1: \chapter{Analysis II: Including $\sigma \rightarrow \sigma_\mathrm{eff} $ } \label{chap:analysis2}
2:
3: One problem for the Isgur-Paton model is understanding what happens as $r \rightarrow 0$. The string picture of a flux tube is only appropriate on scales where the radius is much larger than the thickness of the flux tube $\sim {1\over \sqrt{\sigma}}$. With the radius $\sim {1\over \sqrt{\sigma}}$, the flux tube would look more like an annulus in two spatial dimensions or a torus in three dimensions, and the $M/r$ potential for the phonon contribution seems unreasonable. Indeed, the fluctuations might not even be able to be described by a phonon potential. A detailed theory of membrane dynamics might address the problem, but such is beyond the scope of this work.
4:
5: \begin{figure}[h]
6: \centering
7: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sigeff.eps}
8: \caption{$\sigma_\mathrm{eff}$ vs r}
9: \label{fig:sigeff}
10: \end{figure}
11:
12: What if as $r \rightarrow 0$, the string itself ``dissipated''? A study of the dual Ginzburg-Landau theory of type-II superconductors~\cite{Koma:1999sm} determined a function $\sigma_\mathrm{eff}(r)$, Figure~\ref{fig:sigeff}, defined to be the total energy of a flux ring solution of radius r divided by the circumference. The total energy was calculated from the microscopic differential equations for the fields. The non-abelian gauge theory's flux tube is often thought to arise from a dual Meissner effect for a type-II superconducting picture of the QCD vacuum~\cite{Mandelstam:1973,'tHooft:1981ht}. As $\sigma$ is defined from the interquark potential as $r \rightarrow \infty$, its behavior as $r \rightarrow 0$ is uncertain, and we might apply $\sigma \rightarrow \sigma_\mathrm{eff}(r)$ to the Isgur-Paton model. Transcribing the function from Figure~\ref{fig:sigeff} and converting scales, we can fit the function with the form
13: \beq \sigma_\mathrm{eff} = 1 - e^{-f r} \label{eqn:sigeff} \eeq
14: for f=1.7177, best in a least squares sense. Knowing the functional form of $\sigma_\mathrm{eff}(r)$, we can investigate its effect on the Isgur-Paton model.
15:
16: When we quantized the model earlier, the difficult term was the kinetic energy, so that is where we will begin. Abusing notation slightly,
17: \bea T &=& \frac{P_r^2}{2 \mu} \\
18: &\rightarrow& \frac{-1}{4 \pi} \left( \frac{\frac{\pa}{\pa r}}{\sqrt{\sigma r}}\right)^2 , \eea
19: where $\sigma$ is now included in the r dependence of the kinetic energy. If $\sigma$ were still a constant, we would get (as before)
20: \beq T \rightarrow \frac{-1}{4 \pi \sigma_\mathrm{const}} {9\over 4} \frac{\pa^2}{\pa \rho^2} , \eeq
21: since $d\tilde{\rho} = r^{\half} dr$, $\tilde{\rho} = {2\over 3} r^{3\over 2}$. Now we must include $\sigma_\mathrm{eff}$ in our differential equation relating r and $\rho$. For some canonical variable $\rho$,
22: \beq \frac{\frac{d\rho}{dr}\frac{d}{d\rho}}{\sqrt{\sigma_\mathrm{eff} r}} = \frac{d}{d\rho} , \eeq
23: so
24: \beq d\rho = dr \sigma_\mathrm{eff}^\half r^\half \eeq
25: with boundary conditions
26: \beq \rho(0)=0 , \; \rho(1) = 1 . \eeq
27: Substituting our function for $\sigma_\mathrm{eff}$, we find
28: \beq \rho = \int dr r^\half \left( 1 - e^{-f r} \right)^\half . \eeq
29: This integral cannot be put into closed form, yet we need the antiderivative explicitly to substitute into the potential $V(r(\rho))$. While it would be nice to include explicitly the function from Equation~\ref{eqn:sigeff}, any similar function which captures the salient features should suffice to test its influence on the spectrum. We need a function which goes to zero as $r \rightarrow 0$ and which approaches unity asymptotically, and which is integrable with respect to the measure $r^\half dr$. After looking at several functional forms, the closest one meeting these criteria is
30: \beq \sigma_\mathrm{eff} = \left( 1 - e^{-f' r} \right)^2 , \eeq
31: where f' is now given by 2.696. Performing the integral (and dropping the prime)
32: \beq \int dr r^\half \left( 1 - e^{-f r} \right) = \frac{\sqrt{r}}{f} \left(e^{-f r} + {2\over 3} f r \right) - \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2 f^{3\over 2}} \mathrm{erf}\sqrt{f r} , \eeq
33: thus
34: \beq \tilde{\rho} = {2\over 3} r^{3\over 2} + \frac{\sqrt{r}}{f}e^{-f r} - \frac{\pi}{2 f^{3\over 2}} \mathrm{erf}\sqrt{f r} . \eeq
35: Applying the condition $\rho(r=1) = 1$,
36: \beq \tilde{\rho}(1) = c = 0.495544 , \eeq
37: so
38: \beq \rho = {1\over c}\tilde{\rho} = \frac{\sqrt{r}}{f c} \left( e^{-f r} + {2\over 3} f r \right) - \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2 c f^{3\over 2}} \mathrm{erf}\sqrt{f r} . \label{eqn:rvrho} \eeq
39: We cannot find the functional inverse explicitly, but as ultimately we are working with a discrete set $\{\rho_j\}$ related to $\{t_j\}$, we can solve the equation numerically to give $r_j$,
40: \beq \rho_j = \frac{n+1}{j} \Rightarrow r_j , \eeq
41: which we can put into the potential
42: \beq V = V(r(\rho_j)) . \eeq
43: The solution of Equation~(\ref{eqn:rvrho}) is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:rvsrho}.
44: \begin{figure}[t]
45: \centering
46: \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{rvsrho.eps}
47: \caption{r vs $\rho$}
48: \label{fig:rvsrho}
49: \end{figure}
50: Returning to the kinetic energy,
51: \beq T \rightarrow \frac{-1}{4 \pi} {1\over c^2} \frac{\pa^2}{\pa \rho^2} , \eeq
52: so our Hamiltonian goes to
53: \bea T + V = E &\Rightarrow& \\
54: \frac{-\pa^2}{\pa \rho^2} + 4 \pi c^2 V(r(\rho)) &=& 4 \pi c^2 E = \lambda , \eea
55: which we transform as before to the matrix equation
56: \beq S_b + S_d = \lambda \eeq
57: and solve.
58:
59: So, how does this model perform? Looking at Table~\ref{table:sigchi2}, we see the values of $\chi^2$ for various N at $\beta =0$. For the direct mechanism, $\chi^2$ decreases from 117 at N=3 down to 15.3 for N=$\infty$. This N dependence of $\chi^2$ seems a little odd. For small N, $\chi^2$ is too large to believe the model including the effective string tension, but as $N\rightarrow \infty$, $\chi^2$ drops to a value which is nearly believable, even with the tight errors. As the details of the conjugate splitting might depend on N, we are seeing evidence that the Isgur-Paton model is most applicable to the $N\rightarrow \infty$ limit.
60:
61: Looking now at the indirect mechanisms, we see the same type of behavior or $\chi^2$. For the adjoint mechanism, $\chi^2$ ranges from 135 for N=3 down to 26.5 for N=$\infty$. Apparently, having $\sigma_\mathrm{eff} \rightarrow 0$ works reasonably well for $N\rightarrow \infty$, but for small N including such behavior is detrimental to the model. For vertex mixing, $\chi^2$ simply remains unbelievably large, $\gtrsim 100$. As this mechanism has an extra flux tube for its diameter, imposing $\sigma_\mathrm{eff} \rightarrow 0$ is a major complication to the model and is not supported by the evidence.
62:
63: \begin{table}
64: \centering
65: \begin{tabular}{|l|ccccc|} \hline
66: N & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & $\infty$ \\\hline
67: direct & & 117 & 79.3 & 36.5 & {\bf{15.3}} \\\hline
68: adjoint & 13.2 & 135 & 101 & 81.1 & 26.5 \\\hline
69: vertex & & 257 & 130 & 96.4 & \\\hline
70: \end{tabular}
71: \caption{$\chi^2$ for $\sigma_\mathrm{eff}$}
72: \label{table:sigchi2}
73: \end{table}
74:
75: Comparing the values of $\chi^2$ at $\beta =0$ for both $\sigma \equiv 1$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{eff} \rightarrow 0$, we can say that the lattice data best supports the direct mixing mechanism in the limit as $N\rightarrow \infty$. Were we to believe in using the incomplete gamma function~\cite{Press:1992} to assess this model's goodness-of-fit, we would find
76: \bea Q &=& {{\Gamma({\nu\over 2},{\chi^2\over 2})}\over {\Gamma({\nu\over 2})}}\\
77: &=& .88 \eea
78:
79: \begin{table}[t]
80: \centering
81: \begin{tabular}{|r|c|c|} \hline
82: N & $\gamma$ & $\alpha$ \\\hline
83: direct & & \\
84: 3 & .716 & 1.92 \\
85: 4 & .602 & 1.89 \\
86: 5 &-.007 & .973 \\
87: $\infty$ & -.069 & 1.06 \\
88: $(1/N^2)|_\infty$ & & \\\hline
89: adjoint & & \\
90: 2 &-.104 & .897 \\
91: 3 & .706 & 3.35 \\
92: 4 & .594 & 3.26 \\
93: 5 &-.292 & 1.22 \\
94: $\infty$ &-.324 & 1.29 \\
95: $(1/N^2)|_\infty$ & & \\\hline
96: vertex & & \\
97: 3 & .512 & 1.52 \\
98: 4 & .472 & 2.12 \\
99: 5 &-.223 & 1.28 \\
100: $(1/N^2)|_\infty$ & & \\\hline
101: \end{tabular}
102: \caption{Parameter values for $\sigma_\mathrm{eff}$ for $\beta$ = 0.}
103: \label{table:sigParametersB0}
104: \end{table}
105:
106: Turning now to the parameter values for the direct and adjoint mechanisms, Table~\ref{table:sigParametersB0}, we find some interesting behavior. The $(1/N^2)$ dependence is not readily apparent for $\alpha$ and is dubious for $\gamma$. Overall, the results seem to split into two sectors across mechanisms, one for N=3 and 4, the other for N=5 and $\infty$. The smaller N return a $\gamma$ which is positive $\sim$ .6 or .7, while for higher N a negative $\gamma$ is supported $\sim$ -.07 or -.3. As $\gamma$ shifts discontinuously, $\alpha$ also makes a jump. In the direct scenario, $\alpha$ jumps from $\sim$ 1.9 to $\sim$ 1.0 as $\gamma$ goes from positive to negative. For adjoint mixing, $\alpha$ goes from $\sim$ 3.3 down to $\sim$ 1.2. No longer seeing our $(1/N^2)$ dependence, we need to explore the posteriors in more detail.
107:
108: \newpage
109:
110: \begin{figure}[!t]
111: \centering
112: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0wcdirN3.eps}
113: \caption{The direct mixing posterior and spectrum for N=3.}
114: \label{fig:b0wcdirN3}
115: \end{figure}
116:
117: \begin{figure}[!t]
118: \centering
119: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0wcdirN4.eps}
120: \caption{The direct mixing posterior and spectrum for N=4.}
121: \label{fig:b0wcdirN4}
122: \end{figure}
123:
124: \begin{figure}[!t]
125: \centering
126: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0wcdirN5.eps}
127: \caption{The direct mixing posterior and spectrum for N=5.}
128: \label{fig:b0wcdirN5}
129: \end{figure}
130:
131: \begin{figure}[!t]
132: \centering
133: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0wcdirN6.eps}
134: \caption{The direct mixing posterior and spectrum for N=$\infty$.}
135: \label{fig:b0wcdirN6}
136: \end{figure}
137:
138:
139: Looking at the posterior for direct mixing first,
140: Figures~\ref{fig:b0wcdirN3} through \ref{fig:b0wcdirN6}, we see that the peaks for N=3 and 4 are likely to be related, while starting at N=5 the peaks shifts dramatically. If we turn our attention to comparing the spectra, we can see what is driving the different peaks. The prime difficulty is getting the J=0 sector to fall into place. For N=4, Figure~\ref{fig:b0wcdirN4}, we see that the model is choosing to fit the conjugate splitting between the $0^{++}$ and the $0^{--}$ at the expense of the magnitude of the radial excitations. (Such is also true for N=3.) When N=5, the model shifts to favoring matching the radial excitations at the expense of the low lying $0^{--}$. Now the excited states are within $\sim 1 \sigma$, while the $0^{--}$ is about $2\sim3 \sigma$ away. This behavior explains the shift in the peak of the posterior. What we would like is a model which can incorporate both the conjugate splitting as well as the radial excitations. The J=2 states seem to be little affected by the shift of the peak -- so far they are compatible with either emphasis.
141:
142: \begin{figure}[!t]
143: \centering
144: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0wcadjN3.eps}
145: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=3.}
146: \label{fig:b0wcadjN3}
147: \end{figure}
148:
149: \begin{figure}[!t]
150: \centering
151: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0wcadjN4.eps}
152: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=4.}
153: \label{fig:b0wcadjN4}
154: \end{figure}
155:
156: \begin{figure}[!t]
157: \centering
158: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0wcadjN5.eps}
159: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=5.}
160: \label{fig:b0wcadjN5}
161: \end{figure}
162:
163: \begin{figure}[!t]
164: \centering
165: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0wcadjN6.eps}
166: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=$\infty$.}
167: \label{fig:b0wcadjN6}
168: \end{figure}
169:
170: \begin{figure}[!t]
171: \centering
172: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0wcverN3.eps}
173: \caption{The vertex mixing posterior and spectrum for N=3.}
174: \label{fig:b0wcverN3}
175: \end{figure}
176:
177: \begin{figure}[!t]
178: \centering
179: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0wcverN4.eps}
180: \caption{The vertex mixing posterior and spectrum for N=4.}
181: \label{fig:b0wcverN4}
182: \end{figure}
183:
184: \begin{figure}[!t]
185: \centering
186: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0wcverN5.eps}
187: \caption{The vertex mixing posterior and spectrum for N=5.}
188: \label{fig:b0wcverN5}
189: \end{figure}
190:
191:
192: Turning to the indirect mechanisms, we see much the same behavior. For N=3 and 4, we see one peak corresponding to fitting the conjugate splitting, while for N=5 and $\infty$ we see the other peak corresponding to fitting the radial excitations. Fitting the radial excitations gives a lower $\gamma$ than fitting the splitting, but the coefficient of elasticity is still positive, as the signal for zero elasticity is $\gamma \sim -1$, from which the peak is still some distance away.
193:
194: Looking in detail at the spectrum resulting from the overall best fit (to the statistical errors), the $0^{--}$ notwithstanding, we see that the higher states are agreeing quite well with the hypothesis of spin misassignment. The M=4 states match the J=0 states with mixed quantum numbers quite well. When M=5, the $\pm+$ state agrees with the J=$1^{\pm+}$, but the $\pm-$ state is predicted to be too heavy, yet the lattice data would agree will with the M=3. With the free predictions of the model giving such a signal, we should take seriously the issue of the spin assignments of the lattice operators.
195:
196:
197: \begin{table}[h]
198: \centering
199: \begin{tabular}{|lc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|} \hline
200: N & direct & $0^{++}$ & $0^{--}$ & $2^{\pm+}$ & $2^{\pm-}$ &
201: $3^{\pm+}$ & $3^{\pm-}$ & $4^{\pm+}$ & $4^{\pm-}$ & $1^{\pm+}$ &
202: $1^{\pm-}$ \\\hline
203:
204: 3 & $m_{J^{PC}}$ &
205: 4.308 & 6.228 & 6.838 & 8.758 & 8.005 & 9.924 & 9.108 &
206: 11.03 & 10.15 & 12.07 \\
207: & $m_{J^{PC}}^\star$ &
208: 7.083 & 9.002 & 9.047 & 10.97 & 9.986 & 11.91 & 10.9 &
209: 12.82 & 11.77 & 13.69 \\\hline
210:
211: 4 & &
212: 4.183 & 6.076 & 6.727 & 8.62 & 7.901 & 9.794 & 9.012 &
213: 10.9 & 10.06 & 11.95 \\ & &
214: 6.994 & 8.887 & 8.965 & 10.86 & 9.907 & 11.8 & 10.82 &
215: 12.71 & 11.7 & 13.6 \\\hline
216:
217: 5 & &
218: 4.276 & 5.249 & 6.9 & 7.873 & 8.114 & 9.087 & 9.263 &
219: 10.24 & 10.35 & 11.32 \\ & &
220: 6.223 & 8.265 & 8.847 & 10.27 & 10.06 & 11.23 & 11.19 &
221: 12.16 & 12.09 & 13.06 \\\hline
222:
223: $\infty$ & &
224: 4.105 & 5.164 & 6.737 & 7.796 & 7.955 & 9.014 & 9.108 &
225: 10.17 & 10.2 & 11.26 \\ & &
226: 6.223 & 8.201 & 8.855 & 10.21 & 10.07 & 11.17 & 11.04 &
227: 12.1 & 11.95 & 13.01 \\\hline
228:
229: \end{tabular}
230: \caption{The spectrum for direct mixing with $\sigma_{eff} \rightarrow
231: 0$ at various N. For each N, the
232: first mass is the lowest state in that channel, and the second mass is
233: the radial excitation.}
234: \label{table:b0wcdir}
235: \end{table}
236:
237:
238:
239: \begin{table}[h]
240: \centering
241: \begin{tabular}{|lc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|} \hline
242: N & adjoint & $0^{++}$ & $0^{--}$ & $2^{\pm+}$ & $2^{\pm-}$ &
243: $3^{\pm+}$ & $3^{\pm-}$ & $4^{\pm+}$ & $4^{\pm-}$ & $1^{\pm+}$ &
244: $1^{\pm-}$ \\\hline
245:
246: 3 & $m_{J^{PC}}$ &
247: 4.25 & 6.215 & 6.963 & 8.746 & 8.214 & 9.913 & 9.396 &
248: 11.02 & 10.51 & 12.06 \\
249: & $m_{J^{PC}}^\star$ &
250: 7.227 & 8.992 & 9.357 & 10.96 & 10.36 & 11.9 & 11.34 &
251: 12.81 & 12.27 & 13.69 \\\hline
252:
253: 4 & &
254: 4.124 & 6.066 & 6.86 & 8.611 & 8.121 & 9.786 & 9.313 &
255: 10.9 & 10.44 & 11.95 \\ & &
256: 7.134 & 8.879 & 9.281 & 10.85 & 10.29 & 11.79 & 11.27 &
257: 12.71 & 12.21 & 13.59 \\\hline
258:
259: 5 & &
260: 4.178 & 4.855 & 7.021 & 7.516 & 8.317 & 8.748 & 9.534 &
261: 9.916 & 10.68 & 11.02 \\ & &
262: 6.373 & 7.971 & 9.28 & 9.991 & 10.46 & 10.96 & 11.5 &
263: 11.9 & 12.47 & 12.81 \\\hline
264:
265: $\infty$ & &
266: 4.06 & 4.81 & 6.925 & 7.475 & 8.229 & 8.709 & 9.455 &
267: 9.879 & 10.61 & 10.98 \\ & &
268: 6.298 & 7.937 & 9.191 & 9.959 & 10.37 & 10.93 & 11.43 &
269: 11.87 & 12.4 & 12.78 \\\hline
270:
271: \end{tabular}
272: \caption{The spectrum for adjoint mixing with $\sigma_{eff} \rightarrow
273: 0$ at various N. For each N, the
274: first mass is the lowest state in that channel, and the second mass is
275: the radial excitation.}
276: \label{table:b0wcadj}
277: \end{table}
278:
279:
280: \begin{table}[h]
281: \centering
282: \begin{tabular}{|lc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|} \hline
283: N & vertex & $0^{++}$ & $0^{--}$ & $2^{\pm+}$ & $2^{\pm-}$ &
284: $3^{\pm+}$ & $3^{\pm-}$ & $4^{\pm+}$ & $4^{\pm-}$ & $1^{\pm+}$ &
285: $1^{\pm-}$ \\\hline
286:
287: 3 & $m_{J^{PC}}$ &
288: 4.55 & 5.955 & 6.287 & 8.511 & 9.691 & 7.36 & 8.459 &
289: 10.81 & 11.86 & 6.091 \\
290: & $m_{J^{PC}}^\star$ &
291: 6.973 & 8.796 & 8.565 & 10.77 & 11.72 & 9.5 & 10.43 &
292: 12.63 & 13.52 & 8.793 \\\hline
293:
294: 4 & &
295: 4.33 & 5.901 & 6.301 & 8.463 & 9.645 & 7.439 & 8.592 &
296: 10.76 & 11.82 & 6.612 \\ & &
297: 7.123 & 8.755 & 8.738 & 10.73 & 11.68 & 9.719 & 10.7 &
298: 12.6 & 13.48 & 9.546 \\\hline
299:
300: 4 & &
301: 4.328 & 4.951 & 6.6 & 7.603 & 8.831 & 7.839 & 9.075 &
302: 9.994 & 11.09 & 6.659 \\ & &
303: 6.782 & 8.042 & 8.52 & 10.06 & 11.03 & 9.725 & 10.91 &
304: 11.96 & 12.87 & 10.22 \\\hline
305:
306: \end{tabular}
307: \caption{The spectrum for vertex mixing with $\sigma_{eff} \rightarrow
308: 0$ at various N. For each N, the
309: first mass is the lowest state in that channel, and the second mass is
310: the radial excitation.}
311: \label{table:b0wcver}
312: \end{table}
313: