1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{subfigure}
4: %\usepackage{multicol}
5: %\usepackage{amsmath}
6: \topmargin=-2cm \textwidth=18cm \textheight=24.5cm \evensidemargin
7: 0truecm \oddsidemargin=-1cm
8: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
9: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\pr}{\prime}
12: \newcommand{\pp}{\prime \prime}
13: \newcommand{\ppp}{\prime \prime \prime}
14: \newcommand{\pppp}{\prime \prime \prime \prime}
15: \newcommand{\p}{\partial}
16: \newcommand{\f}{\frac}
17: \newcommand{\ri}{\rightarrow}
18: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}
19: \newcommand{\bt}{\beta}
20: \newcommand{\g}{\gamma}
21: \newcommand{\z}{\zeta}
22: \newcommand{\D}{\displaystyle}
23: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}
24: \begin{document}
25: \begin{titlepage}
26: \begin{flushright}
27: NTUA- 4/01
28: \end{flushright}
29:
30: \vskip2truecm
31:
32: \begin{center}
33: \begin{large}
34: {\bf The Phase Diagram for the anisotropic
35: SU(2) Adjoint Higgs Model in 5D: \\ Lattice
36: Evidence for Layered Structure}
37:
38: \end{large}
39: \vskip1truecm
40:
41: P.~Dimopoulos$^{(a)}$\footnote{E-mail: petros@ecm.ub.es},
42: K.~Farakos$^{(b)}$\footnote{E-mail: kfarakos@central.ntua.gr}, and
43: G. Koutsoumbas$^{(b)}$\footnote{E-mail:
44: kutsubas@central.ntua.gr}
45:
46:
47: \vskip1truecm
48:
49: {\sl $^{(a)}$ ECM, University of Barcelona, Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona,
50: Spain} \\
51: {\sl $^{(b)}$ Physics Department, National Technical University\\
52: 15780 Zografou Campus, Athens, Greece}
53:
54: \end{center}
55: \vskip1truecm
56:
57: \begin{abstract}
58:
59: \noindent We explore, by
60: Monte Carlo and Mean Field methods, the
61: five--dimensional SU(2) adjoint Higgs model.
62: We allow for the possibility of different couplings
63: along one direction, describing the so--called anisotropic model.
64: This study is motivated by the possibility of the appearance of
65: four--dimensional layered dynamics. Actually, our results lead to
66: the conclusion that the establishment of a layered phase in
67: four dimensions described by U(1) symmetry is
68: possible, the extra dimension being confined due to the SU(2)
69: gauge symmetry. The five-dimensional
70: adjoint Higgs model turns out to have a layered phase, in
71: contradistinction with what is known about the pure $SU(2)$ model.
72:
73: \end{abstract}
74: \end{titlepage}
75:
76: \section{Introduction}
77:
78: The idea of extra dimensions has been around since the time of
79: Kaluza and Klein \cite{kk}. The main goal has been a unified and consistent
80: description of the evolution of the Universe and a unification of
81: the known interactions. The approach is appealing, although no
82: experimental or observational facts give any compelling
83: evidence to support such a hypothesis. One of the main problems
84: of the method is the connection with four-dimensional Physics.
85:
86: During the last four years there has been a revived interest in such
87: models, mainly due to the concern about the hierarchy problem.
88: There are two versions of using extra dimensions, depending on whether
89: they are considered as compactified \cite{sdimo} or not \cite{rs}.
90: Much work have been already done on
91: the graviton localization problem in the four-dimensional
92: space (3-brane) which is embedded in a higher dimensional space
93: and furthermore on problems related with the localization of
94: gauge and matter fields \cite{alex}.
95:
96: Fu and Nielsen in 1984 \cite{funiel} originated work on
97: the problem of a higher--dimensional space on the lattice. They
98: considered a five dimensional pure U(1) gauge theory and showed,
99: by Mean Field methods, that for certain values of the
100: couplings for the $n$ extra dimensions four dimensional layers may
101: be formed within the $(4+n)$-dimensional space.
102: The main feature of the layer space is Coulomb interaction
103: along the layer combined with confinement
104: along the extra dimensions. Actually, it is this confinement
105: which forbids interaction with neighbouring layers and manifests our
106: effective detection of a four dimensional world. Many works on the lattice
107: have been appeared and are based on these ideas, using either a pure $U(1)$
108: theory or the Abelian Higgs Model.
109: The lattice results (\cite{stam}, \cite{dim1})
110: have given serious evidence for a layered structure in either
111: the Coulomb or the Higgs phase.
112:
113: It should also be mentioned that consideration of non-Abelian
114: gauge theories in relation with the layered structure has been
115: already performed both at zero \cite{rab} and finite
116: temperature \cite{china}.
117: Especially, for the case of zero temperature there is a
118: prediction that the layered structure in pure non-Abelian theories
119: may exist if the theory is defined in six or higher dimensions.
120: Also the pure SU(2) theory in five
121: dimensions with anisotropic couplings has been studied in
122: \cite{kubo} but in a different context since the theory is studied
123: in the region where $\beta_{g}^{\prime} \gg \beta_{g}$, the
124: lattice spacing in the fifth direction being smaller than the
125: corresponding ones along the other four directions to simulate a
126: small compactification radius.
127:
128: In this paper we consider the five--dimensional SU(2)--adjoint
129: Higgs model with anisotropic couplings on the lattice \footnote{
130: For the analysis of the three and four dimensional SU(2)--adjoint
131: Higgs model see
132: \cite{nad,MZ}.}.
133: Actually, we explore the phase
134: diagram of the model and we find that for certain values of the
135: couplings a layered structure in Higgs phase does really exist and that
136: it is associated with the unbroken U(1) symmetry in the Higgs
137: phase. Before introducing the details concerning the phases of the
138: model it should be mentioned that although the pure SU(2) theory
139: exhibits a non--physical five--dimensional layered phase, the
140: introduction of the scalars in the adjoint representation
141: opens up the possibility of the appearance of the layered phase
142: in four dimensions. Furthermore, as one
143: can see from our results, the confinement along the extra
144: dimension is due to a SU(2) strong interaction which gives a
145: possible hint for the physical implications of the
146: model in accordance with the idea of the four-dimensional layer
147: formation. This procedure may be connected with some old efforts
148: which proposed the localization of the fields on a membrane
149: playing the role of our four--dimensional world which is embedded
150: in a higher-dimensional one \cite{Barnaveli}. The idea of the SU(2)
151: confinement in the transverse dimension with subsequent localization of the
152: fields on the remaining ones can be found in \cite{Dvali}, although
153: this work was refering to a four--dimensional space--time.
154:
155: In section 2 we write down the lattice action for the model and we
156: present the order parameters which we have studied.
157: Monte Carlo results are presented in
158: section 3; in particular we present results on both the isotropic
159: and the anisotropic models.
160: In the Appendix we present the Mean Field Analysis of the
161: model from which many interesting conclusions can be derived about
162: the behaviour of the system. Also the comparison of the Mean Field
163: against the Monte Carlo results gives a feeling about the validity of
164: the Mean Field approach, which is useful if one wishes to use it
165: in situations where the Monte Carlo simulation is too time
166: consuming.
167:
168:
169: \section{The Lattice action and the order parameters}
170: In order to express the anisotropic SU(2)--adjoint Higgs model on
171: the lattice we single out the direction $ \hat{5}$ by couplings
172: which differ from the corresponding ones in the remaining four
173: directions. Thus, we write down explicitly:
174: \begin{eqnarray}
175: S=& &\beta_{g} \sum_{x, 1 \leq \mu \leq \nu} (1-\frac{1}{2} Tr U_{\mu \nu}(x)) +
176: \beta^{\prime}_{g} \sum_{x,\mu} (1-\frac{1}{2} Tr U_{\mu 5}(x))
177: \nonumber \\
178: &+& \beta_{h} \sum_{x, \mu} \left(\frac{1}{2}
179: Tr\left[\Phi^{2}(x)\right]
180: - \frac{1}{2} Tr\left[\Phi(x)U_{\mu}(x)
181: \Phi(x+\hat{\mu})U^{\dag}_{\mu}(x)\right]\right) \nonumber \\
182: &+& \beta^{\prime}_{h} \sum_{x}
183: \left(\frac{1}{2} Tr\left[\Phi^{2}(x)\right] - \frac{1}{2} Tr\left[\Phi(x)U_{5}(x)
184: \Phi(x+\hat{5})U^{\dag}_{5}(x)\right]\right) \nonumber \\
185: &+& (1-2 \beta_{R} -4 \beta_{h} -\beta^{\prime}_{h}) \sum_{x} \frac{1}{2}
186: Tr\left[\Phi^{2}(x)\right] + \beta_{R} \sum_{x} \left(\frac{1}{2}
187: Tr\left[\Phi^{2}(x)\right]\right)^{2}
188: \label{action}
189: \end{eqnarray}
190: where $U_{\mu}=e^{igA_{\mu}}$ and $U_{5}=e^{igA_{5}}$.
191: $U_{\mu \nu}$ and $U_{\mu 5}$ are
192: the plaquettes defined on the four dimensional space and along the
193: extra direction respectively.
194: The gauge potential and the matter fields are represented by
195: the $2 \times 2$ Hermitian matrices $A_\mu=A_\mu^a \sigma_{a}$ and
196: $\Phi=\Phi^{a} \sigma_{a}$ respectively,
197: where $\sigma_{a}$ are the Pauli matrices.
198: The couplings refering to the fifth
199: direction are primed to distinguish them from the ``space--like"
200: ones.
201:
202: The order parameters that we use are separated in space--like and
203: transverse--like ones, except from the Higgs field measure squared
204: which does not depend on the direction. The relevant definitions follow:
205:
206: \be
207: {\rm Space-like~Plaquette:~~~} P_S \equiv <\f{1}{6 N^5} \sum_x
208: \sum_{1 \le \mu<\nu \le 4} Tr U_{\mu \nu}(x)>
209: \ee
210: \be
211: {\rm Transverse-like~Plaquette:~~~} P_T \equiv <\f{1}{4 N^5}
212: \sum_x \sum_{1 \le \mu \le 4} Tr U_{\mu 5}(x)>
213: \ee
214: \be
215: {\rm Space-like~Link:~~~} L_S \equiv <\f{1}{4 N^5} \sum_x
216: \sum_{1 \le \mu \le 4} \frac{1}{2} Tr\left[\Phi(x)U_{\mu}(x)
217: \Phi(x+\hat{\mu})U^{\dag}_{\mu}(x)\right] / \frac{1}{2} Tr\left[\Phi^{2}(x)\right] >
218: \ee
219: \be
220: {\rm Transverse-like~Link:~~~} L_T \equiv <\f{1}{N^5} \sum_x
221: \frac{1}{2} Tr\left[\Phi(x)U_{5}(x)
222: \Phi(x+\hat{5})U^{\dag}_{5}(x)\right] / \frac{1}{2} Tr\left[\Phi^{2}(x)\right]>
223: \ee
224: \be
225: {\rm Higgs~field~measure~squared:~~~} R^2 \equiv \f{1}{N^5} \sum_x
226: \frac{1}{2} Tr\left[\Phi^{2}(x)\right]
227: \ee
228:
229: In the above equations $N$ is the linear dimension of
230: the symmetric $N^5$ lattice.
231:
232: The behaviours of each of the chosen order parameters which
233: characterize the various phases of the system
234: will be explained in the next sections.
235:
236: \section{Monte Carlo Results}
237: In performing the simulations we used the
238: Kennedy--Pendleton heat bath algorithm for the updating of the gauge field
239: and the Metropolis algorithm for the Higgs field. The
240: exploration of the phase
241: diagram was done using the hysteresis loop
242: method. Except for the cases where large
243: hysteresis loops are present and indicate first order phase transitions,
244: our analysis is not accurate enough to determine the order of
245: the phase transitions, in particular of the continuous ones.
246: The phase transition lines
247: have been determined up to the accuracy provided by the hysteresis
248: loop method. The simulations have been performed mainly on
249: $4^5$ and $6^5$ lattice volumes. However at selected phase space
250: points we have used $8^5$ lattice volumes to better determine
251: the location of the phase transition lines.
252:
253: We first present the phase diagram for the isotropic model and
254: then we go on with the anisotropic one for two values of the
255: $\beta_{g}$ lattice gauge coupling, namely $\beta_{g}=0.5 \
256: \mbox{and} \ 1.2$. The reason for these choices will become clear soon
257: and is related with the possible gauge symmetry surviving in the
258: layered phase.
259:
260:
261: \subsection{The Isotropic Model}
262:
263: When we consider the isotropic model,
264: the action is given by (\ref{action}) where
265: $\beta_g^\pr=\beta_g$ and $\beta_h^\pr=\beta_h. $
266: Before proceeding we should state some analytical predictions which
267: are extremely useful
268: for the characterization of the various phases of our model and
269: will be heavily used in the sequel.
270: These predictions concern the values of the plaquette in the strong
271: and weak coupling phases for a pure gauge lattice theory.
272: We expect
273: that the original $SU(2)$ symmetry of the model will eventually break
274: down to $U(1),$ since the scalar field belongs to the
275: adjoint representation.
276: Thus we present the relevant results for
277: both symmetry groups. It is convenient to present these predictions for the
278: isotropic case, since the values of the space-like and the time-like
279: plaquettes coincide $(P_T=P_S\equiv P).$
280: Let us first consider $SU(2).$ We know
281: that for a strongly coupled model $(\beta_g << 1)$ the plaquette
282: is given by $$P \approx \D{\f{\beta_g}{4}},\ {\rm if} \ \beta_g << 1. $$
283: In the weak coupling for a $D-$
284: dimensional $SU(2)$ theory the plaquette is approximated by: $$P \approx
285: 1-\f{3}{D \beta_g}, \ {\rm if} \ \beta_g >> 1.$$
286: For $U(1)-$symmetric theories the corresponding
287: approximations read:
288: $$P \approx \f{\beta_g}{2}, \ {\rm if} \ \beta_g << 1$$ and
289: $$P \approx 1-\f{1}{D \beta_g},\ {\rm if} \ \beta_g >> 1.$$
290: We have not specified the dimension $D$ of space-time on purpose. Of
291: course, in this subsection, $D=5.$ However, when we consider the
292: anisotropic models, we may have eventually a dimensional reduction from
293: $D=5$ to $D=4.$
294:
295: Before even performing the simulations we know some general characteristics of the
296: phase diagram. For $\beta_h=0$ the scalar fields decouple from the
297: dynamics and the model reduces to five-dimensional pure $SU(2).$ The model is
298: known \cite{creu, kawai} to undergo a phase transition at $\beta_g \simeq 1.63$ from
299: the strong coupling phase $S,$ where the plaquette behaves as
300: $\D{\f{\beta_g}{4}},$ to a Coulomb phase $C,$ where the plaquettes
301: asymptotically behave as $1-\D{\f{3}{5 \beta_g}}.$ Of course, this
302: critical point will be part of a phase transition line, which will
303: continue in the interior of the phase diagram. We also know the
304: characteristics of the $\beta_h \rightarrow \infty$ limit. To begin with,
305: the model is in the Higgs phase. Only a
306: $U(1)$ subgroup of the $SU(2)$ gauge symmetry will survive in this limit, so
307: the model will effectively be a five-dimensional
308: pure $U(1)$ gauge model with coupling
309: $\beta_g.$ This model also has a phase transition (as one varies $\bt_g)$
310: from the strong coupling Higgs phase $H_S$
311: $\left(P \approx \D{\f{\beta_g}{2}}\right)$ to
312: a weak coupling Higgs phase $H_C$ $\left(P \approx 1-\D{\f{1}{5 \beta_g}}\right).$
313:
314: In figure \ref{Fig1.1} we give the phase diagram for the isotropic five-dimensional
315: SU(2) adjoint Higgs model in terms of the $\beta_{g}$ and
316: $\beta_{h}$ lattice
317: couplings, having fixed the Higgs self--coupling constant to the value
318: $\beta_{R}=0.01$.
319: We can begin by the understanding that the value of $\bt_R$ is of
320: secondary importance: a small value for $\bt_R$ corresponds to strong phase
321: transitions, while larger values cause the various
322: transitions to weaken. This has been the invariable result of very
323: many simulations in the past for various symmetry groups, mainly
324: for tree- and four-dimensional space-time. We expect that something
325: similar will characterize our model, so we set $\bt_R=0.01$ for all
326: our simulations.
327:
328: \begin{figure}[!h]
329: \begin{center}
330: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{phdiag_iso.eps}
331: \caption{Phase diagram for the isotropic model and for $\beta_{R}=0.01.$
332: With the help of the hysteresis loops all the phase transition lines
333: turn out to be first order. }\label{Fig1.1}
334: \end{center}
335: \end{figure}
336: \begin{figure}
337: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig2a.eps}}
338: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig2b.eps}}
339: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig2c.eps}}
340: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig2d.eps}}
341: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig2e.eps}}
342: \caption{Sample runs on $4^5$ lattice volumes.
343: (a) An example for the $S-C$ phase transition where the plaquette
344: is depicted, for $\beta_{h}=0.2$.
345: (b) The $S-H_{S}$ phase transition for $\beta_{g}=0.5$ where
346: the plaquette and $R^2$ behaviour are shown. (c) The $S-H_{C}$ phase
347: transition for $\beta_{g}=1.2$
348: (d) The $H_{S}-H_{C}$
349: phase transition for $\beta_{h}=0.5$ for the plaquette values showing clearly
350: the transition from the Confining to Coulomb phase of U(1) gauge symmetry.
351: (e) The plaquette hysteresis loop for
352: the $C-H_{C}$ phase transition at $\beta_{g}=1.8$.}\label{Fig2.1}
353: \end{figure}
354:
355: In figure \ref{Fig1.1}
356: we may also see the limiting cases that we described previously
357: and how they form part of
358: the full phase diagram. Within $S$ and $C$ we are in the phase with
359: unbroken symmetry, where $R^2 \sim 1.$ The phases $H_S$ and $H_C$
360: are characterized by a value of $R^2$ substantially bigger than $1.$
361: The phase transitions appear to be first order, since they exhibit
362: large hysteresis loops.
363:
364: In the sequel (figure 2) we will present some of the results
365: that we used to derive the phase diagram.
366: In figure 2(a) we depict the plaquette as a function of $\bt_g$ for
367: $\bt_h=0.2.$ This line in the parameter space crosses the $S-C$
368: phase transition line. One may check that the expression $\D{\f{\bt_g}{4}}$
369: slightly underestimates the plaquette (but it is quite close). The
370: deviation is bigger for the Coulomb phase. We should remark here that
371: the analytical expression for the weak coupling
372: systematically overestimates the result.
373:
374: Figure 2(b) contains results concerning the $S-H_S$ phase transition.
375: $\bt_g$ is set to 0.5 and $\bt_h$ runs.
376: We see the rise of $R^2$ as $\bt_h$ crosses the phase transition line,
377: signaling the onset of the Higgs phase. A very large hysteresis loop
378: appears, indicating a first order transition. The plaquette
379: value yields some hints about the symmetry group
380: prevailing in each phase. For
381: small values of $\bt_h$ the plaquette equals $\D{\f{\bt_g}{4}}=0.125$ with
382: very good precision, so it corresponds to the strong coupling phase
383: of a pure $SU(2)$ model. For large values of $\bt_h$ the remaining symmetry
384: is presumably $U(1).$ This is indeed consistent with the value of the
385: plaquette, which, for large enough $\bt_h,$ tends to the value
386: $\D{\f{\bt_g}{2}}=0.250,$ which is the signature of the strong coupling
387: phase of $U(1).$ Consequently, we are in the strong coupling regime of the
388: $U(1)$ which survives the Higgs transition.
389:
390: Figure 2(c) contains material on the $S-H_C$ transition. Here $\bt_g$
391: is set to 1.2. Again we
392: check from the value of $R^2$ that we move to a Higgs phase; the
393: phase transition takes place at about $\bt_h = 0.30.$ Before the transition
394: the plaquette equals $\D{\f{\bt_g}{4}}=0.30$ to a very good precision, so
395: we start again with the $SU(2)$ strong coupling phase. After the
396: phase transition the plaquette tends to the value $1-\D{\f{1}{5 \bt_g}} = 0.83,$
397: which characterizes the weak coupling phase of five-dimensional $U(1).$
398:
399: In figure 2(d) we depict the transition from $H_S$ to $H_C:$ $\bt_h$ is set
400: to a large value, $\bt_h=0.5,$ to make sure that we are in the Higgs phase,
401: and $\bt_g$ runs.
402: The plaquette in $H_S$ behaves as $\D{\f{\bt_g}{2}}$ (strong $U(1)),$
403: while after the transition it follows the curve $1-\D{\f{1}{5 \bt_g}}.$
404:
405: Finally, figure 2(e) contains information on the $C-H_C$ phase transition:
406: $\bt_g$ is set to the large value 1.8 and $\bt_h$ varies. We
407: start with the value 0.61 for the plaquette, which is well approximated by
408: the formula $1-\D{\f{3}{5 \bt_g}}.$
409: Anyway this value characterizes the weak $SU(2).$
410: After the transition the plaquette tends to the value $1-\D{\f{1}{5 \bt_g}}=0.89,$
411: that is to a weak $U(1)$ theory.
412:
413: The hysteresis loops are quite sizeable and they indicate
414: that the phase transitions are of first order.
415:
416:
417: \subsection{The Anisotropic Model}
418:
419: The phase diagram of the anisotropic model is expected to be much
420: richer than the one of the isotropic model, studied in the previous
421: paragraph. The parameter space is very large (consisting of the
422: parameters $\bt_g, \bt_g^\pr, \bt_h, \bt^\pr_h, \bt_R),$ so a crucial
423: step is to decide which subspace is interesting to investigate.
424: Of course we set $\bt_R=0.01$ as before.
425: On the other hand we know the behaviour of the system
426: in the four-dimensional limit. If $\bt_g^\pr=0$ and $\bt_h^\pr=0,$
427: the system becomes strictly four-dimensional. Here also, the
428: qualitative features of the phase diagram are well known since a long
429: time \cite{MZ}: The four-dimensional model
430: will have a strong-coupling phase $S,$ for relatively small
431: values of $\bt_h,$ and a four-dimensional Higgs phase, $H_4,$ for
432: large values of $\bt_h.$ The $U(1)$ symmetry which survives in the Higgs
433: phase $H_4$ has a phase transition separating a strong from a weak phase.
434: The problem is what will happen when the
435: ``primed" quantities $\bt_g^\pr$ and $\bt_h^\pr$ take on
436: non-zero values. We will first determine the phase diagram on the
437: $\bt_g^\pr-\bt_h$ plane, for $\bt_h^\pr=0.001$ at selected values of
438: $\bt_g.$ Later on, we will study the role of $\bt_h^\pr.$
439:
440: We now choose the values of $\bt_g$ for which we will scan the
441: $\bt_g^\pr-\bt_h$ plane. The first value will be $\bt_g=0.5,$
442: since we would like to have a value of $\bt_g$ lying
443: in the strong coupling regime.
444: Note that (referring to figure 1),
445: in the isotropic model, if one starts at $\bt_g=0.5,$ for
446: large enough $\bt_h$ one will end up into the strong coupling Higgs
447: phase, $H_S.$
448: An interesting remark is that the confinement scale,
449: which is contained naturally in the theory at $\bt_g=0.5,$ may serve as
450: a cut-off; the cut-off is necessary to define a non-renormalizable
451: model, such as this one.
452: For completeness we also choose the value $\bt_g=1.2,$
453: for our second set of measurements. The difference from the
454: $\bt_g=0.5$ case is that, in the isotropic model, one ends up with
455: the weakly coupled Higgs phase $(H_C),$ if $\bt_h$ is set to a large value.
456: We do not try any
457: value of $\bt_g,$ which corresponds to the five-dimensional
458: Coulomb phase of $SU(2),$ that is $\bt_g>1.63,$
459: since starting from a weakly coupled
460: $SU(2)$ it is unlikely that one may end up with a layered phase,
461: which is the main subject of the present work. Thus we will only
462: study the values $\bt_g=0.5$ and $\bt_g=1.2.$
463:
464: It is interesting to point out that the criterion that we used in the
465: previous paragraph to discriminate between phases, namely the
466: behaviour of the plaquettes for strong and weak couplings needs to be
467: modified. This is necessary, since, for instance, $\bt_g$ may lie in the weak
468: coupling range, while $\bt_g^\pr$ may be strong. In addition we may
469: encounter space-times with effective dimensions 4 or 5, so the
470: expressions concerning the weak coupling will also change. A first
471: guess at the behaviour of the plaquettes is that $P_S$ will behave
472: as $\D{\f{\bt_g}{4}}$ in the strong $SU(2)$ regime and as $1-\D{\f{3}{D \bt_g}}$
473: in the weak coupling $SU(2)$ for D dimensions. Correspondingly,
474: $P_T$ will be
475: given by similar expressions, with $\bt_g$ replaced by $\bt_g^\pr.$
476: The behaviours of the plaquettes if the surviving symmetry is $U(1)$
477: read $\D{\f{\bt_g}{2}}, \ 1-\D{\f{1}{D \bt_g}}$ for $P_S$ and
478: $\D{\f{\bt^\pr_g}{2}}, \ 1-\D{\f{1}{D \bt_g^\pr}}$ for $P_T.$
479: It turns out that these expressions are not very good approximations.
480: They give the qualitative flavour of each phase but are
481: less accurate than the corresponding formulae of the isotropic model.
482: We now proceed with the study of the two chosen values of $\bt_g.$
483:
484:
485: \vspace{0.5cm}
486:
487: $\bullet$ \hspace{0.1cm} $\mathbf{ \beta_{g}=0.5}$
488: \vspace*{0.2cm}
489:
490: We begin by giving the phase diagram that we obtain, as we did
491: with the isotropic model. Later on we will give the results of
492: some of the runs that we used to derive the phase diagram.
493: The phase diagram is depicted in
494: figure \ref{Fig1.2} and has three phases: The Strong, confining phase $S,$
495: the ``layered", four-dimensional Higgs phase, $H_4,$ and the
496: five-dimensional Higgs phase, $H_5.$ Let us explain briefly what
497: we understand about these phases. The $S$ and $H_5$ phases are
498: fairly easy to understand: they are the five-dimensional
499: phases with unbroken and
500: broken symmetry respectively. The expected
501: behaviours of the plaquettes are given in table 1. In particular,
502: in the confining phase $S,$ $P_S$ and $P_T$ will behave as
503: $\D{\f{\beta_{g}}{4}}$ and $\D{\f{\beta^{\prime}_{g}}{4}}$ respectively.
504: In the $H_5$ phase the $SU(2)$ symmetry will be broken down to a
505: (weak coupling) $U(1),$ so the behaviours of $P_S$ and $P_T$ are
506: $1-\D{\f{1}{5 \beta_{g}}}$ and $1-\D{\f{1}{5 \beta^{\prime}_{g}}}$
507: respectively. The $H_4$ phase needs some clarifications. When
508: $\bt_g^\pr=0, \bt_h^\pr=0,$ we expect that the system will be
509: strictly four-dimensional. When $\bt_g^\pr$ and $\bt_h^\pr$ are
510: small (but non-zero),
511: we expect that we may have some kind of layer structure
512: (that is, almost four-dimensional), which is characterized by
513: small transverse-like quantities and large space-like ones. This
514: is the phase that we have denoted by $H_4.$ However, in this case,
515: it is not only the transverse direction which is confining $\left(P_{T}
516: \sim \D{\f{\beta^{\prime}_{g}}{4}}\right),$ but also the space-like
517: behaviour is dominated by the strong coupling
518: $\bt_g=0.5,$ that is $P_S \sim \D{\f{\beta_g}{2}}.$ In other words, we
519: have a strong coupling confining behaviour both in the transverse
520: direction (where the $SU(2)$ symmetry remains intact, and the
521: denominator is $4)$ and within the layer, where the symmetry is
522: broken down to $U(1),$ which is the reason behind the denominator
523: $2.$ Thus in this phase we have $SU(2)$ confinement along
524: the extra fifth direction, and $U(1)$ confinement
525: within the layers. Since by the term layered phase we mean a
526: situation with confinement in the transverse direction and Coulomb
527: behaviour within the layers, we remark here that this term is not
528: proper here, so we should enclose the word {\it layered} in quotes in
529: this case. Let us note that the two Higgs phases are characterised
530: primarily by large values for the space--like link $L_S$ and the
531: measure squared $R^2$. An
532: important remark is that within $H_4$ the $SU(2)$ symmetry does
533: not break down to $U(1)$ in the transverse direction. It is only
534: within the layers that the symmetry group changes.
535:
536: \begin{figure}[!h]
537: \begin{center}
538: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{phdiag_bg05.eps}
539: \caption{Phase diagram for the anisotropic model for $\beta_{g}=0.5$ and
540: $\beta_{R}=0.01.$
541: Using the hysteresis loops all the phase transition lines
542: turn out to be first order. }\label{Fig1.2}
543: \end{center}
544: \end{figure}
545:
546: \begin{center}
547: \begin{table}[!b]
548: \hspace*{2cm}
549: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline & \bf{Layer} &
550: \bf{Transverse direction} \\ \hline \bf{S}& SU(2)--strong: $P_{S}
551: \sim \D{\f{\beta_{g}}{4}}$ & SU(2)--strong: $P_{T} \sim
552: \D{\f{\beta^\prime_g}{4}}$ \\ \hline $\mathbf{H_{4}}$ & U(1)--strong:
553: $P_S \sim \D{\f{\beta_g}{2}}$ & SU(2)--strong: $P_{T} \sim
554: \D{\f{\beta^{\prime}_{g}}{4}}$ \\ \hline $\mathbf{H_{5}}$ & U(1)--5D
555: Coulomb: $P_{S} \sim 1-\D{\f{1}{5 \beta_{g}}}$ & U(1)--5D Coulomb:
556: $P_{T} \sim 1-\D{\f{1}{5 \beta^{\prime}_{g}}}$ \\ \hline
557: \end{tabular}
558: \caption{Phase characterization in terms of $P_{S}$ and $P_{T}$
559: values for $\beta_{g}=0.5$.}
560: \end{table}
561: \end{center}
562:
563: \begin{figure}[!h]
564: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig4a.eps}}
565: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig4b.eps}}
566: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig4c.eps}}
567: \caption{Examples concerning the anisotropic model for $\beta_{g}=0.5$.
568: (a) The $H_{4}-H_{5}$ phase transition.
569: (b) The $S-H_{4}$ phase transition. (c) The $S-H_{5}$ phase transition. }
570: \label{Fig2.2}
571: \end{figure}
572:
573: Let us examine in some more detail the behaviour of the various
574: quantities across the phase transitions.
575:
576: In figure 4(a) we have set $\bt_h=0.42,$ so that the system is in the Higgs
577: phase, and we let $\bt_g^\pr$ run. Considering $P_T$ we see that it
578: initially equals $\D{\f{\beta_g^\pr}{4}},$ which signals
579: $SU(2)$ confinement, while after the transition it tends asymptotically
580: to the value $1-\D{\f{1}{5 \bt_g^\pr}},$ that is to a
581: Coulomb phase of $U(1).$ Thus we observe
582: the breaking of the symmetry group in the transverse direction.
583: On the other side of the transition $P_S$ starts with a value quite close to
584: $\D{\f{\beta_g}{2}}=0.250,$ while after the phase transition it
585: approaches asymptotically the value $1-\D{\f{1}{5 \bt_g}}=0.60.$
586: Thus within the layers we have a transition from $U(1)$ confinement
587: to a $U(1)$ Coulomb phase.
588: The above findings are consistent with a transition from $H_4$ to $H_5.$
589:
590: The changes across the
591: $S-H_4$ transition are shown in figure 4(b). $\bt_g^\pr$ has been set
592: to 0.5 (equal to $\bt_g)$ and the $\bt_h$ coupling runs.
593: It turns out that $P_T$ is
594: equal to $\D{\f{\beta_g^\prime}{4}}=0.125$ in both phases.
595: On the contrary, $P_S$ equals
596: $\D{\f{\beta_g}{4}}=0.125$ (equal to $P_T)$ in the strong coupling phase,
597: while after the transition it approaches (for large enough $\bt_h)$ the
598: value $\D{\f{\beta_g}{2}}=0.250,$ which characterizes the $U(1)$ symmetry.
599: Thus the system moves from $S$ to $H_4.$
600: An intriguing feature is that the value
601: $\bt_g=0.5$ is considered as
602: strong coupling in the $S$ phase and the $H_4$ phase (this paragraph)
603: and as weak
604: coupling in the $H_5$ phase (figure 4(a)). This means that it is not just
605: the value of a specific coupling that counts, but also the values of
606: the remaining couplings; in particular the decisive element is the
607: phase in which the system lies.
608:
609: Finally figure 4(c) contains data for $\bt^\pr_g=3.5$ and running $\bt_h.$
610: The space-like plaquette has the value $\D{\f{\beta_g}{4}}=0.125$ for small
611: $\bt_h,$ so it exhibits $SU(2)$ confinement, consistent with
612: an $SU(2)$ strong $(S)$ phase.
613: For large $\bt_h$ it tends to values consistent with $1-\D{\f{1}{5 \bt_g}}=0.60.$
614: On the other hand $P_T$ starts from strong coupling values about 0.64.
615: We again remark that
616: the apparently weak coupling $\beta_g^\prime=3.5$ yields strong coupling
617: behaviour, since the system is in an appropriate phase, due to the
618: values of the remaining couplings.
619: For large $\bt_h,$ $P_T$ tends to the limit $1-\D{\f{1}{5 \bt_g^\pr}}=0.94$
620: and it appears safe to conclude that the system moves from $S$ to $H_5.$
621: The essential difference between the two $S-H$ transitions
622: lies in the fact that $P_T$ does not change at all during the
623: $S-H_4$ transition, but changes from strong $SU(2)$ to weak $U(1)$
624: during the $S-H_5$ transition. The link $L_T$ follows the same scheme.
625:
626: Thus we have explained how the phase diagram has been derived.
627: We should note the absence of a $SU(2)$ Coulomb phase for
628: large values of $\beta_{g}^{\prime}.$ It has not been possible to
629: find it, although we have searched for it up to $\beta_{g}^{\prime} \sim 10$.
630: This result may be
631: attributed to the small chosen value of $\beta_{g}.$
632: The argument goes as follows: let us fix the gauge by
633: requiring that $U_5(x)=1.$ Then the transverse-like plaquettes
634: are in principle driven by $\bt_g^\pr.$ If $\bt_g$ is large
635: enough, it will couple the neighbouring transverse-like hyperplanes,
636: e.g. the $\hat{5} \hat{1}$ and $\hat{5} \hat{2}.$ However, if
637: $\bt_g$ is small (which is the case here) these hyperplanes will
638: decouple and the model will reduce to several copies of the same
639: two-dimensional $SU(2)$ gauge model, which does not exhibit phase
640: transitions.
641:
642:
643: \vspace{0.5cm}
644:
645:
646: $\bullet$ \hspace{0.1cm}
647: $\mathbf{ \beta_{g}=1.2}$\vspace*{0.2cm}
648:
649: As we already stated, we also simulated the system at a larger value
650: of $\bt_g,$ namely $1.2,$ to study its behaviour at weaker couplings.
651: Two striking new features arise: an $SU(2)$ Coulomb phase and a genuine
652: layered $(H_4)$ phase with Coulomb (rather than strong) $U(1)$
653: interations within the layer. As in the previous paragraph, we give the
654: resulting phase diagram in figure \ref{Fig1.3} and summarize
655: the behaviours of the plaquettes in the various phases in table 2. Next we will
656: elaborate on the phase transition lines in more detail and
657: explain how our claims in figure \ref{Fig1.3} and table 2 are derived.
658:
659: \begin{figure}[!h]
660: \begin{center}
661: \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{phdiag_bg12.eps}
662: \caption{Phase diagram for the anisotropic model for $\beta_{g}=1.2$
663: and for $\beta_{R}=0.01.$
664: }\label{Fig1.3}
665: \end{center}
666: \end{figure}
667:
668: \begin{table}[!b]
669: \begin{center}
670: \hspace*{1cm} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline & \bf{Layer} &
671: \bf{Transverse direction} \\ \hline \bf{S}& SU(2)--strong: $P_{S}
672: \sim \D{\f{\beta_{g}}{4}}$ & SU(2)--strong: $P_{T} \sim
673: \D{\f{\beta^{\prime}_{g}}{4}}$ \\ \hline \bf{C}& SU(2)--Coulomb:
674: $P_{S} \sim 1-\D{\f{3}{5 \beta_{g}}}$ & SU(2)--Coulomb: $P_{T} \sim
675: 1-\D{\f{3}{5 \beta^{\prime}_{g}}}$ \\ \hline $\mathbf{H_{4}}$ &
676: U(1)--4D Coulomb: $P_{S} \sim 1-\D{\f{1}{4 \beta_{g}}}$ &
677: SU(2)--strong: $P_{T} \sim \D{\f{\beta^{\prime}_{g}}{4}}$ \\ \hline
678: $\mathbf{H_{5}}$ & U(1)--5D Coulomb: $P_{S} \sim 1-\D{\f{1}{5
679: \beta_{g}}}$ & U(1)--5D Coulomb: $P_{T} \sim 1-\D{\f{1}{5
680: \beta^{\prime}_{g}}}$ \\ \hline
681: \end{tabular}
682: \caption{Table 2: Phase characterization in terms of the $P_{S}$ and $P_{T}$
683: values for $\beta_{g}=1.2$.}
684: \end{center}
685: \end{table}
686:
687: A new phase transition line is the one separating the strong $S$
688: phase from the Coulomb $C$ phase. An example of the transition is
689: given in figure 6(a), where $\bt_h=0.01$ and $\bt_g^\pr$ runs. In
690: the strong phase $S$ both $P_S$ and $P_T$ take a value equal to
691: the $\D{\f{1}{4}}$ of their respective lattice couplings, while their
692: values get large when the system is passes over to the Coulomb
693: phase $C.$ In particular, $P_S$ tends to the value $1-\D{\f{3}{5
694: \beta_{g}}}=0.5,$ while $P_T$ follows the curve $1-\D{\f{3}{5
695: \beta_{g}^\pr}}.$ The
696: $S-C$ phase transition appears to be first order since there is a
697: clear hysteresis loop for the relevant points although not a
698: very large one.
699:
700: In figure 6(b) we show $P_S, P_T$ and $L_T$ as the system moves
701: from $H_4$ to $H_5.$ There is no significant hysteresis loop in any of the
702: three quantities, so the transition is presumably a continuous
703: phase transition or a crossover. The transverse-like link $L_T$
704: moves from a small value in $H_4$ to a large value in $H_5,$ which
705: is actually what one would expect. One can make more quantitative
706: remarks about the two plaquettes. The space-like plaquette $P_S$
707: does not really feel the phase transition very much. The only
708: aspect that changes, from the point of view of $P_S,$ is that the
709: four-dimensional space-time becomes five-dimensional. On the basis
710: of what has been already mentioned, in $H_4$ the space--like
711: plaquette, $P_S$, should approach the
712: value $1-\D{\f{1}{4 \beta_{g}}}=0.79,$ while in $H_5$ the value $1-\D{\f{1}{5
713: \beta_{g}}}=0.83.$ Thus one would expect a slight increase in the
714: value of $P_S$ during the phase transition which is actually observed.
715: On the other
716: hand, the transverse-like plaquette $P_T$ starts with the strong
717: coupling value $\D{\f{\bt_g^\pr}{4}},$ which is expected for the
718: confining $SU(2),$ and ends up with $1-\D{\f{1}{5 \beta_{g}^\pr}},$
719: which characterizes the five-dimensional Coulomb $U(1)$ associated
720: with the $H_5$ phase.
721:
722: As we already said, a very important point is the emergence of a
723: genuine layered phase. The transition $S-H_4$ is shown in figure
724: 6(c) and illuminates some properties of $H_4.$ To begin with,
725: $R^2$ starts from a small value and ends up with values much
726: larger than 1. This ensures that the system moves into a Higgs
727: phase. The space-like plaquette $P_S$ starts with the strong
728: coupling value $\D{\f{\bt_g}{4}}=0.30$ and tends after the transition
729: to the four-dimensional Coulomb $U(1)$ value $1-\D{\f{1}{4
730: \beta_{g}}}
731: = 0.79.$ This is in sharp contrast with the behaviour of $P_S$ in
732: $H_4$ in the $\bt_g=0.5$ case, figure 4(b), where it followed $\D{\f{\bt_g}{2}},$
733: implying strong $U(1).$ Here we observe
734: Coulomb behaviour within the layers.
735: In addition, we have used the value $D=4$ for
736: the dimension of space-time to get the value 0.79. If we had used
737: the value $D=5,$ the resulting value would be 0.83. Our results
738: are not conclusive in this respect. The Monte Carlo value is
739: smaller than the analytical prediction anyway.
740: However comparison with figure 6(b) shows that $P_{S}$ is
741: relatively small, since in the $H_{5}$ phase its value would
742: approach 0.8. Thus, it seems that the choice D=4 is correct.
743:
744: On the other hand one may be
745: confident that the layers are essentially four-dimensional
746: entities, since the values of the transverse-like observables are very
747: small and suggest that the layers are decoupled. In particular
748: $P_T,$ shown in the same figure, takes the value
749: $\D{\f{\beta^{\prime}_{g}}{4}},$ signaling $SU(2)$ confinement in the
750: transverse direction. Thus we have a layered phase, where
751: particles and gauge fields interact through Coulomb $U(1)$
752: interactions within the four-dimensional layers and cannot escape
753: towards the transverse direction because of the $SU(2)$
754: confinement forces which prevail in the space between the layers.
755: In figure 6(d) we show the space-like $(L_S)$ and timelike $(L_T)$
756: links respectively. It is clear that $L_{T}$ has a small value
757: throughout, while $L_{S}$ grows. This is because the real phase
758: change takes place within the layer, where the strong $SU(2)$
759: transforms to four-dimensional $U(1)$ and space-like
760: quantities, such as $L_S,$ are sensitive to this transition.
761: The existence of the large hysteresis loops suggests a
762: first order phase transition.
763:
764: Some sample results concerning the transition $S-H_5$ are
765: contained in figures 7(a) and 7(b). In figure 7(a) the quantity
766: $R^2$ shows that the system moves to a Higgs phase. The space-like
767: plaquette starts with $SU(2)$ confinement behaviour and ends up
768: with Coulomb $U(1)$ behaviour.
769: Similarly, $P_T$ starts with $SU(2)$ confinement
770: behaviour and ends up with Coulomb $U(1)$ behaviour.
771: This is consistent with an $S-H_5$ transition. The
772: analytical predictions here are not precise at all in this case.
773: In particular, the predictions for the plaquettes in the $H_5$ phase
774: are $P_S \approx 1-\D{\f{1}{5 \beta_{g}}}=0.83$ and $P_T \approx
775: 1-\D{\f{1}{5 \beta_{g}^\pr}}=0.87.$ However the Monte Carlo results
776: show that $P_S > P_T.$ Also the analytical result
777: $\D{\f{\bt_g^\pr}{4}}=0.375$ in the phase $S$ does not agree well with
778: the Monte Carlo result 0.48. Thus in this case one should be
779: content with the qualitative features characterizing the phase
780: transition. The link variables of figure 7(b) are also consistent
781: with an $S-H_5$ transition. It is remarkable that although we
782: insist on the rather small value $\beta_{h}^{\prime}=0.001,$ the system
783: passes over to the $H_{5}$ phase which is characterised by large
784: values for all order parameters. In addition, the large
785: hysteresis loops suggest a first order transition.
786:
787: Finally the $C-H_5$ transition, which is shown in figure 7(c) also
788: appears to be first order. However the hysteresis loop is small, so
789: more detailed analysis is needed in this case.
790:
791: \begin{figure}[!h]
792: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig6a.eps}}
793: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig6b.eps}}
794: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig6c.eps}}
795: \hspace*{3.5cm} \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig6d.eps}}
796: \caption{(a) $P_{S}$ and $P_{T}$ for the $S-C$ phase transition.
797: (b) $L_{T}$, $P_{S}$ and $P_{T}$ for the $H_{4}-H_{5}$
798: phase transition. (c) $R^2, P_{S}$ and $P_{T}$ for the $S-H_{4}$
799: phase transition. (d) $L_{S}$ and $L_{T}$ for the $S-H_{4}$
800: phase transition.}
801: \label{Fig3}
802: \end{figure}
803:
804: \begin{figure}
805: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig7a.eps}}
806: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig7b.eps}}
807: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig7c.eps}} \caption{(a)
808: $R^2, P_{S}$ and $P_{T}$ for the $S-H_{5}$ phase transition. (b)
809: $L_{S}$ and $L_{T}$ for the $S-H_{5}$ phase transition. (c) $R^2$
810: and $L_{S}$ for the $C-H_{5}$ phase transition.}
811: \end{figure}
812:
813:
814:
815: \subsection{The effect of $\bt_h^\pr$}
816:
817: In this paragraph we go ahead with some results concerning the
818: effects of the $\bt_h^\pr$ coupling, which has been set to the
819: value 0.001 up to now. In figure \ref{ptbgt0406bhtrun} we have
820: fixed the couplings to the values $\bt_g=1.2, \ \bt_h=0.45, \
821: \bt_R=0.01$ and performed a scanning in $\bt_h^\pr$ at two values
822: of $\bt_g^\pr.$ The order parameter considered is the
823: transverse-like plaquette $P_T.$ For $\bt_g^\pr=0.4$ we see that
824: we start from an $SU(2)$ confining theory for small $\bt_h^\pr$
825: (the value of the plaquette equals $\D{\f{\bt_g^\pr}{4}}=0.1)$ to end
826: up with a $U(1)$ confining theory, since the value of $P_T$ tends
827: to $\D{\f{\bt_g^\pr}{2}}=0.2.$
828: The space--like plaquette $P_{S}$ takes on big values and it seems
829: to indicate that the layers remain in the Coulomb phase.
830: One may be tempted to think that it is
831: a layered phase. However, a look at figure \ref{ltbgt0406bhtrun},
832: which contains the corresponding links, reveals something strange:
833: for large enough $\bt_h^\pr$ the transverse-like link is not
834: small, as one would expect from a layered phase. The physical
835: understanding of this situation is that the gauge field cannot
836: really travel from a layer to the neighbouring one. However, since
837: we have arranged the couplings to place the system in the Higgs
838: phase, symmetry breaking has occured, resulting in a $U(1)$
839: residual symmetry along with a scalar particle with zero charge.
840: Nothing can prevent this particle from moving over the whole
841: lattice, which has the result of giving a large value for $L_T,$
842: as we see in figure \ref{ltbgt0406bhtrun}. We remark that $L_T$ is
843: the gauge invariant propagator of the scalar particle at the
844: distance of one lattice spacing. This physical situation has not
845: been encountered before. It is a new phase, which contains $U(1)$
846: gauge fields localized within the layers and a freely moving
847: scalar field. One may like to call this phase $C_4,$ since the
848: scalar field does not play any significant role. It is a gauge field
849: in a four-dimensional Coulomb phase coupled to a massive scalar.
850:
851: \begin{figure}[!h]
852: \begin{center}
853: \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{ptbgt0406bhtrun.eps}
854: \caption{The transverse-like plaquette at $\bt_g=1.2, \bt_h=0.45$ and $\bt_R=0.01$ for $\bt_g^\pr=0.4$ and $\bt_g^\pr=0.6.$ }
855: \label{ptbgt0406bhtrun}
856: \end{center}
857: \end{figure}
858:
859: At $\bt_g^\pr=0.6$ we have the upper curve of figure
860: \ref{ptbgt0406bhtrun}. The system starts at the $SU(2)$ confining
861: phase with $P_T$ taking the value $\D{\f{\bt_g^\pr}{4}}=0.15,$ but the
862: final phase appears to be weakly coupled $U(1),$ with $P_T \approx
863: 1-\D{\f{1}{5 \bt_g^\pr}} = 0.67.$ The transverse-like link is also
864: large in this case for the same reason. If one would like to give
865: a name to this phase, one would call it $C_5.$ We observe that,
866: although at $\bt_g^\pr=0.4$ there is no trace of a phase
867: transition between strong $SU(2)$ and strong $U(1),$ the
868: transition from strong $SU(2)$ to weak $U(1)$ at $\bt_g^\pr=0.6$
869: exhibits a (small) hysteresis loop in between, signaling a
870: possible phase change. We remark here that the value
871: $\bt_h^\pr=0.001$ that we used for most of our Monte Carlo
872: simulations is rather small; in particular it lies before the
873: phase transition for $\bt_g^\pr=0.6$ of figure
874: \ref{ptbgt0406bhtrun}.
875:
876: \begin{figure}[!h]
877: \begin{center}
878: \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{ltbgt0406bhtrun.eps}
879: \caption{The transverse-like link at $\bt_g=1.2, \bt_h=0.45$
880: and $\bt_R=0.01$ for $\bt_g^\pr=0.4$ and $\bt_g^\pr=0.6.$ }
881: \label{ltbgt0406bhtrun}
882: \end{center}
883: \end{figure}
884:
885: A remark concerning figure \ref{ltbgt0406bhtrun} is that the curve for for
886: $\bt_g^\pr=0.6$ is steeper than the one for $\bt_g^\pr=0.4.$ Thus
887: we expect (actually verified) that for bigger values of $\bt_g^\pr$
888: it will be even steeper, meaning that if $\bt_g^\pr$ is large enough,
889: even a small value of $\bt_h^\pr$ is enough to take the system out of the
890: $SU(2)$ confinement.
891:
892: \begin{figure}[!h]
893: \begin{center}
894: \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{ptltbht02bgtrun.eps}
895: \caption{The transverse-like plaquette and link at $\bt_g=1.2, \bt_h=0.45$
896: and $\bt_R=0.01$ for $\bt_h^\pr=0.2$ and running $\bt_g^\pr.$ }
897: \label{ptltbht02bgtrun}
898: \end{center}
899: \end{figure}
900:
901: From figure \ref{ptbgt0406bhtrun} we see that if we set
902: $\bt_h^\pr=0.20$ and let $\beta_g^\pr$ run, we should see a change
903: in the behaviour of the system between $\bt_g^\pr=0.4$ and
904: $\bt_g^\pr=0.6.$ The results of this run is displayed in figure
905: \ref{ptltbht02bgtrun}. The transverse-like link takes a large
906: value, the same in both the $C_4$ and $C_5$ phases, while $P_T$
907: follows $\D{\f{\bt_g^\pr}{2}}$ in the beginning and then changes to
908: $1-\D{\f{1}{5 \bt_g^\pr}},$ with a hysteresis loop in between.
909:
910:
911:
912: \begin{figure}
913: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{lslthiggs.eps}}
914: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{r2higgs.eps}}
915: \caption{Graphs derived by hysteresis loop technique for the pure
916: scalar field showing the $L_{S}$, $L_{T}$ (fig.(a)) and $R^{2}$
917: (fig. (b)) as $\beta^{\prime}_{h}=0.001$ and $\beta_{h}$ is
918: running.} \label{scalar}
919: \end{figure}
920:
921: \subsection{The role of the scalar field}
922:
923: We would like to study the role of the scalar field in the
924: formation of the layered phase, so we simulate our model setting
925: the lattice gauge couplings $\bt_g$ and $\bt_g^\pr$ to infinity.
926: Thus the gauge fields do not play
927: role any more and we are left with the dynamics of the scalar
928: fields. In a sense figure \ref{scalar}, which we will present
929: shortly, is similar to figure 7(c), with the difference that
930: $\bt_g$ and $\bt_g^\pr$ are infinite rather than taking a finite
931: value. The results on the hysteresis loops for $L_{S}$ and $L_{T}$
932: of the pure scalar field model are shown in figure \ref{scalar}.
933: We have set $\beta_{h}^{\prime}=0.001,$ while $\beta_{h}$ is
934: running. One can see that there is a possible phase transition
935: near $\beta_{h}=0.25$ (which is a reasonable critical point, since
936: one would expect the value $\D{\f{1}{D-1}},$ with $D=5$). Before the
937: phase transition we have a symmetric phase (since $R^2$ is
938: small, as shown in figure \ref{scalar}(b)); in addition $L_T$ is
939: zero in this phase, so we conclude that the system actually
940: consists of four-dimensional layers.
941: After the transition $R^2$ becomes large and the two links take
942: large, almost equal values. Thus, the system moves presumably towards a
943: five-dimensional Higgs phase, $H_5.$
944:
945: An interesting issue is the dependence of $L_T$ on the value of
946: $\bt_h^\pr.$ In figure \ref{scalar}(a) (that is, for $\bt_h^\pr=0.001)$
947: the transverse-like link $L_T$ takes
948: a large value if $\bt_h$ becomes
949: large enough. Thus it appears that no $H_4$ phase appears. On the other hand
950: we know that if $\bt_h^\pr=0$ the scalar model is strictly four-dimensional.
951: Thus we expect some phase transition between the two values
952: $\bt_h^\pr=0$ and $\bt_h^\pr=0.001.$
953: The question is whether the phase transition takes place exactly at
954: $\bt_h^\pr=0$ or at some small but non-zero value.
955: To this end we have measured $L_T$
956: for small values of $\bt_h^\pr$ and present the results in table 3.
957: For each value of $\bt_h^\pr$ we present the statistical average of $L_T$
958: in the second column along with the limits within which this quantity
959: fluctuates in columns three and four.
960: One may easily see that for $\bt_h^\pr$ smaller than about
961: $10^{-5}$ the transverse-like link $L_T$ is compatible with zero,
962: while the fluctuations are large.
963: The mean value $L_T$ increases with $\bt_h^\pr$, while the fluctuation
964: range decreases.
965:
966: It appears that $L_T$ is zero for small $\bt_h^\pr.$ It seems that
967: there exists a critical value for $\bt_h^\pr$ above which $L_T$ takes
968: on a non-zero value. However, it is possible that the existence of a
969: non-zero critical value might be a volume effect. In particular this
970: critical value (which lies between $10^{-5}$ and $10^{-4}$ for the
971: $6^5$ volume considered in table 4) may tend to zero as the volume is
972: increased. In other words it is possible to have this phase change
973: exactly at $\bt_h^\pr=0.$ To investigate this issue we have set
974: $\bt_h^\pr$ to two small values, namely $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-5}$ and
975: measured $L_T$ for various volumes. For $\bt_h^\pr=10^{-4}$ we see in
976: table 4 that we have wild fluctuations and a small mean value for the
977: $4^5$ volume, while for bigger volumes the fluctuations are drastically
978: reduced and the average increases accordingly. Thus, if one would stop
979: at $4^5,$ one might think that the coupling $\bt_h^\pr=10^{-4}$
980: lies in the region where $L_T=0.$ However, we see readily that this
981: depends very much on the volume used: for larger volumes the same
982: coupling lies in the regime where $L_T \ne 0.$
983: One may try to move to even smaller values for $\bt_h^\pr,$ for example
984: the value $10^{-5}$ shown on the right part of table 4.
985: This value appears to be in the $L_T=0$ region for both $4^5$ (not shown)
986: and $6^5$ lattices. However, if we move to the $8^5$ volume, it also
987: gives non-zero values for $L_T.$ It seems safe to conclude that the
988: critical value of $\bt_h^\pr$ for infinite volume is actually $\bt_h^\pr=0.$
989: Perhaps one should also explore smaller values of $\bt_h^\pr$ to
990: corroborate this conclusion, however we claim that, since we have
991: checked down to values of the order of $\D{\f{1}{V}},$ this conclusion holds
992: true.
993:
994:
995: \begin{table}[!h]
996: \begin{center}
997: \hspace*{1cm} \begin{tabular}{|c|r|r|r|} \hline
998: $\bt_h^\pr$ & $L_T$ & $L_{low}$ & $L_{high}$\\ \hline
999: $0.00$ & -0.059& -0.65 &0.46\\ \hline
1000: $10^{-7}$& -0.075& -0.69 &0.44\\ \hline
1001: $10^{-5}$& 0.015& -0.60 &0.75\\ \hline
1002: $10^{-4}$& 0.745& 0.41 &0.93\\ \hline
1003: $10^{-3}$& 0.948& 0.89 &0.98\\ \hline
1004: $10^{-2}$& 0.968& 0.91 &0.99\\ \hline
1005: \end{tabular}
1006: \end{center}
1007: \caption{Behaviour of $L_T$ and the limits of its statistical
1008: fluctuations for the pure scalar field for a $6^5$ lattice.}
1009: \end{table}
1010:
1011: \begin{center}
1012: \begin{table}[!h]
1013: \begin{center}
1014: \hspace*{1cm} \begin{tabular}{|c|r|r|r||c|r|r|r|} \hline
1015: \multicolumn{4}{|c||}{$\bt_h^\pr = 10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$\bt_h^\pr = 10^{-5}$} \\ \hline
1016: V& $L_T$ & $L_{low}$ &$L_{high}$ & V& $L_T$ & $L_{low}$ & $L_{high}$ \\ \hline
1017: $4^5$ & 0.258 & -0.54 & 0.94 & $6^5$ & 0.15 & -0.60 & 0.75 \\ \hline
1018: $6^5$ & 0.745 & 0.41 & 0.93 & $8^5$ & 0.890 & 0.80 & 0.95 \\ \hline
1019: $8^5$ & 0.934 & 0.87 & 0.96 & $10^5$& 0.915 & 0.83 & 0.97 \\ \hline
1020: \end{tabular}
1021: \end{center}
1022: \caption{Behaviour of $L_T$ and the limits of its statistical
1023: fluctuations for the pure scalar field. Two values for $\bt_h^\pr$ are
1024: explored for various lattice volumes.}
1025: \end{table}
1026: \end{center}
1027:
1028: In conclusion, we have not found any sign of four-dimensional
1029: (layered) Higgs phase for the scalar model. Its absence
1030: can be attributed to the lack of gauge interactions
1031: which could provide the mechanism for confinement along the
1032: transverse direction.
1033: This leads to the conclusion that
1034: if one wants to have a layered phase in realistic theories with
1035: localization of the fields within a
1036: four--dimensional subspace (in the framework of a theory in higher
1037: dimensions), gauge field interactions are necessary.
1038: Similar conclusions have been reached by Fu and Nielsen \cite{fn2} through a
1039: mean field treatment of the $O(N)$ model. The ``localization scale"
1040: (i.e. the energy above from which the extra
1041: dimension becomes visible) appears to be determined by the gauge
1042: coupling constants. On the other hand, we have already mentioned that
1043: a pure $SU(2)$ gauge theory has no layer phase in five dimensions. It appears
1044: that a coordinated action of the gauge and scalar sectors is
1045: necessary to produce a layered phase in 5 dimensions, since each sector
1046: on its own cannot be efficient in this respect.
1047:
1048: \newpage
1049: \section{Concluding Remarks}
1050: In this paper we have tried to find a layer phase in the SU(2)--adjoint
1051: Higgs model in five dimensions using lattice simulations. Apart
1052: from exploring the phase diagram for the isotropic model we
1053: focused our attention to the {\it anisotropic} one. We determined
1054: the phase diagram in the $\beta_{h} - \beta_{g}^{\prime}$
1055: hyperplane of the lattice parameter space and we found out
1056: that there is a four--dimensional layered Higgs phase exhibited by
1057: the model which is separated by a phase boundary from the
1058: strong phase. This is an entirely new result
1059: which is attributed to the gauge--scalar interaction considered.
1060: Let us recall the well-known result that
1061: the pure SU(2) gauge theory exhibits a layered structure
1062: in six dimensions only and yields a non-physical Coulomb
1063: layered phase in five dimensions. The other new and interesting
1064: feature of the model is that for some region of the lattice
1065: couplings the formation of the layered Higgs phase is
1066: attributed to the SU(2) strong interaction along the
1067: transverse--extra dimension. This fact serves as an important
1068: physical indication of the way that four dimensional layers
1069: may be formed. \\
1070: The whole construction may have interesting implications on models
1071: based on grand unified groups, such as $SU(5),$ with the scalars in
1072: the adjoint representation (for example the one with dimension 24)
1073: defined in a higher--dimensional space. From this model
1074: we could get a layered phase in four dimensions. The model would be
1075: promising if the relevant scale of this layer formation would be
1076: of the same order of magnitude as the scale of
1077: the symmetry breaking from $\mbox{SU(5)}$ down to
1078: $\mbox{SU(3)} \times \mbox{SU(2)} \times \mbox{U(1)}$.
1079:
1080: \vspace*{0.7cm}
1081: \noindent{\Large \bf{Acknowledgements}}
1082:
1083: \noindent The authors acknowledge partial financial support by the TMR
1084: Network entitled ``Finite Temperature phase transitions in
1085: Particle Physics", EU contract number FMRX-CT97-0122. K.F. thanks
1086: C. Bachas and C. Korthals--Altes for useful discussions.
1087:
1088: \vspace*{1.2cm}
1089:
1090: \noindent{\Large \bf{Appendix: Mean Field Analysis}}
1091: \vspace*{0.3cm}
1092:
1093: \noindent Our starting point is the partition function \be Z=\prod_x
1094: \int \prod_{\mu=1}^5 dU_\mu(x) \int d \Phi(x)
1095: e^{-S(a_\mu^M, e^m)}, \quad S(a_\mu^M, e^m) = S_G+S_{GH}+S_H, \label{pf} \ee
1096: where $$S_G = -\f{\bt_g}{2} \sum_{x,
1097: \mu<\nu<5} Tr [U_\mu(x) U_\nu(x+\hat{\mu}) U^\dagger_\mu(x+\hat{\nu})]
1098: U^\dagger_\nu(x) -\f{\bt_g^\pr}{2} \sum_{x, \mu<5} Tr [U_\mu(x)
1099: U_5(x+\hat{\mu}) U^\dagger_\mu(x+\hat{5}) U^\dagger_5(x)],$$ $$S_{GH} =
1100: -\f{\bt_h}{2} \sum_{x,\mu<5} Tr[\Phi(x) U_\mu(x) \Phi(x+\hat{\mu})
1101: U^\dagger_\mu(x)]-\f{\bt_h^\pr}{2} \sum_{x} Tr[\Phi(x) U_5(x)
1102: \Phi(x+\hat{5}) U^\dagger_5(x)],$$ $$S_H = \bt_R \sum_x\left(\f{1}{2}
1103: Tr \Phi^2-1\right)^2.$$ We note in addition that $$\Phi(x) = \phi^m(x)
1104: \sigma^m, \phi^m(x) \equiv \rho(x) e^m(x)
1105: = \rho(x) (\sin \theta(x) \cos \psi(x), \sin
1106: \theta(x) \sin \psi(x), \cos \theta(x))$$
1107: and $$d \Phi(x) = \f{1}{\pi^{3/2}} e^{-\rho^2(x)} \rho^2(x) d
1108: \rho(x) d \cos \theta(x) d \psi(x) \equiv
1109: e^{-\rho^2(x)} \rho^2(x) d \rho(x) d e(x),$$ along with $$U_\mu(x)=
1110: a^0_{\mu}(x)+i \sum_{m=1}^3 a_\mu^m(x) \sigma^m,$$ $$dU_\mu(x) = \f{1}{\pi^2}
1111: \delta[(a^0_{\mu}(x))^2+\sum_{m=1}^3 (a_\mu^m(x))^2-1] \prod_{M=0}^3
1112: d a_\mu^M(x).$$
1113:
1114: We introduce the unconstrained variables $A_\mu^M(x), M=0,1,2,3,$
1115: corresponding to the gauge field variables
1116: $a_\mu^M(x), M=0,1,2,3,$ and use the identity: $$1
1117: = \prod_x \prod_{M=0}^3 \prod_{\mu=1}^5 \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d A_\mu^M(x)
1118: \delta(A^M_\mu(x)-a^M_\mu(x)) =$$
1119: $$ = \prod_x \prod_{M=0}^3 \prod_{\mu=1}^5 \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
1120: d A_\mu^M(x)
1121: \int_{-i \infty}^{+i \infty}
1122: \f{d \alpha^M_\mu(x)}{2 \pi i} \exp[-\alpha^M_\mu(x)
1123: (A^M_\mu(x)-a^M_\mu(x))],$$ We follow a similar path with the
1124: unconstrained variables $E^m(x), m=1,2,3,$ corresponding to
1125: the scalar field variables
1126: $e^m(x), m=1,2,3,$ which satisfy the identity: $$1 =
1127: \prod_x \prod_{m=1}^3 \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d E^m(x)
1128: \delta(E^m(x)-e^m(x)) =$$ $$= \prod_x \prod_{m=1}^3 \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
1129: d E^m(x) \int_{-i \infty}^{+i \infty} \f{d \epsilon^m(x)}{2 \pi i}
1130: \exp[-\epsilon^m(x) (E^m(x)-e^m(x))].$$
1131:
1132: Next we insert the above factors of 1
1133: in the partition function (\ref{pf}) and rearrange the order of the
1134: integrations:
1135:
1136: $$
1137: Z =
1138: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \prod_{M=0}^3 \prod_{\mu=1}^5 d A_\mu^M(x)
1139: \int_{-i \infty}^{+i \infty} \f{d \alpha^M_\mu(x)}{2 \pi i}
1140: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \prod_{m=1}^3 d E^m(x)
1141: \int_{-i \infty}^{+i \infty} \f{d \epsilon^m(x)}{2 \pi i}
1142: $$
1143: $$
1144: \exp[-S(A_\mu^M,E^m)-\sum_{M=0}^3 \sum_{\mu=1}^5 \sum_x
1145: \alpha_\mu^M(x) A_\mu^M(x)
1146: -\sum_{m=1}^3 \sum_x \epsilon^m(x) E^m(x)]
1147: $$
1148: $$
1149: \int \prod_x \prod_{\mu=1}^5 dU_\mu(x)
1150: \exp\left[\sum_{M=0}^3 \sum_{\mu=1}^5 \sum_x \alpha_\mu^M(x) a_\mu^M(x)\right]
1151: \int \prod_x d \Phi(x)
1152: \exp\left[\sum_{m=1}^3 \sum_x \epsilon^m(x) e^m(x)\right].
1153: $$
1154: Notice that we have used the delta functions to replace $S(a_\mu^M,e^m)$
1155: by $S(A_\mu^M,E^m).$ The two integrals which appear in the last
1156: line can actually be computed.
1157: Thus
1158: $$\exp[\zeta_G(\alpha_\mu^M(x))] \equiv
1159: \int \prod_x \prod_{\mu=1}^5 dU_\mu(x)
1160: \exp\left[\sum_{M=0}^3 \sum_{\mu=1}^5 \sum_x \alpha_\mu^M(x) a_\mu^M(x)
1161: \right]$$ and
1162: $$\exp[\zeta_H(\epsilon^m(x))] \equiv
1163: \f{1}{4 \pi}
1164: \int \prod_x d e(x) \exp\left[\sum_{m=1}^3
1165: \sum_x \epsilon^m(x) e^m(x)\right]$$
1166: are known functions.
1167:
1168: At this stage we make a translationally invariant ansatz, namely
1169: $$A_\mu^M(x)=A \delta_{M0}, \ \alpha_\mu^M(x) = \alpha \delta_{M0}, \ \mu<5,
1170: \ M=0,1,2,3, $$
1171: $$A_5^M(x)=A^\pr \delta_{M0}, \ \alpha_5^M(x) = \alpha^\pr \delta_{M0}, \
1172: M=0,1,2,3, $$
1173: $$\sqrt{[E^1(x)]^2+[E^2(x)]^2+[E^3(x)]^2}=E,
1174: \ \sqrt{[\epsilon^1(x)]^2+[\epsilon^2(x)]^2+[\epsilon^3(x)]^2} = \epsilon, \
1175: \rho(x)=\rho.$$
1176: One can see that, with this choice, the one-site integrals equal:
1177: $$\exp[\zeta_G(\alpha)] = \f{2 I_1(\alpha)}{\alpha}$$ and
1178: $$\exp[\zeta_H(\epsilon)] = \f{\sinh(\epsilon)}{\epsilon}.$$
1179:
1180: Thus the evaluation of the partition function in this approximation reduces
1181: to:
1182:
1183: $$
1184: Z=
1185: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d A
1186: \int_{-i \infty}^{+i \infty} \f{d \alpha}{2 \pi i}
1187: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d E
1188: \int_{-i \infty}^{+i \infty} \f{d \epsilon}{2 \pi i}
1189: \int_0^{+\infty} d \rho
1190: $$
1191: $$
1192: \exp[-S(A,A^\pr,E) -4 \alpha A - \alpha^\pr A^\pr
1193: - \epsilon e+4 \zeta_G(\alpha)+\zeta_G(\alpha^\pr) +\zeta_H(\epsilon)
1194: +log[\rho^2]]
1195: $$
1196: which equals
1197: $$
1198: Z=
1199: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d A
1200: \int_{-i \infty}^{+i \infty} \f{d \alpha}{2 \pi i}
1201: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d E
1202: \int_{-i \infty}^{+i \infty} \f{d \epsilon}{2 \pi i}
1203: \int_0^{+\infty} d \rho
1204: $$
1205: $$
1206: \exp[-\{-6 \beta_g A^4-4 \beta_g^\pr A^{\pr 4}
1207: -4 \bt_h A^2 \rho^2 E^2 -\bt_h^\pr A^{\pr 2} \rho^2 E^2
1208: +(1-2 \beta_R) \rho^2+\beta_R \rho^4-\log[\rho^2]
1209: $$
1210: $$
1211: +4 \alpha A-4 \zeta_G(\alpha) + \alpha^\pr A^\pr-\zeta_G(\alpha^\pr)
1212: + \epsilon E -\zeta_H(\epsilon)) \}]
1213: $$
1214: The expression:
1215: \begin{equation}
1216: \label{fren}
1217: \begin{array}{ll}
1218: V=& -6 \beta_g A^4-4 \beta_g^\pr A^{\pr 4} \\
1219: & -4 \bt_h A \rho^2 E^2-\bt_h^\pr A^\pr \rho^2 E^2\\
1220: & +(1-2 \beta_R) \rho^2+\beta_R \rho^4-\log[\rho^2] \\
1221: & +4 \alpha A-4 \zeta_G(\alpha)+\alpha^\pr A^\pr-\zeta_G(\alpha^\pr)
1222: +\epsilon E -\zeta_H(\epsilon))]
1223: \end{array}
1224: \end{equation}
1225: represents the effective potential.
1226: In five dimensions there are six space-like plaquettes and four
1227: transverse-like ones; this
1228: explains the first line of expression (\ref{fren}).
1229: The second line contains the expressions for the four space-like
1230: links along directions $\hat 1,~\hat 2,~\hat 3,~\hat 4$
1231: and the transverse-like link. The third line
1232: contains the terms that do not refer to directions at all; in particular the
1233: logarithmic last term comes from the measure of the Higgs field. Finally,
1234: the last line contains the contributions of the
1235: integration of the Haar measure:
1236: four $\alpha A- \zeta_G(\alpha)$ terms and
1237: the term with primed quantities from the transverse-like links. A
1238: similar term is connected with the angle of the scalar field.
1239:
1240: Our task reduces now to finding the (absolute) minimum of the effective
1241: potential.
1242: Thus, in the saddle point approximation, we have (for a given $\rho$)
1243: to solve the equations:
1244: \begin{center}
1245: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1246: $\D{\f{\p V}{\p \epsilon}} = 0 \ri E=\coth(\epsilon)-\D{\f{1}{\epsilon}},$
1247: & $\D{\f{\p V}{\p E}} = 0 \ri \epsilon=8 \bt_h \rho^2 A^2 E
1248: +2 \bt_h^\pr \rho^2 A^{\pr 2} E,$\\
1249: $\D{\f{\p V}{\p \alpha}} = 0 \ri A=\D{\f{I_2(\alpha)}{I_1(\alpha)}},$
1250: &$\D{\f{\p V}{\p A}} = 0 \ri \alpha = 6 \bt_g A^3 + 2 \bt_h \rho^2 A
1251: E^2.$\\
1252: $\D{\f{\p V}{\p \alpha^\pr}} = 0 \ri
1253: A^\pr=\D{\f{I_2(\alpha^\pr)}{I_1(\alpha^\pr)}},$ &
1254: $\D{\f{\p V}{\p A^\pr}} = 0 \ri
1255: \alpha^\pr = 16 \bt_g^\pr A^{\pr 3} + 2 \bt_h^\pr \rho^2 A^\pr E^2.$
1256: \end{tabular}
1257: \end{center}
1258: (Of course one should also make sure that it is a minimum and not
1259: another kind of extremum.)
1260: The strategy has been to find first the minimum for fixed
1261: values of $\rho$ and then minimize with respect to $\rho.$
1262: In practice we used the minimization facility of Mathematica rather than
1263: solving the simultaneous equations.
1264:
1265: To check whether we find consistent results with the Monte Carlo approach
1266: we now proceed with the study of the anisotropic model setting
1267: $\bt_g=1.2, \bt_h^\pr=0.001, \bt_R=0.01.$ In other words we compare
1268: the Mean Field results with our previous Monte Carlo results. The resulting
1269: phase diagram is shown in figure \ref{mfphd}.
1270:
1271: \begin{figure}[!h]
1272: \begin{center}
1273: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{mfphdiag.eps}
1274: \caption{Mean field phase diagram in the $\bt_g^\pr - \bt_h$ plane for
1275: $\bt_g=1.2,\beta_{R}=0.01.$ }
1276: \label{mfphd}
1277: \end{center}
1278: \end{figure}
1279:
1280: It contains four phases with
1281: the following characteristics:
1282:
1283: \begin{center}
1284: \begin{tabular}{llllll}
1285: Quantity: &$P_S$ &$P_T$ &$L_S$ &$L_T$ &$R2$ \\
1286: Confining Strong Phase S: &$0 $ &$0 $ &$0$ &$0 $ &$1$ \\
1287: Coulomb Phase C: &$\ne 0$ &$\ne 0$ &$0 $ &$0 $ &$1$ \\
1288: Four-dimensional Higgs Phase $H_4:$ &$\ne 0$ &$0 $ &$\ne 0$ &$0 $ &$>1$ \\
1289: Five-dimensional Higgs Phase $H_5:$ &$\ne 0$ &$\ne 0$ &$\ne 0$ &$\ne 0$ &$> 1$
1290: \end{tabular}
1291: \end{center}
1292:
1293: As we vary $\bt_h$ or $\bt_g^\pr$ we see the various quantities changing
1294: to values signaling the transition to some other phase. In general the
1295: phase diagram coincides with the one derived by Monte Carlo runs, apart
1296: from expected quantitative differences. However there are some remarks
1297: to be made. (a) The mean field method always yields a phase transition
1298: separating the $S$ and $C$ phases. The Monte Carlo simulation for
1299: $\bt_g=0.5$ does not exhibit a $C$ phase. It appears that this phase
1300: transition line at strong gauge coupling is present only in
1301: high-dimensional space-times, where the Mean Field approach is more reliable. Of
1302: course, if the gauge coupling is weak, the $C$ phase also exists for relatively
1303: low--dimensional space-times. (b) The phase transitions are predicted to be
1304: first order by the Mean Field approach. However it is well known that this
1305: approach is not reliable insofar as the orders of the phase transitions are concerned.
1306: (c) It should be pointed out that
1307: there exists a phase separation on the vertical axis $\bt_g^\pr=0.$
1308: This phase boundary is just an artifact of
1309: the specific Mean Field approach that we have adopted. The problem has
1310: already been recognised before \cite{reu} and alternative mean field approaches
1311: have been devised, which avoid this unphysical behaviour. However they seem
1312: rather ad hoc. In addition this phase transition is far from reality only
1313: for very large values of $\bt_h$ (of order 1), while for smaller $\bt_h$
1314: the phase transition is very near the real behaviour. Thus we have decided
1315: not to use these alternatives.
1316:
1317: We may use the Mean Field approach to explore the role of the $\bt_h^\pr$
1318: parameter. We expect that its role will be most important when the remaining
1319: parameters initially locate the system in the $H_4$ phase. If we start with
1320: $\bt_h^\pr=0$ and gradually increase its value, it is natural to expect that
1321: the transverse direction will communicate more and more with the
1322: space-like directions, so gradually the system will move from the $H_4$
1323: to the $H_5$ phase. If the system lies initially in the $S$ or the $C$ phases,
1324: it is conceivable that the system will move to a Higgs phase. However,
1325: we have chosen to find the
1326: critical $\bt_h^\pr$ for each value of $\bt_h (\bt_g^\pr)$ when
1327: $\bt_g^\pr=0.3$ $(\bt_h=0.5)$ and determine in this way the critical line in the
1328: $\bt_h - \bt_h^\pr$ plane ($\bt_g^\pr - \bt_h^\pr$ plane).
1329: The results are contained in figures \ref{03} and \ref{05}. We see that if
1330: $\bt_g^\pr$ (or $\bt_h$) are large enough, the critical $\bt_h^\pr$
1331: tends to zero, that is the system is in the $H_5$ phase from the beginning.
1332: In addition we see that the value $\bt_h^\pr=0.001$ that we have used
1333: throughout the paper is small enough to permit for the existence of
1334: an $H_4$ phase. Finally we note that we cannot detect here the phase
1335: $C_4$ found by the Monte Carlo approach, namely the one with small
1336: $P_T$ but large $L_T.$ This is again due to the specific structure of
1337: our Mean Field approach. In particular the link consists of products of
1338: the gauge link variable multiplied by products of the scalar field angular
1339: variables (which yield bounded contributions). Thus it is not possible to
1340: have small gauge variables on the links (yielding the small $P_T$) and at the
1341: same time have a large $L_T.$
1342:
1343: In addition it is possible to start with $\bt_h^\pr=0$ and the remaining
1344: variables such that the system is initially in the $S$ or the $C$ phases.
1345: It turns out that increasing $\bt_h^\pr$ the system will undergo a phase
1346: transition and move to the $H_5$ phase.
1347: In figure \ref{scl} we have chosen $\bt_h=0.3, \bt_R=0.01, \bt_g=1.2$ and
1348: scanned $\bt_h^\pr$ for various values of $\bt_g^\pr.$ In other words we
1349: scanned various regions of the $S$ and $C$ phases. The result is
1350: somehow more complicated than the ones in the previous two
1351: figures. The system moves from either $S$ or $C$ to $H_5.$
1352:
1353:
1354: \begin{figure}[!h]
1355: \begin{center}
1356: \includegraphics[scale=0.32]{03.eps}
1357: \caption{Phase diagram in the $\bt_h - \bt_h^\pr$ plane for
1358: $\bt_g=1.2,\bt^\pr_g=0.3,\beta_{R}=0.01.$}
1359: \label{03}
1360: \end{center}
1361: \end{figure}
1362:
1363: \begin{figure}[!h]
1364: \begin{center}
1365: \includegraphics[scale=0.32]{05.eps}
1366: \caption{Phase diagram in the $\bt_g^\pr - \bt_h^\pr$ plane for
1367: $\bt_g=1.2,\bt_h=0.5,\beta_{R}=0.01.$}
1368: \label{05}
1369: \end{center}
1370: \end{figure}
1371:
1372: \begin{figure}[!h]
1373: \begin{center}
1374: \includegraphics[scale=0.32]{scl.eps}
1375: \caption{Phase diagram in the $\bt_g^\pr - \bt_h^\pr$ plane for
1376: $\bt_g=1.2,\bt_h=0.3,\beta_{R}=0.01.$}
1377: \label{scl}
1378: \end{center}
1379: \end{figure}
1380:
1381: \newpage
1382: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1383: \bibitem{kk} Th.Kaluza, Sitzungsber.d.Preuss.Akad.d.Wiss. (1921) 996;
1384: O.Klein, Zeitschrift f. Phys. {\bf 37} (1926) 895.
1385: \bibitem{sdimo} N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys.
1386: Lett. {\bf B 429} (1998) 263, hep-th/9803315; I. Antoniadis,
1387: N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. {\bf 436}
1388: (1998) 257, hep-th/9804398.
1389: \bibitem{rs} L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}
1390: 4690 (1999) [hep-th/9906064]; %%CITATION = HEP-TH/9906064
1391: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83} 3370
1392: (1999) [hep-ph/9905221]; %%CITATION = HEP-PH/9905221
1393: \\ A. Karch and L. Randall,
1394: Int.J.Mod.Phys. {\bf A16},780 (2001) [hep-th/0011156]; %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0011156
1395: A. Davidson and P.D. Mannheim, [hep-th/0009064]. %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0009064
1396: \bibitem{alex}W.D. Goldberger and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83} 4922
1397: (1999) [hep-ph/9907447]; %%CITATION = HEP-PH/99007447
1398: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 60} 107505 (1999) [hep-ph/9907218]; \\ %%CITATION = HEP-PH/9907218
1399: H. Davoudias, J.L. Hewett and T.G. Rizzo, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 473}
1400: 43 (2000) [hep-ph/9911262]; \\ %%CITATION = HEP-PH/9911262
1401: T. Gherghetta and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 586} 141 (2000)
1402: [hep-ph/0003129];\\ %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0003129
1403: O. DeWolfe, D.Z. Freedman, S.S. Gubser and A. Karch, Phys. Rev.
1404: {\bf D 62} 0406008 (2000) [hep-th/9909134]; \\ %%CITATION = HEP-TH/9909134
1405: A. Kehagias, K. Tamvakis Phys.Lett. {\bf B 504}:38-46,2001
1406: [hep-th/0010112]; %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0010112
1407: A. Kehagias, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 469} 123 (1999) [hep-th/9906204];
1408: [hep-th/9911134];\\ %%CITATION = HEP-TH/9906204
1409: %%CITATION = HEP-TH/9911134
1410: A. Pomarol, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 486} 153 (2001)
1411: [hep-ph/9911294]. %%CITATION = HEP-PH/9911294
1412: \bibitem{funiel} Y.K. Fu and H.B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B
1413: 236}, 167 (1984).
1414: \bibitem{stam} C.P. Korthals-Altes, S. Nicolis and J. Prades,
1415: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 316} 339 (1993) [hep-lat/9306017]; %%CITATION = HEP-LAT/9306017
1416: A. Hulsebos, C.P. Korthals-Altes and S. Nicolis, Nucl. Phys. {\bf
1417: B 450} 437 (1995) [hep-th/9406003]. %%CITATION = HEP-TH/9406003
1418: \bibitem{dim1} P. Dimopoulos, K. Farakos, A. Kehagias, G. Koutsoumbas
1419: {\it Lattice Evidence for Gauge Field Localization on a Brane}
1420: [hep-th/0007079] (to appear in Nucl. Phys. B); %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0007079
1421: P. Dimopoulos, K. Farakos, G. Koutsoumbas, C.P.
1422: Korthals-Altes, S. Nicolis, {\sl J. High Energy Phys.} {\bf 02(005)}
1423: (2001) [hep-lat/0012028]; %%CITATION = HEP-LAT/0012028;
1424: P. Dimopoulos, K. Farakos, S. Nicolis,
1425: {\it Multilayer Strucure in the Strongly Coupled 5-D Abelian
1426: Higgs Model}, [hep-lat/0105014] %%CITATION = HEP-LAT/0105014
1427: \bibitem{rab} D. Berman and E. Rabinovici, Phys. Lett. {\bf 157 B}
1428: 292 (1985).
1429: \bibitem{china}
1430: Guo-Li Wang and Ying-Kai Fu [hep-th/0101146]; \\ %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0101146
1431: Liang-Xin Huang, Ying-Kai Fu and Tian-Lun Chen,
1432: J.Phys. {\bf G 21} 1183 (1995).
1433: \bibitem{kubo} S. Ejiri, J. Kubo and M. Murata, Phys. Rev. {\bf D
1434: 62} 105025 (2000), [hep-ph/0006217]. %%CITATION=HEP-PH/0006217
1435: \bibitem{nad} S. Nadkarni, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 334}, 559,
1436: (1990); A. Hart, O. Philipsen, J.D. Stack and M. Teper,
1437: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 396}, 217 (1997)
1438: [hep-lat/9612021]. %% CITATION = HEP-LAT/9612021.
1439: \bibitem{MZ} V.K. Mitrjushkin and A.M. Zadorozhny, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 181} 111
1440: (1986).
1441: \bibitem{Barnaveli} A.T. Barnaveli and O.V. Kancheli, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 51}(3)
1442: (1990).
1443: \bibitem{Dvali} G. Dvali and M. Shifman,
1444: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 396}, 64 (1997) ; Erratum-ibid. {\bf B 407}, 452 (1997)
1445: [hep-th/9612128]. %% CITATION = HEP-TH/9612128.
1446: \bibitem{creu} M. Creutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 43} 553 (1979);
1447: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 21}, 2308, (1980).
1448: \bibitem{kawai} H. Kawai, M. Nio and Y. Okamoto, Prog. Theor.
1449: Phys. {\bf 88}, 341 (1992).
1450: \bibitem{reu} R. Baier and H.-J. Reusch, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B
1451: 285}[FS19] (1987) 535.
1452: \bibitem{fn2} Y.K. Fu and H.B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B
1453: 254} (1985) 127.
1454:
1455: \end{thebibliography}
1456:
1457: \end{document}
1458: