1: \documentstyle[aps,preprint,tighten,epsfig,amssymb]{revtex}

2: \begin{document}

3: %\draft

4: 

5: \title{The Canonical Transformation and Duality in the 1+1 dimensional 

6: $\phi^4$ and $\phi^6$ theory}

7: 

8: \author{

9: Chueng-Ryong Ji$^{a}$

10: \footnote{e-mail address: ji@ncsu.edu},

11: Joon-Il Kim$^{b}$

12: \footnote{e-mail address: jikim@phya.snu.ac.kr},

13: Dong-Pil Min$^{b}$

14: \footnote{e-mail address: dpmin@phya.snu.ac.kr},

15: Andrey V. Vinnikov$^{a,b,c}$

16: \footnote{e-mail address: vinnikov@phya.snu.ac.kr}}

17: 

18: \address{

19: \bigskip

20: $^a$ Department of Physics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

21:      27695-8202, USA\\

22: $^b$ School of Physics and Center for Theoretical Physics,

23:      Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea\\

24: $^c$ Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, JINR, 141980, 

25:      Dubna, Russia}

26: 

27: \date{\today}

28: 

29: \maketitle

30: 

31: \begin{abstract}

32: We investigate the self-organizing nature of relativistic quantum field 

33: theory in terms of canonical transformation and duality presenting simple

34: but explicit examples of $(\phi^4)_{1+1}$ and $(\phi^6)_{1+1}$ theories.

35: Our purpose is fulfilled by applying the oscillator representation (OR) method

36: which allows us to convert the original strong interaction theory

37: into a weekly interacting quasiparticle theory that is equivalent

38: to the original theory.

39: We discuss advantages of the OR method and compare the results with what 

40: was already obtained by the method

41: of Gaussian effective potential (GEP) and the Hartree approximation (HA). 

42: While we confirm that the GEP results are identical to the Hartree results

43: for the ground state energy, we found that the OR method 

44: gives the quasiparticle mass different from the GEP and HA

45: results. In our examples, the self-organizing nature is revealed by 

46: the vacuum energy density that gets lowered when the quasiparticles are 

47: formed.

48: In the $(\phi^6)_{1+1}$ theory, we found two 

49: physically meaningful duality-related quasiparticle solutions which have 

50: different symmetry properties under the transition of quasiparticle 

51: field $\Phi \rightarrow -\Phi$. However, these two quasiparticle 

52: solutions yield the identical effective 

53: potential in the strong coupling limit of the 

54: original theory.

55: \end{abstract}

56: 

57: PACS: 11.10.Gh, 11.10.Kk, 11.10.Lm

58: 

59: %Keywords: Self-organizing Quantum Field Theory, Oscillator Representation

60: 

61: \section{INTRODUCTION}

62: With the current advances of Relativistic Heavy Ion Collision(RHIC) 

63: physics, there is a growing interest in discussing

64: the self-organizing nature of relativistic quantum field theory(RQFT).

65: The phase transition and the spontaneous symmetry breaking 

66: anticipated to be observed in the RHIC facilities are the paramount 

67: examples of the physical phenomena due to the self-organization of 

68: quantum fields. Since these novel phenomena cannot be easily predicted in 

69: the ordinary perturbation series, they form highly nontrivial examples

70: that ought to be analyzed by various nonperturbative methods available

71: for the RQFTs. 

72: 

73: Although the problem of quantization of interacting fields

74: is not yet completely solved, it appears that the duality existing in the

75: RQFTs is the key to handle the strong interaction theories.

76: According to the duality, the original particle theory of strong couplings 

77: may be equivalent to the quasi-particle theory of weak couplings. As the 

78: interactions get stronger, the associate quantum fluctuations get larger 

79: and consequently the formation of a nontrivial vacuum 

80: often accompanied by the condensation of fields 

81: may be energetically more favorable than the adherence to an original trivial 

82: vacuum without any condensation. The particles moving in the ambient 

83: nontrivial vacuum condensates may be described by the quasi-particles 

84: which carry different masses

85: compare to their original masses defined in the trivial vacuum.

86: Then, the couplings among the quasi-particles may become weak as the 

87: couplings among the original particles grow strong. 

88: When such duality works self-consistently within the RQFT, one may

89: be able to solve the corresponding strong interaction problem utilizing

90: the weak coupling developed for the quasi-particles.

91: For the phenomena involving only weak interactions, the perturbation 

92: theory may provide systematic predictions and even some physical insight

93: how the interaction can affect the properties of the system.

94: Thus, the duality allows us to convert the original nonperturbative 

95: problem into the quasiparticle perturbative problem.

96: However, the key issue here is to check if the RQFTs indeed have the

97: self-organizing characteristics that lead to the duality within 

98: themselves. To investigate such nontrivial characteristics, one cannot

99: just rely on the perturbation series from the beginning but need to 

100: develop a nonperurbative method which may be useful to analyze the 

101: self-organizing nature of the RQFTs. 

102: 

103: In this work, we discuss such a nonperturbative method that appears to be 

104: much simpler than other rather well-known methods such as the Hartree 

105: Approximation (HA) and the Gaussian Effective Potential (GEP) method. 

106: Following the nomenclature in the literature we call this method as the 

107: Oscillation Representation (OR) method, although in our view all of these 

108: nonperturbative methods (OR,GEP,HA) stem from the same principle of

109: quantum effective action approach\cite{CJT}. 

110: The OR method was explicitly formulated by Efimov\cite{efimov} and 

111: was, in fact, used earlier by Chang \cite{chang2} and

112: Magruder \cite{magruder}, though in some indirect way.

113: The method is at length described in a monograph \cite{efbook}.

114: The basic idea of the OR method is to redefine the mass of interacting field

115: relative to the free one and simultaneously introduce a shift of the field

116: quantization point leading to a nonzero value of its vacuum condensate. 

117: This effect is realized in the nature represented by a spontaneous symmetry

118: breaking mechanism and thus one can expect that it may be a general

119: feature of quantum field systems with interactions.

120: However, the OR method has not been utilized as extensively as the methods 

121: of GEP\cite{ft7,gep,gep4,gep6,mp} and HA\cite{Chang,hartree}. Even in the 

122: 1+1 dimensional scalar field theory such as 

123: the one we present in this work, not much of the OR results distinguished

124: from the GEP or HA results have been known or discussed to the best of

125: our knowledge. 

126: Although the OR results for the $(\phi^4)_{1+1}$ theory were presented

127: in Ref.\cite{efbook}, the distinction between the OR and GEP (or HA) 

128: results for this simple model was not pointed out at length.

129: Thus, for the present work, we analyze the details of the distinction

130: in this most simple case first and extend the application to the 

131: $(\phi^6)_{1+1}$ theory:

132: \begin{eqnarray}

133: \label{lagrangian}

134: {\cal L} = \frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi

135: -\frac{1}{2} m^2 \phi^2 - \frac{g}{4} \phi^4 - h \phi^6, 

136: \end{eqnarray}

137: where the results from the variational method of the GEP have

138: also been studied \cite{gep6}.

139: The GEP is defined as 

140: \begin{equation}

141: \label{gep}

142: {\bar V}_G(\phi_0) = min_\Omega <\phi_0,\Omega|{\cal H}|\Omega,\phi_0>,

143: \end{equation}

144: where ${\cal H}$ is the Hamiltonian density corresponding to 

145: Eq.(\ref{lagrangian}). Here,

146: $\Omega$ is the mass parameter and $|\Omega,\phi_0>$ is a normalized 

147: Gaussian wave functional centered on $\phi = \phi_0$, {\it i.e.} 

148: \begin{equation}

149: <\phi_0,\Omega|\Omega,\phi_0> = 1, 

150: <\phi_0,\Omega|\phi|\Omega,\phi_0> = \phi_0.

151: \end{equation}

152: As we will discuss the details in the next two sections (Sections II and 

153: III), the GEP method can in principle give the two OR equations 

154: that we solve simultaneously in this work. One of them is known

155: as the ${\bar \Omega}$ equation in the GEP,{\it i.e.}

156: $\partial <\phi_0,\Omega|{\cal H}|\Omega,\phi_0>/\partial \Omega = 0$

157: at $\Omega = {\bar \Omega}$, and the other OR equation is equivalent

158: to $d{\bar V}_G(\phi_0)/{d \phi_0} = 0$. However, in the GEP method,

159: these two equations are not solved simultaneously in practice.

160: It turns out that the quasiparticle mass defined by $d^2 {\bar 

161: V}_G(\phi_0)/{d \phi_0^2}$ in the GEP is not same with ${\bar \Omega}$

162: which is the simultaneous solution of the quasiparticle mass from the two 

163: OR equations.

164: In this paper, we therefore pay more

165: attention to the distinct aspects of the OR results compared to the GEP 

166: and 

167: HA results and discuss the property of the OR results which was not 

168: mentioned in the more great detail before.

169: 

170: Formally, the OR is settled by requiring that the Hamiltonian operator

171: should be written in terms of creation and annihilation operators

172: of an oscillator basis with an appropriate frequency and in the correct

173: form defined by\\

174: (1) all field operators in the total Hamiltonian $H = H_0 +H_I$ are

175: written in the normal ordered product,\\

176: (2) the Hamiltonian $H_0$ is quadratic over the field operators,\\

177: (3) the interaction Hamiltonian $H_I$ contains field operators in powers

178: more than two.\\

179: Using this method with the cannonical transformation of quantum fields, 

180: one may allow to build a standard perturbation theory 

181: for the quasiparticles in the region of the coupling constants where

182: the original theory is nonperturbative. Thus, we utilize the OR method 

183: to transform the original theory which is intrinsically nonperturbative

184: to the equivalent theory of the quasiparticle

185: representation that can be solved rather easily by the perturbation 

186: method. 

187: 

188: As we will discuss, the exact OR results include several  

189: vacuum solutions yielding different mass values of the quantum 

190: field for fixed values of coupling constants.

191: Among those multiple solutions, however, it is certainly not difficult 

192: to select the non-trivial solutions that are physically meaningful 

193: because of the duality consideration. In this work, we will thus focus 

194: only those duality-related solutions which are not hindered from the 

195: physical interpretation.

196: Nevertheless, we note that the OR method generates also the solutions that

197: cannot be interpreted as straightforward as the ones we focus in this 

198: paper. In particular, we find a class of solution that doesn't exhibit 

199: the anticipated duality property and another class of 

200: solution that we call spurious in the sense that it yields

201: the pure imaginary value for the vacuum condensation.

202: We do not yet know all the physical meaning of these classes of solutions,

203: but the generation of multiple solutions are expected because the OR 

204: equations are the nonlinear algebraic equations relating the quasiparticle

205: mass and the field condensation with the parameter of coupling constant  

206: as we will present in details for the rest of the paper.

207: 

208: In Section II, we present more details of the OR method using the 

209: $\phi^4$ theory which can be easily deduced from the Lagrangian 

210: density of $\phi^6$ theory by taking $h=0$. We compare the OR results 

211: with the results obtained by the other available methods such as the GEP 

212: and the HA as well as the available lattice result.

213: In Section III, we apply the OR method to 

214: the $(\phi^6)_{1+1}$ theory and discuss the effects from the presence of 

215: $\phi^6$ interaction to the duality-related vacuum solutions.

216: We analyze the quasiparticle mass and the energy density in

217: the entire domain of coupling parameter space and 

218: present the classical potential for the nontrivial solutions.

219: We discuss two physically meaningful duality-related quasiparticle 

220: solutions with different symmetry properties and show that they however

221: generate the identical effective potential in the strong coupling

222: limit of the original theory. 

223: Summary and conclusions follow in Section IV. In the Appendix A, 

224: we briefly summarize some details of the HA in the

225: $(\phi^4)_{1+1}$ theory and discuss an equivalence between the two 

226: nontrivial vacuum solutions in this approximation. In the Appendix B,

227: we present a proof of unitary inequivalence between the bifurcated 

228: nontrivial solutions from the OR method in the infinite volume limit.

229: In the Appendix C, we summarize the results of the spurious solutions

230: with some discussion.

231:  

232: \section{THE OSCILLATOR REPRESENTATION (OR) METHOD}

233: The usual recipe to produce a quantum system comes from the correspondence

234: principle. Namely, a quantum system can be obtained from

235: its classical analog by assuming that the field is not a $c$-number

236: but an operator satisfying relevant commutation relations.

237: The oscillator representation method is a generalization

238: of this scheme. To start with, let us consider the $\phi^4$ theory

239: as a simple example.

240:  

241: The Hamiltonian density of the classical field is given by

242: \begin{equation}

243: {\cal H} = \frac{1}{2}\pi^2+\frac{1}{2}(\nabla \phi)^2+\frac{1}{2}

244: m^2\phi^2+\frac{g}{4}\phi^4.

245: \end{equation}

246: To plug the quantum physics in, we postulate that the field $\phi$ and 

247: the corresponding conjugate momentum $\pi$ are operators which satisfy 

248: canonical equal time commutation relations

249: \begin{equation}

250: [\phi(x),\pi(y)]_{x_0=y_0}= i\delta({\bf x}-{\bf y}).

251: \label{commut}

252: \end{equation}

253: 

254: The usual approach to quantize the field, {\it i.e.} to find the operators 

255: $\phi$ and $\pi$ which satisfy the condition (\ref{commut}) is to start from 

256: the free field, where $g$=0. Then the operators are

257: \begin{eqnarray}

258: \phi_m(x) = \int \frac{d {\bf k}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \frac

259: {1}{\sqrt{2\omega_m({\bf k})}}

260: (a_m({\bf k})e^{ik\cdot x} + a_m^+({\bf k})e^{-ik\cdot x}), \nonumber \\

261: \pi_m(x) = \frac{1}{i}\int \frac{d {\bf k}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}

262: {\sqrt{\frac{\omega_m({\bf k})}{2}}}(a_m({\bf k})e^{ik\cdot x} - a_m^+({\bf k})

263: e^{-ik\cdot x}),

264: \label{fieldop}

265: \end{eqnarray}

266: where $k=(\omega_m,{\bf k})$, $\omega_m=\sqrt{{\bf k}^2+m^2}$ and the

267: operators of creation and annihilation of the particle of mass $m$ and

268: momentum ${\bf k}$ satisfy the commutation relations

269: \begin{eqnarray}

270: [ a_m({\bf k}),a_m^+({\bf k'})] = \delta({\bf k} -{\bf k'}), \nonumber \\

271: {[}a_m({\bf k}),a_m({\bf k'}) ] = [ a_m^+({\bf k}),a_m^+({\bf k'})] =0.

272: \label{operat}

273: \end{eqnarray}

274: With this definition the state $a_m^+({\bf k})|0\rangle$ is an eigenstate

275: of both

276: free Hamiltonian and momentum operators with corresponding eigenvalues

277: $\omega_m$ and ${\bf k}$.

278: 

279: In the case of interacting fields the states $a_m^+({\bf k})|0\rangle$ are

280: not

281: already eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian. Nevertheless,

282: in the case of small interaction strength, the free representation

283: of field operators can be a good starting point to develop a perturbation 

284: theory. The Hamiltonian density operator is then written as

285: \begin{equation}

286: {\cal H}\rightarrow {\cal H}_m = \frac{1}{2}\pi^2_m+

287: \frac{1}{2}(\nabla \phi_m)^2+\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2_m+\frac{g}{4}\phi_m^4.

288: \label{quantham}

289: \end{equation}

290: 

291: Now, we use the canonical transformation of the field operators

292: to build the quasiparticle representation of the same Hamiltonian.

293: We consider the essential point of the reparameterizations,

294: {\it i.e.} the change of mass, which can affect the choice of 

295: representation for the free field quantization.

296: For the free field operators, the change of mass $m\rightarrow M$ of 

297: particles is described by the Bogoliubov-Valatin transformation:

298: \begin{eqnarray}

299: a_M({\bf k})=\frac{1}{2}\left( \sqrt{\frac{\omega_m({\bf k})}

300: {\omega_M({\bf k})}} + \sqrt{\frac{\omega_M({\bf k})}

301: {\omega_m({\bf k})}} \right) a_m({\bf k})-

302: \frac{1}{2}\left( \sqrt{\frac{\omega_m({\bf k})}

303: {\omega_M({\bf k})}} - \sqrt{\frac{\omega_M({\bf k})}

304: {\omega_m({\bf k})}} \right) a^+_m({\bf -k}), \nonumber \\

305: a^+_M({\bf k})=\frac{1}{2}\left( \sqrt{\frac{\omega_m({\bf k})}

306: {\omega_M({\bf k})}} + \sqrt{\frac{\omega_M({\bf k})}

307: {\omega_m({\bf k})}} \right) a^+_m({\bf k})-

308: \frac{1}{2}\left( \sqrt{\frac{\omega_m({\bf k})}

309: {\omega_M({\bf k})}} - \sqrt{\frac{\omega_M({\bf k})}

310: {\omega_m({\bf k})}} \right) a_m({\bf -k}).

311: \end{eqnarray}

312: Here, the free field operators with mass $M$ are expressed in terms of 

313: the field operators with mass $m$.

314: 

315: A consequence of the ambiguity of the mass definition due to interactions

316: comes from the ambiguity in the choice of the initial representation of the 

317: interacting field. This was emphasized in Coleman's paper \cite{coleman}.

318: He also proposed a useful technique on how to redefine a normal 

319: ordered product of any number of field operators with respect to a new 

320: value of mass in the case of (1+1) scalar field theory. The redefinition 

321: after the mass change is given by the formulas \cite{chang2,coleman}:

322: \begin{equation}

323: N_m\left(\frac{1}{2}\pi^2_m+\frac{1}{2}(\nabla\phi_m)^2\right)=

324: N_M\left(\frac{1}{2}\pi^2_M+\frac{1}{2}(\nabla\phi_M)^2\right)+

325: \frac{1}{8\pi}(M^2-m^2),

326: \label{normfree}

327: \end{equation}

328: \begin{equation}

329: N_m(e^{\imath \beta\phi_m})=\Bigl ( \frac{M^2}{m^2} {\Bigr )}^{\beta^2/8\pi}

330: N_M(e^{\imath \beta\phi_M}),

331: \label{normexp}

332: \end{equation}

333: where $\beta$ is some arbitrary $c$-number, $N_m$($N_M$) stands for 

334: the normal ordering of an operator with respect to

335: the initial mass $m$ (the new mass $M$), $\phi_m$

336: is the free quantum field defined by Eq.(\ref{fieldop}) and $\phi_M$ is

337: the quantum field of independent quasi-particles for which 

338: the representation

339: given by Eq.(\ref{fieldop}) is valid after changing $m\rightarrow M$.

340: The correspondence between the canonical transformation and the 

341: renormalization group equation is discussed in Ref.\cite{efbook}.

342: %The change of normal ordering mass from $m$ to $M$ can be interpreted

343: %in terms of the renormalization group change of scale from $\mu$ to 

344: %$\nu$.

345: %This translates into $m(\mu)/\mu = M(\nu)/\nu$ for the solutions found

346: %by the OR method\cite{efbook}.

347: The expression (\ref{normexp}) can be rewritten as

348: \begin{equation}

349: N_m(\phi^n_m)=n!\sum\limits^{[\frac{n}{2}]}_{j=0} \Bigl ( \frac{1}{8\pi}

350: \ln(\frac{M^2}{m^2}) \Bigr ) ^j\frac{(-1)^j}{j!(n-2j)!}N_M(\phi^{n-2j}_M),

351: \label{normord}

352: \end{equation}

353: where $\bigl [ \frac{n}{2} \bigr ] $ is the integer part of $\frac{n}{2}$.

354: 

355: The most simple illustration of nontrivial solutions in this case is the 1+1

356: dimensional $\phi^4$ theory. Rewriting the Hamiltonian (\ref{quantham})

357: in terms of the quasi-particles using Coleman's formula of normal ordering

358: rearrangement, one gets

359: \begin{eqnarray}

360: N_m({\cal H}_m) &=& N_M({\cal H}_M) \nonumber \\

361: &+&\frac{1}{2}(m^2-M^2) N_M(\phi^2_M) 

362: +\frac{1}{8\pi}(M^2-m^2) -\frac{m^2 t}{8\pi}

363: -\frac{3gt}{8\pi} N_M(\phi^2_M)+\frac{3gt^2}{64\pi^2},

364: \label{phim}

365: \end{eqnarray}

366: where $t=\ln\bigl ( \frac{M^2}{m^2} \bigr ) $.

367: 

368: For a consistent

369: description of the dynamics in terms of the quasi-particles one

370: should provide the right form of the Hamiltonian, {\it i.e.} the free part 

371: should correspond to that of the field with mass $M$ and the 

372: interacting part should contain

373: only terms with powers of $\phi_M$ larger than 2 \cite{efbook}. As it can

374: be seen, the expression (\ref{phim}) itself can not provide this requirement

375: for the field with mass other than $m$. Revising just the mass does not

376: lead to a nontrivial solution and thus an additional transformation 

377: is obviously required. The latter can be done by shifting the quantization 

378: point of the field, which makes the quanta

379: of the field to be produced around some vacuum expectation value 

380: $\langle \phi \rangle \ne 0$.

381: 

382: Thus, let us now change the field variable from $\phi_M(x)$ to $\Phi_M(x)$

383: for the inclusion of the field condensation denoted by $b (=\langle 

384: \phi_M \rangle)$:{\it i.e.}, 

385: \begin{equation}

386: \phi_M(x) = \Phi_M(x) + b.

387: \end{equation}

388: Then the Hamiltonian density is written as \cite{efbook}:

389: \begin{equation}

390: N_M({\cal H})=N_M({\cal H}_M^{right})+{\cal H}_1+\varepsilon_M,

391: \end{equation}

392: where ${\cal H}_M^{right}$ is the right form of Hamiltonian density for

393: the field with mass $M$,

394: \begin{equation}

395: {\cal H}_M^{right}=\frac{1}{2}\pi^2_M + \frac{1}{2}(\nabla\Phi_M)^2 +

396: \frac{M^2}{2}\Phi^2_M + \frac{g}{4}\Phi^4_M  +

397: g b\Phi^3_M,

398: \label{phi4ham}

399: \end{equation}

400: $\varepsilon_M$ is the energy density of the vacuum for the quasiparticle 

401: of mass $M$ up to the zeroth

402: order of the dimensionless effective coupling $g/M^2$,

403: \begin{equation}

404: \varepsilon_M=\frac{m^2b^2}{2}+\frac{gb^4}{4}-\frac{m^2 t}{8\pi}-\frac{3gb^2 t}{8\pi}

405: +\frac{3gt^2}{64\pi^2}+\frac{M^2-m^2}{8\pi},

406: \label{energy}

407: \end{equation}

408: and

409: \begin{equation}

410: {\cal H}_1 = \Bigl \{ \frac{1}{2}(m^2-M^2)+ \frac{3}{2}g b^2 -\frac{3gt}{8\pi}

411: \Bigr \}  \Phi^2_M + \Bigl \{m^2 b +g b^3 -\frac{3g b t}{4\pi}\Bigr \} \Phi_M

412: \end{equation}

413: is a remainder. To have the Hamiltonian in the right form the remainder

414: must be equal to 0. Therefore, we have two equations of two variables, 

415: $t$ and $b$, as follows:

416: \begin{equation}

417: \frac{1}{2}(1-\frac{M^2}{m^2})+ \frac{3}{2}G b^2 -\frac{3Gt}{8\pi} = 0,

418: \label{OR1}

419: \end{equation}

420: and

421: \begin{equation}

422: b \Bigl (1  +G b^2 -\frac{3G t}{4\pi} \Bigr ) = 0,

423: \label{OR2}

424: \end{equation}

425: where $G$ is the dimensionless coupling of the initial theory, {\it i.e.}

426: $G=g/{m^2}$.

427: 

428: We note here the correspondence to the GEP discussed in Section I.

429: The energy density $\varepsilon_M$ given by Eq.(\ref{energy}) corresponds

430: to $<\phi_0,\Omega|{\cal H}|\Omega,\phi_0>$ presented in Eq.(\ref{gep}).

431: Minimizing $<\phi_0,\Omega|{\cal H}|\Omega,\phi_0>$ (or $\varepsilon_M$)

432: with respect to $\Omega$ (or $t$), one gets the GEP given by 

433: Eq.(\ref{gep}) with the so-called ${\bar \Omega}$ equation

434: \footnote{ See 

435: Eq.(4.12) of Ref.\cite{gep4} which 

436: was rederived as Eq.(2.16a) of Ref.\cite{mp} using Bogoliubov 

437: transformations.}

438: which is identical to Eq.(\ref{OR1}) that is one of the OR equations. 

439: The other OR equation, Eq.(\ref{OR2}), can be obtained by making the 

440: total (not partial) derivative of the GEP ({\it i.e.}, Eq.(4.11) of 

441: Ref.\cite{gep4} or Eq.(2.16b) of Ref.\cite{mp}) with respect to the 

442: condensation $\phi_0 (= b)$ and setting it to zero, 

443: {\it i.e.} $d{\bar V}_G(\phi_0)/{d \phi_0} = 0$. 

444: One should note, however, that the GEP is a function of 

445: the global field condensate $\phi_0$ not the local field $\phi(x)$. 

446: Thus, the GEP is not a part of interaction Hamiltonian describing the 

447: field dynamics.

448: In our work, instead of using the GEP,

449: we will directly use the interaction Hamiltonian and the corresponding

450: classical potential (see {\it e.g.} Eq.(\ref{Vclass})).

451: 

452: The OR equations (Eqs.(\ref{OR1}) and (\ref{OR2})) have three solutions

453: and one of them is trivial: $t=0$, $b=0$. The two nontrivial mass 

454: solutions 

455: are shown in Fig.1 as solid and dashed lines. 

456: The dashed line solution on Fig.1 becomes similar to the trivial one when 

457: the dimensionless coupling becomes large: $M_{G\to\infty}\to m$,

458: $b_{G\to\infty}\to 0$. However, the solid line solution from Fig.1 is what 

459: we are interested in because it fulfills the duality. For this case,

460: $M_{G\to\infty}^2\to {\frac {3}{2\pi}}m^2 G\ln G$,

461: $b_{G\to\infty}\to \sqrt{\frac{3}{4\pi}\ln G}$.

462: As one can see in this solution, when the dimensionless coupling $G$ of 

463: the initial theory becomes large, the dimensionless couplings of the 

464: quasiparticle theory, $\chi^{(3)}=gb/M^2$ and $\chi^{(4)}=g/M^2$,

465: get small\cite{efbook}: $\chi^{(3)}_{G\to\infty}\to 

466: \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{3\ln G}}$,

467: $\chi^{(4)}_{G\to\infty}\to \frac{2\pi}{3 G\ln G}$. Thus, the

468: quasiparticle theory becomes perturbative when the initial coupling $G$

469: gets very strong.

470: The physical mass in this regime is close to

471: $M\approx m \sqrt{{\frac{3}{2\pi}}G \ln G}$, and the corrections are in

472: the order of ${\cal O}\bigl((\chi^{(3)})^2\bigr)$. In this way, we can 

473: see the duality between the initial nonperturbative theory of unbroken 

474: $\phi \rightarrow -\phi$ symmetry with a large dimensionless coupling $G$ 

475: and the quasiparticle theory of broken $\Phi \rightarrow -\Phi$ symmetry

476: with small couplings $\chi^{(3)}$ and $\chi^{(4)}$.

477: This duality is exact because the canonical transformation leaves 

478: the Hamiltonian intact but changes only its 

479: representation in terms of the quasiparticle field variable $\Phi_M(x)$. 

480: 

481: As we discussed earlier, the multiple solutions are not unexpected because

482: the OR equations, Eqs.(\ref{OR1}) and (\ref{OR2}), are algebraically

483: nonlinear. However, it can be shown (see Appendix B) that the two vacua 

484: associated with different values of $t$ or $b$ are unitarily inequivalent 

485: in the infinite volume limit. Thus, the two nontrivial solutions are not 

486: connected to each other. 

487: The bifurcation of quasi-particle masses appear above the coupling 

488: $G \approx 9.04$.

489: However, the correct critical coupling of the phase transition should be

490: determined from the comparison of the energy density between the trivial

491: and condensed vacua. In Fig.2, we present the energy density of the 

492: nontrivial solutions and find that the condensed vacuum energy density

493: of the duality-related solution gets lower than the trivial vacuum energy 

494: density only above $G \approx 10.21$. This value $G \approx 10.21$ 

495: coincides with the critical coupling constant obtained by the GEP method

496: since our energy density given by Eq.(\ref{energy}) is equal to the GEP

497: at the minimum. This value is remarkably close to the 

498: critical coupling constant (10.24(3)) obtained by the lattice 

499: calculation\cite{lattice}.

500: Nevertheless, we note that our OR result doesn't take into account the

501: the higher order corrections in the quasiparticle effective coupling 

502: $g/M^2$ and obtain the first order phase transition  

503: instead of the second order phase transition which may be more 

504: accurate description of the phase transition in $(\phi^4)_{1+1}$ theory

505: \cite{Chang,simon}. In this work, we thus focus only on the region where 

506: the original coupling is much larger than the critical coupling so that the 

507: perturbative calculation in terms of quasiparticle degrees of freedom is 

508: allowed.      

509: 

510: Although there is a coincidence of the critical coupling,

511: it is not clear if the values of quasi-particle masses defined in the GEP, 

512: HA and OR methods also coincide. In the GEP approach, it seems only

513: natural to define the quasiparticle mass as the second derivative 

514: of the GEP\footnote{ See for example Eq.(3.2) of Ref.\cite{gep4}.}

515: , {\it i.e.} $d^2 {\bar V}_G(\phi_0)/d \phi_0^2$.

516: As discussed earlier, in the GEP approach a variational method is taken 

517: to minimize the GEP satisfying just Eq.(\ref{OR1}). 

518: Confirming the well-known equivalence between the GEP method and 

519: the HA for the ground-state energy \cite{CJT,ft7},

520: the GEP result using this definition of 

521: quasiparticle mass, {\it i.e.} the second derivative of the GEP, indeed 

522: agrees precisely with the Hartree results (squares and circles in 

523: Fig.\ref{geff})\footnote{In Chang's paper \cite{Chang} he found two 

524: different types of nontrivial solutions using Hartree method ($4\pi c^2 

525: >3$ and $4\pi c^2 <3$ in his notations). Nevertheless, the two type of 

526: solutions lead in fact to

527: the same physical results as shown in Fig.\ref{geff}. 

528: For more details, see the Appendix A.}.

529: However, one should note that the second 

530: derivative of the GEP at the minimum $\phi_0 = b$ does not yield the mass 

531: $M$ of the quasi-particle precisely but somewhat modified value 

532: $M\sqrt{\frac{4\pi M^2 - 6 g}{4\pi M^2 + 3 g}}$; {\it i.e.}

533: with the notations used in Eq.(4.11) of Ref.\cite{gep4}, the second 

534: derivative of the GEP, ${\bar V}_G$, is given by

535: \begin{equation}

536: \label{gepdd}

537: \frac{d^2{\bar V}_G}{d\phi_0^2}\bigg|_{\phi_0 = \pm 

538: \sqrt{\frac{x}{8 {\hat \lambda_B}}}} = x \Bigl ( \frac{\pi x - 6 {\hat 

539: \lambda_B}}{\pi x + 3 {\hat \lambda_B}} \Bigr ) \neq x, 

540: \end{equation}

541: %while $\frac{d^2{\bar V}_G}{d \phi_0^2}|_{\phi_0 = 0} = x|_{\phi_0 =0} = 1$,

542: where $x = \frac{M^2}{m^2}$, ${\hat \lambda_B} = \frac{g}{4 m^2}$ and 

543: $\phi_0 = b$ in our notations. Removing $t (= \ln x)$ in Eqs.(\ref{OR1}) 

544: and (\ref{OR2}), one can immediately get $b = \pm \frac{M}{\sqrt{2 g}}$ 

545: identical to $\phi_0 = \pm \sqrt{\frac{x}{8 {\hat \lambda_B}}}$.

546: This is the reason why the GEP result given by Eq.(\ref{gepdd}) 

547: shown by dotted line in Fig.\ref{geff} 

548: doesn't  coincide either of the bifurcated OR solutions (solid and dashed 

549: lines). Of course, if both the ${\bar \Omega}$ equation and the GEP 

550: minimum condition $d {\bar V}_G(\phi_0)/d \phi_0 = 0$ are solved 

551: simultaneously

552: to determine ${\bar \Omega}$, then it is identical to the OR method and

553: the value of ${\bar \Omega}$ coincides with the quasiparticle mass $M$

554: defined in the OR method. However, we note once again that the GEP and HA 

555: methods are quite different from the OR procedure because the GEP and HA 

556: methods rely on the variational procedure while the OR method is 

557: explicitly solving both Eqs.(\ref{OR1}) and (\ref{OR2}) simultaneously. 

558: 

559: As we have already discussed, the solid line in Fig.\ref{geff} 

560: exhibits a duality between the theory with mass $m$ based on the trivial 

561: vacuum $b=0$ and the theory with mass $M$ based on the nontrivial vacuum 

562: $b \neq 0$. Namely, a strong coupling theory with mass $m$ is identical 

563: to a weak coupling theory with mass $M$. A similar observation of duality 

564: can be found in the solutions obtained by GEP and HA (see also Appendix 

565: A), although the quasiparticle masses defined in the GEP and HA approaches

566: do not coincide with the quasiparticle mass defined in the OR method.

567: We also note that the GEP result (dotted line) approaches to

568: the OR result given by the solid line in the limit $G \to \infty$

569: since the terms of $x$ overwhelm the terms of $\hat \lambda_B$ in 

570: Eq.(\ref{gepdd}) for that limit. 

571: 

572: In Ref. \cite{mp}, it was argued that the method of

573: Bogoliubov-Valatin transformations gives the same results as the GEP.

574: In fact all of the nonperturbative methods that we discuss in this 

575: work,{\it i.e.} OR, GEP and HA, can be described formally in terms of 

576: Bogoliubov-Valatin transformations because all of them use only the 

577: change of particle mass and the field shift to get the new representation 

578: of the field variables.

579: However, these transformations contain parameters (mass ratio

580: and the value of the shift) which can not be determined from

581: the transformations themselves. To fix the parameters, some

582: additional requirement is necessary. 

583: The authors of Ref.\cite{mp} used essentially the same variational 

584: requirement as the GEP

585: and therefore it is very natural that they found the same results as the

586: GEP. On the other hand, in the OR method, we are not using the GEP at all

587: but relying on the form of the Hamiltonian described in Section I.

588: 

589: Applying the correspondence principle to the Hamiltonian (\ref{phi4ham}),

590: we now consider the classical potential given by

591: \begin{equation}

592: V^{class}(\Phi_M^{class}=\phi_M^{class}-b)=\frac{M^2}{2}(\phi^{class}_M-b)^2 

593: +\frac{g}{4}(\phi^{class}_M-b)^4  + g b(\phi^{class}_M-b)^3,

594: \label{Vclass}

595: \end{equation}

596: which is written here in terms of the classical field 

597: corresponding to the initial, unshifted field $\phi_M$.

598: As it can be easily seen, the potential has extremum at $\phi^{class}_M=b$.

599: This is provided by the demand not to have terms in Hamiltonian which

600: are linear in $\Phi_M$.

601: The double derivative in this point is larger than 0 and equal to

602: $M^2$,

603: {\it i.e.} the classical potential has minimum at $\phi^{class}_M=b$ and

604: the mass corresponding to oscillations around the minimum is precisely $M$.

605: That is why the OR method provides self-consistent procedure

606: of quantization of interacting fields and interpretation of the

607: solutions as particle excitations is valid. (In contrast, 

608: $\frac{d^2{\bar V}_G}{d \phi_0^2}|_{\phi_0 = b} \neq \frac{M^2}{m^2}$ for 

609: the GEP as shown in Eq.(\ref{gepdd}).) In addition, one can easily 

610: prove the symmetry of $V^{class}$ under the 

611: exchange of $\phi^{class}_M$ and 

612: $-\phi^{class}_M$,{\it i.e.}$V^{class}(\phi_M^{class}) = 

613: V^{class}(-\phi_M^{class})$, 

614: utilizing the OR equations (Eqs.(\ref{OR1}) and (\ref{OR2})). 

615: 

616: In Fig.\ref{g4new}, the effective potential $V^{class}$ given by 

617: Eq.(\ref{Vclass}) is presented. 

618: As one can see in Fig.\ref{g4new}, 

619: the bifurcated solutions for $G>9.04$ indeed generate two 

620: effective potentials (I,II) at a given coupling $G$, {\it e.g.} $G =$ 10 

621: or 

622: 12. Both potentials (I and II) in Fig.\ref{g4new} have clear minima and the 

623: second derivative at each minimum generates the corresponding quasi-particle 

624: mass $M$ precisely. The growth of bifurcation is also evident from the 

625: comparison of the potentials I and II for $G =$ 10 and 12. 

626: We note however that only the potential I provides the physically 

627: meaningful duality-related solution and the potential II doesn't 

628: satisfy the duality that we discuss in this work.

629: 

630: An analysis of realistic models using the oscillator representation method

631: is more complicate (see, for example, discussion for 3+1 dimensional

632: $\phi^4$ theory in \cite{efbook}) due to substantial sophistication of 

633: the renormalization procedure. Even the simple models however were not

634: fully studied in the framework of OR method. 

635: As presented in this Section, the comparison of the OR predictions with 

636: the GEP and Hartree results has been done for

637: 1+1 dimensional $\phi^4$ theory \cite{gep,Chang}. In higher

638: dimensions, the variational methods such as the GEP and HA may have a 

639: rather fundamental difficulty. 

640: The reason of this problem originates from the 

641: error estimates of the approximation

642: in the GEP and Hartree methods.

643: For instance, the HA replaces the interaction term $\lambda \phi^n$ for 

644: $n>2$ by the kinetic term $\Delta m^2 \phi^2+E_0$. The task of getting 

645: the better approximation is to minimize the 

646: positively defined measure $||\lambda \phi^n -

647: \Delta m^2\phi^2-E_0||$. Nevertheless, the vacuum

648: expectation value of the operator $\lambda \phi^n - \Delta m^2\phi^2-E_0 $

649: is not positively defined. Thus, it is necessary

650: to calculate the vacuum expectation value for its square that

651: is always positive. In that case, even if the interaction term itself

652: is renormalizable, its square may be not (in particular, for $D>2$).

653: That is why in higher dimensions the GEP and Hartree methods come across

654: a renormalization problem in computing their error measures\cite{Munoz}.

655: More discussion about the difficulty in the GEP method for the higher 

656: dimension can be found in Ref.\cite{wudka}.

657: However, this is not the case for the OR method, since it does not use any 

658: variational procedure.

659:  

660: Therefore, among the three (OR,GEP,Hartree), the OR method seems to be 

661: most attractive. The reasons may be summarized as follows:\\ 

662: i) The problems of renormalization in higher dimensions are technical, 

663: but not principal.\\ 

664: ii) The Hamiltonian is identically rewritten via canonical transformation

665: and consequently the transformed Hamiltonian keeps the identical 

666: information as the original Hamiltonian.\\

667: iii) The second derivative of effective potential gives the 

668: quasi-particle mass precisely in the OR, while the 

669: others give somewhat modified values.

670: 

671: \section{Application of the OR method to the $(\phi^6)_{1+1}$ theory}

672: Using the OR method, we now compute the parameters of different phases 

673: for the scalar field theory with both $\phi^4$ and $\phi^6$ interactions. 

674: The starting classical Hamiltonian density is

675: \begin{equation}

676: {\cal H}_m=\frac{1}{2}\pi^2_m+\frac{1}{2}(\nabla\phi_m)^2

677: +\frac{m^2}{2}\phi^2_m

678: +\frac{g}{4}\phi^4_m + h\phi^6_m.

679: \label{clasphi6}

680: \end{equation}

681: The way to proceed is the same as in the case of $\phi^4$ theory. 

682: Using the formulas (\ref{normfree}) and (\ref{normexp}) and shifting the 

683: quantization point, we get:

684: \begin{equation}

685: N_m({\cal H}_m)=N_M \bigl ({\cal H}_M^{right} + {\cal H}_1 \bigr ) +

686: \varepsilon_M,

687: \label{hamilt6}

688: \end{equation}

689: where the ``right'' Hamiltonian density ${\cal H}_M^{right}$ is given by

690: \begin{eqnarray}

691: \label{rightH}

692: {\cal H}_M^{right} &=& \frac{1}{2}\pi^2_M+\frac{1}{2}(\nabla\Phi_M)^2+

693: \frac{M^2}{2}\Phi_M^2 + \frac{g}{4}\Phi_M^4 +h\Phi_M^6 + gb\Phi_M^3 

694: \\ \nonumber &+& 6hb\Phi_M^5+15hb^2\Phi_M^4

695: + 20hb^3\Phi_M^3-\frac{15ht}{4\pi}\Phi_M^4-\frac{15hbt}{\pi}\Phi_M^3,

696: \end{eqnarray}

697: the remainder ${\cal H}_1$ is given by

698: \begin{eqnarray}

699: {\cal H}_1 &=& \Bigl ( \frac{1}{2}(m^2-M^2)+\frac{3gb^2}{2}-\frac{3gt}{8\pi}

700: +15b^4h-\frac{45b^2ht}{2\pi}+\frac{45ht^2}{16\pi^2}\Bigr )\Phi_M^2 

701: \nonumber \\

702: &+&\Bigl ( m^2 b+gb^3-\frac{3gbt}{4\pi}+6hb^5-\frac{15hb^3t}{\pi}+

703: \frac{45bht^2}{8\pi^2} \Bigr )\Phi_M,

704: \end{eqnarray}

705: and the energy density $\varepsilon_M$ of the vacuum is given by

706: \begin{eqnarray}

707: \varepsilon_M 

708: &=&\frac{m^2b^2}{2}+\frac{gb^4}{4}-\frac{m^2t}{8\pi}-\frac{3gb^2t}

709: {8\pi}+\frac{3gt^2}{64\pi^2} \nonumber \\

710: &+&\frac{1}{8\pi}(M^2-m^2)+hb^6-\frac{15hb^4t}{4\pi}

711: +\frac{45hb^2t^2}{16\pi^2}-\frac{15ht^3}{64\pi^3}.

712: \end{eqnarray}

713: As in the last section, here we use the notation $\Phi_M = \phi_M - b$.

714: 

715: The requirement to have the Hamiltonian in the right form means that

716: the remainder ${\cal H}_1$ is equal to zero. This gives the following two 

717: equations for $t$ and $B$ ($B=b^2$):

718: \begin{equation}

719: 1-e^t+3GB-\frac{3Gt}{4\pi}+30HB^2-\frac{45HBt}{\pi}+\frac{45Ht^2}{8\pi^2}=0,

720: \label{equ1}

721: \end{equation}

722: \begin{equation}

723: 1+GB-\frac{3Gt}{4\pi}+6HB^2-\frac{15HBt}{\pi}+\frac{45Ht^2}{8\pi^2}=0,

724: \label{equ2}

725: \end{equation}

726: where

727: $G=g/m^2$ and $H=h/m^2$ are the dimensionless couplings.

728: The conditions (\ref{equ1}) and (\ref{equ2}) again provide the minimum of 

729: the classical potential at $\phi^{class}_M=b$ and the right value of the

730: double derivative around it.

731: 

732: Solving Eqs. (\ref{equ1}) and (\ref{equ2}) numerically, we found

733: five nontrivial mass solutions shown in 

734: Figs. \ref{phasesnew1}, \ref{phasesnew2} and \ref{phasesnew3}. The 

735: corresponding vacuum energy densities are presented in Figs. \ref{vac6sym},

736: \ref{vac6brok} and \ref{vac6spur}.

737: In Fig.\ref{vac6sym}, two identical plots are shown in two different 

738: angles of view to make clear presentation of the result.

739: Among the five, two solutions correspond to the symmetric phase,

740: {\it i.e.} $b=0$. They are represented by the upper and lower branches

741: (or sheets) of the manifold shown in Fig.\ref{phasesnew1}. The vacuum 

742: energy densities for these solutions are shown in Fig.\ref{vac6sym}.

743: The upper and lower branches in Fig.\ref{phasesnew1} correspond to the

744: lower and upper branches in Fig.\ref{vac6sym}, respectively.

745: The upper branch in Fig.\ref{phasesnew1} is the physically meaningful

746: duality-related solution while the lower branch in Fig.\ref{phasesnew1} 

747: does not provide the duality that we are interested in this work. The 

748: duality-related solution

749: has the lower energy density as shown in Fig.\ref{vac6sym}.

750: The dimensionless couplings which correspond

751: to the $\Phi^6$ and $\Phi^4$ interactions of the duality-related

752: quasiparticle theory are given by

753: \begin{equation}

754: \chi_s^{(6)} = \frac{h}{M_s^2},~~~\chi_s^{(4)}=\frac{g}{4M_s^2}-

755: \frac{15ht}{4\pi M_s^2}.

756: \label{pertunbr}

757: \end{equation}

758: Note here that $\chi_s^{(4)}$ includes both couplings of $g$ and $h$. This is

759: due to the self-organization of fields via the quantum fluctuations in the

760: vacuum, {\it i.e.} the original $\phi^6$ interaction induces the effective

761: $\Phi^4$ interaction with the negative effective coupling in this case.

762: Their dependencies on $H$ are presented in Fig.\ref{coup1},

763: where the original $\phi^4$ interaction coupling $g$ is put to zero for

764: simplicity. It can be seen from Fig.\ref{coup1}, both $\chi_s^{(4)}$

765: and $\chi_s^{(6)}$ become small as $H$ grows.

766: Thus, the qusiparticle theory in the domain of large $H$ can be solved by

767: a standard perturbation method.

768: 

769: Among the rest three solutions, the two solutions corresponding to the

770: broken-symmetry phase with the nonzero real condensation ($b=\sqrt{B}$) 

771: are shown as the two branches in Fig.\ref{phasesnew2}. The vacuum energy

772: densities for these solutions are shown in Fig.\ref{vac6brok}.

773: Again the upper (lower) branch of Fig.\ref{phasesnew2} corresponds to

774: the lower (upper) branch of Fig.\ref{vac6brok}.

775: Similar to the case of 

776: symmetric phase (Fig.\ref{phasesnew1}), the lower branch in 

777: Fig.\ref{phasesnew2} does not provide the duality that we are interested

778: in this work. However, the upper branch in Fig.\ref{phasesnew2} corresponds

779: to the duality-related solution and gives the lower value of the vacuum

780: energy density (the lower branch in Fig.\ref{vac6brok}). 

781: For this broken-symmetry phase, the dimensionless couplings of the 

782: quasiparticle interactions are given by

783: \begin{eqnarray}

784: \chi_{bs}^{(6)}=\frac{h}{M_{bs}^2},~~~

785: \chi_{bs}^{(5)}=\frac{6hb}{M_{bs}^2},~~~

786: \chi_{bs}^{(4)}=\frac{g}{4M_{bs}^2}+

787: \frac{15hb^2}{M_{bs}^2}-\frac{15ht}{4\pi M_{bs}^2},

788: \nonumber \\

789: \chi_{bs}^{(3)}=\frac{gb}{M_{bs}^2}+\frac{20hb^3}{M_{bs}^2}-

790: \frac{15hb t}{\pi M_{bs}^2}.

791: \label{pertbr}

792: \end{eqnarray}

793: The $H$-dependence of these couplings is shown in Fig.\ref{coup2}

794: (again, we put $g=0$ to simplify the presentation).

795: At sufficiently large $H$ the couplings get small and the quasiparticle 

796: theory becomes perturbative. When the dimensionless

797: couplings of the symmetric solution go to zero, 

798: $\chi^{(6)}_s,\chi^{(4)}_s \to 0$,

799: the dimensionless couplings of the broken-symmetry theory also go to zero

800: as shown in Fig.\ref{couplings}.

801: 

802: The last solution shown in Fig.\ref{phasesnew3} has a pure imaginary value

803: for the condensate $b$ ({\it i.e.} negative $B$). In Fig.\ref{vac6spur},

804: we show the corresponding vacuum energy density. Because the Hamiltonian 

805: in this case becomes non-hermitian, we call these solutions

806: spurious. The spurious solutions appear only after the inclusion of

807: $\phi^6$ interaction. Thus, they are consequences of the higher nonlinearity

808: in the OR equations. Since they don't seem to bear any interesting duality 

809: property that we discuss in this work, we don't present their results in 

810: the main text but just summarize those in the Appendix C with some 

811: discussion.

812: 

813: The most interesting feature of the $\phi^6$ theory is the appearence of

814: the two apparently different quasiparticle perturbation theories 

815: (see the upper branches of Figs. \ref{phasesnew1} and \ref{phasesnew2})

816: which represent the initial

817: nonperturbative theory. The first one corresponds to the symmetric

818: phase with the dimensionless quasiparticle couplings given by 

819: Eq.(\ref{pertunbr}) and the second one corresponds to the broken-symmetry 

820: phase with the dimensionless couplings given by Eq.(\ref{pertbr}).

821: The subscripts ``s'' and ``bs'' of the coupling $\chi$ and the mass $M$

822: represent the correspondence to the symmetric and broken-symmetry phases,

823: respectively. The two quasiparticle theories ({\it i.e.} $\chi_s$'s and 

824: $\chi_{bs}$'s) differ from each other significantly in the sence that

825:  one of them ($\chi_s$'s) preserves the 

826: $\phi\to -\phi$ symmetry of the initial Hamiltonian (\ref{clasphi6})

827: upon changing $\Phi\to -\Phi$, while 

828: the other ($\chi_{bs}$'s) does not respect the $\Phi\to -\Phi$ symmetry.

829: Physically, this means that in the theory of symmetric phase with 

830: the $\chi_s$ couplings the processes

831: involving odd number of particles are not allowed while they are 

832: allowed in the broken-symmetry theory with $\chi_{bs}$ couplings. This is 

833: because in the theory of symmetric phase,

834: the Hamiltonian depends on the even powers of $\Phi$

835: (to provide $\Phi \to -\Phi$ symmetry) and thus the S-matrix contains only 

836: the even number of creation and annihilation operators.

837: 

838: However, one may wonder if these two apparently different quasiparticle

839: theories are in fact equivalent to each other describing the same physics

840: with just different degrees of freedom. In this respect,

841: we notice that the two different quasiparticle theories give

842: the same effective potential in the limit of very large $G$ and 

843: $H$. In Figs.\ref{effpot1},\ref{effpot2} and \ref{effpot3}

844: we show the classical potentials which

845: correspond to the two quasiparticle theories at different values of 

846: the coupling $\chi_s^{(6)}$.

847: As it can be seen, when the quasiparticle coupling $\chi_s^{(6)}$ 

848: becomes small ({\it i.e.} $H$ becomes very large), the relative difference

849: between the two quasiparticle 

850: potentials diminishes substantially. We verified that the two classical

851: potentials are indeed identical to each other in the $\chi_s^{(6)}\to 0$

852: limit.

853: 

854: In the GEP approach \cite{gep6}, it was also recognized that there are three

855: solutions of symmetric phase (one of them is the trivial solution and two

856: others are the nontrivial solutions corresponding to the ones that we 

857: showed in Fig.\ref{phasesnew1}). As we consider only one

858: of the two nontrivial solutions (the upper branch in Fig.\ref{phasesnew1})

859: as the physically relevant (duality-related) solution, the GEP approach

860: also dealt with only one (physically relevant)

861: solution among the two nontrivial solutions.  

862: In Ref.\cite{gep6} it was shown that the form of $\bar \Omega$ equation

863: of the GEP approach is invariant under the exchange of $m$ and $M_s$

864: with an appropriate redefinition of effective couplings

865: $G'=(G-\frac{15H}{\pi}t_0)e^{-t_0}$ and $H'=He^{-t_0}$, as well as

866: $t'=t-t_0$, where $t_0=\ln\frac{M_s^2}{m^2}$ satisfies the 

867: constraint equation given by Eq.(\ref{equ2}): $1-e^{-t_0}=

868: \frac{3Gt_0}{4\pi}-\frac{45Ht_0^2}{8\pi^2}$ (Note $B=0$ for the symmetric

869: phase). Indeed, we can show the form

870: invariance of both OR Eqs. (\ref{equ1}) and (\ref{equ2}) under

871: the same transformations.

872: 

873: Observing such form invariance, it was argued in the GEP approach \cite{gep6}

874: that the nontrivial symmetric phase solution is just a duplication of the 

875: trivial solution and thus should be avoided. However, as we discussed above,

876: the duality between the trivial and nontrivial symmetric phase 

877: solutions provides the physical meaning to the form invariance of 

878: the OR equations. Because of the duality, we see the utility of 

879: both trivial and nontrivial solutions in the symmetric phase.

880: While the trivial 

881: solution can be utilized for the perturbation theory at small $G$ and $H$,

882: the nontrivial symmetric phase solution can be used for the construction

883: of quasiparticle perturbation theory in the regime of very large $G$ and $H$.

884: 

885: Furthemore, since there exists also a duality between the trivial 

886: solution and the nontrivial broken-symmetry solution we can rather easily 

887: understand the equivalence of the classical effective potentials

888: between the symmetric phase and the

889: broken-symmetry phase for the very large couplings of the original theory

890: (see Fig.\ref{effpot3}).

891: In the limit of $\chi_s^{(6)}\to 0$ (which means also $\chi_{bs}$'s$\to 0$,

892: as shown in Fig.\ref{couplings}),

893: the higher order corrections get negligible and thus the equivalence of 

894: the classical potentials between the symmetric and broken-symmetry phases 

895: is revealed manifestly as shown in Fig.\ref{effpot3}.

896: 

897: 

898: \section{Summary and Conclusions}

899: The formation of quasiparticle in RQFT may be a good example of 

900: self-organizing nature in the nonperturbative strong interactions. This 

901: nature is realized

902: by altering the vacuum structure and lowering the vacuum energy density

903: as the strength of the interactions gets more enhanced. Our main goal in this

904: paper was to provide the explicit examples that reveal such nature of

905: self-organizing RQFT and show the utility of duality generated by the

906: canonical transformation in solving the nonperturbative strong interaction

907: problem. For the explicit but simple examples, we analized

908: of 1+1 dimensional $\phi^4$ and $\phi^6$ theories. Our purpose was 

909: fulfilled by applying the OR method which is a generalization of the 

910: canonical quantization scheme.

911: 

912: The OR method uses canonical commutation relations for

913: the free field operators and employs

914: the canonical transformation of quantum fields represented by the change

915: of the field mass and the condensation of the field.

916: The idea to demand the right form of the Hamiltonian,

917: {\it i.e.} excluding the terms linear in $\Phi$ and

918: taking the coefficient of $\Phi^2$ as $M^2/2$ 

919: guarantees that the classical potential has the minimum at the

920: quantization point $\phi^{class}_M=b$ and that the double derivative of the

921: classical potential at this point is given by $M^2$. This assures that the OR 

922: method gives a self-consistent procedure of quantization and a 

923: valid description of the field excitations around the minimum point in 

924: terms of quasiparticles.

925: 

926: In contrast to the GEP and HA methods, the OR method is not based

927: on the variational procedure so that it does not have a bottleneck

928: of renormalization problem in higher dimensions as discussed in Section II.

929: However, the OR method has not been utilized as extensively as the GEP and HA 

930: methods. Even in the 1+1 dimensional scalar field theory, not much of the 

931: OR results were contrasted from the GEP and HA results although the OR 

932: results for the $(\phi^4)_{1+1}$ theory were presented in 

933: Ref.\cite{efbook}. We attempted to fill such gap in 

934: this work.

935: 

936: For the fixed classical

937: Hamiltonian and renormalization procedure (fixed by the counter-terms),

938: it is natural to expect that the OR method yields several different 

939: solutions for the quasiparticle mass and condensation because the OR 

940: equations are in general nonlinear. However, the unitary inequivalence

941: arising from these different OR vacuum solutions prohibits the 

942: transitions among the quasiparticles with different mass and/or condensation.

943: Although some of the solutions correspond

944: to the heavier quasiparticles, they do not decay into the light ones

945: due to the unitary inequivalence;

946: {\it i.e.} each sort of the quasiparticles is stable within the OR.

947: The unitary inequivalence between the OR solutions is shown in Appendix B.

948: A recent application of the unitary inequivalence to the flavor

949: mixing phenomena

950: can be found in Ref.\cite{ji-mish}. In this work, we selected only

951: the duality-related OR solutions because they can provide the immediate

952: physical interpretation. The reason why the physical interpretation

953: is immediate for the duality-related solutions is because the strong

954: coupling particle theory becomes solvable 

955: once it is transformed into an exactly equivalent quasiparticle theory 

956: with weak couplings.

957: 

958: Using the $(\phi^4)_{1+1}$ theory, we compared the OR results

959: with the results obtained by GEP and HA. In Ref.\cite{efbook}, it was 

960: discussed that the value of the critical coupling $G\approx 10.21$ 

961: obtained by the OR method

962: coincides with the one obtained by the GEP method.

963: We also note that this value of the critical coupling agrees 

964: remarkably well with the lattice result \cite{lattice}.

965: Due to the equivalence 

966: between the HA and GEP methods for the ground state energy \cite{CJT,ft7}

967: the agreement of the critical couplings between the OR and HA methods follows

968: as well. Although the critical values of coupling constant 

969: $G$ turned out to be same for all three methods (OR, GEP, HA),

970: the OR method gives

971: the quantitatively different dependence of the nontrivial field mass on the 

972: effective coupling constant, compare to the GEP and HA results

973: (see Fig.\ref{geff} and the discussions in Section II).

974: 

975: We have extended the application to the 1+1 dimensional 

976: $\phi^6$ theory and

977: compared the results of OR method with what was already obtained 

978: by the GEP. We found that the different solutions for the mass of 

979: quasi-particles between the OR and the GEP are sustained.

980: In the OR analysis of $(\phi^6)_{1+1}$ theory we found two physically 

981: meaningful duality-related solutions (upper sheets of Figs.\ref{phasesnew1}

982: and \ref{phasesnew2}), one in the symmetric phase and the other in the 

983: broken-symmetry phase. Although these two solutions have apparently 

984: different symmetry property, we find that their effective potentials do 

985: agree in the limit of very large couplings $G$ and $H$ of the initial theory,

986: {\it i.e.} very small effective couplings $\chi_s$'s and $\chi_{bs}$'s of 

987: the quasiparticle theories. This indicates an existence of a unique 

988: effective 

989: potential to the quasiparticles regardless of their symmetry properties. 

990: The actual perturbation theory using the quasiparticles degrees of 

991: freedom with the systematic higher order corrections may deserve further 

992: investigation.

993: 

994: \begin{center}

995: {\large\bf Acknowledgments}

996: \end{center}

997: CRJ thanks Yuriy Mishchenko for many useful discussions.

998: This work is supported by the Brain Korea 21 project in year 2001, the Korea 

999: KRF 2001-015-DP0085, the Korea KOSEF 1999-2-111-005-5, the 

1000: RFBR-01-02-16431, the RFBR-03-02-17291, the INTAS-2000-366 and the US DOE 

1001: under grant No. DE-FG02-96ER40947. The North Carolina Supercomputing 

1002: Center and the National Energy Research 

1003: Scientific Computer Center are also acknowledged for the grant of Cray time.

1004: 

1005: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1006: %\setcounter{figure}{0}

1007: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\mbox{A\arabic{equation}}}

1008: \begin{center}

1009: {\bf APPENDIX A: Hartree Approximations in the $(\phi^4)_{1+1}$ Theory}

1010: \end{center}

1011: The essential idea of the Hartree approximation\cite{Chang} is to linearize

1012: the non-linear field equations using the mean fields,

1013: {\it e.g. $\phi^3 \rightarrow 3 \langle \phi^2 \rangle \phi -2

1014: \langle \phi \rangle ^3$, etc.},

1015: splitting the fields into classical mean fields

1016: ($\phi_c = \langle \phi \rangle$)

1017: plus the quantum fields($\phi_q$), {\it i.e. $\phi = \phi_c + \phi_q$}.

1018: In the classical limit, we know that the ground state is given by

1019: $\phi^2=c^2$ if $c^2$ is defined by $c^2 = -\frac{m^2}{g}$ and positive

1020: ({\it i.e. $c^2>0$}).

1021: The quantum fluctuations $\langle \phi_q^2(x) \rangle$ are found to be 

1022: infinite.

1023: However, one can renormalize

1024: the theory using a mass counter term $\frac{1}{2} B \phi^2$, where

1025: the constant $B$ is determined by requiring that $\phi_c = c$ is a static

1026: solution (corresponding to the so-called ``abnormal vacuum state" or a

1027: sort of vacuum condensate)

1028: of a Hartree equation and this leads to

1029: $B= -3 g \langle \phi_q^2 \rangle_{\phi_c =c}$.

1030: After renormalization, the effective potential $V(\phi_c)$ is obtained in

1031: terms of the subtracted quantum fluctuation, {\it i.e.

1032: $\Delta \langle \phi_q^2 \rangle = \langle \phi_q^2 \rangle_{\phi_c}

1033: - \langle \phi_q^2 \rangle_{\phi_c = c}$},

1034: which satisfies the iterative (mass-gap type) equation\cite{Chang};

1035: \begin{equation}

1036: \Delta\langle\phi_q^2\rangle = \frac{1}{4\pi} \ln\frac{2c^2}

1037: {3\phi_c^2 -c^2 + 3\Delta\langle\phi_q^2\rangle}.

1038: \label{gapeq}

1039: \end{equation}

1040: Using the solutions of Eq.(\ref{gapeq}), one can find that $\phi_c = c$

1041: is a local minimum (maximum) of $V(\phi_c)$ for $4\pi c^2 >3 (0<4\pi c^2<3)$

1042: while $\phi_c=0$ is always a local minimum. For $0<4\pi c^2<3$, a nontrivial

1043: local minimum exists at $\phi_c = \sqrt{c^2 -

1044: 3\Delta\langle\phi_q^2\rangle} = c^\prime$.

1045: Expanding $V(\phi_c)$ in each of the local minima, one can introduce the

1046: following mass parameters;

1047: \begin{eqnarray}

1048: m_0^2 = \frac{d^2 V(\phi_c)}{d\phi_c^2}\bigg|_{\phi_c=0}

1049: = g(3\Delta\langle\phi_q^2\rangle|_{\phi_c=0} - c^2), \nonumber \\

1050: m_c^2 = \frac{d^2 V(\phi_c)}{d\phi_c^2}\bigg|_{\phi_c=c}

1051: = 2gc^2 \frac{8\pi c^2 -6}{8\pi c^2 +3}, \nonumber \\

1052: m_{c^\prime}^2 = \frac{d^2 V(\phi_c)}{d\phi_c^2}\bigg|_{\phi_c=c^\prime}

1053: = 4g(c^2-3\Delta\langle\phi_q^2\rangle)

1054: \frac{4\pi(c^2-3\Delta\langle\phi_q^2\rangle)-3}

1055: {8\pi(c^2-3\Delta\langle\phi_q^2\rangle)+3}.

1056: \label{masses}

1057: \end{eqnarray}

1058: Then, the intrinsic strength measured in terms of these mass parameters

1059: are given by the dimensionless couplings; {\it i.e.}

1060: \begin{equation}

1061: g_0 = \frac{g}{m_0^2}, \mbox{\hskip 5mm} g_c = \frac{g}{m_c^2},

1062: \mbox{\hskip 5mm} g_{c^\prime} = \frac{g}{m_{c^\prime}^2}.

1063: \label{dimlesscoupling}

1064: \end{equation}

1065: For the entire $c^2>0$ region, it turns out that the nontrivial vacuum

1066: solutions exist only for $g_0 \geq g_{crit} \approx 9.045$ (note that it

1067: is not the same as the critical coupling of the phase transition $G=10.21$

1068: as discussed in Section II),

1069: where the critical coupling $g_0 = g_{crit}$ occurs at $4\pi c^2 =3$.

1070: Thus, it appears that one can find the two nontrivial vacuum solutions;

1071: one for $4 \pi c^2 > 3$ and the other for $0< 4 \pi c^2 < 3$. However,

1072: we find that the two solutions are indeed identical in the sense that

1073: $g_c$ and $g_{c^\prime}$ coincide when we plot them (see 

1074: Fig.~\protect\ref{app}) as a function of $g_0$,

1075: {\it i.e.} $g_c(g_0) = g_{c^\prime}(g_0)$ for all $g_0 \geq g_{crit}$.

1076: 

1077: We also notice a duality between the theory with $g_0$ based on the

1078: trivial vacuum $\phi_c =0$ and the theory with $g_c$ (or $g_{c^\prime}$)

1079: based on the nontrivial vacuum $\phi_c = c$ for $4 \pi c^2 > 3$

1080: (or $\phi_c = c^\prime$ for $0 < 4 \pi c^2 < 3$).

1081: Namely, a strong coupling $g_0$ theory is identical to a weak coupling

1082: $g_c$ (or $g_{c^\prime}$) theory.

1083: 

1084: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1085: %\setcounter{figure}{0}

1086: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\mbox{B\arabic{equation}}}

1087: \begin{center}

1088: {\bf APPENDIX B: Unitary Inequivalence between the Nontrivial OR

1089: Solutions}

1090: \end{center}

1091: 

1092: In this Appendix, we show the unitary inequivalence between a vacuum

1093: with $b_1$ and $t_1$ and another vacuum $b_2$ and $t_2$, where $t_1\neq

1094: t_2$ or $b_1 \neq b_2$.

1095: 

1096: The canonical transformation taking a trivial vacuum ({\it i.e.}

1097: $b=0$ and $t=1$) into a nontrivial one ({\it i.e.} $b \neq 0$ and 

1098: $t \neq 1$) has the following form ({\it e.g.} for the bosons)

1099: \begin{equation}

1100: \label{eq01z}

1101: \begin{array}{cc}

1102: 1. & a_k \rightarrow a_k-2\pi mb\delta (k); \\

1103: 2. &

1104: \begin{array}{c}

1105: a_k \rightarrow a_k\cosh (\lambda )-a_{-k}^{\dagger}\sinh (\lambda ), \\

1106: a_k^{\dagger} \rightarrow a_k^{\dagger}\cosh (\lambda )-a_{-k}\sinh

1107: (\lambda ).

1108: \end{array}

1109: \end{array}

1110: \end{equation}

1111: Their corresponding operators have the form

1112: \begin{equation}

1113: \label{eq02z}

1114: \begin{array}{c}

1115: U_1=\exp \left\{ -2\pi mb(a_0-a_0^{\dagger })\right\};  \\

1116: U_2=\exp \left\{ \frac 12\int d\vec k\lambda (k)(a_{-k}a_k-a_k^{\dagger

1117: }a_{-k}^{\dagger })\right\}

1118: \end{array}

1119: \end{equation}

1120: with $\lambda (k)=\frac 12\ln \frac{\omega (k)}{\omega (k,t)}$ and $\omega

1121: (k)=\sqrt{k^2+t^2m^2}$.

1122: 

1123: To connect the two vacua, one with $b_1$ and $t_1$ and another with

1124: $b_2$ and $t_2$, we can use the transformation given by Eq.(\ref{eq02z}) 

1125: with $b=b_2-b_1$ and $\lambda (k)=\frac 12\ln 

1126: \frac{\omega _1(k)}{\omega _2(k)}$ where $\omega _i(k)=\sqrt{k^2+t_i^2m^2}$. 

1127: To show that, let us define $V_i:\left\langle 0,1\right\rangle

1128: \rightarrow

1129: \left\langle b_i,t_i\right\rangle $ by the transformation given by

1130: Eq.(\ref{eq02z}). Then

1131: $$

1132: \left\langle b_1,t_1\right\rangle \rightarrow \left\langle

1133: b_2,t_2\right\rangle =\left\langle b_1,t_1\right\rangle \rightarrow

1134: \left\langle 0,1\right\rangle \rightarrow \left\langle b_2,t_2\right\rangle

1135: $$

1136: and therefore $V=V_2V_1^{-1}:\left\langle b_1,t_1\right\rangle \rightarrow

1137: \left\langle b_2,t_2\right\rangle $. Straightforward algebraic

1138: manipulation with Eq.($\ref{eq02z}$) then results in the unitary

1139: inequivalence between

1140: the vacuum with $\left\langle b_1,t_1\right\rangle$ and the vacuum

1141: with $\left\langle b_2,t_2\right\rangle$.

1142: 

1143: In Ref.\cite{efbook}, it was mentioned that%

1144: $$

1145: \begin{array}{c}

1146: U_1=e^{-\frac 12(2\pi mb)^2[a_0,a_0^{\dagger }]}:U_1:, \\

1147: U_2=e^{-\frac V{(2\pi )^3}\int d\vec k\ln (\cosh [\lambda (k)])}:U_2:.

1148: \end{array}

1149: $$

1150: where $[a_0,a_0^{\dagger }]=\delta ^{(3)}(0)$. Here, we can equate 

1151: $\delta^{(3)}(0)$ to $\frac V{(2\pi )^3}$. Note also

1152: that transformation $U_1$ acts only on the $k=0$ field operators, therefore%

1153: $$

1154: \begin{array}{c}

1155: U_2\circ U_1=\left( \prod\limits_{k\neq 0}U_2(k)\right) \left( U_2(0)\circ

1156: U_1(0)\right) , \\

1157: :U_2\circ U_1:=\left( \prod\limits_{k\neq 0}:U_2(k):\right) :U_2(0)\circ

1158: U_1(0):.

1159: \end{array}

1160: $$

1161: Hence%

1162: $$

1163: U_2\circ U_1=e^{-\frac V{(2\pi )^3}\int\limits_{k\neq 0}d\vec k\ln (\cosh

1164: [\lambda (k)])}\prod\limits_{k\neq 0}:U_2(k):\left( U_2(0)\circ

1165: U_1(0)\right) .

1166: $$

1167: Then for the inner product of the vacuum $\left| 0\right\rangle _1$

1168: associated with $\left\langle b_1,t_1\right\rangle $ and $\left|

1169: 0\right\rangle _2$ associated with $\left\langle b_2,t_2\right\rangle $ we

1170: have%

1171: $$

1172: _1\left\langle 0|0\right\rangle _2=\prod {}_{1,k}\left\langle

1173: 0|0\right\rangle _{2,k}\leq \prod_{k\neq 0}{}_{1,k}\left\langle

1174: 0|0\right\rangle _{2,k}=e^{-\frac V{(2\pi )^3}\int\limits_{k\neq 0}d\vec

1175: k\ln (\cosh [\lambda (k)])}\rightarrow 0,

1176: $$

1177: as $$\text{ }V\rightarrow \infty \text{.}$$

1178: The two vacua therefore are unitary inequivalent if their $t$ parameters

1179: are

1180: different. If $t_1=t_2$ but $b_1\neq b_2$ then $\lambda (k)\equiv 0$ and $%

1181: V=U_1(b_2-b_1).$ Then%

1182: $$

1183: _1\left\langle 0|0\right\rangle _2=\prod {}_{1,k}\left\langle

1184: 0|0\right\rangle _{2,k}={}_{1,k=0}\left\langle 0|0\right\rangle

1185: _{2,k=0}=e^{-\frac 12(2\pi mb)^2\delta (0)}=0\text{,}

1186: $$

1187: in the infinite volume limit.

1188: 

1189: Therefore $_1\left\langle 0|0\right\rangle _2=0$ in the infinite volume

1190: limit whenever $t_1\neq t_2$ or $b_1\neq b_2$.

1191: 

1192: 

1193: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1194: %\setcounter{figure}{0}

1195: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\mbox{B\arabic{equation}}}

1196: \begin{center}

1197: {\bf APPENDIX C: Spurious Solutions in the $(\phi^6)_{1+1}$ Theory}

1198: \end{center}

1199: Among the solutions of OR Eqs.(\ref{equ1}) and (\ref{equ2}) for 1+1

1200: dimensional $\phi^6$ theory there is one with negative $B$ that gives

1201: pure imaginary condensate $b=i\sqrt{|B|}$. This solution is shown

1202: in Fig.\ref{phasesnew3} and the corresponding vacuum energy density is shown

1203: in Fig.\ref{vac6spur}.

1204: In this case the Hamiltonian becomes non-hermitian because

1205: it contains anti-hermitian terms in odd powers of $\Phi_M$.

1206: When one calculates average values

1207: of such operators in any state with definite number

1208: of particles, these terms drop out, because odd number of creation

1209: and annihilation operators can not leave the number of particles 

1210: unchanged. However, the physical states are complicate and 

1211: contain indefinite number of particles

1212: so that the antihermitian terms would contribute to the physical

1213: observables and give them imaginary expectation values.

1214: Moreover, our starting Hamiltonian density 

1215: given by Eq.(\ref{clasphi6}) involves only the real (not complex as in 

1216: the O(2) symmetric theory) scalar field $\phi_m$ and even after shifting 

1217: the quantization point the field $\Phi_M$ is required to remain as real

1218: not complex. For these reasons, we call the imaginary $b$ solution 

1219: spurious. In principle, we can throw away the spurious solution and

1220: do not consider the imaginary-$b$ phase in the simple one-component model.

1221: 

1222: Nevertheless, in the history of many-body analysis sometimes the occurance

1223: of such spurious solution (forbidden in principle) led to interesting

1224: physics. For example, the occurance of imaginary solution has been 

1225: previously observed in the analysis of many-body system when the method 

1226: gets more accurate but the number of degrees of freedom is not sufficient.

1227: Such example may be illustrated in the random phase approximation (RPA) 

1228: calculation of a fermion system\cite{Kadanoff} where the imaginary energy 

1229: poles are found if the fermion interaction is attractive and weak below a 

1230: certain critical temperature. These imaginary poles were 

1231: interpreted\cite{Kadanoff} as the mathematical manifestation 

1232: of the instability which leads to the superconducting state. Such 

1233: imaginary poles were however not found in the less accurate method such as 

1234: the Tamm-Dancoff approximation (TDA). 

1235: Thus, if there is any possibility that the imaginary solution could 

1236: actually mean something interesting in the many-body analysis,

1237: we should not overlook such a possibility.

1238: 

1239: Due to such a tantalizing possibility that the imaginary solution could 

1240: occur indicating an existence of a new phase, we note a few more 

1241: particular features of the spurious solutions 

1242: instead of simply throwing those solutions away. 

1243: In particular, it may be interesting to note that the corresponding 

1244: quasi-particle mass values become quite small ($M<<m$) 

1245: when the imaginary $b$ solutions have the least vacuum energy density

1246: as shown in Figs.\ref{phasesnew3} and \ref{vac6spur}.

1247: We do not know yet, however, whether these spurious solutions are anything

1248: to do with the condensation of (zero-mass) Goldstone-bosons if the degrees 

1249: of freedom are added in such a way that the fields become complex and a 

1250: continuous symmetry (see however the discussion for O(2) symmetry near the 

1251: end of this Appendix) is restored.  

1252: With the limited degrees of freedom at hands, the theory we 

1253: consider in the present work does not lead to an appearance

1254: of some effective charge in the theory. For the spurious solutions, 

1255: the point of quantization is fixed as pure imaginary and can not be 

1256: rotated by any arbitrary phase.

1257: Also, in the effective Hamiltonian 

1258: given by Eq.(\ref{rightH}), $b$ can be thought as a part of effective

1259: coupling. For example, consider the term $g b \Phi^3_M$ in 

1260: Eq.(\ref{rightH}) and build up an effective potential between two $\Phi_M$ 

1261: particles intermediating another $\Phi_M$ as an exchange-boson. Then, the 

1262: coefficient $g b$ of $\Phi^3_M$ is an effective coupling of the triple 

1263: vertices and the square of the coefficient would determine an overall sign 

1264: of effective potential. The detailed form of the potential is of course 

1265: determined only after taking into account the propagator of 

1266: exchange-boson. However, the overall sign of effective potential 

1267: determines whether the force between the two $\Phi_M$ particles is 

1268: attractive or repulsive. Due to the sign change of the potential, if some 

1269: bound states may not be formed (although they could be formed for the 

1270: real $b$),

1271: then the corresponding energy eigenvalues would appear as complex values 

1272: indicating the instability of those states. In some sense, the imaginary

1273: $b$ resembles a sort of optical potential which has been used rather 

1274: frequently in the phenomenology of many-body nuclear physics.

1275: A recent work showing an example of how the imaginary coupling can be 

1276: used in practice was presented in Ref.\cite{neuberg}.

1277: 

1278: To show an overall picture of the effective potential in $(\phi^6)_{1+1}$ 

1279: theory, we present the dimensionless effective potential $V(\phi) = \Bigl 

1280: [V^{class}(\phi^{class}_M) + \varepsilon_M 

1281: \Bigr ] /m^2$ for the broken-symmetry solution and the spurious solution

1282: with $H/G = -0.209$($\alpha=-\beta$ in notations of 

1283: Ref.\protect\cite{gep6}) in Fig.\ref{overallV6} for several 

1284: different $G$ values. 

1285: For simplicity, we didn't plot $V(\phi)$ for the symmetric phase $(b=0)$

1286: solution. 

1287: In Fig.\ref{overallV6}, $\phi$ denotes 

1288: $\phi^{class}_M$ and the symmetry $V^{class}(\phi^{class}_M) = 

1289: V^{class}(-\phi^{class}_M)$ is manifest for the OR solutions

1290: with $B = b^2 > 0$, {\it i.e.} $Im(\phi) = 0$. 

1291: Indeed, no matter what the sign of $B$ is, we can in general prove the 

1292: symmetry $V(\phi) = V(-\phi)$ using the OR equations given by 

1293: Eqs.(\ref{OR1}) and (\ref{OR2}). 

1294: Thus, for the spurious solutions drawn off from $Im(\phi) = 0$ plane,

1295: one can realize the symmetry $V(\phi) = V(-\phi)$ by considering

1296: both planes of $Im(\phi) = \pm |b|$ although only the $Im(\phi) = +|b|$

1297: solutions are shown in Fig.\ref{overallV6}.

1298: The solid, long-dashed, short-dashed, dotted and

1299: dot-dashed lines stand for $G$=-0.838,-1.68,-2.51,-3.35 and -4.19 

1300: ($\alpha$=-0.1,-0.2,-0.3,-0.4 and -0.5 in 

1301: notations of Ref.\protect\cite{gep6}), respectively.

1302: For the coupling constants $G = $ -2.51 (short-dashed), -3.35 (dotted)

1303: and -4.19 (dot-dashed), the effective potentials corresponding to the

1304: three nontrivial solutions including

1305: a spurious solution with the imaginary $b$ 

1306: are shown in Fig.\ref{overallV6}:

1307: {\it e.g.} three dot-dashed lines (the spurious one is on the plane 

1308: $Im(\phi) \neq 0$ and the other two real broken-symmetry solutions are on 

1309: the plane 

1310: $Im(\phi) = 0$) are shown for the single value of $G= -4.19$.

1311: For the comparison with the trivial solutions, we added the solid line

1312: for $G= -0.838$ and the long-dashed line for $G= -1.68$ which have the 

1313: minimum only at $Re(\phi) = Im(\phi) =0$. 

1314: 

1315: In Figs.\ref{realV6III}-\ref{largeV6III}, the effective potentials

1316: for the spurious solutions are shown. Since the spurious solutions

1317: have $Im(\phi) \neq 0$, the corresponding effective potentials $V(\phi)$ 

1318: are complex. The real parts of effective potentials for the 

1319: spurious solutions of $G=$-0.838(solid line), -1.68(long-dashed line), 

1320: -2.51(short-dashed line), -3.35(dotted line) and -4.19(dot-dashed line)

1321: are shown in Figs.\ref{realV6III} and \ref{largeV6III} while the imaginary

1322: parts for the same coupling constants are shown in Fig.\ref{imV6III}.

1323: Also, the horizontal axes of Figs.\ref{realV6III}-\ref{largeV6III} are 

1324: given by the real field $\Phi^{class}_M = \phi^{class}_M -b$ rather than 

1325: the complex field $\phi^{class}_M$ due to the imaginary $b$.

1326: However, the effective potentials for $G=$ -2.51, -3.35 and -4.19 in 

1327: Figs.\ref{realV6III}-\ref{largeV6III} correspond to the ones

1328: drawn off from the plane $Im(\phi)=0$ in Fig.\ref{overallV6}.

1329: As shown in Fig.\ref{vac6spur}, the energy density of the spurious 

1330: solution gets the lowest among all the OR solutions

1331: for the small coupling such as $G=$ -0.838 and -1.68. Especially, 

1332: the quasi-particle mass gets close to zero as $G$ becomes close to zero.

1333: This behavior may be noticed from Fig.\ref{realV6III} where the second 

1334: derivative of $Re(V^{class})$ near $\phi^{class}_M = b$ is the smallest

1335: for $G=$ -0.838. The corresponding behaviors of $Im(V^{class})$ are

1336: shown in Fig.\ref{imV6III}. It is manifest from Fig.\ref{imV6III} that 

1337: $Im(V^{class})$ contains only the odd powers of the real field 

1338: $\Phi^{class}_M (= \phi^{class}_M -b)$, which can also be explicitly shown 

1339: from our effective Hamiltonian given by Eq.(\ref{rightH}).

1340: The large field behaviors of $Re(V^{class})$ are shown in 

1341: Fig.\ref{largeV6III}. We can see that the minima of $Re(V^{class})$

1342: appear in the large real field $\Phi^{class}_M$ for the spurious 

1343: solutions, which one can also notice from the effective Hamiltonian 

1344: (Eq.(\ref{rightH})) by keeping only the even powers of $\Phi_M$. 

1345: 

1346: In Fig.\ref{rabbit}, we show the domain of nontrivial solutions

1347: that have the vacuum energy density less than zero

1348: in the coupling space of $G$ and $H$. 

1349: Without the spurious solutions, the domain of nontrivial OR solutions 

1350: coincides with the GEP result (Fig.1 in Ref.\cite{gep6}) 

1351: \footnote{In Ref.\cite{gep6}, Stevenson 

1352: and Roditi used somewhat different

1353: notations for couplings. Their couplings $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are related to 

1354: our $G$ and $H$ as

1355: $\alpha =\frac{3G}{8\pi}$ and $\beta=\frac{45H}{8\pi^2}$, respectively.

1356: The boundary of allowed $\alpha$ and $\beta$ regions for the GEP 

1357: were found as

1358: a curve (see Fig.1 of Ref.\cite{gep6}) that can be drawn by the 

1359: following 

1360: formulas: $\alpha = (2z+3+(z-3)e^z)/z^2, \beta = 3(z+2+(z-2)e^z)/z^3$ with

1361: $0<z<\infty$.} denoted by

1362: the solid line of boundary. Taking into account the spurious solutions, 

1363: however, the domain of trivial solutions reduces to the 

1364: shaded region of the phase diagram shown in Fig.\ref{rabbit}.

1365: The appearance of the spurious phase ($B = b^2 < 0$) in the domain where 

1366: couplings are small may be interesting because it is quite opposite to the 

1367: appearance of the normal nontrivial phase ($B > 0$), for which one would 

1368: expect that the interaction term that leads to the 

1369: formation of vacuum condensate is dominant at the larger coupling and 

1370: therefore the nontrivial phases appear in the domain of large couplings. 

1371: The presence of the nontrivial solution for any values of the couplings is

1372: also interesting in connection with the

1373: Haag's theorem \cite{haag}, according to which, if the vacuum 

1374: state of a Lorentz invariant theory is unique, then all of its 

1375: observables are identical with those of the free theory. 

1376: Even very small admixture of $\phi^6$ interaction

1377: to the $\phi^4$ theory allows to have a set of vacuum states for any

1378: value of the $\phi^4$ coupling and thus to overcome the conditions of the 

1379: theorem. 

1380: 

1381: In order to explore whether the spurious solution can be considered as

1382: an evidence of some real solution by adding more degrees of freedom, 

1383: we applied the OR method

1384: to the two-component $(\phi^6)_{1+1}$ theory.

1385: In this model, the imaginary condensation of one component could be 

1386: represeneted by a real condensation of the other component.

1387: However, we found that the imaginary-$b$ solution of the one-component

1388: model corresponds to imaginary-$b$ solution of two-component O(2) model,

1389: but not to the real solution.

1390: The matching was done by solving an arbitrary two-component model

1391: \begin{eqnarray}

1392: \label{hamo2}

1393: {\cal H}=N_m\Bigl ( \frac{1}{2}(\pi^2_1+\pi_2^2)+\frac{1}{2}((\nabla\phi_1)^2

1394: +(\nabla\phi_2)^2)

1395: +\frac{m^2}{2}(\phi_1^2+\phi_2^2)+ \\

1396: \frac{g}{4}(\phi^4_1+\phi^4_2) + h(\phi^6_1+\phi^6_2) +

1397: \beta(\frac{g}{2}\phi_1^2\phi_2^2 + 3h\phi_1^4\phi_2^2 + 3h\phi_1^2\phi_2^4)

1398: \Bigr ). \nonumber

1399: \end{eqnarray}

1400: For $\beta=0$ and 1, Eq.(\ref{hamo2}) corresponds to O(1)$\times$O(1) and 

1401: O(2) 

1402: models, 

1403: respectively. The evolution of $b^2$ for a ``typical''

1404: value of $G$ and $H$ (we took $G=1, H=3$) is shown on Fig.\ref{bevol}.

1405: As it can be seen, the negative $b^2$ solution in O(1)$\times$O(1) never

1406: becomes positive as $\beta$ gets increased and even more spurious 

1407: solutions appear in the limit of O(2). However, there is one-to-one 

1408: correspondence between positive $b^2$ solutions in O(1)$\times$O(1) and 

1409: O(2). We found that the same is true for any other $G$ and $H$.

1410: Thus, our most immediate exploration didn't realize the anticipated

1411: possibility that the negative $b^2$ solution in O(1)$\times$O(1) theory 

1412: corresponds to a positive $b^2$ solution in O(2) theory. This may be a 

1413: symptom of nonexistence of Goldstone 

1414: mode in $1+1$ dimension known as the Coleman's theorem\cite{coleman1}.

1415: Thus, further exploration including the higher dimension may be necessary

1416: for the better understanding of the spurious solution.

1417: 

1418: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1419: \bibitem{CJT}

1420: J.M.Cornwall, R.Jackiw and E.Tomboulis, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 10}, 2428 (1974).

1421: 

1422: \bibitem{efimov}

1423: G.~V.~Efimov,

1424: %``On A Phase Structure Of A Two-Dimensional N Component Phi**4 Field Theory,''

1425: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 4}, 4977 (1989).

1426: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A4,4977;%%

1427: 

1428: \bibitem{chang2}

1429: S.~J.~Chang,

1430: %``The Existence Of A Second Order Phase Transition In The Two-Dimensional Phi**4 Field Theory,''

1431: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 13}, 2778 (1976)

1432: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 16}, 1979 (1976)].

1433: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D13,2778;%%

1434: 

1435: \bibitem{magruder}

1436: S.~F.~Magruder,

1437: %``The Existence Of Phase Transition In The (Phi**4) In Three-Dimensions Quantum Field Theory,''

1438: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 14}, 1602 (1976).

1439: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D14,1602;%%

1440: 

1441: \bibitem{efbook}

1442: M.~Dineykhan, G.~V.~Efimov, G.~Ganbold and S.~N.~Nedelko,

1443: %``Oscillator representation in quantum physics,''

1444: Lect.\ Notes Phys.\  {\bf M26}, 1 (1995).

1445: %%CITATION = LNPHA,M26,1;%%

1446: 

1447: \bibitem{ft7}

1448: P.M. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 30}, 1712 (1984). 

1449: 

1450: \bibitem{gep}

1451: P.M. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 35}, 2407 (1987).

1452: 

1453: \bibitem{gep4}

1454: P.M. Stevenson, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 32}, 1389 (1985).

1455: 

1456: \bibitem{gep6}

1457: P.~M.~Stevenson and I.~Roditi,

1458: %``The Gaussian Effective Potential. Iii. Phi**6 Theory And Bound States,''

1459: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 33}, 2305 (1986).

1460: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D33,2305;%%

1461: 

1462: \bibitem{mp}

1463: H. Mishra and A. R. Panda, J. Phys. G : Nucl. Part. Phys. {\bf 18}, 1301 (1992).

1464: %``The Gaussian Effective Potential. 2. Lambda Phi**4 Field Theory,''

1465: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D32,1389;%%

1466: 

1467: \bibitem{Chang}

1468: S.~J.~Chang, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 12}, 1071 (1975).

1469: %``Quantum Fluctuations In A Phi**4 Field Theory. 1. The Stability Of 

1470: %The Vacuum.

1471: 

1472: \bibitem{hartree}

1473: S.J.Chang and J.A.Wright, Phys. 

1474: Rev. D {\bf 12}, 1595 (1975); S.J.Chang and T.-M.Yan, Phys. Rev. 

1475: D {\bf 12}, 3225 (1975).  

1476: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D12,1071;%%

1477: 

1478: \bibitem{coleman}

1479: S.~R.~Coleman,

1480: %``Quantum Sine-Gordon Equation As The Massive Thirring Model,''

1481: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 11}, 2088 (1975).

1482: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D11,2088;%%

1483: 

1484: \bibitem{lattice}

1485: W.~Loinaz and R.~S.~Willey,

1486: %``Monte Carlo simulation calculation of critical coupling constant for  

1487: %continuum phi**4(2),''

1488: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 076003 (1998)

1489: [arXiv:hep-lat/9712008].

1490: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9712008;%%

1491: 

1492: \bibitem{simon}

1493: B.Simon, {\it The $P(\phi)_2$ Euclidean (Quantum) Field Theory},

1494: Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1974.

1495: 

1496: \bibitem{Munoz}

1497: R.~Munoz-Tapia, J.~Taron and R.~Tarrach,

1498: %``The Uncertainty Of The Gaussian Effective Potential,''

1499: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 3}, 2143 (1988).

1500: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A3,2143;%%

1501: 

1502: \bibitem{wudka}

1503: U.~Ritschel,

1504: %``Variance Method In Quantum Field Theory And Exact Strong Coupling Limit Of Gaussian Effective Potential,''

1505: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 54}, 297 (1992), \\

1506: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C54,297;%%

1507: J.~Wudka,

1508: %``Variational Calculations And Renormalization,''

1509: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 37}, 1464 (1988).

1510: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D37,1464;%%

1511: 

1512: \bibitem{ji-mish} C.-R.Ji and Y.Mishchenko, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 096015 

1513: (2002); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 076004 (2001).

1514: 

1515: \bibitem{Kadanoff}

1516: L.P.Kadanoff and P.C.Martin, Phys. Rev. {\bf 124}, 670 (1961);

1517: D.J.Thouless, ``The Quantum Mechanics of Many-Body Systems", Second Edition,

1518: Academic Press, New York and London, 1972.

1519: 

1520: \bibitem{neuberg}

1521: N.E.Lighterink and B.L.G.Bakker, hep-ph/0010167.

1522: 

1523: \bibitem{haag}

1524: R.~Haag, Dan.\ Mat.\ Fys.\ Medd. {\bf 29}, No.\ 12, 1 (1955), \\

1525: A.~S.~Wightman and S.~S.~Schweber, Phys.\ Rev. {\bf 98}, 812 (1955).

1526: 

1527: \bibitem{coleman1}

1528: S.~R.~Coleman,

1529: %``There Are No Goldstone Bosons In Two-Dimensions,''

1530: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 31}, 259 (1973).

1531: %%CITATION = CMPHA,31,259;%%

1532: \end{thebibliography}

1533: 

1534: \newpage

1535: 

1536: \begin{figure}[htb]

1537: \centering

1538: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1539: \epsfig{figure=phi4.eps, width=\hsize}

1540: \caption{The nontrivial mass solutions for OR (solid and dashed

1541: lines), GEP (dotted line) and Hartree methods (squares correspond to the

1542: 4$\pi c^2<3$ solution, circles to the 4$\pi c^2>3$ one). Here, $G=g/m^2$ and

1543: for $G < 9.04$ there are no nontrivial solutions.

1544: \label{geff}}

1545: \end{minipage}

1546: \hspace*{0.5cm}

1547: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1548: \vspace*{5mm}

1549: \epsfig{figure=e_h0.eps, width=\hsize}

1550: \caption{Vacuum energy densities of the nontrivial OR solutions

1551: (solid and dashed

1552: lines), GEP (dotted line) and Hartree methods (squares correspond to the

1553: 4$\pi c^2<3$ solution, circles to the 4$\pi c^2>3$ one). Here, $G=g/m^2$ and

1554: for $G < 9.04$ there are no nontrivial solutions.

1555: \label{energh0}}

1556: \end{minipage}

1557: \end{figure}

1558: 

1559: 

1560: \begin{figure}[htb]

1561: \centering

1562: \epsfig{figure=g4new.eps,width=0.45\hsize}

1563: \caption{The effective classical potential corresponding to 

1564: Fig.~\protect\ref{geff} with $G =$ 8, 10 and 12. Although $G = 8$

1565: has only a trivial effective potential denoted by a solid line,

1566: both $G =$ 10 and 12 have two nontrivial effective potentials

1567: denoted by I and II.\label{g4new}}

1568: \end{figure}

1569: 

1570: 

1571: \begin{figure}[h]

1572: \centering

1573: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1574: \epsfig{file=sol_0.eps,width=\hsize}

1575: \caption{Nontrivial solutions of the OR equations for $\phi^4$ and

1576: $\phi^6$ theory, symmetric phase.} 

1577: \label{phasesnew1}

1578: \end{minipage}

1579: \hspace*{0.5cm}

1580: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1581: \epsfig{file=sol.eps,width=\hsize}

1582: \caption{Nontrivial solutions of the OR equations for $\phi^4$ and

1583: $\phi^6$ theory, broken-symmetry phase.} 

1584: \label{phasesnew2} 

1585: \end{minipage}

1586: \end{figure}

1587: 

1588: \begin{figure}[htb]

1589: \centering

1590: \epsfig{file=sol_fake.eps,width=0.45\hsize}

1591: \caption{Nontrivial solutions of the OR equations for $\phi^4$ and

1592: $\phi^6$ theory, imaginary $b$ phase.} 

1593: \label{phasesnew3} 

1594: \end{figure}

1595: 

1596: \begin{figure}[htb]

1597: \centering

1598: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1599: \epsfig{file=e_0.eps,width=\hsize}

1600: \end{minipage}

1601: \hspace*{0.5cm}

1602: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1603: \epsfig{file=e_0a.eps,width=\hsize}

1604: \end{minipage}

1605: \caption{Vacuum energy density of nontrivial solutions

1606: of the OR equations for $\phi^4$ and $\phi^6$ theory, symmetric phase.

1607: The two plots (right and left) are identical but presented in two different

1608: angles of view. The $90^{\circ}$ clockwise rotation of the left plot

1609: around the axis of $\varepsilon_M/m^2$ is identical to the right plot.} 

1610: \label{vac6sym}

1611: \end{figure}

1612: 

1613: \begin{figure}[h]

1614: \centering

1615: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1616: \epsfig{file=e_b.eps,width=\hsize}

1617: \caption{Vacuum energy density of nontrivial solutions

1618: of the OR equations for $\phi^4$ and

1619: $\phi^6$ theory, broken-symmetry phase.} 

1620: \label{vac6brok} 

1621: \end{minipage}

1622: \hspace*{0.5cm}

1623: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1624: \epsfig{file=e_b_im.eps,width=\hsize}

1625: \caption{Vacuum energy density of nontrivial solutions

1626: of the OR equations for $\phi^4$ and

1627: $\phi^6$ theory, imaginary $b$ phase.} 

1628: \label{vac6spur} 

1629: \end{minipage}

1630: \end{figure}

1631: 

1632: \begin{figure}[h]

1633: \centering

1634: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1635: \epsfig{file=chi1.eps,width=\hsize}

1636: \caption{Dimensionless couplings of the symmetric perturbative

1637: solution for $G=0$.} 

1638: \label{coup1}

1639: \end{minipage}

1640: \hspace*{0.5cm}

1641: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1642: \epsfig{file=chi2.eps,width=\hsize}

1643: \caption{Dimensionless couplings of the broken-symmetry perturbative

1644: solution for $G=0$.} 

1645: \label{coup2} 

1646: \end{minipage}

1647: \end{figure}

1648: 

1649: \begin{figure}[h]

1650: \centering

1651: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1652: \epsfig{file=couplings.eps,width=\hsize}

1653: \caption{Dimensionless couplings of the broken-symmetry perturbative

1654: solution versus the dimensionless coupling of the symmetric

1655: solution ($G=0$).} 

1656: \label{couplings}

1657: \end{minipage}

1658: \hspace*{0.5cm}

1659: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1660: \epsfig{file=eff_pot_sbs0.eps,width=\hsize}

1661: \caption{Classical potential of broken-symmetry (BS) and symmetric (S) 

1662: theories at $\chi^{(6)}_s=5.85\cdot 10^{-3}$ ($H=100, G=0$).}

1663: \label{effpot1} 

1664: \end{minipage}

1665: \end{figure}

1666: 

1667: \begin{figure}[h]

1668: \centering

1669: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1670: \epsfig{file=eff_pot_sbs1.eps,width=\hsize}

1671: \caption{Classical potential of broken-symmetry (BS) and symmetric (S) 

1672: theories at $\chi^{(6)}_s=1.33\cdot 10^{-3}$ ($H=10^6, G=0$).}

1673: \label{effpot2}

1674: \end{minipage}

1675: \hspace*{0.5cm}

1676: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1677: \epsfig{file=eff_pot_sbs15.eps,width=\hsize}

1678: \caption{Classical potential of broken-symmetry (BS) and symmetric (S) 

1679: theories at $\chi^{(6)}_s=1.02\cdot 10^{-3}$ ($H=10^{15}, G=0$).}

1680: \label{effpot3} 

1681: \end{minipage}

1682: \end{figure}

1683: 

1684: \begin{figure}[htb]

1685: \centering

1686: \epsfig{file=g0gcphi4.eps, width=0.8\hsize, angle=270}

1687: \caption{(a) $x$ axis is $g_0$ and $y$ axis is $g_c$ (solid line)

1688: and $g_{c'}$ (dot). (b) $x$ axis is $g_0$ and $y$ axis is

1689: $\frac{g_0}{g_c}$ (solid line) and $\frac{g_0}{g_{c'}}$ (dot).}

1690: \label{app}

1691: \end{figure}

1692: 

1693: \begin{figure}[hbt]

1694: \centering

1695: \epsfig{file=potall.eps,width=0.7\hsize}

1696: \caption{ The dimensionless effective potential $V(\phi) = 

1697: \Bigl[V^{class}+\varepsilon_M \Bigr]/m^2$ for $H/G = 

1698: -0.209$($\alpha=-\beta$ in 

1699: notations of Ref.\protect\cite{gep6}), where $\phi$ means 

1700: $\phi^{class}_M$. $x$ axis is $Re(\phi)$,

1701: $y$ axis is $Im(\phi)$ and $z$ axis is $V(\phi)$. In general, for

1702: the complex $\phi$ the potential $V(\phi)$ is complex.

1703: For $G=$-0.838(solid line) and -1.68(long-dashed line),

1704: we show only the trivial solutions ($t=0$ and $b=0$) for the comparison with 

1705: the 

1706: nontrivial solutions for $G=$ -2.51(short-dashed line),-3.35(dotted line)

1707: and -4.19(dot-dashed line). 

1708: For each coupling constant, $G=$ -2.51(short-dashed line), -3.35(dotted 

1709: line) and -4.19(dot-dashed line), there are two real $b$ 

1710: broken-symmetry solutions

1711: and one pure imaginary $b$ solution. The two real $b$ 

1712: broken-symmetry solutions for each

1713: coupling constant($G=$-2.51,-3.35 and -4.19) are shown on the $Im(\phi)=0$ 

1714: plane. For the pure imaginary $b$ solutions,

1715: the potential graphs are drawn

1716: on the planes off from the $Im(\phi)=0$ plane with the different 

1717: imaginary $b$ values depending on the $G$ values.} 

1718: \label{overallV6}

1719: \end{figure}

1720: 

1721: \begin{figure}[hbt]

1722: \centering

1723: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1724: \epsfig{file=fig7f.eps,width=\hsize}

1725: \caption{ Real part of effective potentials for the spurious solutions

1726: of G=-0.838(solid line), -1.68(long-dashed line), -2.51(short-dashed 

1727: line), -3.35(dotted line) and -4.19(dot-dashed line).}

1728: \label{realV6III}

1729: \end{minipage}

1730: \hspace*{0.5cm}

1731: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1732: \epsfig{file=fig7h.eps,width=\hsize}

1733: \caption{ Imaginary part of effective potentials for the spurious solutions

1734: of G=-0.838(solid line), -1.68(long-dashed line), -2.51(short-dashed 

1735: line), -3.35(dotted line) and -4.19(dot-dashed line).}

1736: \label{imV6III}

1737: \end{minipage}

1738: \end{figure}

1739: 

1740: \begin{figure}[hbt]

1741: \centering

1742: \epsfig{file=fig7z.eps,width=0.45\hsize}

1743: \caption{ Real part of effective potentials for the spurious solutions

1744: of G=-0.838(solid line), -1.68(long-dashed line), -2.51(short-dashed 

1745: line), -3.35(dotted line) and -4.19(dot-dashed line) in the larger scale

1746: of classical fields. The blow-up of the results in a tiny region of 

1747: $\phi^{class}_M -b < 0.025 $ is shown in Fig.\protect\ref{realV6III}.}

1748: \label{largeV6III}

1749: \end{figure}

1750: 

1751: 

1752: \begin{figure}[htb]

1753: \centering

1754: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1755: \epsfig{file=diagr.eps,width=\hsize}

1756: \caption{The domain of trivial solutions in $G$, $H$ parameter space

1757: (shadowed area). If the spurious solution shown in 

1758: Fig.\protect\ref{phasesnew3} is not taken into account, then the domain 

1759: enlarges to the inside of the 

1760: entire area bounded by the external solid line, which is equivalent to 

1761: the GEP result shown in Fig.1 of Ref.\protect\cite{gep6}.} 

1762: \label{rabbit} 

1763: \end{minipage}

1764: \hspace*{0.5cm}

1765: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\hsize}

1766: \epsfig{file=bet.eps,width=\hsize}

1767: \caption{Correspondence between solutions of OR equations for O(1)$\times $O(1)

1768: and O(2) $(\phi^6)_{1+1}$ theories at $G=1.0$, $H=3.0$.}

1769: \label{bevol}

1770: \end{minipage}

1771: \end{figure}

1772: 

1773: 

1774: \end{document}

1775: