1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: %\textwidth16.5cm
3: %\textheight24.2cm
4: %\topmargin-5mm
5: %\oddsidemargin-5mm
6: %\evensidemargin-5mm
7:
8: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
9: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
10: \usepackage{bm}
11:
12:
13: \newcommand{\eqb}{\begin{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\eqe}{\end{equation}}
15: \newcommand{\pd}{\partial}
16: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}
17: \newcommand{\eab}{\begin{eqnarray}}
18: \newcommand{\eae}{\end{eqnarray}}
19: \newcommand{\ra}{\right\rangle}
20: \newcommand{\la}{\left\langle}
21: \newcommand{\e}{\mbox{e}}
22: \newcommand{\sgn}{\text{sgn}\,}
23: \newcommand{\ad}{{\dot{\alpha}}}
24: \newcommand{\bd}{{\dot{\beta}}}
25: \newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}
26: %\draft
27:
28: %\pagestyle{myheadings}
29: %*************************
30: \begin{document}
31: \title{Analytical approach to nonperturbative Yang-Mills thermodynamics}
32: \author{Ralf Hofmann}\vspace{0.3cm}
33: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik,
34: Universit\"at Heidelberg,
35: Philosophenweg 16,
36: 69120~Heidelberg,
37: Germany}
38:
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: An analytical and inductive approach to hot SU(N) Yang-Mills dynamics is developed.
42: For N=2,3 pressure and energy density are pointwise compared with lattice data.
43:
44: \pacs{12.38.Mh,11.10.Wx,12.38.G,04.40.Nr}
45:
46:
47: \end{abstract}
48: %$\mbox{}$\\
49:
50: \maketitle
51: %*********************
52:
53: \indent {\sl Introduction.} An analytical grasp of the thermodynamics of
54: SU(3) gauge theory is needed to interprete
55: ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions.
56: Thermal perturbation theory (TPT) by itself
57: is unable to provide a framework for this.
58: Nonperturbative lattice input is needed for a prediction of the thermal pressure
59: \cite{Schroeder2001-2003}. Lattice experiments are
60: a nonperturbative, first-principle approach. Although numerical in nature,
61: they have boosted our
62: knowledge about relevant degrees
63: of freedom and their condensation. It is by now an established result that condensed
64: center vortices are the relevant degrees of freedom for confinement
65: at temperature $T$ below $T_c$ \cite{CenterVortex}.
66: The purpose of this Letter is to develop a
67: nonperturbative approach to thermal SU($N$) thermodynamics
68: based on thermal quasiparticle excitations (QPEs) and the condensation of
69: the solitonic objects caloron, magnetic monopole and center vortex (pointlike in
70: 4D, 3D, and 2D \cite{calexp}). The latter processes
71: successively reduces the asymptotic gauge symmetry SU(N)
72: according to the pattern SU(N)$\to$U(1)$^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}$$\to$Z$_{\tiny\mbox{N}}\to$\,nothing.
73: The first two symmetry reductions are accompanied by a 2$^{\mbox{\tiny{nd}}}$ (possibly occuring close to the Planck mass)
74: and a very mild 1$^{\mbox{\tiny{nd}}}$ order thermal phase transition, respectively.
75: Order parameters for these transitions are the masses of
76: gauge bosons associated with coset generators and the Cartan subalgebra, respectively.
77: The final transition towards spontaneously broken, local Z$_{\tiny\mbox{N}}$ symmetry
78: is 1$^{\mbox{\tiny{st}}}$ order. The order parameter is the energy density $\rho$.
79: A single mass scale $\La_E$ or $\La_M$ or $\La_C$, determined by a boundary condition, introduces a gauge
80: invariant scale separation in all phases.\\
81: \indent {\sl Analysis.}
82: At temperatures
83: very much higher than the dynamic
84: scale $\La_{\tiny\mbox{YM}}(\mbox{N})$ TPT, when applied to the calculation of
85: thermodynamic potentials, shows convergence
86: in its perturbative orders.\\
87: {\sl {\bf Electric phase.}} At a critical temperature
88: $T^{P}_c$, much larger
89: than $\La_{\tiny\mbox{YM}}(\mbox{N})$, a thermal 2$^{\mbox{\tiny{nd}}}$
90: order phase transition occurs at which the system condenses
91: a composite, adjoint Higgs field $\phi$ reducing the gauge symmetry
92: maximally, SU(N)$\to$ U(1)$^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}$ (lowering $T$ across the transition,
93: the order parameter gauge boson mass continuously increases starting
94: from a very small screening mass ).
95: Relevant degrees of freedom driving this condensation are
96: calorons. At high temperature
97: an isolated caloron is a pointlike object with a nontrivial holonomy and topological
98: charge one in 4D Euclidean spacetime. A caloron possesses N
99: Bogomoln'yi--Prasad--Sommerfield (BPS) magnetic monopole constituents \cite{Nahm1984,KraanVanBaal1998} related by center
100: transformations. Its action is $S_{\mbox{\tiny cal}}=8\pi^2/e^2$
101: \cite{KraanVanBaal1998}, where $e$ denotes the
102: gauge coupling. The caloron is a BPS saturated
103: solution to the SU(N) Yang-Mills equation of motion ,
104: its 3D energy density vanishes. It is a coherent thermal
105: state in 4D. The picture that caloron
106: condensation causes the growth of gauge boson masses
107: with decreasing $T$ is self-consistent if
108: $S_{\mbox{\tiny cal}}$ rapidly decreases
109: below $T^P_c$ by a large rise of the
110: gauge coupling $e$. This indeed happens,
111: see Fig.\,1a. An indirect argument in favor of
112: caloron {\sl condensation} relies on the
113: lattice result of a vanishing 4D topological
114: charge density $\chi$ for $T>T_c$, implying that
115: calorons do not populate the ground state as
116: small-size objects. The caloron radius and $e$
117: are strictly monotonously related. We conclude that above
118: $T_c$ $e$ is large and the caloron action small.
119: After caloron condensation has taken place, the proposed effective action is\\
120: \vspace{-0.4cm}
121: %*********
122: \eab
123: \label{actE}
124: \hspace{-0.5cm}S_E\hspace{-0.2cm}&=&\hspace{-0.2cm}\int_0^{1/T}\hspace{-0.5cm}
125: d\tau\hspace{-0.1cm}\int \hspace{-0.1cm}d^3x\,\left(\frac{1}{2}\,\mbox{tr}
126: \,G_{\mu\nu}G_{\mu\nu}+\mbox{tr}\,{\cal D}_\mu\phi{\cal D}_\mu\phi+
127: V_E(\phi)\right)
128: \eae
129: %*********
130: where $V_E$ denotes the potential for the
131: field $\phi$. The covariant derivative is
132: defined as ${\cal D}_\mu\phi=\pd_\mu+ie[\phi,A_\mu]$ and the field
133: strength as $G_{\mu\nu}=G^a_{\mu\nu}t^a$, where
134: $G^a_{\mu\nu}=\pd_\mu A^a_\nu-\pd_\nu A^a_\mu-ef^{abc}A^b_\mu A^c_\nu$
135: and $\mbox{tr}_{\tiny\mbox{N}}\,t^a t^b=1/2\delta^{ab}$. In a suitable gauge the field $\phi$ describes the coherent
136: ground state of the thermal system.
137: As a consequence, its gauge invariant modulus $|\phi|$
138: is independent of spatial coordinates. A dependence of $|\phi|$
139: on $\tau$ may only enter through an
140: adiabatically slow $\tau$ dependence of the
141: temperature $T$. In the absence of gauge fields in
142: (\ref{actE}) the 3D energy density of $\phi$ is exactly zero since
143: it is composed of BPS saturated calorons. This condition is
144: satisfied for the configuration $\phi$
145: if and only if it is BPS saturated itself. In other words: we search a
146: potential $V_E$ such that (i) a BPS saturated and spatially homogeneous
147: solution to the classical equation of motion, derived from (\ref{actE})
148: in the absence of gauge fields, exist, (ii) the modulus $|\phi|$
149: of this configuration is independent of $\tau$, and
150: (iii) quantum and thermal fluctuations of $\phi$ are negligible.
151: We proceed by discussing the case of even N. The other case
152: is more complicated, an analysis is given in \cite{PRL3}. Here results
153: for N=3 are quoted in square brackets if appropriate.
154: We work in a gauge where $\phi\equiv\mbox{diag}(\tilde{\phi}_1,
155: \tilde{\phi}_2,\cdots,\tilde{\phi}_{{\tiny\mbox{N}}/2})$
156: is SU(2) block diagonal \cite{oddN}\\
157: \vspace{-0.4cm}
158: %***********
159: \eab
160: \label{Vn1/2}
161: \hspace{-0.5cm}v_E&\equiv&i\Lambda_E^3\,\mbox{diag}
162: (\lambda_1\tilde{\phi}_1/|\tilde{\phi}_1|^2,\cdots,
163: \lambda_1\tilde{\phi}_{{\tiny\mbox{N}}/2}/|\tilde{\phi}_{{\tiny\mbox{N}}/2}|^2)\,.
164: \eae
165: %***********
166: The SU(2) modulus is defined as $|\tilde{\phi}_l|^2\equiv 1/2\,\mbox{tr}_2\,\tilde{\phi_l}^2$
167: $(l=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}/2)$. The gauge invariant potential $V_E$ is given as
168: $V_E(\phi)=\Lambda_E^6\,\mbox{tr}_{\tiny\mbox{N}}\,(\phi^2)^{-1}$.
169: The periodic solution to the BPS equation
170: $\pd_{\tau}\phi=v_E$ ($V_E\equiv \mbox{tr}_{\tiny\mbox{N}} v_E^2$) with
171: minimal potential and maximal SU($N$) symmetry breaking
172: is in SU(2) decomposition given as \\
173: \vspace{-0.4cm}
174: %*********
175: \eab
176: \label{persoln}
177: \hspace{-0.5cm}\tilde{\phi}_l(\tau)&=&\sqrt{\Lambda_E^3/(2\pi T l)}\,\lambda_3
178: \exp(-2\pi i T l\lambda_1\tau)\,.
179: \eae
180: %*********
181: Obviously, $\phi$ is a traceless,
182: hermitian matrix. In unitary gauge,
183: $\phi=\mbox{diag}(\phi_1,\phi_2,\cdots,\phi_N)$,
184: there is no $\tau$ dependence
185: (no $\tau$ dependence occurs in $\mbox{tr}_N\,\phi^2$).
186: From (\ref{Vn1/2}) and (\ref{persoln}) we obtain the following
187: ratios: $\pd^2_{|\tilde{\phi}_l|}V_E/T^2=12\pi^2\,l^2$ and
188: $\pd^2_{|\tilde{\phi}_l|}V_E/|\tilde{\phi}_l|^2=3l^3\lambda_E^3$ where
189: the dimensionless temperature is defined as $\lambda_E\equiv 2\pi T/\La_E\gg 1$.
190: As a consequence, thermal fluctuations of $\phi$ are negligibly small and
191: quantum fluctuations do not exist (the mass of $\tilde{\phi}_l$ excitations is larger
192: than the compositeness scale $|\tilde{\phi}_l|$). A pure-gauge
193: solution to the equation of
194: motion ${\cal D}_\mu G_{\mu\nu}=2ie[\phi,{\cal D}_\nu\phi]$
195: in the background of (\ref{persoln}) is
196: $A^{bg}_\mu=(\pi/e)\,T \delta_{\mu 0}\,\mbox{diag}
197: (\lambda_1, 2\,\lambda_1,\cdots, \mbox{N}/2\,\lambda_1)$.
198: We have ${\cal D}_\mu\phi=0$ for $A^{bg}_\mu$ entering in ${\cal D}_\mu$.
199: As a consequence, the $\phi$ kinetic term in the action
200: (\ref{actE}) vanishes on $\phi$ and $A^{bg}_\mu$,
201: the ground-state energy density is lifted
202: to $V_E(\phi)=\pi/2\,\Lambda_E^3 T \mbox{N(N+2)}$
203: [$V_E(\phi)=4\pi\,\Lambda_E^3 T$] by caloron interaction.
204: The field $\phi$ back-reacts by emitting and
205: absorbing the thermal quasiparticle excitations (QPEs) described by fluctuations $a_\mu$.
206: This makes sense since $\phi$ is composed of coherent
207: thermal states - calorons. Substituting $A_\mu=A^{bg}_\mu+a_\mu$
208: into the action (\ref{actE}), its form is retained as an action for
209: the fluctuations $a_\mu$ (the $\phi$ kinetic term induces mass
210: terms for $a_\mu$) only in unitary
211: gauge, where $A^{bg}_\mu=0$. QPEs are related to
212: fluctuations $a_\mu$ only in this gauge. Unitary gauge is reached by a
213: gauge transformation $A_\mu\to \Omega^\dagger A_\mu\Omega+i/e(\pd_\mu\Omega^\dagger)\Omega$
214: ($\Omega\equiv e^{i\theta}$) involving a {\sl nonperiodic} $\theta$
215: with SU(2) decomposition $\theta_l=-\pi \lambda_1 Tl\tau$. Because the matter
216: field $\phi$ does not fluctuate
217: the physics is inert under such a gauge transformation: Hosotani's
218: mechanism \cite{Hosotani1983} does not take place. Out of the N$^2$-1
219: independent modes N-1 modes reside in the Cartan subalgebra
220: and remain massless on tree level (TLM modes).
221: In unitary gauge the N(N-1) independent off-diagonal modes,
222: defined w.r.t. the SU(N) generators
223: $t^{IJ}_{rs}=1/2\,(\delta_r^I\delta_s^J+\delta_s^I\delta_r^J)$ and
224: $\bar{t}^{IJ}_{rs}=-i/2\,(\delta_r^I\delta_s^J-\delta_s^I\delta_r^J)$
225: ($I=1,\cdots,$N) ($J>I$), are heavy on tree level
226: (TLH modes). Their mass spectrum is obtained from the
227: $\phi$ kinetic term in (\ref{actE}) as $m_a^2=-2e^2\,\mbox{tr}\,[\phi,t^{a}][\phi,t^{a}]$
228: ($t^{a}=\{t^{IJ},\bar{t}^{IJ}\}$). We have $m_{IJ}^2=e^2(\phi_I-\phi_J)^2$
229: for both $t^{IJ}$ and $\bar{t}^{IJ}$.
230: Since TLH and TLM modes are QPEs radiative corrections are {\sl local} in unitary gauge, unitarity is trivially satisfied.
231: A radiative correction $\Delta m_{IJ}^2$ to $m_{IJ}^2$ and a radiatively induced mass-squared for a TLM mode
232: $m^2_{TLM}$ are determined
233: by a {\sl single} 4-gauge boson tadpole with a TLH or a TLM mode and a
234: TLH mode running in the loop, respectively. Since a loop integral is cut off at the compositeness
235: scale $|\phi|$, the expansion of a radiative correction is obtained as
236: $\Delta m_{IJ}^2=|\phi|^2/(8\pi^2)(c_{-1}^{\tiny\mbox{TLH}}e^2+c_0^{TLH}e^0+c_1^{\tiny\mbox{TLH}}e^{-2}+\cdots)$ and
237: $m^2_{\tiny\mbox{TLM}}=|\phi|^2/(8\pi^2)(c_{0}^{\tiny\mbox{TLM}}e^0+c_1^{\tiny\mbox{TLM}}e^{-2}+\cdots)$.
238: For N=2 we have $c_0^{\tiny\mbox{TLM}}=1/8$. Radiative corrections $\Delta V_E$
239: to the potential $V_E$ are induced by one-loop and two-loop bubbles. In the latter case two one-loop bubbles are
240: connected by a 4-gauge boson vertex. $\Delta V_E$ is tiny.
241: To lowest oder in $1/e^2$ we have $\Delta V_E/V_E<(\mbox{N}^2-1)/(16\pi^2)(|\phi|/\La_E)^6\ll 1$;
242: see below. We proceed by considering tree-level masses only.
243: A useful quantity is $a_k=c_k a$ (mass/$T$ of a TLH mode)
244: where $a\equiv e\sqrt{\Lambda_E^3/(2\pi T^3)}$
245: (or $a\equiv g\sqrt{\Lambda_M^3/(2\pi T^3)}$, see below). The value
246: of the dimensionless constant $c_k$ ($k=1,\cdots,\mbox{N(N-1)}$)
247: derives from the TLH mass spectrum. TLH modes are
248: thermal QPEs - they acquire mass and {\sl structure} by interacting with
249: the ground state of the system.
250: Thus the thermodynamic relation
251: $\rho_E=T\frac{dP_E}{dT}-P_E$ between the total energy density
252: $\rho_E(T)$ and pressure $P_E(T)$ does not
253: follow from the partition function associated with
254: the action (\ref{actE}) for the fluctuations $a_\mu$.
255: This problem is resolved by imposing the condition
256: of minimal thermodynamic self-consistency $\pd_a P=0$ \cite{Gorenstein1995}.
257: An evolution equation follows as\\
258: \vspace{-0.4cm}
259: %********
260: \eab
261: \label{eeq}
262: \pd_a \lambda_E=-\frac{24\,\lambda_E^4\,a}{(2\pi)^6
263: \mbox{N(N+2)}}\sum_{k=1}^{\tiny\mbox{N(N-1)}}c_k^2 D(a_k)\,,
264: \eae
265: %*********
266: where $D(a)\equiv \int_0^{\infty} dx\,
267: x^2/(\sqrt{x^2+a^2}(\exp(\sqrt{x^2+a^2})-1))$.
268: The right-hand side of (\ref{eeq}) is negative definite: the
269: function $\lambda_E(a)$ can be inverted to $a(\lambda_E)$.
270: As a consequence, the gauge coupling is obtained as
271: $e(\lambda_E)=a(\lambda_E)\lambda_E^{3/2}/(2\pi)$.
272: To compute $e(\lambda_E)$ numerically, subject to
273: the initial condition $a(\lambda_E^P=1000)=0$, we have devised a
274: Mathematica program. The result is shown in Fig.\,1a.
275: %***********************
276: \begin{figure}
277: \begin{center}
278: \leavevmode
279: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
280: \leavevmode
281: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
282: \vspace{3.5cm}
283: \special{psfile=Fig-1.ps angle=0 voffset=-115
284: hoffset=-130 hscale=70 vscale=70}
285: \end{center}
286: \caption{The evolution of the gauge
287: coupling in the electric (a) and magnetic phase (b) for
288: N=2 (thick grey lines), N=3 (thick black lines), N=4 (dashed lines), and N=10
289: (thin solid lines). The initial conditions in (b) are obtained by
290: matching the pressure at the phase boundary.
291: In both cases the gauge couplings
292: diverge logarithmically, $e,g\sim -\log(\lambda_{E,M}-\lambda^c_{E,M})$, at
293: $\lambda^c_E=\{9.92,4.79,8.6,7.87\}$ and
294: $\lambda^c_M=\{3.55,3.36,4.48,4.64\}$, respectively. This
295: is not captured by Mathematica numerics.}
296: \end{figure}
297: %************************
298: We have checked numerically that the value of
299: $\lambda^c_E$ does not depend on the initial
300: condition $a(\lambda_E^P)=0$ within a wide
301: range of $\lambda_E^P$ values. The plateau
302: values of $e$ are $e\sim\{17.15,8,14,12\}$ for N=2,3,4,10, respectively. We conclude that the
303: caloron action $S_{\mbox{\tiny cal}}=8\pi^2/e^2$ is very small throughout
304: the entire electric phase. The assumed condensation
305: of calorons, driving the condensation of $\phi$,
306: is self-consistent by a large
307: rise of $e$ across the phase boundary. There is a regime in $\lambda_E$
308: where $e$ is large but much smaller than its value close to the critical values
309: $\lambda_E^c$ and $\lambda_E^P$. Calorons are of finite size but still large enough not to generate a
310: topological susceptibility on state-of-the-art lattices. Constituent
311: BPS magnetic monopoles become visible
312: \cite{KraanVanBaal1998}. Calorons start to
313: scatter elastically (SU(2) calorons of the same embedding in SU(N) go through each other), scatter
314: inelastically (calorons of different embedding approach),
315: and annihilate (caloron meets its anticaloron). No monopoles, single monopoles, and
316: monopole-antimonopole pairs arise, respectively. Monopoles are
317: slowed down by surrounding calorons. A pair separates into
318: stable particles connected by a magnetic flux line, a long-lived dipole forms.
319: If a single monopole is produced then it is unstable (magnetic charge is conserved!)
320: unless it connects with its antimonopole, produced in
321: an independent collision. There are N species of monopoles equal to the maximal number
322: of monopole constituents a free-of-magnetic-charge SU(N) caloron can have.
323: How do we understand this in the effective electric theory?
324: In the gauge, where $\phi$ is SU(2) block diagonal, the temporal winding
325: of the $l^{\tiny\mbox{th}}$ block is complemented by spatial winding at isolated points in 3D space.
326: By a large, $\tau$
327: dependent gauge transformation the monopole's asymptotic SU(2)
328: Higgs field is rotated to spatial constancy and into the direction given
329: by the temporal winding of the unperturbed block $\tilde{\phi}_l$. Its
330: Dirac string rotates in Euclidean time. Since this monopole is stable,
331: a correlated antimonopole must exist. We arrive at a dipole rotating
332: about its center of mass at an
333: angular frequency $2\pi l T$. This rotation is an
334: artifact of our gauge choice. Rotating the dipole to unitary gauge by the
335: above gauge function $\theta_l$, we arrive
336: at a (quasi)static dipole. Recall that the fluctuations $a_\mu$ are
337: thermal QPEs only in unitary gauge. There are isolated
338: coincidence points (CPs) in time where the lower right (upper left) corner $\varphi_l$
339: ($\varphi_{l+1}$) of the $l^{\tiny\mbox{th}}$ ($(l+1)^{\tiny\mbox{th}}$) SU(2) block (now ($l=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}/2-1$))
340: together with the number zero of its
341: right-hand (left-hand) neighbour are proportional to the generator $\lambda_3$.
342: Coincidence also happens between the first and last diagonal entry in $\phi$.
343: At a CP, spatial winding may take place at isolated points in 3D space.
344: Monopoles of this type are unstable particles. Coincidence also happens between nonadjacent
345: SU(2) blocks, see Fig.\,2. The associated
346: monopoles are, however, not independent. We obtain N/2+N/2=N monopole species -
347: in accord with the above counting [The field $\phi$ winds with winding number one
348: in each of the independent SU(2) subalgebras for half the time. The matching
349: happens at the CPs $\tau_{CP}=0,1/(2T)$ where $\phi(\tau_{CP}\pm 0)$
350: add up to an element of the third, dependent SU(2) algebra. At these CPs we may have
351: an unstable monopole.]. Monopoles have resonant excitations and are coherent thermal states
352: in a thermal environment \cite{ForgasVolkov2003}.\\
353: {\sl {\bf Magnetic phase.}}
354: %***********************
355: \begin{figure}
356: \begin{center}
357: \leavevmode
358: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
359: \leavevmode
360: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
361: \vspace{3cm}
362: \special{psfile=Fig-2.ps angle=0 voffset=-100
363: hoffset=-170 hscale=70 vscale=50}
364: \end{center}
365: \caption{Sum of $\varphi_2$ and $\varphi_3$ (bold curve)
366: and sum of $\varphi_2$ and $\varphi_5$ as a function of $\tau$.
367: A zero in each curve is associated with
368: an unstable monopole or its unstable antimonopole.}
369: \end{figure}
370: %************************
371: The mass $M_l$ of a stable (unstable) BPS monopole is given
372: as $M_l\sim 8(1/\sqrt{2})\pi |\tilde{\phi_l}|/e$. It vanishes at $\lambda^c_E$.
373: As a consequence, $M_l$ and the
374: monopole action $M_l/T$ vanish. TLH modes decouple at $\lambda^c_E$. Magnetic monopoles condense in a
375: 2$^{\mbox{\tiny{nd}}}$ order phase transition (radiative corrections in the electric
376: phase lift this to a very weak
377: 1$^{\mbox{\tiny{st}}}$ order transition). The order parameter is the TLM mass.
378: It is continuous across the transition. U$^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}$ is spontaneously broken by the
379: condensates of stable monopoles
380: described by the complex fields $\phi_k$ ($k=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}/2\,[2]$). These fields are
381: winding in time with integer winding number. The center symmetry
382: Z$_N$ is unbroken. It is represented by a local permutation symmetry
383: $\phi_k\to\phi_{k+j}$ $(j(\vec{x})=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}-1$; for $k>\mbox{N}/2$ it maps zero onto zero)
384: under which
385: the ground state is inert. The potential for the complex field
386: $\phi_k$ is defined as $V_M^{(k)}\equiv \bar{v}_M^{(k)}v_M^{(k)}$, where
387: $v_M^{(k)}=i\La_M^3/\phi_k$. The ground state of the system
388: possesses an energy density $1/2\,V_M=(\pi/8)\,T\Lambda_M^3 \mbox{N(N+2)}$ [$1/2\,V_M=\pi\,T\Lambda_M^3$]
389: (canonical definition of $\phi$-kinetic
390: term). It is constructed in close
391: analogy to the electric phase. Again, it is assured that there are no thermal and quantum fluctuations of the
392: fields $\phi_k$. In unitary gauge, $\phi_k=|\phi_k|$, we define QPEs as thermal fluctuations of the
393: Abelian gauge bosons. These QPEs are all massive away from the phase boundary. Their mass spectrum is $m_k=g|\phi_k|$,
394: where $g$ denotes the magnetic gauge coupling. At the electric--magnetic phase boundary,
395: we have $g=2\pi/e=0$. There are no radiative corrections to the gauge boson masses in the magnetic
396: phase. Minimal thermodynamic self-consistency
397: implies an evolution equation for $g$: $\pd_a\lambda_M=-96\lambda_M^4 a
398: /((2\pi)^6 \mbox{N(N+2)})\sum_{k=1}^{\tiny{\mbox{N/2}}}c_k^2 D(a_k)$
399: [$\pd_a\lambda_M\hspace{-0.15cm}=\hspace{-0.15cm}-12\lambda_M^4 a D(a)
400: /(2\pi)^6$]. The evolution of
401: $g$ with temperature is shown in Fig.\,1b.
402: Monopole condensation is driven by a
403: large rise in the gauge coupling $g$ across the phase boundary.
404: The size of a BPS magnetic monopole is given
405: by a constant $C^{-1}\propto g$ \cite{PrasadSommerfield1975}. According to Fig.\,1b the size of
406: a magnetic monopole increases. Isolated dipoles and unstable
407: single monopoles `feel' each other close to the boundary
408: to the center phase, where $g$ diverges logarithmically. The former form stable strings
409: of dipoles. The latter form stable
410: dipoles first and then stable strings of dipoles. Strings of dipoles are interpreted
411: as fat center vortices \cite{CenterVortex}. Monopole constituents of a vortex are coherent
412: thermal states and so is a vortex.\\
413: {\sl {\bf Center phase.}}
414: Although a center vortex and an
415: Abrikosov--Nielsen--Oleson (ANO) vortex are not
416: the same solitonic object, the Euclidean action and the energy $E_{\tiny\mbox{vor}}$ of the former can be
417: estimated by the latter. For a typical ANO
418: vortex (length $\sim$ width) they are given as
419: $S_{\tiny\mbox{ANO}}\sim 1/g^{2}$ and $E_{\tiny\mbox{vor}}\propto 1/g^{2}$ \cite{NielsenOlesen1973}.
420: Since $g$ diverges
421: logarithmically at $\lambda^c_M$ center vortices condense and
422: Abelian gauge bosons decouple. The equation of state (EOS) at $\lambda^c_M$ is $\rho=-P$.
423: The condensed phase is described by complex and 3D local fields $\Phi_n,\Phi_{\bar n}$ $n=1,\cdots \mbox{N}$.
424: These fields are, up to a dimensionful (and $T$ dependent) normalization, the condensates of
425: spherical, spatial Wilson loops of diameter
426: comparable to the core-sizes of the respective center vortices.
427: The (local!) Z$_{\tiny\mbox{N}}$ symmetry acts as $\Phi_n\to\e^{2\pi i p/\tiny\mbox{N}}\Phi_{n+p},
428: \Phi_{\bar n}\to\e^{2\pi i p/\tiny\mbox{N}}\Phi_{n+p}$
429: ($p=p(\vec{x})=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}$). Thus it is spontaneously broken.\hspace{-0.2cm}The thermodynamics of the
430: fields $\Phi_n$ ($n=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}$) is determined by $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N}}$ symmetric
431: potentials $V_C^{(n)}\hspace{-0.12cm}\equiv\hspace{-0.12cm}
432: \bar{v}_C^{(n)}v_C^{(n)}$ where
433: $v_C^{(n)}=i(\La_C^3/\Phi_{n}-\Phi_{n}^{\tiny{\mbox{N-1}}}/\La_C^{\mbox{N-3}})$. The N
434: degenerate minima of the
435: potential $V_C^{(n)}$at $|\Phi_n|=\La_C$ are {\sl exactly at zero}.
436: At $\lambda_M^c$ a jump of the order parameter $\rho$ to $\rho=0$ takes place.
437: The latent heat $\epsilon_C$ is given as $\epsilon_C=(\mbox{N(N+2)}/16)\lambda_M^c \La_M^4$
438: [$\epsilon_C=(1/2)\lambda_M^c\La_M^4$].
439: The pressure $P$ in the center phase starts at the negative value $-2\epsilon_C$ and relaxes rapidly to zero.
440: If a matching to the magnetic phase would take place in
441: thermal equilibrium no QPEs would exist below $\lambda_M^c$ since the potential is well
442: approximated by its pure pole term, and
443: the ussual calculation for $\pd^2_{|\Phi_n|}V_C^{(n)}$ applies.
444: This situation holds for $|\Phi_n|$ sufficiently smaller than $\La_C$ or for very large N.
445: The solutions to the BPS equations would then be identical to the ones in the magnetic phase.
446: Deviations from thermal equilibrium at the center transition manifest themselves
447: in a $\tau$ dependence of $|\Phi_{n}|$, see \cite{Hofmann2000}. Since $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N}}$ is a local symmetry
448: no domain walls are generated in the transition. Heavy `glueballs' are produced by a rapid re-heating, see \cite{PRL2}
449: for the interpretation of these `hadrons'.
450: \\
451: {\sl {\bf Matching the phases.}} $P$ and $T$ are continuous across
452: a thermal phase boundary. In the electric and magnetic phase the ratio of gauge and $\phi$ kinetic terms
453: defines the mass of the gauge-field spectrum at a given $T$. A re-definition of this ratio re-defines the scales
454: $\La_E$ and $\La_M$, respectively. Using the canonical definition (also for the center phase)
455: and disregarding a polarization mismatch for
456: Abelian gauge bosons at the electric--magnetic phase boundary, this relates the
457: scales $\Lambda_E,\Lambda_M,\Lambda_C$ as
458: $\Lambda_E=(1/4)^{1/3}\Lambda_M=(1/4)^{1/3}\Lambda_C$
459: [$\Lambda_E=(1/2)^{1/3}\Lambda_M=(1/3)^{1/3}\Lambda_C$] on tree-level.\\
460: {\sl {\bf Energy density $\rho$ and pressure $P$.}}
461: In Fig.\,3 the $T$ dependence of $\rho$ and $P$ is shown. The results
462: for other thermodynamic potentials and for the critical exponents of the
463: perturbative-electric and electric--magnetic transition will
464: be published elsewhere.
465: The value of $\rho$ at $\lambda_M^c$ is a measure of the latent heat released in the
466: 1$^{\mbox{\tiny{st}}}$ order-like transition following the onset of
467: center-vortex condensation.
468: \\
469: {\sl Deviation from thermal
470: equilibrium (DTE) at $\lambda^M_C$:} A measure for this deviation
471: is the relative deviation of the full potential $V_C$ from
472: its pure pole term evaluated on
473: the lowest winding mode taken at $\lambda_M=\lambda^c_M$. For $N=2,3,4,10$
474: we respectively obtain: 70\%, 41\%, 23\%, and 1\%.
475: The large DTE for N=2 may explain the apparent 2$^{\mbox{\tiny{nd}}}$
476: order deconfinement transition seen on
477: the lattice. It may be an
478: artifact of imposing thermal equilibrium in the lattice simulation.
479: For N=3 the DTE is still large. It is, however, conspicuous that a high-statistics determination of
480: $P$, not relying on the method of
481: $\beta$ integration, obtains a negative pressure
482: slightly above $T_c$ \cite{Deng1988}.
483: The $\beta$-integration method may be biased by a
484: prescribed integration constant. For N=4 and in particular for
485: N=10 the situation is much better for lattice simulations. It is extremly likely that
486: future lattice simulations with N$>$3 will unambiguously identify negative pressure
487: close to $\lambda^c_M$ (our confidence regarding the truth of this prediction
488: derives from the results in \cite{PRL2}). For N=2,3,4,10 we predict {\sl negative} pressure of
489: magnitude as given in Fig.\,3. \\
490: {\sl {\bf Comparison with the lattice.}}
491: %***********************
492: \begin{figure}
493: \begin{center}
494: \leavevmode
495: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
496: \leavevmode
497: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
498: \vspace{5.5cm}
499: \special{psfile=Fig-3.ps angle=0 voffset=-160
500: hoffset=-125 hscale=60 vscale=50}
501: \end{center}
502: \caption{The normalized energy density $\rho/T^4$ and the normalized pressure
503: $P/T^4$ as functions of $\lambda_E$. The horizontal
504: lines indicate the respective asymptotic value
505: (taken at $\lambda_E=100$). The discontinuities are due to the jump
506: in gauge-boson polarizations across the electric--magnetic transition,
507: this effect disappears beyond tree-level (Abelian gauge bosons
508: in the electric phase are then massive). Notice the brevity of the
509: magnetic phase.}
510: \end{figure}
511: %************************
512: For comparison with lattice data we take
513: $T_c$ to correspond to $\lambda_M^c$.
514: For $N=2$ we obtain: $(\rho_{\tiny\mbox{lat}}/\rho)(T=1.535;4.878;12.925\,T_c)=0.31;1.26;1.29$
515: \cite{EJKLLNS1987,EKSM1982,EKSM1981} ($18^3\times5;10^3\times3;10^3\times5$ lattices),
516: $(P_{lat}/P)(T=4.878\,T_c)=1.26$ \cite{EKSM1982}
517: ($10^3\times3$ lattice). For $T=12.195\,T_c$ $P_{\tiny\mbox{lat}}$ is calculated using
518: $\Delta_{\tiny\mbox{lat}}=\rho_{\tiny\mbox{lat}}-3P_{\tiny\mbox{lat}}$ and $\rho_{lat}$. For $N=3$ we obtain:
519: $\rho_{lat}/\rho(T=5\,T_c)=0.88$, $P_{lat}/P(T=5\,T_c)=0.74$
520: \cite{BoydEngelsKarschLaermannLegelandLuetgemeierPeterson1996} ($32^3\times8$ lattice). Deviations may be explained
521: by the tree-level treatment of gauge boson masses in the
522: electric phase and a mismatch with the lattice scale \cite{IC}.\\
523: {\sl Summary}.
524: We have developed a nonperturbative, inductive approach to thermal SU(N) Yang-Mills theory. The numerical
525: results for pressure and energy density are promising. A more precise computation will
526: aim at a precise match of the lattice scale and the scale $\La_C$ including radiative corrections in the electric phase.
527: This predicts the critical temperature $T^c_P$ in the UV regime (possibly close to the Planck mass).
528: The detection of negative pressure at $T$ close to $T_c$ has far-reaching consequences for our
529: understanding of accelerated cosmological expansion and the creation of a lepton asymmetry \cite{PRL2}.
530: QCD thermodynamics will be described by an extension of the approach which includes dynamical,
531: fundamental fermions, see \cite{PRL2} for an analogy. We believe that the mechanisms
532: of gauge-symmetry breakdown presented here have a lot to
533: say about electroweak symmetry breaking {\sl without} the conventional prediction of
534: Higgs-particle excitations.
535: \\ {\sl Acknowledgments:} It is a pleasure to thank
536: Philippe de Forcrand, Daniel Litim, and Zurab Tavartkiladze
537: for useful discussions. The author would like to thank
538: Valentine Zakharov for many wonderful discussions focussing on the physics of
539: magnetic monopoles in non-Abelian gauge theories. The hospitality and financial support extended
540: to the author by CERN's theory division are thankfully acknowledged.
541:
542:
543: \bibliographystyle{prsty}
544:
545: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
546:
547: \bibitem{Schroeder2001-2003}
548: K. Kajantie {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 105008 (2003);
549: K. Kajantie {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 10 (2001).
550:
551: \bibitem{CenterVortex}
552: L. Del Debbio {\sl et al.}, proc.
553: NATO Adv. Res. Workshop on Theor.
554: Phys., Zakopane (1997) [hep-lat/9708023].\\
555: P. deForcrand and M. D'Elia, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 4582 (1999).\\
556: M. Engelhardt {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 054504 (2000).
557:
558: \bibitem{calexp}
559: Whenever we speak of the condensation of a 4D, 3D, or
560: 2D particle the condensation of the
561: associated antiparticle is also understood
562:
563: \bibitem{Nahm1984}
564: W. Nahm, Lect. Notes in Physics. 201, eds. G. Denaro, e.a. (1084) p. 189.
565:
566: \bibitem{KraanVanBaal1998}
567: T. C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 533}, 627 (1998);
568: T. C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 435}, 389 (1998).
569:
570: \bibitem{PRL3}
571: R. Hofmann, in preparation.
572:
573: \bibitem{oddN} For odd N an SU(2) block on the diagonal is
574: replaced by an SU(3) block, Pauli matrices
575: $\lambda_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) are replaced as
576: $\lambda_i\to\bar{\lambda}_i$ where $\bar{\lambda}_3$
577: either $\mbox{diag}(0,1,-1)$ or $\mbox{diag}(1,0,-1)$,
578: for N$>$3 an average over these replacements must be performed; not
579: performing this average makes no difference
580: for the potential and the spectrum in the electric and magnetic phases
581: but changes the physics in the center phase
582:
583: \bibitem{Hosotani1983}
584: Y. Hosotani, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 126}, 309 (1983).
585:
586: \bibitem{Gorenstein1995}
587: M. I. Gorenstein and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. {\bf D52}, 5206 (1995).
588:
589: \bibitem{ForgasVolkov2003}
590: P. Forgas and M. Volkov, hep-th/0311062.
591:
592: \bibitem{PrasadSommerfield1975}
593: M. K. Prasad and C. M. Sommerfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 35 }, 760 (1975);
594: E.B. Bogomolnyi, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 24}, 449 (1976).
595:
596: \bibitem{NielsenOlesen1973}
597: H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 61}, 45 (1973).
598:
599: \bibitem{Hofmann2000}
600: R. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 065012 (2000).
601:
602: \bibitem{Deng1988}
603: Y. Deng, in BATAVIA 1988, proc. LATTICE 88, 334.\\
604: J. Engels {\sl et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 252}, 625 (1990).
605:
606: \bibitem{EJKLLNS1987}
607: J. Engels {\sl et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 280}[FS18], 577 (1987).
608:
609: \bibitem{EKSM1982}
610: J. Engels {\sl et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 205}[FS5], 545 (1982).
611:
612: \bibitem{EKSM1981}
613: J. Engels {\sl et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 101}, 89 (1981).
614:
615: \bibitem{BoydEngelsKarschLaermannLegelandLuetgemeierPeterson1996}
616: G. Boyd {\sl et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 469}, 419 (1996).
617:
618: \bibitem{IC} The scale $\La_C$ does not correspond to the absolute
619: lattice scale $\La_L$, at large $T$ this mismatch becomes
620: less important than at low $T$; to perform a precise
621: numerical match is beyond the scope of this Letter and should be
622: done using high-precision numerics
623:
624: \bibitem{PRL2}
625: R. Hofmann, to be published.
626:
627: \end{thebibliography}
628:
629:
630:
631: \end{document}
632:
633:
634: