1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: %% \usepackage[active]{srcltx}

4: 

5:  \hoffset=-1.5cm

6:  \voffset=-0.6cm

7:  \textwidth=15.5cm

8:  \textheight=21cm

9: \parindent=1em

10: \baselineskip.4cm

11: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1} 

12: % \usepackage{showlabels}

13:  

14: % table parameters

15: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.3cm}

16: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}

17:  

18: \newcommand{\D}{{\cal D}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30: \newcommand{\re}{\mathop{\rm Re}}

31: \newcommand{\Hc}{{\rm H.c.\ }}

32: \newcommand{\im}{\mathop{\rm Im}}

33: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber \\}

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

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

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

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

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

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

40: \newcommand{\bfi}{{\bf i}}

41: \newcommand{\<}{\langle} %{\left\langle}

42: \renewcommand{\>}{\rangle}  %{\right\rangle}

43: \renewcommand{\(}{\left(}

44: \renewcommand{\)}{\right)}

45: \newcommand{\lb}{\left\{}

46: \newcommand{\rb}{\right\}}

47: \newcommand{\lk}{\left[}

48: \newcommand{\rk}{\right]}

49: \newcommand{\ld}{\left.}

50: \newcommand{\rd}{\right.}

51: \renewcommand{\l}{\lambda}

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

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

54: \newcommand{\pint}{\int\! dp}

55: \newcommand{\pslash}{\slash\!\!\! p}

56: \newcommand{\RR}{{\rm I\kern -.2em  R}} 

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

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

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

60: \newcommand{\figs}{Figs.~}

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

62: \newcommand{\half}{{1\over2}}

63: \newcommand{\quarter}{{1\over4}}

64: 

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

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

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

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

69: 

70: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

72: % according to the sections where they are.

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

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

75: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

76: \makeatletter

77: \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%

78:                                    {-5.5ex \@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}% bfr-skip

79:                                    {2.3ex \@plus.2ex}%

80:                                    {\normalfont\large\bfseries}}

81: \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%

82:                                      {-3.25ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}%

83:                                      {1.5ex \@plus .2ex}%

84:                                      {\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries}}

85: \renewcommand\thesection {\@arabic\c@section}

86: \renewcommand\thesubsection   {\thesection.\@arabic\c@subsection}

87: \renewcommand{\@seccntformat}[1]{%

88: \csname the#1\endcsname.\hspace{1.0em}}

89: \makeatother

90: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

91: 

92: \begin{document}

93:  

94: \begin{titlepage}

95: \begin{flushright}

96: BI-TP 2004/09\\

97: CERN-PH-TH/2004-055\\

98: EPFL-ITP-LPPC/2004-1\\

99: HIP-2004-14/TH\\

100: hep-ph/0404058\\

101: \end{flushright}

102: \begin{centering}

103: \vfill

104:  

105: \mbox{\Large{\bf Effective gauge theories on domain walls

106: via bulk confinement?}}

107: 

108: \vspace{0.8cm}

109:  

110: M. Laine$^{\rm a}$, %% \footnote{laine@physik.uni-bielefeld.de}, 

111: H.B. Meyer$^{\rm b}$, %% \footnote{meyer@thphys.ox.ac.uk},

112: K. Rummukainen$^{\rm c,d,e}$, %% \footnote{kari.rummukainen@cern.ch},  

113: M. Shaposhnikov$^{\rm f}$ %% \footnote{mikhail.shaposhnikov@epfl.ch} 

114: 

115: \vspace{0.8cm}

116: 

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

118: Faculty of Physics, University of Bielefeld, 

119: D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany\\ }

120: 

121: \vspace{0.3cm}

122: 

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

124: Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford, 

125: 1 Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3NP, UK\\ } 

126: 

127: \vspace{0.3cm}

128: 

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

130: Department of Physics, Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23,

131: Switzerland\\ }

132: 

133: \vspace{0.3cm}

134: 

135: {\em $^{\rm d}$%

136: Department of Physics, University of Oulu, 

137: P.O.Box 3000, FIN-90014 Oulu, Finland\\ }

138: 

139: \vspace{0.3cm}

140: 

141: {\em $^{\rm e}$%

142: Helsinki Institute of Physics,

143: P.O.Box 64, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland\\}

144: 

145: \vspace{0.3cm}

146: 

147: {\em $^{\rm f}$%

148: Institute of Theoretical Physics, 

149: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), 

150: BSP-Dorigny, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland }

151: 

152: \vspace*{0.8cm}

153:  

154: \end{centering}

155:  

156: \noindent 

157: % 

158: We study with lattice techniques the localisation of gauge fields on

159: domain wall defects in 2+1 dimensions, following a scenario

160: originally proposed by Dvali and Shifman for 3+1 dimensions, based on

161: confining dynamics in the bulk. We find that a localised gauge

162: zero-mode does exist, if the domain wall is wide enough compared with

163: the confinement scale in the bulk. The range of applicability

164: of the corresponding low-energy effective theory is determined by the

165: mass gap to the higher modes. For a wide domain wall, this mass gap

166: is set by ``Kaluza--Klein modes'' as determined by the width. It is

167: pointed out that in this regime the dynamical energy scales generated

168: by the interactions of the localised zero-modes are in fact higher

169: than the mass gap. Therefore, at least in 2+1 dimensions,  the

170: zero-modes alone do not form a low-energy effective gauge theory of a

171: traditional type. Finally, we discuss how the situation is expected

172: to change in going to 3+1 dimensions.

173: %

174: \vfill

175: \noindent

176:  

177: %\noindent

178: %PACS numbers: 

179: %11.10.Kk, %        Field theory in dimensions other than four.

180: %11.30.Qc  %        Spontaneous and radiative symmetry breaking

181: %11.27.+d, %        Cosmic strings, domain walls, ... 

182: %12.38.Gc, %        Lattice QCD calculations

183: %98.80.Cq, %        Field theory models of the Early Universe

184: %\\

185: %Keywords:

186: %higher dimensions, 

187: %compactification,

188: %symmetry breaking,

189: %topological defects,

190: %lattice simulations, 

191: %cosmology.

192: 

193: \vspace*{1cm}

194:  

195: \noindent

196: April 2004 

197: 

198: \vfill

199: 

200: \end{titlepage}

201: 

202: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

203: 

204: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

205: \section{Introduction}

206: \la{se:intro}

207: 

208: In brane-world scenarios with infinite \cite{Rubakov:bb,Akama:jy,rs}

209: or large \cite{add} extra dimensions, it is assumed that all the

210: fields of the Standard Model have wave functions that are localised

211: in transverse directions, making the physics to be four-dimensional

212: (4d) at small energy scales.  The field-theoretical realisation of

213: branes is related to topological defects --- stable solutions of the

214: classical equations of motion, which depend on the transverse

215: coordinates only.  In five dimensions, the necessary defect  is a

216: domain wall, in six dimensions it is a (4d)  string, in seven

217: dimensions a monopole, etc. (For an explicit construction  of these

218: solutions in the case of localisation of gravity, for instance,   

219: see Refs.~\cite{DeWolfe:1999cp,Giovannini:2001hh,Roessl:2002rv}.)

220: 

221: Small perturbations of the fields around the topological defect

222: solutions may form  a low-dimensional effective theory ---

223: potentially the Standard Model (for a general discussion of

224: perturbations see, e.g.,  Ref.~\cite{Randjbar-Daemi:2002pq}). Apart

225: from the requirement that the wave function of the ``fundamental''

226: (or lowest-energy) mode  be centered around the brane in transverse

227: directions,   such that it has long-wavelength perturbations in four 

228: directions only, a successful localisation poses other constraints as

229: well. Indeed, either the perturbations of all the higher modes should

230: be separated from those of the fundamental mode by a sufficient mass

231: gap,   in order not to be observable in low-energy experiments, or,  

232: if there is no mass gap, the perturbations of the higher modes should

233: interact very  weakly with those of the fundamental one.

234: 

235: The possible solutions to these requirements can roughly be divided

236: into two classes (for a recent review, see Ref.~\cite{vr}).  On one

237: hand there are mechanisms which, in one way or the other, invoke

238: effects related to gravity (such as a ``warped'' metric

239: \cite{Rubakov:1983bz,rs}). In this way  scalars

240: \cite{baj,Oda:2000zc},  fermions \cite{baj}, 

241: \cite{Randjbar-Daemi:2000cr}--%% ,Kehagias,Neronov:2001qv,

242: \cite{Randjbar-Daemi:2003qd},  Abelian gauge fields

243: \cite{Oda:2000zc,Kehagias}, 

244: \cite{Randjbar-Daemi:2003qd}--%% ,Dubovsky:2000av,Neronov:2001br,

245: \cite{Giovannini:2002sb}  and gravity \cite{rs}  can be localised  on a

246: brane, although the construction of the full Standard Model is still

247: far from being achieved. On the other hand, there  are mechanisms

248: which work in flat spacetime and are purely field theoretic  in

249: origin. For example, the localisation of fermions on a brane may be

250: due to the presence of fermionic zero-modes on topological

251: defects~\cite{Rubakov:bb,dbk}, while scalars can be attached to the

252: brane through their interactions with  the field forming the

253: topological defect (and the perturbations of the defect forming field

254: itself constitute a light scalar field).

255: 

256: The most difficult problem along these lines seems to be the

257: localisation of massless non-Abelian gauge fields (for a general

258: discussion,  see Ref.~\cite{Dubovsky:2001pe}). If the mechanism

259: related to gravity is used, for instance, then  for typical warp

260: factors, the bulk gauge fields have a spectrum which is not separated

261: by a mass gap from  the localised modes, so that no effective field

262: theory can be constructed.\footnote{% 

263:   Both massless and  massive

264:   vector fields {\em can}  be localised on a brane,  such that the

265:   fundamental mode {\em is} separated from the higher ones by a

266:   non-zero mass gap, if the warp factor is tuned  appropriately ``by

267:   hand'' \cite{Shaposhnikov:2001nz,us} (see also Ref.~\cite{dfkk}).} 

268: At the same time, in the case without gravity,  no perturbative

269: mechanism of gauge field localisation is available at present,  as

270: far as we know.\footnote{% 

271:   Although of significant interest, we do

272:   not consider  mechanisms related to a high degree of unbroken

273:   supersymmetry in  this paper (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{sy} and

274:   references therein).}

275: 

276: A very interesting non-perturbative purely field theoretic idea for

277: gauge field localisation was put forward some time ago by Dvali and

278: Shifman~\cite{ds}. It uses the fact that non-Abelian gauge theories

279: are strongly coupled in the infrared  and that a mass gap can be

280: generated for the bulk modes by confinement effects. In short:

281: consider a confining theory in the bulk, based on some group G.

282: Construct a topological defect that ``eats up" the necessary number

283: of dimensions and breaks this symmetry down to G$'$ inside the

284: defect, while leaves it intact outside. Then the gauge fields related

285: to G$'$ are localised on the defect and are separated by a mass gap

286: from the bulk modes, which are massive because of confinement. The

287: resulting low-energy effective  theory is thus a four-dimensional

288: gauge theory based on G$'$.

289: 

290: Of course, to use this idea for the construction of a realistic

291: theory, one would first have to find a confining gauge theory in $4 +

292: n$ dimensions, with $n \ge 1$.  Non-Abelian gauge theories of the

293: usual type are, however,  not renormalisable when

294: extra dimensions are involved.  In five dimensions, for instance,

295: lattice simulations \cite{mc} do not reveal any second order phase

296: transition that can be used for a continuum formulation of a

297: confining theory.\footnote{%

298:  For recent discussions and references see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{gies}.}

299: Thus, to have a simple renormalisable framework,

300: Dvali and Shifman  assumed the bulk dynamics to be that of 4d gauge

301: theory, so that the low-energy dynamics is that of three-dimensional

302: (3d) gauge theory. 

303: 

304: Even if plausible after this simplification,  the idea does still

305: involve some untested assumptions. First of all, it may not be

306: immediately clear why the non-perturbative confinement effects, 

307: acting in the bulk and admittedly suppressed on the brane, could not

308: generate an effective mass term for the brane gauge fields; this

309: depends after all on the precise boundary conditions that the bulk

310: phase  poses on the localised modes~\cite{ahs}. Another question,

311: necessary for understanding whether the effective theory is truly

312: lower dimensional than the bulk theory,  is related to the magnitudes

313: of the confinement induced mass gap $M_c$, the typical energy scale

314: of the low-dimensional theory $m_l$, and the masses of higher

315: ``Kaluza-Klein'' (KK) excitations $M_k$, localised on  the

316: brane.\footnote{%

317:   Even though there is no compact dimension involved, 

318:   we refer to the tower of localised states above the 

319:   fundamental mode as Kaluza-Klein 

320:   excitations, due to the fact that they have a similar 

321:   spectrum.} 

322: To hide extra dimensions at small energies, the scale $m_l$ must

323: be much smaller than the masses of particles in the bulk as well as

324: those of the KK-excitations: $ m_l \ll M_k,~m_l \ll M_c$. Otherwise,

325: the effects of higher dimensions are not suppressed.  This point has

326: not been discussed in Refs.~\cite{ds,ahs}, as far as we can judge. 

327: 

328: Given the open ends,  it is the purpose of this paper to test the

329: idea of Ref.~\cite{ds}  with simple non-perturbative lattice

330: simulations. We consider SU(2) gauge theory coupled to an adjoint

331: scalar field with an effective space-dependent mass parameter induced

332: by the  kink solution, as in the original proposal~\cite{ds}. Since

333: going to higher dimensions leads us to a shaky ground we will deal,

334: following Ref. \cite{ds}, with renormalisable theories only, i.e.

335: consider at most a 4d bulk.  For better numerical resolution and

336: since the physics arguments are almost unchanged (see below),   we

337: will however reduce the dimensionality to be three in total,  such

338: that the low-energy effective theory is supposed to be

339: two-dimensional (2d).  

340: 

341: Our lattice simulations do support the Dvali-Shifman conjecture on

342: the existence of a gauge field localised on the brane. In other

343: words, if the dynamics of the theory is probed with external 

344: sources separated by large distances along a (wide enough) brane, 

345: a force specific to a massless localised gauge mode 

346: will indeed manifest itself. 

347: We find, however, that in this limit there is no hierarchy of

348: (dynamical) scales between the 2d localised mode and certain

349: higher excitations and, therefore, that the low-energy theory 

350: cannot be considered to be a traditional 2d gauge theory.

351: 

352: This paper is organised as follows.  In \se\ref{se:overview} we

353: review the basic mechanism as proposed by Dvali and

354: Shifman~\cite{ds}.  In \se\ref{infvol} we derive its signatures for a

355: specific  observable, the static force between two heavy test charges

356: living on the  brane, and in~\se\ref{finvol} discuss how the

357: signatures change if the  world-volume is finite.   In

358: \se\ref{se:latt} the system is put on the lattice and the observables

359: are written in a form accessible to Monte Carlo simulations.  The

360: main results are presented in \se\ref{se:results},  and our

361: conclusions as well as a brief outlook, in \se\ref{se:concl}.

362: 

363: 

364: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

365: \section{Overview of the Dvali-Shifman mechanism}

366: \la{se:overview}

367: 

368: The model suggested by Dvali and Shifman has two scalar fields, 

369: a gauge singlet $\eta$ and an adjoint scalar $\chi$, and has the

370: following Euclidean action in the case of a 3d bulk:

371: \ba

372:  S_\rmi{E} %% \tinymsbar  

373:   &\equiv&   \int  {\rm d}^3 x\, {\cal L}_\rmi{E} %% \tinymsbar

374:  \;, \\

375:  {\cal L}_\rmi{E} %%\tinymsbar 

376:   &\equiv & \fr12 \tr F_{kl}^2 + \tr [D_k,\chi]^2 + 

377:  \lambda\,\tr [\chi^2]^2 +\gamma\, \tr [\chi^2]\left({u}^2-

378:  {v}^2+\eta^2\right) \nn 

379:  &+&\frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu\eta)^2+ \frac{1}{4}

380:  \kappa \left(\eta^2-{v}^2\right)^2, 

381:  \la{lfull}

382: \ea

383: where 

384: $k,l=1,...,3$,

385: $D_k = \partial_k + i g A_k$, 

386: $A_k = A_k^a T^a$, $\chi = \chi^a T^a$, $F_{kl} = (1/ig) [D_k,D_l]$, 

387: and $T^a$ are the Hermitean generators of SU($N_c$), 

388: normalised as $\tr [T^a T^b] = \delta^{ab}/2$.  Summation over repeated 

389: indices is understood. The coupling constants $\lambda, \gamma, \kappa$ 

390: and the parameters ${u}^2$ and ${v}^2$ are assumed to be positive, 

391: and $v^2 > u^2$.

392: 

393: The classical vacuum of the theory is at $\chi=0$, $\eta = \pm

394: {v}$ and the perturbative spectrum consists of the scalar singlet

395: with the mass  

396: $m_\eta^2= 2 \kappa {v}^2$,   

397: the scalar triplet with the mass

398: $m_\chi^2=\gamma {u}^2$ and massless gauge bosons corresponding to

399: the gauge group SU($N_c$). Because of strong coupling in the

400: infrared, the vector boson spectrum aquires a mass gap of the order

401: of the 3d confinement scale, $\Lambda \sim g^2$. In other words, 

402: gluons form bound states --- glueballs --- with a mass of the order

403: of $\Lambda$.  Depending on the relation between $\Lambda$ and

404: $m_\chi$, bound states of the triplet scalar and gluons can have 

405: masses $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda)$ %% (for $m_\chi < \Lambda$)  

406: or $\mathcal{O}(m_\chi)$. %% (for $m_\chi > \Lambda$).

407: 

408: Now, the model of \eq\nr{lfull} always has  a kink solution, $\chi=0$, 

409: $\eta(z)= v \tanh(\frac{m_\eta z}{2})$.  

410: By inspecting whether the fluctuation Hamiltonian 

411: around this solution develops a negative eigenvalue, it is seen that 

412: the solution is unstable against $\chi$-field condensation near $z=0$, 

413: provided that

414: \be

415:  \gamma {v}^2> m_\chi^2 + \frac{1}{2} m_\chi m_\eta

416:  \;. \label{cond}

417: \ee

418: In this case the stable classical solution contains a non-zero $\chi$

419: field as well, and has the asymptotics $\chi_3 \to 0$, $\eta \to \pm

420: {v}$ at $z \to \pm \infty$, whereas the components $\chi_1$ and

421: $\chi_2$ can be chosen to be zero. For a general choice of parameters

422: the explicit solution can easily be constructed numerically. The

423: analytic form can be found for a specific choice of parameters,

424: namely for

425: \be

426:  2 \gamma {u}^2=\frac{\kappa \lambda - \gamma^2}{\lambda-\gamma} {v}^2

427:  \;, 

428: \ee

429: and is given by

430: \be

431:  \eta(z)={v} \tanh (m_\chi z)\;,~~

432:  \chi_3(z)=\sqrt{\frac{\kappa-\gamma}{\gamma-\lambda}}

433:  \frac{{v}}{\cosh(m_\chi z)}

434:  \;.

435: \ee

436: In the special case $\kappa=\gamma=\lambda$, 

437: $\eta(z)$ remains the same while

438: \be

439:  \chi_3(z)=\frac{\sqrt{v^2-2u^2}}{\cosh(m_\chi z)}

440:  \;.

441: \ee

442: 

443: To get the mechanism to work, the following choice of parameters is

444: proposed. Inside the defect the SU($N_c$) symmetry is partially

445: broken to G$'$, and the masses of the corresponding vector bosons are

446: assumed to be large compared with the confinement scale $\Lambda$, 

447: \be

448:  \frac{\gamma({v}^2-{u}^2)}{\lambda} \gg g^2 

449:  \;. \la{largemW}

450: \ee

451: At the same time, the width of the domain wall is chosen to be larger

452: than the inverse of the confinement scale, $g^2 \gg m_\chi$.  These two

453: requirements suppress the non-perturbative confinement  effects

454: inside the defect. Together with~\eq\nr{cond},  they pose

455: restrictions on the parameter space, but  given that there are

456: several parameters at our disposal  ($u,v,\lambda,\gamma,\kappa$),

457: all the requirements can  easily be satisfied simultaneously. 

458: 

459: At the quadratic level the spectrum of perturbations around the

460: domain wall contains a few normalizable localised scalar modes (there

461: is  one zero-mode associated with brane translations and

462: fluctuations), a continuous spectrum of scalar excitations that

463: starts from $\min(m_\eta, m_\chi)$, and a gapless continuous spectrum

464: of vector excitations corresponding to the unbroken group G$'$. 

465: Now,  because the true non-perturbative spectrum of bulk gauge

466: excitations is massive, it was conjectured in Ref.~\cite{ds} that the

467: vector bosons of the unbroken group cannot escape the brane and thus

468: the true spectrum of gauge excitations around the domain wall does

469: contain  normalisable vector modes related to G$'$. If true, the

470: low-energy effective theory is just a 2d gauge theory in our case.

471: 

472: Further support for the Dvali-Shifman idea has been provided by 

473: Arkani-Hamed and Schmaltz, who argued~\cite{ahs},  based on the 't

474: Hooft -- Mandelstam picture of confinement, that the bulk acts as a

475: Neumann boundary  condition for the gauge fields corresponding to

476: G$'$,  such that there is a true localised  zero-mode, unlike in the 

477: case of a Dirichlet boundary condition, whereby a  zero-mode is

478: excluded.\footnote{%

479:    For further work on the topic see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{nt}.}  

480: Since the physics of confinement is involved, however, a

481: non-perturbative check of the mechanism would be welcome, and this is

482: one of the aims of the present work. Another problem, related to 

483: mass gaps and the dimensionality of the low-energy theory, has

484: been mentioned already in the Introduction, and will be explained in

485: more detail below.

486: 

487: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

488: %

489: \section{How to probe the properties of the low-energy effective theory?}

490: \la{infvol}

491: 

492: Since our main interest here is in the gauge fields, we will ignore

493: in the following all the dynamics related to the scalar singlet field

494: $\eta$. To achieve this we go to the rest frame of the domain wall,

495: and also treat it as infinitely rigid, which means that we remove the

496: 3d zero-mode related to translations and fluctuations of the domain

497: wall.

498: 

499: The remaining dynamical degrees of freedom constitute 

500: the SU($N_c$) gauge + adjoint Higgs theory, 

501: formally  defined by the action

502: \ba

503:  S_\rmi{E} %% \tinymsbar  

504:  & \equiv &  \int  {\rm d}^3 x\, {\cal L}_\rmi{E} %% \tinymsbar

505:  \;, \\

506:  {\cal L}_\rmi{E} %%\tinymsbar 

507:  & \equiv & \fr12 \tr F_{kl}^2 + \tr [D_k,\chi]^2 + 

508:  m^2(z)\tr [\chi^2] +\lambda (\tr [\chi^2])^2, 

509:  \la{leff}

510: \ea

511: where $m^2(z)$ is simply some profile for the mass of $\chi$, which

512: we fix ''by hand'' to be

513: \be

514:  m^2(z) \equiv m_2^2 + \frac{m_1^2 - m_2^2}{\cosh^2 (z/\ell)} 

515:  \;, \la{m2z}

516: \ee

517: where, in the notation of \se\ref{se:overview}, 

518: $m_2^2 \equiv m_\chi^2 = \gamma {u}^2$ 

519: represents the mass of the scalar triplet outside the brane, while

520: $m_1^2 = \gamma ({u}^2 - {v}^2)$ is negative and is related to the

521: mass of the scalar boson inside the brane. As already discussed (cf.\

522: \eq\nr{largemW}),  we assume that the masses of the vector bosons

523: inside the brane are large,  $m_W^2 \sim - g^2 m_1^2/\lambda \gg

524: g^4$. The domain wall width, $\ell$, is for generality now treated as

525: a parameter independent of $m_\chi$, and is supposed to be large

526: enough, 

527: \be

528:  \ell \gg \frac{1}{g^2}

529:  \;, \label{as}

530: \ee

531: to suppress the influence of bulk confinement on the localised gauge

532: field. In addition, to have condensation of $\chi$ inside the brane,

533: we must require 

534: (cf.\ \eq(\ref{cond})) that $m_1^2 \lsim - m_2/\ell$.

535: 

536: The dimensionless combinations of the parameters, determining the

537: actual dynamics,  can be chosen as

538: \be

539:  \alpha \equiv \ell g^2 \;, \quad

540:  x \equiv \frac{\lambda}{g^2} \;, \quad

541:  y_{1,2} \equiv \frac{m^2_{1,2}}{g^4} 

542:  \;, \la{alpha} 

543: \ee

544: where the mass parameters (the only ones requiring renormalisation in

545: three dimensions) are for convenience assumed to be evaluated in the

546: $\msbar$ scheme at the scale $\bmu = g^2$.

547: 

548: Let us assume now that the Dvali-Shifman conjecture is correct and

549: estimate the parameters of the localised gauge theory. Since the wave

550: function of the massless mode is localised on a length of the order

551: of the width of the domain wall, the 2d effective gauge coupling

552: $g_2$ is simply 

553: \be 

554: \frac{1}{g_2^2} \sim \frac{\ell}{g^2}~.

555: \label{2dg}

556: \ee

557: If two opposite static test charges are put on the brane, one would

558: then expect that they are attracted, at large distances  (to be

559: specified presently) with a force $F \sim g_2^2$ that does not depend

560: on the distance. Note that this holds also for G$'$ = U(1),  since

561: the Coulomb potential is linear in 1+1 dimensions.

562: 

563: Besides the massless mode one would expect to  also have a whole tower

564: of states with the same quantum numbers and with an energy spacing 

565: of the order of $E \sim 1/\ell$, with $E$ coming simply from the

566: uncertainty principle.  These states are not seen  at distances $r

567: \gg \ell$ or at energies $E \ll 1/\ell$, so that the force derived

568: above should be valid for $r \gg \ell$. For $ m_W^{-1} \ll r \ll

569: \ell$ the  2d Coulomb law is expected to be replaced by the 3d

570: Coulomb law with the force $F \sim {g^2}/{r}$, while at even smaller

571: distances the massive $W$ will contribute as well,  changing the

572: numerical coefficient in front  of the $1/r$-dependence of the

573: force. 

574: 

575: If, on the contrary, the localised zero-mode acquires a mass

576: $m_\gamma$ due to interactions with the bulk modes, the force between

577: the test charges at $r \gg \ell$ will have a Yukawa character, $F

578: \sim g_2^2 \exp(- m_\gamma r)$, whereas for smaller  $r$ the

579: behaviour is still as described above.

580: 

581: These two different behaviours of the force at $r \gg \ell$ can be

582: distinguished in lattice simulations, as will be described below, so

583: that a conclusion can be reached on the existence of a localised

584: vector zero-mode. As we will see, the presence of a vector zero-mode

585: is confirmed, and the dependence of the 2d coupling constant on the

586: width of the domain wall (\eq\nr{2dg}) is also  found to be as

587: expected.

588: 

589: Let us now discuss whether the low-energy theory can indeed be

590: considered to be 1+1 dimensional electrodynamics. If so, the typical

591: energy scale $E_0$ of the 1+1 dimensional theory must be smaller than

592: the mass gap to the first excited KK mode. To be concrete, let us

593: imagine adding fermions to the 3d theory and let them interact with

594: the singlet field in a way that ensures the existence of fermionic

595: zero-modes. The gauge coupling of these fermions is $g_2$. Then, the

596: theory of the zero-modes (fermionic and vector) is simply the

597: Schwinger model, the solution of which tells that bosonic scalar

598: states with the mass $E_0 \sim g_2$ are formed. The KK tower of

599: states decouples, provided that $E_0 \ll 1/\ell$. This inequality,

600: together with \eq(\ref{2dg}) and the estimate $E_0\sim g_2$, gives

601: $\ell \ll g^2$, which is in contradiction with the initial

602: assumption of \eq(\ref{as}). In other words, we do not expect the

603: low-energy effective theory to be the Schwinger model, it

604: will rather be a more

605: complicated 1+1 dimensional theory incorporating not

606: only the massless mode but also its KK excitations. 

607: 

608: This expectation can also be tested on the lattice. Indeed, if for

609: some reason the mass gap to the KK excitations is considerably higher

610: than $1/\ell$ and corresponds to some distance scale $\ell_0 \ll

611: \ell$, then the 1+1 dimensional Coulomb law will be valid to

612: considerably smaller distances. As we will see in the lattice

613: simulations, the deviations start really from $r \sim \ell$, and are

614: characterised by a mass gap $\sim 1/\ell$.  Therefore, the low-energy

615: theory, though giving an apparently 1+1 dimensional  force at the

616: distance scales $\gg \ell$, is in general not that of the zero-modes

617: alone.

618: 

619: We also note that the other logical possibility, $\ell < {1}/{g^2}$,

620: does not lead to 1+1 dimensional electrodynamics either. In this

621: case the spread of the potentially massless localised mode is given

622: by the inverse confinement scale, $1/g^2$ in our case. Thus, the

623: effective 2d gauge coupling is $g_2^2 \sim g^4$, and, therefore, the

624: typical 2d energy scale is of the same order as the mass gap to the

625: bulk modes.

626: 

627: To conclude this section, we note that the specific line of reasoning

628: above is related to the case of 3$\to$2 compactification. In the last

629: section we however provide arguments that the pattern is essentially

630: the same also for  4$\to$3 compactification, in the generalised case

631: that G$'$ is a non-Abelian group.  Unfortunately, we have nothing to

632: say about (the most interesting) higher dimensional case. 

633: 

634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

635: %

636: \section{Finite-size scaling of the Abelian static force in a periodic box}

637: \la{finvol}

638: 

639: As explained in the previous section,  the probe to be used in order

640: to test the conjecture, is the static force between infinitely heavy

641: test charges living on the brane.  The motivation for this choice is

642: that theoretical predictions, as reviewed in the previous section,

643: are unambiguous, and that lattice measurements, as discussed in

644: \se\ref{se:latt}, can be made rather precise, employing recent

645: technical advances~\cite{lw}. To perform the lattice simulations,

646: periodic boundary conditions will be used, so we shall first discuss

647: how this changes the expectations for the static force  presented

648: above for the infinite-volume case.

649: 

650: To fix the notation, let us consider the three-dimensional volume to

651: be a Euclidean hypertorus (or box with periodic boundary conditions

652: in all directions),  with a coordinate $r$ in the spatial direction

653: along the brane,  $t$ in the temporal direction along the brane,  and

654: $z$ along the ``bulk'', perpendicular to the brane. The extents of

655: each direction (if finite) are denoted by $L_r, L_t, L_z$, 

656: respectively.  The brane is located at $z=0$. 

657: 

658: The static force is defined in the usual way.  We introduce a rectangular 

659: Wilson loop $W(R,T;z)$ in the ($r,t$)-plane, at some fixed $z$, of 

660: size $R \times T$. The force $F(R;z)$ is defined through the potential 

661: $V(R;z)$ as

662: \be

663:  F(R;z) = -\frac{{\rm d}\, V(R;z)}{{\rm d}R} = \lim_{T\to \infty}

664:  \frac{1}{T} \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}\, R} \ln W(R,T;z) 

665:  \;, \la{FWilson}

666: \ee

667: where we assumed that $L_t = \infty$. 

668: 

669: If we imagine for a moment that the system is homogeneous

670: and perturbative, a leading order computation in $g^2$ gives

671: \be

672:  F(R;z) = g^2 C_F \frac{1}{L_z} \sum_{p_z}

673:  \frac{\sinh[p_z(L_r/2-R)]}{2 \sinh(p_z L_r/2)}

674:  \;, \la{FRz}

675: \ee

676: where $C_F$ is the quadratic Casimir of the fundamental

677: representation, $C_F \equiv (N_c^2-1)/2N_c$,  and $p_z= 2 \pi n/L_z$,

678: with $n$ an integer.   This result is exact for an Abelian theory

679: (Coulomb law), but  in a non-Abelian confining theory it is only

680: valid at short distances and, in general, the periodicity

681: it displays will be

682: lost at large distances. 

683: Nevertheless, as we will see,  various interesting limits can

684: be obtained from this simple expression. 

685: % Note that the force is antiperiodic with respect to $R = L_r/2$.

686: In the following we set $N_c = 2$ as in the actual  simulations, so

687: that $C_F = 3/4$.

688: 

689: Let us consider three limiting cases:

690: 

691: \paragraph{Infinitely thin brane: the symmetric phase.}

692: %

693: %

694: %

695: In the confining symmetric phase, the force is analytically computable

696: only at small distances (the Coulomb part). 

697: Because of the mass gap, we can set 

698: $L_z \to \infty$ in~\eq\nr{FRz}, so that the sum $\sum_{p_z}$

699: becomes an integral. Then,

700: \ba

701:  F(R;z) & = &

702:  %% \biggl\{ 

703:  %% \begin{array}{cc}

704:  \fr34 \frac{g^2}{2\pi R} ~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~

705:  R \ll (g^2 C_A)^{-1} \;, \\

706:  & = & c_1 (g^2 C_A)^2   ~~, ~~~~~~~~~~

707:  (g^2 C_A)^{-1} \ll R \ll L_r/2\;, \la{3dconf}

708:  %% \end{array} 

709: \ea

710: where $\sigma = c_1 (g^2 C_A)^2$ is the string tension

711: of 3d SU(2) Yang-Mills theory with adjoint matter, and 

712: $C_A = N_c$ is the quadratic Casimir of the adjoint

713: representation. Without

714: adjoint matter, the constant $c_1$ is 

715: determined numerically to be $\approx 0.0281(3)$ in

716: the continuum limit for $N_c = 2$~\cite{mt}, and the inclusion of adjoint

717: matter leaves the value practically unchanged~\cite{hp}. 

718: 

719: \paragraph{Infinitely thick brane: the broken symmetry phase.} 

720: %

721: %

722: %

723: In the opposite limit of a 3d broken symmetry 

724: phase, the three isospin components

725: of the vector bosons 

726: convert into two massive vector bosons, of mass 

727: $m_W = g \langle \chi^3 \rangle$, and one massless vector boson, the photon. 

728: In 3d, however, the photon becomes  massive~\cite{p2} 

729: via interactions with monopoles~\cite{th,p1},  

730: \be

731:  m_\gamma \sim g^{-3/2} m_W^{7/4} \exp\Bigl(-\frac{2\pi m_W}{g^2}\Bigr) 

732:  \;.

733:  \la{mgamma} 

734: \ee

735: Correspondingly, the potential is computable in weak coupling only up to 

736: distances $\sim m_\gamma^{-1}$. Assuming again, for simplicity, that

737: $L_z \to \infty$, we obtain

738: \ba

739:  F(R;z) & = &  

740:  %% \biggl\{ 

741:  %% \begin{array}{cc}

742:  \fr34 \frac{g^2}{2\pi R} ~~ , ~~~~

743:  R \ll m_W^{-1} \;, \\

744:  & = &  \fr14 \frac{g^2}{2\pi R} ~~ , ~~~~

745:  m_W^{-1} \ll R \ll m_\gamma^{-1} \;, \la{powerlaw} \\

746:  & = & c_2 g^2 m_\gamma ~~ , ~~~

747:  m_\gamma^{-1} \ll R \ll {L_r}/{2} \;,  

748:  %% \end{array}

749: \ea

750: where $c_2$ is a constant. If $L_r/2 \ll m_\gamma^{-1}$, as is realistically

751: the case, then at large distances we rather encounter the fully perturbative 

752: behaviour for the 

753: photon following from~\eq\nr{FRz} (still in the limit $L_z \to \infty$), 

754: \be

755:  F(R;z) = \fr14  \frac{g^2}{2 L_r \tan(\pi R/L_r)} 

756:  ~~ , ~~~ m_W^{-1} \ll R

757:  \;. \la{3dcoulomb}

758: \ee

759: 

760: \paragraph{Brane of a finite width.} 

761: %

762: %

763: %

764: Consider finally the case of our actual interest, a domain wall of some

765: finite effective width, $\sim L_\rmi{brane}$. The behaviour should now 

766: interpolate between the two limits encountered above. The 

767: input parameter determining the width is $\alpha = \ell g^2$ as 

768: defined in~\eq\nr{alpha}. Independent of $\alpha$, at very 

769: small distances we still have

770: \be

771:   F(R;z) = \fr34 \frac{g^2}{2\pi R} \; , ~~~ R \ll m_W^{-1} \;. 

772: \ee

773: What happens at large distances, on the other hand, 

774: depends on whether there is a zero-mode 

775: or not. If the zero-mode exists, we may expect that its contribution 

776: is according to \eq\nr{FRz}, where $L_z$ is now finite and replaced with 

777: $L_\rmi{brane}$, and we take $p_z = 0$, and only one of the isospin

778: components contributes so that $C_F  = 3/4 \to 1/4$, 

779: \be

780:  F^{\rmi{(0)}}(R;|z|\lsim L_\rmi{brane}) 

781:  \sim \frac{g^2}{4} \frac{1}{2 L_\rmi{brane}}

782:  \biggl(1 - \frac{2 R}{ L_r}\biggr) 

783:  \;. \la{zero}

784: \ee

785: This would be the behaviour if the confining phase outside the brane 

786: acted effectively as a Neumann (derivative of field vanishes), 

787: rather than Dirichlet (field itself vanishes), boundary condition.  

788: The first massive mode, on the other hand, contributes as 

789: \ba

790:  F^{\rmi{(1)}}(R;|z|\lsim L_\rmi{brane})  

791:  & \sim & \frac{g^2}{4} \frac{1}{2 L_\rmi{brane}}

792:  \frac{\sinh[m_1(L_r/2 - R)]}{\sinh(m_1 L_r/2)}

793:  \\ 

794:  & \approx & \frac{g^2}{4} \frac{\exp(-m_1 R)}{2 L_\rmi{brane}} \;, 

795:  ~~~ R \ll L_r/2\;, \quad m_1 L_r \gg 1

796:  \;, \la{m1}

797: \ea

798: where the mass $m_1$ is assumed non-zero. This would also 

799: be the full

800: behaviour with Dirichlet boundary conditions, 

801: in which case a zero-mode is excluded. 

802: 

803: Let us emphasize that the linear in $R$ behaviour of the force in

804: \eq\nr{zero} is a characteristic of the Abelian theory.  If the

805: 2d low-energy effective theory were non-Abelian, 

806: the long-distance force would still be constant as

807: in \eq\nr{3dconf}, with  exponentially

808: small finite-volume corrections.

809: This difference is caused by the finite periodic extent 

810: of the box in the $R$-direction --- in infinite volume both

811: the 2d Abelian and non-Abelian gauge theories display linear

812: confinement (constant force) \`a la \eq\nr{3dconf}.

813: 

814: 

815: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

816: \section{Lattice formulation}

817: \la{se:latt}

818: 

819: \subsection{Discretised action}

820: 

821: In order to test the behaviour at large distances, so as for instance to 

822: distinguish between \eqs\nr{zero} and \nr{m1}, we study the system

823: on the lattice. The discretised Lagrangian corresponding to \eq\nr{leff} is

824: \ba

825:  {\mathcal L}_{\rm latt}

826:  &=&

827:  \frac{1}{a^4g^2}\sum_{k,l}\tr\left[{\bf 1}-P_{kl}(x)\right]\nn

828:  &&+

829:  \frac{2}{a^2}\sum_k

830:  \left[\tr \chi^2(x)-\tr \chi(x)U_k(x) 

831:  \chi(x+a\hat e_k)U_k^\dagger(x)\right] \nn

832:  &&+

833:  m^2_\rmi{bare}(z)\tr[\chi^2]+\lambda(\tr[\chi^2])^2

834:  \;, \la{lattL}

835: \ea

836: where $a$ is the lattice spacing, $U_k(x)=\exp[iagA_k(x)]$,

837: $\hat e_k$ is a unit vector in direction $k$, 

838: and $P_{kl}$ is the plaquette:

839: \be

840:  P_{kl}(x)=U_k(x)U_l(x+a\hat e_k)

841:  U_k^\dagger(x+a\hat e_l)U_l^\dagger(x)

842:  \;.

843: \ee

844: The extents of the box are denoted by  

845: $L_r = a N_r, L_t = a N_t, L_z = a N_z$, and the lattice volume

846: by $V = N_r N_t N_z$.

847: The lattice spacing is

848: expressed through the dimensionless combination 

849: \be

850:  \beta \equiv \frac{2 N_c}{a g^2}

851:  \;.

852: \ee

853: 

854: In order for physics to be the same as with the continuum 

855: Lagrangian in~\eq\nr{leff}, 

856: the lattice theory needs to be renormalised. In three dimensions, 

857: the only parameter including divergences is $m^2$, and the 

858: divergences can be computed exactly, close to the continuum 

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

860: \ba

861:  m_\rmi{bare}^2(z) &\equiv& m^2(z) + \delta m^2 (\bmu), \\

862:  \delta m^2 (\bmu) 

863:  &=& - \Bigl[2g^2C_A + \lambda(d_A+2)\Bigr] \fr\Sigma{4\pi a} \nn

864:  & & +\fr1{16\pi^2} \lk  2\lambda(d_A+2)\(\lambda-g^2C_A\)

865:  \(\ln\fr6{a\bmu} +\zeta\) -2g^2C_A\lambda(d_A+2)

866:  \(\fr{\Sigma^2}4-\delta\) \rd \nn 

867:  & & \ld -g^4 C_A^2 \( 

868:  \frac{5}{8}\Sigma^2+\(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{4}{3C_A^2}\)\pi\Sigma

869:  -4(\delta+\rho)+2\kappa_1-\kappa_4

870:  \) \rk \;, \la{dmassL}

871: \ea

872: where the constants

873: $\zeta$, $\delta$, $\rho$, $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_4$ and $\Sigma$

874: have been defined in Refs.~\cite{framework,contlatt}, 

875: $C_A = N_c$, $d_A = N_c^2 - 1$, 

876: and $\bmu$ is the scale

877: parameter of the $\msbar$ scheme. The couplings

878: $g^2, \lambda$ require no renormalisation, but the approach 

879: to the continuum limit could be improved by computing 

880: corrections of order ${\cal O}(a)$~\cite{moore_a}.

881: As already mentioned, we choose $\bmu = g^2$ in the following. 

882: Various condensates, such as $\tr [\chi^2]$, 

883: also require additive renormalisation

884: (multiplicative wave function renormalisation effects

885: are ${\cal O}(a)$~\cite{moore_a}):

886: \ba

887:  \langle \tr [\chi^2] \rangle_\rmi{$\msbar$} & = &

888:  \langle \tr [\chi^2] \rangle_\rmi{bare} - d_A \frac{\Sigma}{8\pi a} 

889:  % \nn & & 

890:  - d_A C_A \frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}

891:  \biggl( \ln\fr6{a\bmu} + \zeta + \frac{\Sigma^2}{4} - \delta

892:  \biggr) 

893:  \;. 

894: \ea

895: 

896: \subsection{Discretised observables}

897: 

898: The basic object we employ on the lattice is a Polyakov loop, 

899: \be

900:  P(R;z) \equiv \tr \Bigl[

901:  \Pi_{n_t = 0}^{N_t - 1} U_t(R,n_ta,z) \Bigr]

902:  \;,

903: \ee

904: and the correlation function of two Polyakov loops is

905: \be

906:  C(R;z) \equiv \sum_{n_r = 0}^{N_r - 1}

907:  \Bigl\langle

908:  P^\dagger (n_r a;z) P(n_r a + R;z)

909:  \Bigr\rangle

910:  \;. 

911:  \la{Crt}

912: \ee

913: The general structure of this correlator is

914: (\cite{lw} and references therein) 

915: \be

916:  C(R;z) = w_1 e^{-L_t V(R;z)} + w_2 e^{-L_t [V(R;z) + \Delta E]} + ...

917:  \;,  \la{FCfull}

918: \ee

919: where $w_i$ are numerical coefficients and 

920: $\Delta E$ is a mass gap. Therefore the static force, 

921: to be denoted by $F_P(R;z)$ when extracted from the Polyakov loop

922: correlator, can be defined as

923: \be

924:  F_P(R;z) \equiv \frac{1}{L_t} \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}R} \ln C(R;z) 

925:  \;, 

926:  \la{FCcont}

927: \ee

928: and the difference between $F_P(R;z)$ and $F(R;z)$ is

929: exponentially small if $\Delta E > 0$ and $L_t$ is large enough. 

930: On the lattice we use a discretised version of~\eq\nr{FCcont}, 

931: \be

932:  F_P(R+\frac{a}{2};z) \equiv

933:  \frac{2}{aL_t} \frac{C(R+a;z)-C(R;z)}{C(R+a;z)+C(R;z)}

934:  \;.

935:  \la{FClatt}

936: \ee

937: 

938: %In the following, we will use the observable in~\eq\nr{Crt}

939: %to compute the static force via~\eq\nr{FClatt}, rather than obtaining it

940: %via the Wilson loop as in~\eq\nr{FWilson}. 

941: The reason for using Polyakov loop correlators instead of the more

942: common Wilson loop to obtain the static force, 

943: is simply that a sufficient numerical accuracy is

944: easier to reach, thanks to the advanced numerical techniques developed by

945: L\"uscher and Weisz~\cite{lw}

946: (and optimised for the present system by us).  The

947: measurement method will be described below.  This

948: advantage does not come without a price, however: if the system is not

949: confining, then the error made by using \eq\nr{FCcont} rather than the full

950: expression in~\eq\nr{FCfull} may in general not be small, and the

951: correct result is only obtained after an extrapolation to the limit of

952: a large $L_t$.  Nevertheless, even data obtained at finite $L_t$ will

953: correctly show whether the behaviour of the force is constant,\footnote{%

954:  At large distances the behaviour of $F_P$ deviates from a constant, 

955:  due to the periodic boundary conditions. Based on the effective string

956:  picture, the behaviour expected is the same as in 2d~\cite{Rusakov}, 

957:  $F_P(R;z) = \sigma \tanh[\sigma L_t(\fr{L_r}{2} - R)]$ for large $L_r$,  

958:  which approaches a step function for $L_t\rightarrow \infty$.

959:  In practice, however, the error bars are reasonably 

960:  small only for $R \ll L_r/2$, 

961:  where $F_P$ can be well approximated with a constant. 

962:  } 

963: linear, or exponential in $R$, thus allowing to 

964: distinguish between \eqs\nr{3dconf}, \nr{zero}, \nr{m1}. 

965: 

966: In the following, we will always

967: refer to the object defined by \eqs\nr{FCcont}, \nr{FClatt} as the

968: static force, while keeping the reservations just spelled out in mind,

969: and therefore checking in the end explicitly for the stability of our

970: results with respect to variations of $L_t$.

971: 

972: \subsection{Parameters and systematics}

973: 

974: The model of~\eq\nr{lattL} has previously been studied with 

975: lattice simulations in Refs.~\cite{hpst,adjoint}, for the case of a 

976: homogeneous mass parameter, corresponding to $\alpha = 0$

977: or $\alpha = \infty$. The system was observed to have a non-trivial

978: phase diagram in the space of the continuum parameters $x,y$, 

979: defined in~\eq\nr{alpha}: for $x < x_c \approx 0.3$, there is 

980: a first order phase transition separating the broken symmetry 

981: phase at $y < y_c$ from the symmetric phase at $y > y_c$. For 

982: $x > x_c$, on the other hand, there is no phase transition, meaning that 

983: the two phases are analytically connected. This is possible 

984: since there are monopoles in the broken symmetry phase~\cite{th,p1}

985: which replace a possible order parameter, the mass of a photon related

986: to an unbroken U(1) symmetry, by a small but non-vanishing mass

987: (given in~\eq\nr{mgamma}) 

988: related to a pseudoscalar particle~\cite{p2}. 

989: The situation would be 

990: different with the gauge group SU(3), for instance, in which case

991: there is an additional discrete global symmetry $\chi \to -\chi$

992: which gets broken at $y = y_c$; thus there always is a genuine phase

993: transition of some kind~\cite{su3}.

994: 

995: In terms of the parameters of~\eq\nr{alpha}, we choose here to 

996: study the value $x=0.20$, which implies a first order transition at 

997: $y_c \approx 0.147$~\cite{adjoint} (provided one is close to the continuum

998: limit, i.e., $\beta \gg 1$). The motivation is to have a clear 

999: distinction between the two phases, 

1000: and to avoid complications  owing to the presence of monopoles, 

1001: which are more important in the crossover region.

1002: The parameters $y_1,y_2$ of \eq\nr{alpha} are chosen on the two 

1003: sides of the transition, 

1004: \be

1005:  y_1 = -0.667

1006:  \;, \quad

1007:  y_2 = 2.0

1008:  \;. 

1009: \ee

1010: The width of the domain wall is varied

1011: in small intervals in the range $\alpha = \ell g^2 = 0.0...5.3$, 

1012: and we also have data for $\alpha = \infty$.

1013: 

1014: In order to control finite lattice spacing and finite volume artifacts, 

1015: we have carried out simulations at two values of 

1016: $\beta$, $\beta = 6,9$, 

1017: and with a series of volumes in the range 

1018: $V = N_r N_t N_z = 24^3$...$48^3$. Experiences from previous 

1019: studies of the same system~\cite{hpst,adjoint,hp} as well as from 

1020: glueball computations with pure SU(2) gauge theory

1021: in three dimensions~\cite{mt} suggest that such values

1022: are already safely in the scaling region.

1023: 

1024: The update algorithm used for the simulations is a combination

1025: of one heat bath update cycle followed by four overrelaxation updates

1026: for both the gauge and the adjoint scalar fields.  

1027: More details concerning the implementation 

1028: can be found in Ref.~\cite{adjoint}.  

1029: 

1030: 

1031: \subsection{Measuring the Polyakov loop correlation functions}

1032: 

1033: In a confining system at large $L_t$ the Polyakov loop correlation

1034: function is a very ``noisy'' observable: the magnitude of the

1035: correlation function is $\sim \exp(-\sigma L_t R)$, whereas the noise

1036: is always of order unity.  Thus, without any advanced techniques huge

1037: statistics is needed.  We employ here a modification of the multilevel

1038: approach presented in Ref.~\cite{lw}.

1039: 

1040: To summarize our method, let us 

1041: again consider a lattice of size 

1042: $N_r\times N_t\times N_z$, 

1043: where the Polyakov loops are oriented along the $t$-direction and the

1044: correlation function is to be measured in the $r$-direction.  One measurement

1045: cycle works as follows:

1046: \begin{itemize}

1047: \item[1.] Divide the

1048:   lattice into $N_t$ sublattices by {\em freezing} the following variables:

1049: 

1050:   (a) gauge link variables $U_r$ and $U_z$ and adjoint scalars $\chi$ 

1051:    which reside on the $(r,z)$-planes located

1052:    at $t/a=0,2,\ldots N_t-2$,\footnote{%

1053:      We assume that indices start from zero, 

1054:      i.e., $t/a=0\ldots N_t-1$, for example.}

1055:    and

1056: 

1057:   (b) $U_t$, $U_z$ and $\chi$ on $(t,z)$-planes at $r=0$ 

1058:   and $r/a=N_r/2$.

1059:   

1060: \item[2.] Perform $N$ update sweeps on the non-frozen variables within

1061:   all the sublattices.  Because the boundaries of the sublattices are

1062:   fixed, we can generate a valid full lattice configuration by

1063:   choosing any of the $N$ configurations from each sublattice, giving

1064:   a total of $N^{N_t}$ lattice configurations.

1065:   

1066: \item[3.] The Polyakov loop correlation function is measured so that

1067:   one of the loops is located in the interval $0 < r_1/a < N_r/2$ and

1068:   the other at $N_r/2 < r_2/a < N_r$.  This gives effectively $N^{N_t}$

1069:   measurements; the exponential growth with $N_t$ compensates for the

1070:   exponential decrease in the signal. 

1071: 

1072: \item[4.] In practice, one improved correlation function

1073:   measurement is (we suppress the $z$-coordinate)

1074:   \be

1075:        \bar C(r_2 - r_1) = \bar{P}^\dagger(r_1) \bar{P}(r_2)

1076:   ~,~~~~

1077:   %\mbox{where} 

1078:    ~~ 

1079:     \bar{P}(r) = \tr\left[\bar{S}(0,r)

1080:       \bar{S}(2a,r)\ldots\bar{S}((N_t-2)a,r)\right] \;,

1081:   \ee

1082:   where $\bar S$ is the average of the 2-link piece of the

1083:   Polyakov loop within one sublattice:

1084:   \be

1085:       \bar{S}(t,r) = \fr{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N U_t^{(i)}(t,r)U_t^{(i)}(t+a,r).

1086:   \ee

1087:   Clearly, $\bar S$ is an average over $N$, $\bar P$ over

1088:   $N^{N_t/2}$ and $\bar C(r_2-r_1)$ over $N^{N_t}$ measurements.

1089: 

1090:   The results are further averaged over $r_1$ while 

1091:   $R=r_2-r_1$ is kept fixed.   However, $r_1$ and $r_2$ should not

1092:   be too close to the fixed $r=0$ and

1093:   $r/a=N_r/2$ planes, which would diminish the configuration-by-configuration

1094:   variation and hence the noise reduction.  Thus, the technique works best

1095:   when $R/a$ is largest, $\sim N_r/2$, just where it is needed.  

1096: 

1097: \end{itemize}

1098: The parameter $N$ is to be optimized for  the physical situation in

1099: question; the range we  used is $N\sim 100-300$.   Naturally, the $N$

1100: configurations are far from independent; thus, standard update cycles

1101: must be performed too.  Nevertheless, the method achieves the goal of

1102: strongly reducing the statistical noise. Clearly, maximizing the

1103: number of sublattices achieves the highest averaging.  However,

1104: $t$-slices of thickness 1 (which would yield $N^{2N_t}$ measurements)

1105: are not very useful, because the variables within blocks would be too

1106: strongly locked in place. 

1107: 

1108: The difference between the method  above and the one presented in

1109: Ref.~\cite{lw} is that the latter does not implement the freezing of

1110: the planes in step 1(b) above.  The number of measurements is thus

1111: cut  to $N^{N_t/2}$; on the other hand a larger optimal $N$ tends to 

1112: compensate for this.  In our case the existence of the scalar field

1113: $\chi$ in general lowers the useful values for $N$ --- indeed, in the

1114: broken phase the whole improvement becomes largely unnecessary.

1115: 

1116: \vspace*{0.5cm}

1117: 

1118: Let us end this section with another technical comment. Before

1119: starting the  measurements, the system needs to be ``thermalised''.

1120: That is, one starts from some initial configuration (for instance

1121: ``cold'', whereby all fields are frozen to values corresponding to

1122: the classical minimum of the action, or ``hot'', whereby all fields

1123: have random values) and carries out updates until the system has

1124: reached a typical ``fluctuating'' configuration, which should be

1125: independent of the initial one. It now turns out that with a ``hot''

1126: start, the  thermalisation process is anomalously slow. The reason is

1127: that the system can  contain U(1) vortices and anti-vortices 

1128: penetrating through the domain wall. Since there is no net magnetic

1129: flux, all the vortices and anti-vortices must eventually evaporate,

1130: but microscopic updates are very slow in  achieving such a global

1131: change in practice. With a ``cold'' start, on the contrary,  there is

1132: no problem with thermalisation, and it is thus the method of choice

1133: for this system.

1134: 

1135: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1136: \section{Results}

1137: \la{se:results}

1138: 

1139: %% Static force in pure SU(2): 

1140: %% $\sqrt{\sigma}/g^2 = 0.3794(50)$ for $\beta_G = 6$, 

1141: %% $\sqrt{\sigma}/g^2 = 0.3650(9)$ for $\beta_G = 9$, 

1142: %% and $\sqrt{\sigma}/g^2 = 0.3353(18)$, in the continuum limit~\cite{mt}.

1143: 

1144: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1145: \begin{figure}[tb]

1146: 

1147: \centerline{

1148:     \psfig{file=fig1.eps,angle=0, width=7.5cm}

1149: }

1150: 

1151: %%\vspace*{0.5cm}

1152: 

1153: \caption[a]{Various condensates, 

1154: as well as the mass parameter $y(z)$,  as a function of $z/\ell$ 

1155: at $\alpha = \ell g^2 = 2.667$, $\beta=9$, $V =  48^2 \times 32$. 

1156: In a homogeneous

1157: system, the phase transition point is at

1158: $y(z) = y_c \approx 0.15$~\cite{adjoint}.

1159: The classical prediction for the scalar condensate, obtained

1160: by solving the equations of motion numerically, is also shown. 

1161: % (An exact classical 

1162: % solution can be obtained if $y_2 = 1/\alpha^2, y_1+y_2 < 0$: 

1163: %  then $\langle\tr [\chi^2/g^2]\rangle_\rmi{classical} 

1164: % = |y_1+y_2|/[2 x \cosh^2(z/\ell)]$.)

1165: }

1166: 

1167: \la{fig:conden}

1168: \end{figure}

1169: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1170: 

1171: We now move on to discuss our numerical results. 

1172: To start with, we show in \fig\ref{fig:conden} the actual 

1173: structure of the domain wall for typical parameter values, 

1174: in terms of local condensates. It is seen that, judging 

1175: by the eye, the width of the domain wall is indeed well determined

1176: by the input parameter $\ell$, as defined through~\eq\nr{m2z}. 

1177: There is quite a difference, though, in the magnitudes of the lattice

1178: value of the condensate (square boxes) and the tree-level value

1179: (continuous line). The difference can be explained by the fact that with 

1180: our choice of parameters higher order corrections to condensates are

1181: of the same order as the tree-level value, so that perturbation theory cannot 

1182: be trusted. We have checked (in the limit of a thick domain wall) that 

1183: an account of 1-loop effects makes the difference considerably smaller.

1184: 

1185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1186: \begin{figure}[tb]

1187: 

1188: \centerline{

1189:   \psfig{file=fig2.eps,angle=0, width=7.5cm}%

1190: }

1191: 

1192: 

1193: %%\vspace*{0.5cm}

1194: 

1195: \caption[a]{The static force for various values of $\alpha$, 

1196: at $\beta = 6$, as a function of $R/L_r$.

1197: When not visible, the error bars are smaller than the symbol sizes. 

1198: The volume is 

1199: $V = 24^3$ for $\alpha = \infty$, and $V=32^2 \times 24$ otherwise. 

1200: The pure gauge value at $\beta = 6$ is taken from Ref.~\cite{mt}.} 

1201: % $\sigma/g^4 = 0.144(4)$ .}

1202: 

1203: \la{fig:hom}

1204: \la{fig:force_ff}

1205: \end{figure}

1206: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1207: 

1208: Our basic observable, the force $F_P(R)$ in the central plane $z=0$, 

1209: is shown in~\fig\ref{fig:force_ff}, 

1210: for various values of $\alpha = \ell g^2$.

1211: For $\alpha = 0$, corresponding to 3d confinining behaviour, the force 

1212: becomes constant (or rather tanh-like) at intermediate distances, 

1213: representing the 3d string tension.  

1214: Measurements are relatively difficult, since the Polyakov loop correlation

1215: function decays rapidly with $R$. As $\alpha$ is increased,

1216: the interior of the domain wall starts to look more and more like

1217: a homogeneous broken symmetry phase,  and 

1218: the plateau moves down, eventually 

1219: disappearing completely. The force then resembles 

1220: the behaviour observed in the 3d broken symmetry phase, 

1221: \eq\nr{3dcoulomb}, corresponding to $\alpha = \infty$.

1222: 

1223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1224: \begin{figure}[tb]

1225: 

1226: \centerline{

1227:   \psfig{file=fig3a.eps,angle=0, width=7cm}%

1228:   ~~\psfig{file=fig3b.eps,angle=0, width=7cm}%

1229: }

1230: 

1231: %%\vspace*{0.5cm}

1232: 

1233: \caption[a]{Left:

1234: The static force in the central plane in two different runs,

1235: at  $\ell g^2=2$, $\beta=6$, $V=32^2\times 24$. The system 

1236: can be in one of two metastable states, resulting in different

1237: qualitative behaviours for the force. These are referred to as 

1238: the ``thin brane'' and the ``thick brane'', because the former

1239: has the functional form appearing in the limit $\ell \to 0$, 

1240: the latter in the limit $\ell \to \infty$.

1241: Right: The ``thick brane''

1242: static force, divided by $(1-2R/L_r)$, at 

1243: different values of $L_r$, compared with results for 

1244: the homogeneous broken symmetry phase. The parameters 

1245: are $\beta$ = 6,  $V$ = $L_r \times 24^2$.}

1246: 

1247: \la{fig:ell3}

1248: \la{fig:force6v}

1249: \end{figure}

1250: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1251: 

1252: The quantity we would like to extract from curves of the

1253: type in \fig\ref{fig:force_ff} will be referred to as the

1254: ``string tension''. There are, however, two qualitatively different 

1255: regimes for the behaviour observed: for small $\alpha$, the domain wall is 

1256: essentially in the symmetric phase and we extract

1257: the string tension from the plateau in $F_P(R)$ at $R \ll L_r$.

1258: On the other hand, for larger $\alpha$

1259: the domain wall is in the broken symmetry phase, and the string tension

1260: is extracted from the coefficient 

1261: of a ``linear term'' in $F_P(R)$, that is, from $F_P(R)/[1- 2 R/L_r]$ at 

1262: $R \approx L_r / 2$. 

1263: It turns out that, as a remnant of the first order transition 

1264: experienced by the homogeneous system at $x = 0.20$,  

1265: for certain values of $\alpha$ the central plane can even be in one 

1266: of two metastable branches, exhibiting these two patterns.

1267: This situation is illustrated in~\fig\ref{fig:force6v}(left).

1268: 

1269: While a force constant in $R$ at intermediate distances

1270: is a signal of non-Abelian 3d confinement, 

1271: a behaviour linear in $1-2 R/L_r$ as $R\rightarrow L_r/2$  

1272: still allows for two 

1273: different interpretations: 3d Coulomb phase, characterised

1274: by~\eq\nr{3dcoulomb}, and 2d Coulomb phase, characterised by~\eq\nr{zero}. 

1275: One can differentiate between the two by

1276: approaching $R \approx L_r / 2$, where

1277: \ba

1278:  \frac{\sigma}{g^4} \equiv \lim_{R\to \frac{L_r}{2}}

1279:  \frac{1}{g^4} \biggl[ \frac{F_P(R)}{1-2R/L_r} \biggr] & = & 

1280:  \frac{3\pi}{16 g^2 L_r} \;, ~~~~~~ \mbox{3d U(1)} \;, \la{probe1} \\

1281:  & = & \frac{1}{8 g^2 L_\rmi{brane}} \;, ~~~ \mbox{2d U(1)}

1282:  \;. \la{probe}

1283: \ea

1284: Therefore, if we increase the system size $L_r$, the existence

1285: of a 2d zero-mode is signalled by the force approaching 

1286: a constant,\footnote{% 

1287:   Let us stress again that 

1288:   the existence of a string tension in an Abelian theory

1289:   is specific to 2d.

1290:   }

1291: while for a 3d Coulomb phase the apparent ``string tension'' vanishes

1292: in the infinite volume limit as $\sim 1/L_r$, and the potential becomes 

1293: a power law, \eq\nr{powerlaw}. These different

1294: qualitative behaviours are illustrated in~\fig\ref{fig:force6v}(right).

1295: Thus, whether dimensional reduction takes place or not

1296: can be seen by monitoring the dependence of the observable

1297: in~\eq\nr{probe1} on the box size $L_r$. 

1298: 

1299: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1300: \begin{figure}[tb]

1301: 

1302: \centerline{

1303:      \psfig{file=fig4.eps,angle=0,width=7.5cm}

1304: }

1305: 

1306: %%\vspace*{0.5cm}

1307: 

1308: \caption[a]{The string tension, $\sigma/g^4$, 

1309: as a function of $\alpha/(1+\alpha)$.

1310: Pure gauge values are from Ref.~\cite{mt}.

1311: The physical volume 

1312: for the three smallest $\alpha$'s is $g^6 a^3 V = 16^2 \times 10.67$,

1313: % ($V = 24^2\times 16$ for $\beta = 6$, $V = 36^2\times 24$ for $\beta = 9$), 

1314: otherwise $g^6 a^3 V=21.33^2 \times 16$.

1315: %($V = 32^2\times 24$ for $\beta = 6$, $V = 48^2 \times 36$ for $\beta = 9$). 

1316: The labels ``thin brane'' and ``thick brane'' refer to whether 

1317: the functional form of the data points resembles

1318: the upper or lower curve in~\fig\ref{fig:ell3}(left), 

1319: which in turn determines the fit ansatz employed (see the text).}

1320: 

1321: \la{fig:sig_ell}

1322: \la{tab:sig_ell}

1323: \end{figure}

1324: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1325: 

1326: 

1327: Results for the string tension, extracted either from a plateau

1328: in the static force $F_P(R)$, 

1329: or as defined in~\eq\nr{probe1}, are shown as a function 

1330: of $\alpha$ in~\fig\ref{fig:sig_ell}. We observe that the behaviour

1331: interpolates between the 3d confinement and 3d Coulomb behaviours. For 

1332: narrow domain walls, or small $\alpha \lsim 2.0$, the system behaves

1333: as a 3d confinement phase (``thin brane''). 

1334: For larger $\alpha$, it is dominated by

1335: a 2d zero-mode (``thick brane''), 

1336: with a string tension scaling as $\sim 1/L_\rmi{brane}$, 

1337: as in~\eq\nr{probe}. Note that

1338: the system goes over into the ``thick brane'' regime only when

1339: the string tension is a factor 3...4 smaller than in the bulk.

1340: Increasing $\alpha$ further, 

1341: the string tension continues to decrease, but the system 

1342: starts simultaneously to look more and more like a 3d Coulomb phase, 

1343: to which it finally goes over as $\alpha\to\infty$.

1344: 

1345: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1346: \begin{table}

1347: 

1348: \vspace{0.5cm}

1349: 

1350: \centerline{

1351: \begin{tabular}{cccc}

1352: \hline

1353:  \multicolumn{2}{l}{$\alpha = 2.667$} & 

1354:  \multicolumn{2}{l}{~~~~~$\alpha = \infty$}

1355: \\ \hline

1356:  $V = L_r \times 24\times 24$  & $ \sigma / g^4$  & 

1357:  ~~~~~$V = L_r \times 24\times 24$  & $ \sigma / g^4$  

1358: \\ \hline

1359:  $ L_r=24$   & 0.029(1) &

1360:  ~~~~~$ L_r=24$   & 0.0160(5) \\ % chi2 /dof = 0.40 10->11

1361:  $ L_r=36$   & 0.031(2) &

1362:  ~~~~~$ L_r=36$   & 0.0110(7) \\ % chi2 /dof = 1.05 10->16

1363:  $ L_r=48$   & 0.028(1) &

1364:  ~~~~~$ L_r=48$   & 0.0098(5) \\ % chi2 /dof = 1.9(5.3)  10->18

1365: \hline

1366:  $V=32\times L_t\times 16$  &  $ \sigma / g^4$ & & \\

1367:  \hline

1368:  $L_t=16$  &  0.028(2) & &  \\   %0.1133(50)\\

1369:  $L_t=24$  &  0.026(2) & &  \\    %0.1346(81)\\

1370:  $L_t=32$  &  0.030(3) & &  \\    %0.1875(77)\\

1371:  $L_t=40$  &  0.028(2) & &  \\     % 0.2284(93)\\

1372: \hline

1373:  $V = 32\times 32 \times L_z$  &  $ \sigma / g^4$ & & \\

1374: \hline

1375:  $L_z=16$  &  0.030(3) & &  \\ %0.1875(77) \\

1376:  $L_z=24$  &  0.028(2) & & \\ %0.1609(81) \\

1377:  $L_z=32$  &  0.029(1) & & \\ %0.165(11)  \\

1378: \hline

1379: \end{tabular}}

1380: 

1381: 

1382: \caption{Finite-volume scaling of $\sigma/g^4$ as 

1383: defined in \eq\nr{probe1}, 

1384: at $\beta=6$, $\alpha = 2.667$ (left), and $\alpha = \infty$ (right).}

1385: 

1386: \la{tab:mp_vol}

1387: \end{table}

1388: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1389: 

1390: As discussed above, to make a rigorous distinction between a 2d

1391: Coulomb and 3d Coulomb behaviour, one has to carry out a finite-size

1392: scaling study, as in~\fig\ref{fig:force6v}(right).

1393: The corresponding $\sigma$'s are

1394: shown in the top part of Table~\ref{tab:mp_vol}: it is again seen

1395: clearly that

1396: at $\alpha = 2.667$ the string tension is indeed independent of 

1397: $L_r$, while at $\alpha = \infty$ it is not. 

1398: 

1399: Table~\ref{tab:mp_vol} also serves to demonstrate that our 

1400: results are independent of the extents of the system in all  

1401: the directions, for a given lattice spacing. 

1402: The independence of the lattice spacing, for a given physical 

1403: volume, is demonstrated by~\fig\ref{fig:sig_ell}.

1404: 

1405: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1406: \begin{figure}[tb]

1407: 

1408: \centerline{

1409:   \psfig{file=fig5a.eps,angle=0, height=6.5cm}%

1410:   ~~\psfig{file=fig5b.eps,angle=0,height=6.5cm}%

1411: }

1412: 

1413: %%\vspace*{0.5cm}

1414: 

1415: \caption[a]{Left: The static force in various planes, for 

1416: $\ell g^2=2.667,~\beta=9,~V=48^2 \times 32$. % ; $\ell/L_r = 0.125$.

1417: Right: The corresponding string tensions, $\sigma/g^4$, 

1418: together with the scalar condensate. %; cf.\ \fig\ref{fig:conden}.

1419: For $z/\ell\ge1.0$ ($z/\ell < 1.0$), the fit is of the ``thin brane''

1420: (``thick brane'') type

1421: in \fig\ref{fig:ell3}(left).}

1422: 

1423: \la{fig:force9p}

1424: \la{fig:wf9}

1425: \end{figure}

1426: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1427: 

1428: The discussion so far has been for the force in the central plane, $z=0$.

1429: In \fig\ref{fig:force9p} we show how the force depends on $z$.

1430: The pattern is as expected: the behaviour characteristic of

1431: the properties of the 2d zero-mode is well localised, and outside

1432: of the domain wall the dynamics is that of the bulk theory.

1433: 

1434: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1435: \begin{figure}[tb]

1436: 

1437: \centerline{

1438:     \psfig{file=fig6.eps,angle=0,width=7.5cm}%

1439:     }

1440: 

1441: %%\vspace*{0.5cm}

1442: 

1443: \caption[a]{The observable $m_\rmi{eff}(R)$ 

1444: defined in~\eq\nr{eq:higher}, multiplied by $\ell$, 

1445: as a function of $R/\ell$, for various $\ell$ ($\alpha = \ell g^2$). 

1446: The independence of $\alpha$ at large $R \gsim \ell$ demonstrates that 

1447: $m_\rmi{eff} \sim 1/\ell$.}

1448: 

1449: \la{fig:higher}

1450: \end{figure}

1451: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1452: 

1453: All the evidence presented so far supports the conjecture that 

1454: the low-energy dynamics on the brane is determined by a localised

1455: 2d zero-mode. In order to understand the distance scale at which

1456: corrections to the zero-mode dynamics become important, however, 

1457: one should also determine the mass gap to the higher modes

1458: in the central plane. 

1459: To achieve this, we define the  quantity

1460: \be

1461:  m_\rmi{eff}(R) \equiv - 

1462:  \frac{F_P''(R)} 

1463:  {[F_P(R)/(1-2R/L)]'}

1464:  \;, \la{eq:higher}

1465: \ee

1466: where $[...]' \equiv {\rm d}[...] /{\rm d} R$.

1467: According to~\eqs\nr{zero}, \nr{m1}, the zero-mode does not 

1468: contribute to this observable, and the leading non-trivial contribution 

1469: at large distances is $m_\rmi{eff}(R) \approx m_1$. 

1470: 

1471: In~\fig\ref{fig:higher} we plot a discretised version of

1472: $m_\rmi{eff}(R)$, in the dimensionless form $\ell\, m_\rmi{eff}(R)$. 

1473: Thus, if $m_1 \sim 1/L_\rmi{brane} \propto 1/\ell$, we should obtain 

1474: a constant value, independent of $\ell$. This indeed is the 

1475: behaviour observed, within statistical errors. Moreover, the distance

1476: where the plateau value is reached is $R/\ell \sim 1$, consistent

1477: with the scenario that the masses of higher modes still 

1478: also scale as $1/\ell$, 

1479: as expected for ``Kaluza--Klein type'' excitations. 

1480: 

1481: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1482: \section{Conclusions and outlook}

1483: \la{se:concl}

1484: 

1485: The purpose of this paper has been to test with numerical lattice 

1486: Monte Carlo simulations some basic features of a mechanism proposed 

1487: for gauge field localisation on domain wall defects by Dvali and  

1488: Shifman~\cite{ds}. The mechanism relies on non-perturbative dynamics 

1489: in the ``bulk'' outside of the domain wall, and is thus not easily 

1490: ``proven'' to work with analytic methods alone.  

1491: 

1492: Dvali and Shifman considered originally a 3+1 dimensional SU(2) gauge

1493: theory,  arguing that the low-energy dynamics was that of 2+1

1494: dimensional  U(1) gauge theory. For technical reasons, and since the

1495: main physics arguments  remain essentially unchanged, we simplified

1496: in this paper the setting further, and took as the starting point a

1497: 2+1 dimensional SU(2) gauge theory,   with adjoint scalar matter. 

1498: 

1499: The basic pattern we found can be summarised as follows (cf.\

1500: \fig\ref{fig:sig_ell}).  Suppose the 2+1 dimensional theory has a

1501: large confinement scale $\Lambda$, and consider the dynamics on the

1502: brane. If the thickness of the brane is of order unity with respect

1503: to $\Lambda^{-1}$, the dynamics remains the same as in 2+1

1504: dimensions, but the effective string tension decreases rather rapidly

1505: with the thickness (open symbols in \fig\ref{fig:sig_ell}).  As the

1506: brane is made thicker, the dynamics becomes finally 1+1 dimensional

1507: (closed symbols in \fig\ref{fig:sig_ell}), with the ``confinement

1508: scale'' (or string tension, $\sqrt{\sigma}$) taking over (almost)

1509: smoothly from the 2+1 dimensional value. However the transition

1510: between the two behaviours actually seems to  be discontinuous in our

1511: system (cf.\ \fig\ref{fig:ell3}(left)). Increasing the width further,

1512: $\sqrt{\sigma}$ goes down as $\sim 1/\sqrt{L_\rmi{brane}}$, while the

1513: mass gap to the higher modes goes down as $1/L_\rmi{brane}$. An

1514: effective 1+1 dimensional description with an extremely small

1515: $\sqrt{\sigma} \ll \Lambda$ is only reached for $L_\rmi{brane} \gg

1516: \Lambda^{-1}$, and is then valid only at distances $\gg

1517: L_\rmi{brane}$ which implies a kind of a hierarchy problem: there

1518: have to be two {\em different} large scales compared with the

1519: dynamical energy scales of the zero-mode system (such as masses of

1520: bound states,  or $\sqrt{\sigma}$), namely $L_\rmi{brane}^{-1}$ and

1521: $\Lambda$.  Moreover, scales such as $\sqrt{\sigma}$ are  {\em

1522: larger} than the masses of some of the higher modes,  which means

1523: that the contributions from the latter are not suppressed in

1524: generic infrared observables.

1525: 

1526: How would this pattern change in 3+1 dimensions? If we consider the  

1527: very scenario studied by Dvali and Shifman, then there is in fact a

1528: clear difference. The reason is that the 2+1 dimensional

1529: U(1) theory no longer has a string  tension associated with a

1530: linearly rising potential (ignoring the exponentially small value

1531: produced by the Polyakov mechanism). 

1532: Thus, repeating our measurements, one

1533: would  indeed expect to observe a qualitative change in the  

1534: low-energy dynamics, once the width of the domain wall is   somewhat

1535: wider than the inverse of the   confinement scale outside the brane:

1536: the closed symbols  in~\fig\ref{fig:sig_ell} would all lie on an (almost)

1537: straight line,  at (almost) vanishing $\sigma$, signalling a 

1538: phase transition between the bulk-like ``thin brane'' and 

1539: localised ``thick brane'' regimes.  

1540: 

1541: On the other hand,   if we rather consider a non-Abelian case, say a

1542: bulk SU(3) theory, such  that the low-energy dynamics is that of 2+1

1543: dimensional SU(2)$\times$U(1) theory, and probe the properties of 

1544: the non-Abelian part, then the pattern should again be  largely

1545: similar to what we   found in this paper. In other words, the domain

1546: wall has to be   wider than the inverse of the bulk confinement scale

1547: for   a 2+1 dimensional zero-mode to exist, but in general the

1548: confinement  scale of the corresponding 

1549: low-energy effective theory is smaller than that in the bulk

1550: only by some  numerical factor roughly of order unity,   unless the

1551: domain wall is significantly  wider

1552: than the inverse of the bulk confinement scale. In the latter case 

1553: the masses of localised bound states (or, say, the string tension

1554: $\sqrt{\sigma}$)  are expected to scale as  $\sim g^2 \sim

1555: g_4^2(\ell^{-1}) \ell^{-1}$, where $g_4^2(\bmu)$ is the renormalised

1556: 4d gauge coupling. For $1/\ell$ much below the 4d Yang-Mills 

1557: confinement scale they are

1558: thus of the same order of magnitude or larger than the lightest of

1559: the higher modes, with masses $\sim 1/\ell$. 

1560: 

1561: The situation in the 3+1 dimensional case can perhaps be illustrated

1562: by noting that,  in a way, the present mechanism is analogous to the

1563: familiar dimensional  reduction of 4d Yang-Mills theory at a finite

1564: temperature $T$, which occurs  only for $T$ above the deconfinement

1565: phase transition temperature.  The role of $T$ is played  by

1566: $\ell^{-1}$. The conflict arises because we now need a domain wall

1567: wider than the bulk confinement scale,  corresponding to $T$ below

1568: the deconfinement phase transition,  thus no dimensional reduction.

1569: 

1570: It would naturally be very interesting to understand whether  the

1571: patterns observed in this paper change if we go to the physically

1572: interesting  $4+n$ dimensional case, with $n \ge 1$.

1573: 

1574: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1575: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1576: 

1577: We thank D.~B\"odeker, P.~de Forcrand and M.~Shifman  for helpful

1578: discussions. This work was partly supported by the RTN network {\em

1579: Supersymmetry  and the Early Universe}, EU Contract No.\

1580: HPRN-CT-2000-00152, by the Swiss Science Foundation,

1581: and by the Academy of Finland,  grant No.~104382. H.M.\ thanks the

1582: University of Lausanne for the generous {\em Bourse de

1583: perfectionnement et de recherche}. 

1584: 

1585: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1586: 

1587: 

1588: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1589: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1590: 

1591: %\input{refs.tex}

1592: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1593: 

1594: %\cite{Rubakov:bb}

1595: \bibitem{Rubakov:bb}

1596: V.A.~Rubakov and M.E.~Shaposhnikov,

1597: %``Do We Live Inside A Domain Wall?,''

1598: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {125} (1983) 136.

1599: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B125,136;%%

1600: 

1601: %\cite{Akama:jy}

1602: \bibitem{Akama:jy}

1603: K.~Akama,

1604: %``An Early Proposal Of 'Brane World',''

1605: Lect.\ Notes Phys.\  {176} (1982) 267

1606: [hep-th/0001113].

1607: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0001113;%%

1608: 

1609: \bibitem{rs}

1610: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,

1611: %``An alternative to compactification,''

1612: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {83} (1999) 4690

1613: [hep-th/9906064].

1614: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906064;%%

1615: 

1616: \bibitem{add}

1617: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.R.~Dvali,

1618: %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''

1619: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {429} (1998) 263

1620: [hep-ph/9803315];

1621: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%

1622: %

1623: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.R.~Dvali,

1624: %``New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,''

1625: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {436} (1998) 257

1626: [hep-ph/9804398];

1627: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804398;%%

1628: %

1629: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.R.~Dvali,

1630: %``Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with 

1631: % sub-millimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity,''

1632: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {59} (1999) 086004

1633: [hep-ph/9807344].

1634: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807344;%%

1635: 

1636: %\cite{DeWolfe:1999cp}

1637: \bibitem{DeWolfe:1999cp}

1638: O.~DeWolfe, D.Z.~Freedman, S.S.~Gubser and A.~Karch,

1639: %``Modeling the fifth dimension with scalars and gravity,''

1640: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {62} (2000) 046008

1641: [hep-th/9909134].

1642: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9909134;%%

1643: 

1644: %\cite{Giovannini:2001hh}

1645: \bibitem{Giovannini:2001hh}

1646: M.~Giovannini, H.~Meyer and M.E.~Shaposhnikov,

1647: %``Warped compactification on Abelian vortex in six dimensions,''

1648: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {619} (2001) 615

1649: [hep-th/0104118].

1650: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104118;%%

1651: 

1652: %\cite{Roessl:2002rv}

1653: \bibitem{Roessl:2002rv}

1654: E.~Roessl and M.~Shaposhnikov,

1655: %``Localizing gravity on a 't Hooft-Polyakov monopole in seven dimensions,''

1656: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {66} (2002) 084008

1657: [hep-th/0205320].

1658: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205320;%%

1659: 

1660: %\cite{Randjbar-Daemi:2002pq}

1661: \bibitem{Randjbar-Daemi:2002pq}

1662: S.~Randjbar-Daemi and M.~Shaposhnikov,

1663: %``A formalism to analyze the spectrum of brane world scenarios,''

1664: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {645} (2002) 188

1665: [hep-th/0206016].

1666: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206016;%%

1667: 

1668: \bibitem{vr}

1669: V.A.~Rubakov,

1670: %``Large and infinite extra dimensions: An introduction,''

1671: Phys.\ Usp.\  {44} (2001) 871

1672: [Usp.\ Fiz.\ Nauk {171} (2001) 913]

1673: [hep-ph/0104152].

1674: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104152;%%

1675: 

1676: 

1677: %\cite{Rubakov:1983bz}

1678: \bibitem{Rubakov:1983bz}

1679: V.A.~Rubakov and M.E.~Shaposhnikov,

1680: % ``Extra Space-Time Dimensions: 

1681: %Towards A Solution To The Cosmological Constant

1682: %Problem,''

1683: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {125} (1983) 139.

1684: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B125,139;%%

1685: 

1686: \bibitem{baj}

1687: B.~Bajc and G.~Gabadadze,

1688: %``Localization of matter and cosmological constant

1689: % on a brane in anti de  Sitter space,''

1690: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {474} (2000) 282

1691: [hep-th/9912232].

1692: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9912232;%%

1693: 

1694: %\cite{Oda:2000zc}

1695: \bibitem{Oda:2000zc}

1696: I.~Oda,

1697: %``Localization of matters on a string-like defect,''

1698: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {496} (2000) 113

1699: [hep-th/0006203].

1700: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0006203;%%

1701: 

1702: \bibitem{Randjbar-Daemi:2000cr}

1703: S.~Randjbar-Daemi and M.E.~Shaposhnikov,

1704: %``Fermion zero-modes on brane-worlds,''

1705: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {492} (2000) 361

1706: [hep-th/0008079].

1707: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0008079;%%

1708: 

1709: \bibitem{Kehagias}

1710: A.~Kehagias and K.~Tamvakis,

1711: %``Localized gravitons, gauge bosons and chiral fermions

1712: % in smooth spaces  generated by a bounce,''

1713: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {504} (2001) 38

1714: [hep-th/0010112].

1715: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0010112;%%

1716: 

1717: %\cite{Neronov:2001qv}

1718: \bibitem{Neronov:2001qv}

1719: A.~Neronov,

1720: %``Fermion masses and quantum numbers from extra dimensions,''

1721: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {65} (2002) 044004

1722: [gr-qc/0106092].

1723: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0106092;%%

1724: 

1725: %\cite{Randjbar-Daemi:2003qd}

1726: \bibitem{Randjbar-Daemi:2003qd}

1727: S.~Randjbar-Daemi and M.~Shaposhnikov,

1728: %``QED from six-dimensional vortex and gauge anomalies,''

1729: JHEP {04} (2003) 016

1730: [hep-th/0303247].

1731: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303247;%%

1732: 

1733: %\cite{Dubovsky:2000av}

1734: \bibitem{Dubovsky:2000av}

1735: S.L.~Dubovsky, V.A.~Rubakov and P.G.~Tinyakov,

1736: %``Is the electric charge conserved in brane world?,''

1737: JHEP {08} (2000) 041

1738: [hep-ph/0007179].

1739: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007179;%%

1740: 

1741: %\cite{Neronov:2001br}

1742: \bibitem{Neronov:2001br}

1743: A.~Neronov,

1744: %``Localization of Kaluza-Klein gauge fields on a brane,''

1745: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {64} (2001) 044018

1746: [hep-th/0102210].

1747: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0102210;%%

1748: 

1749: %\cite{Giovannini:2002sb}

1750: \bibitem{Giovannini:2002sb}

1751: M.~Giovannini,

1752: %``Gauge field localization on Abelian vortices in six dimensions,''

1753: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {66} (2002) 044016

1754: [hep-th/0205139].

1755: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205139;%%

1756: 

1757: \bibitem{dbk}

1758: D.B.~Kaplan,

1759: %``A Method for simulating chiral fermions on the lattice,''

1760: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {288} (1992) 342

1761: [hep-lat/9206013].

1762: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9206013;%%

1763: 

1764: %\cite{Dubovsky:2001pe}

1765: \bibitem{Dubovsky:2001pe}

1766: S.L.~Dubovsky and V.A.~Rubakov,

1767: %``On models of gauge field localization on a brane,''

1768: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {16} (2001) 4331

1769: [hep-th/0105243].

1770: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0105243;%%

1771: 

1772: %\cite{Shaposhnikov:2001nz}

1773: \bibitem{Shaposhnikov:2001nz}

1774: M.E.~Shaposhnikov and P.~Tinyakov,

1775: %``Extra dimensions as an alternative to Higgs mechanism?,''

1776: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {515} (2001) 442

1777: [hep-th/0102161].

1778: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0102161;%%

1779: 

1780: \bibitem{us}

1781: M.~Laine, H.B.~Meyer, K.~Rummukainen and M.~Shaposhnikov,

1782: %``Localisation and mass generation for non-Abelian gauge fields,''

1783: JHEP {01} (2003) 068

1784: [hep-ph/0211149].

1785: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211149;%%

1786: 

1787: \bibitem{dfkk}

1788: P.~Dimopoulos, K.~Farakos, A.~Kehagias and G.~Koutsoumbas,

1789: %``Lattice evidence for gauge field localization on a brane,''

1790: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {617} (2001) 237

1791: [hep-th/0007079].

1792: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0007079;%%

1793: 

1794: \bibitem{sy}

1795: M.~Shifman and A.~Yung,

1796: %``Localization of non-Abelian gauge fields on domain walls at weak coupling

1797: %(D-brane prototypes II),''

1798: hep-th/0312257.

1799: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0312257;%%

1800: 

1801: \bibitem{ds}

1802: G.R.~Dvali and M.A.~Shifman,

1803: %``Domain walls in strongly coupled theories,''

1804: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {396} (1997) 64

1805: and B {407} (1997) 452 (E)

1806: [hep-th/9612128].

1807: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9612128;%%

1808: 

1809: \bibitem{mc}

1810: M.~Creutz,

1811: %``Confinement And The Critical Dimensionality Of Space-Time,''

1812: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  { 43} (1979) 553 

1813: and { 43} (1979) 890 (E).

1814: %%CITATION = PRLTA,43,553;%%

1815: 

1816: %\cite{Gies:2003ic}

1817: \bibitem{gies}

1818: K.~Farakos, P.~de Forcrand, C.P.~Korthals Altes, M.~Laine and M.~Vettorazzo,

1819: %``Finite temperature Z(N) phase transition with Kaluza-Klein gauge  fields,''

1820: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {655} (2003) 170

1821: [hep-ph/0207343];

1822: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207343;%%

1823: %

1824: H.~Gies,

1825: %``Renormalizability of gauge theories in extra dimensions,''

1826: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {68} (2003) 085015

1827: [hep-th/0305208].

1828: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305208;%%

1829: 

1830: \bibitem{ahs}

1831: N.~Arkani-Hamed and M.~Schmaltz,

1832: %``Field theoretic branes and tachyons of the {QCD} string,''

1833: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {450} (1999) 92

1834: [hep-th/9812010].

1835: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9812010;%%

1836: 

1837: \bibitem{nt}

1838: N.~Tetradis,

1839: %``The world as a dual Josephson junction,''

1840: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {479} (2000) 265

1841: [hep-ph/9908209].

1842: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908209;%%

1843: 

1844: \bibitem{lw}

1845: M.~L\"uscher and P.~Weisz,

1846: %``Locality and exponential error reduction in numerical lattice gauge  

1847: % theory,''

1848: JHEP {09} (2001) 010

1849: [hep-lat/0108014]

1850: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0108014;%%

1851: %

1852: %``Quark confinement and the bosonic string,''

1853: and {07} (2002) 049

1854: [hep-lat/0207003].

1855: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0207003;%%

1856: 

1857: \bibitem{mt}

1858: M.J.~Teper,

1859: %``SU(N) gauge theories in 2+1 dimensions,''

1860: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {59} (1999) 014512

1861: [hep-lat/9804008].

1862: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9804008;%%

1863: 

1864: \bibitem{hp}

1865: A.~Hart and O.~Philipsen,

1866: %``The spectrum of the three-dimensional adjoint Higgs model and hot SU(2)

1867: % gauge theory,''

1868: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {572} (2000) 243

1869: [hep-lat/9908041].

1870: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9908041;%%

1871: 

1872: \bibitem{p2}

1873: A.M.~Polyakov,

1874: %``Compact Gauge Fields And The Infrared Catastrophe,''

1875: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {59} (1975) 82;

1876: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B59,82;%%

1877: %

1878: %``Quark Confinement And Topology Of Gauge Groups,''

1879: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {120} (1977) 429.

1880: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B120,429;%%

1881: 

1882: \bibitem{th}

1883: G.~'t Hooft,

1884: %``Magnetic Monopoles In Unified Gauge Theories,''

1885: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {79} (1974) 276.

1886: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B79,276;%%

1887: 

1888: \bibitem{p1}

1889: A.M.~Polyakov,

1890: %``Particle Spectrum In Quantum Field Theory,''

1891: JETP Lett.\  {20} (1974) 194

1892: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {20} (1974) 430].

1893: %%CITATION = JTPLA,20,194;%%

1894: 

1895: \bibitem{framework}

1896: K.~Farakos, K.~Kajantie, K.~Rummukainen and M.~Shaposhnikov,

1897: %``3d physics and the electroweak phase transition: 

1898: %a framework for lattice Monte Carlo analysis,''

1899: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {B 442} (1995) 317 [hep-lat/9412091].

1900: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B442,317;%%

1901: 

1902: \bibitem{contlatt}

1903: M.~Laine,

1904: %``Exact relation of lattice and continuum parameters

1905: % in three-dimensional SU(2) + Higgs theories,''

1906: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {451} (1995) 484

1907: [hep-lat/9504001];

1908: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9504001;%%

1909: %

1910: M.~Laine and A.~Rajantie,

1911: %``Lattice-continuum relations for 3d SU(N)+Higgs theories,''

1912: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {B 513} (1998) 471

1913: [hep-lat/9705003].

1914: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9705003;%%

1915: 

1916: \bibitem{moore_a}

1917: G.D.~Moore,

1918: %``Curing O(a) errors in 3-D lattice SU(2) x U(1) Higgs theory,''

1919: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {B 493} (1997) 439 [hep-lat/9610013]

1920: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9610013;%%

1921: %

1922: %``O(a) errors in 3-D SU(N) Higgs theories,''

1923: and B {523} (1998) 569

1924: [hep-lat/9709053].

1925: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9709053;%%

1926: 

1927: \bibitem{Rusakov}

1928: B.E.~Rusakov,

1929:  %``Loop Averages And Partition Functions In U(N) Gauge Theory On

1930: %Two-Dimensional Manifolds,''

1931: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {5} (1990) 693.

1932: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A5,693;%%

1933: 

1934: \bibitem{hpst}

1935: A.~Hart, O.~Philipsen, J.D.~Stack and M.~Teper,

1936: %``On the phase diagram of the SU(2) adjoint Higgs model in  2+1 dimensions,''

1937: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {396} (1997) 217

1938: [hep-lat/9612021].

1939: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9612021;%%

1940: 

1941: \bibitem{adjoint}

1942: K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine, K.~Rummukainen and M.E.~Shaposhnikov,

1943: %``3d SU(N) + adjoint Higgs theory and finite-temperature QCD,''

1944: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {503} (1997) 357

1945: [hep-ph/9704416].

1946: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704416;%%

1947: 

1948: \bibitem{su3}

1949: K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine, A.~Rajantie, K.~Rummukainen and M.~Tsypin,

1950: %``The phase diagram of three-dimensional SU(3) + adjoint Higgs theory,''

1951: JHEP {11} (1998) 011

1952: [hep-lat/9811004].

1953: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9811004;%%

1954: 

1955: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1956: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1957: 

1958: \end{thebibliography}

1959: 

1960: \end{document}

1961: 

1962: