1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{epsf}

3: 

4: 

5: %Conventions: 1-loop,2-loop,3-loop, etc., 2d,3d,4d, etc.,

6:  \hoffset=-1cm

7:  \voffset=-1cm

8:  \textwidth=15.5cm

9:  \textheight=21.25cm

10: 

11: % allow a lot of figures and so on

12: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.9}

13: \newcommand{\pp}[1]{\langle\phi^\dagger\phi(#1)\rangle}

14: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.9}

15: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0}

16: \setcounter{topnumber}{4}

17: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{4}

18: \setcounter{totalnumber}{6}

19: \parindent=1em

20: \baselineskip.4cm

21: 

22: \newcommand{\Tint}[1]{{\hbox{$\sum$}\!\!\!\!\!\!\int}_{\!\!\!\!#1}}

23: \newcommand{\la}[1]{\label{#1}}

24: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

25: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

26: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

27: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

28: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

29: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

30: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}

31: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

32: \newcommand{\bi}{\begin{itemize}}

33: \newcommand{\ei}{\end{itemize}}

34: \newcommand{\rmi}[1]{{\mbox{\scriptsize #1}}}

35: \newcommand{\fig}{Fig.~}

36: \newcommand{\eq}{Eq.~}

37: \newcommand{\eqs}{Eqs.~}

38: \newcommand{\nr}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

39: \newcommand{\tr}{{\rm Tr\,}}

40: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

41: \newcommand{\fr}[2]{{\frac{#1}{#2}}}

42: \newcommand{\msbar}{\overline{\mbox{\rm MS}}}

43: \newcommand{\lambdamsbar}{\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}}

44: \newcommand{\lms}{\lambdamsbar}

45: \newcommand{\dr}{{4d\to3d}}

46: \newcommand{\bfp}{{\bf p}}

47: \newcommand{\bfx}{{\bf x}}

48: \newcommand{\pdp}{\phi^\dagger\phi}

49: \newcommand{\bmu}{\bar{\mu}}

50: \newcommand{\se}{Sec.~}

51: \renewcommand{\vec}[1]{{\bf #1}}

52: \def\mb#1         {\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}

53: 

54: \def\lsi{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

55: \def\gsi{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

56: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mathop{\lsi}}

57: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mathop{\gsi}}

58: \newcommand{\mcempty}{\multicolumn{2}{c}{\mbox{}}}

59: \newcommand{\mcemptyl}{\multicolumn{2}{|c}{\mbox{}}}

60: \newcommand{\mcemptyr}{\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\mbox{}}}

61: \newcommand{\mcemptyll}{\multicolumn{2}{||c}{\mbox{}}}

62: \newcommand{\mcemptyrr}{\multicolumn{2}{c||}{\mbox{}}}

63: \newcommand{\re}{{\rm Re}}

64: \newcommand{\im}{{\rm Im}}

65: \newcommand{\ii}{{\rm i}}

66: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

67: % The lines below are necessary in order to enumerate the equations

68: % according to the sections where they are.

69: \makeatletter \@addtoreset{equation}{section} \makeatother

70: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}

71: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

72: 

73: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

74: 

75: \begin{document}

76: 

77: \begin{titlepage}

78: \begin{flushright}

79: Edinburgh 2000/09\\

80: CERN-TH/2000-105\\

81: hep-ph/0004060

82: \end{flushright} 

83: \begin{centering} 

84: 

85: \vfill

86: 

87: {\bf STATIC CORRELATION LENGTHS IN QCD AT\\

88: HIGH TEMPERATURES AND FINITE DENSITIES}

89: \vspace{0.8cm}

90: 

91: A. Hart$^{\rm a}$,

92: M. Laine$^{\rm b,c}$ and 

93: O. Philipsen$^{\rm b}$

94: 

95: \vspace{0.3cm}

96: {\em $^{\rm a}$%

97: Dept.\ of Physics and Astronomy, Univ.\ of Edinburgh,\\

98: Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, Scotland, UK\\}

99: \vspace{0.3cm}

100: {\em $^{\rm b}$%

101: Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23,

102: Switzerland\\}

103: \vspace{0.3cm}

104: {\em $^{\rm c}$%

105: Dept.\ of Physics, P.O.Box 9, FIN-00014 Univ.\ of Helsinki,

106: Finland\\}

107: 

108: \vspace{0.7cm}

109: 

110: {\bf Abstract}

111: 

112: \end{centering}

113: 

114: \vspace{0.3cm}

115: \noindent

116: We use a perturbatively derived effective field theory and 

117: three-dimensional lattice simulations to determine the longest 

118: static correlation lengths in the deconfined QCD plasma phase at high 

119: temperatures ($T\gsim 2 T_c$) and finite densities ($\mu \lsim 4 T$). 

120: For vanishing chemical potential, we refine a previous determination

121: of the Debye screening length, and determine the dependence of different 

122: correlation lengths on the number of massless flavours as well as 

123: on the number of colours. For non-vanishing 

124: but small chemical potential, the existence of Debye screening 

125: allows us to carry out simulations corresponding to the full QCD with 

126: two (or three) massless dynamical flavours, in spite of a complex action. 

127: We investigate how the correlation lengths in the different quantum number 

128: channels change as the chemical potential is switched on. 

129: 

130: %\noindent

131: %PACS numbers: 

132: %12.38.Mh, %        Quark-gluon plasma

133: %11.10.Wx, %        Finite temperature field theory

134: %12.38.Gc, %       Lattice QCD calculations

135: %11.10.Kk, %        Field theory in dimensions other than four.

136: %11.15.Pg, %        Expansions for large numbers of components 

137:            %        (e.g., 1/N sub c expansions)

138: %24.85.+p  %        Quarks, gluons, and QCD in nuclei and nuclear processes

139: %\\

140: %Keywords:

141: %QCD,

142: %finite temperature,

143: %finite density,

144: %dimensional reduction,

145: %quark gluon plasma,

146: %Debye mass.

147: 

148: \vfill

149: 

150: \noindent

151: Edinburgh 2000/09\\

152: CERN-TH/2000-105\\

153: May 2000

154: 

155: \vfill

156: 

157: \end{titlepage}

158: 

159: \section{Introduction}

160: 

161: With the advent of RHIC and ALICE, there is a growing need for a

162: precise understanding of various properties of QCD at temperatures up

163: to a GeV. At the moment, we are still far from a satisfactory level in

164: this respect, even for the equilibrium properties of the plasma.

165: Indeed, even though the system can in principle be described as a gas

166: of quarks and gluons, a fully perturbative computation with these

167: degrees of freedom does in practice not work well at any reasonable

168: temperatures below $\sim 10^{10}$ GeV, since the perturbative series

169: is badly convergent due to infrared sensitive

170: contributions~\cite{gpy}--\cite{ad}.  On the other hand, the only

171: systematic fully non-perturbative method available, four-dimensional

172: (4d) lattice simulations, is severely restricted in the presence of

173: light dynamical fermions, and even more so in the presence of a finite

174: baryon density; the current state of the art is summarised

175: in~\cite{lat99}. A first principles solution of any problem related to

176: non-equilibrium phenomena remains even further in the future.

177: 

178: The physics problem we address in this paper is the determination

179: of various static correlation lengths. To tackle this problem, 

180: we will employ a method which can overcome 

181: some of the difficulties mentioned above.  

182: The method combines analytic and numerical

183: techniques, in a way that both are used in a regime where they are well

184: manageable. First, perturbation theory is employed in deriving, by 

185: what is called dimensional reduction~\cite{dr,rold,hl,generic,bn,ad}, 

186: an effective theory for the long range degrees of freedom of the system.

187: At high temperatures all such degrees of freedom are bosonic, since

188: fermions are screened by non-zero Matsubara frequencies $\pi T n$,

189: with $n$ odd. The reduction step can thus be carried out with

190: dynamical, massless fermions and, as we shall see, with a finite

191: chemical potential. Second, non-perturbative lattice simulations are

192: used to study the infrared sensitive dynamics of the remaining degrees

193: of freedom. The theory to be studied with simulations is the 

194: SU(3)+adjoint Higgs model in three dimensions (3d), and many of its

195: properties have already been determined~\cite{su3adj}.

196: 

197: The method we employ suffers clearly from a number of restrictions.

198: First of all, in QCD it is limited to temperatures above $T_c$,

199: roughly $T \gsim 2 T_c$~\footnote{For the electroweak theory, in

200:   contrast, similar methods allow for a precise determination of the

201:   properties of the phase transition at $T=T_c$ for Higgs masses

202:   $m_H\sim 30...250$ GeV \cite{nonpert,cfh}.}. This can be inferred

203: from a comparison of the dynamical scales described by the effective

204: theory to those integrated out~\cite{ad} as well as, more concretely,

205: from a direct quantitative comparison of the correlation lengths

206: measured within 3d for SU(2)~\cite{hp}, with those determined using 4d

207: SU(2) lattice simulations at finite temperature (without

208: fermions)~\cite{dg}\footnote{For early work with similar conclusions

209:   both in SU(2) and SU(3), see~\cite{rold}. Recently, analogous

210:   results have been reached also by considering

211:   gauge fixed correlators~\cite{fop}, as well as by considering

212:   dimensional reduction of pure SU(3) from (2+1)d to 2d~\cite{rnew}.}.  

213: Second, as we shall see, it

214: is also limited by the largest chemical potential that can be reached.

215: We will be able to go up to $\mu\lsim 4 T$.

216: 

217: If there are restrictions, there are also strengths. What can 

218: be done within the effective theory can be done quite precisely. 

219: The simulations are comparatively easy technically, they yield high 

220: accuracy continuum limits for the quantities under investigation, 

221: and hence there is little ambiguity in the conclusions.

222: For instance, studies in 3d have produced detailed and accurate

223: insight into the 

224: relative sizes of perturbative and non-perturbative contributions to the

225: Debye screening length \cite{lp,hp}, a quantity which 

226: could be directly relevant for such signals of the 

227: quark--gluon plasma as $J/\Psi$ suppression. 

228: 

229: In the present work, we extend the study of \cite{hp} first to 

230: SU(3) Yang-Mills theory, and then to two- and three-flavour QCD in the 

231: massless limit. In comparing with earlier results in SU(3)~\cite{ad,lp},

232: we improve on the accuracy of Debye screening length determination

233: and measure the screening lengths also in the other quantum number

234: channels. We also discuss explicitly the $N_c$ and $N_f$

235: dependence of our results --- here $N_c$ is the number of colours

236: and $N_f$ is the number of (massless) quark flavours.  

237: 

238: We then proceed to extend our calculations to finite baryon density.

239: Our approach is straightforward: dimensional reduction leads to an

240: additional complex term in the effective action, which has to be

241: absorbed in the observables for practical simulations.  This

242: ``reweighting'' displays in principle similar problems as chemical

243: potential simulations in four dimensions (for reviews,

244: see~\cite{lat99,alf}).  We find that for the effective theory there exists

245: a range of volumes and ratios $\mu/T$, however, for which the problems

246: are in practice manageable. We demonstrate this by investigating a

247: range of imaginary chemical potentials~\cite{imagmu}, for which we

248: find complete agreement between reweighted calculations and those

249: using the exact action. We then employ the reweighting technique to

250: the case of real chemical potentials.

251: 

252: Let us note that our approach 

253: relies on $\mu/(\pi T)$ being small, but no restriction is imposed

254: on fermionic masses $m_i, i=1,...,N_f$, 

255: which we take to be zero. In 4d simulations, 

256: on the other hand, progress has been possible when the $m_i$ are

257: taken to be very large~\cite{bigm,ippl}, whereas the temperature 

258: can be small.

259: 

260: \section{Continuum formulation for $\mu=0$}

261: \la{contform}

262: 

263: We start by reviewing the result of the dimensional 

264: reduction step for $\mu=0$. We follow closely Ref.~\cite{ad}.

265: 

266: The effective theory emerging from hot QCD by dimensional reduction \cite{dr}

267: is the SU(3)+adjoint Higgs model with the action

268: \begin{equation} \label{actc}

269:         S = \int d^{3}x \left\{ \frac{1}{2} \tr F_{ij}^2

270:         +\tr [D_{i},A_0]^2 +m_3^{2} \tr A_0^2 

271:         +\lambda_3(\tr A_0^2)^{2} \right\} ,

272: \end{equation}

273: where $F_{ij}=\partial_{i}A_{j}-\partial_{j}A_{i}

274:  +ig[A_i,A_j]$,

275: $D_i = \partial_i + ig_3 A_i$, 

276: $F_{ij},A_i$, and $A_0$ are all traceless $3\times 3$

277: Hermitian matrices ($A_0=A_0^{a}T_{a}$, etc), and $g_3^2$ and $\lambda_3$

278: are the gauge and scalar coupling constants with mass dimension one, 

279: respectively.

280: The physical properties of the effective theory are determined by

281: the two dimensionless ratios 

282: %

283: \beq

284: x=\frac{\lambda_3}{g_3^2}, \quad y=\frac{m_3^2(\bmu_3=g_3^2)}{g_3^4},

285: \la{xy}

286: \eeq

287: %

288: where $\bmu_3$ is the $\msbar$ dimensional regularization

289: scale in 3d. The parameters $x,y$, as well as the scale $g_3^2$, are

290: via dimensional reduction functions of  the temperature $T$

291: and the QCD scale $\lambdamsbar$. For $N_c=3$, the result is \cite{ad}

292: %

293: \bea \label{3d1}

294: g_3^2&=&\frac{24\pi^2}{33-2N_f}\;\frac{1}{\ln(\bmu_g/\lambdamsbar)}

295: \;T,\\

296: x&=&\frac{9-N_f}{33-2N_f}\;\frac{1}{\ln(\bmu_x/\lambdamsbar)},

297: \la{3d2}\\

298: y(x)&=&\frac{(9-N_f)(6+N_f)}{144\pi^2 x}+

299: \frac{486-33N_f-11N_f^2-2N_f^3}{96(9-N_f)\pi^2} + {\cal O}(x). \la{3d3}

300: \eea

301: %

302: We have assumed here $N_f$ massless flavours, but the

303: inclusion of quark masses is also possible in principle. 

304: 

305: The scales entering in \eqs\nr{3d1}, \nr{3d2} are 

306: %

307: \ba \label{muopt}

308: \bmu_i & = & \bmu_T\hat{\mu}_i, \\

309: \bmu_T & = & 4\pi e^{-\gamma_E}T\approx 7.0555T, \qquad  

310: \hat{\mu}_i = 

311: \exp\biggl({-3c_i+4N_f\ln4\over66-4N_f}

312: \biggr), \\

313: c_g & =  & 1,\qquad

314: c_x = {54-22N_f\over 9-N_f}+\fr43 N_f. \la{cg}

315: \ea

316: To be explicit, for $N_f=2$ we obtain

317: \be

318: g_3^2 = \frac{24\pi^2 T}{29\ln(8.11\, T/\lambdamsbar)}, \quad

319: x = \frac{7}{29\ln(6.91\, T/\lambdamsbar )}, \quad

320: y = \frac{7}{18\pi^2 x} + \frac{15}{28\pi^2}.  \la{nf2}

321: \ee

322: Corrections to these expressions are of relative magnitude

323: $\sim {\cal O}(\alpha_s/\pi)^2\sim {\cal O}(x^2)$.

324: 

325: An important question is how small one can

326: in practice take $T/\lambdamsbar$ and

327: still have only small corrections in \eqs\nr{3d1}--\nr{3d3}. As was

328: observed in~\cite{ad}, for $y(x)$ the expansion appears to converge 

329: surprisingly fast, with an error on a few percent level even at 

330: $T\sim \lambdamsbar$. The expansions need {\em a priori} not 

331: be as good for every parameter, however. 

332: 

333: Consider for instance $g_3^2$. One may expect higher loop 

334: graphs to amount to an increase in the effective scale factor $\bmu_g$, 

335: since there are many ``massive'' ($\sim 2\pi T$)

336: particles inside the loops instead of one. Thus an upper bound 

337: on the error in $g_3^2$ can be obtained by evaluating the 2-loop QCD

338: running coupling at the 1-loop scale $\bmu_g\sim 7 T$

339: (for $N_f=0$). This gives a 

340: correction of up to 25\%, which is quite large.

341: An explicit computation of $g_3^2$ including 

342: effects of order ${\cal O}(g^6)$ would thus be welcome in order to 

343: clarify whether the expansion for $g_3^2$ in reality converges as rapidly as

344: for $y(x)$ or not. Such computations are beyond our scope 

345: here and we will simply use \eqs\nr{3d1}--\nr{3d3}; a comparison

346: with direct 4d simulations at $N_f=0$ turns out to be quite

347: satisfactory within this procedure, and thus we will work under the 

348: assumption that the error in $g_3^2,x$ is similarly small

349: as in~$y$.

350: 

351: Finally, we may sometimes want to express the temperature

352: to which our simulations correspond in terms of $T_c$, 

353: rather than $\lambdamsbar$. In view of \eq\nr{nf2},  

354: this requires knowledge of the deconfinement temperature $T_c/\lambdamsbar$,

355: which can only be fixed with 4d simulations.

356: For the case $N_f=0$, we take the value $T_c/\lambdamsbar=1.03(19)$ 

357: from~\cite{4dpt}\footnote{A recent computation~\cite{bfp} favours

358: a slightly larger central value, but well within the error bars.}. 

359: For $N_f\neq 0$, the determination of $T_c$ is not

360: accurate, and we will take $T_c/\lambdamsbar=1.0$ as a reference.

361: Our results however only depend on $T/\lambdamsbar$, so they can be 

362: reinterpreted as corresponding to some other temperature

363: relative to $T_c$ if need be. 

364: 

365: \subsection{Operators and quantum numbers}

366: \la{qn}

367: 

368: The physical observables on which we shall focus in this paper are

369: spatial correlation lengths of QCD at finite temperatures.  

370: For the practical calculations we

371: reinterpret the 3d theory in \eq\nr{actc} which we use to compute them, 

372: as a (2+1)d one.  We take

373: operators to live on the ($x_1,x_2$)-plane, and the correlations are

374: taken in the $x_3$ direction. Thus we compute the spectrum of the 2d

375: Hamiltonian of the effective theory, whose eigenvalues then correspond

376: to {\it screening masses} or inverse spatial correlation lengths of

377: the 4d theory at finite temperature.  Thus, unless otherwise stated,

378: ``bound states'', ``glueballs'' etc. refer to the eigenstates of the

379: effective Hamiltonian and to the screening masses of the 4d theory in

380: the above sense.

381: 

382: We use the quantum number notation 

383: \ba

384: R: & & D_i \to D_i,\quad F_{ij} \to F_{ij}, \quad A_0 \to -A_0, \la{defR}\\

385: P: & & D_1 \to D_1,\quad D_2\to -D_2,

386: \quad F_{12}\to -F_{12},\quad A_0\to A_0, \\

387: C: & & D_i\to D_i^*,\quad F_{ij}\to -F_{ij}^*, \quad  A_0 \to -A_0^*. \la{defC}

388: \ea

389: The action in \eq\nr{actc} is invariant under these operations. 

390: In the finite temperature context, the operation $R$ in the 3d theory

391: is a remnant of the 4d time reversal operation~\cite{ay}.  The parity

392: $P$ means a parity on the 2d plane, i.e.\ a reflection across the

393: $x_1$-axis.  The charge conjugation $C$ is a non-trivial quantum

394: number only for SU(3), since for SU(2) it is just a global gauge

395: transformation $i\tau^2$, so that there are no gauge invariant

396: operators odd in $C$~\cite{ay}. In addition to these discrete transformations,

397: we define a rotation in the ($x_1,x_2$)-plane, with the corresponding

398: angular momentum $J$. Thus the full symmetry group is $SO(2)\otimes

399: Z_2(R) \otimes Z_2(P)\otimes Z_2(C)$, and accordingly we classify our

400: operators and states by $J^{PC}_R$.

401: 

402: We note from \eqs\nr{defR}--\nr{defC}

403: that apart from $D_2$, the action of $RPC$

404: on the operators in the ($x_1,x_2$)-plane corresponds to complex

405: conjugation (and $x_2\to -x_2$). 

406: Thus any real operator which does not contain 

407: $D_2$ is even in $RPC$. This means, in particular, that

408: for the scalar $J=0$ operators in which no single $D_2$ can appear,

409: there are effectively only two 

410: quantum numbers left out of the original three, thus four

411: different channels. 

412: The lowest dimensional gauge invariant operators

413: of these types in the $J=0$ channels are: 

414: \ba

415: J^{PC}_R= 0^{++}_{+}: & & \tr A_0^2, \tr F_{12}^2, ... \nn\\

416: J^{PC}_R= 0^{--}_{+}: & & \tr F_{12}^3, \tr A_0^2F_{12}, ... \nn\\

417: J^{PC}_R= 0^{-+}_{-}: & & \tr A_0 F_{12}, ... \nn\\

418: J^{PC}_R= 0^{+-}_{-}: & & \tr A_0^3, \tr A_0 F_{12}^2, ...\la{contop}

419: \ea

420: All operators here with $C=-1$ vanish identically for SU(2). 

421: Going out of the plane (i.e., allowing also for $F_{13},F_{23}$), 

422: other channels would in principle become possible~\cite{ay}, 

423: but we do not expect them to change our conclusions.

424: 

425: 

426: \section{Lattice formulation for $\mu=0$}

427: \la{contaction}

428: 

429: To simulate the effective theory

430: in \eq\nr{actc} on the lattice, we use the discretised version

431: %

432: \begin{eqnarray}

433: S &=& \beta \sum_{\bfx,i > j}\left(1-\frac{1}{3}\re

434:      \tr U_{ij}(\bfx)\right)

435:      +2\sum_{\bfx} \tr(\varphi(\bfx)\varphi(\bfx)) \nonumber \\

436:   &-&2\kappa \sum_{\bfx,i}\tr(\varphi(\bfx)U_{i}

437:       (\bfx)\varphi(\bfx+{\hat{\imath}})U^{\dagger}_i(\bfx))

438:       +\lambda \sum_{\bfx}(2 \tr(\varphi(\bfx)\varphi(\bfx))-1)^{2},

439:       \label{lattice_action}

440: \end{eqnarray}

441: %

442: where the fields in the lattice action have been rescaled relative

443: to the continuum, 

444: $A_0(\bfx)= ({\kappa/a})^{1/2} \varphi(\bfx)$

445: where $a$ is the lattice spacing, and $U_{ij}(\bfx)$

446: denotes the elementary $1\times 1$ plaquette in the $i,j$-plane 

447: located at $\bfx$.

448: The parameters of the continuum and lattice theory are up to two loops

449: related by a set of equations which become exact in the continuum 

450: limit~\cite{framework,contlatt}, 

451: \bea

452: \beta&=&\frac{6}{ag_3^2}, \quad

453: \lambda=\frac{3 x\kappa^2}{2 \beta}, \nn\\

454: y&=& \frac{\beta^2}{18}

455:                 \left(\frac{1}{\kappa}-3

456:                 -\frac{3x\kappa}{\beta}\right)

457:                 +\frac{3.1759115\,\beta}{4\pi}

458:                      \left(1+\frac{5}{3}x\right) \nonumber\\

459:                 &+&\frac{1}{16\pi^{2}}

460:                   \left[(60x-20x^2)

461:                   \left(\ln\beta+0.08849\right)

462:                   +34.768x+36.130\right].

463: \eea

464: For a given pair of continuum parameters

465: $x,y$ these equations determine the lattice parameters

466: $\kappa,\lambda$ as a function of the lattice spacing, and hence govern

467: the approach to the continuum limit, $\beta\rightarrow \infty$.

468: We have not implemented ${\cal O}(a)$ improvement~\cite{moore_a}

469: here, since the discretisation effects 

470: in the correlation lengths are already quite small 

471: at the values of $\beta$ we are using.

472: 

473: \subsection{Observables}

474: 

475: Operators for all the quantum number channels considered can be constructed

476: from a number of basic operator types.

477: We consider operators involving only scalar fields or products of scalar

478: and gauge field variables,

479: \bea

480: R_2(\bfx)&=&\tr(\varphi^2(\bfx)), \nn\\

481: R_3(\bfx)&=&\tr(\varphi^3(\bfx)), \nn\\

482: L_i(\bfx)&=&\tr \left( \varphi(\bfx)U_i(\bfx)

483: \varphi(\bfx+{{\hat{\imath}}})U_i^{\dag}(\bfx) \right), \nn\\

484: B_1(\bfx)&=&\tr(\varphi(\bfx) U_{ij}(\bfx)), \nn\\

485: B_2(\bfx)&=&\tr(\varphi^2(\bfx) U_{ij}(\bfx)).

486: \eea

487: Furthermore, we have loop operators constructed from link variables only,

488: %

489: \beq

490:  C_{ij}^{1\times1}(\bfx)=\tr\left(

491:  U_i(\bfx)U_j(\bfx+{{\hat{\imath}}})

492:  U^\dag_i(\bfx+{{\hat{\jmath}}})U^\dag_j(\bfx) \right),

493:  \quad i,j=1,2,\,i\not=j,

494: \eeq

495: %

496: and in addition to the elementary plaquette $C^{1\times1}$, we also

497: consider squares of size $2\times2$ as well as rectangles of size

498: $1\times2$, $1\times3$, $2\times3$. 

499: Another useful pure gauge

500: operator is the Polyakov loop along a {\em spatial} direction $j$,

501: \beq

502:   P_j^{(L)}(\bfx)=\re\tr\prod_{m=0}^{L-1}\,

503:   U_j(\bfx+m{{\hat{\jmath}}}), \quad j=1,2,

504: \eeq

505: %

506: which can be used to extract the 3d string tension. It also 

507: gives useful information about finite volume effects via so called

508: torelon states~\cite{mic,ptw}.

509: 

510: Operators with definite quantum number assignments are constructed

511: from the above types by taking linear combinations with

512: appropriate transformation properties. Clearly operators

513: containing an even number of scalar fields, such as $B_2$, will

514: couple to $R = +1$ states, and those with odd, such as $B_1$,

515: to $R = -1$. The different $P,C$ channels can be chosen by 

516: utilising the projection operators $\fr12(1\pm P)$, $\fr12(1\pm C)$ 

517: where, e.g., $C B_1(x_1,x_2) = -B_1^*(x_1,x_2)$, 

518: $P B_1(x_1,x_2) = B_1^*(x_1,-x_2)$. 

519: Different spin states are obtained by employing

520: the operation $R(\theta_n)$ which rotates the operators

521: by $n (\pi/2)$ around~$\bfx$. Note also that even though 

522: lattice rotations are restricted to multiples of $\pi/2$, 

523: we are in practice close enough to the continuum limit that

524: continuum symmetries are reproduced within the statistical errors;

525: thus we keep the continuum notation in terms of $J$ even on the lattice.

526: 

527: In the following we list the operators used 

528: corresponding to \eq\nr{contop}: 

529: \begin{tabbing}

530: \indent \= $P_d$:\,\, \= \kill

531: $0^{++}_+$ channel: \\

532: \> $R$:   \> $R_2(\bfx)$, \\

533: \> $L$:   \> $\re \left(L_1(\bfx)+L_2(\bfx)\right)$, \\

534: \> $C$:   \> real part of symmetric combinations of 

535:              $C^{1\times1},\,C^{2\times2},\,

536:              C^{1\times2},\,C^{1\times3},\,C^{2\times3}$, \\

537: \> $P$:   \> $P_1^{(L)}(\bfx)+P_2^{(L)}(\bfx)$, \\

538: %\> $P_d$: \> $P_1^{(L)}(\bfx)\cdot P_2^{(L)}(\bfx)$ \\

539: \> $T$: \> $\left(P_1^{(L)}(\bfx)\right)^2+\left(P_2^{(L)}(\bfx)\right)^2$,\\

540: \> \\

541: $0^{--}_+$ channel: \\

542: \> $C$:   \> imaginary part of symmetric combinations of

543:              $C^{1\times1},\,C^{2\times2},\,

544:              C^{1\times2},\,C^{1\times3},\,C^{2\times3}$,\\

545: \> $B$:   \> $\im \sum_{n=1}^4 R(\theta_n) B_2(\bfx)$, \\

546: \> \\

547: $0^{-+}_-$ channel: \\

548: \> $B$:   \> $\im \sum_{n=1}^4 R(\theta_n) B_1(\bfx)$, \\

549: \> \\

550: $0^{+-}_-$ channel: \\

551: \> $R$:   \> $R_3(\bfx)$, \\

552: \> $B$:   \> $\re \sum_{n=1}^4 R(\theta_n) B_1(\bfx)$. \\

553: \end{tabbing}

554: We have also measured higher spin states.  For $2^{++}_+$ we have a

555: fairly large basis, identical to the one described in~\cite{hp}. 

556: The $J=1$ states prove to be quite heavy, so that their relevance

557: for the 4d finite temperature system is not 

558: immediately obvious at modest temperatures, and thus

559: for simplicity we consider here only the ground states in the 

560: channels with $R=\pm 1$, without specifying the other quantum numbers.

561: 

562: \subsection{Blocking and matrix correlators}

563: 

564: For later reference, let us recall the general principles

565: of how the operators discussed above can be used for a reliable

566: extraction of correlation lengths~\cite{gev}. 

567: 

568: The eigenstates of the 2d Hamiltonian in the region of

569: parameter space where we work are bound states. 

570: In order to increase the overlap of our operators 

571: onto such extended states, we construct smeared 

572: link and scalar field variables $\phi_i$ as described in~\cite{hp}.

573: For every quantum number channel, we then measure the correlation matrix

574: \beq

575: C_{ij}(t)=\langle \phi_i^\dagger(t)\phi_j(0)\rangle, \la{cij}

576: \eeq

577: where we have denoted $t=x_3$.

578: This matrix can be diagonalised by solving a generalised eigenvalue problem,

579: \beq \label{evp}

580: C^{-1}(0)C(t) \vec{v}_n =\lambda_n(t) \vec{v}_n,

581: \eeq

582: where $\lambda_n(t) \sim \exp(-a M_n t)$. We carry 

583: out this procedure at $t=a,2a,3a,$ which gives somewhat

584: differing eigenvectors $\vec{v}_n$, and check that the 

585: final outcome remains the same within error bars. We normalise

586: the eigenvectors according to $\vec{v}_n^\dagger C(0) \vec{v}_n = 1$, 

587: so that $\Phi_n = \sum_i \vec{v}_n^{(i)} \phi_i$ 

588: satisfy $\Phi_n^\dagger \Phi_n = 1$, and 

589: are thus the normalized eigenstates of the 2d Hamiltonian. 

590: The final results are extracted from the correlation functions 

591: \beq \label{Mt}

592: G_n(t)=\langle \Phi_n^\dagger(t) \Phi_n(0)\rangle=

593: \vec{v}_n^\dagger C(t)\vec{v}_n,

594: \eeq

595: by computing effective masses

596: \beq

597: a M_\rmi{eff,{\em n}}(t)=-\ln\left[\frac{G_n(t+1)}

598: {G_n(t)}\right] \, ,

599: \eeq

600: and ensuring that these have attained a stable plateau value.

601: Information about the composition of $\Phi_n$ in terms

602: of the operators used in the simulation, which we shall 

603: quote in some of our tables, is obtained from the overlaps 

604: $\langle \phi_i^\dagger \Phi_n \rangle = 

605: \sum_j C_{ij}(0)\vec{v}_n^{(j)}$. 

606: 

607: \subsection{Simulation and analysis}

608: 

609: In our Monte Carlo simulation of the lattice action, 

610: \eq (\ref{lattice_action}),

611: link variables are updated by a combination of heat bath and over-relaxation

612: steps with algorithms described in \cite{teper99}. The scalar fields are

613: generated by a combination of heat bath and reflection steps~\cite{bunk}.

614: One ``compound'' sweep consists of several over-relaxation and reflection

615: updates following each heat bath update of gauge and scalar fields.

616: Measurements are taken after every compound sweep. Typically, we gathered

617: between 5 000 and 20 000 measurements depending on the lattice sizes.

618: Statistical errors are estimated using a jackknife procedure with bin

619: sizes of 100 -- 250 measurements.

620: 

621: \section{Numerical results for $\mu=0$}

622: \la{numres}

623: 

624: In this section we discuss simulations of the effective theory for

625: parameter values corresponding to hot SU(3) gauge theory with

626: $N_f=0,2,3,4$ flavours of fermions at zero baryon density.

627: Detailed investigations of finite volume effects and scaling

628: of correlation lengths have been

629: performed for the 3d pure SU(2) and SU(2)+adjoint Higgs theories 

630: in \cite{teper99,hp}, as well as for the 3d pure SU(3) theory

631: in \cite{teper99,lp}. In these works 

632: explicit continuum extrapolations were performed. 

633: For large enough $\beta$ the scaling behaviour was found to be quite

634: good, with continuum results differing from those on a fine lattice by

635: only a few percent. Our gauge couplings here were chosen to produce a

636: similar lattice spacing, and checks also show good scaling.

637: The parameter combinations 

638: and the lattices used for them are collected 

639: in Table \ref{tab_params}.

640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

641: \begin{table}[htb]

642: \begin{center}

643: \begin{tabular}{|c|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|l|l|}

644: \hline

645: \hline

646: $N_f$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$T/T_c$} &

647: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$x$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$y$} &

648: $\beta = 21$ & $\beta = 28$ \\

649: \hline

650: $0$  & 2&0 & 0&11346 & 0&39188 &

651:         $L^2 \cdot T = 28^3$, $38^3$ & $L^2 \cdot T = 40^3$ \\

652: \mbox{}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\sim 10^{11}$} & 0&009636 & 4&0 &

653:         --- & $L^2 \cdot T = 40^3$  \\

654: $2$  & 1&5 & 0&10304 & 0&43668 &

655:         $L^2 \cdot T = 30^3$ & --- \\

656: \mbox{}& 2&0 & 0&09191 & 0&4830 & 

657:         $L^2 \cdot T = 30^3$ & $L^2 \cdot T = 40^3$ \\

658: $3$  & 1&5 & 0&08680 & 0&47890 &

659:         $L^2 \cdot T = 30^3$ & --- \\

660: \mbox{}& 2&0 & 0&07814 & 0&52741 &

661:         $L^2 \cdot T = 30^3$ & --- \\

662: $4$  & 2&0 & 0&062921 & 0&569680 &

663:         $L^2 \cdot T = 30^3$ & --- \\

664: \hline

665: \hline

666: \end{tabular}

667: \caption{ \label{tab_params}

668: {\em The lattice parameters and sizes used for calculations at $\mu=0$.

669: Let us stress that for $N_f>0$, $T/T_c$ means really 

670: $T/\lambdamsbar$, see Sec.~\ref{contform}.}}

671: \end{center}

672: \end{table}

673: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

674: 

675: \subsection{The mass spectrum for $N_f=0$} 

676: 

677: The main features of the spectrum, displayed in detail in 

678: Tables \ref{tab_02_0nf}, \ref{tab_other_0nf}

679: in the Appendix, are the same as those found

680: in previous studies of the confinement region for SU(2) with fundamental

681: \cite{ptw} or adjoint \cite{hp} scalar fields. There is a dense spectrum 

682: of bound states, consisting of a replication of the glueball spectrum

683: found in the $d=2+1$ pure SU(3) theory \cite{teper99}, and additional

684: bound states of scalars, with little mixing between the two. 

685: This may be concluded from the fact that, as indicated in 

686: Table \ref{tab_02_0nf},

687: some eigenstates are composed predominantly of purely gluonic

688: operators $C$, with practically no contribution from operators 

689: carrying the same quantum numbers but containing scalars. Comparing with

690: \cite{teper99}, we find that our 

691: gluonic states have quantitatively the same masses as the

692: corresponding glueballs in the pure Yang-Mills theory; the

693: comparison is shown in Table \ref{tab_comp_pg}.

694: 

695: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

696: \begin{table}[tb]

697: \begin{center}

698: \begin{tabular}{|l|r@{.}lr@{.}l|r@{.}l|}

699: \hline

700:  & \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{gauge--Higgs} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{pure gauge} \\

701: \cline{2-7}

702: $J_R^{PC}$ & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{scalar} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{glueball} &

703: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{glueball} \\

704: \hline

705: \hline

706: $0^{++}_+$ &

707: 0&994 (19)  &  2&511 (65)     &  2&575 (18)  \\

708:  & 

709: 2&95 (16)   &   3&61 (32)     &  3&841 (28)    \\

710: \hline

711: \hline

712: $0^{--}_+$  &

713: 2&46 (10)   &  3&50 (25)     &  3&795 (27)  \\

714: \hline

715: \hline

716: $2^{++}_+$ &

717: 3&355 (94)  &  4&14 (28)     &  4&257 (33)  \\

718: \hline

719: \end{tabular}

720: \caption{ \label{tab_comp_pg}

721:   {\em Mass estimates $M/g_3^2$ at $T=2T_c$ and

722:     $N_f=0$. 

723:     Our data for the glueballs are compared with the results

724:     obtained in the pure gauge theory \cite{teper99}.}}

725: \end{center}

726: \end{table}

727: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

728: 

729: As can be observed from Table~\ref{tab_comp_pg}, however,

730: in the physically interesting region of couplings the lightest

731: states in given quantum number channels are

732: not glueballs but always states including

733: the scalar field $\varphi$. This can be understood in the sense

734: that in the finite temperature context 

735: the phase transition is (for $N_f=0$) assumed to be driven

736: by the $Z(N)$ symmetry related to $A_0$ (or $\varphi$

737: on the lattice), and thus

738: $\varphi$ is the dominant infrared degree of freedom. 

739: Let us now discuss the corresponding correlation 

740: lengths in more detail. 

741: 

742: \subsubsection{The ``magnetic'' sector, $R=+1$}

743: \la{magsec}

744: 

745: Consider first operators with $R=+1$.

746: We will call this the ``magnetic'' sector, even though the 

747: operators can include an even number of $A_0$-fields. This sector

748: determines the correlation length related to the lowest lying

749: glueballs and all other $0^{++}_+$ observables, as well as that 

750: felt by the real part of the 4d temporal Polyakov loop~\cite{pol,ay}

751: (not to be confused with the {\it spatial} Polyakov loop in the 3d

752: theory). In order to express the masses in units of temperature, we use 

753: the perturbative expression for the gauge coupling in \eq\nr{3d1}

754: to arrive at $g_3^2(T=2T_c)\approx 2.7 T$ and 

755: $g_3^2(T=10^{11}T_c)\approx 0.25 T$.  The spectrum in these 

756: units is shown in \fig \ref{spec_nf0}. 

757: 

758: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

759: \begin{figure}[tb]%

760: 

761: \vspace*{-3.5cm}

762: 

763: \begin{center}\leavevmode

764: \epsfysize=250pt

765: \epsfbox[70 80 570 680]{mt_nf0_b28_l40.eps}

766: %

767: \leavevmode

768: \epsfysize=250pt

769: \epsfbox[70 80 570 680]{mt_nf0_b28_l40_thigh.eps}

770: \end{center}

771: 

772: %\vspace{-1.0cm}

773: 

774: \caption[]{\label{spec_nf0}{\it

775: The spectrum of screening masses in various quantum number channels

776: at $N_f=0, T=2T_c$ (left), $N_f=0, T\sim 10^{11} T_c$ (right).

777: Filled symbols denote 3d glueball states, which have become the 

778: lightest excitations at $ T\sim 10^{11} T_c$. The states $1_+$ 

779: are much heavier than $1_-$ 

780: at high temperatures, and thus not visible on the right.}}

781: %

782: \end{figure}

783: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

784: 

785: Let us first discuss the channel $0_{+}^{++}$.

786: {}From Table~\ref{tab_02_0nf} in the Appendix, we note

787: that the lightest state (open circle in \fig\ref{spec_nf0}(left))

788: is dominantly $\sim \tr A_0^2$, while the next state  

789: (filled circle in \fig\ref{spec_nf0}(left)) is dominantly 

790: $\sim \tr F_{12}^2$. Thus, the na\"{\i}ve 

791: ordering of states consisting of the fields $A_0\sim gT$ and $A_i\sim g^2T$

792: is reversed non-perturbatively: at low temperatures it is the $A_0$ which

793: is responsible for the lightest gauge invariant state in the system.

794: 

795: As the temperature is increased, however, the ordering gets changed.

796: The lowest state becomes heavier with increasing temperature, 

797: as the scalar ``constituent mass parameter'' ${y}^{1/2}$ is then growing

798: (for a discussion of the constituent picture in a similar 

799: context, see~\cite{bp2,fop}). On the other hand, 

800: the glueball $\sim\tr F_{12}^2$ 

801: does not contain much $A_0$ admixture. Correspondingly 

802: its mass, in units of $g_3^2$, is quite insensitive to $y$,  

803: so that for large enough temperatures 

804: indeed the glueball corresponds to the 

805: lightest excitation. This situation is, however, only realised 

806: at high temperatures $T > 10^2 T_c$; an 

807: extreme example is shown in \fig \ref{spec_nf0}(right). 

808: In this limit the $A_0$ may be integrated out,

809: leaving the 3d pure SU(3) gauge

810: theory as an effective theory~\cite{dr}.

811: 

812: 

813: For the channel $0_+^{--}$, the behaviour is similar, but

814: the masses are much larger. Let us mention here already that 

815: in the 4d theory with fermions at modest temperatures $T\sim 2T_c$, 

816: all the higher-lying bosonic states in general are probably 

817: heavier than some gauge invariant states 

818: consisting of fermionic fields $\sim \bar\psi \psi$, which are not 

819: addressed by our theory, and whose mass we may expect to be $\lsim 2\pi T$.

820: (At lower temperatures such states can 

821: be even lighter, since in the chiral limit 

822: they are expected to represent the critical degrees of freedom.)

823: 

824: To get an impression of the quality of dimensional reduction for $N_f=0$, 

825: we now compare the $0_+^{++}$ state $\sim \tr A_0^2$ with that

826: found directly from a 4d simulation at $N_f=0$~\cite{dg}.

827: Our value is $M[0^{++}_+]=2.71(6)T$, to be compared

828: with $M=2.60(4)T$ reported in \cite{dg}.

829: In complete analogy with the SU(2) case~\cite{hp}, it is thus found that

830: dimensional reduction quantitatively reproduces the lowest

831: screening mass of the 4d Yang-Mills theory at temperatures as low

832: as $T=2T_c$. 

833: 

834: We can also carry out another comparison. The real part of the 4d temporal

835: Polyakov loop carries quantum numbers $0^{++}_+$, and 

836: non-perturbatively mixes with other operators in that channel. 

837: Correspondingly,

838: its decay should also be determined

839: by the bound state $\tr A_0^2$. Indeed, the exponential decay of the

840: 4d temporal Polyakov loop correlator is in 4d 

841: measured to be $\sim 2.5 T$~\cite{fk},

842: which is quite compatible with the value 

843: $\approx 2.7 T$ we find here.

844: 

845: On the other hand, in contrast to SU(2) where even several excitations

846: agree between the full and the effective theory, we find here

847: deviations of about 20\% in comparing with~\cite{dg}.  This may signal

848: that the effective theory is not as reliable for states whose mass is

849: approaching $\sim 2\pi T$.  However, 

850: we also believe that there could be some

851: room for improvement upon this apparent disagreement.  The 4d

852: simulations are quite difficult, and it is not easy to guarantee

853: at this stage that the infinite volume and continuum limits are

854: reached for the excited states.

855: 

856: \subsubsection{The ``electric'' Debye sector, $R=-1$}

857: \label{debye}

858: 

859: Of particular phenomenological relevance for the QCD plasma is the Debye 

860: mass, whose inverse gives the length scale over which the colour-electric

861: field is screened. The expansion in powers

862: of coupling constants for this quantity reads

863: \be

864: \frac{m_D}{g_3^2}=\frac{m_D^{LO}}{g_3^2}+{N_c\over4\pi}\ln{m_D^{LO}\over g_3^2}

865: +c_{N_c} + \frac{{\cal O}(g^3T)}{g_3^2}. \la{mDexp}

866: \ee 

867: %

868: The perturbative leading order result is \cite{lo}

869: %

870: \beq \label{dm}

871: m_D^{LO}=\left(\frac{N_c}{3}+\frac{N_f}{6}\right)^{1/2}gT

872: = g_3^2\, \sqrt{y} + {\cal O}(g^3 T),

873: \eeq

874: %

875: but at next-to-leading order $\sim g_3^2$, only a logarithm can 

876: be extracted~\cite{rebhan} (the 2nd term on the right hand side

877: of \eq\nr{mDexp}), 

878: whereas the coefficient $c_{N_c}$ is entirely

879: non-perturbative. To determine it, 

880: we use the gauge invariant definition of the Debye mass 

881: based on the Euclidean time reflection symmetry as given in \cite{ay}.

882: According to this definition, the Debye mass corresponds to the mass

883: of the lightest state odd under this transformation. The remnant of Euclidean

884: time reflection symmetry in our reduced model is the scalar reflection

885: symmetry $R$, and the Debye mass thus corresponds to the

886: mass of the lightest $R=-1$ state of our spectrum.

887: As shown in \fig\ref{spec_nf0}, this is the

888: $0^{-+}_-$ ground state $\sim \tr A_0 F_{12}$, 

889: while $0^{+-}_-$ $\sim \tr A_0^3$ is slightly heavier. 

890: 

891: With this definition, the coefficient $c_{N_c}$ can 

892: be measured separately from the exponential 

893: decay of a Wilson line in a 3d pure gauge theory~\cite{ay}. 

894: The measurements for $N_c=2,3$ have 

895: been performed in \cite{lp} with the results $c_2=1.14(4)$, $c_3=1.65(6)$.

896: On the other hand, the mass we have measured here

897: also includes the ${\cal O}(g^3T)$ correction in \eq\nr{mDexp}. 

898: We can thus now estimate the magnitude of the remainder;

899: our results are shown in Table~\ref{deb}. We find that the 

900: ${\cal O}(g^3T)$ corrections 

901: are less than 30\% even at temperatures as low as $T=2T_c$, 

902: and they disappear entirely for asymptotically large temperatures. 

903: The sign is negative, so that the complete result is 

904: somewhat smaller than estimated in~\cite{lp} based on 

905: the perturbative contributions and $c_3$ alone, 

906: $\sim 5T$ instead of $\sim 6T$. The result is also 

907: about $20$\% smaller than what can be extracted from~\cite{ad}, 

908: a difference which we presume to be due to the relatively 

909: small lattice sizes used there. 

910: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

911: \begin{table}

912: \begin{center}

913: \begin{tabular}{|l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|}

914: \hline

915: \hline

916:  &\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$m_D/g_3^2$} &

917: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{pert.\ part} &

918: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$c_3$} &

919: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{${\cal O}(g^3T)/g_3^2$} &

920: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$m_D/T$} \\

921: \hline

922: $T=2T_c$            & 1&70(5)  & 0&514 & 1&65(6) & -0&46(6)  & 4&6(2)  \\

923: $T\sim 10^{11}T_c$  & 3&82(12) & 2&165 & 1&65(6) &  0&00(12) & 0&96(3) \\

924: \hline

925: \hline\end{tabular}

926: \caption{ \label{deb}

927: {\em The different contributions to the Debye mass, \eq\nr{mDexp}.

928: The perturbative part means the 1st and 2nd terms on the 

929: right-hand-side of \eq\nr{mDexp}.}} 

930: \end{center}

931: \end{table}

932: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

933:  

934: %In general, the pattern in Table \ref{deb} is completely

935: %analogous to that found  in \cite{hp} for SU(2). 

936: We can conclude that for temperatures of physical interest,

937: the Debye mass according to this definition is entirely non-perturbative,

938: with its next-to-leading order correction being larger than the leading

939: term. This remains to be the case up to $T\sim 10^7 T_c$ \cite{lp}. But 

940: even at $T\sim 10^{11}T_c$, as the table shows, there are sizeable corrections

941: to the leading behaviour. 

942: This leads to the conclusion that the scale dominating

943: the Debye mass is $\sim g^2 T$ with non-perturbative physics 

944: for all temperatures of interest, 

945: in contrast to the na\"{\i}ve expectation $\sim gT$. The reason for this

946: behaviour is the large non-perturbative coefficient $c_{N_c}$ that appears

947: in front of the correction term in the series in $g$.

948: 

949: \subsubsection{$N_c$ scaling between SU(2) and SU(3)}

950: 

951: Let us finally discuss the scaling with $N_c$. In \cite{teper99} it

952: was found for SU($N_c$) pure gauge theories with $N_c=2,...5$ that the

953: differences in the mass spectra can be accounted for by the leading

954: order $1/N_c^2$ corrections in a large $N_c$ expansion, 

955: and that the coefficients of these are

956: remarkably small.  In theories with various scalar fields, the

957: glueball content has been found to be practically identical to that of

958: pure gauge theories for $N_c=2,3$~\cite{ptw,iss,hp}, and thus the

959: scaling behaviour with $N_c$ is preserved. It is then natural to ask

960: if the same scaling behaviour holds for the scalar bound states, which

961: are not present in the Yang-Mills theory. In \fig \ref{nc} we plot

962: some of our low lying states from the current analysis as well as the

963: SU(2) case~\cite{hp} (we have to focus on states with $C=+1$ in order

964: to have an SU(2) counterpart). Indeed we observe a similar scaling for

965: the scalar states as for the glueballs. This suggests that the 

966: screening masses of hot SU(3) gauge theory are

967: close to the $N_c \to \infty$ limit,

968: and hence large $N_c$ methods may

969: be useful approximations to analytically deal with some of the

970: non-perturbative aspects discussed here.

971: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

972: \begin{figure}[tb]%

973: 

974: \vspace*{-3.5cm}

975: 

976: \begin{center}\leavevmode

977: \epsfysize=250pt

978: \epsfbox[70 80 570 680]{0+++_nc.eps}

979: %

980: \leavevmode

981: \epsfysize=250pt

982: \epsfbox[70 80 570 680]{2+++0-+-_nc.eps} %[20 30 620 730]

983: \end{center}

984: 

985: %\vspace{-1.0cm}

986: 

987: \caption[]{\label{nc}{\it

988: The scaling with $N_c$ of some of the low lying $0_+^{++}$ (left) and 

989: $0_-^{-+}, 2_+^{++}$ (right) states.

990: Filled symbols denote glueballs, and the lines are to guide the eye only.}}

991: %

992: \end{figure}

993: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

994: 

995: \subsection{The mass spectrum for $N_f\neq 0$}

996: 

997: Having convinced ourselves that dimensional reduction of pure Yang-Mills

998: theory works at the very least for the lowest static bosonic

999: correlation functions

1000: of the theory, we may now move ahead to exploit the advantage of this

1001: formalism, the easy inclusion of fermions. For the case of massless fermion,

1002: all that is required is to evaluate \eqs\nr{3d1}--\nr{3d3} 

1003: for the desired $N_f$

1004: and simulate the effective theory with the corresponding parameters.

1005: Each of these simulations gives results completely analogous to those

1006: of the $N_f=0$ case, except for a slight shift in the values.

1007: For the reader interested in the detailed numbers, 

1008: we collect our data in Tables~\ref{tab_02}, \ref{tab_other} in the Appendix, 

1009: at temperatures $T=2\lambdamsbar$, 

1010: and $1.5\lambdamsbar$, which probes the lower limit

1011: of the range of validity of dimensional reduction.

1012: 

1013: With the tables at hand, the spectrum shown in \fig \ref{spec_nf0} for $N_f=0$

1014: is now also known for $N_f=2,3,4$. In \fig \ref{spec_nf} we

1015: display the dependence on $N_f$ of the low lying $J=0$ states.

1016: The general behaviour of slightly rising mass values with $N_f$ can be 

1017: understood from \eqs\nr{mDexp}, \nr{dm}. 

1018: Increasing $N_f$ increases the value of $m_D^\rmi{LO}$ 

1019: corresponding to the bare scalar mass, and hence the masses of the 

1020: bound states increase as well. In units of the temperature, 

1021: the increase from $N_f=0$ to the phenomenologically interesting

1022: case $N_f=2...3$ is about 30\% for $0_+^{++}$, 

1023: $\lsim 20$\% for the other channels. 

1024: The correlation lengths decrease accordingly. 

1025: 

1026: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1027: \begin{figure}[tb]%

1028: 

1029: \vspace*{-5.0cm}

1030: 

1031: \begin{center}\leavevmode

1032: \epsfysize=350pt

1033: \epsfbox[20 30 620 730]{mt_vs_nf.eps}

1034: %

1035: \end{center}

1036: 

1037: \vspace{-1.0cm}

1038: 

1039: \caption[]{\label{spec_nf}{\it

1040: The $N_f$ dependence of the $J=0$ spectrum at $T = 2T_c$

1041: (to be more precise, for $N_f>0$  $T_c$ means really 

1042: $\lambdamsbar$, see Sec.~\ref{contform}).

1043: Filled symbols denote glueball states. We should stress that 

1044: only the part $M \lsim 2 \pi T$ of the spectrum can be expected

1045: to directly represent the lowest states in 4d finite temperature QCD.}}

1046: %

1047: \end{figure}

1048: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1049: 

1050: \subsection{The spatial string tension}

1051: 

1052: Finally, let us discuss one observable of the 3d theory which 

1053: does not have an interpretation as a physical 4d correlation length. 

1054: A Polyakov loop 

1055: in a {\em spatial} direction couples

1056: to a flux loop state (or torelon)

1057: that winds around the periodic boundaries of the finite volume.

1058: The exponential fall-off of its correlator

1059: is related to the mass of the flux loop, according to

1060: %

1061: \beq

1062: \label{string}

1063:   \sum_{\vec{x},j=1,2}\,\left\langle P_j^{(L)}(\vec{x}+t\,{\hat{3}})

1064:    P_j^{(L)}(\vec{x})

1065:                   \right\rangle \simeq e^{-aM_P(L)t},\quad

1066:    aM_P(L)=a^2\sigma_L L.

1067: \eeq

1068: %

1069: Such a flux loop state can be easily identified through its energy

1070: scaling linearly with the size of the lattice as seen in, e.g.,

1071: Table~\ref{tab_sigma_0nf}. Since the scalar fields are in the adjoint

1072: representation, they cannot screen the colour flux represented by the

1073: Polyakov loop in fundamental representation, in contrast to the case

1074: with fundamental scalars \cite{sb}. Thus, a string tension can be

1075: defined by the slope of the static potential at infinite separation,

1076: just as in pure gauge theory. Accordingly, the coefficient $\sigma_L$

1077: corresponds to the string tension at separation $L$. For large enough

1078: $L$, an estimate for the string tension in infinite volume is then

1079: provided by the relation

1080: %

1081: \cite{for85}

1082: %

1083: \beq

1084: \label{stringinfty}

1085:   a^2\sigma_\infty = a^2\sigma_L+\frac{\pi}{6L^2}.

1086: \eeq

1087: %

1088: We have extracted the string tension by diagonalising a basis of 

1089: various smeared Polyakov loops,

1090: and the results are given in Tables 

1091: \ref{tab_sigma_0nf}, \ref{tab_sigma}.

1092: 

1093: We note that the string tension in continuum units is rather insensitive

1094: to the precise parameter values $x,y$, as it fluctuates by less than

1095: $\sim$ 4\% between the cases considered. Moreover, all values are

1096: similarly close to the ones obtained in pure gauge theory \cite{teper99}. 

1097: This is a further indication of the insensitivity of the pure gauge sector 

1098: to the presence of the adjoint scalar fields.

1099: In the context of Yang-Mills theory at finite temperature, 

1100: the string tension of the

1101: effective theory corresponds to the spatial string tension as measured

1102: in 4d simulations at finite temperature. Indeed, our value

1103: $\sqrt{\sigma_{\infty}}/g_3^2=0.569(10)$ on the finest lattice 

1104: for $T=2T_c$, $N_f=0$ is in good agreement with the spatial 4d

1105: result $\sqrt{\sigma_s}/g^2T=0.586(5)$ given in \cite{kll}. 

1106: 

1107: 

1108: \section{Extension of the method to finite density}

1109: 

1110: As we have mentioned in the Introduction, there is no satisfactory algorithm

1111: to simulate lattice QCD in four dimensions at finite baryon density,

1112: with small quark masses. On the other hand, in the experimental 

1113: situation of heavy ion collisions there always is a net baryon 

1114: density, which in the collisions at and above AGS and SPS energies

1115: can be estimated to correspond to $\mu/T \lsim 4.0$~\cite{exp}. 

1116: As long as the temperature is sufficiently

1117: above $T_c$, dimensional reduction is applicable 

1118: for the lowest lying static correlation

1119: functions in QCD, as we have seen in the previous

1120: sections. We now proceed to dimensionally reduce QCD at finite 

1121: temperature {\it and} density. As we shall see, it is possible to

1122: perform simulations in the $\mu/T$-range of interest in this framework.

1123: 

1124: \subsection{The effective theory with $\mu\neq 0$}

1125: 

1126: At leading order, the introduction of $\mu\neq 0$ leads to

1127: a very simple modification of the effective 3d theory

1128: in \eq\nr{actc}. New effects come only from fermions, 

1129: where we change $p_f\to p_f - i \mu$ in the loop momenta;

1130: here $p_f$ denotes the fermionic Matsubara frequencies. 

1131: The 1-loop effective potential computed in~\cite{kaps}

1132: tells then that the effective action for the

1133: Matsubara zero mode of $A_0$ has

1134: for $\mu\neq 0$ the terms ($N_c=2,3$)

1135: \beq

1136: V_{A_0}=

1137: g^2 \biggl[T^2\Bigl(\frac{N_c}{3} + \frac{N_f}{6}\Bigr) +

1138: \mu^2 \frac{N_f}{2\pi^2} \biggr] \tr A_0^2 +

1139: i g^3\mu \frac{N_f}{3\pi^2} \tr A_0^3 +

1140: g^4 \frac{6+N_c-N_f}{24\pi^2} \Bigl( \tr A_0^2 \Bigr)^2. \la{1lS}

1141: \eeq

1142: There is of course no term linear

1143: in $A_0$, unlike in the Abelian case~\cite{ks96}. 

1144: Note furthermore that for SU(2), $\tr A_0^3=0$.

1145: 

1146: In general, the inclusion of $\mu\neq 0$ also leads to 

1147: other new operators than $\tr A_0^3$. 

1148: However, as can be seen from the effective

1149: potential computed in~\cite{kaps}, there are no higher order 

1150: operators involving only $A_0$, at least at 1-loop and 2-loop levels.

1151: On the contrary, there could be operators such as 

1152: $\sim \tr A_0 F_{ij}^2$. As is usual in effective field 

1153: theories, we expect such non-renormalizable operators

1154: to give contributions suppressed with respect 

1155: to the dynamical effects arising within the effective

1156: theory in \eq\nr{1lS} by a power of the scale hierarchy, 

1157: and therefore we ignore them here. 

1158: It is perhaps also worthwhile to mention that since

1159: no $\gamma_5$ appears in perturbation theory in QCD

1160: and since the construction of the effective theory

1161: in \eq\nr{1lS} is only sensitive to the ultraviolet and 

1162: thus purely perturbative, no Chern-Simons type operators

1163: are expected to be generated. 

1164: 

1165: Going to 3d units ($A_0^\rmi{4d} \to T^{1/2} A_0^\rmi{3d}$, 

1166: $\int\! d\tau\,d^3 x\to T^{-1} \int\! d^3x$) and

1167: denoting

1168: \beq

1169: S_z = \int \! d^3 x\, g_3^3 \tr A_0^3,  \la{sz}

1170: \eeq

1171: the dominant changes due to $\mu\neq 0$ 

1172: in the action in \eq\nr{actc} are then

1173: \beq

1174: S \to S + i z S_z, \quad

1175: z= \frac{\mu}{T} \frac{N_f}{3\pi^2}; \quad

1176: y\to y\biggl(1+\Bigl( \frac{\mu}{\pi T}\Bigr)^2 \frac{3 N_f}{2 N_c + N_f}

1177: \biggr). \la{lo-formulas}

1178: \eeq

1179: Thus, one new operator is generated in the effective action, 

1180: and one of the parameters which already existed, gets modified.

1181: We note that the new operator is quite 

1182: special and it, for instance, does not generate new ultraviolet

1183: divergences for the parameters in the original action

1184: in \eq\nr{actc}.

1185: 

1186: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1187: \begin{figure}[tb]

1188: 

1189: \centerline{

1190: \epsfxsize=6.5cm\epsfbox{dfun.eps}}

1191: 

1192: \caption[a]{The function ${\cal D}(\omega)$ from \eq\nr{Dx},

1193: compared with the small-$\omega$ limit.}

1194: \la{fig:Dx}

1195: \end{figure}

1196: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1197: 

1198: A more precise computation

1199: of the effective action requires the inclusion of 2-loop

1200: effects in \eq\nr{1lS}, as well as a 1-loop computation of the wave

1201: function corrections of $A_0,A_i$ and the gauge coupling $g_3^2$.

1202: We proceed as explained in~\cite{ad}, changing $p_f\to p_f-i\mu$

1203: in the fermion propagators, and including the 2-loop

1204: contributions into the effective 

1205: potential from~\cite{kaps,ka1}. Let

1206: \ba

1207: {\cal D}(\omega)  & = &  (4\pi)^2 \Tint{p_f}

1208: \biggl[

1209: \frac{1}{((p_f + i\pi T \omega)^2 + \vec{p}^2)^2}-

1210: \frac{1}{(p_f^2 + \vec{p}^2)^2}

1211: \biggr]  \nn \\

1212: & = &

1213: \int_{-\infty}^\infty \! \frac{dp}{p}\, \biggl(

1214: \frac{1-e^p}{1+e^p}-\frac{1}{e^{p+\pi\omega}+1}+\frac{1}{e^{-p+\pi\omega}+1}

1215: \biggr). \la{Dx}

1216: \ea

1217: At small $\omega$, ${\cal D}(\omega)\approx -(7\zeta(3)/2) \omega^2$. We

1218: then obtain

1219: \ba

1220: g_3^2 \!\!\!\! & = & \left. g_3^2 \right|_{\mu=0}

1221: \biggl(

1222: 1 - \frac{N_f}{6+N_c-N_f}

1223: {\cal D}\Bigl(\frac{\mu}{\pi T}\Bigr)\, x + {\cal O}(x^2)

1224: \biggr),  \\

1225: x \!\!\!\! & = & \left. x \right|_{\mu=0}

1226: \biggl(

1227: 1 - \frac{N_f}{6+N_c-N_f}

1228: {\cal D}\Bigl(\frac{\mu}{\pi T}\Bigr)\, x + {\cal O}(x^2)

1229: \biggr), \\

1230: y_{N_c=2} \!\!\!\! &=&{(8-N_f)(4+N_f)\over144\pi^2x}

1231: \biggl(1 +  \frac{3 N_f}{4+N_f}

1232: \Bigl(\frac{\mu}{\pi T} \Bigr)^2 \biggr) \la{y_dr2} \\

1233: & + &\frac{192-2N_f-7N_f^2-2N_f^3}{96\pi^2(8-N_f)} \biggl(

1234: 1+

1235: \frac{3N_f(11+2 N_f)(4-N_f)}{192-2N_f-7N_f^2-2N_f^3}

1236: \Bigl(\frac{\mu}{\pi T} \Bigr)^2 \biggr)

1237: +{\cal O}(x),\nn \\

1238: y_{N_c=3}\!\!\!\! &=& \!\!\!\! {(9-N_f)(6+N_f)\over144\pi^2x}

1239: \biggl(1+ \frac{3 N_f}{6+N_f} \Bigl(\frac{\mu}{\pi T} \Bigr)^2 \biggr)

1240: \la{y_dr3} \\

1241: & + & \!\!\!\!

1242: {486-33N_f-11N_f^2-2N_f^3\over96\pi^2(9-N_f)}

1243: \biggl(1 +

1244: \frac{3 N_f(7+N_f)(9-2N_f)}{486-33N_f-11N_f^2-2N_f^3}

1245: \Bigl(\frac{\mu}{\pi T} \Bigr)^2 \biggr)

1246: +{\cal O}(x), \nonumber \\

1247: z_{N_c=3}\!\!\!\! & = & \frac{\mu}{T}\frac{N_f}{3\pi^2}

1248: \biggl(

1249: 1 + \fr32 \frac{7+ N_f}{9-N_f}\, x + {\cal O}(x^2)

1250: \biggr).

1251: \ea

1252: In the case we actually study, $N_c=3,N_f=2$, these reduce to

1253: \ba

1254: g_3^2 & = & \left. g_3^2 \right|_{\mu=0}

1255: \biggl(

1256: 1 - \frac{2}{7}

1257: {\cal D}\Bigl(\frac{\mu}{\pi T}\Bigr)\, x %+ {\cal O}(x^2)

1258: \biggr), \la{mu1} \\

1259: x & = & \left. x \right|_{\mu=0}

1260: \biggl(

1261: 1 - \frac{2}{7}

1262: {\cal D}\Bigl(\frac{\mu}{\pi T}\Bigr)\, x %+ {\cal O}(x^2)

1263: \biggr), \la{xsimpl} \\

1264: y & = & \biggl( \frac{7}{18\pi^2 x} + \frac{15}{28\pi^2} \biggr)

1265: \biggl(1+ \frac{3}{4} \Bigl(\frac{\mu}{\pi T} \Bigr)^2 \biggr), \\

1266: z & = & \frac{\mu}{\pi T}\frac{2}{3\pi}

1267: \biggl(

1268: 1 + \frac{27}{14} x %+ {\cal O}(x^2)

1269: \biggr), \la{mu4}

1270: \ea

1271: where $g_3^2$, $\left. x \right|_{\mu=0}$

1272: are from \eq\nr{nf2}, and corrections 

1273: are of relative order ${\cal O}(x^2)$.

1274: Let us recall that $x\sim 0.1$ at $T\sim 2T_c$.

1275: 

1276: Due to the small value of $x$, 

1277: we will in the analysis which follows for simplicity ignore 

1278: even the ${\cal O}(x)$ corrections in $g_3^2,x,z$ 

1279: in \eqs\nr{mu1}, \nr{xsimpl}, \nr{mu4},  and use the 

1280: leading order expressions displayed already in \eq\nr{lo-formulas}.

1281: All of the sub-dominant

1282: effects neglected work in the same direction 

1283: and would strengthen the changes we see in the mass 

1284: spectrum. For $z$ this is obvious because, 

1285: according to \eq\nr{mu4}, for a given $\mu/T$ 

1286: the physical value would be larger than what we have used.

1287: For $x$,

1288: \eq\nr{xsimpl} and the negative value of ${\cal D}$ imply that

1289: the fact that we have kept $x$ unchanged means that we have 

1290: effectively moved slightly up in $T/\lambdamsbar$. 

1291: In $g_3^2$ a major part of this effect cancels since

1292: the correction is the same in \eqs\nr{mu1}, \nr{xsimpl}.  

1293: Therefore, $M/T$ remains essentially the same for given $M/g_3^2$, 

1294: even though the temperature is slightly higher. 

1295: 

1296: \subsection{A complex action and reweighting}

1297: \la{coma}

1298: 

1299: The generic problem of SU(3) simulations at non-vanishing 

1300: chemical potential now appears as follows. 

1301: For $\mu\neq 0$, there is the imaginary

1302: term $i z S_z$ in the action, and the conventional importance

1303: sampling will not work\footnote{It can be seen directly

1304: in 4d that the sign problem is strongly correlated with the 

1305: imaginary part of the temporal Polyakov loop~\cite{ippl}.

1306: This corresponds precisely to $z S_z$ in the 3d language.}. 

1307: A way to circumvent this is to do

1308: the importance sampling with the action at $z=0$, 

1309: while $\exp(-i z S_z)$ is included in the operators. 

1310: We will refer to this procedure as ``reweighting''.

1311: Reweighting is also applied in the ``Glasgow method'' suggested 

1312: for $\mu\neq 0$ simulations in 4d (for a review, see~\cite{gl});

1313: however, in our approach we do not need 

1314: to carry out any expansion related to $z$.

1315: Denoting by brackets the expectation value with respect to

1316: the action in \eq (\ref{lattice_action}),

1317: operators even $O_{+}$ and odd $O_{-}$ in $R$ 

1318: therefore appear as

1319: \bea

1320: \langle O_{+} \exp(-i z S_z) \rangle =

1321: \langle O_{+} \cos(z S_z) \rangle, \quad

1322: \langle O_{-} \exp(-i z S_z) \rangle = -i

1323: \langle O_{-} \sin(z S_z) \rangle. \la{meas}

1324: \eea

1325: Since \eq\nr{meas} involves trigonometric functions, 

1326: the problem manifests itself if configurations with $S_z \gg 1$

1327: occur frequently. In this case there are cancellations in the functional

1328: integral, and the Monte Carlo method will soon lose its accuracy.

1329: 

1330: Configurations with $S_z \gg 1$

1331: need not always be typical, however. Indeed, let us

1332: consider the distribution of $S_z$ in \eq\nr{sz}

1333: for $z=0$. The centre of the distribution is at zero.

1334: The fact that there is Debye screening, $y > 0$, guarantees

1335: that the distribution is approximately Gaussian. Its width

1336: is easily computed, and is 

1337: given by the 2-loop scalar sunset graph on the lattice,

1338: which has been evaluated in~\cite{framework,contlatt}: 

1339: \beq

1340: \Delta (z S_z)

1341: \approx \frac{z}{4\pi}\Bigl(\frac{6 L}{\beta}\Bigr)^{3/2}

1342: \biggl[5\biggl(

1343: \ln \frac{\beta}{3y^{1/2}}+0.58849

1344: \biggr)\biggr]^{1/2}. \la{osccond}

1345: \eeq

1346: We note that the width grows

1347: with the lattice size $L$ (or, more precisely,

1348: with the physical lattice size $L/\beta$)\footnote{For a fixed

1349: physical lattice size, the width grows with $\beta$, but only

1350: logarithmically.}. 

1351: Nevertheless, if $z$ is small enough,

1352: the infinite volume and continuum scaling limits of the 

1353: correlation functions may be extracted before \eq\nr{osccond}

1354: grows to values $\gg 1$. In these cases we can in practice carry

1355: out all the measurements before the oscillations set in.

1356: The feasibility of this procedure can be checked by

1357: monitoring the numerical distribution of $z S_z$,

1358: the argument of the reweighting factors. Accurate calculations should

1359: be possible whenever the bulk of the distribution is contained 

1360: in the interval $(-\pi,\pi)$.

1361: Once the distribution gets significantly broader,

1362: the breakdown should show up in the correlation functions 

1363: simply as a noisy signal.

1364: 

1365: Even assuming that the oscillations are under control, reweighting 

1366: according to \eq\nr{meas} of course requires some care. The importance

1367: sampling of the Monte Carlo is dominated by the minimum of the action

1368: at $z=0$, which is unmodified by including $S_z$ in the operators.

1369: If the $z=0$ minimum is widely separated from the true $z\neq0$ minimum

1370: in configuration space, there is a danger

1371: of biasing the Monte Carlo towards the wrong configurations.

1372: In order to check this, we have tested the reweighting method

1373: by considering $z$ imaginary, $z\to -i \zeta$.

1374: In this case the action is real and the scalar update can be 

1375: modified by a Metropolis step to include $S_z$, and hence update

1376: with the exact action.

1377: The results can then be compared with

1378: those obtained from \eq\nr{meas}, now with

1379: \beq

1380: \cos(z S_z)\to\cosh(\zeta S_z), \quad

1381: -i \sin(z S_z)\to-\sinh(\zeta S_z).

1382: \eeq

1383: Simultaneously, we change the sign of $\mu^2$ in $y$

1384: in \eq\nr{lo-formulas}.

1385: 

1386: Finally, 

1387: as a small technical detail let us note that 

1388: in practice we implement $S_z$ in \eq\nr{sz}

1389: on the lattice by including

1390: an ${\cal O}(a)$ improved~\cite{moore_a} version of 

1391: $\tr A_0^3$, as in \eq(2.10) of~\cite{su3adj}.

1392: 

1393: \subsection{Determining masses with a complex action}

1394: 

1395: Assuming that our reweighting procedure works, we then 

1396: have to extract masses in the changed symmetry situation.

1397: After the inclusion of $\mu\neq 0$, the action of the effective theory

1398: is no longer real, and no longer invariant in $R, C$. It is

1399: however still invariant

1400: under $RC$ and $P$. In the scalar channel this means that the

1401: operators $0^{++}_{+}$ and $0^{+-}_{-}$ in \eq\nr{contop}

1402: can couple to each

1403: other, and similarly $0^{--}_{+}$ and $0^{-+}_{-}$.

1404: These two channels

1405: are still distinguished, however, by the parity~$P$.

1406: 

1407: We measure the correlation matrix between the two

1408: channels which used to be decoupled for $\mu=0$. {}From \eq\nr{meas}

1409: we know that the result is of the block form

1410: \beq

1411: C(t) = \left(

1412: \begin{array}[c]{cc}

1413: A(t) & -i z D(t) \\

1414: -i z D(t) & B(t)

1415: \end{array}

1416: \right), \la{imC}

1417: \eeq

1418: where $A(t)$, $B(t)$ are symmetric matrices (possibly of

1419: different sizes), representing the correlations within the

1420: two channels as in \eq\nr{cij}. 

1421: We have factored out $z$ in the off-diagonal

1422: blocks, to make it clear that the result is odd in $z$ and

1423: vanishes for $z\to 0$. 

1424: In order to facilitate the solution of the eigenvalue problem 

1425: in \eq (\ref{evp}), we may note that we

1426: can equivalently consider the eigenvalue problem for the 

1427: real correlation matrix

1428: \beq

1429: \tilde C(t) = \left(

1430: \begin{array}[c]{cc}

1431: A(t) & -z D(t) \\

1432: z D(t) &  B(t)

1433: \end{array}

1434: \right), \la{reC}

1435: \eeq

1436: obtained from $C(t)$ by a similarity transformation $Z=\mbox{diag}\,(1,i)$.

1437: Finally, for imaginary chemical potentials $z=-i\zeta$ we have

1438: a correlation matrix of the usual symmetric form

1439: as in \eq\nr{cij},

1440: \beq

1441: C_\zeta(t) = \left(

1442: \begin{array}[c]{cc}

1443: A_\zeta(t) & -\zeta D_\zeta(t) \\

1444: -\zeta D_\zeta(t) & B_\zeta(t)

1445: \end{array}

1446: \right). \la{reD}

1447: \eeq

1448: 

1449: In addition, let us note 

1450: that physical observables such as masses (i.e., inverse correlation lengths)

1451: must be even in $z$, since a change of its sign can be compensated for

1452: by the field redefinition $A_0\to -A_0$

1453: in the action in \eq\nr{lo-formulas}. Since the mass spectrum

1454: is well defined and there are no massless modes at $z=0$, we 

1455: moreover expect that the system is analytic in $z$ for small $|z|$,

1456: the expressions of the masses starting with $z^2$. In particular,

1457: masses must remain real for small enough $z$

1458: (even though for the eigenvalues of a fully general matrix

1459: of the form in \eqs\nr{imC}, \nr{reC} this is not always the case).

1460: 

1461: We can use these observations to discuss the form of the mass eigenstates.

1462: For the cases in \eqs\nr{imC}, \nr{reC}, we do not in general have

1463: orthonormal eigenvectors in the usual sense. 

1464: In order for the procedure

1465: to make physical sense, we however expect (and observe) that the 

1466: eigenvectors are independent of $t$ within statistical accuracy,

1467: with eigenvalues of the form $\sim \exp(- a M t)$, 

1468: as in \eq\nr{evp}.

1469: 

1470: Consider now first \eq\nr{reD}. Since the eigenvalues

1471: are even in $\zeta$, the eigenvectors should be of the forms

1472: \beq

1473: \vec{v}^{(1)} = \left(

1474: \begin{array}[c]{c}

1475: \vec{v}_A \\

1476: \zeta \vec{v}_B

1477: \end{array}

1478: \right), \quad

1479: \vec{v}_A^2 +

1480: \zeta^2 \vec{v}_B^2 = 1; \quad

1481: \vec{v}^{(2)} = \left(

1482: \begin{array}[c]{c}

1483: - \zeta \vec{v}_A \\

1484: \vec{v}_B

1485: \end{array}

1486: \right), \quad

1487: \zeta^2 \vec{v}_A^2 +

1488: \vec{v}_B^2 = 1, \la{nor_reD}

1489: \eeq

1490: where normalisation conditions have also been shown. 

1491: With analytic continuation, 

1492: we can then directly apply this to the

1493: case of \eq\nr{imC},

1494: \beq

1495: \vec{v}^{(1)} = \left(

1496: \begin{array}[c]{c}

1497: \vec{v}_A \\

1498: i z \vec{v}_B

1499: \end{array}

1500: \right), \quad

1501: \vec{v}_A^2 -

1502: z^2 \vec{v}_B^2 = 1; \quad

1503: \vec{v}^{(2)} = \left(

1504: \begin{array}[c]{c}

1505: - i z \vec{v}_A \\

1506: \vec{v}_B

1507: \end{array}

1508: \right), \quad

1509: - z^2 \vec{v}_A^2 +

1510: \vec{v}_B^2 = 1,

1511: \eeq

1512: as well as to the case of \eq\nr{reC}, 

1513: using the similarity transformation:

1514: \beq

1515: \tilde{\vec{v}}^{(1)} = \left(

1516: \begin{array}[c]{c}

1517: \vec{v}_A \\

1518: -z \vec{v}_B

1519: \end{array}

1520: \right), \quad

1521: \vec{v}_A^2 - z^2

1522: \vec{v}_B^2 = 1; \quad

1523: \tilde{\vec{v}}^{(2)} = \left(

1524: \begin{array}[c]{c}

1525: -z\vec{v}_A \\

1526: \vec{v}_B

1527: \end{array}

1528: \right), \quad

1529: - z^2 \vec{v}_A^2 +

1530: \vec{v}_B^2 = 1. \la{nor_reC}

1531: \eeq

1532: We observe that the ``metric'' has changed, but otherwise

1533: the situation is quite analogous to the usual one

1534: in \eq\nr{nor_reD}.

1535: 

1536: Fortunately, in practice even less needs to be changed

1537: in the usual numerical analysis based on a matrix of the form

1538: in \eqs\nr{cij}, \nr{reD}, 

1539: if we use \eq\nr{reC}. There are algorithms finding the eigenvalues

1540: and eigenvectors for a general non-symmetric real matrix. The

1541: only change is in the normalisation according to \eq\nr{nor_reC}, 

1542: which amounts to fixing an overall coefficient

1543: for each eigenvector.  However, 

1544: as we only consider the

1545: correlations between the eigenvectors, 

1546: cf.\ \eq\nr{Mt}, and do not need

1547: to verify orthogonality explicitly, we can

1548: equally well employ a ``wrong'' scalar product 

1549: and normalisation based on the old type of metric 

1550: in \eq\nr{nor_reD} (with $\zeta \to z$). Then everything goes

1551: precisely as before.

1552: 

1553: Finally, let us illustrate the general expectations

1554: for the mass pattern with a simple $2\times 2$ matrix

1555: as an analogue of \eq\nr{imC}. Consider two

1556: real scalar fields $\phi,\chi$, with a mass term

1557: \beq

1558: V = \fr12 m^2 \phi^2 + \fr12 M^2 \chi^2 + i\epsilon \phi\chi. \la{tm}

1559: \eeq

1560: For $M\gg m$ and $\epsilon < (M^2-m^2)/2$, 

1561: the mass eigenvalues are real, $m^2+(\epsilon/M)^2$,

1562: $M^2-(\epsilon/M)^2$. 

1563: Thus the lightest mass goes up, which is 

1564: what we expect for a real chemical potential. In fact 

1565: there is another effect contributing in the same

1566: direction, since according to \eq\nr{lo-formulas}

1567: the parameter $y$ grows with $\mu/T$.

1568: In the case of a complex $\epsilon=-i\eta$, on the

1569: contrary, the lightest mass becomes even lighter,

1570: the heaviest mass even heavier: $m^2-(\eta/M)^2$,

1571: $M^2+(\eta/M)^2$. Again, the change of $y$

1572: contributes in the same direction for the lightest mass.

1573: 

1574: \section{Numerical results for $\mu\neq 0$}

1575: 

1576: We now proceed to present the results of our first numerical explorations

1577: of $\mu\neq 0$.

1578: We restrict our attention to the case $T=2T_c$, $N_f=2$, corresponding

1579: to $x=0.0919$. As we have

1580: explicitly checked for good scaling behaviour at 

1581: $\mu=0$, we work exclusively with $\beta=21$ in this section.

1582: The parameters and lattices considered are summarised in Table 

1583: \ref{tab_params_mu}, and the detailed results

1584: are displayed in Tables~\ref{tab_0_immu}, \ref{tab_0_remu}

1585: in the Appendix.

1586: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1587: \begin{table}[tb]

1588: \begin{center}

1589: \begin{tabular}{|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|l|}

1590: \hline

1591: \hline

1592: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$\mu/T$} &

1593: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$y$} &

1594: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$z$} & $L^2 \cdot T$ \\

1595: \hline

1596:  0&5 \ii &  0&47382 & 0&0338 \ii & $20^3$ \\

1597:  1&0 \ii &  0&44630 & 0&0675 \ii & $20^3$ \\

1598:  1&5 \ii &  0&40042 & 0&1013 \ii & $30^3$ \\

1599:  0&5    &  0&49218 & 0&0338 & $30^3$ \\

1600:  1&0    &  0&51970 & 0&0675 & $30^3$ \\

1601:  1&5    &  0&56558 & 0&1013 & $30^3$ \\

1602:  2&0    &  0&62981 & 0&1351 & $30^3, 40^3$ \\

1603:  4&0    &  1&07026 & 0&2702 & $10^3,14^3,18^3,30^3$ \\

1604: \hline 

1605: \hline

1606: \end{tabular}

1607: \caption{ \label{tab_params_mu}

1608: {\em The lattice parameters and sizes used for calculations with 

1609: $\mu\neq 0$. All are for $T=2\lambdamsbar, N_f=2$, $x=0.0919$, $\beta=21$.

1610: The parameter $z$ is from \eq\nr{lo-formulas}.}}

1611: \end{center}

1612: \end{table}

1613: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1614: 

1615: \subsection{Consistency checks and the general pattern}

1616: 

1617: We begin by assessing the distribution of the argument of the

1618: reweighting factors in \eq\nr{meas}. We find that any typical 

1619: histogram can be easily fitted to a

1620: Gaussian, from which we determine its width.  The

1621: plots in \fig \ref{hist} show the 

1622: corresponding distributions as a function of $\mu/T$

1623: and the lattice volume, with behaviour as expected from \eq

1624: (\ref{osccond}).  The volume chosen for the $\mu/T$ series is large

1625: enough to be free from finite size effects in the $\mu=0$ simulations.

1626: As the histograms show, for these volumes the distribution of the

1627: argument of the reweighting factor is entirely contained within one

1628: period for $\mu/T\leq 2.0$. On the other hand, 

1629: at $\mu/T=4.0$ the tails of the

1630: distribution are significantly spreading.  Nevertheless, the bulk of the

1631: distribution is still within the region without sign flips.  For the

1632: same number of measurements at $\mu/T=2.0,4.0$, however, the errors on

1633: the correlation functions are indeed by a factor of three larger in the

1634: latter case, confirming the onset of the sign problem.  Going to still

1635: larger $\mu/T$ will thus lead to increasingly noisy signals, until a

1636: mass determination becomes impossible.

1637: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1638: \begin{figure}[tb]%

1639: 

1640: \vspace*{-3cm}

1641: 

1642: \begin{center}

1643: \leavevmode

1644: \epsfxsize=200pt

1645: \epsfbox[20 30 620 730]{width_vs_mu.eps}

1646: \leavevmode

1647: \epsfxsize=200pt

1648: \epsfbox[20 30 620 730]{width_vs_l.eps}

1649: \leavevmode

1650: \end{center}

1651: 

1652: \vspace{-1.0cm}

1653: 

1654: \caption[]{\label{hist}{\it

1655: Distribution of $zS_z[A_0]$ for the reweighting procedure

1656: (\eq\nr{meas}).}}

1657: %

1658: \end{figure}

1659: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1660: 

1661: In the next step, we test the reliability of the reweighting procedure

1662: by comparing with the correct importance sampling in the case of an

1663: imaginary chemical potential. 

1664: This comparison can only be carried out for a limited range of

1665: $\mu/T$. In the full action, the imaginary chemical potential term

1666: weakens the metastability~\cite{ad} of the symmetric phase, and tunnelling

1667: during typical simulations to the unphysical phase becomes

1668: possible. This can be countered by increasing the lattice volume,

1669: but in so doing we increase the width of the distribution of

1670: $zS_z[A_0]$. We find however that

1671: there exists a window of opportunity between these two limits where we

1672: can usefully compare the two algorithms.

1673: In the left panels of

1674: \fig \ref{specmu}, the ground

1675: states of the $0^+$ and $0^-$ channels are shown as a function of

1676: imaginary $\mu/T$. First, we note the correct qualitative behaviour of 

1677: a mass decrease with $|\mu/T|$, as described

1678: after \eq\nr{tm}. Second, we observe complete

1679: agreement within the small statistical errors 

1680: between the reweighted observables and those measured

1681: with the full action.

1682: 

1683: With these tests passed, we can thus display the same states

1684: for the case of real chemical potential in

1685: the right panels of \fig \ref{specmu}. Again

1686: in agreement with the qualitative behaviour expected from 

1687: the discussion after \eq\nr{tm}, the lowest mass

1688: values are growing with increasing $\mu/T$, 

1689: since the constituent mass parameter $y^{1/2}$

1690: gets larger, see \eq\nr{lo-formulas}. Thus the corresponding

1691: correlation lengths decrease. We note again, however, that 

1692: purely gluonic states 

1693: (or, in the 4d language, purely magnetic states $\sim \tr F_{12}^2$)

1694: are rather insensitive to $\mu/T$, in analogy with their behaviour

1695: under variations of $y$ discussed earlier.  This means that at large

1696: enough $\mu/T > 4.0$, they may become the lightest states

1697: in the system, as suggested by the top right panel of \fig\ref{specmu}.

1698: 

1699: At $\mu/T=2.0$ we have performed a finite volume check, comparing

1700: lattices of $L=30$ and $40$ at $\beta=21$. We find the low lying

1701: masses to be consistent within statistical errors, 

1702: see Table~\ref{tab_0_remu}. This is

1703: encouraging, implying that the reweighting does not magnify finite

1704: volume effects unduly, and that it is indeed possible to extrapolate

1705: screening masses to the infinite volume in a finite chemical potential

1706: context, before the onset of oscillations.

1707: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1708: \begin{figure}[tb]%

1709: 

1710: \vspace{-3.0cm}

1711: 

1712: \begin{center}

1713: \leavevmode

1714: \epsfxsize=200pt

1715: \epsfbox[20 30 620 730]{mt_mu_im_0+.eps}

1716: \leavevmode

1717: \epsfxsize=200pt

1718: \epsfbox[20 30 620 730]{mt_mu_re_0+.eps}

1719: \leavevmode

1720: \end{center}

1721: 

1722: \vspace{-4.0cm}

1723: 

1724: \begin{center}

1725: \leavevmode

1726: \epsfxsize=200pt

1727: \epsfbox[20 30 620 730]{mt_mu_im_0-.eps}

1728: \leavevmode

1729: \epsfxsize=200pt

1730: \epsfbox[20 30 620 730]{mt_mu_re_0-.eps}

1731: \leavevmode

1732: \end{center}

1733: 

1734: \vspace{-1.0cm}

1735: 

1736: \caption[]{\label{specmu}{\it

1737:     The dependence of the lowest thermal masses on $\mu/T$ for

1738:     imaginary (left) and real (right) chemical potential. For clarity

1739:     of presentation, we show the lightest state only for each quantum

1740:     number assignment. The quantum number assignments refer to the 

1741:     eigenstates at $\mu/T=0$. Filled symbols correspond to glueballs.

1742:     ``Exact'' and ``reweighted'' simulations (left) are explained 

1743:     in Sec.~\ref{coma}.}}

1744: \end{figure}

1745: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1746: 

1747: \subsection{The Debye screening length at finite baryon density}

1748: 

1749: Let us now consider what happens to 

1750: the Debye screening length as defined in \se\ref{debye}.

1751: This definition is based 

1752: on the $R$-symmetry of our effective theory~\cite{ay}. 

1753: For $\mu\neq 0$ the extra term in the action 

1754: spoils the symmetry, resulting in a merging of the various $RC$-channels,

1755: while only $P$ remains as a good quantum number. The question then arises,

1756: how can the Debye mass be defined in such a situation~\cite{ay}?

1757: 

1758: We now note the following.  For $\mu=0$, the lightest $R=-1$ state was

1759: $0_-^{-+} \sim \tr A_0 F_{12}$. This is, however, also the lightest

1760: state in the channel $P=-1$. Thus, even after $\mu\neq 0$, the same

1761: operator continues to determine the long distance decay of a number of

1762: $R=-1$ operators.  The values can be seen in \fig\ref{specmu}, bottom

1763: right.  If we {\em define} this largest $P=-1$ correlation length to

1764: correspond to Debye screening, then $\mu\neq 0$ does {\em not} change

1765: the situation in an essential way, and the corresponding correlation

1766: length decreases with~$\mu$. An example of a 4d gauge invariant

1767: operator with such a behaviour is $\tr F_{03} F_{12}$~\cite{ay}.

1768: 

1769: On the other hand, the  $0_-^{+-}$ operator $\sim \tr A_0^3$ 

1770: does couple to $0_+^{++}\sim \tr A_0^2$ after the inclusion of 

1771: $\mu\neq 0$. Therefore, its correlation length strictly 

1772: speaking {\em increases} by a factor of almost two as soon as 

1773: $\mu\neq 0$, as can be seen from the top right panel

1774: in \fig\ref{specmu}. There we have labelled the states with

1775: the quantum numbers of the $\mu/T=0$ limit; however, for

1776: $\mu/T> 0$, any operator which originally had just the quantum

1777: numbers $0_-^{+-}$ such as $\tr A_0^3$, 

1778: couples now also to $0_+^{++}$. The eigenstate

1779: shown in \fig\ref{specmu} which does have a 

1780: larger mass, is a particular linear combination of the 

1781: two types of original

1782: states. Nevertheless, the overlap between the two operators 

1783: $\sim \tr A_0^2$, $\sim \tr A_0^3$ is very small for small $\mu/T$, 

1784: so that even for $\sim \tr A_0^3$ there is an intermediate 

1785: distance range where correlations should decay as

1786: shown with $0_-^{+-}$ in~\fig\ref{specmu}, 

1787: as discussed in~\cite{ay}. 

1788: Thus no abrupt change is observed.

1789: An example of a gauge invariant 4d operator 

1790: with such a behaviour is the imaginary 

1791: part of the 4d temporal Polyakov loop. 

1792: 

1793: \section{Conclusions}

1794: 

1795: In this paper, we have carried out mass

1796: measurements in the different quantum number channels 

1797: within the 3d SU(3)+adjoint Higgs theory. 

1798: We have stayed on the dimensional reduction curve

1799: in the symmetry restored phase of the 3d theory, 

1800: and the results are thus 

1801: expected to correspond to spatial correlation lengths 

1802: in the deconfined quark--gluon plasma phase of QCD. 

1803: This interpretation appears to be relatively

1804: accurate at least down to $T\sim 2T_c$.  We first considered

1805: a vanishing chemical potential $\mu=0$, 

1806: and then also extended 

1807: the measurements to a finite $\mu/T\lsim 4.0$.

1808: 

1809: For $\mu=0, N_f=0$, we believe that the asymptotic correlation lengths

1810: related to the real and imaginary parts of the 4d temporal Polyakov 

1811: loop, as well as to other gauge invariant bosonic operators, 

1812: are now relatively well understood. For instance, at 

1813: $T\sim 2T_c\approx 2\lambdamsbar$,  

1814: the real part of the Polyakov loop (with quantum numbers $0_+^{++}$

1815: according to our conventions discussed in \se\ref{qn}) 

1816: decays exponentially at $\sim (3 T)^{-1}$, while the 

1817: imaginary part ($0_-^{+-}$) decays at $\sim(5 T)^{-1}$, 

1818: as can be observed from \fig\ref{spec_nf0}. The Debye

1819: screening length according to the definition of~\cite{ay}

1820: turns out to be determined by operators of the type 

1821: $0_-^{-+}\sim \tr F_{03} F_{12}$, and 

1822: is slightly longer than the screening length of the

1823: imaginary part of the Polyakov loop, $\sim(4.6 T)^{-1}$. 

1824: 

1825: We have also explicitly studied the effects of $N_f$ dynamical fermions

1826: on the longest correlation lengths. 

1827: For fixed $T/\lambdamsbar$, the correlation lengths decrease as $N_f$

1828: is increased.  For instance,  in the phenomenologically

1829: interesting case of $N_f = 2,3$ at $T\sim 2\lambdamsbar$, 

1830: the real part of the 

1831: Polyakov loop decays exponentially at $\sim (4T)^{-1}$, 

1832: while the imaginary part at $\sim (6T)^{-1}$.

1833: As a theoretical point, it is interesting to note

1834: that in units of $g_3^2$,

1835: the screening lengths scale quite well with $N_c$. 

1836: 

1837: We have then extended the measurements to $\mu\neq 0$. We have 

1838: demonstrated that the use of dimensional reduction allows one to 

1839: carry out simulations corresponding to 

1840: phenomenologically interesting values of 

1841: quark masses, temperatures, and $\mu/T$ (although 

1842: not at the point of the phase transition).  

1843: Simulations are possible because the only term in the 

1844: super-renormalizable 3d action 

1845: suffering from the sign problem, 

1846: $\sim i \tr A_0^3$, comes with a very small

1847: numerical coefficient. 

1848: 

1849: In general, we observe that as $\mu/T$ is switched on at a fixed

1850: temperature, the screening lengths decrease. This can be interpreted

1851: so that the lightest excitations, involving $A_0$, are ``less  critical'' 

1852: and correspondingly heavier. Thus, staying at a fixed temperature

1853: but increasing $\mu$, we are apparently moving further away from 

1854: the critical line, which hence has to bend down. This is in complete 

1855: accordance with what we qualitatively know about the phase diagram 

1856: in the $(\mu,T)$-plane.

1857: 

1858: However, there is one state whose mass does not increase, the

1859: 3d glueball $\sim\tr F_{12}^2$. Thus at large enough $\mu/T$, 

1860: similarly to the case of large enough $T/\lambdamsbar$ at $\mu=0$, 

1861: it becomes the lightest excitation in the system. We find

1862: that the crossover corresponds roughly to $y\sim 1.1$

1863: in terms of the dimensionless parameter defined 

1864: in \eqs\nr{xy}, \nr{lo-formulas}. For $N_f=2$, this 

1865: corresponds roughly to $T/\lambdamsbar \sim 10^2$ at $\mu/T\sim 0.0$, 

1866: and $\mu/T\sim 4.0$ at $T/\lambdamsbar \sim 2$.

1867: 

1868: Finally we have addressed the behaviour of the imaginary 

1869: part of the 4d temporal Polyakov loop. As the chemical 

1870: potential is switched on, its asymptotic correlation length

1871: suddenly increases contrary to the other observables discussed, 

1872: and agrees for all $\mu\neq 0$

1873: with that of the real part of the 4d temporal Polyakov loop.

1874: 

1875: The task remains to establish a direct connection between 

1876: the screening masses discussed here and observables relevant 

1877: for the phenomenology of heavy ion collision experiments. 

1878: 

1879: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1880: 

1881: We acknowledge useful discussions with R.D. Pisarski and K. Rajagopal. 

1882: This work was partly supported by the TMR network {\em Finite

1883:   Temperature Phase Transitions in Particle Physics}, EU contract no.\ 

1884: FMRX-CT97-0122. The work of A.H. was supported in part by UK PPARC

1885: grant PPA/G/0/1998/00621.

1886: 

1887: \section*{Note added}

1888: 

1889: After the submission of our paper, a letter appeared by 

1890: Gavai and Gupta~\cite{gg}, who measure the spatial meson (pion) 

1891: correlation length at $T\sim (1.5...2.9) T_c$ for $N_f=4$ light 

1892: dynamical fermions. They observe that at $T\sim 2T_c$ the meson 

1893: ``mass'' measured from $\bar\psi\psi$ has become lighter

1894: than the lightest bosonic mass (represented by

1895: $\sim \tr A_0^2$ in the 3d language), 

1896: so that the bosonic gauge degrees of freedom are no longer the lightest

1897: dynamical degrees of freedom, and thus the standard dimensionally 

1898: reduced effective theory should not be reliable any more. This observation 

1899: is in accordance with our comments in Sec.~\ref{magsec}. However, Gavai 

1900: and Gupta make the further suggestion that even in the temperature

1901: range $T\sim (2...10) T_c$ where the meson mass is no 

1902: longer the lightest one, but is still below its asymptotic

1903: value ($\sim 2\pi T$ in the case of the chiral continuum limit), 

1904: dimensional reduction may not be reliable, 

1905: in contrast to the situation in the purely bosonic case $N_f=0$.

1906: Let us comment that there is no hard evidence for

1907: the latter suggestion. In fact, it seems quite possible 

1908: to us that the decrease from $\sim 2\pi T$

1909: could be partly accounted for precisely by the confining bosonic 3d

1910: gauge field dynamics related to $A_0,A_i$. Furthermore, we see

1911: no evidence for why the bosonic correlation lengths we have 

1912: measured here would not be satisfactorily reproduced by the 3d theory

1913: in this temperature range. Thus we believe that 

1914: our bosonic mass measurement for $N_f>0$ (both at $\mu/T=0$ 

1915: and $\mu/T>0$) do reproduce at least the qualitative features of 

1916: the physical 4d theory at all temperatures $T\gsim 2T_c$. 

1917: 

1918: As already discussed by Gavai and Gupta, 

1919: one might also expect that 

1920: chiral effects responsible for the behaviour

1921: seen by them are at $N_f=4$ somewhat larger than in the

1922: realistic case $N_f=2...3$.

1923: For instance, $\tr A_0^2$ is lighter for smaller $N_f$ as we have

1924: discussed in this paper, while $\bar\psi\psi$ still reaches the 

1925: same asymptotic value, so that the level crossing invalidating

1926: dimensional reduction should take place at a smaller temperature. 

1927: 

1928: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1929: 

1930: \bibitem{gpy}

1931: A.D.~Linde,

1932: %``Infrared problem in thermodynamics of the Yang-Mills gas,''

1933: Phys.\ Lett.\ {B 96} (1980) 289;

1934: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B96,289;%%

1935: D.J.~Gross, R.D.~Pisarski and L.G.~Yaffe,

1936: %``QCD and instantons at finite temperature,''

1937: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {53} (1981) 43.

1938: %%CITATION = RMPHA,53,43;%%

1939: 

1940: \bibitem{az}

1941: P.~Arnold and C.~Zhai,

1942: %``The Three loop free energy for pure gauge QCD,''

1943: Phys.\ Rev.\  {D 50} (1994) 7603

1944: [hep-ph/9408276];

1945: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9408276;%%

1946: Phys.\ Rev.\  {D 51} (1995) 1906

1947: [hep-ph/9410360].

1948: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9410360;%%

1949: 

1950: % QCD & convergence

1951: \bibitem{bn}

1952: E. Braaten and A. Nieto,

1953: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 76 (1996) 1417 [hep-ph/9508406];

1954: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508406;%%

1955: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 53 (1996) 3421 [hep-ph/9510408].

1956: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9510408;%%

1957: 

1958: \bibitem{ad}

1959: K. Kajantie et al, %M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. Shaposhnikov,

1960: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 503 (1997) 357 [hep-ph/9704416];

1961: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704416;%%

1962: %K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine, J.~Peisa, A.~Rajantie, 

1963: %K.~Rummukainen and M.~Shaposhnikov,

1964: %``Non-perturbative Debye mass in finite T QCD,''

1965: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {79} (1997) 3130

1966: [hep-ph/9708207].

1967: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708207;%%

1968: 

1969: \bibitem{lat99}

1970: F. Karsch, Plenary talk at Lattice '99, hep-lat/9909006, to appear in

1971: the proceedings.

1972: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9909006;%%

1973: 

1974: \bibitem{dr}

1975: P. Ginsparg, 

1976: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 170 (1980) 388;

1977: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B170,388;%%

1978: T. Appelquist and R.D. Pisarski,

1979: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 23 (1981) 2305.

1980: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,2305;%%

1981: 

1982: %%%%%%%%numerical studies of DR in QCD

1983: \bibitem{rold} 

1984: S. Nadkarni,

1985: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 60 (1988) 491;

1986: %su2

1987: T. Reisz, Z.\ Phys.\ C 53 (1992) 169;

1988: %``Realization of dimensional reduction at high temperature,''

1989: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C53,169;%%

1990: %su3

1991: L. K\"arkk\"ainen, P. Lacock, D.E. Miller, B. Petersson and T. Reisz,

1992: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 282 (1992) 121;

1993: %``Dimensional reduction in SU(3) gauge theory,''

1994: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B282,121;%%

1995: %su2

1996: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 418 (1994) 3 [hep-lat/9310014];

1997: %``The Physical phase of dimensionally reduced gauge theories,''

1998: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9310014;%%

1999: %su3

2000: L. K\"arkk\"ainen, P. Lacock, B. Petersson and T. Reisz,

2001: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 395 (1993) 733.

2002: %``Dimensional reduction and color screening in QCD,''

2003: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B395,733;%%

2004: 

2005: \bibitem{hl}

2006: S.~Huang and M.~Lissia,

2007: %``The Relevant scale parameter in the high temperature phase of QCD,''

2008: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {B 438} (1995) 54

2009: [hep-ph/9411293];

2010: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411293;%%

2011: %``The Dimensionally Reduced Effective Theory

2012: % for Quarks in High Temperature QCD,''

2013: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {B 480} (1996) 623

2014: [hep-ph/9511383].

2015: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511383;%%

2016: 

2017: \bibitem{generic}

2018: K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine, K.~Rummukainen and M.~Shaposhnikov,

2019: %``Generic rules for high temperature dimensional reduction 

2020: %and their application to the Standard Model,''

2021: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {B 458} (1996) 90 [hep-ph/9508379];

2022: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B458,90;%%

2023: %``High temperature dimensional reduction and parity violation,''

2024: Phys.\ Lett.\ {B 423} (1998) 137 [hep-ph/9710538].

2025: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B423,137;%%

2026: 

2027: \bibitem{su3adj}

2028: K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine, A.~Rajantie, K.~Rummukainen and M.~Tsypin,

2029: %``The phase diagram of three-dimensional SU(3) + adjoint Higgs theory,''

2030: JHEP {9811} (1998) 011 [hep-lat/9811004].

2031: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9811004;%%

2032: 

2033: \bibitem{nonpert}

2034: K.~Kajantie et al, %M.~Laine, K.~Rummukainen and M.~Shaposhnikov,

2035: %``The electroweak phase transition: a non-perturbative analysis,''

2036: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {B 466} (1996) 189 [hep-lat/9510020];

2037: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B466,189;%%

2038: %``A non-perturbative analysis of the finite $T$ phase transition 

2039: %in SU(2)$\times$U(1) electroweak theory,''

2040: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 493 (1997) 413 [hep-lat/9612006];

2041: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B493,413;%%

2042: %\bibitem{Gurtler:1997wx}

2043: M.~G\"urtler et al, %E.M.~Ilgenfritz, J.~Kripfganz, H.~Perlt and A.~Schiller,

2044: %``Three-dimensional lattice studies of

2045: % the electroweak phase transition  at M(Higgs) approx. 70-GeV,''

2046: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {B 483} (1997) 383

2047: [hep-lat/9605042];

2048: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9605042;%%

2049: %M.~G\"urtler, E.M.~Ilgenfritz and A.~Schiller,

2050: %``Where the electroweak phase transition ends,''

2051: Phys.\ Rev.\ {D 56} (1997) 3888 [hep-lat/9704013];

2052: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,3888;%%

2053: O. Philipsen et al, %, M. Teper and H. Wittig,

2054: %``Scalar-gauge dynamics in (2+1) dimensions at small

2055: % and large scalar  couplings,''

2056: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 528 (1998) 379 [hep-lat/9709145];

2057: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9709145;%%

2058: K.~Rummukainen et al, %M.~Tsypin, K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine and M.~Shaposhnikov,

2059: %``The universality class of the electroweak theory,''

2060: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 532 (1998) 283 [hep-lat/9805013].

2061: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B532,283;%%

2062: 

2063: \bibitem{cfh}

2064: F.~Csikor, Z.~Fodor and J.~Heitger,

2065: %``Endpoint of the hot electroweak phase transition,''

2066: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {82} (1999) 21 [hep-ph/9809291];

2067: %%CITATION = PRLTA,82,21;%%

2068: M.~Laine,

2069: %``The renormalized gauge coupling and 

2070: %non-perturbative tests of  dimensional reduction,''

2071: JHEP {06} (1999) 020 [hep-ph/9903513].

2072: %%CITATION = JHEPA,9906,020;%%

2073: 

2074: \bibitem{hp}

2075: A. Hart and O. Philipsen, 

2076: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 572 (2000) 243 [hep-lat/9908041].

2077: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9908041;%%

2078: 

2079: \bibitem{dg}

2080: S. Datta and S. Gupta,

2081: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 534 (1998) 392 [hep-lat/9806034];

2082: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9806034;%%

2083: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 471 (2000) 382 [hep-lat/9906023].

2084: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9906023;%%

2085: 

2086: \bibitem{fop}

2087: F.~Karsch, M.~Oevers and P.~Petreczky,

2088: %``Screening masses of hot SU(2)

2089: % gauge theory from the 3d adjoint Higgs  model,''

2090: Phys.\ Lett.\  {B 442} (1998) 291 [hep-lat/9807035].

2091: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9807035;%%

2092: 

2093: \bibitem{rnew}

2094: P.~Bialas, A.~Morel, B.~Petersson, K.~Petrov and T.~Reisz,

2095: %``High temperature 3D QCD: Dimensional reduction at work,''

2096: hep-lat/0003004.

2097: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0003004;%%

2098: 

2099: \bibitem{lp}

2100: M. Laine and O. Philipsen, 

2101: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 523 (1998) 267 [hep-lat/9711022];

2102: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9711022;%%

2103: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 459 (1999) 259 [hep-lat/9905004].

2104: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9905004;%%

2105: 

2106: \bibitem{alf}

2107: M.~Alford,

2108: %``New possibilities for QCD at finite density,''

2109: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.)\  {73} (1999) 161

2110: [hep-lat/9809166].

2111: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9809166;%%

2112: 

2113: \bibitem{imagmu}

2114: M.~Alford, A.~Kapustin and F.~Wilczek,

2115: %``Imaginary chemical potential and finite fermion density on the lattice,''

2116: Phys.\ Rev.\  {D 59} (1999) 054502

2117: [hep-lat/9807039];

2118: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9807039;%%

2119: M.~Lombardo,

2120: %``Finite density (might well be easier) at finite temperature,''

2121: hep-lat/9908006.

2122: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9908006;%%

2123: 

2124: \bibitem{bigm}

2125: T.C.~Blum, J.E.~Hetrick and D.~Toussaint,

2126: %``High density QCD with static quarks,''

2127: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {76} (1996) 1019

2128: [hep-lat/9509002];

2129: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9509002;%%

2130: R.~Aloisio, V.~Azcoiti, G.~Di Carlo, A.~Galante and A.F.~Grillo,

2131: %``Finite density fat QCD,''

2132: hep-lat/9903004;

2133: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9903004;%%

2134: J.~Engels, O.~Kaczmarek, F.~Karsch and E.~Laermann,

2135: %``The quenched limit of lattice QCD at non-zero baryon number,''

2136: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {B 558} (1999) 307

2137: [hep-lat/9903030].

2138: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9903030;%%

2139: 

2140: \bibitem{ippl}

2141: P.~de Forcrand and V.~Laliena,

2142: %``The role of the Polyakov loop in finite density QCD,''

2143: Phys.\ Rev.\  {D 61} (2000) 034502

2144: [hep-lat/9907004];

2145: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9907004;%%

2146: K.~Langfeld and G.~Shin,

2147: %``Lattice Yang-Mills theory at finite densities of heavy quarks,''

2148: hep-lat/9907006.

2149: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9907006;%%

2150: 

2151: \bibitem{4dpt}

2152: J. Fingberg, U. Heller and F. Karsch, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 392 (1993) 493.

2153: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9208012;%%

2154: 

2155: \bibitem{bfp}

2156: B.~Beinlich, F.~Karsch, E.~Laermann and A.~Peikert,

2157: %``String tension and thermodynamics with tree level

2158: % and tadpole improved  actions,''

2159: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\  {C 6} (1999) 133 [hep-lat/9707023].

2160: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9707023;%%

2161: 

2162: \bibitem{ay}

2163: P. Arnold and L.G. Yaffe,

2164: %``The NonAbelian Debye screening length beyond leading order,''

2165: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 52 (1995) 7208 [hep-ph/9508280].

2166: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508280;%%

2167: 

2168: \bibitem{framework}

2169: K.~Farakos, K.~Kajantie, K.~Rummukainen and M.~Shaposhnikov,

2170: %``3-d physics and the electroweak phase transition:

2171: % A Framework for lattice Monte Carlo analysis,''

2172: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {B 442} (1995) 317

2173: [hep-lat/9412091].

2174: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9412091;%%

2175: 

2176: \bibitem{contlatt}

2177: M.~Laine and A.~Rajantie,

2178: %``Lattice-continuum relations for 3d SU(N)+Higgs theories,''

2179: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {B 513} (1998) 471

2180: [hep-lat/9705003].

2181: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9705003;%%

2182: 

2183: \bibitem{moore_a}

2184: G.D.~Moore,

2185: %``Curing O(a) errors in 3-D lattice SU(2) x U(1) Higgs theory,''

2186: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {B 493} (1997) 439 [hep-lat/9610013];

2187: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9610013;%%

2188: %``O(a) errors in 3-D SU(N) Higgs theories,''

2189: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {B 523} (1998) 569

2190: [hep-lat/9709053].

2191: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9709053;%%

2192: 

2193: \bibitem{mic}

2194: C. Michael, J.\ Phys.\ G 13 (1987) 1001.

2195: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G13,1001;%%

2196: 

2197: \bibitem{ptw}

2198: O. Philipsen, M. Teper and H. Wittig,

2199: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 469 (1996) 445 [hep-lat/9602006];

2200: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9602006;%%

2201: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 528 (1998) 379 [hep-lat/9709145].

2202: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9709145;%%

2203: 

2204: \bibitem{gev}

2205: G.C.\,Fox, R.\,Gupta, O.\,Martin and S.\,Otto, 

2206: Nucl.~Phys.~ B 205 (1982) 188; 

2207: %CITATION = NUPHA,B205,188;%%

2208: B.~Berg and A.~Billoire, 

2209: Nucl.~Phys.~B 221 (1983) 109; 

2210: %CITATION = NUPHA,B221,109;%%

2211: M.\,L\"uscher and U.\,Wolff, 

2212: Nucl.~Phys.~B 339 (1990) 222; 

2213: %CITATION = NUPHA,B339,222;%%

2214: A.S.\,Kronfeld, 

2215: Nucl.~Phys.~B (Proc. Suppl.) 17 (1990) 313.

2216: %CITATION = NUPHZ,17,313;%%

2217: 

2218: \bibitem{teper99}

2219: M. Teper, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 014512 [hep-lat/9804008].

2220: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9804008;%%

2221: 

2222: \bibitem{bunk}

2223: B. Bunk, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc. Suppl.) 42 (1995) 566.

2224: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,42,566;%%

2225: 

2226: \bibitem{pol}

2227: S. Nadkarni,

2228: %``Nonabelian Debye Screening. 1. The Color Averaged Potential,''

2229: Phys.\ Rev.\  {D 33} (1986) 3738;

2230: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D33,3738;%%

2231: E. Braaten and A. Nieto,

2232: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 74 (1995) 3530 [hep-ph/9410218].

2233: %``Asymptotic behavior of the correlator for Polyakov loops,''

2234: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9410218;%%

2235: 

2236: \bibitem{bp2}

2237: W.~Buchm\"uller and O.~Philipsen,

2238: %``Magnetic screening in the high temperature phase of the standard model,''

2239: Phys.\ Lett.\  {B 397} (1997) 112 [hep-ph/9612286].

2240: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612286;%%

2241: 

2242: \bibitem{fk}

2243: O.~Kaczmarek, F.~Karsch, E.~Laermann and M.~L\"utgemeier,

2244: %``Heavy quark potentials in quenched QCD at high temperature,''

2245: hep-lat/9908010.

2246: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9908010;%%

2247: 

2248: \bibitem{lo}

2249: E.V. Shuryak, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 74 (1978) 408 

2250: [Sov. Phys. JETP 47 (1978) 212];

2251: %%CITATION = SPHJA,47,212;%%

2252: J.I. Kapusta, Nucl. Phys. B 148 (1979) 461;

2253: %``Quantum Chromodynamics At High Temperature,''

2254: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B148,461;%%

2255: D.J.~Gross, R.D.~Pisarski and L.G.~Yaffe,

2256: Rev. Mod. Phys. 53 (1981) 43.

2257: %%CITATION = RMPHA,53,43;%%

2258: 

2259: \bibitem{rebhan} A.K. Rebhan,

2260: Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 3967 [hep-ph/9308232];

2261: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9308232;%%

2262: Nucl. Phys. B 430 (1994) 319 [hep-ph/9408262].

2263: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9408262;%%

2264: 

2265: \bibitem{iss}

2266: E.M.~Ilgenfritz, A.~Schiller and C.~Strecha,

2267: %``Wave functions and spectrum in hot

2268: % electroweak matter for large Higgs  masses,''

2269: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\  {C 8} (1999) 135 [hep-lat/9807023].

2270: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9807023;%%

2271: 

2272: \bibitem{sb}

2273: O. Philipsen and H. Wittig,

2274: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 81 (1998) 4056 

2275: [hep-lat/9807020]; {\it ibid}.\ 83 (1999) 2684 (E).

2276: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9807020;%%

2277: 

2278: \bibitem{for85}

2279: P. de Forcrand, G. Schierholz, H. Schneider and M. Teper,

2280: Phys.\ Lett.\ 160 B (1985) 137.

2281: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B160,137;%%

2282: 

2283: \bibitem{kll}

2284: F. Karsch, E. Laermann and M. L\"utgemeier, 

2285: Phys.\ Lett.\ 346 B (1995) 94 [hep-lat/9411020].

2286: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9411020;%%

2287: 

2288: \bibitem{exp}

2289: J.~Cleymans and K.~Redlich,

2290: %``Chemical and thermal freeze-out parameters from 1-A-GeV to 200-A-GeV,''

2291: Phys.\ Rev.\  {C 60} (1999) 054908 [nucl-th/9903063];

2292: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9903063;%%

2293: and references therein.

2294: 

2295: \bibitem{kaps}

2296: C.P.~Korthals Altes, R.D.~Pisarski and A.~Sinkovics,

2297: %``The potential for the phase of the Wilson line at nonzero quark  density,''

2298: Phys.\ Rev.\  {D 61} (2000) 056007 [hep-ph/9904305].

2299: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904305;%%

2300: 

2301: \bibitem{ks96}

2302: S.Yu.~Khlebnikov and M.E.~Shaposhnikov, 

2303: Phys.\ Lett.\ {B 387} (1996) 817

2304: [hep-ph/9607386].

2305: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9607386;%%

2306: 

2307: \bibitem{ka1}

2308: C.P.~Korthals Altes,

2309: %``Constrained effective potential in hot QCD,''

2310: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {B 420} (1994) 637 [hep-th/9310195].

2311: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9310195;%%

2312: 

2313: \bibitem{gl}

2314: I.M.~Barbour, S.E.~Morrison, E.G.~Klepfish, J.B.~Kogut and M.~Lombardo,

2315: %``Results on finite density QCD,''

2316: Nucl.\ Phys.\  A (Proc.\ Suppl.)\  {60} (1998) 220

2317: [hep-lat/9705042].

2318: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9705042;%%

2319: 

2320: \bibitem{gg}

2321: R.V.~Gavai and S.~Gupta,

2322: %``Fermions obstruct dimensional reduction in hot QCD,''

2323: hep-lat/0004011.

2324: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0004011;%%

2325: 

2326: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2327: 

2328: \end{thebibliography}

2329: 

2330: \appendix

2331: \renewcommand{\thesection}{Appendix~~\Alph{section}}

2332: \renewcommand{\thesubsection}{\Alph{section}.\arabic{subsection}}

2333: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}

2334: 

2335: \section{Tables}

2336: 

2337: For completeness, 

2338: we collect in this Appendix the numerical results for 

2339: the correlation length measurements we have carried out. 

2340: 

2341: 

2342: 

2343: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE %%%%%%%%%%%%

2344: \begin{table}[htb]

2345: \begin{center}

2346: \begin{tabular}{|l||r@{.}lc|r@{.}lc||r@{.}lc||r@{.}lc|}

2347: \hline

2348:           &

2349: \multicolumn{9}{|c||}{$T=2T_c$} &

2350: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$T \sim 10^{11}T_c$} \\

2351: \cline{2-13}

2352: %$N_f = 0$ &

2353: &

2354: \multicolumn{6}{|c||}{$\beta=21$}  &

2355: \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{$\beta=28$}  & 

2356: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$\beta=28$} \\

2357: \cline{2-13}

2358:           &

2359: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$L=38$} &

2360: \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{$L=28$} &

2361: \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{$L=40$} &

2362: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$L=40$} \\

2363: \hline

2364: \hline

2365: $0^{++}_+$  &  \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.   &

2366: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  &

2367: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  &

2368: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  \\

2369: \hline

2370: $\Phi_1$ & 

2371: 1&022(15)   & $R,L$     & 

2372: 1&022(11)   & $R,L$     & 

2373: 0&994(19)   & $R,L$     &

2374: 2&55(13)   & $C$       

2375: \\

2376: $\Phi_2$ & 

2377: 2&44(14)   & $C$     & 

2378: 2&51(11)   & $C$     & 

2379: 2&511(66)   & $C$     &

2380: 2&86(14)   & $P$     

2381: \\

2382: $\Phi_3$ & 

2383: 2&92(14)   & $(R,L)$     & 

2384: 2&62(11)   & $T$     & 

2385: 2&65(8)   & $T$     &

2386: 3&75(21)   & $C$     

2387: \\

2388: $\Phi_4$ & 

2389: 3&70(18)   & $T$     & 

2390: 2&95(14)   & $(L)$     & 

2391: 2&95(16)   & $(R,L)$   &

2392: 4&28(28)   & $(P)$     

2393: \\

2394: $\Phi_5$ & 

2395: 3&79(18)   & $C$     & 

2396: 3&66(21)   & $C$     & 

2397: 3&61(32)   & $C$     &

2398: 4&89(27)   & $R,L$   

2399: \\

2400: $\Phi_6$ & 

2401: 4&62(28)   & $(R,L)$     & 

2402: 4&14(25)  & $(T)$ &

2403: 3&66(36)   & $(T)$    &

2404: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{---}

2405: \\

2406: %

2407: %

2408: %

2409: %

2410: %

2411: \hline

2412: \hline

2413: $2^{++}_+$  &  \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.   &

2414: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  &

2415: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  &  

2416: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  \\

2417: \hline

2418: $\Phi_1$ & 

2419: 3&60(18)   & $T$     & 

2420: 2&63(7)   & $T$     & 

2421: 2&82(13)   & $T$     &

2422: 2&94(17)   & $T$     

2423: \\

2424: $\Phi_2$ & 

2425: 3&55(19)   & $R,L$     & 

2426: 3&44(16)   & $R,L$     & 

2427: 3&355(94)   & $R,L$     &

2428: 4&26(19)   & $C$     

2429: \\

2430: $\Phi_3$ & 

2431: 4&23(25)   & $C$     & 

2432: 3&92(21)   & $T$     & 

2433: 4&14(28)   & $C$     &

2434: 4&35(28)   & $T$     

2435: \\

2436: $\Phi_4$ & 

2437: 4&94(53)   & $C$     & 

2438: 4&06(28)   & $C$     & 

2439: 3&94(33)   & $T$     &

2440: 5&05(44)   & $C$  

2441: \\

2442: \hline

2443: \end{tabular}

2444: \caption{ \label{tab_02_0nf} 

2445:   {\em Mass estimates and dominant operator contributions in the

2446:     $0^{++}_{+}$ and $2^{++}_{+}$ channels for

2447:     $N_f = 0$. The dominant operator types contributing are denoted

2448:     with (without) parentheses if 

2449:     $\langle \Phi_i^\dagger \phi_k\rangle <(>)0.5$.}}

2450: \end{center}

2451: \end{table}

2452: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2453: 

2454: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE %%%%%%%%%

2455: \begin{table}[htb]

2456: \begin{center}

2457: \begin{tabular}{|l||r@{.}l|r@{.}l||r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l||r@{.}l|}

2458: \hline

2459: &

2460: \multicolumn{4}{c||}{$T = 1.5\lambdamsbar$} &

2461: \multicolumn{8}{c|}{$T = 2.0\lambdamsbar$} \\

2462: \cline{2-13}

2463: &

2464: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$N_f = 2$} & 

2465: \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$N_f = 3$} &

2466: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$N_f = 2$} & 

2467: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$N_f = 3$} & 

2468: \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$N_f = 4$} & 

2469: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$N_f = 2$} \\

2470: \cline{2-13}

2471: &

2472: \multicolumn{4}{c||}{$\beta=21$} &

2473: \multicolumn{6}{c||}{$\beta=21$} & 

2474: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\beta=28$} \\

2475: \hline \hline

2476: $0^{++}_+$  &  

2477: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} &

2478: \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$M/g_3^2$} &   

2479: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & 

2480: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & 

2481: \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$M/g_3^2$} & 

2482: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M/g_3^2$} \\

2483: \hline

2484: $\Phi_1^{(R,L)}$ & 

2485: 1&183(22)   & 

2486: 1&316(18)   & 

2487: 1&351(18)   & 

2488: 1&477(18)   & 

2489: 1&557(22)   & 

2490: 1&335(19)   

2491: \\

2492: $\Phi_2^{(C)}$ & 

2493: 2&51(5)   & 

2494: 2&16(18)  & 

2495: 2&576(50) &

2496: 2&51(13)  & 

2497: 2&59(11)  & 

2498: 2&55(7)  

2499: \\

2500: $\Phi_3^{(T)}$ & 

2501: 2&64(9)   & 

2502: 2&86(19)  &

2503: 2&60(13)  &

2504: 2&90(18)  &

2505: 2&83(18)  &

2506: 2&74(9)  

2507: \\

2508: $\Phi_4^{(R,L)}$ & 

2509: 3&14(13)   &

2510: 3&26(18)   &

2511: 3&29(11)   &

2512: 3&35(21)   &

2513: 3&44(18)   &

2514: 3&25(12)  

2515: \\

2516: $\Phi_5^{(C)}$ & 

2517: 3&68(21)   &

2518: 3&83(24)   &

2519: 3&51(33)   &

2520: 3&86(25)   &

2521: \multicolumn{2}{c||}{---}&

2522: 3&76(28)   

2523: \\

2524: $\Phi_6^{(T)}$ & 

2525: 4&01(35)   & 

2526: 3&84(32)   & 

2527: 4&11(25)   &

2528: 4&25(32)   &

2529: \multicolumn{2}{c||}{---}&

2530: 4&05(33)  

2531: \\

2532: %

2533: %

2534: %

2535: %

2536: %

2537: \hline\hline

2538: $2^{++}_+$  &  

2539: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & 

2540: \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$M/g_3^2$} & 

2541: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & 

2542: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & 

2543: \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$M/g_3^2$} & 

2544: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M/g_3^2$}  \\

2545: \hline

2546: $\Phi_1^{(T)}$ & 

2547: 2&69(12)   & 

2548: 2&88(11)   & 

2549: 2&84(18)   &

2550: 2&98(12)   &

2551: 2&90(14)   &

2552: 2&74(7)  

2553: \\

2554: $\Phi_2^{(R,L)}$ & 

2555: 3&56(14)   &

2556: 3&73(15)   &

2557: 3&69(21)   &

2558: 3&57(28)   &

2559: 3&77(19)   &

2560: 3&59(12)   

2561: \\

2562: $\Phi_3^{(C)}$ & 

2563: 4&27(18)   &

2564: 4&08(28)   &

2565: 3&76(23)   &

2566: 4&27(33)   &

2567: 4&16(32)   &

2568: 4&14(24)  

2569: \\

2570: $\Phi_4^{(T)}$ & 

2571: 3&83(28)   &

2572: 4&40(33)   &

2573: 4&06(28)   &

2574: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{---} &

2575: \multicolumn{2}{c||}{---} &

2576: 3&87(24)   

2577: \\

2578: \hline

2579: \end{tabular}

2580: \caption{ \label{tab_02}

2581:   {\em Mass estimates and dominant operator contributions in the

2582:     $0^{++}_{+}$ and $2^{++}_{+}$ channels for various $N_f > 0$ on

2583:     $L=30$, $40$ for $\beta =21$, $28$ respectively. The dominant

2584:     operator types contributing are shown in the superscripts.}}

2585: \end{center}

2586: \end{table}

2587: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2588: 

2589: 

2590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE %%%%%%%%%%%

2591: \begin{table}[htb]

2592: 

2593: \begin{center}

2594: \begin{tabular}{|l||r@{.}l|r@{.}l||r@{.}l||r@{.}l|}

2595: \hline

2596: &

2597: \multicolumn{6}{|c||}{$T=2T_c$} &

2598: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$T \sim 10^{11}T_c$} \\

2599: \cline{2-9}

2600: %$N_f = 0$  &

2601: &

2602: \multicolumn{4}{|c||}{$\beta=21$}  &

2603: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta=28$} &

2604: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$\beta=28$} \\

2605: \cline{2-9}

2606: &

2607: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$L=38$} &

2608: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$L=28$} &

2609: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$L=40$} &

2610: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$L=40$} \\

2611: \hline\hline

2612: $0^{--}_+$  & 

2613: 2&57 (11)   & 

2614: 2&53 (9)   & 

2615: 2&46 (10)   &

2616: 3&83 (19)   

2617: \\

2618: $0^{--*}_+$  & 

2619: 3&71 (28)   & 

2620: 3&91 (21)   & 

2621: 3&50 (25)   &

2622: 4&48 (28)   

2623: \\

2624: \hline

2625: $0^{-+}_-$  & 

2626: 1&799 (35)   & 

2627: 1&771 (32)   & 

2628: 1&699 (43)   &

2629: 3&82 (12)   

2630: \\

2631: $0^{-+*}_-$  & 

2632: 3&28 (18)   & 

2633: 3&25 (18)   & 

2634: 3&27 (18)   &

2635: 5&07 (28)   

2636: \\

2637: \hline

2638: $0^{+-}_-$  & 

2639: 1&85 (7)   & 

2640: 1&90 (5)   & 

2641: 1&85 (5)   &

2642: 4&96 (28)   

2643: \\

2644: $0^{+-*}_-$  & 

2645: 3&06 (33)   & 

2646: 3&06 (18)   & 

2647: 3&07 (12)  & 

2648: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{---}

2649: \\

2650: \hline\hline

2651: $1_+$ & 

2652: 3&47 (28) &

2653: 3&49 (30) &  

2654: 3&33 (28) &

2655: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{---}

2656: \\

2657: \hline

2658: $1_-$ & 

2659: 2&76 (28) &  

2660: 2&99 (21) &

2661: 2&98 (14) &

2662: 4&42 (28) 

2663: \\

2664: \hline

2665: \end{tabular}

2666: \end{center}

2667: 

2668: \caption{ \label{tab_other_0nf} 

2669: {\em Masses $M/g_3^2$ for 

2670: channels other than $0_+^{++}, 2_+^{++}$ at $N_f=0$.

2671: The stars in the superscripts denote excited states. }}

2672: \end{table}

2673: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2674: 

2675: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE %%%%%%

2676: \begin{table}[htb]

2677: 

2678: \begin{center}

2679: \begin{tabular}{|l||r@{.}l|r@{.}l||r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l||r@{.}l|}

2680: \cline{1-13}

2681: &

2682: \multicolumn{4}{c||}{$T = 1.5\lambdamsbar$} &

2683: \multicolumn{8}{c|}{$T = 2.0\lambdamsbar$} \\

2684: \cline{2-13}

2685: &

2686: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$N_f = 2$} & 

2687: \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$N_f = 3$} &

2688: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$N_f = 2$} & 

2689: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$N_f = 3$} & 

2690: \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$N_f = 4$} & 

2691: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$N_f = 2$} \\

2692: \cline{2-13}

2693: &

2694: \multicolumn{4}{c||}{$\beta=21$} &

2695: \multicolumn{6}{c||}{$\beta=21$} & 

2696: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\beta=28$} \\

2697: \hline\hline

2698: $0^{--}_+$  & 

2699: 2&83 (7) & 

2700: 2&96 (7)  & 

2701: 2&74 (14) & 

2702: 2&84 (21) & 

2703: 3&16 (25) & 

2704: 2&83 (7)   

2705: \\

2706: $0^{--*}_+$  & 

2707: 3&71 (21) &  

2708: 3&94 (19) & 

2709: 3&70 (18) &  

2710: 3&58 (28) &  

2711: 3&84 (25) &  

2712: 3&64 (14)   

2713: \\

2714: \hline

2715: $0^{-+}_-$  & 

2716: 1&932 (32) &  

2717: 1&977 (43)& 

2718: 1&960 (43) &  

2719: 2&079 (35) &  

2720: 2&103 (67) &  

2721: 1&932 (43)   

2722: \\

2723: $0^{-+*}_-$  & 

2724: 3&46 (11) &   

2725: 3&52 (21) & 

2726: 3&50 (21) &   

2727: 3&56 (11) &   

2728: 3&66 (16) &   

2729: 3&56 (14)   

2730: \\

2731: \hline

2732: $0^{+-}_-$  & 

2733: 2&19 (7) &  

2734: 2&27 (11) & 

2735: 2&391 (35) &

2736: 2&604 (70) &

2737: 2&677 (70) &

2738: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{---}

2739: \\

2740: $0^{+-*}_-$  & 

2741: 3&31 (24) &  

2742: 3&29 (19) & 

2743: 3&31 (15) &  

2744: 3&53 (21) &  

2745: 3&60 (11) &  

2746: 3&29 (10)  

2747: \\

2748: \hline

2749: \hline

2750: $1_+$ & 

2751: 3&59 (25) &

2752: 3&92 (20) & 

2753: 4&06 (16) &

2754: 4&11 (32) &

2755: 4&08 (25) &

2756: 3&73 (15) 

2757: \\

2758: \hline

2759: $1_-$ & 

2760: 3&10 (18) &

2761: 3&17 (25) & 

2762: 2&91 (16) &

2763: 3&28 (28) &

2764: 3&21 (18) &

2765: 3&08 (12) 

2766: \\

2767: \hline

2768: \end{tabular}

2769: \end{center}

2770: 

2771: \caption{ \label{tab_other}

2772:   {\em Masses $M/g_3^2$ for

2773:     channels other than $0_+^{++}, 2_+^{++}$,

2774:     for various $N_f > 0$,

2775:     on $L=30$, $40$ with $\beta = 21$,~$28$, respectively.

2776:     The stars in the superscripts denote excited states.}}

2777: \end{table}

2778: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2779: 

2780: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE %%%%%%%%

2781: \begin{table}[htb]

2782: \begin{center}

2783: \begin{tabular}{|l||r@{.}l|r@{.}l||r@{.}l||r@{.}l|}

2784: \hline

2785:           &

2786: \multicolumn{6}{|c||}{$T=2T_c$} &

2787: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$T \sim 10^{11}T_c$} \\

2788: \cline{2-9}

2789: %$N_f = 0$ &

2790: &

2791: \multicolumn{4}{|c||}{$\beta=21$}  &

2792: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta=28$}  & 

2793: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$\beta=28$} \\

2794: \cline{2-9}

2795:           &

2796: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$L=38$} &

2797: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$L=28$} &

2798: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$L=40$} &

2799: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$L=40$} \\

2800: \hline

2801: $aM_P(L)$  &

2802: 1&042 (40)   &

2803: 0&749 (20)   &

2804: 0&585 (17)   &

2805: 0&625 (20)   

2806: \\

2807: $a\sqrt{\sigma_{\infty}}$ &

2808: 0&167 (4) &

2809: 0&166 (3)   &

2810: 0&122 (2)   &

2811: 0&126 (2)   

2812: \\

2813: $\sqrt{\sigma_{\infty}}/g_3^2$ &

2814: 0&585 (15) &

2815: 0&580 (11)   &

2816: 0&569 (10)   &

2817: 0&588 (10)   

2818: \\

2819: \hline

2820: \end{tabular}

2821: \end{center}

2822: 

2823: \caption{ \label{tab_sigma_0nf}

2824: {\em Spatial Polyakov loop masses and string tensions

2825: for $N_f = 0$.}} 

2826: \end{table}

2827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2828: 

2829: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE %%%%%%%%%%%

2830: \begin{table}[htb]

2831: 

2832: \begin{center}

2833: \begin{tabular}{|l||r@{.}l|r@{.}l||r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l||r@{.}l|}

2834: \cline{1-13}

2835: &

2836: \multicolumn{4}{c||}{$T = 1.5\lambdamsbar$} &

2837: \multicolumn{8}{c|}{$T = 2.0\lambdamsbar$} \\

2838: \cline{2-13}

2839: &

2840: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$N_f = 2$} &

2841: \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$N_f = 3$} & 

2842: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$N_f = 2$} &

2843: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$N_f = 3$} &

2844: \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$N_f = 4$} &

2845: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$N_f = 2$} \\

2846: \cline{2-13}

2847: &

2848: \multicolumn{4}{c||}{$\beta=21$} & 

2849: \multicolumn{6}{c||}{$\beta=21$} &

2850: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\beta=28$} \\

2851: \hline

2852: $aM_P(L)$  &

2853: 0&760(21) &

2854: 0&818(15) &

2855: 0&798(19) &

2856: 0&847(35) &

2857: 0&820(19)&

2858: 0&588(11)

2859: \\

2860: $a\sqrt{\sigma_{\infty}}$ &

2861: 0&161(3)  &

2862: 0&167(2)  &

2863: 0&165(2)  &

2864: 0&170(4)  &

2865: 0&167(2)  &

2866: 0&123(2)

2867: \\

2868: $\sqrt{\sigma_{\infty}}/g_3^2$ &

2869: 0&563(11) &

2870: 0&584(8) &

2871: 0&577(8) &

2872: 0&595(15) &

2873: 0&584(8)&

2874: 0&574(10)

2875: \\

2876: \hline

2877: \end{tabular}

2878: \end{center}

2879: 

2880: \caption{ \label{tab_sigma}

2881: {\em Spatial Polyakov loop masses and string tensions 

2882: corresponding to 3d parameters with $N_f > 0$, 

2883: on $L=30$, $40$ for $\beta=21$,~$28$ respectively.}}

2884: \end{table}

2885: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2886: 

2887: 

2888: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE %%%%%%%%%%%%

2889: \begin{table}[hbt]

2890: \begin{center}

2891: \begin{tabular}{|l||r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|}

2892: \hline

2893:  &  

2894: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\mu/T = 0.5 \ii$}  &

2895: \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$\mu/T = 1.0 \ii$}  & 

2896: \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$\mu/T = 1.5 \ii$} \\

2897: \cline{2-11}

2898:  &  

2899: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$L=20$}  &

2900: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$L=20$}  &

2901: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$L=20$}  &

2902: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$L=30$}  &

2903: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$L=30$}  \\

2904:  &  

2905: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{rewtd.}  &

2906: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{rewtd.}  &

2907: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{exact}  &

2908: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{rewtd.}  &

2909: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{exact}  \\

2910: \hline

2911: \hline

2912: $0^+$  &  

2913: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M/g_3^2$} &

2914: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M/g_3^2$} &

2915: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M/g_3^2$} &

2916: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M/g_3^2$} &

2917: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M/g_3^2$}  \\

2918: \hline

2919: $\Phi_1^{(R_2,L)}$ &

2920: 1&34 (3)   & 

2921: 1&20 (2)   & 

2922: 1&18 (2)   & 

2923: 0&89 (3)  & 

2924: 0&85 (3)   \\

2925: $\Phi_2^{(P)}$ &

2926: 1&94 (6) & 

2927: 1&89 (6) & 

2928: 1&73 (11) &

2929: 2&54 (14) & 

2930: 2&96 (21) \\

2931: $\Phi_3^{(R_3)}$ &

2932: 2&21 (9) & 

2933: 2&22 (7) & 

2934: 2&21 (11) &

2935: 1&81 (6)  & 

2936: 1&81 (6)   \\

2937: $\Phi_4^{(C)}$ &

2938: 2&54 (18) &

2939: 2&53 (9)  &

2940: 2&50 (13) &

2941: 2&45 (11)  & 

2942: 2&45 (18)   \\

2943: \hline

2944: \hline

2945: $0^-$  &  

2946: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M/g_3^2$} & 

2947: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M/g_3^2$} & 

2948: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M/g_3^2$} & 

2949: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M/g_3^2$} & 

2950: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M/g_3^2$} \\

2951: \hline

2952: $\Phi_1^{(B_1)}$ &

2953: 2&04 (3)   & 

2954: 1&87 (4)   & 

2955: 1&86 (3)   & 

2956: 1&76 (3)   & 

2957: 1&77 (7)   \\

2958: $\Phi_2^{(B_2)}$ &

2959: 2&91 (15)  &

2960: 2&88 (9)   &

2961: 2&81 (13)  &

2962: 2&46 (7)   & 

2963: 2&42 (9)   \\

2964: $\Phi_3^{(B_1)}$ &

2965: 3&15 (25)  & 

2966: 3&32 (18)  & 

2967: 3&45 (20)  & 

2968: 3&29 (21)  & 

2969: 3&23 (25)  \\

2970: $\Phi_4^{(C)}$ &

2971: 3&80  (35) & 

2972: 3&75  (25) & 

2973: 3&63  (28) & 

2974: 3&50 (27)  & 

2975: 3&70 (28)  \\

2976: \hline

2977: \end{tabular}

2978: \caption{ \label{tab_0_immu}

2979:   {\em Mass estimates and dominant operator contributions in the $0^+$

2980:     and $0^-$ channels for imaginary $\mu \neq 0$ from reweighted and

2981:     exact actions. The dominant

2982:     operator types contributing are shown in the superscripts.

2983:     Some states on the lattice 

2984:     size $L=30$ (used for $\mu/T=1.5i$)

2985:     have been reordered for clarity of presentation.}}

2986: \end{center}

2987: \end{table}

2988: 

2989: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE %%%%%%%%%%%%

2990: \begin{table}[hbt]

2991: \begin{center}

2992: \begin{tabular}{|l||r@{.}lc|r@{.}lc|r@{.}lc|}

2993: \hline

2994:  &  

2995: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\mu/T = 0.5$}  &

2996: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\mu/T = 1.0$}  &

2997: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\mu/T = 1.5$}  \\

2998: \cline{2-10}

2999:  &  

3000: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$L=30$}  &

3001: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$L=30$}  &

3002: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$L=30$}  \\

3003: \hline

3004: \hline

3005: $0^+$  &  

3006: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  &

3007: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  &

3008: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  \\

3009: \hline

3010: $\Phi_1$ &

3011: 1&37 (4)   & $R_2,L$   & 

3012: 1&48 (2)   & $R_2,L$   &

3013: 1&59 (2)   & $R_2,L$   \\

3014: $\Phi_2$ &

3015: 2&29 (8) & $C,(R_3)$   &

3016: 2&61 (3) & $C,(R_3)$   &

3017: 2&50 (5)   & $C$        \\

3018: $\Phi_3$ &

3019: 2&51 (9) & $R_3,(C)$   &

3020: 2&61 (4) & $R_3,(C)$   &

3021: 2&78 (5)   & $R_3$       \\

3022: $\Phi_4$ &

3023: 2&64 (17)  & $P$ &      

3024: 2&84 (8)  & $P$ &      

3025: 2&82 (7)  & $P$ \\

3026: \hline

3027: \hline

3028: $0^-$  &  

3029: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  &

3030: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  &

3031: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  \\

3032: \hline

3033: $\Phi_1$ &

3034: 2&01 (2)   & $B_1$     &

3035: 2&02 (2)   & $B_1$     &

3036: 2&14 (3)   & $B_1$     \\

3037: $\Phi_2$ &

3038: 2&84 (12)   & $B_2$   &

3039: 3&12 (6)   & $B_2$   &

3040: 3&18 (7)   & $B_2$   \\

3041: $\Phi_3$ &

3042: 3&49 (18)   & $B_1$   &

3043: 3&56 (7)   & $B_1$   &

3044: 3&67 (11)  & $B_1$   \\

3045: $\Phi_4$ &

3046: 3&74  (21) & $C$ & 

3047: 3&68  (11) & $C$ & 

3048: 3&73 (12)  & $C$ \\

3049: \hline

3050: \multicolumn{10}{c}{$\mbox{ }$} \\

3051: \multicolumn{10}{c}{$\mbox{ }$} \\

3052: \hline

3053:  &  

3054: \multicolumn{6}{c|}{$\mu/T = 2.0$}  &

3055: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\mu/T = 4.0$}  \\

3056: \cline{2-10}

3057:  &  

3058: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$L=30$}  &

3059: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$L=40$}  &

3060: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$L=30$}  \\

3061: \hline

3062: \hline

3063: $0^+$  &  

3064: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  &

3065: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  &

3066: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  \\

3067: \hline

3068: $\Phi_1$ &

3069: 1&73 (3)  & $R_2,L$   &

3070: 1&80 (11)  & $R_2,L$   &

3071: 2&58 (16) & $R_2,L$ \\

3072: $\Phi_2$ &

3073: 2&45 (8)  & $C$       &

3074: 2&43 (21)  & $C$       &

3075: 2&69 (18) & $C$ \\

3076: $\Phi_3$ &

3077: 3&01 (14)  & $R_3$        &

3078: 2&71 (21)  & $R_3$        &

3079: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{---}  \\

3080: $\Phi_4$ &

3081: 3&02 (14) & $P$ & 

3082: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{---} &

3083: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{---} \\

3084: \hline

3085: \hline

3086: $0^-$  &  

3087: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  &

3088: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  &

3089: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M/g_3^2$} & Ops.  \\

3090: \hline

3091: $\Phi_1$ &

3092: 2&25 (5)   & $B_1$     &

3093: 2&19 (7)   & $B_1$     &

3094: 2&43 (20)  & $B_1$    \\

3095: $\Phi_2$ &

3096: 3&45 (8)   & $B_2$   &

3097: 3&37 (25)   & $B_2$   &

3098: 4&17 (22)  & $B_2,C$   \\

3099: $\Phi_3$ &

3100: 3&57 (11)  & $C$   &

3101: 3&78 (35)  & $C$   &

3102: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{---} \\           

3103: $\Phi_4$ &

3104: 3&70 (16)  & $B_1$ & 

3105: 3&85 (36)  & $B_1$ & 

3106: \multicolumn{3}{c|}{---} \\

3107: \hline

3108: \end{tabular}

3109: \caption{ \label{tab_0_remu}

3110:   {\em Mass estimates and dominant operator contributions in the

3111:     $0^+$ and $0^-$ channels for real

3112:     $\mu \neq 0$. The dominant operator types contributing are denoted

3113:     with (without) parentheses if 

3114:     $\mid\langle \Phi_i^\dagger \phi_k\rangle\mid <(>)0.5$.}}

3115: \end{center}

3116: \end{table}

3117: 

3118: 

3119: \end{document}

3120: