text:
# Scaling Laws and Effective Dimension in Lattice 𝑆𝑈(2) Yang-Mills Theory with a Compactified Extra Dimension

## I Introduction

Since Kaluza and Klein  found that the electromagnetic and gravitational forces can be unified by introducing the fifth dimension, their idea has attracted attention for many decades. Recently, there have been a lot of renewed interests in field theories with extra dimensions, in which the length scale of the extra dimensions can be so large that they could be experimentally observed . It is assumed there that for distances larger than the compactification size, the massive Kaluza-Klein excitations decouple so that these theories behave as a four-dimensional continuum theory at low energies. Since, however, Yang-Mills theories in more than four dimensions are nonrenormalizable, it is not at all clear that the infinite tower of the Kaluza-Klein excitations decouple even if each massive excitation is suppressed: A naive expectation of their contribution would be $`\mathrm{}0`$.

At four dimensions, the color degrees of freedom are confined even for a weak gauge coupling. How can a confining four-dimensional Yang-Mills theory emerge from a higher-dimensional Yang-Mills theory which is deconfining in the weak coupling regime  ? Although the assumption on the decoupling of the Kaluza-Klein excitations sounds physically correct, it is by no means trivial that they nonperturbatively decouple in such a way that the color confinement takes place even at a weak gauge coupling. Recently, we  have started to address related problems in a concrete example, namely the pure lattice $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills theory in five dimensions with one dimension compactified on a circle. We have observed  that the compactification changes the nature of the phase transition, and that a second order phase transition, which does not exist in the uncompactified case, occurs, thus confirming the long-standing expectation of Lang, Pilch and Skagerstam. For the first time, we  have computed the lattice $`\beta `$-function in a Yang-Mills theory in more than four dimensions, and have verified nonperturbatively the power-law running of the gauge coupling constant .

In this paper we would like to extend the analyses of . We first observe that if the compactification radius becomes smaller and smaller, the confining phase spreads more and more to the weak coupling regime. At the same time we compute the effective dimension , and see that the theory behaves more and more as a four-dimensional Yang-Mills theory. Based on this result, we argue that the color degrees of freedom in QCD are confined only for $`R<R_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Our rough estimate yields that $`1/R_{\mathrm{max}}`$ lies in the TeV range.

Our calculations of the potential between two static quarks separated in the four-dimensional subspace show that the deconfining phase is a Coulomb phase. We then discuss the nature of the transition from the deconfining phase to the confining phase for fixed values of $`R/a_4`$, where $`a_4`$ is the lattice spacing in the four-dimensional direction. We confirm that if $`R/a_4`$ is small enough, it is consistent with a second order transition *** The phase we are talking about in this paper is defined by the potential between two quarks separated in the four-dimensional  subspace. This definition should not be confused with the definition by the Ployakov loop that extends into the fifth dimension. In the case of the phase transition measured by the Ployakov loop, too, the change from first to second order occurs  as we have already mentioned.. Combined with the result of , we therefore come to the conclusion that as we decrease the value of $`R\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the first order transition for large values of $`R\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ changes to a cross over transition, and finally becomes of second order.

We give some nonperturbative comments on deconstructing extra dimensions  in Conclusion.

## II Effective dimension

In order to take into account the compactification effects in this theory, it is crucial to use anisotropic lattices  which has different lattice spacings, $`a_4`$ and $`a_5`$, in the four-dimensional directions and in the fifth direction. For definiteness we employ the Wilson action for pure $`SU(2)`$ lattice gauge theory

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \underset{P_4}{}}[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Re Tr}U_{P_4}]+\beta \gamma {\displaystyle \underset{P_5}{}}[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Re Tr}U_{P_5}],`$ (1)
where $`U_{P_4}`$ denote plaquette variables in the four-dimensional sublattice, and $`U_{P_5}`$ are those which are extended in the fifth dimension. The gauge coupling constant $`g_5`$ has the dimension of $`\sqrt{a_4}`$, which is related to $`\beta `$ by

$`a_4g_5^2=\beta /4`$ (2)
at the tree level. Periodic boundary conditions are imposed in all directions, and we use the lattice size of the form $`N_4^4\times N_5`$ (we mostly use $`N_4=12`$ and $`N_5=4`$). The compactification radius is defined as $`R=a_5N_5/2\pi `$ if $`N_4a_4>N_5a_5`$ is satisfied, and the correlation-anisotropy parameter is defined as $`\xi =a_4/a_5`$. The tree level relation $`\gamma =\xi `$ will be modified at the quantum level , and throughout this paper we assume that the $`\xi \gamma `$ relation obtained in  is satisfied both in the confining and deconfining phases. Simulations are performed for

$`\gamma =3.6,4.0,4.6,5.0,`$ (3)
which is equivalent to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi R}{a_4}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_5a_5}{a_4}}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\xi }}0.72,0.64,0.55,0.50,`$ (4)
where we have used $`N_5=4`$ above. We have chosen this range of $`2\pi R/a_4`$, because we expect from the previous calculations  that the limit $`2\pi R/a_40`$ may exist and we observe some scaling behavior.

To define the physical scale in the confining phase, we use the string tension $`\sigma `$ between two static quarks that are separated in the four-dimensional subspace. Since the string tension is a physical quantity, the lattice string tension $`\sigma _L`$ should behave like $`a_4^2`$ as $`a_40`$, where $`a_4`$ can be related by the $`\beta `$ function to the dimensionless bare gauge coupling

$`g^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{\beta }}=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_5^2,`$ (5)
where we have identified $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`2\pi /a_4`$ because $`4\times (\pi /a_4)^2=(2\pi /a_4)^2`$. Since we expect that the massive Kaluza-Klein excitations decouple increasingly as $`2\pi R/a_4`$ decreases, the lattice $`\beta `$ function $`\beta _L`$ cannot assume a purely five- or four-dimensional form. Instead, we expect a continuous change of its form. This is quantitatively expressed by the so-called effective dimension $`D_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ which is a function of $`2\pi R/a_4`$ . So, we assume that $`\beta _L`$ can be written as

$`\beta _L`$ $`=`$ $`a_4{\displaystyle \frac{dg^2}{da_4}}=[D_{\mathrm{eff}}(2\pi R/a_4)4]g^2{\displaystyle \frac{2b}{16\pi ^2}}g^4,`$ (6)
where $`b=22/32/3=20/3`$. Therefore, the evolution equation of $`g^2`$ can be easily integrated in the case that $`2\pi R/a_4`$ is kept fixed while $`a_4`$ changes. We obtain for this case

$`\sqrt{\sigma _L}`$ $``$ $`a_4\left({\displaystyle \frac{2b}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D_{\mathrm{eff}}4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{8\pi }}\right)^{1/(D_{\mathrm{eff}}4)}.`$ (7)
It is important to notice that as $`D_{\mathrm{eff}}4`$, we obtain the logarithmic form

$`g^2`$ $`=`$ $`\beta /8\pi =(2b/16\pi ^2)\mathrm{ln}a_4+const.`$ (8)
That is, if we can show that the effective dimension $`D_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in the confining phase varies from $`5`$ to $`4`$ as $`2\pi R/a_4`$ decreases from a larger value to a smaller value, we show the continuous decoupling of the Kaluza-Klein excitations, and the confining phase spreads more and more to the weak coupling regime as $`R`$ decreases.

## III Confining phase

Now we come to the results of our Monte Carlo simulations on a $`12^4\times 4`$ lattice. We use the Creutz ratio $`\chi (I,J)`$ obtained from the rectangular Wilson loops $`W(I,J)`$ with lengths of $`I`$ and $`J`$ in the four-dimensional subspace. We assume that the Creutz ratio takes the form

$`\chi (I,J)=\chi _0\chi _1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{I(I1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{J(J1)}}\right)+\chi _2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{I(I1)J(J1)}}\right),`$ (9)
and we identity $`\chi _0`$ with the lattice string tension $`\sigma _L`$. We have generated 2500 configurations for each simulation point after thermalization, and the Wilson loops are measured every 5 configurations for the calculation of a Creutz ratio. Errors are estimated by the jackknife method. The filled symbols in Fig. 1 are the result obtained from the Monte Carlo simulations with $`\gamma =5.0`$, where the vertical axis stands for $`\sqrt{\chi _0}=\sqrt{\sigma _L}`$ and the horizontal axis stands for $`\beta `$. We have also calculated $`\sigma _L`$ from the static potential to make it sure that $`\sigma _L`$ obtained from the Creutz ratios is reliable  We give more details of calculating the static potential in section V when calculating the potential in the Coulomb phase.. The static potential we have assumed has the form

$`V(X)=C_0C_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}}+C_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}}\right]\right)+C_3X,`$ (10)
where $`[1/X]`$ is the three-dimensional Coulomb potential on a lattice, and is given by

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}}\right]=4\pi {\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\{i_iX_i\mathrm{sin}(p_i/2)\}}{_{i=1}^4\mathrm{sin}^2(p_i/2)}}.`$ (11)
The open symbols in Fig. 1 correspond to the result obtained from the static potential. Comparing two results in Fig. 1 we see that the lattice string tensions obtained from the Creutz ratios agree with those obtained from the static potential. We have made the same comparison for different values of $`\gamma `$, and found the same result. So, in the following analyses we use only the lattice string tensions from the Creutz ratio, because we have more data for this case and we do not want to mix data obtained by two different methods.

We see from Fig. 1 that above $`\beta \begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}3.0`$ the square root of the lattice string tension $`\sqrt{\sigma _L}`$ decreases first linearly until $`\beta 3.3`$, and then its slope becomes milder. The tail for large $`\beta `$ is certainly due to the finite lattice size effects, but the change from the linear decrease of $`\sqrt{\sigma _L}`$ to a milder one around $`\beta 3.3`$ may indicate that the theoretical expectation (7) is correct. Although it is in principle possible to check by increasing the lattice size how much finite lattice size effects may be contained in the tail of $`\sqrt{\sigma _L}`$, it is impossible to do this at the moment because of the limitation of the computing facility given to us. Below we sketch how we confirm Eq. (7) and compute $`D_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

The effective dimension can be obtained by fitting the function (7) to the data. To this end, we first choose four neighboring data points that lie around the middle of the data set for a given $`\gamma `$, and using these points, we fit the function (7) to obtain the effective dimension. (In the case for $`\gamma =5.0`$ for instance, we use the data points at $`\beta =3.20,3.22,3.24`$ and $`3.26`$.) Then we increase the number of the data points, to be used, by two by including the next neighboring data point in both sides. In doing so, we obtain the effective dimension and also $`\chi ^2/\text{DOF}`$ as a function of the number $`n`$ of the data points that are used for a fit. We repeat the same analysis for the different values of $`2\pi R/a_4`$ given in (4). The results are shown in Fig. 2, 3 and in Table I. In Fig. 3, the vertical axis stand for $`(D_{\mathrm{eff}}4)^1`$ and the error bar is computed from $`\chi ^2/\text{DOF}`$. We see that as $`n`$ increases, the error bar decreases and the central values converge. The results are summarized in Table I, and we see that the effective dimension $`D_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ decreases gradually from $`4.7057(55)`$ to $`4.5230(82)`$ as $`\gamma `$ increases from $`3.6`$ to $`5.0`$, which means, as $`2\pi R/a_4`$ decreases from $`0.72`$ to $`0.5`$ (see (4)).

The $`\beta ^{}`$ in Table I is the value at which $`\sigma _L`$ and hence $`a_4`$ should vanish if the theoretical assumption (7) is correct and extrapolated for larger values of $`\beta `$ (see also Fig. 2). We emphasize that our results indicate that the limit $`a_40`$ with $`R/a_4`$ kept fixed exists in the confining phase at finite $`\beta `$.

## IV The maximal radius

The same analysis in the real QCD in section III would constrain the size of the compactification radius in QCD, which we would like to estimate without detailed calculations. To see that there exists the maximal radius for color confinement in the four-dimensional subspace, we recall the results obtained in the previous section and those from the next section:

$`g^2\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}(\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array})(D_{\mathrm{eff}}4)(16\pi ^2/2b)\text{for the (de)confining phase}.`$ (28)
Therefore, for a given value of $`D_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, there should exist the smallest value of $`g^2`$ for color confinement to occur, which is $`(D_{\mathrm{eff}}4)(16\pi ^2/2b)`$. The question is how $`g^2`$ can be related to the gauge coupling $`g_{\mathrm{kk}}^2`$ of the Kaluza-Klein theory, the four-dimensional theory with the Kaluza-Klein tower. At the tree level, it is $`g_{\mathrm{kk}}^2=g^2(2\pi R\mathrm{\Lambda })^1`$, but in higher orders this relation will receive quantum corrections, where we have used $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=(\pi /a_4)^2\times 4`$. To answer the question, we first assume that $`D_{\mathrm{eff}}(R\mathrm{\Lambda })4(5)`$ as $`R\mathrm{\Lambda }0(\mathrm{})`$, and we consider a redefinition of $`g^2`$ according to

$`g_{\mathrm{kk}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^1(R\mathrm{\Lambda })g^2,\eta (t)=\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle \frac{dt^{}}{t^{}}}(D_{\mathrm{eff}}(t^{})4).`$ (29)
Note that the $`\beta `$ function of $`g_{\mathrm{kk}}^2`$ becomes

$`\beta _{\mathrm{kk}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2b/16\pi ^2)\eta (R\mathrm{\Lambda })g_{\mathrm{kk}}^4.`$ (30)
Since the function $`\eta (R\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ becomes proportional to $`R\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as $`R\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ The proportionality constant depends on $`D_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as a function of $`t`$, which, however, depends on the regularization used . Therefore, the lattice regularization does not reproduce the same coefficient  obtained in ., the new gauge coupling describes the power-law behavior . Furthermore, we see from (29) that $`g_{\mathrm{kk}}^2`$ approaches $`g^2`$ as $`R\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ approaches $`0`$. Recalling now the assumption that $`D_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approaches $`4`$ as $`R\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ approaches $`0`$ and Eq. (8), we see that the renormalization group flow of the new gauge coupling $`g_{\mathrm{kk}}^2`$ for small $`R\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ takes exactly the same form as the one for the effective, four-dimensional theory without the Kaluza-Klein tower. Therefore, we assume that $`g_{\mathrm{kk}}^2`$ is the gauge coupling of the four-dimensional theory with the Kaluza-Klein tower.

Now, suppose that QCD results from a five-dimensional QCD. As we have argued above, $`g^2`$ becomes $`g_{\mathrm{kk}}^2`$ at low energies, and we then identify $`2\pi /a_4`$ with the physical scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the effective theory, rather than with the ultraviolet cutoff. Since $`g^2(M_Z)/4\pi 0.12`$ in QCD and $`b=7`$, the constraint (28) can be converted to that of the effective dimension, i.e., $`D_{\mathrm{eff}}(RM_Z)\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}4.13`$. Therefore, if we know the function $`D_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)`$ exactly, we can calculate the range of $`t`$ for which the inequality (28) is satisfied. From the result given in Table I we find that the effective dimension as a function of $`t`$ can be written as $`D_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)4+t`$. Assuming that this function can be used even for small $`t`$, we then obtain $`R\mathrm{\Lambda }\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.13`$, which implies that

$`1/R\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}O(1)\text{ TeV}`$ (39)
should be satisfied for the color degrees of freedom in QCD to be confined. The number above should not be taken very seriously, because our estimate is based on many theoretical assumptions, which can be justified if we perform simulations on five-dimensional, compactified $`SU(3)`$ lattice gauge theory. The crucial point is that there exists the maximal radius.

## V Coulomb phase

The confining phase shrinks as $`R`$ decreases, which we have already seen above. Next we would like to show that the deconfining phase is a Coulomb phase. To begin with, we consider the Wilson loop $`W(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ at the tree level in continuum perturbation theory. The static potential can be obtained by

$`V(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}(\mathrm{ln}W(\stackrel{}{x},t))/t={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}g_5^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi R}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi x}}\mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2R}}\right)`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}g_5^2\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{4\pi ^2x^2}\hfill & \left(\frac{x}{2R}1\right)\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{2\pi R}\frac{1}{4\pi x}\hfill & \left(\frac{x}{2R}1\right)\hfill \end{array}.`$ (44)
We have the usual Coulomb potential for $`x/2R1`$, and we see that the dimensionless gauge coupling $`\widehat{g}`$, normalized for the four-dimensional Yang-Mills theory at the tree level, is given by $`\widehat{g}=g_5/\sqrt{2\pi R}`$ as well known . The corresponding expression on a lattice is

$`V_L(X)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{ln}W(X,T)/W(X,T+1),`$ (45)
where $`W(X,T)`$ is a lattice Wilson loop. The lattice distances $`X`$ and $`T`$ are made dimensionless by dividing by $`a_4`$. We are interested in the potential between two static quarks that are separated in four dimensions, and therefore, $`X`$ and $`T`$ are supposed to be in the four-dimensional sublattice. Since in the actual calculations we cannot take the limit $`T\mathrm{}`$, we consider also off-axis loops and use the standard smearing techniques  to improve the convergence of approximants with increasing $`T`$. Our smearing procedure consists of iteratively replacing each spatial (three-dimensional) link by the sum of itself and the neighboring four spatial staples with a weight parameter $`ϵ`$,

$`U_i(x,y)`$ $``$ $`U_i^{}(x,y)=𝒫_{SU(2)}\left(U_i(x,y)+ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{j(i)=1}{\overset{3}{}}}F_{ij}(x,y)\right)`$ (46)
$`F_{ij}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`U_j(x,y)U_i(x+\widehat{j},y)U_j^{}(x+\widehat{i},y)+U_j^{}(x\widehat{i},y)U_i(x\widehat{i},y)U_j(x\widehat{i}+\widehat{j},y),`$ (47)
where $`𝒫_{SU(2)}`$ denotes a projection operator, back onto the $`SU(2)`$ manifold.

We have generated 10000 configurations for each simulation point after thermalization, and the smeared Wilson loops are measured every 100 configurations for the calculation of the static potential. We iterate Eq.(46) 60 times with $`ϵ=0.1`$ in the case of the confining phase, 100 times with $`ϵ=0.2`$ in the case of the Coulomb phase. In Fig. 4 we show the result (filled symbols) for the lattice potential $`V_L(X)`$ as a function of $`X`$ at $`\beta =5.0`$ and $`\gamma =5.0`$ (which is equivalent to $`2\pi R/a_4=0.5)`$. The condition $`x/2R1`$ to obtain a $`1/X`$ potential becomes $`X1/2\pi `$ in this case, and we assume that the lattice potential $`V_L(X)`$ takes the form

$`V_L(X)=C_0C_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}}+C_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}}\right]\right),`$ (48)
where is $`[1/X]`$ (the three-dimensional Coulomb potential on a lattice is given in (11). The first term of (48) is the unphysical self energy, the second term is a rotationally invariant part of the Coulomb potential, and third term is the most dominant part of its breaking. From a $`\chi ^2`$ fit we find that $`C_0=0.3230(14),C_1=0.1086(30),C_2=0.0776(27)`$. The fitted lattice potential with the $`C_2`$ term in (48) suppressed, i.e.

$`V(X)=C_0C_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}},`$ (49)
is the dotted curve in Fig. 4, while the open symbols stand for the rotationally invariant data points. We see that the data justify the assumption that the deconfining phase is a Coulomb phase.

## VI Nature of the phase transition

As the next task we consider the nature of the transition from the confining phase to the Coulomb phase. In the confining phase our data indicate that the limit $`a_40`$ with $`R/a_4`$ kept fixed exists at finite $`\beta `$. If we can show that $`a_4`$ also vanishes at the same value of $`\beta `$ in the Coulomb phase, the transition from the confining phase to the Coulomb phase is of second order.

To this end, we have to define the scale in the Coulomb phase. In the naive continuum theory there are two dimensional quantities, the gauge coupling $`g_5`$ and the compactification radius $`R`$. Therefore, we assume that $`R`$ and the low-energy value of $`g_5`$ are independent physical quantities at the quantum level, too. We then consider the limit $`a_40`$ with $`2\pi R/a_4`$ kept fixed, which is the same limiting process we have considered in the confining phase. In this limit, the quantity $`g_5^2/2\pi R`$ (the coefficient $`C_1`$ of the tree-level Coulomb potential (48)) has to diverge because $`R0`$ while $`g_5`$ should remain finite by assumption. So naively one expects the scaling law $`C_1^1Ra_4(\beta \beta ^{})`$, where $`\beta ^{}`$ is the critical value of $`\beta `$ at which $`\sigma _L^{1/2}a_4`$ vanishes. In Fig. 5 we plot $`C_1^1`$ versus $`\beta `$ for different values of $`\gamma `$ (or $`2\pi R/a_4`$ of (4)). We see that $`C_1^1`$ linearly decreases, and make therefore a theoretical ansatz for the scaling law:

$`C_1^1`$ $`=`$ $`D_0D_1\beta .`$ (50)
For $`\gamma =4.6`$, for instance, a $`\chi ^2`$ fit yields that $`D_0=9.16(36)`$ and $`D_1=3.894(77)`$. If the tree-level equation (44) would be correct at the quantum level, too, then it would mean that $`a_4`$ vanishes at $`\beta =D_0/D_1=2.35(14)`$ in the deconfining phase. This would contradict the assumption that in the confining phase the lattice spacing $`a_4`$ approaches zero as $`\beta `$ approaches $`3.7`$ for $`\gamma =4.6`$ (see Table I). This does not necessarily mean that the transition from the deconfining phase to the confining one is a first order transition or a cross over transition. It may be well possible that the tree-level form (44) receives quantum corrections in such a way that the transition is indeed of second order. Therefore, we consider possible quantum corrections to $`C_1^1`$ which are consistent with the scaling law in Fig. 5 and the value of $`\beta ^{}`$ in the confining phase (given Table I). Since $`C_1^1`$ being dimensionless can depend only on the combination $`R/g_5^2`$, the correction can only be a constant, i.e.,

$`C_1^1`$ $``$ $`2\pi R/g_5^2+\alpha \text{or}C_1{\displaystyle \frac{g_5^2}{2\pi R+\alpha g_5^2}}.`$ (51)
In Table III we give the results of the fits, from which we find that the ansatz for the nonperturbative quantum correction to the coefficient of the Coulomb potential (48) is consistent with our data, and we conclude that

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`5.1\pm 0.7,`$ (52)
where we have not included the data for $`\gamma =5.0`$ in (52), because the error for this case is very large compared with others. This indicates that the assumption that the transition from the confining to the deconfining phase is a second order transition is consistent with the data. Note that the transition for small values of $`\gamma `$, or large values of $`R\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, is of first order . We expect that the first order transition for large values of $`R\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ changes to a cross over transition, and finally to the second order transition as we decrease the value of $`R\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ §§§ In the case of the phase transition measured by the Ployakov loop that extends into the fifth dimension, the change from the first to second order happens at a certain value of $`\gamma `$ .

The nonperturbative correction (51) means that the tree level relation $`\widehat{g}^2=g_5^2/2\pi R`$ should be modified to

$`\widehat{g}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_5^2}{2\pi R}}(1+\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{g_5^2}{2\pi R}})^1.`$ (53)
Since $`\alpha `$ is large, the correction is not small. The Coulomb phase may be of phenomenological importance, because the color degrees of freedom do not need to be always confined. The $`SU(2)`$ part of the standard model, for instance, could result from a higher-dimensional Yang-Mills theory in the Coulomb phase. Then the equation like Eq. (53) defines the matching condition.

## VII Conclusion

In this paper we have performed Monte Carlo simulations in a five-dimensional lattice $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills theory, where we have compactified one extra dimension. We have found that as the compactification radius $`R`$ decreases, the confining phase spreads more and more to the weak coupling regime, and the effective dimension of the theory gradually changes from five to four. Our data indicate that for fixed $`R/a_4`$ the transition from the deconfining phase to the Coulomb phase is of second order if $`R/a_4`$ is small enough.

Assuming that the real four-dimensional QCD results from the five-dimensional QCD at low-energies, we have estimated the largest compactification radius $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$ so that the color degrees of freedom in four dimensions are confined. Our estimate (39) should be understood as the first try, because our calculations are based on many theoretical assumptions, which can be justified if we perform simulations on five-dimensional, compactified $`SU(3)`$ lattice gauge theory. The striking fact is that there exists the maximal radius, and this may give an important phenomenological constraint for model building based on the Kaluza-Klein theories.

The parameter regime we have considered in the present work corresponds to the regime in which the Kaluza-Klein idea is expected to be realized: At short distances we have the five-dimensional rotational invariance, and at long distances, the Kaluza-Klein excitations decouple so that the low-energy effective theory is a four-dimensional Yang-Mills theory. We found no indication that would contradict this picture. Moreover, the compactified five-dimensional theory, which is perturbatively nonrenormalizable, has the predictive power (unless examined at very short distances), which we conclude from the scaling laws we observe. (The readers are also invited to .)

The parameter regime that corresponds to deconstructing extra dimensions  is not the same as above ; two phases are nonperturbatively separated . In the phase for the conventional Kaluza-Klein theory, the vacuum expectation value of the Ployakov loop (that extends into the fifth dimension) is nonzero , while it vanishes  in the phase for deconstructing extra dimensions. (The phase for deconstructing extra dimensions is the one in which the layer structure in five-dimensional gauge theories can be realized ). Although it is not at al clear that the five-dimensional rotational invariance at short distances is recovered, it looks at the moment as if two different confining four-dimensional Yang-Mills theories could result from two different phases (one from each) of a five-dimensional theory. The difference is purely nonperturbative. It will be very exiting to investigate this difference more in detail, especially, in supersymmetric cases, where one has already analytic results, and it is shown that the five-dimensional Lorentz invariance is recovered .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (No. 11640266, No. 13135210). We would like to thank for useful discussions K-I. Aoki, V. Bornyakov, M. Murata, H. Nakano, M. Polikarpov, G. Schierholz, H. So, T. Suzuki and H. Terao.


format: text

text:
# Potential turning points in cluster radioactivity

## Abstract

Effects of various nuclear interaction potentials on the decay lifetimes and the turning points of the WKB action integral has been studied. The microscopic nuclear potential obtained by folding in the density distribution functions of the two clusters with a realistic effective interaction has also been used to calculate the turning points. Half lives of $`\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{20}O`$ cluster emissions from $`{}_{}{}^{228}Th`$ have been calculated within the superasymmetric fission model using various phenomenological and the microscopic double folding potentials. Calculations of half lives with the microscopic double folding potentials are found to be in good agreement with the observed experimental data. Present calculations put the superasymmetric fission model on a firm theoretical basis.

Experimental observation of emission of $`{}_{}{}^{14}C`$ cluster from $`{}_{}{}^{222}Ra`$  has opened up a new vista in nuclear physics. Since then a lot of experimental and theoretical studies have been done in order to understand the physics of cluster radioactivity. Lifetimes of the cluster radioactivities of radioactive nuclei have been predicted theoretically using various nuclear potentials within the superasymmetric fission model (SAFM)  and the preformed cluster model (PCM) . In the SAFM the barrier penetrabilities are calculated assuming two asymmetric clusters while in the PCM the cluster is assumed to be formed before it penetrates the barrier and its preformation probability is also included in the calculations. Though the physics of the two approaches is apparently different but, in fact, they are very similar. Interpreting the cluster preformation probability within a fission model as the penetrability of the pre-scission part of the barrier, it was shown  that the PCM is equivalent to the fission model. But theoretical calculations showed that the PCM is better applicable for lighter clusters whereas the SAFM is more apt for all cluster decays .

The PCM have been tried with various nuclear potentials and compared with existing experimental data from time to time. It did achieve a reasonable success for the alpha radioactivity (using a cos-hyperbolic form for the nuclear interaction potential) . However, it was not much succesful even for a very limited number of heavier cluster decays. The SAFM calculations using proximity type potentials or semiempirical heavy ion potentials obtained by fitting the elastic scattering data or other phenomenological nuclear potentials for interaction between the fragments do not reproduce the observed cluster radioactivity lifetimes successfully. The SAFM using a parabolic potential approximation for the nuclear interaction potential, which is a rather unusual interaction potential between the daughter and emitted clusters, has been found to provide reasonable estimates for the lifetimes of cluster radioactivity . In the present work microscopically calculated nuclear interaction potentials have been used in the SAFM approach for calculating the lifetimes of cluster radioactive decays. The microscopic nuclear potentential has been obtained by double folding the cluster density distributions with realistic effective interaction. This procedure of obtaining nuclear interaction potential is quite fundamental in nature. The results obtained using microscopic nuclear potentials have been compared with those obtained using various other nuclear interaction potentials.

The energetics allow spontaneous emission of cluster $`(A_e,Z_e)`$ from the parent nucleus $`(A,Z)`$, leaving a residual cluster $`(A_d,Z_d)`$, only if the released energy

$$Q=M(M_e+M_d)$$
(1)
is a positive quantity, where $`M`$, $`M_e`$ and $`M_d`$ are the atomic masses of the parent, the emitted cluster and the daughter nuclei, respectively, expressed in the units of energy. Correctness of predictions for possible decay modes therefore rests on the accuracy of the ground state masses of nuclei.

In the present work the total interaction energy $`E(R)`$ has been evaluated using microscopic nuclear potential $`V(R)`$ along with the Coulomb potential over the entire domain of interaction. The microscopic nuclear potentials have been obtained by double folding in the densities of the fragments with the finite range realistic M3Y effective interacion as

$$V(R)=\rho _1(\stackrel{}{r_1})\rho _2(\stackrel{}{r_2})v[|\stackrel{}{r_2}\stackrel{}{r_1}+\stackrel{}{R}|]d^3r_1d^3r_2$$
(2)
The density distribution used for the clusters has been chosen to be of the spherically symmetric form given by

$$\rho (r)=\rho _0/[1+exp((rc)/a)]$$
(3)
where

$$c=r_\rho (1\pi ^2a^2/3r_\rho ^2),r_\rho =1.13A^{1/3}anda=0.54fm$$
(4)
and the value of $`\rho _0`$ is fixed by equating the volume integral of the density distribution function to the mass number of the cluster. For $`\alpha `$ cluster, the density distribution has the form $`\rho (r)=0.4229exp(0.7024r^2)`$. The finite range M3Y effective interaction $`v(s)`$ appearing in the eqn. (2) is given by

$$v(s)=7999.\mathrm{exp}(4s)/(4s)2134.\mathrm{exp}(2.5s)/(2.5s)$$
(5)
In the SAFM the half life of the parent nucleus against the split into a cluster and a daughter is calculated using the WKB barrier penetration probability. The assault frequecy $`\nu `$ is obtained from the zero point vibration energy $`E_v=(1/2)\mathrm{}\omega =(1/2)h\nu `$. The half life $`T`$ of the parent nucleus $`(A,Z)`$ against its split into a cluster $`(A_e,Z_e)`$ and a daughter $`(A_d,Z_d)`$ is given by

$$T=[(h\mathrm{ln}2)/(2E_v)][1+\mathrm{exp}(K)]$$
(6)
where the action integral $`K`$ within the WKB approximation is given by

$$K=(2/\mathrm{})_{R_a}^{R_b}[2\mu (E(R)E_vQ)]^{1/2}𝑑R$$
(7)
Here $`\mu =mA_eA_d/A`$ is the reduced mass, m is the nucleon mass, and $`E(R)`$ is the total interaction energy of the two fragments separated by the distance R between the centres, which is equal to the sum of nuclear interaction energy, Coulomb interaction energy and the centrifugal barrier. The amount of energy released in the process is $`Q`$ and $`R_a`$ and $`R_b`$ are the two turning points of the WKB action integral determined from the equations

$$E(R_a)=Q+E_v=Q^{}=E(R_b)$$
(8)
This microscopic nuclear potential energy is then used to calculate the total interaction energy $`E(R)`$ for use inside the WKB action integral. The two turning points of the action integral have been obtained by solving eqns.(8) using microscopic double folding potential given by eqn.(2) along with the Coulomb potential. Then the WKB action integral between the two turning points has been evaluated numerically for calculating the half lives of the cluster decays. The zero point vibration energies used in the present calculations are same as that described by eqns.(5) in reference . The shell effects for every cluster radioactivity are implicitly contained in the zero point vibration energy due to its proportionality with the Q value, which is maximum when the daughter nucleus has a magic number of neutrons and protons.

In the analytical superasymmetric fission model (ASAFM)  calculations, the entire interaction region is divided into two distinct zones. In the overlapping zone, where the distances of separation between the centres of the two fragments are below the touching radius $`R_t`$, a parabolic form for the nuclear interaction potential has been used and distances beyond the touching radius $`R_t`$ have been treated as a nuclear force free zone and only Coulomb potential plus the centrifugal barrier for the separated fragments have been considered. This potential can be conveniently described by

$`E(R)=`$ $`Q+[(E_iQ)][(RR_i)/(R_tR_i)]^2forRR_t`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`Z_eZ_de^2/R+\mathrm{}^2l(l+1)/(2\mu R^2)forRR_t`$ (10)
where $`R_n=1.2249n^{1/3}`$, $`n=AorA_eorA_d`$, $`R_i=R_AR_{A_e}`$ and $`R_t=R_{A_d}+R_{A_e}`$ and $`E_i=E(R_t)`$. Treating the region beyond the touching radius as a nuclear force free zone and approximating the nuclear interaction potential to a parabolic form in the overlapping region yield analytical expression for the WKB action integral . Although the overall uncertainty of this analytical superasymmetric fission model (ASAFM) was found to be small, neither the division of the interaction region into two distinct domains is justifiable nor the use of parabolic nuclear potential has much physical basis.

In this work, a relative comparison of calculations for the turning points and half lives for the $`\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{20}O`$ cluster decays from $`{}_{}{}^{228}Th`$ using various nuclear interaction potentials have been presented. In table-1, the results of calculations of the turning points of the WKB action integral and the SAFM calculations of the $`\alpha `$ decay half life have been presented which are obtained, respectively, using the microscopic double folding (DF) potential, the parabolic potential used by the ASAFM , the proximity potential , Christensen and Winther semiempirical heavy ion potential  fitted to elastic scattering data

$$V(R)=50[(R_{A_e}R_{A_d}/(R_{A_e}+R_{A_d})]exp[(R_{A_e}+R_{A_d}R)/d]$$
(11)
where $`d=0.63fm`$, $`R_n=(1.233n^{1/3}0.978n^{1/3})fm`$, with $`n=A_eorA_d`$ and the Igo potential

$$V(R)=1100exp[(R1.17A_d^{1/3})/0.574]$$
(12)
used for the $`\alpha `$ decay.

In table-2, the results of calculations of the turning points of the WKB action integral and the SAFM calculations of the $`{}_{}{}^{20}O`$ decay half life have been presented which are obtained, respectively, using the microscopic double folding (DF), the parabolic, the proximity, Christensen and Winther and Igo potentials.

As obvious from tables-1,2 the second turning point is primarily due to the Coulomb interaction and are identical. A slight difference for the Igo potential shows the residual effect of this large nuclear potential. Though the first turning point using the parabolic nuclear potential of ASAFM and the microscopic DF potential are very different, the results for the decay half life are quite close and reasonably close to the experimental result shown in the table. A normalisation factor of 0.9 for the microscopic nuclear potential has been used. The results obtained using other nuclear potentials are quite bad. The old and the new zero-point vibration energies given by eqn. of reference  and eqns.(5) of reference  respectively, have been displayed in the last lines of the tables-1,2. The comparison of the ASAFM(1991) results for the logarithmic half life obtained evaluating the analytical expressions  and those obtained using the parabolic potential used in reference  inside the WKB action integral and then evaluating the action integral after calculating its turning points, shows that the results differ by one percent approximately. In both the cases zero-point vibration energies given by eqns.(5) of reference  have been used. It is important to mention that the only difference between ASAFM(1986) and ASAFM(1991) calculations is that they use zero-point vibration energies given by eqn. of reference  and eqns.(5) of reference  respectively.

In Fig. 1 the nuclear DF potential with a normalisation factor of 0.9 plus the Coulomb potential has been plotted as a function of radial separation between the fragments $`{}_{}{}^{20}O`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{208}Pb`$ . The plot of ASAFM parabolic nuclear potential along with the Coulomb potential which is given by eqn.(9) has also been shown in the figure for zero angular momentum between the fragments. The Coulomb potential alone has also been plotted. Obviously, beyond $`R_t`$ the ASAFM potential matches with the Coulomb potential because it was so designed. It is very interesting to observe that although the first turning point and the potentials between the turning points are so different for the parabolic potential of ASAFM and the microscopic DF potential, the results for the half life are not much different. In table-3 and table-4, the variation with the normalisation factor used for the DF potential with the potential turning points and half lives of the $`\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{20}O`$ cluster decays from $`{}_{}{}^{228}Th`$ have been shown respectively.

The result obtained by the liquid drop model (LDM) calculation  for the logarithmic decay half life for $`\alpha `$ is 8.11. The results obtained using the microscopic (DF) potential with normalisation 1.0 is 7.69 and with normalisation 0.9 is 8.08 and both the results are better than the LDM estimate. The result obtained by the liquid drop model (LDM) calculation  for the logarithmic decay half life for $`{}_{}{}^{20}O`$ is 21.69 and the results obtained using the microscopic (DF) potential with normalisation 1.0 or 0.9 are 20.22 and 21.05 respectively and both the results are better than the LDM estimate. The normalisation of 0.9 has been found to provide optimum fit to the experimental results for the half lives of $`\alpha `$ decays and various heavy cluster decays .

The estimates of the logarithmic $`\alpha `$-decay half lives using the Viola-Seaborg relationship with Sobiczewski constants (eqn.(24), eqn.(25) and eqn.(26) of reference ) presented in the table-5 above for comparison with present calculations with DF potentials also show that the results of present calculations are slightly better. The degree of reliability of the present SAFM estimates using DF potentials for the $`\alpha `$ decay lifetimes are also better than the liquid drop description  for most of the cases. In the present illustrative calculations the complete set of experimental data of references  for the $`\alpha `$ decay half lives have been chosen for comparison with the present theoretical calculation for which the experimental ground state masses  for the parent and daughter nuclei are available. This ensures that there is then no uncertainty in the determination of the released energy which is one of the crucial quantities for the quantitative estimates for the decay half lives. Those results of logarithmic half lives which differ by more than one unit from the experimental ones are all odd-A or odd-odd $`\alpha `$-emitters. All odd-odd or odd-A nuclei have non-zero spins and atleast for some cases $`\alpha `$-particles have to carry a minimum angular momentum required to satisfy the spin-parity conservation and thus requiring a minimum centrifugal barrier which will enhance the theoretical half-lives. Also for these cases there are considerable effects of deformation on the potential.

The half lives for cluster radioactivity have been analyzed with various microscopic and phenomenological nuclear potentials within the SAFM. The microscopic DF potentials are based on profound theoretical basis. The first turning point, which depends critically on nuclear potential, are quite different for different nuclear potentials while the second turning points are same as it is due to Coulomb potential. The results of the present calculations with microscopic DF potential within the SAFM are in good agreement to the experimental data. Although the first turning points and the potentials between the turning points are very different for the parabolic potential of ASAFM and the microscopic DF potential, the results for the half lives are not much different. Half life estimates with nuclear proximity potential or other phenomenological potentials used within the SAFM do not agree with experimental results. The parabolic shape of the barrier adopted by the ASAFM  is difficult to justify in physical terms. The present study replaces the phenomenological parabolic barrier shape of ASAFM by a microscopic calculation of the interaction potential and puts the empirical approach of SAFM on firm theoretical basis.