1: \documentclass[a4paper]{article}
2: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,bm,epsfig}
3: \begin{document}
4:
5:
6: \newcommand{\ba}{\mbox{\boldmath $a$}}
7: \newcommand{\bb}{\mbox{\boldmath $b$}}
8: \newcommand{\bc}{\mbox{\boldmath $c$}}
9:
10:
11:
12: \title{Approximate vortex solution of Faddeev model}
13:
14: \author{Chang-Guang Shi\\Department of Mathematics and Physics, \\Shanghai
15: University of Electric power\\
16: Shanghai,200090 {\bf China}\\
17: shichangguang@shiep.edu.cn\\
18: \\
19: {Minoru Hirayama} \\Department of Mathematics and Physics,\\
20: Shanghai
21: University of Electric power\\
22: Shanghai,200090 {\bf China}\\
23: Department of Physics, University of Toyama, Gofuku 3190\\
24: Toyama, 930-8555, {\bf Japan}\\
25: hirayama@jodo.sci.u-toyama.ac.jp}
26: \date{}
27: \maketitle
28:
29: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
30:
31: \begin{abstract}
32: Through an Ansatz specifying the azimuthal-angle dependence of the solution,
33: the static field equation for vortex of the Faddeev model is converted to an algebraic ordinary differential equation.
34: An approximate analytic expression of the vortex solution is explored so that the energy per unit vortex length becomes as small as possible.
35: It is observed that the minimum energy of vortex is approximately proportional to the integer which specifies the solution.
36: \end{abstract}
37:
38: PACS: {11.10.Lm,02.30,Ik,03.50-z}
39:
40:
41: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
42: \section{Introduction}
43:
44: Faddeev model\cite{Faddeev} was originally proposed as a model which
45: might give rise to 3-dimensional soliton solutions. Later it was
46: discussed that the model might be an effective field theory
47: describing the low energy behavior of the $SU(2)$ gauge
48: field\cite{FN}. It can be regarded as a restricted version of the
49: Skyrme model\cite{Sky} which may be an effective field theory for
50: hadron dynamics. Because of the high nonlinearity of Faddeev and
51: Skyrme models, the analytic structures of solutions of these models
52: have not yet been clarified. The numerical solutions of these
53: models, however, exhibit quite interesting soliton
54: properties\cite{Ba-Sut1}-\cite{Hi-So}: soliton solutions of the
55: Skyrme model have tetrahedral structures while those of the
56: Faddeev model have knot structures\cite{Ba-Sut1},\cite{Ba-Sut2}.
57:
58: The Faddeev model is a model concerning the real scalar fields
59: \begin{equation}
60: \boldsymbol{n}(x)=\left(n^1(x),n^2(x),n^3(x)\right)
61: \end{equation}
62: satisfying
63: \begin{equation}
64: {\boldsymbol{n}}^2(x)=\boldsymbol{n}(x)\cdot\boldsymbol{n}(x)=\sum\limits_{a=1}^{3}n^a(x) n^a(x)=1.
65: \end{equation}
66: It is defined by the Lagrangian density
67: \begin{align}
68: {\mathcal L}_F(x)&=c_2 l_2(x)+c_4 l_4(x),\\
69: l_2(x)&=\partial_{\mu}\boldsymbol{n}(x)\cdot
70: \partial^{\mu}\boldsymbol{n}(x),\\
71: l_4(x)&=-H_{\mu\nu}(x) H^{\mu\nu}(x),\\
72: H_{\mu\nu}(x)&=\boldsymbol{n}(x)\cdot[\partial_{\mu}\boldsymbol{n}(x)\times
73: \partial_{\nu}\boldsymbol{n}(x)]\nonumber\\
74: &=\epsilon_{abc}n^a(x)\partial_{\mu}n^b(x)\partial_{\nu}n^c(x),
75: \end{align}
76: where $c_2$ and $c_4$ are constants. The static energy
77: functional $E_F[\boldsymbol{n}]$ associated with ${\mathcal L}_F(x)$ is
78: given by
79: \begin{align}
80: E_F[\boldsymbol{n}]&=\int dV \epsilon(\boldsymbol{x}),\\
81: \epsilon(\boldsymbol{x})&=c_2 \epsilon_2(\boldsymbol{x})+c_4
82: \epsilon_4(\boldsymbol{x}),\\
83: \epsilon_2(\boldsymbol{x})&=\sum\limits_{a=1}^{3}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}[\partial_i
84: n^a(\boldsymbol{x})]^2,\\
85: \epsilon_4(\boldsymbol{x})&=\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{3}[H_{ij}(\boldsymbol{x})]^2,
86: \end{align}
87: with $\boldsymbol{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ and $dV=dx_1 dx_2 dx_3$.
88: By the stereo-graphic projection, the field $\bm{n}$ can be expressed by a complex function $u$ as
89: \begin{equation}
90: {\boldsymbol n}=\biggl(\frac{u+u^{*}}{|u|^2+1},\frac{-i(u-u^{*})}{{|u|}^2+1},\frac{{|u|}^2-1}{{|u|}^2+1}\biggr).
91: \end{equation}
92: In terms of $u$, the energy densities $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_4$ are given by
93: \begin{equation}
94: \epsilon_2=\frac{4}{(1+|u|^2)^2}(\boldsymbol{\nabla} u\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla} u^{*}),
95: \end{equation}
96: \begin{align}
97: \epsilon_4=-8\frac{({\boldsymbol \nabla}u\times{\boldsymbol \nabla}u^*)^2}{(1+|u|^2)^4}.
98: \end{align}
99: The field equation can be rather simply expressed by $\bm{q}$ defined by
100: \begin{align}
101: \bm{q}=X\nabla u,
102: \end{align}
103: with
104: \begin{align}
105: u=R{\rm{e}}^{i\Phi},\quad R=|u|
106: \end{align}
107: and
108: \begin{align}
109: X=2\sqrt{\frac{c_4}{c_2}}\frac{1}{1+R^2}=\frac{1}{1+R^2},
110: \end{align}
111: where $2\sqrt{c_4/c_2}$ of the dimension of length has been set equal to $1$ and $\bm{q}$ is dimensionless. The static field equation can be
112: written as\cite{Hi-Shi}
113: \begin{align}
114: \nabla\cdot\bm{\alpha}+i \bm{\beta}\cdot\bm{\alpha}=0,
115: \label{eqn:alphaEq}
116: \end{align}
117: where $\bm{\alpha}$ and $\bm{\beta}$ are a complex and a real $3$-vectors given by
118: \begin{align}
119: \bm{\alpha}&=\bm{q}^{\star}-\bm{q}^{\star}\times(\bm{q}\times\bm{q}^{\star}),\label{eqn:alphaDEF}\\
120: \bm{\beta}&=\frac{1}{i}(u^{\star}\bm{q}-u\bm{q}^{\star})= B\nabla
121: \Phi,~B=\frac{2R^2}{1+R^2},
122: \end{align}
123: respectively.
124:
125: In this paper, we discuss some simple analytic solutions of the
126: above equation. We shall consider mainly the vortex solutions of the
127: form $R=R(\rho),~\Phi=m\phi$ with $(\rho, z, \phi)$ and $m$ being
128: the cylindrical coordinates and an integer, respectively.
129: We adopt an approximate analytic solution containing two adjustable parameters. Its form is fixed by the compatibility with the boundary condition and the singularity-structure necessitated by the field equation. The parameters are fixed so that the energy per unit length of vortex, $A_m$, becomes minimal. We find that the minimum of $A_m$ is proportional to $m$ approximately. \\
130: \hspace{3mm} This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.2, we discuss the $m=0$ case briefly. In Sec.3, the above-mentioned approximate analytic solution for the $m\neq 0$ case is discussed. Sec.4 is devoted to summary.
131:
132: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
133: \section{Some solutions in special cases}
134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
135:
136: \hspace{3mm}We first consider the solutions of the form
137: \begin{align}
138: R=R(\rho, z),\quad \Phi=\Phi(\phi),
139: \end{align}
140: where $(\rho, z, \phi)$ are cylindrical coordinates.
141: Then we have
142: \begin{align}
143: \bm{q}&=X {\rm{e}}^{i\Phi} \left(R_{\rho}\bm{e}_{\rho}+R_{z}\bm{e}_{z}+\frac{iR\Phi^{'}}{\rho }\bm{e}_{\phi} \right),\\
144: \bm{\alpha}&= {\rm{e}}^{-i\Phi}\left(C\bm{e}_{\rho}+D\bm{e}_{z}+F\bm{e}_{\phi} \right),\\
145: \bm{\beta}&=\frac{B \Phi^{'}}{\rho}\bm{e}_{\phi},\\
146: C&=\left(X+\frac{R^2Y (\Phi^{'})^2}{\rho^2}\right)R_{\rho},\\
147: D&=\left(X+\frac{R^2Y (\Phi^{'})^2}{\rho^2}\right)R_{z},\\
148: F&=-i\frac{R \Phi^{'}}{\rho}\left[X+Y\left(R_{\rho}^2+R_z^2 \right)\right],\\
149: Y&=2X^3,\\
150: \Phi^{'}&=\frac{d\Phi(\phi)}{d\phi},\quad R_{\rho}=\frac{\partial R(\rho,z)}{\partial\rho}, \quad R_{z}=\frac{\partial R(\rho,z)}{\partial z},
151: \end{align}
152: where $\bm{e}_{\rho}, \bm{e}_{z},$ and $\bm{e}_{\phi}$ are orthonormal unit vectors satisfying $\bm{e}_{\rho} \times \bm{e}_{\phi}=\bm{e}_{z}$, etc.\\
153: We obtain $F_{\phi}=0$ from Im\{$\nabla\cdot\bm{\alpha}+i
154: \bm{\beta}\cdot\bm{\alpha}$\}=$0$. Then, taking the
155: single-valuedness of $u$ into account, we are led to
156: \begin{equation}
157: \Phi=m\phi,\quad m:\rm{integer}.
158: \end{equation}
159: On the other hand, from Re\{$\nabla\cdot\bm{\alpha}+i \bm{\beta}\cdot\bm{\alpha}$\}=$0$ and $\Phi^{'}$=$m$, we have
160: \begin{align}
161: \nabla\cdot &\left(XG\nabla R\right)+(G-1)\frac{R^2-1}{2R}\left[1+2X^2\left(\nabla R\right)^2\right]=0,\\
162: G&=1+\frac{2m^2R^2X^2}{\rho^2}.\label{eqn:2.12}
163: \end{align}
164:
165: In the $m=0$ case, it becomes $\triangle[{\rm{arctan}}R]=0$, whose solution is given by
166: \begin{align}
167: {\rm{arctan}}R&=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left(A_n r^n+\frac{B_n}{r^{n+1}}\right){\rm{P}}_n(\rm{cos} \theta),\\
168: r&=\sqrt{\rho^2+z^2}, \quad {\rm{cos}}\theta=\frac{z}{r},
169: \end{align}
170: where $\{A_n, B_n :n= 0, 1, 2, \cdots\}$ are constants and ${\rm{P}}_n$ denotes the $n$-th Legendre polynomial.
171: It should be noted that
172: \begin{equation}
173: {\rm{arctan}}R= a_1~{\rm{ln}}\rho+a_2 \quad (a_1, a_2: \rm{const.})
174: \end{equation}
175: is a solution, too.
176: These results indicate how Cho's solution\cite{Cho} $u=\frac{\rm{const.}}{r}$ should be generalized. They are, however, trivial in the sense that the interference effects between the $l_2(x)$ and $l_4(x)$ in the Lagrangian disappear in these solutions.\\
177: \hspace{3mm} For $m\neq 0$, we see that the simpler cases such as
178: $R=f_1(z), R=f_2(r),~R=f_3(\theta),~R=f_4(\eta),~R=f_5(\xi)$ are not
179: allowed since $G$ in Eq. (\ref{eqn:2.12}) contains $\rho$, where
180: $(r,\theta, \phi)$ and $(\eta, \xi, \phi)$ are polar- and toroidal-
181: coordinates, respectively. Only the vortex solution $R=R(\rho)$,
182: which is a solution of the $2$-dimensional Faddeev model, is
183: allowed.
184:
185:
186: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
187: \section{Approximate vortex solutions}
188: \hspace{3mm}We hereafter consider the case $R=R(\rho)$ and $m\neq 0$.
189: If we set
190: \begin{align}
191: R={\rm{tan}}\frac{\xi}{2},\quad \sigma=\frac{\rho}{m},
192: \end{align}
193: we obtain
194: \begin{align}
195: & \left(\sigma^2+2\rm{sin}^2\xi \right)\frac{d^2 \xi}{d\sigma^2}+{\rm{sin}}2\xi\left(\frac{d\xi}{d\sigma}\right)^2+\left(\sigma-\frac{2}{\sigma}{\rm{sin}}^2\xi\right)\frac{d\xi}{d\sigma}-2m^2{\rm{sin}}2\xi=0.
196: \end{align}
197: Through a further change of variables
198: \begin{align}
199: &V(\zeta)=-{\rm{tan}}^2\xi=-\left(\frac{2R}{R^2-1}\right)^2,\quad
200: \zeta=\frac{\sigma^2}{\sigma^2+2}
201: \end{align}
202: we obtain an algebraic differential equation
203: \begin{align}
204: &\frac{d^2V}{d\zeta^2}-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{V}+\frac{1}{\zeta-V}+\frac{3}{V-1}\right)\left(\frac{dV}{d\zeta}\right)^2 \nonumber \\
205: &\hspace{2cm} +\left(\frac{1}{\zeta-1}+\frac{1}{\zeta-V}\right)\frac{dV}{d\zeta}-\frac{2m^2 V(V-1)}{\zeta(1-\zeta)^2(V-\zeta)}=0.
206: \end{align}
207: The solution of this equation can be explored in the following way. For a given $\zeta_0$ which is different from $0$ and $1$, we assume that the solution $V(\zeta)$ near $\zeta=\zeta_0$ is given as
208: \begin{align}
209: &V(\zeta)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}V_n \left(\zeta-\zeta_0\right)^{\alpha+n},\quad 0<\zeta_0<1,\quad \alpha<0.
210: \end{align}
211: Then we are led to
212: \begin{align}
213: &\alpha=-2
214: \end{align}
215: and
216: \begin{align}
217: &V_1=\frac{V_0}{\zeta_0-1},\\
218: &V_2=\frac{(4m^2+\zeta_0) V_0-4\zeta_0(\zeta_0-1)^2(\zeta_0-3)}{12\zeta_0(\zeta_0-1)^2},\\
219: &V_3=-\frac{m^2 V_0+2
220: \zeta_0^2(\zeta_0-1)^2}{6\zeta_0^2(\zeta_0-1)^2},
221: \end{align}
222: and so on.
223: It turns out that $V_0$ and $\zeta_0$ are arbitrary and $V_1, V_2, V_3, \cdots$ are fixed by them.\\
224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%<Comments replaced>
225: Although $V_n$ can be determined order by order, it is difficult to conclude
226: that the series (3.5) converges in some domain of $\zeta$ around $\zeta_0$.
227: To obtain the radius of convergence of the series (3.5), if any, we must calculate
228: $V_n$ for very large $n$, whose mathematical expression becomes quite
229: complicated as $n$ gets large.
230: The differential equation (3.4) suggests that the behavior of $V(\zeta)$ at
231: $\zeta=0$ and $1$ ($\rho=0$ and $\infty$) may be different from that at ordinary
232: points $0<\zeta<1$ ($0<\rho<\infty$).
233: It is also difficult to maintain the properties of $V(\zeta)$ near $\zeta
234: =0$ and $1$ by an infinite series of the form (3.5).
235: We therefore consider an approximate $V(\zeta)$ which realizes the properties
236: required by the lowest order analysis of (3.4) around $\zeta=\zeta_0~(\neq0,1)$,
237: $\zeta=0$ and $\zeta=1$.\\
238: As was explained above, the behavior of $V(\zeta)$ in the neighborhood of $\zeta_0$
239: is given by $V(\zeta)\sim {\rm{const.}}(\zeta-\zeta_0)^{-2}$.
240: We next consider the behavior of $V(\zeta)$ near $\zeta=0$.
241: It turns out that the behavior $V(\zeta)\sim$const.$\zeta^\lambda$ is compatible
242: with (3.4) only when $\lambda=2m$ or $\lambda=-2m$.
243: We here recall that, with the assumption (2.10), only $R=0$ and $R=\infty$ yield
244: the vanishing energy density irrespective of the value of $\phi$.
245: These values of $R$ imply $V(0)=0$, leading to $\lambda=2|m|$.
246: In other words, if we require that the energy density is vanishing at $\rho=0$,
247: the differential equation (3.4) and the assumption (2.10) lead us to
248: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
249: \begin{align}
250: V(\zeta)\sim \rm{const.} \zeta^{2|m|}, \quad \zeta\sim 0.
251: \end{align}
252: Similarly, from the requirement that the energy density is vanishing at $\rho=\infty$ , we obtain
253: \begin{align}
254: V(\zeta)\sim \rm{const.} (\zeta-1)^{2|m|}, \quad \zeta\sim 1.
255: \end{align}
256: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%<Comments added>
257: It is straightforward to see that the conditions $V(0)=V(1)=0$ correspond to
258: the configurations $\boldsymbol{n}=(0, 0, 1)$ or $\boldsymbol{n}=(0, 0, -1)$
259: at $\rho=0$ and $\infty$. Therefore we are here considering the configurations
260: interpolating these configurations. In the example considered below (Fig.4),
261: we obtain $V(\zeta)$ connecting $\boldsymbol{n}=(0, 0, 1)$ at $\rho=0$ and
262: $\boldsymbol{n}=(0, 0, -1)$ at $\rho=\infty$.
263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
264:
265: We note that, in the analysis of the hedgehog Skyrmion, the solution of the differential equation
266: \begin{align}
267: &\frac{d^2W}{d\eta^2}-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{W}+\frac{1}{\eta-W}+\frac{3}{W-1}\right)\left(\frac{dW}{d\eta}\right)^2 \nonumber \\
268: &\hspace{2cm} +\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\eta-1}+\frac{1}{\eta}\right)+\frac{1}{\eta-W}\right]\frac{dW}{d\eta}-\frac{W[(\eta+1)W-2\eta]}{2\eta^2(\eta-1)^2(W-\eta)}=0
269: \end{align}
270: was investigated\cite{Ya-Hi} by a trial function
271: \begin{equation}
272: W=\frac{-q\eta(\eta-1)^2}{\eta-p}, \quad q>0, \quad 1>p>0,
273: \end{equation}
274: which yielded a rather good value of the energy. \\
275:
276: In the following, we consider the approximate solutions $V_m(\zeta)$ given by
277: \begin{equation}
278: V_m(\zeta)=-q_m\frac{\left[\zeta(1-\zeta)\right]^{2m}}{(\zeta-p_m)^2}, \quad m > 0, \quad q_m>0,~\quad 1>p_m>0,
279: \end{equation}
280: which is compatible with the singularity-structure indicated by the differential equation and the boundary condition that the energy density vanishes at $\rho=0, \infty$. \\
281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
282: % $V_m(\zeta)$ interpolates the vacuum configurations at $\rho=0$ and $\rho=\infty$.
283: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
284: The energy $E_F$ corresponding to the assumption (2.10), which we denote by $E_m$, is now given by
285: \begin{align}
286: E_m &=8\pi c_2\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} A_m dz,\\
287: A_m &=\int_0^1 W_m d\zeta,\\
288: W_m &=\frac{m^2}{8}\frac{q_m\left[\zeta(1-\zeta)\right]^{2m-1}}{(\zeta-p_m)^2+q_m\left[\zeta(1-\zeta)\right]^{2m}} \nonumber\\
289: &+\frac{1}{2}\frac{q_m\left[\zeta(1-\zeta)\right]^{2m-1} \left[\zeta(1-\zeta)+m(2\zeta-1)(\zeta-p_m)\right]^2} {\left\{(\zeta-p_m)^2+q_m\left[\zeta(1-\zeta)\right]^{2m}\right \}^2} \nonumber\\
290: &+\frac{1}{8}\frac{q_m^2 \zeta^{4m-2}(1-\zeta)^{4m} \left[\zeta(1-\zeta)+m(2\zeta-1)(\zeta-p_m)\right]^2} {\left\{(\zeta-p_m)^2+q_m\left[\zeta(1-\zeta)\right]^{2m}\right \}^3}.
291: \end{align}
292: We fix $p_m$ and $q_m$ so that they minimize $A_m$. For $m=1\sim 4$, they are given as\\
293:
294: $ \begin{cases}
295: &m=1:\quad p_1=0.83,\quad q_1=4.0, \quad A_1=1.14\\
296: &m=2:\quad p_2=0.61,\quad q_2=2.3\times 10, \quad A_2=2.23\\
297: &m=3:\quad p_3=0.56,\quad q_3=1.57\times 10^2, \quad A_3=3.28\\
298: &m=4:\quad p_4=0.52,\quad q_4=1.36\times 10^3, \quad A_4=4.34.\\
299: \end{cases}$\\
300:
301: It seems that $p_m$ approaches to $0.5$ when $m$ becomes large. For the convenience of numerical estimation, we fix $p_m$ as $0.5$ for $m$ larger than $4$ and determine $q_m$ so as to minimize $A_m$. The result is given as follows:\\
302:
303: $
304: \begin{cases}
305: &m=5: \quad q_5=1.35\times 10^4 \quad A_5=5.42\\
306: &m=6: \quad q_6=1.45\times 10^5 \quad A_6=6.49\\
307: &m=7: \quad q_7=1.66\times 10^6 \quad A_7=7.57\\
308: &m=8: \quad q_8=1.96 \times 10^7 \quad A_8=8.65\\
309: &m=9: \quad q_9=2.41\times 10^8 \quad A_9=9.74\\
310: &m=10:\quad q_{10}=3.06 \times 10^9 \quad A_{10}=10.8.\\
311: \end{cases}
312: $ \\
313: The results for $A_m$ and $q_{m+1}/q_m$ are given in Fig.1 and Fig.2, respectively.
314: We are then led to the approximate formulae
315: \begin{equation}
316: A_m=a+bm,\quad a=0.052,~b=1.076
317: \end{equation}
318: and
319: \begin{equation}
320: \frac{q_{m+1}}{q_m}=c\left(1-d~{\rm{e}}^{-fm}\right), \quad c=14.0,~ d=0.769,~f=0.234.
321: \end{equation}
322:
323:
324: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
325: \begin{figure}[pb]
326: \centering \psfig{file=J12.eps,width=7cm}\caption{$A_m$ vs. $m$}
327: \label{fig:1}
328: \end{figure}
329:
330: \begin{figure}[tpb]
331: \centering\psfig{file=K12.eps,width=7cm}
332: \caption{$\frac{q_{m+1}}{q_m}$ vs. $m$} \label{fig:2}
333: \end{figure}
334:
335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
336:
337:
338: Since the infinite product $\prod_{m=0}^{\infty}\left(1-d~{\rm{e}}^{-fm}\right)\equiv B$ converges to $0.00592$,
339: we have ${\rm{log}}~q_m\sim m~{\rm{log}}~c +{\rm{log}}~B$ for large $m$.
340: From the fact that $a\sim 0$ and $b \sim A_1$, it looks like that there exists an atom-like object Q with energy $b$
341: and unit $m$ and that the assembly of $m$ Q's constitutes the configuration with $m$.
342:
343: With the original variables, the energy density $K(\rho)$ defined by $A_1=\int_0^{\infty} K(\rho) d\rho$ and $R(\rho)$ for
344: $m=1$ are given in Fig.3 and Fig.4, respectively.
345:
346:
347: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
348: \begin{figure}[pb]
349: \centerline{\psfig{file=K.eps,width=7cm}}\caption{Energy density
350: $K(\rho)$ vs. $\rho$} \label{fig:3}
351: \end{figure}
352:
353: \begin{figure}[pb]
354: \centering\psfig{file=R1.eps,width=7cm} \caption{$R(\rho)$ vs.
355: $\rho$} \label{fig:4}
356: \end{figure}
357:
358: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
359:
360:
361:
362: \section{Summary}
363: We have examined the vortex solutions of the Faddeev model. Through
364: the change of variables, the field equation was converted to an
365: algebraic differential equation containing an integer-parameter $m$.
366: Its approximate solution was parameterized with the aid of two
367: parameters $p_m$ and $q_m$. They were fixed so that the energy per
368: unit length of vortex, $A_m$, became minimal. It was observed that
369: the minimum of $A_m$ is proportional to $m$ approximately.
370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%<Comments added>
371: The numerical analysis of the Faddeev model made so far clarified
372: the knot structure of the genuine three-dimensional solitons.
373: We hope that our two-dimensional analysis might be helpful for
374: the understanding of the latter since knot-solitons may be regarded
375: as the bended and twisted vortices.
376: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
377:
378:
379: \section*{Acknowledgments}
380: This research was partially supported by the National Natural
381: Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 10601031).
382:
383: \begin{thebibliography}{0}
384: \bibitem{Faddeev}L. Faddeev,
385: {\it Lett. Math. Phys. }{\bf 1}, (1976) 289.
386: \bibitem{FN}L. Faddeev and A. J. Niemi,
387: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf 82}, (1999) 1624.
388: \bibitem{Sky}T.H.R. Skyrme,
389: {\it Nucl. Phys.}{31} (1961) 556.
390: \bibitem{Ba-Sut1}R. A. Battye and P. M. Sutcliffe,
391: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf 81}, (1998) 4798.
392: \bibitem{Ba-Sut2}R. A. Battye and P. M. Sutcliffe,
393: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf 79}, (1997) 363.
394: \bibitem{Hi-So}J. Hietarinta and P. Salo,
395: {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 451}, (1999) 60.
396: \bibitem{Hi-Shi}M. Hirayama and C.-G. Shi,
397: {\it Phys. Lett. B}{\bf 652},(2007) 384.
398: \bibitem{Cho}Y. M. Cho,
399: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{87}}, 252001 (2001).
400: \bibitem{Ya-Hi}J. Yamashita and M. Hirayama,
401: {\it Phys. Lett. B}{\bf 642},(2006) 160.
402: \end{thebibliography}
403: \end{document}
404:
405:
406: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
407: