text:
# Two-Hole and Four-Hole Bound States in a 𝑡-𝐽 Ladder at half-filling

## I INTRODUCTION

Ladder models of magnetic and electronic systems, such as the Heisenberg, $`tJ`$ and Hubbard ladders, have attracted great interest in recent years dag96 ; ric97 , on both theoretical and experimental grounds. The ladders provide a “half-way house” between one-dimensional and two-dimensional systems, and display new and interesting behaviour in their own right. The spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ Heisenberg ladder, for instance, forms a magnetically disordered spin liquid, with a finite spin gapdag96 . Experimentally, two-leg $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ ladders are found in some cuprates like SrCu2O3azu94 ; while the ladder material Sr14-xCaxCu24O4 has recently been found to show superconductivity under high pressureueh96 .

In this paper we study two-hole bound states which occur in the $`tJ`$ ladder at half-filling, using a newly developed linked-cluster series expansion method for 2-particle statestre00 . A rich spectrum of multiparticle bound states will be revealed. The properties of 2-particle states, such as their dispersion relations, coherence lengths and exclusive structure factors, can provide much important information about the dynamics of the model at hand, providing a stringent test of any analytical model of the system. These properties are also amenable to experimental test, via neutron scattering or other techniques. In the case of the Heisenberg ladder, for instance, a modelkot98 ; sus98  based on triplet excitations of a ground state consisting of singlet dimers on each rung of the laddersac90 ; gop94 ; Dam98  provides a reasonable qualitative description of the numerical results for both 1- and 2-particle excitations, not only in the dimer limit, but even for the isotropic case. Ideally, one would like to achieve a similar convergence between analytical theory and numerical ‘experiment’ for the case of the $`tJ`$ ladder.

The basic properties of the $`tJ`$ ladder have been explored by exact diagonalizationsdag92 ; poi95 ; tro96 ; hay96 ; hay96b ; mul98 ; rie99 , the density renormalization groupwhi97 ; sie98 ; gaz99 ; rom00 , quantum Monte Carlo simulationbru01 , and series expansion techniquesoit99 ; zwh02 , as well as approximate analytic theoriessie98 ; gaz99 ; sig94 ; lee ; sus99 ; jur01 . The Hamiltonian of the $`tJ`$ ladder is

$`H=`$ $`J{\displaystyle \underset{i,a}{}}(𝐒_{i,a}𝐒_{i+1,a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n_{i,a}n_{i+1,a})+J_{}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(𝐒_{i,1}𝐒_{i,2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n_{i,1}n_{i,2})`$ (1)
$`t{\displaystyle \underset{i,a,\sigma }{}}P(c_{i,a,\sigma }^{}c_{i+1,a,\sigma }+H.c.)Pt_{}{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}P(c_{i,1,\sigma }^{}c_{i,2,\sigma }+H.c.)P`$
where $`i`$ labels sites along each chain, $`\sigma `$ ($`=`$ or $``$) and $`a`$ (=1,2) are spin and leg indices, and $`P`$ is a projection operator which excludes doubly occupied sites. The constants $`J`$, $`t`$ are exchange and hopping parameters on each chain, while $`J_{}`$, $`t_{}`$ are coupling parameters between the two chains, i.e. on the rungs of the ladder.

The scenario is then as followstro96 .

Starting from the half-filled case, and in the dimer limit of strong interchain coupling $`J_{},t_{}`$, the ground state consists of spin singlet dimers on each rung, as in the Heisenberg ladder. The lowest spin excitation is a triplet excitation on one rung, propagating via the coupling between the rungs. There are also hole excitations with spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$, which carry both spin and charge. The lowest 2-hole excitation consists of a singlet hole pair on one rung, which again develops into a band by propagation along the ladder. Relative to the 2-hole ground state, this then corresponds to a gapless band of particle-hole charge excitations: thus the system is said to be in a Luther-Emery C1S0 phase (1 gapless charge mode, 0 gapless spin modes). The spin gap evolves discontinuously away from half-fillingtro96 , because there is a triplet particle-hole excitation of lower energy than the triplet magnon state referred to above.

A phase diagram in the $`J/t`$ versus electron density $`n`$ plane, for the case of isotropic couplings, has been proposed by Poilblanc et al.poi95  and by Müller and Ricemul98 . For $`J/t2`$, phase separation is predicted to occurrom00 . For $`J/t2`$ and low to moderate doping the system is in a C1S0 phase, and crosses to a C1S1 phase (i.e. the spin gap vanishes) for higher doping. For small $`J/t`$ and low doping Müller and Ricemul98  also find ferromagnetic (Nagaoka) and C2S2 phases. Superconducting pairing correlations occur away from half-fillingdag92 ; hay96 ; sig94 .

Jurecka and Brenigjur01  have recently constructed an analytic model of the 2-hole bound states on the $`tJ`$ ladder, starting from a rung dimer ground state as discussed above, and including both 1-hole pseudofermion elementary excitations and 2-hole singlet excitations on a single rung. They find a low-lying $`S=0`$ bound state in good agreement with exact diagonalization calculations, but the triplet gap is underestimated as the isotropic limit is approached.

The outline of the paper as follows: in Sect. II we briefly describe our series expansion method, while Section III present results for pairs of ‘even parity’ and ‘odd parity’ excitations respectively, A rich and complex spectrum of bound states is revealed. Sect. IV discusses 4-hole bound states formed from two hole-pairs, each on a single rung, and this allows some discussion of phase separation. Sect. V give a summary and discussion. All the bound states discussed in this paper involve identical ‘single particle’ components; bound states of non-identical components will be treated in a separate paper.

## II Method

We employ a “rung basis”, in which the 2nd and 4th terms in (1) form the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_0`$, and the remaining terms are treated perturbatively. That is, the Hamiltonian (1) is rewritten as

$$H=H_0+xV$$
(2)
where

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`J_{}[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(𝐒_{i,1}𝐒_{i,2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n_{i,1}n_{i,2})`$ (3)
$`y_1{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}P(c_{i,1,\sigma }^{}c_{i,2,\sigma }+H.c.)P]`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`J_{}[{\displaystyle \underset{i,a}{}}(𝐒_{i,a}𝐒_{i+1,a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n_{i,a}n_{i+1,a})`$ (4)
$`y_2{\displaystyle \underset{i,a,\sigma }{}}P(c_{i,a,\sigma }^{}c_{i+1,a,\sigma }+H.c.)P]`$
and $`x=J/J_{}`$, $`y_1=t_{}/J_{}`$, and $`y_2=t/J`$.

The eigenstates of $`H_0`$ are direct products constructed from the nine possible rung states, which are listed in Table I for easy reference. In the half-filled case, the lowest energy rung state is a spin-singlet state $`()/\sqrt{2}`$. The ground state of the unperturbed Hamiltonian, at half-filling, is then a direct product of these spin-singlet states on each rung. The lowest spin excitation, at half-filling, consists of a spin-triplet excitation on one rung, which propagates coherently along the ladder. One and two-hole charge excitations are created by removing one or two electrons from a rung state and allowing these to propagate, via the $`t`$-hopping term. In our previous workoit99 , we have studied the 1-hole properties, and the properties of 2-holes sitting on the same rung. The study of the dynamic properties of 2-holes sitting on different rungs is much more complicated: these have been studied by Jurecka and Brenigjur01  and by Troyer, Tsunetsugu and Ricetro96 .

Recently, we have developed strong-coupling series expansion methods to study two-particle spectra of quantum lattice modelszwh01 . These methods allow us to precisely determine the low-lying excitation spectra of the models at hand, including all two-particle bound/antibound states, at least for small $`x`$. In this paper, we apply this new technique to study the dynamic properties of 2-holes in the $`tJ`$ ladder.

As discussed in our previous paperzwh01 , to compute the two-particle properties, we first calculate an effective Hamiltonian in the two-particle sector

$$E_2(𝐢,𝐣;𝐤,𝐥)=𝐤,𝐥|H^{\mathrm{eff}}|𝐢,𝐣,$$
(5)
and then calculate the irreducible two-particle matrix element

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2(𝐢,𝐣;𝐤,𝐥)`$ $`=`$ $`E_2(𝐢,𝐣;𝐤,𝐥)E_0(\delta _{𝐢,𝐤}\delta _{𝐣,𝐥}+\delta _{𝐢,𝐥}\delta _{𝐣,𝐤})`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(𝐢,𝐤)\delta _{𝐣,𝐥}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(𝐢,𝐥)\delta _{𝐣,𝐤}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(𝐣,𝐤)\delta _{𝐢,𝐥}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(𝐣,𝐥)\delta _{𝐢,𝐤},`$
where $`\delta `$ refers to a Kronecker delta function and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ is the one-particle irreducible matrix element. Once the effective two-particle Hamiltonian is known, we still have to solve the Schrödinger equation. The two particle continuum is delimited by the maximum (minimum) energy of two single particle excitations whose combined momentum is the center of mass momentum. There may be multiple solutions to the Schrödinger equation above or below the two-particle continuum. Those solutions with energy below the bottom edge of the continuum are the bound states, while those with energy higher than the upper edge of the continuum are the antibound states. The binding energy is defined as the energy difference between the lower edge of the continuum and the energy of the bound state, while the antibinding energy is defined as the energy difference between the upper edge of continuum and the energy of an antibound state.

To compute the perturbation series we choose values for the free parameters $`y_1,y_2`$, and derive expansions in powers of $`x`$. Series have been computed to order $`x^{11}`$. The calculations involve (trivial) 1-dimensional clusters up to 12 rungs, and are limited to this order by computer memory constraints. To avoid excessive data here we mainly consider the case that $`y_1=y_2`$. The series for the energies of the lowest singlet bound states $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ and triplet bound state $`T_1`$ (and also the lower edge of the continuum) at band maximum $`k=\pi `$ for $`y_1=y_2=0.1`$ are given in Table 2. Other series are available on request.

In the small $`x`$ limit our strong coupling series are highly accurate and we can find all details of various two-particle bound (and antibound) states. The overall 2-particle spectrum is much richer than that obtained in previous studies. Several singlet and triplet bound/antibound states are found. The number of bound states depends on the coupling constants as well as the wavevector.

Previous numerical studiestro96 ; jur01  on small lattices have concentrated on the coupling $`y_1=1/3`$, $`y_2=10/3`$, and $`t=t_{}`$, and found one singlet bound state in the even parity channel. Unfortunately, our series expansions do not converge well at this coupling, so we can not make a direct comparison. In order to check the correctness of our results, we also did some finite lattice calculations on small systems, and find very good agreement for the lowest energy bound state. The finite lattice calculations on small systems certainly are not accurate enough, however, to see other bound states sitting very close to the lower edge of the continuum.

## III two-hole bound states

### III.1 Even-parity channel

Among the nine eigenstates for the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ on each rung, there are the following two spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ electron-hole bonding stateszwh01

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(0+0)`$
(7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(0+0),`$
which have ‘even parity’ with respect to reflection across the ladder. The eigenenergy for these two states is $`t_{}`$. In this section, we discuss the bound states formed from two of these excitations.

We find that the number of bound states and antibound states depends strongly on $`J/J_{}`$ and $`t/J(=t_{}/J_{}`$). Ignoring the antibound states, Fig. 1 show the number of singlet ($`S=0`$) bound states in the plane of $`t/J(=t_{}/J_{})`$ and $`J/J_{}`$. We can see that for large $`t/J`$ ($`t/J0.5`$) there is only one singlet bound state, while around $`t/J0.3`$, there is a region where there are two singlet bound states, and for smaller $`t/J`$ and $`J/J_{}>0`$, there is a region where there are more than 2 singlet bound states. In this region, the number of bound state increases as $`J/J_{}`$ increases. Note that all these are in addition to the singlet state consisting of a pair of holes on the same rung.

Fig. 2 shows the number of triplet ($`S=1`$) bound states in the same plane. We can see that for large $`t/J`$ ($`t/J0.5`$) there are no triplet bound states, whereas around $`t/J0.2`$ and small $`J/J_{}`$, there is a region where there is only one triplet bound state, and for smaller $`t/J`$ and $`J/J_{}>0`$, there is a region where there are multiple triplet bound states. The existence of these multiple bound states has not been noted before, to our knowledge. Note also that the triplet bound states appear to vanish as the isotropic case $`J/J_{}`$ is approached.

Now let us look at a particular case $`t/J=t_{}/J_{}=0.1`$ (i.e. small hopping parameters) and $`J/J_{}=0.2`$. The two-particle excitation spectrum is shown in Fig. 3. One can see from these graphs that there are three singlet bound states ($`S_1`$, $`S_2`$ and $`S_3`$) and one triplet bound state ($`T_1`$) below the continuum, and two triplet antibound states ($`T_2`$ and $`T_3`$) above the continuum, in addition to the state $`S_0`$ corresponding to a hole pair on a single rung. All the dispersion bands are very flat, as expected for small hopping parameters. The singlet bound state $`S_1`$ exists for the whole range of momenta (its coherence length $`L`$ is finite also for the whole range of momenta), while other bound/antibound states exist only in a limited range of momenta near $`k=\pi `$. Figure 4 shows the inverse of the coherence length $`1/L`$ versus momentum $`k`$ for these various bound states. At $`k=\pi `$, the coherence length $`L`$ for $`S_1`$ and $`T_1`$ is 1, for $`S_2`$ and $`T_2`$, it is about 2, $`S_3`$ has coherence length $`L`$ about 3, while for $`T_3`$ the coherence length $`L`$ is very large, about 20 (its antibinding energy at $`k=\pi `$ is very small, $`E_b/J_{}=8.9\times 10^8`$, so $`T_3`$ is indistinguishable from the two-particle continuum in Fig. 3). This means that the formation of bound/antibound states $`S_1`$, $`T_1`$ , $`S_2`$, $`T_2`$, $`S_3`$ is largely due to the interaction of two bonding rungs separated by distances 1, 1, 2, 2, and 3 respectively, while the formation of $`T_3`$ is much more complicated. For comparison, also shown in Fig. 3 is the dispersion for the one-hole bonding state, and the dispersion of two-holes sitting on the same rungoit99 : here two holes sitting on the same rung have lower energy.

To check the correctness of our series calculations, we also performed an exact diagonalization for a finite lattice of 8 rungs with periodic boundary condition for this set of parameters. The results for $`k=0,\pi `$ are also shown in Fig. 3. There is remarkable agreement for the state $`S_1`$, but the finite lattice calculation is not accurate enough to give the other bound states sitting very close to the continuum.

We now study the behaviour as a function of the coupling ratio $`J/J_{}`$, fixing $`t/J=t_{}/J_{}=0.1`$ and $`k=\pi `$. The binding/antibinding energies $`E_b`$ and the inverse of the coherence length $`1/L`$ versus $`J/J_{}`$ are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. In the small $`J`$ limit, there are two singlet bound states $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ (with coherence lengths 1 and 2, respectively), one triplet bound state $`T_1`$ (coherence length 1), and one triplet antibound state $`T_2`$ (coherence length 2). As $`J`$ increases, more and more singlet and triplet bound states appear: we find that the singlet/triplet bound/antibound states $`S_3`$, $`S_4`$, $`S_5`$ and $`T_3`$ appear at $`J/J_{}`$ about 0.0480, 0.39, 0.55 and 0.180 respectively. To find out the behaviour near the threshold, we plot in Fig. 7 the square root of the binding energy $`(E_b/J_{})^{1/2}`$ and the inverse of the coherence length $`1/L`$ versus $`J/J_{}`$ for singlet bound state $`S_3`$. We can see that near threshold, the curves are nearly straight lines, which implies that near threshold $`E_b(xx_c)^2`$ and $`L(xx_c)^1`$, corresponding to “threshold indices” 2 and -1, respectively, where $`x=J/J_{}`$. For a fixed value of $`J/J_{}`$, the threshold behaviour as a function of momentum is $`E_b(kk_c)^2`$, $`L(kk_c)^1`$. We expect similar behaviour for other bound/antibound states (but see Sect. IV).

Next we consider the case $`t/J=t_{}/J_{}=1`$ (stronger hopping terms) and $`J/J_{}=0.2`$. The two-particle excitation spectrum and the inverse of the coherence length $`1/L`$ versus momentum $`k`$ are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. Here there is only one singlet bound state $`S_1`$ below the continuum, and one triplet antibound state ($`T_1`$) above it. Both $`S_1`$ and $`T_1`$ exist only in a limited range of momenta near $`k=\pi `$, and their coherence lengths $`L`$ at $`k=\pi `$ are about 1. As comparison, also shown in Fig. 8 is the dispersion for the one-hole bonding state, and the dispersion of two-holes sitting on the same rungoit99 , $`S_0`$. In this case the state $`S_0`$ actually lies above the state $`S_1`$, and even above the 2-particle continuum.

If we fix the values $`t/J=t_{}/J_{}=1`$ and $`k=\pi `$, the binding/antibinding energies $`E_b`$ and the inverse of the coherence length $`1/L`$ versus $`J/J_{}`$ are shown in Fig. 10. One can see that the singlet bound state $`S_1`$ and the triplet antibound state $`T_1`$ exist in the small $`J`$ limit, but as $`J`$ increases, no more new bound/antibound states appear.

Sometimes a bound state can appear in the regions near both $`k=0`$ and $`k=\pi `$, but not at intermediate momenta. For example for $`t/J=t_{}/J_{}=0.425`$, the binding energy and coherence length $`L`$ for $`J/J_{}=0.025`$, 0.05 and 0.075 are shown in Fig. 11. For very small $`J/J_{}`$ (0.025 and 0.05 in the figure), the singlet bound state exists over the whole range of momenta, but for larger $`J/J_{}`$ (0.075 in the figure), this singlet bound state only exists in the regions near both $`k=0`$ and $`k=\pi `$, but not in the intermediate regions of momentum.

As already seen above, the lowest energy 2-hole bound state may correspond to a pair of holes on the same rung ($`S_0`$), or two holes on different rungs ($`S_1`$), depending on the parameters $`t/J(=t_{}/J_{})`$ and $`J/J_{}`$. The boundary between these two situations is shown in Fig. 12: we will refer back to this diagram later on.

### III.2 Odd-parity channel

Among nine rung eigenstates for the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ in each rung, there are the following two spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ odd-parity electron-hole antibonding states

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(00)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(00)`$ (8)
The eigen energy for these two states is $`t_{}`$. In this section, we discuss bound states of these two 1-particle excitations.

As for the case of even parity, the number of bound states and antibound states depends on $`J/J_{}`$ and $`t/J(=t_{}/J_{}`$). Fig. 13 shows the diagram for the number of singlet ($`S=0`$) bound states, where we can see that for large $`t/J`$ ($`t/J0.5`$) there is only one singlet bound state, while around $`t/J0.3`$, there is a region where there are two singlet bound states. For smaller $`t/J`$ and $`J/J_{}>0`$, there is a region where there are more than two singlet bound states, and in this region, the number of bound states increases as $`J/J_{}`$ increases.

Fig. 14 shows the diagram for the number of triplet ($`S=1`$) bound states. For $`t/J0.5`$, there is one triplet bound state, while elsewhere no triplet bound state exists, except in a region at very small $`t/J`$.

If we take the values $`t/J=t_{}/J_{}=0.1`$ and $`J/J_{}=0.2`$, the two-particle excitation spectrum and the inverse of the coherence length $`1/L`$ versus momentum $`k`$ are shown in Figs. 15 and 16. There are three singlet bound states ($`S_1`$, $`S_2`$ and $`S_3`$) below the continuum, and three triplet antibound states ($`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ and $`T_3`$) above the continuum. The singlet bound state $`S_1`$ exists for the whole range of momenta (its coherence length $`L`$ is finite also for the whole range of momenta), while other bound/antibound states exist only in a limited range of momenta near $`k=\pi `$. At $`k=\pi `$, the coherence length $`L`$ for $`S_1`$ and $`T_1`$ is 1, for $`S_2`$ and $`T_2`$ it is about 2, while $`S_3`$ and $`T_3`$ have coherence length $`L`$ about 3. This means that the formation of bound/antibound states $`S_1`$, $`T_1`$ , $`S_2`$, $`T_2`$, $`S_3`$ and $`T_3`$ is largely due to the interaction of two antibonding rungs separated by distances 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, and 3 respectively.

If we fix the values $`t/J=t_{}/J_{}=0.1`$ and $`k=\pi `$, the binding/antibinding energies $`E_b`$ and the inverse of the coherence length $`1/L`$ versus $`J/J_{}`$ are shown in Figs. 17 and 18. One can see that at the small $`J`$ limit, we have two singlet bound states $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ (with coherence lengths 1 and 2, respectively), and two triplet antibound states $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ (with coherence lengths 1 and 2, respectively). As $`J`$ increases, more and more singlet bound state and triplet antibound states turn up, and in our calculations, we find that states $`S_3`$, $`S_4`$, and $`T_3`$ appear at $`J/J_{}`$ about 0.05, 0.12, and 0.07 respectively, while $`S_2`$, $`S_3`$, $`S_4`$, and $`T_1`$ disappear at $`J/J_{}`$ about 0.32, 0.29, 0.13 and 0.46, respectively. Thus state $`S_4`$ pops out below the continuum only very briefly. The threshold index for the binding energy of $`S_2`$ and $`T_1`$ is about 1, rather than 2, as found by Dlog Padé approximants to the series.

For larger hopping terms $`t/J=t_{}/J_{}=1`$ and $`J/J_{}=0.2`$, the two-particle excitation spectrum and the inverse of the coherence length $`1/L`$ versus momentum $`k`$ are shown in Fig. 19. Now there is one singlet bound state $`S_1`$ and one triplet bound state ($`T_1`$) below the continuum, but no antibound state. Both $`S_1`$ and $`T_1`$ exist only in a limited range of momenta near $`k=\pi `$, and their coherence lengths $`L`$ at $`k=\pi `$ are about 1.

If we fix the values $`t/J=t_{}/J_{}=1`$ and $`k=\pi `$, the binding energies $`E_b`$ and the inverse of the coherence length $`1/L`$ versus $`J/J_{}`$ are shown in Fig. 20. The singlet bound state $`S_1`$ and the triplet bound state $`T_1`$ exist as long as $`J0`$ , but no more new bound/antibound states appear as $`J`$ increases.

## IV Four-hole bound states and phase separation

Among nine rung eigenstates for the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ on each rung, there is one state of a two-hole pair with eigenenergy 0. In this section, we discuss bound states of 2 two-hole pair excitations, corresponding to the half filled system doped with 4 holes.

As for the case of 2-hole bound states, the number of bound states and antibound states depends on $`J/J_{}`$ and $`t/J(=t_{}/J_{}`$). Fig. 21 shows the number of singlet ($`S=0`$) bound states in various regions of parameter space. For large $`t/J`$ ($`t/J0.3`$) and large $`J/J_{}`$, there is only one singlet bound state, while elsewhere there are two singlet bound states, except for a peculiar very narrow region (given by the bold solid line) where there is only one bound state, and a small region at low $`t/J`$ (labelled by $`>2`$) where there are more than two bound states.

If we take the values $`t/J=t_{}/J_{}=0.1`$ and $`J/J_{}=0.15`$ (we take $`J/J_{}=0.15`$, rather than $`J/J_{}=0.2`$ as before, because at $`J/J_{}=0.2`$ we have only one bound state), the two-particle excitation spectrum and the inverse of the coherence length $`1/L`$ versus momentum $`k`$ are shown in Figs. 22 and 23. There are two singlet bound states ($`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$) below the continuum. The singlet bound state $`S_1`$ exists for the whole range of momenta (its coherence length $`L`$ is finite also for the whole range of momenta), while bound state $`S_2`$ exists only in a limited range of momenta near $`k=\pi `$. The coherence length $`L`$ for $`S_1`$ is 1, while the coherence length $`L`$ for $`S_2`$ at $`k=\pi `$ is about 2. This means that the formation of bound states $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ is largely due to the interaction of two hole-pair rungs separated by 0 and 1 singlet rung, respectively.

If we fix the values $`t/J=t_{}/J_{}=0.1`$ and $`k=\pi `$, the binding/antibinding energies $`E_b`$ and the inverse of the coherence length $`1/L`$ versus $`J/J_{}`$ are shown in Fig. 24. One can see that in the small $`J`$ limit, we have two singlet bound states $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ (with coherence length being 1 and 2, respectively). As $`J`$ increases, $`S_2`$ disappears at $`J/J_{}0.193`$, while a new antibound state $`S_3`$ and a new bound state $`S_4`$ appear at $`J/J_{}0.205`$ and 0.235, (coherence length at larger $`J`$ being 2 and 3), respectively. This interval corresponds to the peculiar region given by the bold line in Fig. 21. The threshold index as the binding energy of $`S_2`$ disappears appears to be about 1 , rather than 2. Estimates for the threshold point and index from the $`[n/m]`$ Dlog Padé approximants to the series for the binding energy are given in Table 3. We cannot calculate a series directly for the coherence length, but from our numerical calculations, the threshold behaviour for the coherence length of $`S_2`$ is also unlikely to be the standard $`L(xx_c)^1`$, but seems to be a weaker divergence. The dynamical reason for this unusual threshold behaviour is unclearolegcomment . Note that even in this case, the threshold behaviour as a function of momentum still retains the form: $`E_b(kk_c)^2`$, $`L(kk_c)^1`$.

For larger hopping terms $`t/J=t_{}/J_{}=1`$ and $`J/J_{}=0.15`$, the two-particle excitation spectrum and the inverse of the coherence length $`1/L`$ versus momentum $`k`$ are shown in Figs. 25 and 26. Again there are two singlet bound states $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ below the continuum, but no antibound state. The singlet bound state $`S_1`$ exists for the whole range of momenta (its coherence length $`L`$ is about 1 also for the whole range of momenta), while bound state $`S_2`$ exists only in a limited range of momenta near $`k=\pi `$ (its coherence length $`L`$ is about 2 at $`k=\pi `$).

If we fix the values $`t/J=t_{}/J_{}=1`$ and $`k=\pi `$, the binding energies $`E_b`$ and the inverse of the coherence length $`1/L`$ versus $`J/J_{}`$ are shown in Fig. 27. The two singlet bound states $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ exist as long as $`J0`$ , but as $`J`$ increases, no more new bound/antibound states appear, but $`S_2`$ disappears at $`J/J_{}0.22`$.

The compressibility $`\kappa `$ is given by

$$\kappa ^1=\rho ^2\frac{^2ϵ}{\rho ^2}$$
(9)
where $`ϵ(\rho )`$ is the energy density of the ladder with hole density $`\rho `$. For a finite system at half-filling this can be replaced by the discrete version

$`\kappa ^1`$ $`=`$ $`(L/2)[E_0({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{filled})2E_0(2\mathrm{holes})+E_0(4\mathrm{holes})]`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`(L/2)[\mathrm{\Delta }E_0(4\mathrm{holes})2\mathrm{\Delta }E_0(2\mathrm{holes})]`$
where for a ladder of $`L`$ rungs, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_0`$ is the minimum energy gap for 2 or 4 holes, and this minimum energy gap is at momentum $`k=0`$. Now if the 2-hole pair on a single rung is the lowest-energy state in the 2-hole sector, and at momentum $`k=0`$ two 2-hole rungs form a bound state in the 4-hole sector, then it immediately follows that $`\kappa ^1`$ as defined by Eq. 10 diverges to negative infinity as $`L\mathrm{}`$, signalling phase separation. Comparing Figures 21 and 12, we see that these conditions apply, and phase separation occurs, over the whole of the lower region of Figure 12.

Outside this region, we know the energy of the lowest state in the 2-hole sector, consisting of a bound pair of holes on different rungs (denoted $`S_1`$, previously). The bound state of two 2-hole rungs may not be the lowest-energy state in the 4-hole sector; but at least it allows us to place an upper limit on $`\kappa ^1`$ as defined by Eq. 10. We find that this limit is negative, and therefore phase separation must occur, for $`t/J(=t_{}/J_{})`$ anywhere below a value about 0.5, independent of $`J/J_{}`$ \- although due to numerical uncertainty, this estimate cannot be made very precise. This is in good agreement with previous estimates: Rommer et al.rom00 , for instance, find the phase separation boundary at half-filling to lie at $`J/t=2.156(2)`$, or $`t/J=0.464`$, from a density matrix renormalization group calculation for the isotropic ladder.

## V Discussion and Summary

We have used linked-cluster series expansion methodstre00  to study 2-hole bound states in the $`tJ`$ ladder. The series only converge well for $`J/J_{}0.5`$, so we are unable to say very much about the isotropic case $`J=J_{}`$. Dispersion relations and coherence lengths have been computed for various bound states in even- and odd- parity channels. A rich spectrum of these states has emerged.

The most striking feature of the results is the appearance of multiple bound states in both singlet $`S=0`$ and triplet $`S=1`$ channels as the ratio $`t/J(=t_{}/J_{})`$ goes to zero for finite $`J/J_{}`$. What is the cause of this phenomenon? The limit $`t/J0`$ corresponds to the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg ladder with 2 static holes. Beyond states $`S_0`$ and $`S_1`$, all the multiple bound states ($`S_2,\mathrm{}`$) only emerge near $`k=\pi `$, and all have small binding energies: their dynamical significance is unclear.

Another interesting feature is that in the even-parity channel, at least, all the triplet $`S=1`$ bound states seem to disappear as the isotropic limit $`J/J_{}1`$ is approached, leaving only singlet $`S=0`$ bound states. Other studiesjur01  have found the same thing. We have no explanation for this phenomenon, either.

Jurecka and Brenigjur01  have put forward a semi-analytic theory of 2-hole excitations in the $`tJ`$ ladder, based on the dimerized rung picture, with elementary excitations consisting of the single-hole pseudofermion excitations and the 2-hole singlet excitation on a single rung, plus singlet and triplet “bond boson” operators for spin excitations, and applying a linearized Holstein-Primakoff approach. They present a spectrum showing only one $`S=0`$ and one $`S=1`$ bound state, at couplings which are not accessible to our series approach.

The question of phase separation has also been explored. We have been able to calculate the energy of a 4-hole state consisting of two 2-hole rungs, giving an upper limit on the inverse compressibility at half-filling. Hence it can be shown that phase separation occurs for $`t/J0.5`$, in agreement with other studiesrom00 . Most of the interesting spectral features occur, unfortunately, in the phase separated region.

We have also explored the threshold behaviour of these bound/antibound states as they emerge from the continuum. As a function of momentum, the binding energy near threshold behaves as $`E_b(kk_c)^2`$, and the coherence length as $`L(kk_c)^1`$ in every case we have studied so far. This appears to be standard: for instance, a model of the bound states of two magnons by Sushkov and Kotovsus98  gives this behaviour. As a function of coupling $`x=J/J_{}`$, the typical threshold behaviour is similar, $`E_b(xx_c)^2`$, $`L(xx_c)^1`$. We have found examples, however, where the binding energy appears to behave as $`E_b(xx_c)`$, see Sect. IIIB and IV.

In conclusion, then, we have discovered a rich and diverse spectrum of 2-hole bound states in the $`tJ`$ ladder at half-filling. They exhibit a number of interesting feature which call for a theoretical explanation; and fitting these data will provide a stringent test of any theoretical model of the system. It would also be interesting if it were possible to test these features experimentally.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Prof. Jaan Oitmaa and Oleg Sushkov for useful discussions. This work forms part of a research project supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council. The computations have been performed on an AlphaServer SC computer. We are grateful for the computing resources provided by the Australian Partnership for Advanced Computing (APAC) National Facility.


format: text

text:
# Center–Vortex Solutions of the Yang–Mills Effective Action in Three and Four Dimensions

## I Introduction

Recently there have been certain indications from lattice simulations that center-of-group vortices 'tHooft:1977hy ; Mack  may be responsible for the area behavior of large Wilson loops, i.e. for confinement, see e. g. Faber:2000um ; DelDebbio:1996mh ; ER  and references therein. If long closed vortices populate the Euclidean vacuum of QCD, resembling curved and entangled spaghetti in Italian pasta, it might serve as a microscopic mechanism of confinement.

From the continuum side, however, vortices invoke more questions than there are answers today. First of all, there are no finite-size vortex-type solutions of the classical Yang–Mills equations in a non-compact space, as the classical equations are dimensionless whereas the functional to be minimized is the transverse energy with the dimension $`1/\mathrm{cm}^2`$. Therefore, if one finds a solution, its dilatation to larger size will have less energy. This shows that vortex-type solutions of classical equations do not exist footnote . In a non-compact space the length scale and hence the vortex radius can be only set by quantum fluctuations. Therefore, vortices can at best arise as saddle points of the effective action, with quantum fluctuations about a trial vortex configuration taken into account. Second, if the effective action contains vortex configurations as saddle points, their energy per unit length in $`3d`$ or per unit surface in $`4d`$ should be either small positive or, even better, slightly negative. If it is large and positive there is no reason for the vortices to appear in the physical vacuum, in the first place. Third, the typical lengths where vortices bend to an angle of the order of unity must be on the average larger than the characteristic transverse size of the vortex. If it is not so, the fluctuation can be hardly called a vortex. Fourth, different vortices in the vacuum or different segments of the same vortex need to be on the average repulsive so that they do not glue up. If vortices are permanently merging and splitting it is difficult to consider them as adequate degrees of freedom. A pilot study of the ‘spaghetti vacuum’ in $`4d`$ has been performed many years ago by the Copenhagen group NNO ; AO  who considered a $`2d`$ lattice of parallel flux tubes and then presented arguments that the lattice should “melt” into a disordered phase. Ultimately, one has to build a consistent statistical mechanics of the vortex vacuum in order to see that the ‘entangles spaghetti’ have a preferred vacuum free energy as compared to, say, the instanton liquid. The statistical mechanics of instantons is quite a difficult problem by itself Diakonov:1983hh ; DM , but vortices are far more difficult to deal with.

In this paper, we address the first and in fact the easiest questions from the above list. For vortices to be physical objects and not artifacts of a regularization and gauge fixing, their typical transverse sizes must be finite in physical units, i.e. to be of the order of $`1/g_3^2`$ in $`3d`$ and of the order of $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ in $`4d`$. Correspondingly, the energy of a vortex per unit length should be of the order of $`g_3^2`$ in $`3d`$, and the energy per unit surface should be of the order of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$ in $`4d`$. The appearance of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ implies the transmutation of dimensions through renormalization; it can be achieved only with quantum fluctuations about the vortex taken into due account. We study here the effective action with quantum fluctuations about a trial vortex configuration being integrated out, at the one-loop level. Although the one-loop approximation is not the whole story, it is the first attempt to find out if there are any hints from the continuum Yang–Mills theory that isolated ‘thick’ vortices have the right to exist. We seem to get a positive answer to this question. It seems that quantized-flux vortices are dynamically preferred compared with the perturbative vacuum.

In what follows, we consider an idealized isolated infinitely long and straight vortex perpendicular to the $`(xy)`$ plane. We choose an Ansatz for the vortex profile in the transverse plane $`\overline{A}_\mu (x,y)`$ and expand the YM action into the classical part, $`d^dxF_{\mu \nu }^2(\overline{A})/4g_d^2`$, and the part quadratic in the fluctuations $`a_\mu `$ about the background $`\overline{A}_\mu `$. Integration over $`a_\mu `$ (and over ghost fields stemming from background gauge fixing) is non-trivial, as the mere counting of levels as compared to the free case is not obvious for the quantized-flux vortices; the difficulty is related to the Aharonov–Bohm effect. We perform this integration by extending the Jost scattering theory (which ‘counts’ the levels properly) to the two-dimensional case: it results in the quantum part of the effective action being finite after renormalization. The full effective action is the sum of the classical and quantum parts. In fact, we study several functional forms of the profile and find that in each case there exists a minimum of the action with respect to the transverse spread of the vortex. It turns out to be about $`(45)/g_3^2`$ in $`3d`$ and about $`(1.61.8)/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$ in $`4d`$. The values of the effective action at the minima are negative in all cases considered. It indicates that the Yang–Mills vacuum might be unstable in regard to the spontaneous production of vortices.

This work has certain overlap with the earlier study by the Copenhagen group NNO ; AO  who started from the observation by Savvidy Sav  that already a constant chromomagnetic field lowers the Yang–Mills vacuum energy. The Savvidy vacuum has, however, a negative fluctuation mode leading to instability. The Copenhagen group has included the amplitude of the negative mode (interpreted as a Higgs field but actually part of the gauge field) into the minimization procedure and indicated that the $`2d`$ hexagonal lattice of tubes with quantized flux leads to a further lowering of vacuum energy. However neither the fluctuations in the unstable mode nor in the higher modes were included. In contrast, we take into full account all quantum fluctuations about a single trial vortex. The full one-loop quantum calculation performed here shows that already isolated center vortices in SU(2) and also their embedding in SU(3) are energetically preferred compared with the perturbative vacuum. This result comes both in $`4d`$ and $`3d`$ (the latter case has not been considered in Refs. NNO ; AO ) giving thus certain support to the disordered-vortices scenario of confinement in both cases.

## II The vortex Ansatz

By definition of a $`Z(N)`$ vortex, the Wilson loop in the fundamental representation of the $`SU(N)`$ gauge group, winding around the vortex in the transverse plane assumes values being nontrivial elements of the group center, as the radius of the Wilson loop tends to $`\mathrm{}`$:

$$\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}iA_\mu 𝑑x^\mu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{2\pi ik/N}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \\ & & e^{2\pi ik/N}\end{array}\right)Z_N,$$
(1)
where $`k=1,\mathrm{},N1`$. In this paper, we consider the $`SU(2)`$ gauge group (although we also make calculations in $`SU(3)`$ for additional checks). In $`SU(2)`$ the only nontrivial element of the center is the minus unity $`2\times 2`$ matrix. Taking for example a circular Wilson loop of radius $`\rho `$ in the $`(xy)`$ plane around a vortex centered at $`\rho =\sqrt{x^2+y^2}=0`$ we see that only the azimuthal component of the Yang–Mills field is involved in eq. (1), $`A_\varphi ^a=ϵ_{\alpha \beta }n_\alpha A_\beta ^a`$, where $`n_\alpha `$ is a unit vector in the $`(xy)`$ plane. One can always choose a gauge where $`A_\varphi `$ is independent of the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$. Generally speaking, it implies that the radial component $`A_\rho `$ is nonzero, however, we shall neglect this component as the condition (1) is compatible with $`A_\rho =0`$. If $`A_\rho `$ is nonzero it can be reconstructed from gauge invariance by replacing $`_\rho _\rho \delta ^{ab}+f^{acb}A_\rho ^c`$. A circular Wilson loop in the $`J=\frac{1}{2}`$ representation lying in the transverse plane and surrounding the vortex center is Diakonov:1999gg :

$$W_{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho )=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}i\rho A_\varphi ^at^a𝑑\varphi =\mathrm{cos}[\pi \mu (\rho )],\mu (\rho )=\rho \sqrt{A_\varphi ^a(\rho )A_\varphi ^a(\rho )},$$
(2)
For an arbitrary representation of $`SU(2)`$, labeled by spin $`J`$, one has:

$$W_J(\rho )=\frac{1}{2J+1}\frac{\mathrm{sin}[(2J+1)\pi \mu (\rho )]}{\mathrm{sin}[\pi \mu (\rho )]}.$$
(3)
If $`\mu (\rho )`$ tends to an odd integer at large $`\rho `$, the Wilson loop $`W_J(\rho )(1)^{2J}`$. For half-integer representations it is minus unity, hence $`\mu (\mathrm{})=2n+1`$ is the condition that one deals with a $`Z(2)`$ vortex. We shall only consider the case when $`\mu (\mathrm{})=1`$. For simplicity we assume that only one color component of $`A_\varphi `$ is nonzero:

$$\overline{A}_\varphi ^a(\rho )=\delta ^{a3}\frac{\mu (\rho )}{\rho },\mu (0)=0,\mu (\mathrm{})=1,$$
(4)
where $`\mu (\rho )`$ will be called the profile of the vortex. Eq. (4) with all the rest components of the YM field set to zero, is the Ansatz for the center vortex field we are going to investigate.

## III The classical action of the vortex

We take an idealized straight-line (in $`3d`$) or straight-surface (in $`4d`$) vortex whose dimension in the longitudinal direction is $`L_{}^{(d2)}`$ ($`d=3,4`$), while in transverse plane it has a trial profile $`\mu (\rho )`$. The classical action of the vortex is (see Appendix A):

$$S_{\mathrm{class}}=\frac{1}{4g_d^2}d^dx(F_{\mu \nu }^a)^2=\frac{1}{2g_d^2}d^{d2}x_{}d^2x_{}(B_{}^a)^2$$

$$=L_{}^{(d2)}\frac{\pi }{g_d^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho \rho \left[\frac{1}{\rho }_\rho (A_\varphi ^a\rho )\right]^2=L_{}^{(d2)}\frac{\pi }{g_d^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho \rho \left[\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }\mu (\rho )\right]^2L_{}^{(d2)}_{\mathrm{class}}.$$
(5)
We remind the reader that in $`3d`$ the coupling constant $`g_3^2`$ has the dimension of mass, and the theory is convergent. In $`4d`$ the (bare) coupling $`g_4^2`$ is dimensionless but gets an infinite renormalization from quantum fluctuations. To the one-loop accuracy one can parameterize:

$$\frac{8\pi ^2}{g_4^2}=\frac{11}{3}N\mathrm{ln}\frac{M}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}},$$
(6)
where $`M`$ is the ultra-violet cutoff in a particular regularization scheme. The quantum part of the effective action is logarithmically divergent; the renormalizability of the theory ensures that the dependence on the UV cutoff $`M`$ is canceled in the full effective action.

## IV Dimensional analysis

Let us make a quick estimate of the ‘best’ transverse size of the vortex $`\rho _0`$ from a simple dimensional analysis. We denote the action per unit longitudinal dimension of the vortex by $``$ such that $`S=L_{}^{(d2)}`$, and call $``$ the transverse energy of the vortex. If $`\rho _0`$ is the scale of the profile function $`\mu (\rho )`$ \[e.g. $`\mu (\rho )=\mathrm{exp}(\rho _0/\rho )`$\], we find on dimensional grounds that in $`4d`$

$$_{\mathrm{class}}=\frac{A}{\rho _0^2}\frac{11N}{24\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}},$$
(7)
where $`A`$ is the dimensionless functional of the trial profile,

$$A=\pi \rho _0^2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\rho }{\rho }\left(\frac{d\mu }{d\rho }\right)^2.$$
(8)
The renormalizability ensures that the quantum part of the effective action has exactly the same coefficient in front of the divergent $`\mathrm{ln}M`$ piece, but with the opposite sign, so that $`\mathrm{ln}M`$ cancels in the sum of the classical and quantum parts:

$$_{\mathrm{quant}}=\frac{A}{\rho _0^2}\frac{11N}{24\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}(M\rho _0B),_{\mathrm{eff}}=_{\mathrm{class}}+_{\mathrm{quant}}=\frac{A}{\rho _0^2}\frac{11N}{24\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}\rho _0B),$$
(9)
where $`A,B`$ are numerical coefficients depending on the concrete functional form of the profile $`\mu (\rho )`$. $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ has the minimum at

$$\rho _0^{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{\sqrt{e}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }B},_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{min}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\frac{11N}{24\pi ^2}\frac{AB^2}{2e},e=2.71828\mathrm{}$$
(10)
In $`3d`$ a similar dimensional analysis yields:

$$_{\mathrm{class}}=\frac{A}{g_3^2\rho _0^2},_{\mathrm{quant}}=\frac{C}{\rho _0},$$
(11)
with the same coefficient $`A`$ as in $`4d`$. The sign of $`C`$ is apriori unknown. However, since the theory is super-renormalizable one can suppose that the sign of the quantum energy is the same as in $`4d`$ at $`M\overline{\rho }\mathrm{}`$, i.e. negative (direct calculations below confirm the expectation). The sum $`_{\mathrm{eff}}=_{\mathrm{class}}+_{\mathrm{quant}}`$ has then a minimum at

$$\rho _0^{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{1}{g_3^2}\frac{2A}{C},_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{min}}=g_3^2\frac{C^2}{4A}.$$
(12)
Notice that both in $`3d`$ and $`4d`$ we get a natural result for the transverse size of the vortex and a negative sign for its transverse energy at the minimum.

In a sense we have already proven the main statements of the paper put in the Abstract and the Introduction: these statements follow from dimensional analysis and the renormalizability of the theory, provided the coefficients $`A,B,C`$ are finite, which is not obvious beforehand. In the rest of the paper we compute these coefficients for different cases, and look for the best profile function $`\mu (\rho )`$.

## V The quantum action about a vortex

### V.1 Definition of the quantum action

To get the quantum action for $`\mu (\rho )`$ we integrate over quantum fluctuations about a given background field $`\overline{A}_\varphi ^a(\rho )`$ (see eq. (4)) considered to be a slowly varying field with momenta $`k_{}`$ up to certain $`k_{\mathrm{min}}`$. Accordingly, quantum fluctuations have momenta $`k_{}`$ above $`k_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and arbitrary longitudinal momenta. Writing $`A_\mu =\overline{A}_\mu +a_\mu `$ we expand $`F_{\mu \nu }^2(A+a)`$ in the fluctuation field $`a_\mu `$ up to the second order appropriate for the 1-loop calculation. The term linear in $`a_\mu `$ vanishes due to the orthogonality of high and low momenta and also because $`\overline{A}_\mu `$ is in our case independent of $`\varphi `$ and longitudinal coordinates whereas $`a_\mu `$ is dependent on those coordinates.

The quadratic form for $`a_\mu `$ is the standard (see e.g. Diakonov:1983dt )

$$W_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=[D^2(\overline{A})]^{ab}\delta _{\mu \nu }2f^{acb}F_{\mu \nu }^c(\overline{A}),$$
(13)
if one imposes the background Lorentz gauge condition,

$$D_\mu ^{ab}(\overline{A})a_\mu ^b=0,D_\mu ^{ab}(\overline{A})=_\mu \delta ^{ab}+f^{acb}\overline{A}_\mu ^c.$$
(14)
The quantum part of the effective action is, as usually, given by the small-oscillation determinants:

$$S_{\mathrm{quant}}[\overline{A}]=S_{\mathrm{gluon}}+S_{\mathrm{ghost}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\text{det}(W_{\mu \nu }^{ab})\mathrm{ln}\text{det}(D_\mu ^2).$$
(15)
Subtraction of free determinants (with zero background field) is understood.

The full effective action is $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}=S_{\mathrm{class}}+S_{\mathrm{gluon}}+S_{\mathrm{ghost}}`$. Since all terms are proportional to the longitudinal dimensions of the vortex $`L_{}^{(d2)}`$ we shall divide all terms by this quantity; it will then become an equation for the appropriate contributions to the transverse energy of the vortex,

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=_{\mathrm{class}}+_{\mathrm{gluon}}+_{\mathrm{ghost}},$$
(16)
where all terms are certain functionals of the trial vortex profile $`\mu (\rho )`$.

### V.2 The ghost operator

For the vortex Ansatz (4) the ghost operator $`(D^2)^{ab}`$ takes the following simple form in the cylindrical coordinates Diakonov:1999gg :

$$D^2=\left(\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }\rho \frac{}{\rho }+_3^2+\mathrm{}_d^2\right)\delta ^{ab}+\frac{1}{\rho ^2}\left(\delta ^{ac}\frac{}{\varphi }+f^{a3c}\mu (\rho )\right)\left(\delta ^{cb}\frac{}{\varphi }+f^{c3b}\mu (\rho )\right).$$
(17)
The eigenvalues of the structure constants $`if^{a3c}`$ in the color space are

$$\alpha _c=\{\begin{array}{cc}\{0,1,1\}& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{SU}(2),\\ & \\ \{0,0,1,1,1/2,1/2,1/2,1/2\}& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{SU}(3).\end{array}$$
(18)
It is natural to choose a plane wave basis $`\mathrm{exp}(ik_{}x_{})`$ for the longitudinal directions $`x_3,\mathrm{}x_d`$, and a polar basis $`\mathrm{exp}(im\varphi )Z_m^{(c)}(\rho )`$ for the transverse directions. The eigenfunctions $`Z_m^{(c)}(\rho )`$ satisfy the second-order differential equations depending on the color polarization $`c=1,\mathrm{},(N_c^21)`$:

$$\left[\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }\rho \frac{}{\rho }+\frac{(m\alpha _c\mu (\rho ))^2}{\rho ^2}\right]Z_m^{(c)}(\rho )=k_{cm}^2Z_m^{(c)}(\rho ).$$
(19)
For each color polarization $`c`$ one has to solve a separate eigenvalue equation with a corresponding coefficient $`\alpha _c`$ from eq. (18). The spectrum in $`k_{}`$ is continuous with the spectral density depending on $`m`$ and $`c`$. By putting the system into a large circular box of radius $`R`$, one makes the spectrum discrete, and the eigenvalues $`k_{}`$ can be labeled by a discrete number $`n`$.

The eigenvalues of the full operator $`D^2`$ are then

$$E^2(c,m,n,k_{})=k_{}^2+k_{cmn}^2,$$
(20)
and one has to sum over the color polarizations labeled by $`c`$, the magnetic quantum numbers $`m`$, the radial quantum numbers $`n`$ and integrate over the continuous spectrum in $`k_{}`$. In the free case ($`\mu =0`$) the eigenfunctions of eq. (19) are the ordinary Bessel functions $`J_{|m|}(k_{0mn}\rho )`$ (the index must be non-negative to ensure the regularity at the origin). In this case the eigenvalues $`k_{0mn}`$ can be determined by the zeros of the Bessel functions.

According to eq. (15), the ghost contribution to the transverse energy of the vortex is the sum of logarithms of the eigenvalues:

$`_{\mathrm{ghost}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{c,m,n,k_{}}{}}\left[\mathrm{ln}E^2(c,m,n,k_{})\mathrm{ln}E_0^2(c,m,n,k_{})\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{c=1}{\overset{N^21}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{d2}k_{}}{(2\pi )^{d2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(k_{}^2+k_{cmn}^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(k_{}^2+k_{0mn}^2\right)\right]},`$ (21)
where $`k_{0mn}^2`$ are the eigenvalues of the free operator in a box, with $`\mu (\rho )`$ set to zero. Color polarizations with $`\alpha _c=0`$ do not contribute since at $`\alpha _c=0`$ eq. (19) reduces to the free one.

We first integrate over $`k_{}`$. In the $`3d`$ case the integration is finite:

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk_{}}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{k_{}^2+k_{}^2}{k_{}^2+k_0^2}\right)=|k_{}||k_0|.$$
(22)
In the $`4d`$ case integration over $`k_{}`$ needs to be regularized. We use the Pauli–Villars regularization scheme, so that henceforth $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{P.V.}=e^{1/12}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$. We have

$$\frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{(k_{}^2+k_{}^2)(k_{}^2+k_0^2+M^2)}{(k_{}^2+k_0^2)(k_{}^2+k_{}^2+M^2)}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[k_{}^2\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2}{k_{}^2}+1\right)k_0^2\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2}{k_0^2}+1\right)\right].$$
(23)
There is a general formula for summation of any function of eigenvalues becoming continuous in the limit when the box radius goes to infinity, see Section 6. In the continuum limit the summation can be replaced by integration over the spectrum with a weight being the phase shift $`\delta (k_{})`$ of the corresponding differential equation, in this case eq. (19):

$$\underset{n}{}\left[F(k_n)F(k_{0n})\right]=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\delta (k)\frac{dF(k)}{dk}$$
(24)
(the subscript $``$ will be henceforth suppressed). We shall describe the method of finding the phase shifts in Section 6. The phase shifts $`\delta (k)`$ depend on the ‘partial wave’ $`m`$ and on the color polarization $`c`$. Let us introduce the accumulated phase shift, summing over all partial waves,

$$\delta _c(k)=2\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta _{cm}(k)+\delta _{c0}(k).$$
(25)
Since $`\alpha _c`$ assumes as many “plus” values as there are “minus” ones, it is sufficient to sum over non-negative values of $`m`$. \[Alternatively, one can take only positive values of $`\alpha _c`$ but then sum over all $`m`$’s, positive and negative.\] Using the linearity of eq. (24) in $`\delta (k)`$ one can introduce the aggregate phase shift of the ghost operator,

$$\delta _{\mathrm{ghost}}(k)=\underset{c}{}\delta _c(k).$$
(26)
It is a common function both for $`3d`$ and $`4d`$. However, the expression for the ghost energy is different in $`3d`$ and $`4d`$, as the weights with which eigenvalues are taken are different, cf. eqs. (22,23). Using the general eq. (24) we obtain the needed transverse energy of the vortex as due to the ghost part of the quantum action :

$`_{\mathrm{ghost}}^{3d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k\delta _{\mathrm{ghost}}(k)`$ (27)
$`_{\mathrm{ghost}}^{4d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{k}}\delta _{\mathrm{ghost}}(k).`$ (28)
### V.3 The gluon operator

We now consider the gluon operator $`W_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$, see eq. (13). Its $`(D^2)^{ab}\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ part is essentially identical to the ghost operator. For the other part we find the following eigenvalues:

$`\mathrm{Eig}(F_{\mu \nu }^cf^{acb})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{}(\rho )}{\rho }}(\{\alpha _c\}_{\mathrm{color}}\{\beta _\lambda \}_{\mathrm{space}}),\beta _\lambda =\{\begin{array}{cc}\{0,1,1\}& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}3}\mathrm{d},\\ & \\ \{0,0,1,1\}& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}4}\mathrm{d},\end{array}`$ (32)
where the color eigenvalues $`\alpha _c`$ are the same as for the ghost operator, see eq. (18).

Therefore, the transverse eigenvalues $`k_{}`$ of the gluon operator are found from solving the differential equation for the eigenfunctions $`Z_m^{(c,\lambda )}(k_{}\rho )`$ where $`c=1,\mathrm{},(N_c^21)`$ labels the color polarization and $`\lambda =1,\mathrm{},d`$ labels the space polarization of the gluon:

$$\left[\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }\rho \frac{}{\rho }+\frac{\left(m\alpha _c\mu (\rho )\right)^2}{\rho ^2}\frac{2\alpha _c\beta _\lambda \mu ^{}(\rho )}{\rho }\right]Z_m^{(c,\lambda )}(\rho )=k_{c\lambda m}^2Z_m^{(c,\lambda )}(\rho ).$$
(33)
According to eq. (15), the gluon contribution to the transverse energy of the vortex is the sum of logarithms of the eigenvalues:

$$_{\mathrm{gluon}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{c,\lambda ,m,n,k_{}}{}\left[\mathrm{ln}E^2(c,\lambda ,m,n,k_{})\mathrm{ln}E_0^2(c,\lambda ,m,n,k_{})\right].$$
(34)
Color polarizations with $`\alpha _c=0`$ cancel from this equation. In $`4d`$ there are two space polarizations with $`\beta _\lambda =0`$ for which the eigenvalue equation (33) reduces to that of the ghost operator, eq. (19). Therefore, $`_{\mathrm{ghost}}`$ is completely canceled by that part of the gluon operator spectrum. In $`3d`$ there is only one space polarization with $`\beta _\lambda =0`$, so that the cancellation is not complete.

Similar to the previous subsection, we introduce the phase shifts $`\delta (k)`$ but now corresponding to eq. (33):

$$\delta _{\mathrm{gluon}}^{(d)}(k)=\underset{c}{}\underset{\lambda }{}\delta _{c\lambda }(k),\delta _{c\lambda }(k)=2\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta _{c\lambda m}(k)+\delta _{c\lambda 0}(k).$$
(35)
Notice that, unlike the ghost case, here the aggregate phase shift depends on the number of dimensions as the number of gluon polarizations $`\lambda `$ is $`d`$-dependent. Using the results of the $`k_{}`$ integration from the previous subsection we can write down the gluon contribution to the transverse energy via the aggregate phase shifts:

$`_{\mathrm{gluon}}^{3d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k\delta _{\mathrm{gluon}}^{(3)}(k),`$ (36)
$`_{\mathrm{gluon}}^{4d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{k}}\delta _{\mathrm{gluon}}^{(4)}(k).`$ (37)
### V.4 Full quantum energy

Adding up the ghost and gluon contributions to the quantum energy we get:

$`_{\mathrm{quant}}^{3d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k\left[\delta _{\mathrm{ghost}}(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{\mathrm{gluon}}^{(3)}(k)\right],`$ (38)
$`_{\mathrm{quant}}^{4d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{k}}\left[\delta _{\mathrm{ghost}}(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{\mathrm{gluon}}^{(4)}(k)\right].`$ (39)
The combination of ghost and gluon phase shifts in the square brackets will be called the full phase shift; for various cases they are plotted in Figs. 2,4 and 5.

### V.5 Scaling properties

Let as assume that we have calculated the ghost and gluon phase shifts for a certain profile function $`\mu (\rho /\rho _0)`$ with $`\rho _0=1`$ in some arbitrarily chosen units. If we now change $`\rho _0`$ all quantities have to scale in accordance with the dimensional analysis of Section 4. Equations for $`_{\mathrm{quant}}^{3d,4d}`$ of the previous subsection can be translated into the following expressions for the constants $`A,B,C`$ introduced in Section 4:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \rho _0^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{\rho }}(\mu ^{}(\rho ))^2,`$ (40)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{\mathrm{gluon}}^{(3)}(k)\delta _{\mathrm{ghost}}(k)\right],`$ (41)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{24\rho _0^2}{11N}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{\mathrm{gluon}}^{(4)}(k)\delta _{\mathrm{ghost}}(k)\right],`$ (42)
$`\mathrm{ln}B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{A}}}{\displaystyle \frac{24\rho _0^2}{11N}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk\mathrm{ln}(k\rho _0)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{\mathrm{gluon}}^{(4)}(k)\delta _{\mathrm{ghost}}(k)\right].`$ (43)
As discussed in Section 4, the renormalizability of Yang–Mills theory in $`4d`$ requires that $`\stackrel{~}{A}=A`$: if that is satisfied the effective action does not depend on the ultraviolet cutoff $`M`$. This relation is, therefore, an important check of the numerics. It can be said that the calculation of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is a particular way of getting numerically the ‘11/3’ of the asymptotic freedom law. Further on, we verify the scaling relations (9,11) explicitly by changing the scale $`\rho _0`$ of the trial functions and checking that $`\stackrel{~}{A},B,C`$ are $`\rho _0`$-independent (see also Fig. 3).

Another powerful check of our numerical performance is provided by the number of colors $`N`$: the quantities $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`B`$ should be independent of $`N`$ while $`C`$ must be proportional to $`N`$. The calculations successfully pass these tests for the $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`C`$ within small errors, whereas the sensitivity of $`B`$ on the numerics is considerably larger, see Table 1.

## VI The phase shift method

The $`Z(2)`$ vortex field $`\mu (\rho )`$ with $`\mu (0)=0`$ and $`\mu (\mathrm{})=1`$ is very specific from the point of view of differential eqs. (19,33). Near the origin $`\rho 0`$ the equations resemble the free equation for the Bessel functions $`J_m(k\rho )`$ while at infinity $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ they resemble the equation for $`J_{m\pm 1}(k\rho )`$, with a shifted index. This is the essence of quantized $`Z(2)`$ vortices, see in this respect ref. Diakonov:1999gg .

This fundamental property of $`Z(2)`$ vortices causes certain difficulties in finding the continuous spectrum of eigenvalues in a given $`m`$ sector. We present here an economical method of dealing with this problem; it enables one to find the spectrum unambiguously. We have borrowed the idea of the method from Jost scattering theory, generalizing it to problems with cylindrical symmetry. The application of the phase-shift method to 1-loop calculations of the effective action has been, in general terms, developed in Refs. GJQW ; DPP .

In the following we consider a general differential equation

$$\left[\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }\rho \frac{}{\rho }+\frac{m^2}{\rho ^2}+U(\rho )\right]Z(\rho )=k^2Z(\rho ),$$
(44)
the equation for ghosts (19) and for gluons (33) being exactly of that form.

One looks for the solution which is regular at the origin and follows the oscillatory asymptotics of the Bessel function at infinity:

$$Z(r)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi k\rho }}\mathrm{cos}\left[k\rho \frac{\pi }{4}\frac{m\pi }{2}+\delta (k)\right].$$
(45)
This serves a definition of the phase shift $`\delta (k)`$. If the system is put in the box of large radius $`R`$ the zeros of (45) define the spectrum:

$$k_n=k_{0n}\frac{\delta (k_n)}{R},k_{0n}=\frac{\pi }{R}\left(n+\frac{3}{4}+\frac{m}{2}\right)$$
(46)
where $`k_{0n}`$ is the spectrum with zero potential. A sum of any function of the eigenvalues $`k_n`$ in the continuum limit ($`R\mathrm{}`$) becomes:

$$\underset{n}{}\left[F(k_n)F(k_{0n})\right]=\frac{1}{R}\underset{n}{}F^{}(k_n)\delta (k_n)=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kF^{}(k)\delta (k).$$
(47)
This is eq. (24) used in the previous section.

In the free case ($`U=0`$) the differential eq. (44) have regular solutions $`J_m(k\rho )`$ (the ordinary Bessel functions), as well as singular solutions $`Y_m(k\rho )`$ (v.Neumann functions). From those one combines Hankel functions,

$$H_m^\pm (k\rho )=J_m(k\rho )\pm iY_m(k\rho ).$$
(48)
Taking into account that $`J_m`$ and $`Y_m`$ are both solutions of the same differential equation, their Wronskian is a constant:

$$W(J_m,Y_m)k\rho \left[J_m(k\rho )Y_m^{}(k\rho )J_m^{}(k\rho )Y_m(k\rho )\right]=\frac{2}{\pi }.$$
(49)
Using (49) one can easily verify that the needed solution $`Z_m(k\rho )`$ of eq. (44) satisfies the integral equation:

$`Z_m(k\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`J_m(k\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle _0^\rho }𝑑\rho ^{}\rho ^{}\left[J_m(k\rho )Y_m(k\rho ^{})J_m(k\rho ^{})Y_m(k\rho )\right]U(\rho ^{})Z_m(k\rho ^{})`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Im}\left\{iH_m^{(+)}(k\rho )\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle _0^\rho }𝑑\rho ^{}\rho ^{}H_m^{()}(k\rho ^{})U(\rho ^{})Z_m(k\rho ^{})\right]\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}\left\{H_m^{(+)}(k\rho )\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle _0^\rho }𝑑\rho ^{}\rho ^{}H_m^{()}(k\rho ^{})U(\rho ^{})Z_m(k\rho ^{})\right]\right\}.`$
It enables one to find $`Z_m(k\rho )`$ iteratively knowing the function at smaller values of $`\rho `$, starting from $`\rho =0`$.

At $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ one obtains the asymptotics:

$$A\mathrm{cos}\left[k\rho \frac{\pi }{4}\frac{m\pi }{2}+\delta (k)\right]=\mathrm{Re}\left(e^{i(k\rho \pi m/2\pi /4)}\left[1\frac{i\pi }{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho ^{}\rho ^{}H_m^{()}(k\rho ^{})U(\rho ^{})Z_m(k\rho ^{})\right]\right).$$
(51)
Putting $`k\rho m\pi /2\pi /4=2n\pi `$ or $`k\rho m\pi /2\pi /4=(2n+1/2)\pi `$ with $`n`$ being a large integer and comparing the expressions we obtain the equation for the phase shift:

$$\mathrm{tan}\delta (k)=\frac{\mathrm{Im}f_m(k)}{\mathrm{Re}f_m(k)},f_m(k)=1\frac{i\pi }{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho \rho H_m^{()}(k\rho )U(\rho )Z_m(k\rho ).$$
(52)
We shall refer to eq. (52) as Jost equation as it is closely related to the theory of Jost functions developed in scattering theory, see e.g. Taylor .

We performed a numerical check of eq. (52) by taking, as an example, the potential arising from the gluon operator (see eq. (33)),

$$U(\rho )=\frac{1}{\rho ^2}[(m\alpha \mu (\rho ))^2m^22\alpha \beta \rho \mu ^{}(\rho )],\mathrm{with}\mu (\rho )=\mathrm{exp}(\rho 1/\rho ).$$
(53)
We computed the phase shifts directly from the shift of zeros of $`Z_m(k\rho )`$ with respect to those of the free $`J_m(k\rho )`$, and then compared with phase shifts obtained from eq. (52). The comparison of the two methods is shown in Fig. 1: the agreement is excellent. It is also seen that $`\delta _m(k)`$ decays fast as function of $`m`$.

One can simplify the method of finding the phase shifts even further. The second integration in eq. (52) is in fact unnecessary. Indeed, from eq. (50) one has the identity:

$$Z_m(k\rho )=\frac{1}{2}\left[H_m^{(+)}(k\rho )f_m(k)+H_m^{()}(k\rho )f_m^{}(k)\right].$$
(54)
Putting it in the Wronskian (see the definition (49)) we get:

$$W(Z_m,H_m^{()})=\frac{1}{2}f_m(k)W(H_m^{(+)},H_m^{()})=if_m(k)W(Y_m,J_m)=\frac{2i}{\pi }f_m(k).$$
(55)
Therefore the needed phase shift can be found directly from the Wronskian composed from the solution $`Z_m(k\rho )`$ and the Hankel function:

$$\delta _m(k)=\mathrm{Arg}(f_m(k))=\mathrm{Arg}\left[\frac{i\pi }{2}W(Z_m,H_{|m|}^{()})\right].$$
(56)
Here $`\mathrm{Arg}(re^{i\delta })=\delta `$ is the argument of a complex number. Notice that eq. (56) is independent of $`\rho `$. Therefore, evaluating the Wronskian in eq. (55) at different values of $`\rho `$ is a valuable check of the stability of the numerics. In fact, this method proves to be quite stable; we actually use it to calculate the phase shifts.

## VII Results

### VII.1 Flux-0 vortices

We first consider not a $`Z(2)`$ but a zero-flux vortex with $`\mu (0)=\mu (\mathrm{})=0`$. For definiteness we take a smooth profile of the form:

$$\mu (\rho )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\rho \frac{1}{\rho }\right).$$
(57)
Let us briefly describe the numerical procedure. We start by defining a range $`R`$ for a given value of $`k`$ and $`m`$ up to which the differential equations have to be solved. To make sure that we are working in an asymptotic regime we choose $`R_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{max}(60.0,x_{|m|15})/k`$ where $`x_{|m|n}`$ is the $`n`$-th zero of the Bessel function $`J_{|m|}(x)`$. We have checked that for this choice the phase shifts calculated from eq. (52) and from eq. (56) do agree so that we are indeed reaching the asymptotic regime.

The initial condition for finding a regular solution $`Z_m(\rho )`$ is the free Bessel function which behaves as $`J_m(k\rho )(k\rho /2)^m/\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+1)`$ at small $`\rho `$: it is very small at large $`m`$. Therefore, for small $`\rho `$ (actually starting from some finite but small $`\rho _{\mathrm{min}}=0.00001/k`$ and for $`m4`$) we solve, instead of eq. (44), the corresponding equation for the function $`B(\rho )=Z(\rho )/((\rho /2)^m/\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+1))`$,

$$B^{\prime \prime }(\rho )=B^{}(\rho )\frac{2m+1}{\rho }+\frac{B(\rho )((m\alpha \mu (\rho ))^2m^22\alpha \beta \rho \mu ^{}(\rho ))}{\rho ^2}k^2B(\rho ).$$
(58)
with the initial conditions

$$B(\rho _{\mathrm{min}})=1,B^{}(\rho _{\mathrm{min}})=k\frac{k\rho _{\mathrm{min}}}{2(m+1)}\left(1\frac{(k\rho _{\mathrm{min}})^2}{4(m+2)}\right).$$
(59)
This differential equation is solved up to the point $`R_p=0.9x_{|m|1}/k`$ where $`x_{|m|1}`$ is the first zero of the corresponding Bessel function. Starting from this point the original differential eq. (44) is solved, with the initial conditions:

$`Z(R_p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B(R_p)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{kR_p}{2}}\right)^m`$
$`Z^{}(R_p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}(R_p)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{kR_p}{2}}\right)^m+{\displaystyle \frac{kB(R_p)}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(m)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{kR_p}{2}}\right)^{m1}.`$
We have checked that this procedure reproduces the usual Bessel functions in the free case, when $`\mu (\rho )=0`$.

Having found the regular solution $`Z_m(\rho )`$, we use it to calculate phase shifts in three different ways. The first method is to use eq. (52), where the integration goes up to $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$. This procedure becomes sometimes unstable because for large $`\rho `$ the integrand is oscillating. The two other methods exploit eq. (56). We evaluate the Wronskian either at $`0.8R_{\mathrm{max}}`$ or at $`0.9R_{\mathrm{max}}`$. We have checked that except in cases where the phase shift is consistent with zero these three different methods agree with each other. The phase shifts actually used in the results are the ones taken from the Wronskian evaluated at $`0.8R_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

The individual phase shifts at given $`k`$ are then accumulated over $`m`$, $`c`$ and $`\lambda `$. Fig. 2 shows the total aggregate phase shifts for N=2,3 in three and four dimensions. It is seen that in all cases $`\delta (k)`$ goes to zero quite fast for large $`k`$. For very small $`k`$ values $`\delta (k)`$ rises again after a maximum at $`k=0.4`$.

The results are shown in Table 1. The $`A`$ coefficients of the classical and the quantum parts are equal within a small error due to the numerics, as it should be in order to ensure that in four dimensions the results are independent of the UV cutoff $`M`$. It is also seen that the $`A`$ coefficients are independent of the number of colors.

As a final step we check the scaling behavior predicted by eqs. (9,11). To that end we perform the same calculation again but for a profile $`\mu (\rho )=\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2}/\rho \rho /\sqrt{2})`$ and compare the result with the one obtained from the profile $`\mu (\rho )=\mathrm{exp}(1/\rho \rho )`$ and assuming the scaling eqs. (9,11). Tab. 1 shows indeed that in $`3d`$ and $`4d`$ the scaling law is fulfilled, which is yet another important cross check of our calculation. Furthermore, it is seen that in all cases we find a minimum of the effective action at negative values, which indicates that the perturbative vacuum is unstable against the production of zero-flux vortices. The values for the minima of the scaling factor are given in Table 2.

### VII.2 Flux-1 vortices

For the calculations with the $`Z(2)`$ unit-flux vortices we use the following trick which enables us to use the same technique as used for the flux-0 vortices. Instead of the actual flux-1 profile $`\mu (\rho )`$ with $`\mu (0)=0`$ and $`\mu (\mathrm{})=1`$, we consider the profile $`1\mu (\rho )`$. From the energy point of view nothing is changed since the classical part depends only on the square of the first derivative of $`\mu (\rho )`$ while in the quantum part it corresponds to an overall shift of the summation in $`m`$. We have checked that in case of SU(2) this ‘reflection’ indeed produces the same results as if one makes the calculation directly with the flux-1 profile $`\mu (\rho )`$. For the $`SU(2)`$ vortex embedding into SU(3) this is not the case because here we have a contribution corresponding to the eigenvalues 1/2 in color space and the shift in integer units in the summation over $`m`$ does not work.

The numerics for the flux-1 vortices is more difficult than for the flux-0 ones. The first problem arises due to the fact that the phase shift exceeds $`\pi `$ in magnitude. As the arcus tangent is a multivalued function one then has to reconstruct the true function $`\delta (k)`$ by adding suitable multiples of $`2\pi `$ so that the resulting function is continuous in $`k`$. Furthermore, general constants in terms of suitable multiples of $`\pi /4`$ have to be added so that the aggregate phase shifts match each other for $`k\mathrm{}`$ at a value close to zero.

The second technical problem is that, literally speaking, $`\delta (k)`$ does not go to zero with $`k\mathrm{}`$, but rather approaches a small constant, see Figs. 45. However, it seems to be a numerical artefact since, as one lowers $`\rho _{\mathrm{min}}`$ in eq. (59), the small constant becomes even smaller. Unfortunately, the numerical precision does not allow a complete annihilation of this spurious behavior. In fact, we have to make a cut at the point in k when the function becomes a (tiny) constant. The cross checks of renormalizability and the $`N`$ dependence are then fulfilled. We obtain for two different flux-1 profiles,

$`\mu ^{(1)}(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(1/\rho ^3),`$
$`\mu ^{(2)}(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`\rho ^6/(\rho ^6+1),`$ (60)
the values of the coefficients in the effective action as given in Table 1 and Table 2. The cross checks of renormalizability and N-dependence are fulfilled up to 5% as seen from Table 1. Again in all cases the effective action exhibits a minimum. In all cases the minima are at negative values of the effective action, which means that the perturbative YM vacuum is unstable against the production of center vortices in the case of SU(2) in three and four dimensions and that it is even unstable with respect to the production of the embedding of center vortices in SU(3). Comparing the two profiles used it is seen that the power-like profile $`\mu ^{(2)}`$ gives a slightly deeper minima than the exponential-like profile $`\mu ^{(1)}`$.

## VIII Summary and outlook

We have calculated the energy of quantum fluctuations (gluon and ghost) about vortices of various profiles, both in 4 and 3 Euclidean dimensions. Center vortices are peculiar in that the level counting for quantum fluctuations as compared to the free case is not apparent. Because of this, the mere finiteness of the quantum energy in the center-vortex background is not evident before an accurate calculation is performed. We have developed an economical method of ‘level counting’ through phase shifts of the appropriate differential operators, which is similar to that used in Jost’s scattering theory, and expressed the energy of quantum fluctuations through the phase shifts.

Our results surpass many consistency tests. In $`4d`$ we actually manage to calculate numerically and with a good accuracy the “11/3” of the asymptotic freedom law; as a result we get the ‘transmutation of dimensions’ and express the vortex transverse size and transverse energy in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$, see Table 1. The appearance of the “11/3” is actually a powerful test of numerical precision. Explicit calculations for different transverse sizes confirm the natural behavior of quantum energy, which follows from dimensions. In addition we verify that the quantum energy is proportional to $`N_c`$, as it should be. In our approach, it implies non-trivial sum rules for the phase shifts for gluons and ghosts with different color polarizations.

The effective transverse energy of a vortex (classical plus quantum) has a minimum lower than the perturbative vacuum both in $`4d`$ and $`3d`$. In $`4d`$ this result is in a qualitative agreement with the well-known Savvidy’s logarithm, $`(11N_c/96\pi ^2)H^2\mathrm{ln}(H/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{const}.)`$, for the energy of a constant chromomagnetic field $`H`$, following from asymptotic freedom Sav . However, the constant chromomagnetic background has a negative mode NNO ; AO , so that Savvidy’s vacuum is unstable. \[Because of this negative mode the fluctuation determinant is not well-defined, and the constant in the argument of the logarithm can not be determined.\] In contrast, the vortex has a fast-varying magnetic field, the fluctuation determinant has no negative mode and can be computed. Qualitatively, the energy gain is expected from dimensional analysis and asymptotic freedom (see section 4) but its value is a priori unknown. In $`3d`$ one does not have the argument of the asymptotic freedom formula, in favor of the energy gain. Therefore, the fact that we find an energy gain for vortices both in $`3d`$ and $`4d`$ is non-trivial. The center (flux-1) vortices give a larger energy gain than the non-topological flux-0 ones and from that point of view are dynamically preferred. This was also the conclusion of the Copenhagen group AO  who studied semi-classically a $`2d`$ hexagonal lattice made of parallel flux tubes. However, from our calculation we cannot exclude that fluxes of other magnitude, e.g. flux-2 (which are topologically equivalent to flux-0 ones) are even more preferred.

Despite different shapes of vortex profiles considered (one exponential, the other power-like) we get close numbers for the energy gain. It indicates that vortices are ‘soft’ with respect to their deformations in the transverse plane. A further indication in favor of this interpretation is the fast rise of the aggregate phase at small momenta, see Figs. 2,4,5, although zero modes in a strict sense do not seem to exist, see Appendix B. That makes the search for the absolute minimum in the 1-loop approximation rather problematic: it will be very flat anyhow. Simultaneously, it makes the naive interpretation of thick vortices as neatly shaped spaghetti even more difficult.

Assuming that the vacuum is unstable with respect to the spontaneous production of individual center vortices, their creation can be, in principle, stabilized by i) kinetic energy of vortex bending, ii) repulsive interaction of neighbor vortices and/or of different segments of the same vortex. Concerning vortex interactions, a $`Z(N)`$ vortex in a regular gauge necessarily has a nonzero azimuthal component of the Yang–Mills field, decaying as $`1/\rho `$ at large distances from the center in the transverse plane. Two such vortices will then have unacceptable strong repulsion unless they are ‘gauge-combed’ in such a way that $`A_\varphi `$ is zero at large distances. In such a gauge, however, one necessarily gets a Dirac sheet (in $`3d`$) or a Dirac 3-volume (in $`4d`$) of gauge singularities. Dirac singularities from two vortices intersect along a line in $`3d`$ or along a surface in $`4d`$. An intersection of two gauge singularities in non-Abelian theory is, generally speaking, not a pure gauge but a physical singularity. It is not clear how to avoid those infinities. In any case, vortex interactions are far from being an easy topic, but they need to be clarified before the statistical mechanics of vortices can tell us that the ‘entangled spaghetti’ vacuum has a preferred free energy.

## Appendix A Conversion into cylindrical coordinates

The conversion into cylindrical coordinates is given by the transformations:

$`x=\rho \mathrm{cos}\varphi y=\rho \mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ (61)
and

$`A_x`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi A_\rho \mathrm{sin}\varphi A_\varphi `$
$`A_y`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi A_\rho +\mathrm{cos}\varphi A_\varphi `$ (62)
$`_x`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\rho }}_\varphi `$
$`_y`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\rho }}_\varphi .`$ (63)
One finds:

$`F_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`_xA_y_yA_x`$ (64)
$`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{cos}\varphi _\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\rho }}_\varphi \right)\left(\mathrm{sin}\varphi A_\rho +\mathrm{cos}\varphi A_\varphi \right)`$
$`\left(\mathrm{sin}\varphi _\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\rho }}_\varphi \right)\left(\mathrm{cos}\varphi A_\rho \mathrm{sin}\varphi A_\varphi \right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_\varphi }{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_\varphi }{\rho }},`$
using $`A_\rho =0`$, and with $`A_\varphi =\mu (\rho )/\rho `$ one obtains:

$$F_{12}=\mu ^{}(\rho )/\rho (F_{\mu \nu })^2=2[\mu ^{}(\rho )/\rho ]^2.$$
(65)
## Appendix B Excluding possible bound states at $`k=0`$

The spectrum of the ghost and gluon operators discussed above is incomplete if there exist bound states at $`k_{}=0`$. Were the vortices an exact solution of the classical equation of motion, zero modes would be inevitable. However, our vortices are minima of the effective action and not of the classical one, therefore there are no special reasons for zero modes of the small-oscillation operators.

To check whether such states exist we substitute $`\rho t=1/\rho `$ in the gluon operator and obtain the reflected differential equation:

$$t\frac{}{t}t\frac{}{t}Z(1/t)+\left[(m\alpha \mu (1/t))^2+2\alpha \beta \frac{\mu ^{}(1/t)}{t}\right]Z(1/t)=0.$$
(66)
$`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are two constants depending on the color and space polarizations of the state under consideration. Using the notation B(t) = Z(1/t) we take the boundary conditions for a bound state $`B(0)=0`$. This tells only that B has to be regular at the origin. Now we can check the asymptotic of the equation using an explicit flux-1 profile, for example, $`\mu (\rho )=\mathrm{exp}(1/\rho ^3)`$. One obtains asymptotically for large $`\rho `$ and correspondingly for small $`t`$:

$$\left[\frac{1}{t}\frac{}{t}t\frac{}{t}+\frac{(m\alpha )^2}{t^2}\right]B_0(t)=0.$$
(67)
For this equation we require power series in $`t`$. The only non-trivial regular solution to this is $`B_0(t)=At^{|m\alpha |}`$. Therefore, we use the ansatz:

$$B(t)=A(t)t^{|m\alpha |}.$$
(68)
One obtains the differential equation for the amplitude:

$$\left[\frac{1}{t}\frac{}{t}t\frac{}{t}2\frac{|m\alpha |}{t}\frac{}{t}+\frac{(m\alpha \mu (1/t))^2(m\alpha )^2+2\alpha \beta \mu ^{}(1/t)/t}{t^2}\right]A(t)=0.$$
(69)
The boundary conditions are now $`A(0)=1,A^{}(0)=0`$ to make sure that the asymptotical behavior is correct. Explicit calculation shows that these states behave as:

$$Z_m^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(\rho )\{\begin{array}{ccc}\rho ^{|m|}& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{small}& \rho \\ \rho ^{|m\alpha |}& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{large}& \rho \end{array}\mathrm{for}m>0.$$
(70)
The behavior at small $`\rho `$ is clear because of asymptotic arguments like the one used for small $`t`$ in eq. (67). The explicit calculation shows that only irregular solutions exist for $`m>0`$. In the case $`m=0`$ the solution is at least logarithmically divergent for large $`\rho `$, as $`|\alpha |=1,1/2`$. Therefore, there are no localized solutions with zero $`k_{}`$.


text:
# Untitled Document

Evolution of Gaussian Wave Packet and Nonadiabatic Geometrical Phase for the time-dependent Singular Oscillator

M. Maamache and H. Bekkar

Laboratoire de Physique Quantique et Systemes Dynamiques,

Département de Physique, Faculté des Sciences,

Université de Sétif, Sétif (19000) ALGERIA

The geometrical phase of a time-dependent singular oscillator is obtained in the framework of Gaussian wave packet. It is shown by a simple geometrical approach that the geometrical phase is connected to the classical nonadiabatic Hannay angle of the generalized Harmonic oscillator.

PACS number( s ): $`03.65.Bz,03.65.Ge,03.65.Sq`$

Explicitly time-dependent problems present special difficulties in classical and quantum mechanics. However, they deserve detailed study because very interesting properties emerge when, even for simple linear systems, some parameters are allowed to vary with time. For instance, particular recent interest has been devoted to systems in which evolution originates geometric contributions \[1-6\]. One of these, the generalized harmonic oscillator has invoked much attention to study the nonadiabatic geometric phase for various quantum states, such as Gaussian, number, squeezed or coherent states, which can be found exactly \[7-10\]. Recently, the geometric phase for a cyclic wave packet solution of the generalized harmonic oscillator and its relation to Hannay’s angle were studied by Ge and Ghild . They introduce the time-dependent Heller Gaussian wave packet form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)=\text{exp}\left(\mathrm{}^1[\alpha (xq)^2+ip(xq)+k]\right)$$
$`(1)`$
centred around the classical guiding trajectory $`(q,p)`$, and proceed to derive equations of motion for the complex or real parameters ($`\alpha (t),q(t),p(t),`$ and $`k(t)`$) which serve to specify a complete quantum wave packet.

On the other hand, the number of exactly solvable quantum time-dependent problems is very restricted, one of the rare examples admitting exact solutions of the Schrödinger equation and have been studied intensively lately \[12-19\] is the quantum time-dependent generalized singular oscilator

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left[Z(t)p_x^2+Y(t)(p_xx+xp_x)+X(t)x^2+\frac{Z(t)l^2}{x^2}\right]$$
$`(2)`$
where $`x`$ and $`p_x=ı\mathrm{}/x`$ are the quantum operators, $`X(t),Y(t)`$, and $`Z(t)`$ are an arbitrary function of time, and $`l`$ is an arbitrary constant which could be zero. A distinguished role of the Hamiltonian (2) is explained by the fact that, in a sense, it belongs to a boundary between linear and nonlinear problems of classical and quantum mechanics. For this reason, it was used in many applications in different areas of physics. For example, it served as an initial point in constructing interesting exactly solvable models of interacting N-body systems \[12-13\]. It was also used for modeling diatomic and polyatomic molecules . It can have some relation to the problem of the relative motion of ions in electromagnetic traps .

The aim of this letter is to explore Gaussian wave function dynamics for the Hamiltonian (2) with nonadiabatic time dependence, and formulate a geometrical approach to derive a nonadiabatic geometric phase effect in quantum and classical mechanics. For that purpose we intoduce a class of wave function of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_l(x,t)=x^{\left(1/2\sqrt{(l/\mathrm{})^2+1/4}\right)}\text{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\left(1/2(l+ipq)\left[(\frac{xq}{q})^2+2(\frac{xq}{q})\right]+k\right)\right\}$$
$`(3)`$
given as products of squeezed Gaussian wave packet of the type (1) and a function $`x`$ of order $`(1/2\sqrt{(l/\mathrm{})^2+1/4})`$. Inserting Eq. (3) into Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_l}{t}=H\mathrm{\Psi }_l,$$
$`(4)`$
and then compare between the coefficients of various powers of $`(xq)`$. This lead to

$$(xq)^2:i\dot{\beta }=2Z\beta ^22iY\beta +\frac{X}{2},$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\beta =ip/(2q)l/(2q^2),`$

$$(xq)^1:2i(\beta \frac{l}{2q^2})(\dot{q}ZpYq)+(\dot{p}+Xq+Yp\frac{Zl^2}{q^3})=0,$$
$`(6)`$
$`(xq)^0`$:

$$p\dot{q}+i\dot{k}=\frac{1}{2}\left[Zp^2+2Ypq+Xq^2+\frac{Zl^2}{q^2}\right]\frac{Z(t)l^2}{q^2}+2\mathrm{}(1/2\sqrt{(l/\mathrm{})^2+1/4})(Z\beta i\frac{Y}{2}).$$
$`(7)`$
The $`(xq)^2`$ condition determines $`\beta `$ by a nonlinear equation of the Riccati form, which can be transformed to a linear system by introducing a two dimensional vector $`\stackrel{}{v}^T(Q,P)`$ and

$$\beta \frac{i}{2}\frac{P}{Q},$$
$`(8)`$
where $`Q`$ and $`P`$ may be complex. In order that $`\beta `$ satisfies (5), it is sufficient that $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ obey the Hamilton’s equation

$$\stackrel{}{\dot{v}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\dot{Q}\\ \dot{P}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Y& Z\\ X& Y\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}Q\\ P\end{array}\right)=\stackrel{}{v}.$$
$`(9)`$
The $`(xq)^1`$ condition makes sense if

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \dot{q}& =Zp+Yq\hfill & \\ \hfill \dot{p}& =XqYp+\frac{Zl^2}{q^3},\hfill & (10)\hfill \end{array}$$

and determines the complex guiding trajectory associated to the classical Hamiltonian

$$H(q,p,t)=\frac{1}{2}\left[Z(t)p^2+Y(t)(pq+qp)+X(t)q^2+\frac{Z(t)l^2}{q^2}\right]$$
$`(11).`$
The $`(xq)^0`$ condition determines the time dependent global phase and normalization included in $`k`$ which can be rearanged in the form

$$k(t)k(0)=i_0^t\left(L(t^{})+\frac{Z(t^{})l^2}{q^2}2\mathrm{}\left(1\sqrt{(l/\mathrm{})^2+1/4}\right)\left(Z\beta iY/2\right)\right)𝑑t^{},$$
$`(12)`$
where $`L(t)=p(q,\dot{q})\dot{q}H[q,p(q,\dot{q}),t].`$ Examining the three terms in the expression (12) for $`k`$, we see that the two first give $`i\left\{(pq)p(0)q(0)\right\}/2`$. The remaining terms in $`k/\mathrm{}`$, namely $`2i\left(1\sqrt{(l/\mathrm{})^2+1/4}\right)_0^t\left(Z\beta iY/2\right)𝑑t^{}`$ is recognized as the angle (or phase) accumulated in the nonadiabatic evolution, and contain a dynamical part $`\theta _d(t)`$ and a geometrical one $`\theta _H(t)`$ (Hannay’s angle).

In the literature, $`\theta _H(t)`$ is usually defined in relation with the introduction of time dependent canonical transformations. However, a simple geometrical approach ( hence no calculatory) may be formulated to deduce the decomposition of the total phase factor. Let us consider the classical equation (9). The main property of this evolution is that is linear and area preserving. This implies that any initial conditions $`(Q(0),P(0))`$ being at $`t=0`$ on a centered ellipse $`(0)`$ in phase space evolve at time $`t`$ on a similar ellipse $`(t)`$ of the same area. A little thought show that, more precisely, two points $`M_0,N_0`$ on $`(0)`$ whose parameters differ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ evolve in points $`M_t,N_t`$ on $`(t)`$ with the same difference of parameters so that the area $`\stackrel{}{OM}_t\stackrel{}{ON}_t`$ remains constant. The reason is that the standard parameter $`\phi (\phi [0,2\pi ])`$ which parametrizes a point on an ellipse is such that it is proportional to the area swept by the vector $`\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{OM}`$. The natural origins of these familly (homothetical centered) ellipses are the points associated with $`\phi =0`$, and the action angle coordinates $`(I,\theta )`$ of a point $`M`$ in phase space, with respect to the familly associated with $`(t)`$, are respectively the area (divided by $`2\pi `$) and the usual angular variable defined on this ellipse. There exist a natural transport (with respect to the symplectic structure in phase space) for a familly of (homothetical centered) ellipses. More precisely, let $`M_t`$ on $`(t)`$ a point of coordinates $`(I,\theta (t))`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{t+dt}`$ its transported on $`(t+dt)`$. Clearly, this transport must preserve areas, but this is not sufficient since it remains to precise how one point (for example the origin) is transported: for this, one simply requires that the area which is swept by the vectors $`\stackrel{}{v}(\phi )`$ (on an ellipse) during the transport has, when averaged over $`\phi `$, a mean value equal to zero. Therefore the transport is defined by

$$<\stackrel{}{OM_t}\stackrel{}{M_t\stackrel{~}{M}_{t+dt}}>=0.$$
$`(13)`$
This transport associates to $`M_t`$ of coordinates $`\theta (t),`$ the point $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{t+dt}`$ of coordinates $`\theta (t)+d\theta _H(t)(\theta _H(t)`$: Hannay’s angle).

The angular coordinate on $`(t+dt)`$ of evolved point $`M_{t+dt}`$ of $`M_t`$ is $`\theta (t)+d\theta (t).`$ The difference $`d\theta (t)d\theta _H(t)=d\theta _D(t)`$ does not depend on the chosen point $`M_t`$ on $`(t).`$ The quantity $`Id\theta _D=I(d\theta d\theta _H)`$ is the area $`\stackrel{}{O\stackrel{~}{M}_{t+dt}}\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{M}_{t+dt}M_{t+dt}}`$ and can be written as the difference $`\stackrel{}{OM_t}\stackrel{}{M_tM_{t+dt}}\stackrel{}{OM_t}\stackrel{}{M_t\stackrel{~}{M}_{t+dt}}`$ of the area swept by the vector $`\stackrel{}{OM_t}`$ during its evolution and of the one swept by $`\stackrel{}{OM}_t`$ in the geometrical transport. Averaging these two areas on the ellipse $`(t)`$, one can see that $`Id\theta _D`$ can be interpreted as the mean value of the swept area during the motion. This justifies the appelation of dynamical angle for $`\theta _D(t)`$.

To translate analyticaly the previous geometrical remarks, let $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ be a complex two dimensional vector, it is known (for instance from optics) that one can describe (homothetical centered) ellipses as the set of vectors $`\stackrel{}{OM_t}=[\stackrel{}{E}(t)e^{i\phi }]`$ and those obtained by the transport are represented by the set of vectors $`\stackrel{}{O\stackrel{~}{M}_{t+dt}}=[\stackrel{}{E}(t+dt)e^{id\theta _H}e^{i\phi }]`$. Using the area preserving property (proportional to $`i\stackrel{}{E}^{}\stackrel{}{E}`$), one can easily verify that the transport defined by Eq. (13) is also written as $`\stackrel{}{E}^{}(d\stackrel{}{E}id\theta _H\stackrel{}{E})=0`$ or

$$\dot{\theta }_H=\frac{\stackrel{}{E}^{}\stackrel{}{\dot{E}}}{i(\stackrel{}{E}^{}\stackrel{}{E})}.$$
$`(14)`$
Obviously Eq. (14) gives new expression for the nonadiabatic Hannay angle of the generalized harmonic oscillator. Within such formalism the above remarks justify that the general solution of the Hamilton equation (9) may be looked for in the form

$$\stackrel{}{v}(t)=Ae^{i(\theta (t)+\phi )}\stackrel{}{E}(t),(\theta (0)=0),$$
$`(15)`$
with $`i\stackrel{}{E}^{}\stackrel{}{E}`$ conserved and $`A`$ and $`\phi `$ fixed ($`A`$ and $`\phi `$ are the conditions mesured with respect to the familly $`\stackrel{}{E}(0)`$). The angular drift of the origins points of $`\stackrel{}{E}(0)`$ (measured with respect to $`\stackrel{}{E}(t)`$) is naturally decomposed in a geometrical part (Hannay’s angle) and a dynamical one

$$\dot{\theta }=\frac{\stackrel{}{E}^{}\stackrel{}{\dot{E}}}{i(\stackrel{}{E}^{}\stackrel{}{E})}+\frac{\stackrel{}{E}^{}\stackrel{}{E}}{i(\stackrel{}{E}^{}\stackrel{}{E})}.$$
$`(16)`$
(This relation is obtained by inserting $`\stackrel{}{v}(t)`$ in Hamilton equation (9) and making the wedge product with $`\stackrel{}{v}^{}(t)`$).

If one wants to explicitly calculate $`\dot{\theta }_H`$ and $`\dot{\theta }`$, we must find vector $`\stackrel{}{E}(t)`$. Before hand, one can impose the condition $`i(\stackrel{}{E}^{}\stackrel{}{E})=4I`$ (which fix the ellipse area) and take the first componant of $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ to be real. The general form of $`\stackrel{}{E}(t)`$ is thus

$$\stackrel{}{E}(t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{QQ^{}}\\ 2i\beta (t)\sqrt{QQ^{}}\end{array}\right).$$
$`(17)`$
It leads to the relations

$$\dot{\theta }_H=i\frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta +\beta ^{}}\frac{i}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\text{Ln}(QQ^{})$$
$`(18)`$
$$\dot{\theta }=2\left(Z\beta iY/2\right)\frac{i}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\text{Ln}(QQ^{}).$$
$`(19)`$
From the form of the time-dependent phase factors included in $`k`$ Eq. (12), it is clear that

$$\gamma _l(t)=2\left(1\sqrt{(l/\mathrm{})^2+1/4}\right)_0^t𝑑t\left(Z\beta iY/2\right)$$

$$=\left(1\sqrt{(l/\mathrm{})^2+1/4}\right)\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (t)+\frac{i}{2}\text{Ln}\left\{\frac{Q(t)Q^{}(t)}{Q(0)Q^{}(0)}\right\}\right],$$
$`(20)`$
we see that the logarithm term goes ”downstairs” as time-dependent normalization factor in the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_l(x,t).`$ The remaining term in $`\gamma _l(t)`$ is recognized as the phase factors acquiered by the wave packet in its evolution.

Then, we can reach a simple relation between the geometrical phase for the quantum singular oscillator and the nonadiabatic Hannay angle associated to the generalized harmonic oscillator

$$\gamma _l^G(t)=\left(1\sqrt{(l/\mathrm{})^2+1/4}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _H(t),$$
$`(21)`$
where the first part is independent of $`\mathrm{}`$ and is equal to the Hannay angle, the second part depends on $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`l`$.

Now we turn our attention to the Eq. (3) which can be rewritten as a simple Gaussian wave packet

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_l(x,t)=\left(x\frac{Q(0)Q^{}(0)}{Q(t)Q(t)}\right)^{\left(1/2\sqrt{(l/\mathrm{})^2+1/4}\right)}e^{\frac{1}{4}\text{Ln}\frac{Q(0)Q^{}(0)}{Q(t)Q^{}(t)}}$$

$$\text{exp}(\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\{\beta x^21/2(lip(0)q(0))+k(0)+$$

$$\mathrm{}(1\sqrt{(l/\mathrm{})^2+1/4})_0^t[\frac{\stackrel{}{E}^{}\stackrel{}{\dot{E}}}{(\stackrel{}{E}^{}\stackrel{}{E})}+\frac{\stackrel{}{E}^{}\stackrel{}{E}}{(\stackrel{}{E}^{}\stackrel{}{E})}]dt^{}\})$$
$`(22)`$
which is also a solution to the Schrödinger equation.

In conclusion, the squeezed Gaussian wave packet dynamics for the time-dependent singular oscillator has been obtained as a simple squeezed wave packet. The quantum phases are obtained explicitly and connected to the classical angle of the generalized harmonic oscillator. The classical version of the generalized harmonic oscillator has been discussed, and a new expression for the nonadiabatic Hannay angle has been obtained by employing a geometrical approach of the evolution in phase space. In the literature, $`\theta _H(t)`$ is usually defined in relation with the introduction of time dependent canonical transformations. However, the geometrical part has been found by asking wether there exists a natural transport (with respect to the symplectic structure) for a family of (homothetical centered) ellipses. When the parameter $`l`$ vanishes, we see that the Gaussian wave packet (22) corresponds to the evolution of the ”ground” state of the time-dependent generalized harmonic oscillator and the geometrical phase is equal to one-half of the classical angle. This is just what was obtained in Ref. .

References

 M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 392, 45 (1984); J. Phys. A 18, 15 (1985).

 J.H. Hannay, J. Phys. A 18, 221 (1985).

 Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, Phys. Rev. Lett 58, 1593 (1987).

 M.V. Berry and J.H. Hannay, J. Phys. A 21, L325 (1988).

 M. Maamache, J.P Provost and G. Vallée, J. Phys. A 23, 5765 (1990), Eur. J. Phys. 15, 121 (1994).

 C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. Lett 74, 1264 (1995).

 Y. C. Ge and M. S. Child, Phys. Rev. Lett 78, 2507 (1997).

 J. Lie, B. Hu and B. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett 81, 1749 (1998).

 M. Maamache, J.P Provost and G. Vallée, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1777 (1999).

 D. Y. Song, Phys. Rev. Lett 85, 1141 (2000).

 E. J. Heller, J. Chem. Phys. 65, 4979 (1976).

 B. Sutherland, J. Math. Phys. 12, 246 (1971).

 F. Calogero, J. Math. Phys. 12, 419 (1971).

 S.M Chumakov, V.V Dodonov and V.I Man’ko, J. Phys. A 19, 3229 (1986).

 V.V Dodonov, V.I Man’ko and D.V Zhivotchenko, IL Nuovo Cimento B 108, 1349 (1993).

 M. Maamache, Phys. Rev. A 52, 936 (1995); A 61, 026102 (2000); J. Phys. A 29, 2833 (1996); Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 254, 1 (1997).

 R. S. Kaushal and D. Parashar, Phys. Rev. A 55, 2610 (1997).

 I.A. Pedrosa, G.P. Serra and I. Guedes, Phys. Rev. A 56, 4300 (1997).

 V.V Dodonov, V.I Man’ko and L. Rosa, Phys. Rev. A 57, 2851 (1998).