1: %% put new commands here
2: \chapter{Simulation Results and Discussions}
3: \label{ch:SIMU}
4:
5: \section{ Simulation Algorithms }
6:
7: Finding the right algorithms for the higher derivative $O(N)$
8: model has been quite tricky \cite{hhiggs5,dallas5}.
9: In the beginning of this project, we ran many tests
10: on the existing algorithms for our model. First we tried
11: some conventional update algorithms, for example: metropolis,
12: heatbath and hybrid Monte Carlo. But these type of
13: algorithms had several serious problems.
14: One of these problems was that due to the next-next nearest neighbor
15: coupling terms in our model, the neighbor gathering process
16: becomes a rather time consuming task. In four dimensions, with the
17: naive discretization, we would have had to collect the field
18: variables at $128$ neighbors for every lattice point.
19: Compared with the ordinary theory, this is
20: a factor of $16$ more.
21: Another problem of such algorithms was the critical slowing
22: down when close to the criticality.
23: This second problem was understandable
24: because, in our model, the spectrum of the Fourier modes is greatly
25: broadened by the higher derivative term.
26: To understand more about this issue,
27: let us look at the autocorrelation
28: time in a standard hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm.
29:
30: Consider the higher derivative free field theory governed
31: by the Euclidean Lagrangian
32: \be
33: L_E= \sum_{\bp} \omega^2_{\bp} \phi(\bp) \tilde{\phi}(-\bp) ,
34: \ee
35: where the spectrum $\omega^2_{\bp}=\bp^2+\bp^6/M^4+m^2_0$.
36: The acceptance and autocorrelationts in this Gaussian type of
37: hybrid Monte Carlo has been studied by A. D. Kennedy et. al.
38: \cite{kenn5}. The autocorrelation time of the algorithm
39: was found to be:
40: \be
41: \tau= {2\tau_0 \over 1-\sqrt{1 -(2 \omega_{min}\tau_0)^2} } ,
42: \ee
43: where $\tau_0$ is the average length of each hybrid trajectory.
44: The quantity $\omega_{min}$ is the lowest frequency of the
45: Fourier modes, i.e. $\omega_{min}=\min_{\bp} \omega_{\bp}$.
46: The minimum of the autocorrelation time is obtained when
47: $\tau_0=1/(2\omega_{min})$ with the value $\tau=1/\omega_{min}$.
48: For the stability of the leapfrog integration scheme, the step
49: size cannot exceed $(1/\omega_{max})$, where
50: $\omega_{max}=\max_{\bp}\omega_{\bp}$ is the highest frequency of
51: the Fourier modes. Therefore, the computer time that
52: the algorithm consumes to generate an independent configuration
53: is given by
54: \be
55: T_{comp} \sim {\omega_{max} \over \omega_{min} } .
56: \ee
57: Thus, the computer time needed to generate an independent
58: configuration greatly depends on how broad the extent of the spectrum.
59: In the conventional model, the highest frequency is given by
60: $\omega_{max}=\sqrt{16+m^2}$. The lowest frequency is
61: just $m$.
62: With the higher derivative term added, the extension of
63: this frequency is much broader than the former case.
64: The highest frequency changes to
65: $\omega_{max}=\sqrt{16+ (16/M^2)^3+m^2}$ while
66: the lowest frequency remains unchanged.
67: For the parameter range of $M$ where we perform our simulation,
68: this highest frequency is larger by a factor of $10$ or more. Therefore,
69: the autocorrelation time is enormous for the higher derivative
70: theory in standard hybrid Monte Carlo due to the broadening
71: effect of the frequency.
72:
73: For the Gaussian model, this effect can be overcome by
74: the so-called Fourier acceleration procedure
75: \cite{parisi5,batrouni5,kogut5}, which is nothing
76: but noticing that the ideal
77: algorithm for the free Lagrangian above is to perform the simulation
78: in Fourier space by adding the momentum dependent kinetic
79: energy part
80: \be
81: H = \sum_{\bp} {1 \over \omega^2_{\bp}}
82: \tilde{\pi}(\bp)\tilde{\pi}(-\bp)
83: +\omega^2_{\bp} \phi(\bp) \tilde{\phi}(-\bp) .
84: \ee
85: This $\bp$-dependent kinetic energy part will take into
86: account exactly the frequency differences of the modes and, in fact, the
87: $\bp$-dependence for the step size then drops out completely
88: from the Hamilton equation of motion,
89: as one can easily check.
90: This hybrid algorithm is then equivalent to simulating $V$ independent
91: harmonic oscillators with frequency $1$
92: in lattice units. However, nobody would be impressed if
93: one can simulate a free theory effectively. When the interaction
94: terms are added, doing the simulation completely in Fourier space is
95: sometimes hopeless. This is particularly true if the interaction is
96: of the $\phi^4$ type, which is completely local in real
97: space, but highly nonlocal in Fourier space. Therefore, the
98: hope is that we use a Fast Fourier Transformation program to
99: go back and forth between the real space and the Fourier space.
100: When the quadratic parts are evaluated, we go to the
101: Fourier space, and when the interaction part is needed, we go
102: to the real space. Obviously, this depends greatly on how fast
103: one can do the Fourier transform. It turns out the existing
104: FFT package runs reasonably well on the cray with a speed of
105: $300-500$ Mflop on the C90-machine. Another complication is that
106: in the interacting theory we do not know what type of $\bp$-dependent
107: kinetic energy term to add. The only clue is perturbation theory,
108: however, one would expect that the low energy modes should be
109: very well described by the renormalized parameters. It turns out
110: that the main effect is the broadening effect due to $M$, and
111: $M$ does not get renormalized very much. Therefore, putting in the
112: bare value for $M$ basically overcomes most of the critical
113: slowing down. We are able to perform the simulation with an
114: autocorrelation time which is below $10$ hybrid Monte Carlo trajectories
115: with each trajectory consisting of $15-20$ steps. Although this
116: performance is not ideal, it works thousands of times better than
117: the old programs, for which the autocorrelation time was hopelessly
118: long. Also, in the Fourier accelerated Hybrid Monte Carlo,
119: it is trivial to extend the algorithm to the improved actions.
120: Since the quadratic part is evaluated in the Fourier space, it
121: does not cost anything more for us to use the improved propagator
122: as compared with the naive one. If this were implemented in the
123: real space, it would require a lot more work.
124:
125: All of our results were obtained with the appropriate Fourier
126: accelerated Hybrid Monte Carlo program. We currently have only
127: the version for the finite bare coupling constant. Therefore,
128: all results presented here are for some finite bare coupling constant.
129: However, some of our simulation points have a rather large
130: bare coupling constant in continuum notation, therefore,
131: we expect that most of the physically interesting results
132: will be quite similar in the nonlinear limit.
133:
134: \section{ The Extraction of Physical Parameters }
135:
136: We will now extract some physical quantities from our
137: simulation results \cite{dallas5}.
138: One of the most interesting quantities is
139: the vacuum expectation value $v$. This is the quantity which
140: sets the energy scale of the simulation.
141: In the old simulations, this parameter was obtained by
142: measuring the bare expectation value of the averaged
143: field variable. The wave function renormalization constant
144: was then obtained from a linear fit to the momentum space
145: propagator. From these quantities, the
146: renormalized vev is then obtained using
147: \be
148: v_R=Z^{-1/2} v_0 .
149: \ee
150: The crucial point is the measurement of the wave function
151: renormalization constant. But in our case, things are more
152: complicated. The momentum space propagator will
153: not only contain the usual $p^2$ term, but will also contain the higher
154: derivative terms. In general, the interaction will
155: generate more terms which were not in
156: the bare free propagator. This makes it more difficult for
157: us to get a very accurate determination of the
158: wave function renormalization constant.
159:
160: Another way of extracting the renormalized vev is
161: from the rotator correlation functions. Using the
162: theory discussed in Chapter~(\ref{ch:BOA}) , we can
163: write down an expression for the rotator correlation
164: function $n^a(0)n^a(\tau)$, where $n^a(\tau)$ is
165: the unit vector of the zeromode at a given time
166: slice $\tau$
167: \be
168: \langle n^{a}(\tau) n^{a}(0) \rangle = A
169: \sum_{l} l(l+1)e^{-\beta \omega_r (l(l+1)-1/2)}
170: \cosh [(2l+1)(\tau-\beta/2)\omega_r] ,
171: \ee
172: where $\omega_r=(2L^3v^2_r)^{-1}$ is the
173: rotator energy unit.
174: This correlation function is dominated
175: by the rotator energy spectrum in the finite volume.
176: All the other energy excitations are much higher
177: than the rotator energy scale. Usually the lowest one
178: is the one Higgs contamination, whose energy
179: scale is an order of magnitude higher. This
180: correction can be easily taken into account according to
181: the formula given in Chapter~(\ref{ch:BOA}) . Since the rotator
182: energy depends only on the renormalized vacuum
183: expectation value (and the 3 volume), this is
184: a direct way of extracting the vev.
185: In our simulations, we have tried both methods and have obtained
186: compatible results.
187: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure of the rotator correlation function
188: \begin{figure}[htb]
189: \vspace{10mm}
190: \centerline{ \epsfysize=3.0cm
191: \epsfxsize=5.0cm
192: \epsfbox{Rotcor.ps} }
193: \vspace{17mm}
194: \caption{ The rotator correlation function is shown together with
195: the theoretical fit. The fit starts at $\tau=6$ and the quality of
196: the fit is good. The disagreement of the theoretical curve with the
197: data for small values of $\tau$ is because of the high energy contaminations. }
198: \label{fig:ch5.rotcor}
199: \end{figure}
200: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
201:
202: In Figure~(\ref{fig:ch5.rotcor}), a typical rotator correlation function
203: is shown compared with the fit to the theoretical
204: form. The bare parameters are shown at the top
205: of the figure. The lattice size for this run is $16^3 \times 40$.
206: The output data has a total statistic of $32$k hybrid Monte Carlo
207: trajectories.
208: At very short distances, higher energy excitations
209: will contribute. Therefore, the fit was performed from $\tau=6$
210: all the way to the end. The fit is very stable if the starting
211: point is after $\tau=5$. The fit is also very stable with respect
212: to the number of rotator states ($nmax$ in the figure) that has been included.
213: It turns out that any number which is greater
214: than $3$ would be adequate.
215: In this fit, the correction of the single Higgs state is included
216: using the formula described in Chapter~(\ref{ch:BOA}).
217: This correction is about
218: $10$ percent even at large $\tau$ values. This is because
219: of the small vev value of our simulation. The corrections due to the
220: other states are all very small at large $\tau$ values.
221: It is clear that we have found a very good agreement with
222: the theoretical formula.
223:
224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure of momentum space Higgs propagator
225: \begin{figure}[htb]
226: \vspace{15mm}
227: \centerline{ \epsfysize=3.0cm
228: \epsfxsize=5.0cm
229: \epsfbox{Momhig.ps} }
230: \vspace{12mm}
231: \caption{ The momentum space Higgs propagator is plotted as a function
232: of the lattice momentum squared for the bare parameters shown at the
233: top. The solid curve is a fit of the data to the polynomial form
234: up to order $\hat{p}^6$. The upper window is a magnified portion of
235: the lower window in the range $\hat{p}^2 < 4$. The quality of the
236: fit is reasonable, however, due to the
237: ambiguity of the fitting functional form, the error in the
238: fitted wave function renormalization constant $Z$ is rather large. }
239: \label{fig:ch5.momhig}
240: \end{figure}
241: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
242: For comparison, the momentum space Higgs propagator is shown in
243: Figure~(\ref{fig:ch5.momhig}).
244: This momentum propagator was obtained from a run of the
245: same input bare parameters as in Figure~(\ref{fig:ch5.rotcor})
246: except that it was on
247: a cubic geometry of $16^4$ with the statistic of $20$k trajectories.
248: The form of the fitting function is taken to be
249: $f(p^2)=Z^{-1}\hat{p}^2+Z^{-1}m^2+p_2\hat{p}^4+p_3\hat{p}^6$.
250: Note that the size of the coefficient of
251: $\hat{p}^4$ term is quite significant which is a signal of
252: strong interaction effects. We should keep in mind that the above
253: function has no justification if the interaction is strong.
254: In general, the interaction could introduce complicated functional
255: forms to the full Higgs propagator. It could generate
256: $\log \hat{p}^2$ terms, higher polynomial terms and even terms that
257: cannot be written as functions of $\hat{p}$ alone. Therefore, the
258: size of the interaction terms like $\hat{p}^4$ basically reflects
259: the ambiguity of the fit. If we had tried the same fit but setting
260: the coefficients of $\hat{p}^4$ to zero, we would have arrived at a
261: rather different value of $Z$ ( $Z^{-1}=1.33$ ).
262: From this we conclude that, due to the strong interaction, it would
263: be very difficult to extract the wave function renormalization constant
264: from the momentum space propagator.
265: Other methods are needed for the extraction of the physical
266: parameters and the momentum space propagator can only be used as an
267: independent check.
268:
269: Another important quantity is the mass of the
270: Higgs particle. In the old simulations, there were also
271: two ways of obtaining the Higgs mass.
272: One way is to use a
273: fit to the momentum space propagator. The mass obtained
274: this way has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage
275: is that the signal is very clean and we get a very
276: stable fit for the mass even with low statistics.
277: We can fit the very low momentum portion of the momentum
278: space propagator where the effects of the interaction
279: terms are small and the mass values are rather stable.
280: The disadvantage is
281: that the mass obtained from the propagator is not yet the
282: physical Higgs mass. We must use perturbation
283: theory to relate the two masses. This is legitimate in
284: the old $O(4)$ calculation because, in that case, the
285: theory is perturbative and the perturbative formula offers
286: us a rather accurate prediction. In a truly nonperturbative
287: theory, however, this could be misleading. The mass obtained
288: from the propagator fit, what we call the off-shell mass,
289: could deviate significantly from the physical mass.
290:
291: Another way of determining the Higgs mass is from the time
292: slice correlation function of the Higgs field. In this
293: approach, the lowest energy gap of the Higgs excitation
294: is extracted and identified as the Higgs mass in the
295: finite volume. This, of course, should be closer to
296: the physical mass than the off-shell mass and, in a
297: strongly interacting theory this is the only way to
298: get a good control of the Higgs mass. In our simulation of
299: the higher derivative theory, the interaction is much stronger
300: than the conventional $O(4)$ case, therefore, we used this method to
301: extract the Higgs mass. The off shell Higgs mass was also
302: determined and only served as a comparison.
303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%Figure of the Higgs correlation function
304: \begin{figure}[htb]
305: \vspace{20mm}
306: \centerline{ \epsfysize=3.0cm
307: \epsfxsize=5.0cm
308: \epsfbox{Higcor.ps} }
309: \vspace{17mm}
310: \caption{ The time sliced Higgs propagator is plotted as a function
311: of the Euclidean time separation $\tau$ for the bare parameters shown at the
312: top. The solid curve is a fit of the data to the single Higgs
313: excitation. The fit was done in the range $5<\tau<17$ to ensure that
314: the higher energy excitations have died out.
315: The quality of the fit is reasonable, but the error for the mass
316: parameter remains to be determined. }
317: \label{fig:ch5.higcor}
318: \end{figure}
319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
320:
321: In Figure~(\ref{fig:ch5.higcor}),
322: we have shown the time sliced Higgs correlation function
323: as a function of the Euclidean time separation $\tau$. The bare
324: parameters are also shown at the top of the figure. At small distances,
325: all higher energy excitations contribute, including the ghost states.
326: Therefore, to ensure that we extract the lowest radial excitation, we
327: started the fit from some $\tau$ values so that the fit was stable
328: from there on. The functional form that we used is the standard
329: hyperbolic cosine function for a single excitation.
330: The data of the correlation function is derived from
331: a blocking analysis of $32$k hybrid Monte Carlo trajectories. If we
332: compare this fitted mass value with the off shell mass, we find
333: that the difference is very significant, which means the interaction
334: is really much stronger when compared with the conventional $O(4)$ case.
335: The data points of the correlation function are highly correlated.
336: Therefore, we should develop a method to determine the error of
337: the fitted mass value.
338:
339: To determine the error of the mass parameter, we performed the following
340: blocking procedure. The output data is originally divided into small
341: blocks. For this particular example, we had $80$ blocks available.
342: Due the large fluctuation, a single block is not enough to give stable
343: mass values. Therefore, the small blocks are first grouped together to
344: form $N_b$ larger blocks, large enough so that we can extract stable mass
345: values from them. For each large block $i$, the following ratio is formed
346: \be
347: R_i(\tau) \equiv { G_i(\tau +1)-G_i(\tau) \over
348: G_i(\tau)-G_i(\tau -1) } ,
349: \ee
350: where $i$ runs from $1$ to the total number of large blocks $N_b$.
351: If we have only a single excitation that dominates the correlation
352: function, then
353: the correlation function should be of the form
354: \be
355: G^{theo}(\tau)=A \cosh[m(\tau-L_t/2)] + B .
356: \ee
357: Therefore, the ratio should only depend on the mass $m$ and
358: the Euclidean time separation $\tau$,
359: \be
360: R^{theo}(\tau) ={\cosh[m(\tau+1-L_t/2)]-\cosh[m(\tau-L_t/2)]
361: \over
362: \cosh[m(\tau-L_t/2)]-\cosh[m(\tau-1-L_t/2)] } .
363: \ee
364: Then the blocked values $R_i(\tau)$ are set to the theoretical value
365: and we can solve for the mass numerically for each $\tau$. The outcome of this
366: procedure is called the ``effective mass'', denoted as $m^i_{eff}(\tau)$.
367: Then, the averaged effective mass is obtained by
368: \be
369: m_{eff}(\tau)={1 \over N_b} \sum^{N_b}_{i=1} m^i_{eff}(\tau) .
370: \ee
371: We can also obtain an error for the effective mass by
372: \be
373: \Delta m_{eff}(\tau)=\sqrt{ {1 \over N_b (N_b-1)} \sum^{N_b}_{i=1}
374: [m^i_{eff}(\tau)-m_{eff}(\tau)]^2 } .
375: \ee
376: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%Figure of the Higgs effective mass
377: \begin{figure}[htb]
378: \vspace{13mm}
379: \centerline{ \epsfysize=3.0cm
380: \epsfxsize=5.0cm
381: \epsfbox{Higmeff.ps} }
382: \vspace{17mm}
383: \caption{ The effective mass plot for the time slice Higgs correlation
384: function for the bare parameters listed at the top.
385: The Higgs mass value is obtained from the $\chi^2$ fit to the plateau
386: starting at $\tau=7$. The dashed line tick marks denote the range of
387: the fit. The horizontal solid line is the fitted mass value which is
388: also labeled in the figure. The horizontal dashed lines denotes the
389: error of the fitted mass value. The mass value from the effective mass
390: plot is consistent with the value
391: from the exponential fit.}
392: \label{fig:ch5.higmeff}
393: \end{figure}
394: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
395: We can then plot the effective mass as a function of the time
396: separation $\tau$, together with the appropriate errors.
397: This is shown in Figure~(\ref{fig:ch5.higmeff}).
398: We found
399: that,
400: since many states contribute for small values of $\tau$, the
401: effective mass is varying with $\tau$. However, if we go to $\tau$
402: values that are large enough, all the higher energy excitations die
403: out exponentially and the lowest energy excitation dominates. Therefore
404: starting from some $\tau$ value, we should see a plateau behavior of
405: the effective mass. The value of the plateau should basically be
406: the energy of the lowest energy excitation.
407: Since the signal is getting exponentially small with $\tau$, the error
408: of the effective mass function will grow significantly with $\tau$.
409: Usually near the endpoint ($\tau=L_t/2$), the errors become so
410: large that effective mass value is no longer meaningful. We
411: can then perform a $\chi^2$ fit to the effective mass, giving higher
412: weight to the more accurate points. From this fit, we can determine
413: the mass and its error.
414:
415: But this is not the whole story yet. In fact even in the second
416: approach, what we extract is not the infinite volume Higgs mass.
417: The reason for this is very simple. All the simulations are
418: done in a finite volume, and finite size effects must
419: be taken into account. Among all the finite effects, there is
420: one effect that is most disturbing. In the infinite volume, the
421: Goldstone particles are exactly massless. Therefore, the Higgs
422: particle can decay into two Goldstone particles, thus the Higgs
423: has a finite lifetime. In the simulation, however, because the
424: volume is finite, the lowest Goldstone pair is not at zero
425: energy, but is equal to $4\pi/L$. This number is rather
426: large for most of our simulations. In fact, it is larger
427: than the Higgs mass itself. So the situation that we have in
428: our simulation is that the Higgs is lighter than the Goldstone
429: pair, and it therefore cannot decay. Of course, when the volume
430: is increased, the Higgs mass energy level will meet the two
431: Goldstone levels and the so-called level crossing phenomenon occurs. This
432: was noticed quite some time ago. In fact, many groups have
433: used this picture to get both the physical Higgs mass and its
434: width from the measurement of the two Goldstone levels. In this
435: picture, the Higgs is viewed as a resonance of the Goldstone
436: Goldstone scattering process. L\"uscher derived a formula which
437: relates the Goldstone pair energy level in the finite volume
438: to the infinite volume Goldstone-Goldstone scattering phase
439: shift. By measuring the two Goldstone energy levels as accurately
440: as possible for various volumes, one gets the continuum
441: scattering phase shift profile in an energy range. If all the
442: parameters are well chosen, one would be able to see a phase
443: shift stepping from almost zero to almost $\pi$ exactly at
444: the threshold energy which is equal to the physical Higgs mass.
445: One would also be able to get the physical width of the Higgs
446: by fitting it to the Breit-Wigner shape near the resonance.
447: So, instead of fighting against the finite
448: volume effects, one could utilize it to gain precious information
449: about the continuum theory.
450:
451: To carry out a similar calculation in our model is more difficult
452: than the usual $O(N)$ model. First of all, we must establish
453: an equivalent formula in the higher derivative theory which can
454: relate the energy levels in the finite volume to the phase shift
455: in the infinite volume. Secondly, we have extra particles in our
456: model, namely the ghost pairs. We have to control their
457: contribution to the correlation functions in order to get
458: reliable results for the two Goldstone energy levels. Thirdly,
459: our model requires much more computing power to get good
460: stable results for the time sliced correlation functions.
461: The detailed analysis of this problem is given in the
462: next chapter.
463:
464: The simulation results we have obtained belong to one of
465: the following two categories. One is performed with the naive
466: discretization action and the other category is performed by using
467: the improved action. We have done simulations in both
468: phases of the theory. The following table summarizes the
469: bare parameter and extracted physical quantities of the points.
470: \begin{table}[htb]
471: \begin{tabular}{@{\hspace{2mm}}c|c@{\hspace{3.2mm}}
472: c@{\hspace{3.2mm}}
473: c@{\hspace{3.2mm}}
474: c@{\hspace{3.2mm}}
475: c@{\hspace{3.2mm}}|
476: c@{\hspace{3.2mm}}
477: c@{\hspace{3.2mm}}
478: c@{\hspace{3.2mm}}|
479: c@{\hspace{3.2mm}}}
480: \hline
481: $P$ & $\kappa$ & $M$ & $\lambda$ & $V$
482: & Stat & $v_0$ & $v_r$ & $m_H$ & $m_H/v_R$\\
483: \hline
484: \hline
485: $A$ & $0.056$ & $0.8$ & $0.4$ & $16^3*40$
486: & 32k & $0.0478(1)$ & $0.057(2)$ & $0.40(2)$ & $7.0(4)$ \\
487: $B$ & $0.056$ & $0.8$ & $0.4$ & $20^3*40$
488: & 20k & $0.0365(1)$ & $0.045(1)$ & $0.33(2)$ & $7.3(5)$ \\
489: $C$ & $0.105$ & $0.8$ & $0.1$ & $16^3*40$
490: & 40k & $0.0607(1)$ & $0.065(2)$ & $0.31(2)$ & $4.8(4)$ \\
491: $D$ & $0.115$ & $0.8$ & $0.05$ & $16^3*40$
492: & 60k & $0.0798(1)$ & $0.082(1)$ & $0.24(1)$ & $2.9(1)$ \\
493: $E$ & $0.081$ & $1.0$ & $0.3 $ & $16^3*40$
494: & 28k & $0.0878(1)$ & $0.093(1)$ & $0.42(2)$ & $4.5(2)$ \\
495: $F$ & $0.081$ & $1.0$ & $0.3 $ & $20^3*40$
496: & 24k & $0.0826(1)$ & $0.088(1)$ & $0.38(2)$ & $4.3(3)$ \\
497: $G$ & $0.053$ & $0.8$ & $0.4 $ & $16^3*16$
498: & 70k & $---$ & $----$ & $0.434$ & $4.1(7)$ \\
499: \hline
500: \hline
501: $H$ & $0.088$ & $2.0$ & $0.99 $ & $16^3*40$
502: &108k & $0.0477(1)$ & $0.058(1)$ & $0.351(5)$ & $6.1(1)$ \\
503: $I$ & $0.088$ & $2.0$ & $0.99 $ & $20^3*40$
504: & 64k & $0.0354(1)$ & $0.045(1)$ & $0.29(1)$ & $6.4(3)$ \\
505: $J$ & $0.104$ & $2.0$ & $0.4 $ & $16^3*16$
506: &100k & $---$ & $----$ & $0.352(5)$ & $2.2(2)$ \\
507: \hline
508: \hline
509: \end{tabular}
510: \end{table}
511: In this table, points $A$ through $G$ are the results for
512: the naive action while points $H$ through
513: $J$ are for the improved action. Point
514: $G$ and point $J$ are in the symmetric phase, while
515: all other points are in the broken phase.
516:
517: In the symmetric phase, the important physical quantity
518: is the renormalized coupling constant, which could be defined
519: to be the connected $4$-point function at zero external
520: momenta. In order to get this quantity, the propagator mass is
521: measured. The renormalized coupling
522: constant
523: is directly measured by forming the connected
524: $4$-point function. The
525: measurement of the renormalized coupling
526: constant is very noisy, which requires large
527: statistics of the data. We used the following
528: formula to extract the connected four point function
529: \be
530: \lambda_R= {\Omega m^4_R \over 24} ({3 N \over N+2})
531: \left(
532: { {N+2 \over N} \langle \bar{\phi}^2 \rangle^2
533: -\langle \bar{\phi}^4 \rangle
534: \over
535: \langle \bar{\phi}^2 \rangle^2 }
536: \right) ,
537: \ee
538: where $N$ is the number of components of the field,
539: $m_R$ is the propagator mass and $\Omega$ is the
540: $4$-volume of the system. The quantity
541: $\bar{\phi}^2$ is defined to be
542: $\sum^{N}_{a=1} \bar{\phi}^a \bar{\phi}^a $
543: where $\bar{\phi}^a $ is the $4$-volume average of
544: the field $\phi^a(x)$.
545: The quantity $\bar{\phi}^4$ is just a short hand notation for
546: $(\bar{\phi}^2)^2$, and the bracket means the
547: Monte Carlo ensemble average.
548: It is the subtraction in the bracket which causes most of
549: the noise. Therefore, in order to get sensible results
550: we have accumulated large statistics for the two points
551: in the symmetric phase (Point G and J in the table).
552: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure of symmetric phase lambda data
553: \begin{figure}[htb]
554: \vspace{15mm}
555: \centerline{\epsfysize=3.0cm \epsfxsize=5.0cm
556: \epsfbox{Symlam.ps}
557: }
558: \vspace{15mm}
559: \caption{ The renormalized coupling constant (connected four
560: point function at zero external momenta) is plotted for individual
561: runs. Due to the subtraction the signal is quite noisy and a
562: large statistic is needed to get a sensible accuracy for this
563: quantity. }
564: \label{fig:ch5.symlam}
565: \end{figure}
566: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
567: In Figure~(\ref{fig:ch5.symlam}),
568: we have shown the renormalized coupling constant for
569: individual runs for the higher derivative $O(4)$ model.
570: It can be seen that the result is
571: quite noisy and the points scatter a lot around the
572: average. Usually $100K$ is needed for an error of
573: about $10$ percent.
574:
575: We can now compare the renormalized coupling constant that
576: we measured for the higher derivative $O(4)$ model with that
577: of the conventional $O(4)$ model \cite{kuti5}.
578: In the symmetric phase (point G and J),
579: we found that the renormalized coupling constants
580: were much larger than in the
581: old lattice simulation results of $O(4)$ model.
582: In the conventional
583: $O(4)$ model, when the correlation length was about $2-3$
584: the renormalized coupling constant $\lambda_R$ was typically
585: of the order of $0.6 - 0.8$. In our model, however, we saw
586: a huge jump (about a factor of $2$ to $3$)
587: of the renormalized coupling constant. This is a signal that
588: the higher derivative model is much more strongly coupled
589: than the conventional $O(4)$ model.
590: Recall that, from the large $N$ calculations in Chapter~(\ref{ch:NUNI}), large
591: $N$ also predicts a jump in the renormalized coupling constant in
592: the symmetric phase. Therefore, our simulation results agree
593: with the large $N$ results qualitatively.
594:
595: In the broken phase, the renormalized vacuum expectation
596: values are obtained using the rotator correlation functions
597: as described above. The errors are estimated from
598: a blocking analysis of the data.
599:
600: The Higgs mass is taken to be
601: lowest radial energy excitation in the finite volume.
602: As described above, we tried two ways of extracting
603: this energy gap. One by fitting the time sliced correlation
604: function to the hyperbolic cosine function, the other from
605: the effective mass plot. Both methods gave compatible results
606: and the errors are determined from the $\chi^2$ fit of the
607: effective mass plateau in the appropriate range.
608:
609: Identifying this energy gap with the infinite volume
610: Higgs mass is of course a rather crude approximation
611: and is subject to finite volume corrections. However, as
612: shown in the table, we did not see a significant change
613: in the $m_H/v_R$ ratio when the lattice volume was increased.
614: In fact, they are compatible with each other within errors.
615: We also tested this within the framework of the large
616: $N$ approximation. We found that the ratio $E(L)/v(L)$ was
617: rather stable when the size of the box was changed, as long
618: as the box size was not too small and the energy crossing
619: phenomenon had not occurred. And the value of the ratio was
620: in agreement with the infinite volume large $N$ value.
621: Therefore, we expect that this ratio represents the feature
622: of the continuum higher derivative theory. The correct way
623: of extracting the Higgs mass has to come from the finite
624: volume resonance picture, which we will discuss in the
625: next chapter.
626:
627: Another issue in the Higgs mass bound problem is to determine
628: how much scaling violations (cutoff effects) are present
629: in our results. This turns out to be a rather subtle
630: issue. To study this problem, we have to answer the following
631: two questions: (1) what is the nature of the scaling violations
632: in our model and, (2) how can we calculate the scaling violations
633: once the Higgs mass and the ghost parameters are known.
634:
635: First we will review how the above two questions are answered in
636: the conventional $O(N)$ model simulations. In the conventional
637: $O(N)$ model, the scaling violation is due to the hypercubic
638: lattice that violates Euclidean (or rotational) invariance.
639: This scaling violation can be defined both perturbatively and
640: nonperturbatively. To calculate this scaling violation, we can
641: check the rotational invariance of some quantity, for example, the
642: free propagator of the field \cite{lang5}, or
643: evaluate the Goldstone scattering amplitude and compare with
644: perturbation theory \cite{lusc5,hase5,zimm5,neub5}. The second method
645: seems to be more closely related to measurable quantities, but
646: it relies on the perturbative nature of the problem.
647: It worked out nicely for the conventional $O(4)$ simply
648: because even at the highest bound, the theory is still perturbative.
649: The first method
650: offers us an unambiguous result
651: without using perturbation theory.
652:
653:
654: Now, let us look at the situation for the higher derivative
655: lattice theory.
656: People tend to think that in the higher derivative $O(4)$ theory
657: there exist two types of scaling violations. One is the effect due
658: to the lattice; the other one is what is usually called the
659: Pauli-Villar cutoff (or ghost) effects. However, such a statement
660: is very misleading. In fact, as we have shown in the
661: previous chapters, this should not be the view, at least not the
662: only view, of the higher
663: derivative theory. This theory is a well defined field theory which
664: has a unitary $S$-matrix and the ghost effects can easily evade the
665: experimental tests. It is also
666: a well-defined theory free of divergences.
667: Therefore, if we could do the simulation
668: in the continuum, we would have had no cutoff effects
669: at all. It is only because the computer cannot handle
670: infinite number of variables that we have to introduce
671: the underline lattice to the theory. As long as we
672: can constrain our lattice effects to be small, our
673: simulation results should represent the higher derivative
674: $O(4)$ model in the continuum. In other words, there are no
675: ``ghost effects'' if the ghosts are well
676: hidden from any experiment.
677:
678: As stated previously, in analyzing the lattice effects,
679: perturbation theory should only be taken as a hint.
680: There have been ways of doing
681: nonperturbative analysis of the lattice
682: effects, though none of them is really
683: sophisticated. One of the things that could be
684: done is to analyze the breaking of the Euclidean
685: invariance of the free propagator at some given parameters.
686: This was first discussed by Lang et. al. in 1988 \cite{lang5}.
687: Although it only uses the tree level propagator,
688: it is still a very good measurement
689: of the amount of lattice violations in the theory.
690: Obviously, going beyond this using perturbation
691: theory is hopeless if the
692: theory is strongly interacting. One can try to
693: carry out the same analysis for the propagator
694: in the large $N$ approximation, but again, the
695: justification for the large $N$ approximation at
696: $N=4$ is not very promising either.
697:
698: Let us now review some of the basic ideas of how this
699: procedure is carried out for the propagator.
700: On the lattice, the propagator in momentum space
701: is, in general, a function
702: of every individual momentum component.
703: In the continuum, however, it should only depend on
704: the combination $p^2=\sum^{4}_{\mu=1}p_{\mu}p_{\mu}$
705: due to Euclidean invariance. This symmetry is violated on
706: the lattice and we can define a quantity
707: ${\cal N}_G$ which represents the
708: amount of violation due to the lattice.
709: For the inverse momentum space propagator,
710: the quantity ${\cal N}_G$
711: is defined in the following way.
712: Let us pick some prescribed momentum scale $p_{cut}$ in lattice
713: units, and pick our reference momentum to be
714: ${\bp}_0=(p_{cut},0,0,0)$. Then we can form all the momenta that
715: have the same magnitude as this reference momentum in
716: the form
717: ${\cal R}{\bp}_0=p_{cut}(\cos\theta_1, \sin\theta_1\cos\theta_2,
718: \cos\theta_1\sin\theta_2 \cos\theta_3,
719: \cos\theta_1\sin\theta_2 \sin\theta_3) $.
720: We can then define the rotational invariance violation by
721: ${\cal N}_G$ by
722: \be
723: \label{eq:ch5.ri}
724: {\cal N}_G(p_{cut}) = \int d{\cal R} \sqrt{
725: {(G({\cal R}{\bp}_0)-G({\bp}_0))^2
726: \over
727: G({\bp}_0)^2 }
728: } ,
729: \ee
730: where $d{\cal R}$ is the invariant measure for the rotational
731: group normalize in such a way that $\int d{\cal R}=1$. Obviously
732: this quantity is identically zero in the continuum where the
733: rotational invariance is restored. On the lattice, the size
734: of this quantity is a measure of the lattice effects in the
735: discretized theory. In principle we can define
736: similar quantities for other functions.
737:
738: We have performed the rotation invariance analysis for our
739: simulation points using both the tree level and
740: large $N$ approximation.
741: In Figure~(\ref{fig:ch5.ri}), we have shown some of the rotational
742: invariance violations
743: for the tree level propagator of our simulation points
744: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure of Rotational Violation
745: \begin{figure}[htb]
746: \vspace{9mm}
747: \centerline{\epsfysize=3.0cm \epsfxsize=5.0cm
748: \epsfbox{Ri.ps}
749: }
750: \vspace{3mm}
751: \caption{ The rotational invariance violation for
752: the free inverse propagator on an
753: infinite hypercubic lattice
754: is plotted
755: for various cases. The bottom
756: two curves are the naive propagator and the one using
757: the improvement up to 14th order. The upper two boxes
758: show the Pauli-Villars case for $M=2$ (the solid lines)
759: and $M=0.8$ (the dashed lines) when using the naive and
760: improved action. It is clearly seen that for the parameters
761: that our simulation are performed , the rotational
762: invariance violation is very small. }
763: \label{fig:ch5.ri}
764: \end{figure}
765: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
766: We found that all our
767: simulation points have very small lattice effects.
768: For example, even with the naive propagator, in
769: the Higgs mass range where we did our simulation,
770: the rotational invariance violation is not larger
771: than the old $O(4)$ simulation points with correlation
772: length of $2-3$.
773:
774: We can also calculate the finite volume lattice violation
775: in both the free propagator and in the large $N$ approximation.
776: In a finite box with lattice structure the lattice momenta
777: are discrete and can only be multiples of $2\pi/L$. For each
778: integer $n_{cut}$ there will be more than one set of solution
779: $(n^{(i)}_1,n^{(i)}_2,n^{(i)}_3,n^{(i)}_4)$
780: to the equation $n_{cut}=n_1^2+n_2^2+n_3^2+n_4^2$.
781: Denoting the total number of solutions by $D(n_{cut})$,
782: we can then define the counterpart of ${\cal N}_G$ in
783: the finite lattice
784: \ba
785: \label{eq:ch5.calgfi}
786: \bar{G}(n_{cut})&=&{1 \over D(n_{cut})}\sum^{D(n_{cut})}_{i=1}
787: G(({2\pi \over L})n^{(i)}_1,
788: ({2\pi \over L})n^{(i)}_2,
789: ({2\pi \over L})n^{(i)}_3,
790: ({2\pi \over L})n^{(i)}_4) ,
791: \\
792: {\cal N}_G(n_{cut})&=&\sqrt{
793: {1 \over D(n_{cut})}\sum^{D(n_{cut})}_{i=1}
794: { (G(({2\pi \over L})n^{(i)}_1,
795: ({2\pi \over L})n^{(i)}_2,
796: ({2\pi \over L})n^{(i)}_3,
797: ({2\pi \over L})n^{(i)}_4) -\bar{G}(n_{cut}) )^2
798: \over
799: \bar{G}(n_{cut})^2 }
800: } .
801: \nonumber
802: \ea
803: Due the finite size effects, the momentum lattice is coarse grained.
804: This will result in some zigzag behavior of the function
805: ${\cal N}_G(n_{cut})$, as $n_{cut}$ is increasing.
806: However, for a reasonably large lattice, we will recover the
807: infinite lattice results.
808: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure of Rotational Violation (N)
809: \begin{figure}[htb]
810: \vspace{16mm}
811: \centerline{\epsfysize=3.0cm \epsfxsize=5.0cm
812: \epsfbox{RiN.ps}
813: }
814: \vspace{10mm}
815: \caption{ The rotational invariance violation for the large $N$
816: propagator is plotted different lattice sizes.
817: The bare parameters are chosen to be close to the ones
818: in our simulation. For small lattices, because the momentum is
819: discrete, the function is not smooth. But for the larger lattices
820: the function approaches the infinite volume result. }
821: \label{fig:ch5.rin}
822: \end{figure}
823: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
824: In Figure~(\ref{fig:ch5.rin}), this rotational violation
825: is shown for one of our simulation points for
826: the large $N$ propagator. All the rotational invariance violation
827: are well under one percent level.
828: We are therefore confident that our results should
829: represent the features of the higher derivative
830: theory in the continuum.
831:
832:
833:
834:
835:
836:
837: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
838: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
839: %%%%%%%%%%% Standard Bibliography File %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
840: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
841: %%%%%%
842: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% The Standard Model in General
843: %%%%%%
844: %\bibitem{wein} S.~Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, (1967) 1264.
845: %\bibitem{salam} A.~Salam, Elementary Particle Theory, Ed., N.~Svartholm,
846: % Almquist and Wiksell, 1968.
847: %\bibitem{glash} S.~L.~Glashow, Nucl. Phys. 22, (1961) 579.
848: %\bibitem{quigg} B.~W.~Lee, C.~Quigg and H.~B.~Thacker, Phys. Rev. D16,
849: %(1977) 1519.
850: %%%%%%
851: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% The Higher Derivative Theory in General
852: %%%%%%
853: %\bibitem{ostro} M.~Ostrogradski, Mem. Ac. St. Petersbourg 4 (1850) 385.
854: %\bibitem{podo} B.~Podolski, Phys. Rev. 62 (1942) 68;
855: % B.~Podolski and P.~Schwed, Rev. Mod. Phys. 20 (1948) 40.
856: %\bibitem{pv} W.~Pauli and F.~Villars, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21 (1949) 434
857: %\bibitem{pais} A.~Pais and G.~E.~Uhlenbeck, Phys. Rev. 79 (1950) 145
858: %\bibitem{lee} T.~D.~Lee and G.~C.~Wick, Nucl. Phys. B 9 (1969) 209; Phys.
859: %Rev. D 2 (1970) 1033.
860: %\bibitem{polk} R.~E.~Cutkosky, P.~V.~Landshoff, D.~I.~Olive and
861: %J.~C.~Polkinghorne, Nucl. Phys. B12 (1969) 281.
862: %\bibitem{ghost} K.~Jansen, J.~Kuti, C.~Liu Phys. Lett. B 309 (1993) 119.
863: %\bibitem{gross} D.~G.~Boulware and D.~J.~Gross, Nucl. Phys. B233 (1983)
864: %1.
865: %\bibitem{pauli} W.~Pauli, Rev. Mod. Phys. 15 (1943) 175.
866: %\bibitem{simon} J.~Z.~Simon, Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 3720.
867: %\bibitem{scat} J.~Kuti and C.~Liu, to be published.
868: %%%%%%
869: %%%%%%%%%%%% Higher Derivative Gauge Theory and Gravity
870: %%%%%%
871: %\bibitem{slav} A.~A.~Slavnov, Nucl.~Phys. B31 (1971) 301.
872: %\bibitem{hawk} S.~W.~Hawking, Quantum field theory and quantum
873: %statistics, eds. I.~A.~Batalin et al. (1987) p. 129.
874: %\bibitem{stelle} K.~S.~Stelle, Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 953.
875: %\bibitem{tomb} E.~Tomboulis, Phys. Lett. B97 (1980) 77.
876: %%%%%%
877: %%%%%%%%%%%% Algorithms Development
878: %%%%%%
879: \bibitem{kenn5} A.~D.~Kennedy and B.~Pendleton, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.
880: Suppl.) 20 (1991) 118.
881: \bibitem{parisi5} G.~Parisi, Progress in gauge field theory, ed. G.~'t~
882: Hooft et al. (Plenum, New York, 1984) 531.
883: \bibitem{batrouni5} G.~Batrouni, G.~Katz, A.~Kronfeld, G.~P.~Lepage, P.~
884: Rossi, B.~Svetitsky and K.~Wilson, Phys. Rev. D32 (1985) 2736.
885: \bibitem{kogut5} E.~Dagotto and J.~B.~Kogut, Nucl. Phys. B 290 (1987)
886: 451.
887: %%%%%%
888: %%%%%%%%%%%% Triviality in General
889: %%%%%%
890: %\bibitem{landau} L.~D.~Landau, A.~A.~Abrikosov and I.~M.~Khalatnikov,
891: %Doklady Akad. Nauk. USSR 95 (1954) 1177.
892: %\bibitem{maiani} L.~Maiani, G.~Parisi and R.~Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B136
893: %(1978) 115.
894: %\bibitem{dash} R.~Dashen and H.~Neuberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50 (1983)
895: %1897.
896: %%%%%%
897: %%%%%%%%%%%% Higgs Mass Bound
898: %%%%%%
899: \bibitem{hhiggs5} K.~Jansen, J.~Kuti, C.~Liu Phys. Lett. B309 (1993) 127.
900: \bibitem{dallas5} C.~Liu, K.~Jansen and J.~Kuti, Nucl. Phys. B 34
901: (Proc. Suppl.), (1994) 635.
902: \bibitem{kuti5} J.~Kuti, L.~Lin, Y.~Shen, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) B 4
903: (1988) 397; Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 678.
904: \bibitem{lusc5} M.~L\"uscher and P.~Weisz, Phys. Lett. B212 (1988) 472.
905: \bibitem{hase5} A.~Hasenfratz et al., Nucl. Phys. B317 (1989) 81.
906: %\bibitem{syman} K.~Symanzik, Nucl. Phys. B226 (1983) 187.
907: \bibitem{zimm5} M.~G\"ockeler, H.~Kastrup, T.~Neuhaus and F.~Zimmermann,
908: Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) B 26 (1992) 516.
909: \bibitem{neub5}U.~M.~Heller, H.~Neuberger and P.~Vranas, Nucl. Phys. B405
910: (1993) 557.
911: %\bibitem{einh} M.~B.~Einhorn, Nucl. Phys. B246 (1984) 75.
912: %M.~B.~Einhorn and D.~N.~Williams, Phys. Lett. B211 (1988) 4570.
913: \bibitem{lang5} C.~B.~Lang, Phys. Lett. B229 (1989) 97; Nucl. Phys.
914: B (Proc. Suppl.) 17 (1990) 665.
915: %%%%%%
916: %%%%%%%%%%%% BOA Approximation
917: %%%%%%
918: %\bibitem{leut} A.~Hasenfratz et al., Nucl. Phys. B356 (1991) 332.
919: %%%%%%
920: %%%%%%%%%%%% Luescher's formula
921: %%%%%%
922: %\bibitem{luscf} M.~L\"uscher, Nucl. Phys. B354 (1991) 531; Nucl.
923: %Phys. B364 (1991) 237.
924: %\bibitem{luscwolf} M.~L\"uscher, U.~Wolff, Nucl. Phys. B339 (1990)
925: % 222.
926: %\bibitem{zimmph1} F.~Zimmermann, J.~Westphalen, M.~G\"ockeler and
927: %H.~A.~Kastrup, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 30 (1993) 879.
928: %\bibitem{zimmph2} F.~Zimmermann, J.~Westphalen, M.~G\"ockeler and
929: %H.~A.~Kastrup, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 34 (1994) 566.
930: %\bibitem{dewitt} B.~S.~DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 103 (1956) 1565.
931:
932: \end{thebibliography}
933:
934:
935: \vfill\eject
936: