin strings filled up to $`\lambda =0`$ (i.e. $`k=\mu `$) and a completely filled sea of 2-flavor-strings. The zero-temperature impurity level occupancy (and therefore also the charge susceptibility) can be deduced in a closed form: $`n_c^0=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{4(\lambda \pi /J)\xi _{q2}}{[(\lambda \pi /J)^2+\pi ^2]^2}𝑑\lambda `$. The occupancy is integral: $`n_c^01,0`$ for $`|\epsilon \mu |\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and non-integral elsewhere.

We turn next to study the low temperature physics, $`\tau 1`$. In the integral valence regimes, $`|\epsilon \mu |\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`|J|1`$ and the main contribution to the free energy comes from $`|\lambda |\pi /|J|1`$. It is convenient to rewrite some equations in the TBA. Using the exact relation: $`\mathrm{ln}\eta _b\mathrm{ln}\overline{\eta }_{q1}=\lambda /\tau `$, we can eliminate $`\mathrm{f}_{\overline{b}}`$ from the equations for $`\overline{\eta }_u`$ and $`\eta _{q2}`$ and write them as: $`\mathrm{ln}\overline{\eta }_u=E_+^d/\tau +G\left[\mathrm{f}_{s1}+\mathrm{f}_{q1}\right]`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}\eta _{q2}=E_{}^d/\tau +G\left[\mathrm{f}_{q1}+\mathrm{f}_{q3}\right]`$ with $`E_\pm ^d/\tau =G\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{\pm \frac{1}{\tau }(\lambda \tau \mathrm{ln}\eta _{q1})}\right)`$. The terms $`E_\pm ^d`$ become driving (inhomogeneous) terms at low temperatures as $`\tau \mathrm{ln}\eta _{q1}`$ tends to zero (with $`\tau ^2`$ corrections). We can further approximate them as follows:

$$E_\pm ^d/\tau \underset{\tau 1}{\overset{}{}}G[\lambda /\tau ]^\pm \{\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{\lambda 1}{\overset{}{}}e^{\pm \lambda }/\pi \tau \\ \hfill \underset{\lambda 1}{\overset{}{}}\lambda /2\tau \end{array}$$

Changing variables, $`\zeta =\lambda \frac{\pi }{J}`$, the driving terms become, in the integral valence regime: $`E_\pm ^d/\tau =e^{\pm \zeta \mathrm{ln}T/T_\pm }`$ where $`T_\pm =\frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi ^2}e^{\pm \pi /J}`$. The relation of $`T_\pm `$ to $`T_{l,h}`$ depends on the sign of $`\epsilon \mu `$ and is discussed below.

We analyze separately the magnetic and quadrupolar moment regimes. Consider first the magnetic case where $`\epsilon \mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$, and therefore $`\lambda 1`$. In the limit of small $`\tau `$, the driving term $`E_{}^d`$ diverges faster than $`E_+^d`$ that is compensated by a decaying exponential in the numerator; thus $`\eta _{q2}`$ tends to zero exponentially fast cutting away the equations for the higher q-flavor $`\eta `$’s. After the identifications $`\overline{\eta }_{q1}\eta _1^s`$, $`\overline{\eta }_u\eta _2^s`$ and $`\eta _{sn}\eta _{n+2}^s`$, we recover the TBA equations of the 2–channel Kondo problemandrei87 . The Kondo temperature is $`T_K=T_l=T_+`$. ($`T_{}`$ is large, outside the low temperature approximation range). The identification of the resulting TBA equations in this limit with those of the 2–channel Kondo model indicates that at low temperatures, when $`E_{}^d/\tau `$ becomes very large, the system has a localized magnetic moment. When temperature goes below $`T_K`$, overscreening will take place and in particular an entropy $`S_{\text{imp}}=k_B\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{2}`$ will arise. This will also be found numerically (see below).

On the other hand, when $`\epsilon \mu +\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the limit of vanishing $`\tau `$ drives $`\overline{\eta }_u`$ to zero exponentially fast and cuts away the spin $`\eta `$’s. No remapping is required, and we recover again the TBA equations of the 2–channel Kondo model but this time for the quadrupolar degrees of freedom. The relative minus sign in the driving term reverses the ‘direction of lowering temperatures’ with respect to the previous case and has no further consequences. The Kondo temperature is $`T_K=T_l=T_{}`$, below which the two spin channels will overscreen a localized quadrupolar moment.

Now we study the mixed valence regime, $`|\epsilon \mu |\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`n_c1/2`$. As $`|J|1`$, we need the solutions around $`\lambda 0`$. Then both driving terms are approximately $`E_\pm ^d/\tau =e^{\pm \zeta \mathrm{ln}T/T_\pm }`$ and both diverge simultaneously in the low temperature limit. We repeat the standard procedure of shifting variables with $`\pm \mathrm{ln}T/T_K`$andrei87 . Depending on the choice of sign, one of the driving terms diverges as $`1/\tau ^2`$ and the temperature ‘disappears’ from the other one. We recover one of the two cases outlined above but this time the equations are valid only at temperatures below $`T_l`$ and there is no localized moment regime. However, a residual entropy $`S_{\text{imp}}=k_B\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{2}`$ arises also in this regime.

Finally, we turn to the finite temperature thermodynamics. We obtain it by solving numerically the TBA equations. In Fig. 1 we show the behavior of the impurity entropy as a function of temperature for different values of $`\epsilon `$. At high temperatures the entropy is $`k_B\mathrm{ln}4`$ in agreement with the size of the impurity Hilbert space. For $`|\epsilon \mu |\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the impurity entropy is quenched in two stages. The degrees of freedom corresponding to the higher energy doublet are frozen first. The entropy becomes $`k_B\mathrm{ln}2`$ and the system is in a localized magnetic or quadrupolar moment regime depending on the sign of $`\epsilon \mu `$. As the temperature is further decreased, the remaining degrees of freedom undergo frustrated screening leading to entropy $`k_B\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{2}`$. On the other hand, for values of $`|\epsilon \mu |\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the quenching process takes place in a single stage. As $`\epsilon \mu `$ is varied the behavior interpolates continuously between the magnetic and the quadrupolar scenarios. The zero temperature entropy is found to be independent of $`\epsilon `$ in accordance with the analytic study of the TBA equations. Note also the presence of a crossing point, a temperature $`T_{\text{cross}}0.1\mathrm{\Delta }`$ where all entropies take the value $`S_{\text{imp}}=k_B\mathrm{ln}2`$ independently of $`\epsilon `$ (cf. Ref. vollhardt97, ).

In Fig. 2 we show the impurity contribution to the specific heat. The two stage quenching process gives rise to two distinct peaks. The lower temperature peak is the Kondo contribution centered around $`T_l`$ whereas the higher temperature peak often referred to as the Schottky anomaly is centered around a temperature $`T_h`$. Approximate expressions for $`T_{h,l}`$ can be read off from the curves: $`T_{h,l}(\epsilon )\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{a\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}(1+2ae^{\pm \frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{\Delta }}|\epsilon \mu |})`$ with $`1<a<4`$ (this expression goes over to $`T_\pm `$ defined before in the appropriate limits). For large $`|\epsilon \mu |`$ the two peaks are clearly separated and the area under the Kondo peak is $`k_B\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{2}`$ while that under the Schottky peak is $`k_B\mathrm{ln}2`$.

As mentioned earlier, the model was proposed as a description for the U ion physics of UBe13. It is expected to describe the lattice above some coherence temperature. We provide in the inset of Fig. 2 the experimental data for the $`5f`$-derived specific heat of the compound. It is obtained by subtracting from its total specific heat, the specific heat of the isostructural compound ThBe13 containing no $`5f`$ electronsfelten86 . This way one is subtracting the phonon contribution as well as the electronic contribution from electrons in $`s`$, $`p`$ and $`d`$ shells (the procedure is quite involved and we refer the reader to the articles cited just above for full details). The sharp feature at $`0.8K`$ signals the superconducting transition of UBe13 and falls outside the range where this compound might be described by an impurity model.

Concentrating on the temperature range containing the Kondo and Schottky peaks we conclude that no values of $`\epsilon `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ yield a good fit. Further, the entropy obtained by integrating the weight under the experimental curve falls between $`k_B\mathrm{ln}4`$ and $`k_B\mathrm{ln}6`$. This suggests that a full description of the impurity may involve another high energy multiplet (possibly a triplet cf. Ref. koga99, ), almost degenerate with the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ to yield a single peak for the Schottky anomaly. The nature of the multiplet could be deduced from further specific heat measurements. For an n-plet degenerate with the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$, one has an $`SU(2)\times SU(n+2)`$ Anderson model and the area under $`C_\text{v}^{\text{imp}}/T`$ is then given by $`k_B\mathrm{ln}[\frac{n+4}{2}\mathrm{sec}\frac{\pi }{n+4}]`$, while if the n-plet is slightly split off the doublet, the area is given by $`k_B\mathrm{ln}[\frac{n+4}{\sqrt{2}}]`$ jerez . In order to be certain of having eliminated lattice effects it would be better to carry out the measurements on U1-xThxBe13. For $`x>0.1`$ the compound has no longer a superconducting transition and the lattice coherence effects are largely suppressed. Further, there are several experimental indications that support the idea of an impurity model description of the thoriated compound for a wide range of temperatures aliev96 .

In subsequent work we shall present the solution of the general $`SU(N)\times SU(M)`$ model and study the effects of magnetic and quadrupolar fields. These will help identify what particular impurity model is best fit for describing U1-xThxBe13 koga99 .

Part of the work was done while one of the authors (N. A.) was a Lady Davis fellow at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He thanks the physics department for its warm hospitality. We are grateful to P. Coleman, G. Kotliar, H. Kroha, H. Johannesson A. Schiller and P. Wölfle for illuminating discussions, and to A. Jerez, S. Kancharla, A. Rosch and N. Shah for their comments on the manuscript. The experimental data is reproduced from Ref. felten86,  with kind permission from the authors.


format: text

text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In this talk I shall discuss a Hamiltonian approach to Yang-Mills theory in two spatial dimensions ($`YM_{2+1}`$), where nonperturbative calculations can be carried out to the extent that results on mass gap and string tension can be compared with lattice simulations of the theory. The work I shall report on was developed over the last few years in collaboration with D. Karabali and Chanju Kim .

Before entering into the details of our work, let me say a few words about the relevance of $`YM_{2+1}`$. Gauge theories (without matter) in (1+1) dimensions are rather trivial since there are no propagating degrees of freedom, although there may be global degrees of freedom on spaces of nontrivial topology. In (2+1) dimensions, gauge theories do have propagating degrees of freedom and being next in the order of complexity, it is possible that they provide a model simple enough to analyze mathematically and yet nontrivial enough to teach us some lessons about (3+1)-dimensional $`YM`$ theories. Another very important reason to study $`YM_{2+1}`$ is its relevance to magnetic screening in $`YM_{3+1}`$ at high temperature. Gauge theories at finite temperature have worse infrared problems than at zero temperature due to the divergent nature of the Bose distribution for low energy modes. A dynamically generated Debye-type screening mass will eliminate some of these, but we need a magnetic screening mass as well to have a perturbative expansion which is well defined in the infrared.

A simple way to see that a magnetic mass can be dynamically generated is as follows. Consider the imaginary time formalism, with Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _n=2\pi nT`$, where $`T`$ is the temperature. At high temperatures and for modes of wavelength long compared to $`1/T`$, the modes with nonzero $`\omega _n`$ are unimportant and the theory reduces to the theory of the $`\omega _n=0`$ mode, viz., a three (Euclidean) dimensional Yang-Mills theory (or a (2+1)-dimensional theory in a Wick rotated version). Yang-Mills theories in three or (2+1) dimensions are expected to have a mass gap and this is effectively the magnetic mass of the (3+1)-dimensional theory at high temperature .

In the following, it is useful to keep in mind certain facts about $`YM_{2+1}`$. The coupling constant $`e^2`$ has the dimension of mass and it does not run as the four-dimensional coupling does. The dimensionless expansion parameter of the theory is $`k/e^2`$ or $`e^2/k`$, where $`k`$ is a typical momentum. Thus modes of low momenta must be treated nonperturbatively, while modes of high momenta can be treated perturbatively. There is no simple dimensionless expansion parameter. $`YM_{2+1}`$ is perturbatively super-renormalizable, so the ultraviolet singularities are well under control.

## 2 PARAMETRIZATION OF FIELDS

Consider a gauge theory with group $`G=SU(N)`$ in the $`A_0=0`$ gauge. The gauge potential can be written as $`A_i=it^aA_i^a`$, $`i=1,2`$, where $`t^a`$ are hermitian $`N\times N`$-matrices which form a basis of the Lie algebra of $`SU(N)`$ with $`[t^a,t^b]=if^{abc}t^c,\mathrm{Tr}(t^at^b)=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}`$. The spatial coordinates $`x_1,x_2`$ will be combined into the complex combinations $`z=x_1ix_2,\overline{z}=x_1+ix_2`$ with the corresponding components for the potential $`AA_z=\frac{1}{2}(A_1+iA_2),\overline{A}A_{\overline{z}}=\frac{1}{2}(A_1iA_2)=(A_z)^{}`$. The starting point of our analysis is a change of variables given by

$$A_z=_zMM^1,A_{\overline{z}}=M^1_{\overline{z}}M^{}$$
(1)
Here $`M,M^{}`$ are complex matrices in general, not unitary. If they are unitary, the potential is a pure gauge. The parametrization (1) is standard in many discussions of two-dimensional gauge fields. A particular advantage of this parametrization is the way gauge transformations are realized. A gauge transformation $`A_iA_i^{(g)}=g^1A_ig+g^1_ig,g(x)SU(N)`$ is obtained by the transformation $`MM^{(g)}=gM`$. The gauge-invariant degrees of freedom are parametrized by the hermitian matrix $`H=M^{}M`$. Physical state wavefunctions are functions of $`H`$.

In making a change of variables in a Hamiltonian formalism, there are two things we must do: 1) evaluate the volume measure (or Jacobian of the transformation) which determines the inner product of the wavefunctions and 2) rewrite the Hamiltonian as an operator involving the new variables. A consistency check would then be the self-adjointness of the Hamiltonian with the given inner product. We begin with the volume measure for the configuration space.

## 3 THE INNER PRODUCT

The measure of integration over the fields $`A,\overline{A}`$ is $`d\mu (𝒜)/vol(𝒢_{})`$ where $`d\mu (𝒜)=_{x,a}dA^a(x)d\overline{A}^a(x)`$ is the Euclidean volume element on the space of gauge potentials $`𝒜`$ and $`vol𝒢_{}`$ is the volume of gauge transformations, viz., volume of $`SU(N)`$-valued functions on space. From (1) we see that

$`\delta A`$ $`=`$ $`D(\delta MM^1)`$
$`=`$ $`\left((\delta MM^1)+[A,\delta MM^1]\right)`$
$`\delta \overline{A}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{D}(M^1\delta M^{})`$ (2)
which gives

$$d\mu (𝒜)=(detD\overline{D})d\mu (M,M^{})$$
(3)
where $`d\mu (M,M^{})`$ is the volume for the complex matrices $`M,M^{}`$, which is associated with the metric $`ds_M^2=8\mathrm{Tr}(\delta MM^1M^1\delta M^{})`$. This is given by the highest order differential form $`dV`$ as $`d\mu (M,M^{})=_xdV(M,M^{})`$ where

$`dV(M,M^{})`$ $`ϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}(dMM^1)_{a_1}\mathrm{}(dMM^1)_{a_n}`$
$`\times ϵ_{b_1\mathrm{}b_n}(M^1dM^{})_{b_1}\mathrm{}`$
where $`n=\mathrm{dim}G=\mathrm{dim}SU(N)=N^21`$. (There are some constant numerical factors which are irrelevant for our discussion.) The complex matrix $`M`$ can be written as $`M=U\rho `$, where $`U`$ is unitary and $`\rho `$ is hermitian. This is the matrix analogue of the modulus and phase decomposition for a complex number. Since gauge transformations act as $`MM^{(g)}=gM`$, we see that $`U`$ represents the gauge degrees of freedom and $`\rho `$ represents the gauge-invariant degrees of freedom on $`M`$. Substituting $`M=U\rho `$, (LABEL:4) becomes

$`dV(M,M^{})`$ $`ϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}(d\rho \rho ^1+\rho ^1d\rho )_{a_1}\mathrm{}`$
$`\times ϵ_{b_1\mathrm{}b_n}(U^1dU)_{b_1}\mathrm{}`$
$``$ $`d\mu (U)ϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}(H^1dH)_{a_1}\mathrm{}`$
Here $`d\mu (U)`$ is the standard group volume measure (the Haar measure) for $`SU(N)`$. Upon taking the product over all points, $`d\mu (U)`$ gives the volume of the entire gauge group, namely $`vol(𝒢_{})`$, and thus

$`d\mu (M,M^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}dV(M,M^{})vol(𝒢_{})`$ (6)
$`=d\mu (H)vol(𝒢_{})`$
$`d\mu (H)`$ $`==ϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}(H^1dH)_{a_1}\mathrm{}(H^1dH)_{a_n}`$
The volume element or the integration measure for the gauge-invariant configurations can now be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu (𝒜)}{vol(𝒢_{})}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[dA_zdA_{\overline{z}}]}{vol(𝒢_{})}}`$
$`=`$ $`(detD_zD_{\overline{z}}){\displaystyle \frac{d\mu (M,M^{})}{vol(𝒢_{})}}`$
$`=`$ $`(detD\overline{D})d\mu (H)`$ (8)
where we have used (6). The problem is thus reduced to the calculation of the determinant of the two-dimensional operator $`D\overline{D}`$. This is well known . The simplest way to evaluate this is to define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{log}detD\overline{D}`$, which gives

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{A}^a}=i\mathrm{Tr}\left[\overline{D}^1(x,y)T^a\right]_{yx}$$
(9)
$`(T^a)_{mn}=if_{mn}^a`$ are the generators of the Lie algebra in the adjoint representation. The coincident-point limit of $`\overline{D}^1(x,y)`$ is singular and needs regularization. With a gauge-invariant regulator,one finds

$`\mathrm{Tr}`$ $`\left[\overline{D}_{reg}^1(x,y)T^a\right]_{yx}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2c_A}{\pi }}\mathrm{Tr}\left[(AM^1M^{})t^a\right]`$
where $`c_A\delta ^{ab}=f^{amn}f^{bmn}`$; it is equal to $`N`$ for $`SU(N)`$. Using this result in (9) and integrating we get

$`(detD\overline{D})`$ $`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{det}\overline{}}{d^2x}}\right]^{\mathrm{dim}G}\mathrm{exp}\left[2c_A𝒮(H)\right]`$
$`𝒮(H)`$ is the Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) action for the hermitian matrix field $`H`$ given by

$`𝒮(H)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle }\mathrm{Tr}(H\overline{}H^1)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{12\pi }}{\displaystyle }ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha }\times `$
$`\mathrm{Tr}(H^1_\mu HH^1_\nu HH^1_\alpha H)`$
We can now write the inner product for states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, represented by the wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, as

$$1|2=𝑑\mu (H)e^{2c_A𝒮(H)}\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2$$
(13)
## 4 THE HAMILTONIAN

The next step is the change of variables in the Hamiltonian. However, there is some further simplification we can do before taking up the Hamiltonian. We would expect the wavefunctions to be functionals of the matrix field $`H`$, but actually we can take them to be functionals of the current of the WZW model (LABEL:9) given by $`J=(c_A/\pi )_zHH^1`$. Notice that matrix elements calculated with (13) are correlators of the hermitian WZW model of level number $`2c_A`$. The properties of the hermitian model of level number $`k+2c_A`$ can be obtained by comparison with the $`SU(N)`$-model defined by $`e^{k𝒮(U)},U(\stackrel{}{x})SU(N)`$. The hermitian analogue of the renormalized level $`\kappa =(k+c_A)`$ of the $`SU(N)`$-model is $`(k+c_A)`$. Since the correlators involve only the renormalized level $`\kappa `$, we see that the correlators of the hermitian model (of level $`(k+2c_A)`$ ) can be obtained from the correlators of the $`SU(N)`$-model (of level $`k`$ ) by the analytic continuation $`\kappa \kappa `$. For the $`SU(N)_k`$-model there are the so-called integrable representations whose highest weights are limited by $`k`$ (spin $`k/2`$ for $`SU(2)`$, for example). Correlators involving the nonintegrable representations vanish. For the hermitian model the corresponding statement is that the correlators involving nonintegrable representations are infinite. In our case, $`k=0`$, and we have only one integrable representation corresponding to the identity operator (and its current algebra descendents). Therefore, for states of finite norm, it is sufficient to consider $`J`$ .

This means that we can transform the Hamiltonian $`=T+V`$ to express it in terms of $`J`$ and functional derivatives with respect to $`J`$. By the chain rule of differentiation

$`T\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}{\displaystyle E_i^aE_i^a\mathrm{\Psi }}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}[{\displaystyle _{x,u}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta J^a(u)}{\delta A_i^c(x)\delta A_i^c(x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }}{\delta J^a(u)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{x,u,v}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta J^a(u)}{\delta A_i^c(x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta J^b(v)}{\delta A_i^c(x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J^a(u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J^b(v)}}\mathrm{\Psi }]`$
$`V`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2e^2}}{\displaystyle B^aB^a}`$ (14)
where $`B^a=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ij}(_iA_j^a_jA_i^a+f^{abc}A_i^bA_j^c)`$. Regularization is important in calculating the coefficients of the two terms in $`T`$. Carrying this out we find

$`T`$ $`=m[{\displaystyle _u}J^a(u){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J^a(u)}}`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle }\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}(u,v){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J^a(u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J^b(v)}}]`$
$`V`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{mc_A}}{\displaystyle \overline{}J_a(\stackrel{}{x})\overline{}J_a(\stackrel{}{x})}`$ (16)
where $`m=e^2c_A/2\pi `$ and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}(u,v)=\frac{c_A}{\pi ^2}\frac{\delta _{ab}}{(uv)^2}i\frac{f_{abc}J^c(v)}{\pi (uv)}$$
(17)
The first term in $`T`$ shows that every power of $`J`$ in the wavefunction gives a value $`m`$ to the energy, suggesting the existence of a mass gap. The calculation of this term involves exactly the same quantity as in (9) and with the same regulator leads to (15), i.e.,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2y\frac{\delta ^2J_a(x)}{\delta \overline{A}^b(y)\delta A^b(y)}}`$ (18)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2c_A}{2\pi }}M_{am}^{}\mathrm{Tr}\left[T^m\overline{D}^1(y,x)\right]_{yx}`$
$`=mJ_a(x)`$
Finally, (15,16) (with regularizations taken account of) give a self-adjoint Hamiltonian which, as I mentioned before, is a nice consistency check.

## 5 THE VACUUM STATE

Let us now consider the eigenstates of the theory. The vacuum wavefunction is presumably the simplest to calculate. Ignoring the potential term $`V`$ for the moment, since $`T`$ involves derivatives, we see immediately that the ground state wavefunction for $`T`$ is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=1`$. This may seem like a trivial statement, but the key point is that it is normalizable with the inner product (13); in fact, the normalization integral is just the partition function for the WZW action and is finite. Starting with this, we can solve the Schrödinger equation taking $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ to be of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(P)`$, where $`P`$ is a perturbative series in the potential term $`V`$ (equivalent to a $`1/m`$-expansion). We then get

$`P=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{m^2c_A}}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle }:\overline{}J\overline{}J:`$ (19)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{m^2c_A}}\right)^2\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle }[:\overline{}J(𝒟\overline{})\overline{}J`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\overline{}J[J,\overline{}^2J]:]`$
$`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{m^2c_A}}\right)^3\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle }[:\overline{}J(𝒟\overline{})^2\overline{}J`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}[𝒟\overline{}J,\overline{}J]\overline{}^2J+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}[𝒟\overline{}^2J,J]\overline{}^2J`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}[J,\overline{}J][\overline{}J,\overline{}^2J]{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}[J,\overline{}J][J,\overline{}^3J]:]`$
$`+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^8}})`$
where $`𝒟h=(c_A/\pi )h[J,h]`$. The series is naturally grouped as terms with 2 $`J`$’s, terms with 3 $`J`$’s, etc. These terms can be summed up; for the $`2J`$-terms we find

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}\left[P\right]`$
$`P`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2e^2}}{\displaystyle _{x,y}}B_a(x)K(x,y)B_a(y)+𝒪(3J)`$
$`K(x,y)`$ $`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(m+\sqrt{m^2^2}\right)}}\right]_{x,y}`$
The first term in (LABEL:wavfn) has the correct (perturbative) high momentum limit, viz.,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2e^2}}{\displaystyle _{x,y}}B_a(x)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{^2}}}\right]_{x,y}B_a(y)`$ (21)
$`+𝒪(3J)]`$
Thus although we started with the high $`m`$ (or low momentum) limit, the result (LABEL:wavfn) does match onto the perturbative limit. The higher terms are also small for the low momentum limit.

We can now use this result to calculate the expectation value of the Wilson loop operator which is given as

$`W(C)`$ $`=\mathrm{Tr}Pe^{_C(Adz+\overline{A}d\overline{z})}`$ (22)
$`=\mathrm{Tr}Pe^{(\pi /c_A)_CJ}`$
For the fundamental representation, its expectation value is given by

$`W_F(C)`$ $`=\mathrm{constant}\mathrm{exp}\left[\sigma 𝒜_C\right]`$
$`\sqrt{\sigma }`$ $`=e^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{8\pi }}}`$ (23)
where $`𝒜_C`$ is the area of the loop $`C`$. $`\sigma `$ is the string tension. This is a prediction of our analysis starting from first principles with no adjustable parameters. Notice that the dependence on $`e^2`$ and $`N`$ is in agreement with large-$`N`$ expectations, with $`\sigma `$ depending only on the combination $`e^2N`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$. (The first correction to the large-$`N`$ limit is negative, viz., $`(e^2N)/2N^2\sqrt{8\pi }`$ which may be interesting in the context of large-$`N`$ analyses.) Formula (23) gives the values $`\sqrt{\sigma }/e^2=0.345,0.564,0.772,0.977`$ for $`N=2,3,4,5`$. There are estimates for $`\sigma `$ based on Monte Carlo simulations of lattice gauge theory. The results for the gauge groups $`SU(2),SU(3),SU(4)`$ and $`SU(5)`$ are $`\sqrt{\sigma }/e^2=`$ 0.335, 0.553, 0.758, 0.966 . We see that our result agrees with the lattice result to within $`3\%`$.

One might wonder at this stage why the result is so good when we have not included the $`3J`$\- and higher terms in the the wavefunction. This is basically because the string tension is determined by large area loops and for these, it is the long distance part of the wavefunction which contributes significantly. In this limit, the $`3J`$\- and higher terms in (LABEL:wavfn) are small compared to the quadratic term. We expect their contribution to $`\sigma `$ to be small as well; this is currently under study.

We have summed up the $`3J`$-terms as well. Generally, one finds that $`P`$, when expressed in terms of the magnetic field, is nonlocal even in a $`(1/m)`$-expansion, contrary to what one might expect for a theory with a mass. This is essentially due to gauge invariance combined with our choice of $`A_0=0`$; it has recently been shown that a similar result holds for the Schwinger model .

## 6 MAGNETIC MASS

I shall now briefly return to the magnetic mass. From the expression (15) we see immediately that for a wavefunction which is just $`J^a`$, we have the exact result $`TJ^a=mJ^a`$. When the potential term is added, $`J^a`$ is no longer an exact eigenstate; we find

$$(T+V)J^a=\sqrt{m^2^2}J^a+\mathrm{}$$
(24)
showing how the mass value is corrected to the relativistic dispersion relation.

Now $`J^a`$ may be considered as the gauge-invariant definition of the gluon. This result thus suggests a dynamical propagator mass $`m=e^2c_A/2\pi `$ for the gluon. A different way to see this result is as follows. We can expand the matrix field $`J`$ in powers of $`\phi _a`$ which parametrizes $`H`$, so that $`J(c_A/\pi )\phi _at_a`$. This is like a perturbation expansion, but a resummed or improved version of it, where we expand the WZW action in $`\mathrm{exp}(2c_A𝒮(H))`$ but not expand the exponential itself. The Hamiltonian can then be simplified as

$``$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle _x}[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \varphi _a^2(x)}}+\varphi _a(x)\left(m^2^2\right)\varphi _a(x)]`$ (25)
$`+\mathrm{}`$
where $`\varphi _a(k)=\sqrt{c_Ak\overline{k}/(2\pi m)}\phi _a(k)`$, in momentum space. In arriving at this expression we have expanded the currents and also absorbed the WZW-action part of the measure into the definition of the wavefunctions, i.e., the operator (25) acts on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=e^{c_AS(H)}\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The above equation shows that the propagating particles in the perturbative regime, where the power series expansion of the current is appropriate, have a mass $`m=e^2c_A/2\pi `$. This value can therefore be identified as the magnetic mass of the gluons as given by this nonperturbative analysis.

For $`SU(2)`$ our result is $`m0.32e^2`$. Gauge-invariant resummations of perturbation theory have given the values $`0.38e^2`$  and $`0.28e^2`$ .

Lattice estimates of this mass are $`0.31e^2`$ to $`0.40e^2`$ (as a common factor mass for glueballs ) and $`0.44e^2`$ to $`0.46e^2`$ in different gauges . An unambiguous lattice evaluation of this would require a gauge-invariant definition a gluon operator and its correlator. It is worth pointing out that, eventhough most lattice analyses only discuss glueballs, a gluon correlator is entirely reasonable. After all, in perturbation theory, the pole or gap in the gluon propagator is gauge-invariant to all orders and one might ask what the lattice version of this quantity is. Of course, a gauge-invariant gluon operator cannot be defined as a local operator, this is evident from the definition of $`J`$. Philipsen has recently given a nice definition of the “gluon” on the lattice. Preliminary numerical estimates then give the mass as $`0.37e^2`$ .

## 7 EXCITED STATES

Eventhough $`J`$ is useful as a description of the gluon, it is not a physical state. This is because of an ambiguity in our parametrization (1). Notice that the matrices $`M`$ and $`M\overline{V}(\overline{z})`$ both give the same $`A,\overline{A}`$, where $`\overline{V}(\overline{z})`$ only depends on $`\overline{z}`$ and not $`z`$. Since we have the same potentials, physical results must be insensitive to this redundancy in the choice of $`M`$; in other words, physical wavefunctions must be invariant under $`MM\overline{V}(\overline{z})`$. $`J`$ is not invariant; we need at least two $`J`$’s to form an invariant combination. An example is

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ $`={\displaystyle _{x,y}}f(x,y)\times `$
$`\left[\overline{}J_a(x)\left(H(x,\overline{y})H^1(y,\overline{y})\right)_{ab}\overline{}J_b(y)\right]`$
This is not quite an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. Neglecting certain $`𝒪(J^3)`$-terms, one can show that this is an approximate eigenstate of eigenvalue $`E`$ if

$`[`$ $`\sqrt{m^2_1^2}+\sqrt{m^2_2^2}+2m`$
$`+\mathrm{log}(|xy|^2/\lambda )]f(x,y)=Ef(x,y)`$
An a posteriori justification of this would require that the size of the bound state be not too large on the scale of $`1/m`$. This does not seem to be the case, so, at least for now, all we can say is that the mass of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_22m`$; see however .

## 8 YANG-MILLS-CHERN-SIMONS THEORY

We have extended our analysis to the Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons theory by adding a level $`k`$ Chern-Simons term to the action, which gives a perturbative mass $`e^2/4\pi `$ to the gluon . The inner product now becomes

$$1|2=𝑑\mu (H)e^{(k+2c_A)𝒮(H)}\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2$$
(28)
The earlier conformal field theory argument shows that there are now new integrable operators. These lead to screening behaviour for the Wilson loop operator rather than confinement, as expected. The kinetic energy term becomes

$`T`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi }}(k+2c_A){\displaystyle _u}J^a(u){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J^a(u)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2c_A}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}(u,v)\frac{\delta }{\delta J^a(u)}\frac{\delta }{\delta J^b(v)}}`$
The gluon mass is now $`(k+2c_A)e^2/4\pi `$ reflecting dynamical mass generation as well by nonperturbative effects. The vacuum state and a number of excited states have also been constructed in this case .


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The PP-waves has been shown to be maximal supersymmetric solutions of type IIB supergravity  and arise as the Penrose limit  of another maximal SUSY supergravity solution, namely $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ .111In the past two months there have been a cascade of papers devoted to this subject . The (type IIB Green-Schwarz) string theory in the PP-wave background has been formulated  and shown to be exactly solvable . The string $`\sigma `$-model action written in the light-cone takes a very simple form

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑t_0^{2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+}𝑑\sigma \left[\frac{1}{2}\dot{X}_i^2\frac{1}{2}X_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{2}\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2X_i^2+i\overline{S}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^i_i+\mu I)S\right],$$
(1)
where $`X_i`$ ’s are eight transverse bosonic string worldsheet fields, $`I=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1234}`$ and $`S`$ is a Majorana (space-time) spinor. The parameter $`\mu `$, which is the mass parameter of the strings, is the field strength of self-dual 5-form of the background PP-wave solution. The maximally SUSY PP-wave background has a $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ rotational symmetry, which is manifest in the action (1).

Since PP-waves are related to the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, Berenstien, Maldacena and Nastase (BMN), have shown how to translate the Penrose limit over the gravity side into the dual $`𝒩=4`$ SYM gauge theory . According to BMN dictionary, taking the Penrose limit corresponds to considering the sector of the gauge theory operators with large R-charge $`J`$ and large conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=positiveandfinite`$. In fact BMN explicitly constructed the string creation-annihilation operators through particular gauge theory operators. In this way they conjectured a way to obtain “string bit” formulation of the strings on PP-waves in the gauge theory language (the string bits correspond to certain chiral primary operators in the gauge theory).

Soon after the BMN work it was shown that the other supergravity solutions which are of the form $`AdS_5\times ^5`$, where $``$ is a smooth Einstein manifold and preserves some SUSY may also lead to the maximal supersymmetric PP-waves in the Penrose limit . Since string theory on these backgrounds is dual to a $`𝒩=1,D=4`$ super-conformal field theory (SCFT), in the same spirit of the BMN work, there should be particular sub-sectors of the $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theories which shows the enhancement of SUSY and hence R-symmetry.

The PP-wave limit of the $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_k`$ orbifold has also been considered . In  we showed that the $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_k`$ orbifold, depending on how we take the Penrose limit, admits two PP-waves. One is half supersymmetric and is the orbifold version of the maximal SUSY PP-wave background. However, the other one is the maximal SUSY PP-wave, as if there were no orbifolding. String theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_k`$ is dual to a $`𝒩=2,D=4`$, $`SU(N)^k`$ quiver gauge theory with bi-fundamental matter fields. In  the half SUSY case were considered and the stringy creation-annihilation of the string on the orbifolds of PP-waves were constructed out of the proper dual (“holographic”) gauge theory operators.

In this work we would like to consider the maximal SUSY PP-wave limit of the orbifolds and specify the operators in the dual $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory side which correspond to strings on PP-waves. Therefore, strings on PP-waves would have descriptions in terms of $`𝒩=4`$ , $`𝒩=1`$  and also $`𝒩=2`$ super-conformal gauge theories.

In the maximal SUSY PP-wave limit of the $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_k`$ orbifolds $`k`$ remains a free parameter, i.e. the final supergravity background and hence the string theory do not depend on $`k`$ at all. However, from the field theory side, $`k`$ is still there. In fact $`k`$ always appears as $`kJ`$, where $`J`$ is the R-charge. In particular one may study small or large $`k`$ limits, while $`kJ`$ is fixed and large. The large $`k`$ limit of the orbifolds have been previously considered in  where the interesting effect of “deconstruction” of space-time dimensions was introduced and studied.

This article is organized as follows. In section 2 we briefly review the results of  and show how the maximal SUSY PP-wave background arises in the orbifold case. In section 3, we consider the $`𝒩=2`$ quiver gauge theory case and construct the stringy operators corresponding to strings moving in PP-wave background. We consider two different cases of small and large $`k`$. We also show that in this quiver gauge theory language there is a room for another quantum number. This quantum number can be thought of as momentum (or winding) number for small (or large) $`k`$ cases. The last section is devoted to discussion and conclusions.

## 2 Review of the PP-wave limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_k`$

In this section we briefly review the results of  where it was shown that $`AdS`$ orbifolds admit the maximal SUSY PP-waves as the Penrose limit. To show how it works, consider the supergravity solution corresponding to $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_k`$ solution

$$l_s^2ds_{10}^2=R^2\left(\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2+d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+d_5^2\right),$$
(2)
with

$$d^2=d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha d\theta ^2+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }{4}(d\gamma ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma d\delta ^2)+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }{k^2}[d\chi +\frac{k}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\gamma 1)d\delta ]^2,$$
(3)
where $`\chi =\widehat{y}/l_s`$ and $`R^4=4\pi g_sNk`$. $`\chi `$ ranges from 0 to $`2\pi k`$ and the $`Z_k`$ orbifold is defined by the identification $`\chi \chi +2\pi `$. The above metric can be understood as metric for $`N`$ D3-branes sitting at the orbifold $`Z_k`$, where D3-branes are along $`0123`$ and $`Z_k`$ is acting on $`4567`$ directions (as usual) and $`89`$ is the fixed plane (the intersection of $`89`$ plane with $`S^5`$ is a circle parameterized by angle $`\theta `$). At the conformal point D3-branes are sitting at the orbifold fixed point ($`\alpha =0`$). The IIB self-dual five form is found to be

$$F_{\chi \alpha \theta \gamma \delta }=(F)_{\chi \alpha \theta \gamma \delta }=\frac{R^4}{k}\alpha ^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}^3\alpha \mathrm{sin}\gamma .$$
(4)
The (type IIB) string theory on the above background is dual to a four dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ SYM theory with gauge group $`SU(N)^k`$ and $`k`$ bi-fundamental matter hypermultiplets i.e. $`(Q_i,\stackrel{~}{Q}_i)`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$, in $`𝒩=1`$ notation. The $`Z_k`$ acts as a permutation of the gauge factors. The dimensionless gauge coupling of each $`SU(N)`$ part of the gauge group is $`g_{YM}^2g_sk`$. Besides the scalars in bi-fundamental hypermultiplets we also have the complex scalar in the vectormultiplet, $`\phi _i`$.

The maximal SUSY PP-wave background can be obtained by focusing on the particles moving along the $`\chi `$ direction. Namely, let us consider the scaling

$`t=x^++R^2x^{},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\chi =x^+R^2x^{},`$ (5)
$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{r}{R}},\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{2x}{R}},\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{R}},R\mathrm{}`$ (6)
while keeping $`x^+`$, $`x^{}`$, $`r,x`$ and $`y`$ fixed. In this limit the metric (2) becomes

$$l_s^2ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2\stackrel{}{z}^2dx^{+2}+d\stackrel{}{z}^2,$$
(7)
and

$$F_{+1234}=F_{+4567}=\mu .$$
(8)
We would like to comment that, although the above solution looks exactly the same as the PP-wave considered by BMN, there is a difference, i.e. the $`x^{}`$ direction in this case is compact. As we will show this will lead to the possiblity of having another (integer) quantum numbers for the string states, namely the light-cone momentum and winding numbers.

This background, and consequently the strings moving in this background, do not depend on $`k`$ and in particular the above limit is true for both small and large $`k`$. As we see, the SUSY has been enhanced to the maximal 32 supercharges, and also the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ R-symmetry has been enhanced to $`SO(4)SU(2)\times SU(2)`$. However, from the gauge theory side $`k`$ is still meaningful. Therefore in the proper gauge theory operators which describe the stringy operators, for the small $`k`$ case, $`k`$ can only appear as another quantum number and its corresponding operator should commute with all the string creation operators. We would like to note that in the PP-wave limit (5) we are focusing on the geodesics far from the orbifold point $`(\alpha =0)`$. From the gauge theory side this means that we are studying the theory far from the conformal point. This in particular implies that in the gauge theory operators corresponding to the string excitations only one of the $`SU(N)`$ gauge factors should be manifest.

## 3 $`𝒩=2`$ Description of strings in PP-waves

To construct the string operators in the gauge theory language, let us first very shortly review the BMN arguments . The maximal SUSY type IIB PP-wave background has a $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ isometry, as well as translations along $`x^+,x^{}`$ (and also sixteen other spatial and non-compact isometries ). These isometries from the gauge theory point of view correspond to the reminiscent of $`SO(4,2)`$ conformal symmetry and $`SO(6)SU(4)`$ R-symmetry. Choosing the sub-sector of the operators of the theory with large R-charge $`J`$ under a $`U(1)`$ factor of $`SO(6)`$, will effectively reduce the $`SO(6)`$ to $`SO(4)`$. On the other hand focusing on operators which are “almost” chiral primary (i.e. operators of large conformal weight, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=finite`$) we have also effectively reduced the conformal group to the $`SO(4)`$ subgroup . Although in the PP-wave limit the ’t Hooft coupling is very large, working with “almost” chiral primary operators has the advantage of many supersymmetric cancellations so that the effective gauge theory coupling is now

$$g_{eff}^2=\frac{g_{YM}^2N}{J^2}\frac{1}{4\pi }.$$
(9)
According to BMN the stringy operators can be written in terms of definite gauge theory operators. Let $`Z`$ be the (complex) scalar field which carries one unit of R-charge. The strings/gauge theory duality can be summarized as follows:

where $`a=1,2,3,4`$, $`\varphi _a`$ are the four scalars (other than $`Z`$, $`\overline{Z}`$), $`D_a`$ is the covariant derivative of the “holographic” gauge theory  and $`p^+`$ is the strings light-cone momentum.

Now let us concentrate on the orbifold model, the case with half supersymmetry. Starting with a $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory, the orbifolding will break $`SU(4)`$ R-symmetry to $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$, and the $`Z_k`$ is the discrete subgroup of the broken $`SU(2)`$ piece. From the string theory point of view, the $`Z_k`$ action is a symmetry of the action (1) and one can orbifold four of the $`X_i`$ components. Similar to the flat case, this orbifolding preserves half of SUSY, however, breaks the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ symmetry to $`SO(4)\times SU(2)`$. Hence, to construct the corresponding operators from the gauge theory point of view, one should start with operators which carry the R-charge under the $`U(1)_R`$ part of the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ R-symmetry. More explicitly the sequence of $`Z`$’s should be replaced with a proper combination of $`\phi _i`$’s, the scalar in the vectormultiplets . From the supergravity side one can understand this noting that the orbifold of PP-waves can be obtained from the $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_k`$ solutions and focusing on the geometry seen by particles which are moving very fast near the orbifold point (or conformal point from the corresponding quiver gauge theory side) along the $`S^1`$ (in the $`S^5`$) which is fixed under orbifold action .

However, the situation for the maximal PP-wave limit of the $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_k`$ is completely different. As it is seen from (7), the particle moving (spinning) very fast along $`\chi `$ direction while sitting at $`\rho =0,\alpha =\frac{\pi }{2}`$, feels a smooth metric. Since this metric is exactly what we have in the non-orbifold case (of course except for the compactness of $`x^{}`$), one leads to the conclusion that the $`Z_k`$ subgroup is replaced by a $`U(1)`$ subgroup and in addition, the two other generators of the broken $`SU(2)`$ combined with the $`U(1)_R`$ generates the new $`SU(2)`$ so that the R-symmetry is again $`SO(4)SU(2)\times SU(2)`$. Furthermore, being far from the conformal point, instead of $`SU(N)^k`$ we effectively deal with a single $`SU(N)`$ gauge group. This is again what we expect to see from the BMN picture. Noting the scaling (5) the light cone momenta are

$`2p^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i_{x^+}=i(_t+k_\chi )=\mathrm{\Delta }kJ`$ (10)
$`2p^+`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{_x^{}}{R^2}}=i{\displaystyle \frac{(_tk_\chi )}{R^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+kJ}{R^2}},`$ (12)
where $`J`$ is the eigen-value for $`i_\chi `$ operator. Observe that what is important and should be large is the effective angular momentum $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}=kJ`$. In fact it is this quantity which has to be taken large in the large $`R`$ limit namely,

$$(kJ)^2R^4=4\pi g_sNk.$$
(13)
Note that the coupling of the effective $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory is of order of $`g_sk`$. Hence the effective gauge coupling in our case (both large and small k cases) is

$$g_{eff}^2=\frac{g_{YM}^2N}{(Jk)^2}\frac{g_sNk}{R^4}\frac{1}{4\pi }.$$
(14)
That is, we can still treat the effective $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory perturbatively. Although in the string theory side $`J`$ and $`k`$ always appear as $`kJ`$, from the gauge theory point of view $`J`$ and $`k`$ still have their usual physical meanings. Here we study two different cases (in the gauge theory side) which should correspond to the same string theory, namely, small $`k`$ (and large $`J`$) and large $`k`$ (small $`J`$) limits.

### 3.1 Small $`k`$ case

As we have discussed, the $`J_{eff}=kJ`$ should be large and scale as $`R^2`$. First we consider the case where $`k`$ is of order of one and $`JR^2`$. In order to construct the chiral operators corresponding to the closed string excitation we first need to identify the vacuum state.

Let us define $`Z_i=Q_i^1+iQ_i^2`$. It is evident that $`Z_i`$’s are in the bi-fundamental representation, i.e. under gauge transformations $`Z_iU_iZ_iU_{i+1}^1`$. The conformal dimension of $`Z_i`$ fields is one and their $`\chi `$ R-charge is $`\frac{1}{k}`$ (and hence their $`J_{eff}=k\frac{1}{k}=1`$). Next we define a scalar field $`Z`$,

$$Z=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}Z_i$$
(15)
which has dimension $`k`$ and therefore

$$𝒪_{vac}=\mathrm{Tr}(Z^J)$$
(16)
is chiral primary, i.e. $`𝒪_{vac}`$ has $`\mathrm{\Delta }kJ=0`$. We would like to note that the $`Tr`$ in the above expression is made over $`N\times N`$ matrices. These matrices are in fact in the adjoint representations of only one of the $`SU(N)`$ factors of our $`SU(N)^k`$ gauge theory. This $`SU(N)`$ factor have been chosen to be the one parameterized by $`U_1`$. It is easy to check that $`𝒪_{vac}`$ do not depend on this specific choice of the $`SU(N)`$ factor. To see that, it is convenient to define the “twist” operator, $`\omega `$

$$\omega F_i\omega ^1=F_{i+1}$$
(17)
where $`F_i`$ is a generic operator of the $`i`$’th factor of the $`SU(N)^k`$ gauge group. If the above state corresponds to the string theory vacuum state (or more precisely the state with zero excitation number), we see that it is $`k`$-fold degenerate.

Similar to the BMN case, the idea is to discretize the string worldsheet into $`J`$ pieces. However, noting the operator corresponding stringy vacuum state, at each point of the string bit we have a $`k`$-point ($`Z_k`$ lattice) internal space. Then to obtain the string oscillatory modes we need to insert proper operators into the $`J`$-point string of $`Z`$’s.

Let us define the operators

$`\varphi ^1={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(\phi _i^1)Z_i`$ $`,`$ $`\varphi ^2={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(\phi _i^2)Z_i,`$ (18)
$`\varphi ^3={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^1`$ $`,`$ $`\varphi ^4={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^2,`$ (19)
where $`\phi _i^{1,2}`$ are the two real scalars of the complex adjoint scalar of the vectormultiplet. We note that each of these scalars $`\varphi ^a`$ ($`a=1,2,3,4`$) has $`\mathrm{\Delta }kJ=k`$ and is in the adjoint representation of the first $`SU(N)`$ gauge factor. Hence, they are the proper operators needed for constructing stringy excitations. It would be more convenient to use $`kN\times kN`$ notation. In this notation the operators we are dealing with are of the form

$$\phi =\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\phi _1& & & & & \\ & \phi _2& & & & \\ & & \phi _3& & & \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \phi _k\end{array}\right),𝒟_a=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}D_{a}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}& & & & & \\ & D_{a}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}& & & & \\ & & D_{a}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}& & & \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & D_{a}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(20)
all the off-diagonals are zero, and each element is a $`N\times N`$ matrix. In the above $`D_{a}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}`$ is the covariant derivative corresponding to the $`i`$’th $`SU(N)`$ factor. And the bi-fundamentals in the hypermultiplet as $`kN\times kN`$ matrices are

$$𝒵=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& Z_1& & & & \\ & 0& Z_2& & & \\ & & 0& & & \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & 0& Z_{k1}\\ Z_k& & & & & 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{𝒬}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& & & & & \stackrel{~}{Q}_k\\ \stackrel{~}{Q}_1& 0& & & & \\ & \stackrel{~}{Q}_2& 0& & & \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & 0& \\ & & & & \stackrel{~}{Q}_{k1}& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
Then instead of products over the $`i`$ indices one can use determinants over the $`k\times k`$ matrices, e.g. $`Z=det𝒵`$. In this notation

$`\varphi ^1=det(\phi ^1𝒵)`$ $`,`$ $`\varphi ^2=det(\phi ^2𝒵)`$ (22)
$`\varphi ^3=det(\stackrel{~}{𝒬}^1)`$ $`,`$ $`\varphi ^4=det(\stackrel{~}{𝒬}^2)`$ (23)
Also we define

$$D_aZdet(𝒟_a𝒵).$$
(24)
These scalars together with the covariant derivative of $`Z`$ will give us the basis for constructing closed string excitation. The corresponding operators with $`\mathrm{\Delta }kJ=k`$ are given by

$`a_{(q)n}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}𝒪_{(q)n}^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{J}{}}}\omega ^p\left[\mathrm{Tr}(Z^m\varphi ^aZ^{Jm})\right]\omega ^pe^{\frac{2\pi imn}{J}}e^{\frac{2\pi ipq}{k}}`$ (25)
$`a_{(q)n}^{}{}_{}{}^{4+a}𝒪_{(q)n}^{4+a}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{J}{}}}\omega ^p\left[\mathrm{Tr}(Z^mD_aZZ^{Jm})\right]\omega ^pe^{\frac{2\pi imn}{J}}e^{\frac{2\pi ipq}{k}},`$ (27)
with $`a=1,2,3,4`$. As we see the above operators have two type of indices, $`n`$ and $`q`$. The $`q`$ indices show the “momentum” quantum number with respect to $`\omega `$, i.e.

$$\omega 𝒪_{(q)n}^a\omega ^1=e^{\frac{2\pi iq}{k}}𝒪_{(q)n}^a.$$

Note that operators $`𝒪_{(q)n}^a`$ commute with $`\omega `$, for any $`n`$ and $`q`$. Therefore index $`q`$ is an internal quantum number.

The above operators are zero due to the cyclicity of the trace. Similar to the BMN case, these operators can be used to construct the excitations of the the closed strings in the 8 transverse directions. This can be done by a further $`\varphi ^a`$ or $`D_aZ`$ insertion. For example

$$a_{(q)n}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}a_{(q)n}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}𝒪_{(q)n}^{ab}\underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{J}{}}\omega ^p\left[\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^aZ^m\varphi ^bZ^{Jm})\right]\omega ^pe^{\frac{2\pi imn}{J}}e^{\frac{2\pi ipq}{k}}.$$
(28)
It is remarkable that

$$\omega 𝒪_{(q)n}^{ab}\omega ^1=e^{\frac{2\pi iq}{k}}𝒪_{(q)n}^{ab}.$$
(29)
Therefore we can construct states whose $`q`$ momentum are non-zero, however, the sum of the other quantum number, $`n`$, for any closed string state should be zero, similar to the BMN case . One can also write down the fermionic operators using the supersymmetry present in the theory.

As we expect, these operators have the same structure as in the $`𝒩=4`$ case. However, one should note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }kJ`$ for these operators is $`k`$ (instead of one). This can be understood as follows:

In the Penrose limit which leads to the maximal SUSY case we are considering geometry seen by particle far from the orbifold fixed point ($`\alpha =\pi /2`$). In other words from that particle point of view it seems that we are working in the covering space of the orbifold and hence to compare our results with that of BMN we should rescale $`p^+`$ by a factor of $`k`$. This in particular implies that the dimension of the operators in the subsector of the theory we are focusing on, is always a multiple of $`k`$. More intuitively, in the BMN picture the length $`R`$ have been divided into $`J`$ pieces and since $`JR^2`$ the momentum along this direction should be measured in $`\frac{1}{R}\frac{R}{J}`$ units. However, in our case $`kJR^2`$, while still we have divided the length $`R`$ into $`J`$ pieces. Therefore the momentum units are now $`\frac{k}{R}`$ . To summarize, taking a fast moving particle in the $`\chi `$ direction breaks the Lorentz group $`SO(2,4)`$ to $`SO(4)`$ and effectively reduces the gauge group $`SU(N)^k`$ to $`SU(N)`$ while enhances the R-symmetry from $`U(1)_R\times SU(2)_R`$ to a global $`SO(4)`$ symmetry.

### 3.2 Large $`k`$ case

In this part we focus on the large $`k`$ case. Let us first consider $`J=1`$ case while $`k`$ is scaling like $`R^2`$. Here the closed string worldsheet is (de)constructed from $`k`$-points which are $`k`$ equidistant points around a circle of radius $`R`$ (the distance between the string bits is going to zero as $`\frac{1}{R}`$ in the large $`R`$, PP-wave, limit). The operator (16) (with $`J=1`$) corresponds to the vacuum of string theory. Then the stringy creation operators can be found by insertion of $`\phi _i`$’s (scalars in the vectormultiplet), $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i`$’s (other bi-fundamental scalars), and the covariant derivative in the sequence of $`Z_i`$’s in (16). More explicitly:

$`𝒪_q^{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}}e^{\frac{2\pi ipq}{k}}STr(Z_1\mathrm{}Z_{p1}\phi _pZ_p\mathrm{}Z_k)`$ (30)
$`𝒪_q^{3,4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}}e^{\frac{2\pi ipq}{k}}STr(Z_1\mathrm{}Z_{p1}Z_p\stackrel{~}{Q}_pZ_pZ_{p+1}\mathrm{}Z_k)`$ (31)
$`𝒪_q^{4+a}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}}e^{\frac{2\pi ipq}{k}}STr(Z_1\mathrm{}Z_{p1}D_aZ_p\mathrm{}Z_k),`$ (32)
where $`a=1,\mathrm{}4`$. In the above $`STr`$ has been defined as

$`STr(A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_{p1}B_p\mathrm{}A_k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}}Tr(A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_{p1}B_p\mathrm{}A_k)`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\omega ^pTr(B_1A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_k)\omega ^p,`$ (34)
where $`\omega `$ is the twist operator. The $`STr`$ defined as above, guarantees the necessary “cyclicity” condition of the trace, crucial for constructing the stringy operators. Therefore the operators (30) are identically zero. Using $`STr`$ is further justified noting that $`STr`$ is actually the trace over the diagonal $`SU(N)`$ factor and the fact that the maximal supersymmetric PP-wave limit corresponds to quiver gauge theory far from its conformal point. Identifying (16) with the string theory vacuum state gives a non-zero expectation value to the vacuum operator. This in particular implies that the original $`SU(N)^k`$ gauge theory is higgsed down to the diagonal $`SU(N)`$ and hence the traces should be made over that subsector only. One can proceed to construct closed string operators by insertion of another $`\phi _i`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i`$ in the $`Z_i`$ chain.

Relation to space-time (de)construction

An interesting feature of our model in the large $`k`$ and worldsheet deconstruction, is its close relation with space-time deconstructing dimension scenario . In fact the model we are considering here is exactly the one studied in  which exhibits a new dimension for large $`k`$ limit. In  it has been shown that the quiver model we have been studying here in its Higgs branch flows to a five dimensional $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory. In our point of view it can be understood through T-duality where our solution will be a configuration of NS5 and wrapped D4-branes. The supergravity solution of this model, as well as its uplift to M-theory, have been considered in . The theory has a Higgs phase where the gauge group $`SU(N)^k`$ breaks to its diagonal $`SU(N)`$ factor and hence is effectively the theory on the worldvolume of D4-branes wrapped on a circle with the radius proportional to $`k`$.

To establish the relation between worldsheet and space-time deconstructions we note the usual KK expansion of a generic field of five dimensional theory reduced on a circle, i.e.

$$A(\stackrel{}{X},y)=\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_p(\stackrel{}{X})e^{ipy},$$

where $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ are parametrizing the four dimensional part and $`y`$ which is ranging from 0 to $`2\pi `$, the compact fifth direction. Now if we replace the circle with a discretized version consisting of $`k`$ points, $`p`$ in the KK expansion ranges from 1 to $`k`$ and $`y`$ can be replaced with $`\frac{2\pi q}{k}`$, $`q`$ ranging from 1 to $`k`$. In this discretized form the usual KK expansion is essentially the same as the expansion we have used to construct the stringy operators (cf. Eq.(30)). This could lead to a close relation between string theory on the PP-wave and this five dimensional theory. Definitely this consideration deserves more study and we are going to push this direction in our future work .

$`J>1`$ case

Here we will show that $`J>1`$ opens the possibility for strings to have “winding” modes. To visualize this, we recall the usual string windings. Let $`\sigma `$ be the closed string worldsheet parameter which ranges from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$. Then, the winding number $`w`$ is the number of times a string repeats itself along a compact direction in the $`2\pi R`$ units ($`R`$ is the radius of the compact direction), i.e. $`X(2\pi )X(0)=2\pi Rw`$, where $`X`$ is the string worldsheet field. Usually the winding number, unlike the momentum modes, is not associated with a (quantum) operator and basically quantization of winding number is a classical effect. However, one can think of winding to be eigen-value of an “identity” operator $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }X(0)\mathrm{\Omega }^1=X(2\pi )`$. Essentially $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is translation operator on the worldsheet by $`2\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Omega }X=2\pi Rw`$. Now let us go back to the gauge theory case. As we have shown for $`J=1`$ case we (de)construct worldsheet from $`Z_i`$ $`1ik`$. In other words index $`i`$ plays the role of worldsheet coordinate $`\sigma `$. In particular twist operator $`\omega `$ generates infinitesimal translations along the worldsheet. However, to see the role of $`J`$ it is simpler to extend the range of $`i`$ index from $`k`$ to $`kJ`$ and then in the end we re-identify $`Z_i`$ with $`Z_{i+k}`$. To avoid possible confusions we will denote this extended index by $`r`$ $`(1rkJ)`$. Then any $`r`$ can be written as $`r=mk+q`$ where $`0mJ1`$ and $`1qk`$. Similar to the previous case we use the operator $`\omega `$ to move in the $`q`$ part of the index $`r`$, moreover we introduce the new operator $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which changes $`r`$ in $`k`$ units:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }Z_r\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{r+k},\mathrm{\Omega }^J1,`$ (35)
$`\omega Z_r\omega ^1`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{r+1},\omega ^k1,Z_rZ_{r+kJ}.`$ (36)
Equipped with the above operators, $`\omega `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the extended index $`r`$, we are ready to write the proper operators we are looking for. The proper vacuum state is still given by (16). This vacuum is $`J`$-fold degenerate (it is invariant under $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). The operators corresponding to excited strings can be defined as

$$𝒪_{(n)q}^\alpha =\underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{J1}{}}STr(Z^mZ_1^\alpha Z^{Jm1})e^{\frac{2\pi ipq}{k}}e^{\frac{2\pi imn}{J}},\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},8,$$
(37)
where $`Z`$ is defined by (15) and

$$Z^m\underset{s=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }^sZ\mathrm{\Omega }^s,$$
(38)
$$Z_1^\alpha =\mathrm{\Omega }^m(X_1^\alpha Z_1\mathrm{}Z_k)\mathrm{\Omega }^m.$$
(39)
In the Eq.(39) $`X_1^\alpha `$ can be chosen among $`D_{a}^{}{}_{1}{}^{},\phi _1^1,\phi _1^2,\stackrel{~}{Q}_1^1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_1^2`$. $`STr`$ is defined by (33). We should emphasize that after making all the manipulations again we set $`Z_{r+k}Z_r`$ (or equivalently, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is set to identity).

Noting the operator (37) following remarks are in order:

i) As previous cases, the $`STr`$ is over the $`N\times N`$ matrices of the diagonal $`SU(N)`$ gauge factor. So, effectively the subsector of the operators we are dealing with has a single $`SU(N)`$ gauge symmetry.

ii) $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝒪_{(n)q}^\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1=e^{\frac{2\pi in}{J}}𝒪_{(n)q}^\alpha ,n=0,1,\mathrm{},J1`$. This in particular implies that $`n`$ is another quantum number related to strings center of mass degrees of freedom and can be identified with the winding number.

iii) Because of the cyclicity of the trace, operator (37) is zero. The higher stringy excitations can be found by more insertions of $`Z_1^\alpha `$ (operators defined in Eq.(39)).

iv) The same extension for the range of indices from $`k`$ to $`kJ`$ can also be used for the large $`J`$, small $`k`$ case. However, then the proper decomposition of index $`r`$ is $`r=qJ+m`$, $`(0q<k,0m<J)`$.

## 4 Discussions

In this paper we have studied the Penrose limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_k`$ which leads to the maximally supersymmetric PP-wave background in type IIB string theory. Since the PP-wave we have found from orbifold model has maximal SUSY, we would expect to find a subsector of $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(N)^k`$ quiver theory which exhibits the supersymmetry enhancement. In fact we have shown that there is such a subsector which is parameterized by conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and R-charge $`kJ`$ such that both $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`kJ`$ are parameterically large while their difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }kJ`$ is finite.

The important point in this case is that the quantity which has to be taken large in the large $`R`$ limit is $`kJ`$ and not the angular momentum of the particle $`J`$. In fact, as far as the oscillator modes of the string theory (and also the background supergravity) are concerned $`J`$ and $`k`$ always appear as $`kJ`$. Therefore for large $`kJ`$ limit we have to different choices: we can take either $`k`$ large and finite $`J`$ or large $`J`$ and finite $`k`$.

For both cases we have studied the gauge invariant chiral operators in the quiver model and identified them with the string excitations of type IIB string theory on the maximally supersymmetric PP-wave. This subsector of the quiver model has the same structure as the one considered for $`𝒩=4`$  indicating that there is a supersymmetry enhancement and furthermore the $`SU(N)^k`$ gauge symmetry is higgsed down to the diagonal $`SU(N)`$.

We note, however, that although the PP-wave solution looks very much like the one considered in , there are some differences which have to be taken into account and these differences make the quiver model have richer structure. The first difference we would like to mention is: the direction which is combined with $`t`$ is compact and hence the maximally supersymmetric PP-wave we find in this case has compact $`x^{}`$ direction. Moreover, since in the gauge theory side we have two quantum numbers $`k`$ and $`J`$, the states in the string theory should have an other extra quantum number in comparison to the ordinary maximally PP-wave background studied by BMN. Therefore the operators we introduced here are labelled by two integers, the excitation and winding or momentum numbers. We have argued that in the large $`J`$, finite $`k`$ case there is an operator which commutes with all the stringy oscillators and its eigen-values (which range from $`0`$ to $`k1`$) can be identified as momentum modes. For the large $`k`$, finite $`J`$ case, however, we have shown that the other (quantum) number, which ranges from $`0`$ to $`J1`$, corresponds to the winding modes.

We have also discussed the relation between the deconstruction of space-time dimensions through the “theory space”  and our worldsheet deconstruction. It would be quite interesting to make this arguments more explicit and also extend the same argument to the M-theory, similar to that of Ref. .

The other interesting open question we address here is the possible duality between the large $`J`$ and large $`k`$ cases. Besides the similarities in the form of the operators in these two cases (Eqs.(25) and (37)), there is the usual T-duality which exchanges winding and momentum modes. We also expect to see such a duality here, under which the $`k`$ and $`J`$ parameters are replaced while their product is kept fixed and scale like $`R^2`$. We hope to come back to this question in future publications.

Note added: While we were preparing our paper for submission we received the paper  where the same question has been studied.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Farhad Ardalan, Hesam Arfaei, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Sunil Mukhi and Leopoldo Pando-Zayas and especially Keshav Dasgupta for fruitful discussions. The research of M. M. Sh-J. is supported in part by NSF grant PHY- 9870115 and in part by funds from the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics.