1: \documentstyle[aps,epsf]{revtex}
2: \def\tr{\,{\rm tr}\,}
3: \def\IR{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}}
4: \def\eqnn#1{(\ref{#1})}
5: \def\anp{{ \sl Ann. Phys. }}
6: \def\cmp{{ \sl Comm. Math. Phys. }}
7: \def\ijp{{ \sl Int. J. of Mod. Phys. }}
8: \def\jpa{{ \sl J. of Phys. }}
9: \def\jmp{{ \sl J. of Math. Phys. }}
10: \def\lmp{{ \sl Lett. Math. Phys. }}
11: \def\npb{{ \sl Nucl. Phys. }}
12: \def\prc{{ \sl Phys. Rep. }}
13: \def\prd{{ \sl Phys. Rev. }}
14: \def\prl{{ \sl Phys. Rev. Lett. }}
15: \def\plb{{ \sl Phys. Lett. }}
16: \def\rmp{{ \sl Rev. Mod. Phys. }}
17: \def\jsp{{ \sl J. of Stat. Phys. }}
18: \def\jcp{{ \sl J. Chem. Phys. }}
19: \def\dslash{\hbox{$\partial$\kern-0.5em\raise0.3ex\hbox{/}}}
20: \def\pslash{\hbox{{\it p}\kern-0.48em\raise-0.3ex\hbox{/}}}
21: \def\half{{1\over2}}
22: \def\tmu{\tilde \mu}
23: \def\gfive{\gamma_5}
24: \def\figno#1{{Fig.~\ref{fig:#1}}}
25: \def\intx{\int_0^1\!\!\!dx\,}
26: \def\intpx{\int_0^1\!\!\!dx\,}
27: \def\inty{\int_0^1\!\!dy\,}
28: \def\intk{\int\!\!{d^2k\over(2\pi)^2}\,}
29: \def\sqp{\sqrt{1-4M^2/p^2}}
30: \def\sqpp{\sqrt{4M^2/p^2-1}}
31: \def\wf#1#2{\tilde\varphi_{#1#2}}
32: \def\wfp#1#2{\tilde\psi_{#1#2}}
33: \def\vp#1{\varphi^{(#1)}}
34: \def\vpp#1{\varphi^{\prime(#1)}}
35: \def\hvp{\hat\varphi}
36: \def\gam#1{b_{#1}}
37: \def\coup{{a^2 N\over 4\pi}}
38: \def\coupp{{a_5^2 N\over 4\pi}}
39: \def\pint{P\!\!\int}
40: \def\nf{{N_F}}
41: \def\quarter{{1\over4}}
42: \def\bb#1{B(#1,#1)}
43: \def\susc{{\cal R}}
44: \def\vp#1{\varphi^{(#1)}}
45: \def\vpp#1{\varphi^{\prime(#1)}}
46: \def\hvp{\hat\varphi}
47: \def\sumlk{\sum_{l=1}^K}
48: \def\pim#1{\left(P^{-1}M\right)_{{#1}}}
49: \def\beb#1{B(#1,#1)}
50: \draft
51: \begin{document}
52: \title{
53: Mass inequalities in two dimensional gauged four fermi models
54: }
55: \author{Kenichiro Aoki\footnote{E--mail: {\tt ken@phys-h.keio.ac.jp}}
56: and Kenji Ito\footnote{E--mail: {\tt kito@th.phys.titech.ac.jp}}
57: }
58: \address{$^*$Hiyoshi Dept. of Physics, Keio University, {\it
59: 4--1--1} Hiyoshi, Kouhoku--ku, Yokohama 223--8521, Japan\\
60: $^\dagger$Dept. of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology,
61: 2--12--1 Oh-okayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo {\it 152--0033}, Japan}
62: \date{\today }
63: \maketitle
64:
65: \begin{abstract}
66: We quantitatively analyze the meson mass inequality relations
67: of two dimensional gauged four fermi models in the large $N$
68: limit. The class of models we study includes the {}'t~Hooft
69: model, the chiral and non--chiral Gross--Neveu models as
70: special points in the space of field theories. Cases where
71: the chiral symmetry is spontaneously or explicitly broken are
72: both studied. We study the meson mass inequality
73: quantitatively and define a susceptibility which allows us to
74: systematically analyze the inequality. In the generalized
75: Gross--Neveu model limit, we derive an analytic expression for
76: this susceptibility. Even though no analytic proof of the
77: validity of the classic mass inequality exists for the generic
78: case, the mass inequality is found to be positive throughout
79: most of the parameter space. We point out that the inequality
80: might be negative in certain cases.
81: \end{abstract}
82: \section{Introduction}
83: \label{sec:intro}
84: Determining the properties of composite particles in
85: relativistic field theories, such as mesons or baryons in QCD,
86: is an essentially non--perturbative problem and is quite
87: difficult to address from first principles. While impressive
88: progress has been made in numerical approaches to the
89: problem\cite{lattice}, it is highly desirable to also have a
90: more analytic understanding of the properties of the composite
91: particles. An important relation that can be applied to composite
92: particles in vector like theories, like massive QCD, are the
93: mass inequality relations \cite{ineq}. While these elegant
94: inequalities are quite useful and have therefore been well
95: studied (for a recent review, see, \cite{ineq-revs}), there
96: seems to be little understanding regarding their quantitative
97: behavior. Furthermore, while the proof of inequalities does not
98: apply to chiral, explicitly left--right asymmetric theories or
99: theories with Yukawa couplings, no examples of theories wherein
100: the inequality has been shown to be negative exists amongst
101: relativistic quantum field theories.
102: The mass inequalities provide non-trivial insight into the
103: dynamics of the interacting model. An understanding of the
104: behavior of the inequalities will undoubtedly further our
105: understanding of the spectrum of bound states in relativistic
106: quantum field theories.
107:
108: Whether the inequalities might or might not be positive in
109: chiral models is of import, in particular to supersymmetric
110: theories. In supersymmetric theories, one often `solves' the
111: gauge hierarchy problem by invoking the chiral symmetry of the
112: fermions, which is related in turn to the mass of the scalar
113: bosons by supersymmetry. While some non--perturbative aspects
114: of supersymmetric gauge theories are recently being
115: clarified\cite{susy,nishino}, relations analogous to the mass
116: inequality relations seems not to be known. Such relations, if
117: they exist, should shed light on the properties of the spectrum
118: on supersymmetric theories and on the possibility of spontaneous
119: breaking of supersymmetry.
120: In attempting to extend the mass inequalities
121: to supersymmetric theories, we believe a deeper understanding of
122: its properties to be crucial. Of course, non-supersymmetric
123: theories are of interest on its own, one of the reasons being
124: that the low energy world is not supersymmetric.
125:
126: While, needless to say, computing the mass inequalities in full
127: QCD would be of import, not to mention very interesting, this is
128: a daunting task. One approach is to compute the mass
129: inequalities and develop an understanding of their behavior in
130: analytically solvable relativistic quantum field theory models,
131: such as the classic {}'t~Hooft model\cite{thooft} and the
132: Gross--Neveu models\cite{gn}. This is the approach we shall
133: adopt in this work. These models are tractable yet non--trivial
134: and have proven to be quite instructive by providing physics
135: insight into the non-perturbative aspects of field
136: theories\cite{revs}. Dynamics of gauge theories is certainly of
137: import especially since it is an integral part of the Standard
138: Model. Also, theories of four fermi interactions have been
139: serving an important role in particle physics and other fields
140: of physics\cite{t-gn,topc}.
141:
142: In this work, we shall analyze the properties of mass
143: inequalities of gauged four fermi models in $(1+1)$--dimensions,
144: using the large $N$ limit. In these models, the properties of
145: the ``meson'' states can be reduced analytically to the problem
146: of solving mathematical equations\cite{burkardt,ai2}. This will
147: allow us to study the problem analytically, even if the final
148: equations need to be solved numerically. The parameters in this
149: family of models which we can arbitrary control are the scalar
150: and the pseudo-scalar four fermi couplings, the gauge coupling
151: and the ``quark'' masses. The class of models we study contains
152: the {}'t~Hooft model\cite{thooft} and the chiral and non--chiral
153: Gross--Neveu models\cite{gn} for particular choices of the
154: parameters. It includes cases where the chiral symmetry is
155: spontaneously or explicitly broken. This is of particular
156: interest, since the Gross--Neveu model is known to be equivalent
157: to a Yukawa model where the scalar field develops an expectation
158: value\cite{gn}. This is precisely the kind of situation where
159: one might suspect that the mass inequality may be
160: violated\cite{vw,cvetic}.
161:
162: In order to study the mass inequalities quantitatively and
163: systematically, we need a measure for the size of the
164: inequality. We shall find such a measure in a parameter which
165: we shall call the `meson mass susceptibility' to be explained
166: below. This parameter will allow us to compare the inequalities
167: of various field theories in a natural manner.
168:
169: The work is organized as follows:
170: In section~\ref{sec:susc}, we shall define and explain the meson
171: mass susceptibility. In section~\ref{sec:qm}, we discuss mass
172: inequalities in quantum mechanics. In section~\ref{sec:gn}, we
173: first treat the simpler case of generalized Gross--Neveu models
174: and analyze the mass inequalities there. In particular, an
175: analytic form of the mass susceptibility will be explicitly
176: presented. In section~\ref{sec:tgn}, we work with the general
177: gauged four fermi models. We first summarize the class of models
178: we study and explain how the meson spectrum can be computed.
179: Particular care has been paid to presenting the methods we use
180: explicitly for further possible use. We then compute and study
181: the properties of the mass differences. We end with discussions
182: of the results in section~\ref{sec:discussions}. A short
183: appendix on some of the technical aspects of the computation is
184: included.
185: \section{The meson mass susceptibility}
186: \label{sec:susc}
187: In studying the mass inequalities quantitatively, we need a
188: quantitative measure of how ``large'' the inequality is, in
189: order to compare within the field theory space. This encodes
190: information, intuitively speaking, on how strong the attractive
191: interactions in the theory are. The mass inequality we consider
192: is
193: \begin{equation}
194: \label{ineq}
195: \delta\mu_{ab}\equiv
196: \mu_{ab}-{\left(\mu_{aa}+\mu_{bb}\right)\over2}
197: \end{equation}
198: which is known to be positive for vector-like gauge
199: theories\cite{ineq}. Here, denoting the constituents as $q$'s,
200: $\mu_{ab}$ is the mass of the lightest meson that overlaps with
201: the $\overline{q_a}q_b$ state, and so on.
202:
203: This quantity is dimensionful and depends not only on the model,
204: but also on the difference of the masses of the constituents.
205: The quantity may be made dimensionless trivially by taking the
206: ratio of the inequality with a meson mass. However, this
207: inequality may become large just because the constituent mass
208: difference is large, so is not the most appropriate parameter
209: for investigating the intrinsic dynamics of the theory. In
210: fact, if we consider the field theory space to be parameterized
211: by the couplings of the model which include the masses, the mass
212: inequality is {\it not} a local quantity in the parameter space.
213: It is more natural to define a local parameter in the field
214: theory space. Let us define the mass squared of the
215: constituents to be
216: \begin{equation}
217: \label{msq}
218: M_a^2=M^2(1+\Delta),\qquad
219: M_b^2=M^2(1-\Delta)
220: \end{equation}
221: The meson mass difference $\delta\mu_{ab}$ is even under the
222: interchange of $M_a$ and $M_b$ and is therefore an even function
223: of $\Delta$.
224:
225: We shall characterize the inequality by a parameter we refer to
226: as the ``meson mass susceptibility''. This quantity is defined
227: by,
228: \begin{equation}
229: \label{susc}
230: \susc\equiv \lim_{\Delta\rightarrow 0}
231: {\delta\mu_{ab}\over\Delta^2\mu_{ab}}
232: =
233: \lim_{\Delta\rightarrow 0}
234: {2\mu_{ab}-\left(\mu_{aa}+\mu_{bb}\right) \over
235: \Delta^2 2\mu_{ab}}\qquad,
236: \end{equation}
237: which is a function of the couplings and the mass of the
238: constituent quark. The susceptibility we defined above is also
239: useful from a practical point of view: Since the mass inequality
240: is an expansion in the mass difference squared, the
241: susceptibility together with the meson mass for equal mass
242: quarks, distill the meson mass information when the quark mass
243: difference is not too large.
244:
245: We should perhaps here discuss the relation of this
246: susceptibility to the global properties of the mass inequality,
247: namely when the mass differences are arbitrary. A natural
248: question is whether the positivity of the susceptibility in a
249: parameter region guarantees the positivity of the inequality
250: when the mass differences are large. In quantum mechanics, the
251: situation is quite simple; if the susceptibility is positive
252: everywhere, the mass inequality is positive for arbitrary mass
253: differences. This can be derived from the convexity of the meson
254: mass with respect to the reduced mass of the two quarks. In
255: quantum field theory, however, no such argument exists in
256: general, since the meson mass needs not and will not depend only
257: on the reduced mass of the two quarks. To make an analogous
258: argument in quantum field theory, we need further information
259: regarding the relation between the meson mass and the quark
260: masses. While it seems quite natural to assume that relations
261: exist such that the positivity of the local susceptibility
262: guarantees the positivity of the mass inequality globally, we do
263: not know if this is in fact true. In practice, we have found no
264: counterexamples to this statement.
265:
266: \section{Mass inequalities in quantum mechanics}
267: \label{sec:qm}
268: In this section, we briefly discuss mass inequalities in quantum
269: mechanics (see also \cite{ineq-revs}). While the discussion is
270: not necessary for computing mass inequalities in relativistic
271: field theories, we feel that it is nonetheless quite instructive
272: and provides a broader perspective on mass inequalities in
273: quantum theories. Also, the mass inequalities in relativistic
274: field theories should reduce to that of quantum mechanics in the
275: non--relativistic limit. As such, some of the results here will
276: be later compared to those from the full quantum field theory
277: below. It should be noted, however, that phenomena such as
278: symmetry breaking which plays a large role in
279: $(1+1)$--dimensional gauge theories studied in this work
280: are essentially
281: quantum field theoretical so that quantum mechanical behavior is
282: not sufficient for understanding the full relativistic behavior,
283: even qualitatively.
284:
285: In quantum mechanics, the problem of two body bound states under
286: a local potential reduces to a model with the hamiltonian
287: \begin{equation}
288: \label{hamiltonian}
289: H = {p^2\over 2M_{12}}+V(x)
290: \end{equation}
291: where $M_{12}$ denotes the reduced mass,
292: $1/M_{12}=1/M_1+1/M_2$.
293: We will analyze one dimensional models, but similar analysis can
294: be applied to higher dimensional models.
295: \subsubsection{Infinitely deep square well potential}
296: The potential of the model is
297: \begin{equation}
298: V(x)=\cases{0&$(0\le x\le L)$\cr\infty& $(x<0, x>L)$\cr}.
299: \end{equation}
300: The spectrum of the bound states is known to be
301: $E_{12,n}={\hbar^2\pi^2\over2M_{12} L^2}n^2,\ \ \
302: (n=1,2,\ldots)$. This is somewhat trivial but an interesting
303: case. The susceptibility $\susc=0$ and this we can understand
304: as the signature of the model being free within the well.
305: \subsubsection{Delta function potential}
306: The delta function potential
307: \begin{equation}
308: \label{delta}
309: V(x)=-V_0\delta(x)\qquad (V_0>0)
310: \end{equation}
311: has a bound state with the binding energy
312: $-{M_{12} V_0^2/(2\hbar^2)}$.
313: \begin{equation}
314: \delta\mu_{ab}=E_{ab}-{E_{aa}+E_{bb}\over2}={V_0^2\over8\hbar^2}
315: {\left(M_a-M_b\right)^2\over\left(M_a+M_b\right)}
316: \end{equation}
317: This leads to the susceptibility
318: \begin{equation}
319: \label{delta-susc}
320: \susc={V_0^2\over32\left(1-V_0^2/8\right)}>0
321: \end{equation}
322: The susceptibility increases with larger $V_0$, as expected.
323: In the non-relativistic limit, $V_0\ll1$.
324: \subsubsection{Monomial potentials}
325: Let us also discuss potentials whose behavior is governed by a
326: monomial
327: \begin{equation}
328: \label{monomial}
329: V(x)=A\,x^\gamma, \qquad A\gamma>0
330: \end{equation}
331: $\gamma$ needs not be an integer but $\gamma>-2$ needs to be
332: satisfied for sensible physics behavior. $A\gamma>0$ needs to
333: be imposed for the existence of bound states. $\gamma=2$ and
334: $-1$ corresponds to the harmonic oscillator and the three
335: dimensional Coulomb case, respectively.
336:
337: We can use the uncertainty principle to crudely estimate the
338: bound state energy as
339: \begin{equation}
340: \label{monomial-be}
341: E_{12}\simeq
342: \left({\gamma\over2}+1\right)A
343: \left(\hbar^2\over \gamma AM_{12}\right)^{\gamma \over \gamma +2}
344: \end{equation}
345: We can obtain the susceptibility from this energy as
346: \begin{equation}
347: \label{monomial-susc}
348: \susc\simeq{\hbar^{2\gamma\over\gamma+2}\over8(\gamma+2)c^2}
349: \left(\gamma A\over2\right)^{2\over\gamma+2}
350: M^{-{2(\gamma+1)\over \gamma+2}}>0
351: \end{equation}
352: in the non--relativistic limit. While the derivation is
353: not rigorous, in the harmonic oscillator and the Coulomb cases, the
354: susceptibilities agrees with those obtained from exact
355: methods.
356: \section{Generalized Gross--Neveu models}
357: \label{sec:gn}
358: In this section, we analyze the mass inequalities in the
359: generalized Gross--Neveu models, described by the lagrangian
360: \begin{equation}
361: \label{gn-lag}
362: {\cal L} =
363: \sum_{f=1}^\nf{\overline{\psi}}_f(i
364: {\hbox{{$\partial$}\kern-0.52em\raise0.3ex\hbox{/}}}-m_f){\psi}_{f}
365: +\frac{a^2}{2}\sum_{f,f'=1}^\nf
366: ({\overline{\psi_{f'}}}{\psi_f})({\overline{\psi_f}}{\psi_{f'}})
367: -\frac{a_5^2}{2}\sum_{f,f'=1}^\nf
368: ({\overline{\psi_{f'}}}{\gamma}_5{\psi_f})
369: ({\overline{\psi_{f}}}{\gamma}_5{\psi_{f'}})
370: \end{equation}
371: In addition to the flavor indices $f,f'$ denoted explicitly in
372: the above formula, the fermions carry an additional internal
373: space index, the `color' index ($1,2,\ldots N$) which has been
374: suppressed in the notation. This index should not be confused
375: with the flavor index. We take the large $N$ limit while
376: keeping $a^2N,a_5^2N$ fixed. When $m_f=0, a_5^2=0$, the model
377: reduces to the original Gross--Neveu model and when
378: $m_f=0,a^2=a_5^2$, the model reduces to the chiral Gross--Neveu
379: model with continuous chiral symmetry. When $m_f=0$ and the
380: couplings are not equal, we are left with discrete chiral
381: symmetry in the model. We need to consider multiple flavors for
382: the analysis of the mass inequalities.
383:
384: This class of models is included in the gauged four fermi models
385: we deal with below and the analytic methods discussed there can
386: be applied here also. However, the generalized Gross--Neveu
387: models can be solved completely analytically using different
388: methods than the gauged four fermi model case, so we
389: shall discuss it separately. Here, we shall need the spectrum
390: in the general case when two flavors have different masses,
391: $m_1^2\not=m_2^2$, and $a^2\not=a_5^2$, which was not solved
392: explicitly in \cite{ai2}. We shall present the spectrum and
393: analyze the mass inequalities.
394:
395: Let us consider a meson bound state of constituents with masses,
396: $M_1,M_2$. These constituent masses are physical fermion masses
397: that include the effects of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking
398: that occurs dynamically in the Gross--Neveu model. We dispense
399: with the derivation here, but the Bethe--Salpeter equation for
400: the meson state can be solved algebraically to obtain the meson
401: ``wave function'', $\varphi(x)$ as
402: \begin{eqnarray}
403: \label{gn-sol}
404: \varphi(x)&=& \vp0 + \vp1 (1-2x) + \hvp(x),
405: \qquad (0\leq x\leq 1)\\
406: \hvp(x)&=&{\mu_{12}^2\left(\vp0 + \vp1 (1-2x) \right)
407: +2\left(M_1^2-M_2^2\right)\vp1\over
408: -\mu_{12}^2+{M_1^2\over x}+{M_2^2\over 1-x}}
409: \end{eqnarray}
410: where $\vp0,\vp1$ are constants and
411: $\hvp(x)/\left[x(1-x)\right]$ is integrable at $x=0,1$. The
412: meson wave function satisfies the following boundary conditions
413: \begin{equation}
414: \label{tgn-bc}
415: \pmatrix{ \gam+ & (1+4G_5)\gam- \cr
416: \gam- & (1+4G)\gam+\cr}
417: \pmatrix{\vp0\cr \vp1\cr} = \intx{\hvp(x)\over x(1-x)}
418: \pmatrix{ G_5 & 0 \cr 0 & G\cr}
419: \pmatrix{ \gam+ & \gam- \cr \gam- & \gam+\cr}
420: \pmatrix{1 \cr 1-2x\cr}
421: \end{equation}
422: Here, we used the notation $G\equiv a^2N/(4\pi),\ G_5\equiv
423: a_5^2N/(4\pi)$ for the {\it renormalized} couplings and defined
424: $ \gam\pm\equiv\left( M_1\pm M_2\right)/2$. When the coupling
425: constants are equal, $a^2=a_5^2$, or when the masses are
426: equal, $M_1=M_2$, the two boundary condition equations
427: simply decouple, but do {\it not} in the general case.
428:
429: The boundary conditions lead to a secular equation
430: \begin{equation}
431: \label{gn-spectrum}
432: \det\pmatrix{ J_{12}
433: -\half\left({1\over G}+{1\over G_5}\right)
434: -\left({1\over G_5}-{1\over G}\right)
435: {M_1^2+M_2^2\over4M_1M_2}
436: &
437: {M_1^2-M_2^2\over\mu^2}J_{12}+\ln{M_1^2\over M_2^2}
438: -\left({1\over G_5}-{1\over G}\right)
439: {M_1^2-M_2^2\over4M_1M_2}
440: \cr
441: -{M_1^2-M_2^2\over\mu^2}J_{12}+\ln{M_1^2\over M_2^2}
442: +\left({1\over G_5}-{1\over G}\right)
443: {M_1^2-M_2^2\over4M_1M_2}
444: &
445: \left(1-2{M_1^2+M_2^2\over\mu^2}\right)J_{12}
446: -\half\left({1\over G}+{1\over G_5}\right)
447: +\left({1\over G_5}-{1\over G}\right)
448: {M_1^2+M_2^2\over4M_1M_2}\cr}
449: =0
450: \end{equation}
451: Here, we defined
452: \begin{equation}
453: J_{12}\equiv
454: \int_0^1{\mu^2\,dx\over
455: -\mu^2 x(1-x)+M_1^2(1-x)+M_2^2 x}
456: \end{equation}
457: It should be noted that since the couplings $G,G_5$ are
458: dimensionless, the overall mass scale $M$ can always be scaled
459: out of the problem and only the relative masses have a physical
460: meaning. The physical parameters of this quantum field theory
461: are the two dimensionless renormalized couplings $G,G_5$ and the
462: mass ratio $M_1/M_2$.
463:
464: Before we analyze the behavior of the mass inequalities, we
465: first need to understand the behavior of the spectrum when the
466: masses of the constituents are the same. In this case, the
467: secular equation \eqnn{gn-spectrum} splits into two independent
468: equations for the pseudo--scalar and scalar bound states, $\chi$
469: and $\sigma$:
470: \begin{eqnarray}
471: \label{gn-sigma-pi}
472: \chi:& \quad {1\over G_5} =
473: \intx {(\mu_\chi/M)^2\over 1-(\mu_\chi/M)^2 x(1-x)}
474: ={4\over\sqrt{4(M/\mu_\chi)^2-1}}\tan^{-1}
475: \left(1\over\sqrt{4(M/\mu_\chi)^2-1}\right)
476: \\
477: \sigma:& \quad {1\over G} =
478: \intx {(\mu_\sigma/M)^2-4\over 1-(\mu_\sigma/M)^2 x(1-x)}
479: \end{eqnarray}
480: It should be noted that only $G_5$ ($G$) appears in the equation
481: for $\chi$ ($\sigma$).
482:
483: $\sigma$ exists as a non--tachyonic bound state only for $
484: G<-1/4$. It is not clear whether the theory is unitary for
485: negative $G$ and we shall consider the region $G\geq0$, so we
486: shall not have much more to say on $\sigma$. The original
487: Gross--Neveu model corresponds to $G\rightarrow -\infty$ in our
488: scheme and in this limit, $\mu^2_\sigma\rightarrow 4M^2$.
489:
490: $\chi$ exists as a bound state for any $G_5\geq0$ and
491: $0\leq\mu_\chi^2\leq4M^2$. The dependence of the bound state
492: mass on the coupling is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:gn-spectrum}.
493: This is the only bound state in the model for $G,G_5>0$ and
494: corresponds to the Nambu--Goldstone like particle when the
495: constituent masses are zero\cite{gn,ngb}, as in the chiral
496: Gross--Neveu model. It is the dependence of this meson state on
497: the constituent masses that we shall investigate. As a side
498: note, in a region we shall not investigate, there is an
499: intriguing possibility when $G_5\geq0$ and $G<-1/4$, in some
500: cases, the $\chi$ mass can be larger than the $\sigma$ mass. We
501: do not know whether this can be achieved in a physically
502: consistent situation. Another comment is perhaps appropriate;
503: in the literature, the Gross--Neveu model ($G\not=0,G_5=0$) is
504: often used as a prototypical simple model with a bound state.
505: However, the original Gross--Neveu model has no binding energy
506: for the meson and has barely a bound state. It seems to us that
507: in fact, the simplest theory that may be considered in this
508: family that is useful in analyzing bound state dynamics is
509: $G_5\not=0, G=0$ case. In this case, we have a bound state
510: whose mass depends on the coupling as in \figno{gn-spectrum}.
511: \begin{figure}[htbp]
512: \begin{center}
513: \leavevmode
514: \epsfysize=6cm\epsfbox{gn-spectrum.eps}
515: \caption{The behavior of the $\chi$ meson mass,
516: $\mu_\chi^2/M^2$ with respect to the coupling, $G_5$. }
517: \label{fig:gn-spectrum}
518: \end{center}
519: \end{figure}
520:
521: The meson mass susceptibility may be obtained by perturbing
522: the equation \eqnn{gn-spectrum} in the mass difference parameter
523: $\Delta$ in Eq.~\eqnn{msq}. After some computation, we derive
524: \begin{equation}
525: \label{gn-susc}
526: \susc=\left(\zeta-\quarter\right)\left\{\half
527: -{1\over \left(1+{\zeta\over G_5}\right)\left[\left(\zeta-\quarter\right)
528: {1\over G_5}+{1\over 4G}\right]}\right\}
529: \end{equation}
530: We defined $\zeta\equiv M^2/\mu_0^2$, where $\mu_0^2$ is the
531: mass of the meson in the unperturbed case, when $\Delta=0$. The
532: susceptibility is independent of the overall mass scale $M$,
533: since it can be scaled out of the problem. The susceptibility
534: may be shown analytically to be positive for any $G,G_5>0$.
535: Since $G, G_5$ are scalar and pseudoscalar couplings that can
536: take on arbitrary values, the standard proof of the mass
537: inequality \cite{ineq,ineq-revs} does {\it not} apply to the
538: models we study, except at special points. We believe that an
539: analytic expression has not been derived for the mass inequality
540: previously in any relativistic quantum field theory.
541:
542: It is interesting to check the asymptotic behavior of the
543: susceptibility for small and large couplings. For small $G_5$
544: couplings,
545: \begin{equation}
546: \label{gn-small}
547: \susc={\pi^2G_5^2\over2}\left[1-8G_5(1+4G)+{\cal O}(G_5^2)\right]
548: \end{equation}
549: This behavior is consistent with that for the $\delta$ function
550: problem discussed in Sect. 2. For large $G_5$ couplings,
551: \begin{equation}
552: \label{gn-large}
553: \susc={G_5\over2(4G+1)}-{1\over24(4G+1)^2}
554: +{\cal O}\left(G_5^{-1}\right)
555: \end{equation}
556:
557: The behavior of the susceptibility with respect to $G_5$ is
558: shown for $G=0, 0.1, 1, 10$ in \figno{gn-susc}. The dependence
559: on $G$ is not strong; this is because the properties of the
560: bound state $\chi$ is governed mostly by the pseudo--scalar
561: coupling $G_5$. The crossover from $G_5^2$ behavior to $G_5$
562: behavior in the susceptibility can be clearly seen in the plot.
563: \begin{figure}[htbp]
564: \begin{center}
565: \leavevmode
566: \epsfysize=6cm\epsfbox{gn-ineq.eps}
567: \caption{The behavior of the meson mass susceptibility $\cal
568: R$ with respect to the coupling $G_5$ for the generalized
569: Gross--Neveu models. The lines represent, from top to
570: bottom, $\cal R$ for $G=0,0.1,1,10$ respectively.}
571: \label{fig:gn-susc}
572: \end{center}
573: \end{figure}
574: \section{Gauged four fermi models}
575: \label{sec:tgn}
576: \subsection{The model}
577: \label{sec:model}
578: Let us now discuss the most general gauged four fermi model
579: described by the lagrangian
580: \begin{equation}
581: \label{tgn-lag}
582: {\cal L} =-\frac{1}{2}\tr\left(F_{{\mu}{\nu}}F^{{\mu}{\nu}} \right)
583: +\sum_{f=1}^\nf{\overline{\psi}}_f(i
584: {\hbox{{\it D}\kern-0.52em\raise0.3ex\hbox{/}}}-m_f){\psi}_{f}
585: +\frac{a^2}{2}\sum_{f,f'=1}^\nf
586: ({\overline{\psi_{f'}}}{\psi_f})({\overline{\psi_f}}{\psi_{f'}})
587: -\frac{a_5^2}{2}\sum_{f,f'=1}^\nf
588: ({\overline{\psi_{f'}}}{\gamma}_5{\psi_f})
589: ({\overline{\psi_{f}}}{\gamma}_5{\psi_{f'}})
590: \end{equation}
591: We have gauged the internal index in the generalized
592: Gross--Neveu model \eqnn{gn-lag} so that when we set the gauge
593: coupling to zero, we recover the generalized Gross--Neveu model
594: discussed in the previous section. When we set $G=G_5=0$, we
595: recover the {}'t~Hooft model. We take the large--$N$ limit in a
596: manner similar to that of the previous section but also for the
597: gauge coupling; namely, we keep $g^2N,a^2N,a_5^2N$ fixed while
598: we take $N$ to infinity.
599:
600: We again split the meson wave function as in \eqnn{gn-sol}.
601: Then the Bethe--Salpeter equations for the meson bound states
602: with the fermion constituents with masses $M_{1,2}$ may be
603: obtained in a simple closed form\cite{ai2},
604: \begin{eqnarray}
605: \label{tgn-bs}
606: \mu^2\varphi(x) &=& H\varphi(x)\nonumber\\
607: &=&
608: \left({\beta_1-1\over x}+{\beta_2-1\over
609: 1-x}\right) \hvp(x)
610: -\pint_0^1\!\!dy\,{\hvp(y)\over (y-x)^2}
611: +2\vp1\left( -\beta_1+\beta_2 + \ln{1-x\over x}\right)
612: \end{eqnarray}
613: satisfying the boundary conditions \eqnn{tgn-bc}. Since the
614: gauge coupling $g$ has the dimensions of the mass in
615: $(1+1)$--dimensions, we introduced the dimensionless mass
616: parameters $\beta_{1,2}\equiv\pi M_{1,2}^2/(g^2N)$. The
617: renormalized couplings $G,G_5$ are defined in the same way as in
618: the previous section. We should point out that all the
619: parameters in this equation are finite renormalized parameters,
620: so that the problem has been reduced to solving a somewhat
621: complicated integral equation. The physical parameters in this
622: theory are the three dimensionless renormalized parameters
623: $\beta,G,G_5>0$.
624:
625: For later purposes, we also derive the matrix elements of the
626: ``hamiltonian'', $H$, in the most general case, when the
627: couplings and the masses are arbitrary:
628: \begin{eqnarray}
629: \label{matrix-elements}
630: (\varphi',H\varphi)&=&
631: \left[{\beta_1+\beta_2\over4}\left({1\over G}+{1\over G_5}\right)
632: +\half\sqrt{\beta_1\beta_2}\left({1\over G_5}-{1\over G}\right)
633: \right]\overline{{\vp0}'}\vp0
634: +{\beta_1-\beta_2\over4}\left({1\over G}+{1\over G_5}\right)
635: \left(\overline{{\vp0}'}\vp1+\overline{{\vp1}'}\vp0\right)
636: \nonumber\\&&\quad
637: +\left[{\beta_1+\beta_2\over4}\left({1\over G}+{1\over G_5}+8\right)+2
638: +\half\sqrt{\beta_1\beta_2}\left({1\over G}-{1\over G_5}\right)
639: \right]\overline{{\vp1}'}\vp1
640: \nonumber\\&&\quad
641: +\intx\left({\beta_1-1\over x}+{\beta_2-1\over1-x}\right)
642: \overline{\hat\varphi'(x)}\hat\varphi(x)
643: -P\!\int_0^1\!\!\!\int_0^1\!\!\!
644: {dx\,dy\over(x-y)^2}\,\overline{\hat\varphi'(x)}\hat\varphi(y)
645: \nonumber\\ &&\quad
646: +\intx2\left(-\beta_1+\beta_2+\ln{1-x\over x}\right)
647: \left(\overline{{\vp1}'}\hat\varphi(x)
648: +\overline{\hat\varphi'(x)}\vp1\right)
649: \end{eqnarray}
650: \subsection{Methods for obtaining the spectrum}
651: \label{sec:tgn-spectrum}
652: In generalized Gross--Neveu models, the spectrum could be
653: obtained by just solving an ordinary equation, albeit an
654: transcendental one. In contrast, for the gauged four fermi
655: model, we need to solve an integral equation which is
656: technically more involved. Of course, this is to be expected,
657: since the usual {}'t~Hooft model, which is a simpler model, is
658: solved in terms of an integral equation. To solve the integral
659: equation \eqnn{tgn-bs}, we employ two methods to be explained in
660: this subsection, generalizing the methods used previously in the
661: {}'t~Hooft model \cite{power-ref,multhopp,ai1,ai2}. With either
662: of the two methods, we can solve for the spectrum and the
663: wavefunctions of any of the meson states for arbitrary
664: combinations of masses and couplings in the gauged four fermi
665: models. By using the two different methods simultaneously, we
666: are able to obtain a better control over the error in the
667: results which inevitably arise when we solve the integral
668: equation numerically, in addition to checking the internal
669: consistency. We will be succinct and summarize the results.
670: Even though the basic ideas are the same as those in \cite{ai2},
671: the results are substantially more complicated since we need to
672: treat the most general case which was previously not necessary.
673: \subsubsection{Variational method}
674: One method for solving the Bethe--Salpeter Eq.~\eqnn{tgn-bs},
675: familiar from solving the Schr\"odinger equation, is the
676: variational method. We choose the basis functions
677: $\{\varphi_j|\ j=2,3,\ldots\}$ as
678: \begin{eqnarray}
679: \label{basis}
680: \varphi_{2k}(x)&=&c_{11}+c_{21}(1-2x)
681: +{\left[x(1-x)\right]^k\over \bb k}\nonumber\\
682: \varphi_{2k+1}(x)&=&c_{12}+c_{22}(1-2x)
683: +{(2k+1)(1-2x)\left[x(1-x)\right]^k\over \bb k}
684: \quad(k=1,2\ldots)
685: \end{eqnarray}
686: $c_{ij}$'s need to be determined to satisfy the boundary
687: conditions \eqnn{tgn-bc} as
688: \begin{eqnarray}
689: \label{cijs}
690: \pmatrix{c_{11} & c_{12}\cr c_{21}&c_{22}\cr}
691: &=& \pmatrix{b_+ & (1+4G_5)b_-\cr b_- & (1+4G)b_+\cr}^{-1}
692: \pmatrix{G_5 & 0\cr 0 & G\cr}\pmatrix{b_+ &b_-\cr b_- &b_+\cr}
693: \\ &=&
694: {1\over d}\pmatrix{
695: -{1\over4}(G-G_5)(\beta_1+\beta_2)
696: +\left({G_5+G\over2}+4G_5G\right)\sqrt{\beta_1\beta_2}
697: & -{1\over4}(G-G_5)(\beta_1-\beta_2)\cr
698: {1\over4}(G-G_5)(\beta_1-\beta_2) &
699: {1\over4}(G-G_5)(\beta_1+\beta_2)
700: +\half(G_5+G)\sqrt{\beta_1\beta_2}\cr}\nonumber
701: \end{eqnarray}
702: where
703: \begin{equation}
704: \label{d-def}
705: d\equiv (1+4G)b_+^2-(1+4G_5)b_-^2
706: =\left[(G-G_5)(\beta_1+\beta_2)
707: +\left(1+2(G_5+G)\right)\sqrt{\beta_1\beta_2}\right]
708: \end{equation}
709:
710: In the variational method, the problem of obtaining the meson
711: states is reduced to solving an eigenvalue problem:
712: \begin{equation}
713: \label{tgn-variational}
714: ({\mu}^2 N_{kl}-H_{kl})w_l=0,\quad
715: H_{kl}\equiv\left(\varphi_k,H\varphi_l\right),\
716: N_{kl}\equiv\left(\varphi_k,\varphi_l\right) \qquad
717: k,l=2,3,4{\ldots}
718: \end{equation}
719: We will approximate the solution by using basis elements up to a
720: certain number and check the convergence by varying the
721: dimension of this basis space.
722: With some work, the matrix elements can be computed to be
723: \begin{eqnarray}
724: \label{normalization}
725: N_{2k,2l}&=&c_{11}^2+{c_{21}^2\over3}
726: +{c_{11}\over2}\left({k\over2k+1}+{l\over2l+1}\right)
727: +{k+l\over2(2k+2l+1)}{\beb{k+l}\over \beb k\beb l}\nonumber\\
728: N_{2k+1,2l+1} &=& c_{12}^2+{c_{22}^2\over3}
729: +{c_{22}\over2}\left({k\over2k+3}+{l\over2l+3}\right)
730: +{(k+l)(2k+1)(2l+1)\over2(2k+2l+1)(2k+2l+3)}
731: {\beb{k+l}\over \beb k \beb l}\\
732: N_{2k,2l+1}&=&N_{2l+1,2k}
733: = c_{11}c_{12}+{1\over3}c_{21}c_{22}+
734: { k\over2(2k+1)}c_{12}+{ l\over2(2l+3)}c_{21}\nonumber
735: \end{eqnarray}
736: \begin{eqnarray}
737: \label{h-variational}
738: H_{2k,2l}
739: &=&{1\over d}\sqrt{\beta_1\beta_2}
740: \left[{1\over4}(G+G_5+8GG_5)(\beta_1+\beta_2)
741: -\half(G-G_5)\sqrt{\beta_1\beta_2}\right]+ 2c_{12}^2
742: \nonumber\\ &&\qquad
743: +(\beta_1-\beta_2)c_{12}\left(2c_{11}
744: +{k\over 2k+1}+{l\over 2l+1}\right)
745: +\left({\beta_1+\beta_2\over2}-1\right){\beb{k+l}\over \beb k\beb l}
746: +{kl\over2(k+l)}\nonumber\\
747: H_{2k+1,2l+1}&=&
748: {1\over d}\sqrt{\beta_1\beta_2}
749: \left[{1\over4}(G+G_5)(\beta_1+\beta_2)
750: +\half(G-G_5)\sqrt{\beta_1\beta_2}\right]
751: + 2c_{22}\left[c_{22}-(\beta_1-\beta_2)c_{12}\right]
752: \\ &&\qquad
753: +c_{22}\left({k\over k+1}+{l\over l+1}\right)
754: +\left({\beta_1+\beta_2\over2}-1\right)
755: {(2k+1)(2l+1)\over 2k+2l+1}
756: {\beb{k+l}\over \beb k \beb l}
757: +{kl(2k+1)(2l+1)\over2(k+l)(k+l+1)}
758: \nonumber\\
759: H_{2k,2l+1}&=&H_{2l+1,2k}
760: ={1\over 4d}\sqrt{\beta_1\beta_2}(\beta_1-\beta_2)(G+G_5)
761: - 2c_{12}\left(c_{22}-(\beta_1-\beta_2)c_{12}\right)
762: -c_{12}{l\over l+1}
763: \nonumber\\ &&\qquad
764: -c_{22}(\beta_1-\beta_2){k\over2k+1}
765: +\half(\beta_1-\beta_2)
766: {(2l+1) \beb{k+l}\over (2k+2l+1) \beb k \beb l}\nonumber
767: \end{eqnarray}
768: When $\beta_1=\beta_2$, the even and the odd sectors completely
769: decouple.
770: \subsubsection{Multhopp's method}
771: Rather than using a variational method, we can expand the meson
772: wavefunction and solve the eigenvalue problem directly
773: \cite{multhopp}. Defining $ x\equiv (1+\cos\theta)/2$, the wave
774: function can be expanded in a manner consistent with the
775: boundary conditions as
776: \begin{equation}
777: \label{multhopp-function}
778: \varphi(x)=
779: 2\pi \left(c_{11} \sum^K_{n: \rm odd} v_n
780: -c_{12}\sum^K_{n: \rm even} v_n\right)
781: - 2\pi \left(c_{21} \sum^K_{n: \rm odd} v_n
782: -c_{22}\sum^K_{n: \rm even} v_n\right)\cos\theta
783: +\sum^K_{n=1}v_n\sin n\theta
784: \end{equation}
785: where $c_{ij}$'s were defined in \eqnn{cijs}.
786: This reduces the Bethe--Salpeter equation \eqnn{tgn-bs} to
787: \begin{equation}
788: \label{meson-eq-m-inf}
789: \sum^K_{n=1} \left[\mu^2 \hat P_n(\theta) - \hat M_n(\theta)\right]
790: v_n = 0
791: \end{equation}
792: where
793: \begin{eqnarray}
794: \label{pmhat-def}
795: \hat P_n(\theta) &\equiv&
796: \sin n\theta+2\pi\cases{c_{11}-c_{21}\cos\theta& $n$: odd\cr
797: -c_{12}+c_{22}\cos\theta& $n$: even\cr}\\
798: \hat M_n(\theta) &\equiv&
799: 2\left({\beta_1-1\over 1+\cos\theta}
800: +{\beta_2-1\over 1-\cos\theta}\right)\sin n\theta
801: +2\pi{n\sin n\theta\over\sin\theta}
802: + 4\pi\left(\beta_1-\beta_2+
803: \ln{1+\cos\theta\over1-\cos\theta}\right)
804: \times\cases{-c_{21}& $n$: odd\cr c_{22} &$n$: even\cr}\nonumber
805: \end{eqnarray}
806: The above equation \eqnn{meson-eq-m-inf} is still a functional
807: equation, with the dependence on the parameter $\theta$.
808:
809: This can be further reduced to a generalized matrix eigenvalue
810: problem
811: \begin{equation}
812: \label{multhopp-eigen}
813: \left(\mu^2 P-M\right)v=0
814: \end{equation}
815: The matrices are defined as
816: \begin{equation}
817: \label{pm-def}
818: P_{mn}\equiv\sum_{l=1}^K
819: g_m(\theta_l)\hat P_n(\theta_l)
820: ,\quad
821: M_{mn}\equiv\sum_{l=1}^K
822: g_m(\theta_l)\hat M_n(\theta_l)
823: ,\qquad
824: \theta_j\equiv\pi{j\over K+1}
825: \end{equation}
826: The function $g_m(\theta) $ is arbitrary, but using functions
827: with the property $g_m(\theta_l)=(-1)^{m+1}g_m(\theta_{K+1-l})$
828: simplifies the matrix elements. With this condition, the matrix
829: elements are
830: \begin{eqnarray}
831: \label{p-elements}
832: P_{mn} &= &\sumlk g_m(\theta_ l)\sin\theta_{nl}+
833: 2\pi\sumlk g_m(\theta_ l)
834: \cases{ c_{11}& ($m,n$: odd)\cr
835: c_{22}\cos\theta_ l& ($m,n$: even)\cr}
836: \nonumber\\
837: P_{mn}&=&-2\pi \sumlk g_m(\theta_ l)
838: \cases{
839: c_{12}&($m$:\ {\rm odd},$n$:\ {\rm even})\cr
840: c_{21}\cos\theta_ l&($m$:\ even,$n$:\ {\rm odd})\cr}
841: \end{eqnarray}
842:
843: \begin{eqnarray}
844: \label{m-elements}
845: M_{mn}&=&\sumlk g_m(\theta_ l)\left[2
846: {\left(\beta_1+\beta_2-2\right)\over\sin^2\theta_ l}
847: +{2\pi n\over\sin\theta_ l}\right]\sin\theta_{nl}
848: +4\pi\sumlk g_m(\theta_ l)\cases{(- c_{21})(\beta_1-\beta_2)
849: & ($m,n$: odd)\cr
850: c_{22}\ln{1+\cos\theta_ l\over1-\cos\theta_ l}
851: & ($m,n$: even)\cr}\nonumber \\
852: M_{mn}&=& -2 (\beta_1-\beta_2)\sumlk g_m(\theta_ l)
853: {\cos\theta_ l\sin\theta_{nl}\over\sin^2\theta_ l}+
854: 4\pi\sumlk g_m(\theta_ l)
855: \cases{ c_{22}(\beta_1-\beta_2)& ($m$:\ {\rm odd},$n$:\ {\rm even})\cr
856: (-c_{21})\ln{1+\cos\theta_ l\over1-\cos\theta_ l}&
857: ($m$:\ {\rm even},$n$:\ {\rm odd})\cr}
858: \end{eqnarray}
859: In what follows, we adopt $g_m(\theta)=2\sin\left
860: [ m\theta/(K+1)\right]$ as
861: was done so for the {}'t~Hooft model \cite{multhopp}.
862: \subsection{Mass inequalities}
863: \label{sec:tgn-ineq}
864: Since we have at hand the methods for obtaining the physical
865: properties of meson states, we are in a position to compute the
866: mass inequalities. For investigating the mass inequalities, we
867: use the properties of the lightest meson state in each
868: channel. In Fig.~\ref{fig:ineqGlobal} we first plot the behavior
869: of the mass inequality $\delta\mu_{ab}/\mu_{ab}$ defined in
870: Eq.~\eqnn{ineq} for finite mass differences for a typical case
871: of $G=G_5=1,\ \beta=1$. The relative quark mass difference
872: parameter $|\Delta|\leq1$ by definition and the mass difference
873: is symmetric with respect to the interchange
874: $\Delta\leftrightarrow -\Delta$. At the same time, we also plot
875: the behavior expected from the susceptibility, ${\cal
876: R}\Delta^2$. We see that the susceptibility describes the
877: mass difference quite well unless the quark mass difference is
878: quite large, say $\Delta\gtrsim0.4$.
879: \begin{figure}[htbp]
880: \begin{center}
881: \leavevmode
882: \epsfysize=6cm\epsfbox{ineqGlobal.eps}
883: \caption{The normalized meson mass difference as a function
884: of $\Delta$ (solid). The mass difference expected
885: from the susceptibility (dashes) is also shown. }
886: \label{fig:ineqGlobal}
887: \end{center}
888: \end{figure}
889:
890: Let us move on to the behavior of meson mass
891: susceptibilities. To compute the susceptibilities, we may just
892: use the methods explained in the previous section and obtain the
893: susceptibility as the limiting case of small mass differences
894: going to zero. While this is logically fine, it incurs
895: unnecessary numerical errors during the process. Therefore, we
896: can refine the method by perturbing in the mass difference {\it
897: analytically} and then obtaining the mass susceptibilities
898: directly. However, the standard perturbation formulas are {\it
899: not} applicable to either of the two methods explained in the
900: previous section since we are dealing with a perturbation that
901: changes the boundary conditions, as we can see from
902: Eq.~\eqnn{tgn-bc}. While the formulas that need to be derived
903: should be of use to further study, since this is technical and
904: somewhat involved, we have chosen to describe the methods
905: concretely in the appendix. We have computed the susceptibility
906: using both methods and have checked that the results do agree.
907:
908: The parameters of the gauged four fermi models are $\beta,G,G_5$
909: and the ratios of constituent masses. We expect $G$ to play a
910: not so dominant role in determining the properties of the
911: lightest meson state. $G_5$ is the pseudo--scalar coupling that
912: strongly affects the lightest meson. $\beta$ is effectively the
913: inverse of the strength of the gauge coupling.
914:
915:
916: We first investigate the behavior of $\cal R$ with respect to
917: $\beta$ as in \figno{ineq-b}. When $G_5\not=0$, for large
918: $\beta$, the susceptibilities approach those of the generalized
919: Gross--Neveu model, which is quite natural since the gauge
920: coupling is effectively weak. This behavior is quite visible for
921: $(G,G_5)=(0,1),(1,1)$ cases in \figno{ineq-b} and the approach
922: already occurs for moderate $\beta$ values, $\beta\gtrsim0.1$.
923: When $G_5=0$, as we can see from Eq.~\eqnn{gn-small}, $\susc=0$
924: in the generalized Gross--Neveu model. In the gauged four fermi
925: model, $\susc$ behaves as $\sim \beta^{-2/3}$, when $G_5=0$ and
926: large $\beta$ as we can see for $(G,G_5)=(0,0),(1,0)$ cases in
927: \figno{ineq-b}. This is consistent with the expectation from
928: the quantum mechanics calculation in Eq.~\eqnn{monomial-be} for
929: the linear confining potential. For $G=G_5$ and $\beta=0$, it
930: can be shown that ${\cal R} \rightarrow0$ as $\beta^2$. This
931: behavior is indeed seen in \figno{ineq-b} for
932: $(G,G_5)=(0,0),(1,1)$ cases.
933: \begin{figure}[htbp]
934: \begin{center}
935: \leavevmode
936: \epsfysize=6cm\epsfbox{ineq-b.eps}
937: \caption{The behavior of $\cal R$ against $\beta$ for
938: $(G,G_5)=(0,0)~(\Box),\ (1,1)~(\bigcirc),\
939: (0,1)~(\bigtriangleup)$, and
940: $(1,0)~(\bigtriangledown)$. Dashes indicate $\beta^{-2/3}
941: $ behavior and dots indicate $\beta^2$ behavior.}
942: \label{fig:ineq-b}
943: \end{center}
944: \end{figure}
945:
946: Let us now analyze how $\cal R$ behaves with respect to $G_5$ as
947: in \figno{ineq-g5}. It can be seen that for fixed $\beta$,
948: $\cal R$ approaches the generalized Gross--Neveu model value as
949: we increase $G$ or $G_5$. Qualitatively, this can be understood
950: as the gauge coupling becoming relatively less important when
951: the other couplings are strong. For small $G_5$, the behavior
952: is governed by the gauge coupling and we see in \figno{ineq-g5}
953: that the susceptibilities for the same $\beta$ value approach
954: each other. While these behaviors can be understood from the
955: physics of the model as we did so here, it is quite non-trivial
956: derive them analytically.
957: \begin{figure}[htbp]
958: \begin{center}
959: \leavevmode
960: \epsfysize=6cm\epsfbox{ineq-g5.eps}
961: \caption{The behavior of $\cal R$ against $G_5$ for
962: $(G,\beta)=(0,0.1)~(\Box),\ (0,1)~(\bigcirc),\
963: (1,0.1)~(\bigtriangleup)$ and $(1,1)~(\bigtriangledown)$.
964: For comparison, $\cal R$ for the generalized Gross--Neveu
965: model is also displayed for $G=0$ (solid) and $G=1$
966: (dashes).}
967: \label{fig:ineq-g5}
968: \end{center}
969: \end{figure}
970:
971: We have investigated the susceptibility extensively within the
972: parameter space of the theory and found that it is positive,
973: except for a relatively small region, which we now discuss. In
974: most regions in the parameter space, the numerical convergence
975: of the susceptibility is quite rapid at least in one of the
976: methods and both methods yield consistent results. In all these
977: regions, the susceptibility parameter satisfies ${\cal
978: R}>0$. However, for small $\beta$, the convergence is rather
979: slow. Particularly intriguing is the region $G\gtrsim G_5,
980: 0\lesssim\beta\ll1$. A simple argument shows why the behavior
981: in this region can be subtle: In general, the finite dimensional
982: numerical results are analytic with respect to the parameters
983: $G,G_5,\beta$. From the behavior ${\cal R}\rightarrow0$ as
984: $\beta\rightarrow0, G=G_5$, we know that unless $\cal R$
985: vanishes as $(G-G_5)^2$ or some higher even power for $\beta=0$,
986: there will be a region where $\cal R$ is negative. Indeed, we
987: find in the numerical results that $\cal R$ is negative in the
988: region $G\gtrsim G_5,0\lesssim\beta\ll1$ using both the
989: variational and the Multhopp's method. Even the extrapolated
990: values, in some cases, are negative. The meson mass squared is
991: always positive even in these cases and the physics of the
992: system seems to be quite consistent. Naively, we would
993: claim that the susceptibility and hence also the mass inequality
994: is negative in this regime. This, to our knowledge, would {\it
995: not} conflict with any general arguments regarding mass
996: inequalities. However, to conclude this would be somewhat
997: premature, since if we study the negative region in the
998: parameter space, we find as in \figno{zeros} that it shrinks
999: when the basis space is enlarged and the negative region is
1000: quite small compared to ${\cal O}(1)$ which is the natural scale
1001: in the problem. It should also be noted that even if ${\cal R}
1002: =a_1(G-G_5)+{\cal O}((G-G_5)^2)$ for $\beta=0$ when the basis
1003: space is finite, it is still possible that the coefficient $a_1$
1004: approaches $0$ in the full basis space, so that the positive
1005: susceptibility is compatible with a negative one in the
1006: truncated basis space. On the other hand, the regions of
1007: negative susceptibility have a common region with respect to
1008: both methods so it is also possible that a finite region of
1009: negative susceptibility remains even when the basis space is
1010: complete. We therefore conclude that while the susceptibility
1011: may be negative in the regime $G\gtrsim G_5,0\lesssim\beta\ll1$,
1012: further investigation is necessary to clarify this point. An
1013: analytic computation determining the sign of the inequality
1014: would be ideal. If this is not possible, a set of basis
1015: optimized for the gauged four fermi models in this particular
1016: parameter regime, in either variational or Multhopp's method
1017: should settle this issue.
1018: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1019: \begin{center}
1020: \leavevmode
1021: \epsfysize=6cm\epsfbox{zeros.eps}
1022: \caption{The zeros of the mass susceptibility parameter
1023: in the $G_5$--$\beta$ plane when $G=0.1$, computed using
1024: finite dimensional basis spaces. The solid curves, from
1025: top to bottom, correspond to the zeros in the variational
1026: method for the basis space dimensions of
1027: $8,10,12,14,16,18,20$. The dashed curves, from top to
1028: bottom, correspond to the zeros of the susceptibility in
1029: the Multhopp's method for the basis space dimensions of
1030: $20,40,100,200,400,800,1000$. In the small regions below
1031: the respective curves, the susceptibility is negative. The
1032: negative region becomes smaller with the increase in the
1033: size of the basis space in both methods.}
1034: \label{fig:zeros}
1035: \end{center}
1036: \end{figure}
1037: \section{Summary and discussions}
1038: \label{sec:discussions}
1039: We have systematically and quantitatively studied the mass
1040: inequalities in gauged
1041: four fermi models in $(1+1)$--dimensions. Even in the cases
1042: where the mass inequality
1043: has been shown to be positive from general arguments, the size
1044: of the inequality is unknown unless an explicit computation is
1045: made. We believe that the mass inequality is an interesting
1046: dynamical quantity characterizing the spectrum of relativistic
1047: quantum field theories. To analyze the inequalities
1048: quantitatively, we adopted a natural susceptibility parameter to
1049: compare the size of the inequalities throughout the field theory
1050: space. We found that the parameter captures the essence of the
1051: mass inequality when the constituent mass differences are not
1052: too large. In the family of generalized Gross--Neveu
1053: models, we were able to derive an analytic expression for the
1054: meson mass susceptibility. In the more general case of gauged
1055: four fermi models, we have developed methods for obtaining the
1056: mass inequalities systematically and have computed them.
1057: Since not much seems to be known about the
1058: quantitative behavior of mass inequalities, we think that it is
1059: significant to have a
1060: class of relativistic field theory models where it has been
1061: studied explicitly. While the results are interesting,
1062: there remain further questions which should be answered.
1063:
1064: An important question is whether the positivity of the mass
1065: inequality is much more general than the cases where it has been
1066: shown to hold \cite{ineq}. In particular, an intriguing problem
1067: is whether there is a relativistic quantum field theory wherein
1068: the mass inequality is negative yet its physics behavior is
1069: consistent. We have found that the meson mass susceptibility is
1070: positive for most of the parameter space in the gauged four
1071: fermi models and have explained some of the behavior
1072: analytically. The models we studied here include the
1073: celebrated models of {}'t~Hooft and of Gross and Neveu for
1074: special choices of the parameters. For the {}'t~Hooft model, the
1075: standard arguments\cite{ineq} {\it do} apply and we may show
1076: analytically that the inequality is positive. However, in
1077: general, no such arguments can be applied to gauged four fermi
1078: models. Furthermore, the Gross--Neveu models are known to be
1079: equivalent to models with Yukawa couplings and also display dynamical
1080: chiral
1081: symmetry breaking behavior. These are exactly the kind of
1082: situations in which we might doubt that the mass inequality is
1083: positive\cite{vw,cvetic}. It is interesting that even in these
1084: cases, the mass inequality is positive, so that in fact, the
1085: property holds in much more general than those situations where
1086: it has been proven. It would be interesting to find an analytic
1087: proof for this property if possible. It is important to
1088: understand why the inequality is positive for the gauged four
1089: fermi models and clarify if this can be extended to other
1090: theories, such as supersymmetric theories with bound states.
1091: There still remains a small region within the field theory space
1092: wherein the sign of the susceptibility, hence also the mass
1093: inequality, remains uncertain and further investigation is
1094: necessary to establish its sign. While $(1+1)$--dimensional
1095: theories such as the {}'t~Hooft model or the Gross-Neveu model
1096: have physical behavior resembling those of higher dimensions, we
1097: should mention the possibility that in higher dimensions, the
1098: behavior of the susceptibility might be quite different. Also,
1099: even in $(1+1)$--dimensions, the mass inequalities might behave
1100: qualitatively differently for other class of models.
1101:
1102: We have seen in section~\ref{sec:qm} that the mass inequality is
1103: satisfied in a large class of quantum mechanics
1104: models\cite{ineq-revs}. This leads us to suspect that the mass
1105: inequality is valid for a large class of relativistic quantum
1106: field theories also. This is certainly consistent with our
1107: findings here. However, it should be noted that spontaneous
1108: breaking of symmetries is essentially a field theoretical
1109: behavior, which is also quite relevant to the theory we studied.
1110: Therefore, we believe that it would be worthwhile to perform
1111: further research and in particular, clarify whether the mass
1112: inequality can become negative in relativistic quantum field
1113: theories. In another direction, large $N$ limit of field
1114: theories, such as the class of models we study, are presumably
1115: described by some kind of string theories\cite{thooft} --- an
1116: idea, which has recently been made more concrete\cite{susy}. It
1117: would be interesting to find out what kind of string theories
1118: our models correspond to and to elucidate how mass inequalities
1119: fit into the string picture.
1120: \appendix
1121: \section{Perturbation theory in the mass differences for the spectrum}
1122: \label{sec:pt}
1123: Here, we shall briefly outline how to perform perturbation with
1124: respect to the relative constituent mass difference, $\Delta$,
1125: in the methods explained in section~\ref{sec:tgn-spectrum} for
1126: obtaining the spectrum. The standard perturbation methods can
1127: not be applied here. One major reason is that the boundary
1128: conditions \eqnn{tgn-bc} depend on the masses of the
1129: constituents so that they need to be perturbed also. There are
1130: additional complications for both the methods used in
1131: section~\ref{sec:tgn-spectrum}, as we shall describe below.
1132:
1133: In both cases, we perturb in the relative mass difference
1134: $\Delta$ and obtain an expansion for the meson mass in terms of
1135: $\Delta$, for the cases
1136: $(M_1^2,M_2^2)=(M_a^2,M_a^2),(M_b^2,M_b^2),(M_a^2,M_b^2)$.
1137: \begin{equation}
1138: \label{mu-exp}
1139: \mu^2\equiv \mu^2_0+\Delta \mu^2_1 +
1140: \Delta^2\mu^2_2+{\cal O}(\Delta^3)
1141: \end{equation}
1142: In the first two cases, the first order term exists and are of
1143: the same size but of opposite sign and in the last case the
1144: first order term is absent. Therefore, the leading order term
1145: in the mass difference $\delta\mu_{ab}$ will be of order
1146: $\Delta^2$, as it should be.
1147: \subsubsection{Variational method}
1148: In the variational method, we need to consider a generalized
1149: eigenvalue problem with the normalization matrix not being the
1150: identity matrix. In theory, we can just orthonormalize the
1151: basis vectors, but in practice, this is not numerically
1152: equivalent since the normalization matrices can become almost
1153: singular even though we have tried to normalize the matrix
1154: elements to be of order one. Furthermore, since the boundary
1155: conditions also are perturbed, the normalization matrices will
1156: also have a non--trivial expansion in $\Delta$.
1157:
1158: Let us expand the matrices as
1159: \begin{equation}
1160: \label{v-exp}
1161: H\equiv H_0+\Delta H_1 + \Delta^2H_2+{\cal O}(\Delta^3),\qquad
1162: N\equiv N_0+\Delta N_1 + \Delta^2N_2+{\cal O}(\Delta^3)
1163: \end{equation}
1164: Assume that we have the complete eigen system for the 0--th
1165: order problem:
1166: \begin{equation}
1167: \label{v-0}
1168: H_0w_{0n}=\mu^2_{0n}N_0 w_{0n},\qquad
1169: \left(w_{0m},N_0w_{0n}\right)=\delta_{mn}
1170: \end{equation}
1171: Then, we obtain the expansion for mass squared of the meson
1172: state labeled by $n$
1173: \begin{eqnarray}
1174: \label{v-result}
1175: \mu^2_{1n}&=&\left(w_{0n},
1176: \left(H_1-\mu^2_{0n}N_1\right)w_{0n}\right) \nonumber\\
1177: \mu^2_{2n}&=&\left(w_{0n},
1178: \left(H_2-\mu^2_{0n}N_2\right)w_{0n}\right)
1179: -\left(w_{0n},N_1w_{0n}\right)
1180: \left(w_{0n},\left(H_1-\mu^2_{0n}N_1\right)w_{0n}\right)\\
1181: &&\qquad
1182: +\sum_m{1\over\mu^2_{0n}-\mu^2_{0m}}
1183: \left|\left(w_{0n},\left(H_1-\mu^2_{0n}N_1\right)w_{0m}
1184: \right)\right|^2\nonumber
1185: \end{eqnarray}
1186: We need the expansions of the matrices $H,N$ in terms of
1187: $\Delta$ for the three cases,
1188: $(M_1^2,M_2^2)=(M_a^2,M_a^2),(M_b^2,M_b^2),(M_a^2,M_b^2)$, to
1189: obtain the final results. Since this expansion is cumbersome
1190: but logically straightforward, it will not be explicitly
1191: presented here to save space.
1192: \subsubsection{Multhopp's method}
1193: In Multhopp's method, the matrices are not Hermitean so that we
1194: need to perform the perturbation theory with some care.
1195: Furthermore, due to the perturbation in the boundary
1196: conditions, the matrix $P$ will also be perturbed. To perform
1197: the expansion, we will reduce the equation to a mathematically
1198: equivalent problem,
1199: \begin{equation}
1200: \label{multhopp-easy}
1201: \left(\mu^2-P^{-1}M\right)v=0
1202: \end{equation}
1203: Ideally, it is better not to invert matrices numerically, but it
1204: is a substantially more complicated numerical task to solve a
1205: generalized non--symmetric eigenvalue problem and also, in this
1206: case, the matrix $P$ turns out to be quite robust against
1207: inversion even for moderately large basis spaces with dimensions
1208: of order $10^3$.
1209:
1210: We expand the matrices as
1211: \begin{eqnarray}
1212: \label{multhopp-exp}
1213: P&=&P_0+\Delta P_1+\Delta^2 P_2,\qquad
1214: M=M_0+\Delta M_1+\Delta^2 M_2\nonumber\\
1215: \left(P^{-1}M\right)&=&\left(P^{-1}M\right)_0
1216: +\Delta \left(P^{-1}M\right)_1
1217: +\Delta^2\left(P^{-1}M\right)_2+{\cal O}(\Delta^3)
1218: \end{eqnarray}
1219: where
1220: \begin{eqnarray}
1221: \label{pm-exp}
1222: \left(P^{-1}M\right)_0 &=&P_0^{-1}M_0,\qquad
1223: \left(P^{-1}M\right)_1 =P_0^{-1}\left(M_1-P_1P_0^{-1}M_0\right)\nonumber\\
1224: \left(P^{-1}M\right)_2 &=&P_0^{-1}\left(M_2-P_2P_0^{-1}M_0
1225: -P_1P_0^{-1}M_1+P_1P_0^{-1}P_1P_0^{-1}M_0\right)
1226: \end{eqnarray}
1227:
1228: We need to first solve the $0$--th order problem for the left
1229: and right eigenvectors, $\{u_n\}$ and $\{v_n\}$\footnote{From a
1230: mathematical point of view, additional complications can arise
1231: in general; namely the eigenvalues may be degenerate so that
1232: the matrix is not diagonalizable, or the eigenvalues may be
1233: complex. However, we need to keep in mind that we do not have
1234: to solve the problem for general dimensions of the basis
1235: space, but only for a sequence of spaces that will allow us to
1236: obtain the susceptibility. In practice, these complications
1237: do not hinder our computations in the cases we have
1238: studied.}
1239: \begin{equation}
1240: \label{multhopp-0}
1241: u_{0m}\pim0=\mu^2_{0m}u_{0m},\qquad
1242: \pim0v_{0n}=\mu^2_{0n}v_{0n},\qquad
1243: \left(u_{0m},v_{0n}\right)=\delta_{mn}
1244: \end{equation}
1245: Then, we may obtain the expansion for the meson mass squared
1246: of the meson state labeled by $n$ as
1247: \begin{eqnarray}
1248: \label{multhopp-mu}
1249: \mu_{1n}^2&=& \left(u_{0n},\pim1v_{0n}\right)\\
1250: \mu_{2n}^2&=&
1251: \left(u_{0n},\pim2v_{0n}\right)
1252: +\sum_{k\not=n}{\left(u_{0n},\pim1v_{0k}\right)
1253: \left(u_{0k},\pim1v_{0n}\right)\over
1254: \mu_{0n}^2- \mu_{0k}^2}
1255: \end{eqnarray}
1256: The rest proceeds as in the variational method case. As in the
1257: case of the variational method, the explicit expressions for the
1258: matrices are not shown here due to space considerations.
1259: \begin{references}
1260: \bibitem{lattice} For instance, see the contributions in
1261: {\sl Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ } {\bf B94} (2001)
1262: \bibitem{ineq} D. Weingarten, \prl{\bf51} (1983) 1830;
1263: E.~Witten, \prl{\bf 51} (1983) 2351; S.~Nussinov, \prl{\bf 51}
1264: (1983) 2081
1265: \bibitem{ineq-revs} S. Nussinov, M.A. Lampert,
1266: hep-ph/9911532
1267: \bibitem{susy}
1268: N.~Seiberg and E.~Witten,
1269: {\sl Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B426} (1994) 19,
1270: {\sl Nucl.\ Phys.\ }{\bf B431} (1994) 484;
1271: K.~Intriligator and N.~Seiberg,
1272: {\sl Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.}\ {\bf 45BC} (1996) 1;
1273: J.~Maldacena,
1274: {\sl Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.}\ {\bf 2} (1998) 231
1275: S.~S.~Gubser, I.~R.~Klebanov and A.~M.~Polyakov,
1276: {\sl Phys.\ Lett.}\ B {\bf 428} (1998) 105;
1277: E.~Witten,
1278: {\sl Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.}\ {\bf 2} (1998) 253;
1279: O.~Aharony, S.~S.~Gubser, J.~Maldacena, H.~Ooguri and Y.~Oz,
1280: {\sl Phys.\ Rept.}\ {\bf 323} (2000) 183;
1281: \bibitem{nishino}H. Nishino, \prd{\bf D61} (2000) 025008
1282: \bibitem{thooft} G. {}'t Hooft, \npb{\bf B72} (1974) 461,
1283: \npb{\bf B75} (1974) 461
1284: \bibitem{gn} D.J. Gross, A. Neveu, \prd{\bf D10} (1974) 3235
1285: \bibitem{vw}C. Vafa, E. Witten, \npb{\bf B234} (1984) 173
1286: \bibitem{cvetic}M. Cvetic, \npb{\bf B279} (1987) 593;
1287: U. Maryland preprint MDDP-PP-85-023
1288: (1984)
1289: \bibitem{revs} S. Coleman, {\sl ``Aspects of symmetry''},
1290: Cambridge University Press (1985);\hfil\break
1291: B. Rosenstein, B.J. Warr, S.H. Park, \prc {\bf C205} (1991) 59
1292: \bibitem{t-gn} Y. Nambu, G. Jona-Lasinio \prd{\bf122} (1961)
1293: 345;\hfil\break
1294: For recent reviews, see for instance,
1295: J.~L.~Rosner,
1296: {\sl Comments Mod.\ Phys.\ } {\bf A1} (1999) 11;
1297: R.S. Chivukula, {\tt hep-ph/9903500}.
1298: \bibitem{topc}
1299: Y. Nambu, in {\sl New Theories in Physics}, Z. Ajduk,
1300: S. Pokorski, A.~Trautman (eds), World Scientific, Singapore
1301: (1989);
1302: and in {\sl New Trends in Strong Coupling Gauge
1303: Theories}, M. Bando, T. Muta, K. Yamawaki (eds), World
1304: Scientific, Singapore (1989);\hfil\break
1305: V.A. Miransky, M. Tanabashi, K. Yamawaki, {\sl
1306: Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf A4} (1989)
1307: 1043; \plb{\bf B221} (1989) 177;\hfil\break
1308: W.A. Bardeen, C.T. Hill, M. Lindner, \prd{\bf D41} (1990) 1647
1309: \bibitem{burkardt} M. Burkardt, \prd{\bf D56} (1997) 7105
1310: \bibitem{itakura} K. Itakura, Ph D thesis, Tokyo University
1311: (1996)
1312: \bibitem{ai1} K. Aoki, T. Ichihara, \prd{\bf D52} (1995) 6435
1313: \bibitem{ai2} K.Aoki, K.Ito, \prd{\bf D60} (1999) 096004
1314: \bibitem{ngb} S. Coleman, \cmp{\bf 31} (1973) 259
1315: \bibitem{power-ref} W.A. ~Bardeen,
1316: R.B. Pearson, E. Rabinovici, \prd{\bf 21} (1980) 1037
1317: \bibitem{multhopp}
1318: A.J.~Hanson, R.D. Peccei, M.K. Prasad, \npb{\bf B121} (1977) 477;\hfil\break
1319: R.C.~Brower, W.L.~Spence, J.H. Weis, \prd{\bf 19D} (1979) 3024;\hfil\break
1320: S. Huang, J.W.~Negele, J.~Polonyi, \npb{\bf B307} (1988) 669;\hfil\break
1321: R.L.~Jaffe, P.F. Mende, \npb{\bf B369} (1992) 182
1322: \end{references}
1323:
1324: \end{document}
1325: