1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{article}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: \usepackage{psfig}

4: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}\normalsize

5: \setlength{\baselineskip}{20mm}

6: \textwidth 15.0 true cm

7: \textheight 22.0 true cm

8: \headheight 0 cm

9: \headsep 0 cm

10: \topmargin 0.4 true in

11: \oddsidemargin 0.25 true in

12: \newcommand{\eqb}{\begin{equation}}

13: \newcommand{\eqe}{\end{equation}}

14: \newcommand{\dmb}{\begin{displaymath}}

15: \newcommand{\dme}{\end{displaymath}}

16: \newcommand{\pd}{\partial}

17: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}

18: \newcommand{\eab}{\begin{eqnarray}}

19: \newcommand{\eae}{\end{eqnarray}}

20: \newcommand{\ra}{\right\rangle}

21: \newcommand{\la}{\left\langle}

22: \newcommand{\e}{\mbox{e}}

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

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

25: \newcommand{\sgn}{\text{sgn}\,}

26: \newcommand{\munu}{{\mu\nu}}

27: \newcommand{\ad}{{\dot{\alpha}}}

28: \newcommand{\bd}{{\dot{\beta}}}

29: \newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}

30: 

31: \begin{document}

32: \begin{titlepage}

33: \begin{flushright}

34: 2004-09 \\

35: HD-THEP-04-19\\ 

36: \end{flushright}

37: \vspace{0.6cm}

38:  

39: 

40: \begin{center}

41: \Large{{\bf Nonperturbative approach to 

42: Yang-Mills thermodynamics}}

43: 

44: \vspace{1cm}

45: 

46: Ralf Hofmann

47: 

48: \end{center}

49: \vspace{0.3cm}

50: 

51: \begin{center}

52: {\em 

53: Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik\\ 

54: Universit\"at Heidelberg\\ 

55: Philosophenweg 16, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany}\vspace{0.5cm}

56: 

57: 

58: \end{center}

59: \vspace{0.5cm}

60: 

61: 

62: \begin{abstract}

63: 

64: An analytical, macroscopic approach to SU(N) Yang-Mills thermodynamics is 

65: developed. This approach self-consistently assumes that at a 

66: temperature much larger than the Yang-Mills scale $\Lambda_{\tiny\mbox{YM,N}}$ (embedded and noninteracting) SU(2) 

67: calorons of trivial holonomy form an adjoint 

68: Higgs field (electric phase). Macroscopically, this field turns out to be thermodynamically and 

69: quantum mechanically stabilized. As a consequence, 

70: the problem of the infrared instability in the perturbative loop expansion of thermodynamical potentials, 

71: generated by the soft magnetic modes, is resolved. 

72: An evolution equation with two fixed points follows for the effective gauge coupling $e(T)$ 

73: from self-consistent thermodynamics involving the 

74: ground-state and its quasiparticle excitations. A plateau value of $e(T)$, which is an 

75: attractor of the evolution, is consistent 

76: with the existence of isolated magnetic monopoles of conserved charge 

77: being generated by dissociating calorons of nontrivial holonomy. The 

78: (up to negligible corrections exact) one-loop and downward evolution of 

79: $e(T)$ predicts the condensation of magnetic monopoles in a $2^{\tiny\mbox{nd}}$-order phase transition 

80: at a critical temperature $T_{E,c}$. At $T_{E,c}$ tree-level 

81: massive gauge modes decouple thermodynamically. This is the confinement phase transition identified in lattice simulations. 

82: For N=2 we compute 

83: the critical exponent taking the mass of 

84: the dual photon as an order parameter. For arbitrary N we show the 

85: restoration of the global electric $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N}}$ 

86: symmetry in the monopole condensed (magnetic) phase by investigating 

87: the Polyakov loop in the effective theory. The magnetic gauge coupling $g(T)$ starts its downward 

88: evolution from zero at 

89: $T_{E,c}$ and runs into a logarithmic pole at $T_{M,c}<T_{E,c}$. 

90: At $T_{M,c}$ center-vortex loops condense, the abelian gauge modes decouple 

91: thermodynamically, and 

92: the equation of state is $\rho=-P$ (zero entropy density). The Hagedorn transition 

93: to the vortex condensing phase (center phase) goes with a complete breakdown of the local 

94: magnetic $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N}}$ symmetry. After a rapid 

95: reheating in terms of (intersecting) center-vortex loops has taken place 

96: the ground-state pressure vanishes {\sl identically} on tree level. 

97: This result is protected against radiative corrections. Throughout the electric 

98: and the magnetic phase and for N=2,3 we compute the 

99: temperature evolution of the (infrared sensitive) pressure and 

100: energy density and for the (infrared insensitive) entropy density and 

101: compare our results with lattice data. We show that the 

102: disagreement for the two former quantities at low temperature 

103: (negative pressure) originates from severe finite-size artefacts in lattice 

104: simulations. For the entropy density we 

105: obtain excellent agreement with lattice results. The implications of our results for 

106: particle physics and cosmology are discussed.  

107: 

108: 

109: \end{abstract} 

110: 

111: \end{titlepage} 

112: 

113: \section{Introduction}

114: 

115: 

116: The beauty and usefulness of the gauge principle for local field theories is 

117: generally appreciated. Yet, in a perturbative approach to gauge theories 

118: like the SM and its (non)supersymmetric extensions it is hard if not impossible 

119: to convincingly address a number of recent experimental and 

120: observational results in particle physics and 

121: cosmology: nondetection of the Higgs particle at LEP \cite{Higgs2000}, 

122: indications for a rapid thermalization and strong collective behavior 

123: in the early stage of an ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collision 

124: \cite{RHIC2003,ShuryakTeaney2001}, dark energy and dark matter at present, a 

125: strongly favored epoch of cosmological inflation in the early Universe 

126: \cite{Linde1982,Guth1982,Starobinsky1982,WMAP2003}, 

127: and the likely existence of intergalactic magnetic 

128: fields \cite{Dai2002,IMF}. An analytical and 

129: nonperturbative approach to strongly interacting gauge 

130: theories may further our understanding of these phenomena. 

131: 

132: It is difficult to gain insights in the dynamics of a strongly interacting 

133: field theory by analytical means. 

134: We conjecture with Ref.\,\cite{Hagedorn1965} that a thermodynamical approach 

135: is an appropriate starting point for such an endeavor. 

136: On the one hand, this conjecture is reasonable since a strongly interacting 

137: system being in equilibrium communicates perturbations almost instantaneously due to 

138: rigid correlations. Thus equilibrium is restored very rapidly. 

139: On the other hand, the requirement of 

140: thermalization poses strong constraints on the {\sl construction} 

141: of a macroscopic, effective theory for the ground state and 

142: its (quasiparticle) excitations. 

143: The objective of the present paper is the thermodynamics of 

144: SU(N) Yang-Mills theories in four dimensions. 

145: 

146: Let us very briefly recall some aspects of the analytical 

147: approaches to thermal SU(N) Yang-Mills theory as they are 

148: discussed in the literature. Because of asymptotic 

149: freedom \cite{GrossWilczek1973,Politzer1973} one would naively 

150: expect thermal perturbation theory to work well for temperatures 

151: $T$ much larger than the Yang-Mills scale $\La_{\tiny\mbox{YM,N}}$ since the gauge coupling 

152: constant $\bar{g}(T)$ logarithmically approaches zero 

153: for $\frac{T}{\La_{\tiny\mbox{YM,N}}}\to\infty$. 

154: It is known for a long time that this expectation is too optimistic since at 

155: any temperature perturbation theory 

156: is plagued by instabilities arising from the infrared sector (weakly screened, 

157: soft magnetic modes \cite{Linde1980}). As a consequence, the pressure $P$ can be computed 

158: perturbatively only up 

159: to (and including) order $\bar{g}^5$. The effects of resummations of 

160: one-loop diagrams (hard thermal loops), which rely on a 

161: scale separation in terms of the small value of 

162: the coupling constant $\bar{g}$, are summarized in terms of a 

163: nonlocal effective theory for soft and 

164: semi-hard modes \cite{BraatenPisarski1990}. In the computation of radiative 

165: effects based on this effective theory 

166: infrared effects due to soft modes still appear in an 

167: uncontrolled manner. This has 

168: lead to the construction of an effective theory where soft modes are collectively described in 

169: terms of classical fields whose dynamics is influenced by integrated 

170: semi-hard and hard modes \cite{Bodeker1998,Bodapps1998}. 

171: In Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) a perturbative calculation of $P$ was pushed up to order 

172: $\bar{g}^6\log\,\bar{g}$, and an additive `nonperturbative' 

173: term at this order was fitted to lattice results \cite{Kajantie2002}. Within the 

174: perturbative orders a poor convergence of the expansion is observed for 

175: temperatures not much larger than the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scale. While 

176: the work in \cite{Kajantie2002} is a computational masterpiece it could, by definition, 

177: not shed light on the nonperturbative physics of 

178: the infrared sector. Screened perturbation theory, which relies 

179: on a separation of the tree-level 

180: Yang-Mills action using variational parameters, 

181: is a very interesting idea. Unfortunately, this approach generates 

182: temperature dependent ultraviolet divergences in its presently used 

183: form, see \cite{Blaizot2003} for a recent review. 

184: 

185: The purpose of this paper is to report in a detailed way\footnote{Some 

186: aspects of the low-temperature physics 

187: are revised in the present paper as compared to \cite{Hofmann2003F}.} on a nonperturbative and 

188: analytical approach to the thermodynamics of SU(N) Yang-Mills theory 

189: (see \cite{Hofmann2000t2003} for intermediate stages). 

190: Conceptually, this approach is similar to the 

191: macroscopic Landau-Ginzburg-Abrikosov (LGA) theory for superconductivity in metals 

192: \cite{GinzburgLandau1950,Abrikosov1957}. Recall, that this theory does not derive 

193: the condensation of Cooper pairs from first principles but rather describes 

194: the condensate by a nonvanishing amplitude of a complex scalar field (local order parameter) 

195: which is charged under the electromagnetic gauge group U(1). This 

196: nonvanishing amplitude is driven by a phenomenologically introduced potential $V$. 

197: As a consequence, a (macroscopic) U(1) gauge field $a_\rho$, which is deprived of the 

198: microscopic gauge-field fluctuations associated with 

199: the formation of Cooper pairs and their subsequent condensation, acquires mass, the U(1) symmetry is 

200: spontaneously broken, and physical phenomena originating from 

201: this breakdown can be explored in dependence of the parameters appearing in the effective action, 

202: and in dependence of an external magnetic field and/or temperature. 

203: 

204: When applying this idea to the construction of a macroscopic 

205: theory for SU(N) Yang-Mills thermodynamics (YMTD) one is in a much better 

206: position as far as the uniqueness of the stabilizing potentials 

207: in each phase of the theory is concerned. These potentials are 

208: determined by thermodynamics and the requirement 

209: that, in a first step of the construction, they admit 

210: energy- and pressure-free macroscopic configurations describing the collective effects in 

211: an ensemble of energy- and pressure-free, noninteracting, and self-dual topological field 

212: configurations in the underlying theory. 

213: If a particular phase supports propagating gauge modes then, in a second step, 

214: the interactions between these topological defects 

215: are treated by solving the macroscopic gauge-field equations in terms of a pure 

216: gauge configuration in the background of the (inert) energy- and pressure-free 

217: scalar field.  

218: 

219: More specifically, we assume that at a large temperature a macroscopic 

220: adjoint scalar field $\phi$ 

221: is generated by a dilute gas of trivial-holonomy calorons 

222: \footnote{We discuss in Sec.\,\ref{MPlanck} why the critical 

223: temperature $T_P$ for the onset of the formation of $\phi$ should be comparable to 

224: the cutoff-scale for the local field theory in four dimensions.} 

225: \cite{HarrigtonShepard1977}. Calorons are Bogomolnyi-Prasad-Sommerfield (BPS) 

226: saturated (or self-dual) solutions \cite{PrasadSommerfield1975}

227: to the classical Yang-Mills equations of motion in four-dimensional Euclidean spacetime\footnote{Whenever we speak of a topological soliton 

228: this automatically includes the antisoliton.} (time coordinate $\tau$ is 

229: compactified on a circle, $0\le\tau\le\frac{1}{T}$) with varying 

230: topological charge and embedding in SU(N). Calorons are topologically 

231: nontrivial, saturate the lowest possible value of the Euclidean action 

232: in a given topological sector, and thus are energy- and pressure-free configurations. 

233: Calorons with nontrivial holonomy have BPS magnetic monopole constituents 

234: \cite{Nahm1984,KraanVanBaalNPB1998,vanBaalKraalPLB1998}. Their one-loop effective 

235: action scales with the three volume of the system \cite{GrossPisarskiYaffe1981}, and 

236: thus they should play no role in the thermodynamic limit. 

237: This conclusion, however, is no longer valid if the 

238: system generates domains of large but finite volume whose boundaries 

239: are generated by discontinuous changes of the color orientation of 

240: the field $\phi$. Microscopically, nontrivial-holonomy 

241: calorons can be dynamically generated out 

242: of trivial-holonomy calorons by macroscopic domain collisions. These calorons dissociate into 

243: their magnetic monopole constituents subsequently, see \cite{Diakonov} for a 

244: discussion of the destabilizing effects of quantum fluctuations in the case of 

245: nontrivial holonomy. We thus anticipate the occurence of 

246: isolated magnetic charge whose 

247: abundance is governed by the ($T$ dependent) 

248: typical volume of a domain. 

249: 

250: The property of vanishing energy and pressure of a caloron derives from its self-duality, 

251: that is, the kinetic and the interaction part in the Euclidean energy-momentum tensor 

252: precisely cancel when evaluated on a caloron. A potential $V_E$ 

253: (the subscript $E$ stands for electric phase) is constructed which stabilizes 

254: the modulus $|\phi|$ for given $T$ quantum mechanically and thermodynamically 

255: and which reflects the assumption that $\phi$ is composed of noninteracting, trivial-holonomy 

256: calorons. We would like to stress at this point that the effects of calorons are reflected  

257: as a $\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}$ dependence of the modulus of $\phi$. 

258: As a consequence, the nontrivial-topology sector of the 

259: theory, indeed, is irrelevant at 

260: asymptotically large temperatures.  

261: 

262: A unique decomposition of each 

263: gauge-field configuration $A_\rho$ contributing to the partition function of the 

264: fundamental Yang-Mills theory is 

265: %************

266: \eqb

267: \label{decfl}

268: A_\rho=A_\rho^{\tiny\mbox{top}}+a_\rho\,.

269: \eqe

270: %************

271: In Eq.\,(\ref{decfl}) $A_\rho^{\tiny\mbox{top}}$ is a minimally (that is, BPS saturated) 

272: topological part, represented by calorons, 

273: and $a_\rho$ denotes a remainder which has trivial topology. The 

274: configurations in $A_\rho^{\tiny\mbox{top}}$ having trivial holonomy would build up 

275: the ground state described by $\phi$ if no holonomy-changing interactions 

276: between them were allowed for. A change in holonomy by 

277: interactions, mediated by the topologically trivial sector, will macroscopically manifest itself in terms of a 

278: {\sl finite}, pure-gauge background $a_\rho^{bg}$. A fluctuation 

279: $\delta a_\rho$ about this background 

280: acquires mass by the adjoint Higgs mechanism if 

281: $[\phi,\delta a_\rho]\not=0$ and thus the underlying gauge symmetry SU(N) 

282: is spontaneously broken to U(1)$^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}$ at most. The degree of gauge 

283: symmetry breaking by calorons is a boundary 

284: condition set at an asymptotically high temperature $T_P$ 

285: where the effect of $\phi\propto T^{-1/2}$ on the Yang-Mills spectrum 

286: and its pressure $\sim T^4$ is very small since the ground state pressure scales as 

287: $\propto T$. On the one hand, Higgs-mechanism 

288: induced masses provide infrared cutoffs in the 

289: loop expansions of thermodynamical quantities 

290: which resolves the problem of the infrared 

291: instability entcountered in perturbation theory. 

292: On the other hand, the compositeness scale $|\phi|$ constrains the 

293: hardness of quantum fluctuations, and so the usual 

294: renormalization program needed to address ultra-violet divergences in perturbation theory is superfluous 

295: in the effective theory. Notice that this way of introducing 

296: a composite field $\phi$ in an effective description differs from the usual implementation of a 

297: Wilsonian flow, where {\sl high-momentum} modes are successively 

298: integrated out \cite{BraatenPisarski1990,Wetterich1996}, 

299: since $\phi$ is built of calorons with an `instanton' radius $\rho$ not being smaller than $|\phi|^{-1}$. 

300: At the present stage the description of the ground state of an SU(N) Yang-Mills 

301: theory at high temperatures in terms of 

302: the field $\phi$ is self-consistent. The phase and the modulus of the field $\phi$ are derived 

303: from a microscopic definition in \cite{HerbstHofmann2004}.

304: 

305: The nonperturbative approach to SU(N) YMTD proposed here 

306: implies the existence of three rather 

307: than two phases: an electric phase at high temperatures, a magnetic 

308: phase for a small range of temperatures comparable to the scale 

309: $\La_{\tiny\mbox{YM,N}}$, and a center phase for 

310: low temperatures. The ground state in the magnetic phase 

311: confines fundamental, static test charges 

312: but allows for the propagation of 

313: massive, dual gauge bosons. 

314: The center phase is thermodynamically disconnected 

315: from the magnetic and the electric phase. 

316: In the electric phase an evolution equation for the 

317: effective gauge coupling constant $e$, which follows from the requirement of thermodynamical

318: self-consistency of the one-loop expression for the pressure, has two fixed points associated with 

319: a highest and a lowest attainable temperature $T_P$ and $T_{E,c}$. It turns out that practically all strong-interaction

320: effects of the theory are described by a temperature dependent ground-state pressure and 

321: tree-level masses for thermal quasiparticles such that higher loop corrections to 

322: thermodynamical quantities are tiny. 

323: 

324: At $T_{E,c}$ the effective coupling $e(T)$ exhibits a thin divergence of the form 

325: %*******

326: \eqb

327: \label{coupldiv}

328: e(T)\sim -\log(T-T_c)\,,

329: \eqe

330: %********

331: and the theory undergoes a 2$^{\mbox{\tiny{nd}}}$ 

332: order like phase transition to a magnetic phase which is driven by the 

333: condensation of some of the magnetic monopoles 

334: residing inside dissociating nontrivial-holonomy calorons. In this transition a part of the 

335: continuous gauge symmetry, which survived the formation of the adjoint Higgs field $\phi$ 

336: in the electric phase, is 

337: broken spontaneously and the tree-level 

338: massive gauge modes of the electric phase decouple thermodynamically. In the case of submaximal gauge-symmetry 

339: breaking by $\phi$ in the electric phase condensates of magnetic and 

340: color-magnetic monopoles occur in the magnetic phase. The former are described by 

341: complex scalar and the latter by adjoint Higgs fields. In the case of maximal 

342: gauge symmetry breaking to U(1)$^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}$, which we will only investigate in this paper, 

343: the (local) magnetic center symmetry $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N/2,mag}}$ and the continuous gauge symmetry U(1)$^{\tiny\mbox{N/2-1}}$ 

344: survive the transition to the magnetic phase, the (global) electric center symmetry 

345: $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N/2,elec}}$ is fully restored. An approach to the 

346: thermodynamics in the magnetic phase, which is conceptually analoguous 

347: to the one in the electric phase, yields an evolution equation 

348: for the magnetic gauge coupling $g$ which has two 

349: fixed points at $T_{E,c}$ and 

350: $T_{M,c}$ (highest and lowest attainable temperature). Approaching $T_{M,c}$ from above, 

351: the equation of state is increasingly dominated by the ground state contributions. 

352: At $T_{M,c}$ we have 

353: %********

354: \eqb

355: \label{eosintro}

356: \rho\sim -P\,.

357: \eqe

358: %*******

359: The theory undergoes a phase transition to a phase whose ground-state is 

360: a condensate of center-vortex loops. In this phase 

361: $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N,mag}}$ is entirely broken, and all gauge boson 

362: excitations are thermodynamically decoupled. Once each of the vortex-loop condensates, 

363: described by nonlocally defined 

364: complex scalar fields, has relaxed to the one of the N degenerate minima 

365: of its potential, the energy density and the pressure of the 

366: ground state are precisely zero (no radiative corrections), and the system has created particles 

367: by local $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N}}$ phase shifts of each vortex-condensate field which 

368: are associated with localized (intersecting) center fluxes forming closed loops. 

369: The corresponding density of states is over-exponentially 

370: rising implying that the magnetic-center transiton is of the 

371: Hagedorn type and thus nonthermal.   

372: 

373: There are many claims in the scenario outlined above. We will, step by step, 

374: verify them as we proceed. The paper is organized as follows: 

375: 

376: In Sec.\,\ref{EP} we explain our approach 

377: to the electric phase. We start with the basic assumption that it is noninteracting 

378: trivial-holonomy calorons that form a macroscopic adjoint Higgs field $\phi$ at 

379: high temperatures (electric phase) 

380: and explore its consequences. A nonlocal definition for $\phi$ is given. 

381: We then elucidate the details of the ground-state dynamics and the properties 

382: of topology-free gauge modes. Subsequently, 

383: an evolution equation for the effective gauge coupling constant $e$ is 

384: derived and solved, interpretations of the solution are given, and an 

385: argument is provided why the temperature $T_P$ for the onset of caloron 'condensation' 

386: has to be comparable to the cutoff-scale for the 

387: local field-theory description in four dimensions. In a next step, we perform the 

388: counting of isolated magnetic 

389: monopoles species in the effective theory for the electric phase 

390: when assuming maximal gauge symmetry breaking 

391: by $\phi$. The next part of Sec.\,\ref{EP} is devoted to a discussion of two-loop corrections to 

392: thermodynamical quantities. For the SU(2) case we investigate 

393: the simplest one-loop contribution to the `photon' polarization 

394: and perform formal weak and strong coupling limits of this expression. We also discuss the 

395: implementation of thermodynamical self-consistency when higher loop corrections to the pressure 

396: are taken into account. 

397: 

398: In Sec.\,\ref{MP} we investigate the magnetic phase, again 

399: assuming maximal gauge symmetry by caloron 'condensation': the pattern of gauge symmetry breaking 

400: by monopole condensation is explored, the thermodynamics of the ground state and 

401: its excitations is elucidated, an evolution equation for the magnetic gauge coupling constant 

402: $g$ is derived. Solutions to this equations are obtained numerically and their 

403: implications are discussed. Finally, we discuss the Polyakov loop 

404: in the electric and the magnetic phase and compute the critical exponent of the phase transition for SU(2).

405: 

406: In Sec.\,\ref{CVCM} we investigate the center phase. A nonlocal definition 

407: for the local fields describing the condensed center-vortex loops is given, their transformation properties 

408: under magnetic center rotations are determined, and their dynamics is 

409: discussed. 

410: 

411: In Sec.\,\ref{MCC} we derive a matching condition for 

412: the mass scales $\La_E$ and $\La_M$ which appear in the respective potentials for the caloron and magnetic 

413: monopole condensates. 

414: 

415: In Sec.\,\ref{PEEN} we compute the temperature evolution of 

416: the thermodynamical potentials pressure, energy density, and entropy density throughout the electric and 

417: the magnetic phases at one loop for N=2,3 and compare our 

418: results with lattice data. 

419: 

420: A conclusion and a discussion of likely implications of our results for 

421: particle physics and cosmology are given in Sec.\,\ref{CO}.    

422: 

423: \section{The electric phase\label{EP}}

424: 

425: \subsection{Conceptual framework\label{PR}}

426: 

427: Our analysis is based on the following assumption about the ground-state physics 

428: characterizing SU(N) YMTD at high temperatures.

429: \vspace{0.4cm}\\ 

430: {\sl At a temperature 

431: $T_P\gg\Lambda_{\tiny\mbox{YM,N}}$ SU(N) YMTD, defined on a Euclidean, four-dimensional, and 

432: flat spacetime, generates an adjoint Higgs field $\phi$ out of noninteracting (dilute), trivial-holonomy 

433: SU(2) calorons.} \vspace{0.4cm}\\  

434: \noindent Calorons are BPS saturated solutions 

435: to the Euclidean equations of motion of SU(N) Yang-Mills theory at finite temperature 

436: \cite{HarrigtonShepard1977,Nahm1984,KraanVanBaalNPB1998,vanBaalKraalPLB1998}. 

437: One distinguishes SU(2) calorons according to their holonomy, that is, the behavior of the 

438: Polyakov loop 

439: %********** 

440: \eqb

441: \label{polloop}

442: {\bf P}={\cal P}\exp\left[i\bar{g}\int_0^{1/T}d\tau A_4(\vec{x}, \tau)\right]\,

443: \eqe

444: %********* 

445: at $|{\vec x}|\to \infty$ when evaluated on 

446: the solution. In Eq.\,(\ref{polloop}) ${\cal P}$ denotes the

447: path-ordering symbol and $\bar{g}$ the gauge coupling constant 

448: of the SU(2) Yang-Mills theory. 

449: Trivial (nontrivial) holonomy means that 

450: have ${\bf P}_{\tiny{|{\vec x}|\to \infty}}={\bf 1}\ \ \ (\not={\bf 1})$. In the former 

451: case the SU(2) caloron has no isolated magnetic-monopole constituents, in the 

452: latter case it exhibits a monopole and its 

453: antimonopole. The masses of these constituents are determined 

454: by the value of $A_4(|{\vec x}|\to \infty$. In the following 

455: we only consider SU(2) nontrivial-holonomy calorons with no net magnetic charge. 

456: Analytical expression for SU(2) caloron solutions  

457: of trivial (nontrivial) holonomy can be found in \cite{HarrigtonShepard1977} (\cite{Nahm1984,KraanVanBaalNPB1998,Brower1998}), 

458: see also Fig.\,1.. 

459: %***********************

460: \begin{figure}

461: \begin{center}

462: \leavevmode

463: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

464: \leavevmode

465: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

466: \vspace{4.3cm}

467: \special{psfile=Fig-1.ps angle=0 voffset=-140

468:          hoffset=-205 hscale=55  vscale=75}

469: \end{center}

470: \caption{Action density of SU(2) nontrivial-holonomy calorons with 

471: increasing 'instanton radius' (left to right) at fixed temperature. Figures are taken 

472: from a paper by Kraan and van Baal. The peaks of the action density 

473: coincide with the positions of constituent BPS monopoles.\label{instrad}}      

474: \end{figure}

475: %************************

476: Since calorons are BPS saturated or self-dual their 

477: energy-momentum tensor vanishes identically. 

478: 

479: An SU(2) caloron of topological charge $k$ has a classical 

480: Euclidean action $S_{\mbox\tiny{cal},2}=\frac{8\pi^2}{\bar{g}^2}k$. 

481: For trivial holonomy the one-loop effective action of a charge-one caloron 

482: is given as \cite{GrossPisarskiYaffe1981}

483: %********

484: \eqb

485: \label{GPYSeffth}

486: S_{\tiny\mbox{eff}}=\frac{8\pi^2}{\bar{g}^2}+\frac{4}{3}(\pi\rho T)^2

487: \eqe

488: %*******

489: where $\rho$ and $T$ denote the 'instanton' radius 

490: and temperature, respectively. For large $\bar{g}$ and small 

491: enough $\rho$ the trivial-holonomy caloron 

492: thus sizably contributes to the partition function of the theory. 

493: The one-loop effective 

494: action of a nontrivial-holonomy caloron is

495: %********

496: \eqb

497: \label{GPYSeffnth}

498: S_{\tiny\mbox{eff}}\propto T^3 V

499: \eqe

500: %******* 

501: where $V$ denotes the spatial volume of the system. 

502: In the thermodynamic limit $V\to\infty$ nontrivial-holonomy 

503: calorons thus do not contribute to the partition function. 

504: As we will show below, however, the thermodynamic limit is 

505: not physical due to a domanization of the ground state 

506: of the theory. The suppression of nontrivial-holonomy 

507: calorons in the partition function is thus governed by the size 

508: of a typical domain. 

509: 

510: It was shown in \cite{Diakonov} that SU(2) calorons are 

511: unstable under one-loop quantum fluctuations. 

512: Namely, for a holonomy close to trivial there is an 

513: attractive potential between constituent monopole and antimonopole. In the opposite case 

514: the potential is repulsive implying the dissociation of the caloron 

515: into a monopole-antimonopole pair. In a mesoscopic level, an isolated 

516: monopole arises at a point in space 

517: where four or more Higgs-field domains meet \cite{Kibble1976}.

518: 

519: Since the action {\sl density} of a caloron 

520: is $T$-dependent the action density of the 

521: macroscopic, adjoint Higgs field $\phi$ should be $T$-dependent through 

522: the $T$-dependence of the configuration $\phi$. 

523: 

524: The effective 

525: theory describing the (electric) phase macroscopically is an adjoint Higgs model:

526: %*********

527: \eqb

528: \label{actE}

529: S_E=\int_0^{1/T}d\tau\hspace{-0.1cm}\int d^3x\,\left(\frac{1}{2}\,\mbox{tr}_{\tiny\mbox{N}}

530: \,G_{\mu\nu}G_{\mu\nu}+\mbox{tr}_{\tiny\mbox{N}}\,{\cal D}_\mu\phi{\cal D}_\mu\phi+

531: V_E(\phi)\right)\,.

532: \eqe

533: %*********

534: In Eq.\,(\ref{actE}) $V_E$ denotes the potential responsible for the stabilization of 

535: $\phi$. The covariant derivative is 

536: defined as ${\cal D}_\rho\phi=\pd_\rho+ie[\phi,a_\rho]$, the field 

537: strength as $G_{\mu\nu}=G^a_{\mu\nu}t^a$, where 

538: $G^a_{\mu\nu}=\pd_\mu a^a_\nu-\pd_\nu a^a_\mu-ef^{abc}a^b_\mu a^c_\nu$, 

539: $e$ denotes the effective gauge coupling constant, and $\mbox{tr}_{\tiny\mbox{N}}\,t^a t^b\equiv 

540: 1/2\,\delta^{ab}$. While the effect of nontrivial topology is described by the scalar 

541: sector of the effective theory the curvature $G_{\mu\nu}$ is 

542: generated by the topologically trivial fluctuations. 

543: 

544: For future work \cite{HerbstHofmann2004} 

545: we propose the following nonlocal definition for the phase of a given SU(2) block 

546: $\tilde{\phi}$. 

547: %*********

548: \eqb

549: \label{locdefphi}

550: \frac{\tilde{\phi}^a(\tau)}{|\tilde{\phi}|}\sim \mbox{tr}_{2} \int d\rho\, d^3x\, 

551: \lambda^a\,F_{\mu\nu}((\tau,0))\,[(\tau,0),(\tau,\vec{x})]

552: F_{\mu\nu}((\tau,\vec{x}))[(\tau,\vec{x}),(\tau,0)]+\cdots\,.

553: \,

554: \eqe

555: %********* 

556: The dots in Eq.\,(\ref{locdefphi}) denote the contributions of higher $n$-point functions, and 

557: the $\sim$ sign indicates that this expansion very likely is asymptotic 

558: at best as a powers series in a dimensionless parameter 

559: $\xi$. This, however, is not an obstacle to determining $\tilde{\phi}'s$ phase and 

560: modulus \cite{HerbstHofmann2004}. 

561: Each block $\tilde{\phi}$ receives a nontrivial phase by the corresponding SU(2)-embedded trivial-holonomy 

562: caloron $A^C_\beta$ (or anticaloron $A^A_\beta$) over which the correlator 

563: in Eq.\,(\ref{locdefphi}) is evaluated\footnote{The topological 

564: charges of $A^C_\beta$ or $A^A_\beta$ may, in principle, vary 

565: from block to block.}. In the definition Eq.\,(\ref{locdefphi}) 

566: $[(\tau,0),(\tau,\vec{x})]$ denotes a Wilson line in the fundamental representation 

567: which is taken to be along a

568: straight path connecting the two points $(\tau,0)$ and $(\tau,\vec{x})$:

569: %*********

570: \eqb

571: \label{Wilsonline}

572: [(\tau,0),(\tau,\vec{x})]

573: \equiv {\cal P}\,\exp\left[i\int_{(\tau,0)}^{(\tau,\vec{x})}dy_\beta\,A_\beta(y)\right]\,.

574: \eqe

575: %********* 

576: In a lattice simulation at finite temperature $T$ the average in Eq.\,(\ref{locdefphi}) 

577: can be computed by using an ensemble of cooled configurations whose action  

578: is an integer multiple of $8\pi^2/{\bar g}^2$\footnote{The nontrivial-holonomy part is then cooled away.}. 

579: Local gauge-singlet composites such as the gluon condensate 

580: %*******

581: \eqb

582: \label{gluoncondensate}

583: \la \mbox{tr}_{\tiny\mbox{N}} 

584: F_{\mu\nu}(x)\,F_{\mu\nu}(x)\ra\,

585: \eqe

586: %********

587: are thermodynamically irrelevant for the following reasons: 

588: Since they do not couple to the 

589: topologically trivial sector they do not 

590: influence the mass spectrum of fluctuations $\delta a_\rho$. Moreover, a singlet 

591: composite, arising from noninteracting trivial-holonomy calorons, 

592: would have zero energy density and pressure 

593: because of the BPS saturation: a situation which cannot be changed by 

594: interactions mediated by the trivial sector due to the missing 

595: gauge charge. The situation is different though 

596: if an axial anomaly, arising from integrated-over chiral fermions, 

597: is operative. In this case the composite in 

598: Eq.\,(\ref{gluoncondensate}) determines the 

599: mass of the axion, and thus it is visible.       

600:   

601: The key question now is whether the potential $V_E$ in Eq.\,(\ref{actE}) is uniquely 

602: determined by our basic assumption. 

603: What are the properties of the field $\phi$ that can be deduced? 

604: In thermal equilibrium $\phi$ must be periodic in 

605: Euclidean time $\tau$ ($0\le\tau\le 1/T$). 

606: Since $\phi$ describes the ground state of the thermal system its 

607: modulus $|\phi|$ must not depend on $\tau,\vec{x}$ but should depend 

608: on $T$. Since $\phi$ is built 

609: of noninteracting, self-dual configurations (zero energy density and pressure) 

610: it must also be pressure - and energy-free. This is the case 

611: if and only if $\phi(\tau)$ (not its modulus!) is BPS saturated, that is, 

612: it solves the following equation

613: %*******

614: \eqb

615: \label{BPSEP}

616: \pd_{\tau}\phi=v_E\,

617: \eqe

618: %*******

619: where $v_E$ is a `square root' of the potential $V_E$: 

620: %******

621: \eqb

622: \label{squareroot}

623: V_E(\phi)=\mbox{tr}_{\tiny\mbox{N}}v_E^\dagger v_E\,.

624: \eqe

625: %*******

626: The above properties fix the potential uniquely 

627: to be $V_E(\phi)\mbox{tr}_{\tiny\mbox{N}}=\Lambda_E^6\mbox{tr}_{\tiny\mbox{N}}(\phi^{2})^{-1}$. 

628: As it turns out, a (winding) solution to Eq.\,(\ref{BPSEP}) 

629: is quantum mechanically and thermodynamically 

630: inert and thus can be used as a background to the macroscopic equation of 

631: motion for the trivial-topology sector of the theory.  

632: 

633: The equation of motion 

634: %*******

635: \eqb

636: \label{GF}

637: {\cal D}_\mu G_{\mu\nu}=2ie[\phi,{\cal D}_\nu\phi]\,,

638: \eqe

639: %********

640: which follows from the effective action (\ref{actE}), 

641: determines a configuration $a^{bg}_\rho$. For $a^{bg}_\rho$ to describe 

642: the ground state of the theory it 

643: needs to be pure gauge, that is, $G_{\mu\nu}[a^{bg}_\rho]\equiv 0$. Otherwise 

644: the invariance of the thermal system under spatial rotations would be spontaneously broken. 

645: It will turn out that such a pure-gauge solution $a^{bg}_\rho\propto \frac{T}{e}$ 

646: exists for ${\cal D}_\nu\phi\equiv 0$. 

647: As a consequence, the action density in Eq.\,(\ref{actE}) when 

648: evaluated on $\phi,a^{bg}_\rho$ reduces to the potential $V_E$. We thus describe 

649: on a macroscopic level interactions between trivial-holonomy 

650: calorons as mediated by the topologically trivial sector. 

651: Namely, the vanishing ground-state energy density (pressure) of 

652: noninteracting trivial-holonomy calorons is shifted from 

653: zero to $V_E(\phi)$ ($-V_E(\phi)$). Moreover, a macroscopic 

654: holonomy arises which indicates that (unstable) nontrivial-holonomy 

655: calorons are generated by gluon exchange and, as a consequence, that isolated 

656: magnetic monopoles occur. This precludes our conceptual 

657: discussion of the ground-state physics.

658: 

659: An adjoint Higgs field $\phi$ breaks the SU(N) gauge 

660: symmetry down to U(1)$^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}$ at most. Whether SU(N) gauge 

661: symmetry is broken maximally or submaximally is decided by a boundary 

662: condition to the BPS equation (\ref{BPSEP}) set at an 

663: asymptotically high temperature. Interacting calorons emit and absorb 

664: gauge-field fluctuations $\delta a_\rho$. To discuss their 

665: quasiparticle mass spectrum a gauge transformation to $a^{bg}_\rho\equiv 0$ (unitary gauge) 

666: must be performed. We will show explicitly for the SU(2) case that such a 

667: transformation is on the one hand nonperiodic but on the other hand a 

668: symmetry transformation for all thermodynamical quantities. This is true since the transformation does 

669: not affect the periodicity 

670: of the fluctuations $\delta a_\rho$ (no Hosotani mechanism \cite{Hosotani1983}). The nonperiodic gauge transformation maps the 

671: Polyakov loop from ${\bf -1}$ to ${\bf 1}$, therefore generates a 

672: global electric center transformation and thus interpolates between the 

673: two physically equivalent ground states of the theory. As a consequence, 

674: the global symmetry $Z_{\tiny\mbox{2,elec}}$ is spontaneously broken and 

675: hence the electric phase is deconfining. The generalization to arbitrary 

676: N is straight forward.

677: 

678: There are tree-level heavy 

679: (TLH) and tree-level massless (TLM) modes in $\delta a_\rho$. 

680: Due to the $T$ dependence of $\phi$ 

681: on-shell TLH modes are thermal quasiparticles. 

682: 

683: Due to the $T$ dependent Higgs mechanism and the $T$ dependent 

684: ground-state energy, which are 

685: both generated by the macroscopic field $\phi$, implicit temperature 

686: dependences arise in a loop expansion of thermodynamical quantities. 

687: 

688: To guarantee in the effective theory the validity of the Legendre transformations between  

689: thermodynamical quantities, as they can be derived from the partition function of the underlying 

690: theory, thermodynamical self-consistency has to be demanded. This condition determines the temperature 

691: evolution of the effective gauge coupling constant $e$ with temperature. 

692: As we will see, there is an attractor to this evolution which is the constancy of 

693: $e$ except for a logarithmic pole at a temperature $T_{c,E}$. We thus recover in the effective theory 

694: the ultraviolet-infrared decoupling that follows from the 

695: renormalizability of the underlying theory. 

696: 

697: The approach to the ground-state dynamics is an inductive one. 

698: Namely, we first define a potential $V_E(\phi)$ and subsequently show that this definition 

699: implies the above properties of $\phi$, a small action for 

700: calorons at the temperature where they are assumed to first form the field $\phi$, and the 

701: existence of a pure-gauge solution $a^{bg}_\rho$ to Eq.\,(\ref{GF}). The thermal system 

702: decomposes into a ground state and a part represented by very weakly interacting 

703: quasiparticle fluctuations \footnote{We compute two-loop correction to the pressure in 

704: \cite{HerbstHofmannRohrer2004}.}. One can consider the former as a heat bath for the latter at low temperatures 

705: and vice versa at high temperatures. 

706:  

707: 

708: \subsection{Caloron `condensate', macroscopically \label{CCM}}

709: 

710: \subsubsection{The case of even N: Ground-state physics}

711: 

712: We first address the macroscopic dynamics 

713: of the adjoint Higgs field $\phi$ when N is even. 

714: The case of odd N is discussed in Sec.\,\ref{oddN}. 

715: We may always work in a gauge where $\phi$ is SU(2) block diagonal:

716: %********

717: \eqb

718: \label{SU2diag}

719: \phi=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}

720: \tilde{\phi}_1 & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} &\cdots\\ 

721: {\bf 0}&\tilde{\phi}_2& {\bf 0} &\cdots\\ 

722: {\bf 0}&{\bf 0}& \ddots & \\ 

723: \vdots& \vdots& & 

724: \end{array}\right)\,.

725: \eqe

726: %******** 

727: In Eq.\,(\ref{SU2diag}) each field 

728: $\tilde{\phi}_l,\,(l=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}/2)$, 

729: lives in an independent SU(2) subalgebra of SU(N), and we define the SU(2) modulus as

730: %********

731: \eqb

732: \label{modulus}

733: |\tilde{\phi}_l|^2\equiv \frac{1}{2}\,\mbox{tr}_2\,\tilde{\phi_l}^2\,.

734: \eqe

735: %********* 

736: The potential $V_E$ in Eq.\,(\ref{actE}) is defined as 

737: %********

738: \eqb

739: \label{potentialE}

740: V_E=\mbox{tr}_{\tiny\mbox{N}} v^\dagger_E v_E\equiv\Lambda_E^6\,

741: \mbox{tr}_{\tiny\mbox{N}}\,(\phi^2)^{-1}\,

742: \eqe

743: %********

744: where $\La_E$ is a fixed mass scale generated by dimensional transmutation. 

745: It is important to note already at this point 

746: that there is only one independent mass scale describing the 

747: thermodynamics in {\sl all} phases of the theory.  

748: 

749: We define $v_E$ as follows:

750: %********

751: \eqb

752: \label{sqpotentialE}

753: v_E\equiv i\La_E^3\left(\begin{array}{cccc}

754: \lambda_1\tilde{\phi}_1/|\tilde{\phi}_1|^2& {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} &\cdots\\ 

755: {\bf 0}&\lambda_1\tilde{\phi}_2/|\tilde{\phi}_2|^2& {\bf 0} &\cdots\\ 

756: {\bf 0}& {\bf 0}& \ddots & \\ 

757: \vdots& \vdots& & 

758: \end{array}\right)\,

759: \eqe

760: %******** 

761: where $\lambda_i,\,(i=1,2,3)$, denote the Pauli matrices. This definition is modulo 

762: global SU(2)-block gauge transformations. This 

763: global symmetry (the `direction' of winding along a U(1) circle around the group manifold $S^3$ od SU(2)) 

764: will translate into a gauge symmetry once the theory condenses magnetic monopoles, 

765: see Sec.\,\ref{windingmag}. 

766: 

767: In SU(2) decomposition 

768: the solution $\tilde{\phi}_l$ to the BPS equation 

769: (\ref{BPSEP}) reads 

770: %********

771: \eqb

772: \label{solBPSE}

773: \hspace{-0.5cm}\tilde{\phi}_l(\tau)=\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda_E^3}{2\pi T |K(l)|}}\,\lambda_3

774: \exp(-2\pi i T K(l)\lambda_1\tau)\,

775: \eqe

776: %********* 

777: where $K(l)$ is a non-zero integer. The solution in Eq.\,(\ref{solBPSE}) 

778: is periodic in $\tau$ and depends on $T$. 

779: The set $\{K(1),\dots,K(\mbox{N}/2)\}$, which is a boundary condition to 

780: Eq.\,(\ref{BPSEP}) at the large temperature $T_P$, determines the value of the potential 

781: at a given temperature. It also specifies to what extent the 

782: SU(N) gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken by caloron 'condensation'. For example, 

783: the sets $\{1,1\}$ and $\{1,2\}$

784: break SU(4) down to SU(2)$\times$SU(2)$\times$U(1) 

785: and U(1)$^3$, respectively. Out of 15 gauge-field 

786: modes 7 modes remain massless in the former and 3 modes in the latter case. 

787: For a description in terms of a given SU(N) Yang-Mills theory the 

788: set $\{K(1),\dots,K(\mbox{N}/2)\}$ has to be measured, 

789: see also the discussion in Sec.\,\ref{MPlanck}. For definiteness and simplicity we 

790: assume in the following that the gauge symmetry breaking 

791: is maximal in such a way that the 

792: potential $V_E(\phi)$ is minimal (MGSB). 

793: This corresponds to the boundary condition $\{K(1),\dots,K(\mbox{N}/2)\}=\{1,2,\dots,\mbox{N}/2\}$ 

794: or a (local) permutation thereof. 

795: 

796: Let us now verify that the solution in Eq.\,(\ref{solBPSE}) is quantum mechanically and thermodynamically 

797: stabilized. Assuming MGSB, the following ratios are obtained 

798: %*********

799: \eqb

800: \label{ratios}

801: \frac{\pd^2_{|\tilde{\phi}_l|}V_E}{T^2}=12\pi^2\,l^2\,, \ \ \ \ \ \ 

802: \frac{\pd^2_{|\tilde{\phi}_l|}V_E}{|\tilde{\phi}_l|^2}=3l^3\,\lambda_E^3\,

803: \eqe

804: %*********

805: where the dimensionless temperature $\lambda_E$ is defined 

806: as $\lambda_E\equiv 2\pi T/\La_E$. For N not too large we have 

807: $\lambda_E\gg 1$, see Sec.\,\ref{TSCE}. As one can infer from Eq.\,(\ref{ratios}), 

808: the mass $m_l^2\equiv \pd^2_{|\tilde{\phi}_l|}V_E$ of collective caloron fluctuations is much larger than $T$ and 

809: the compositeness scale $|\tilde{\phi}_l|$. The off-shellness of 

810: quantum fluctuations of the field $\tilde{\phi}_l$ is 

811: cut off at this scale in Minkowskian or Euclidean signature as

812: %**********

813: \eqb

814: \label{Mineuosn}

815: |p^2-m_l^2|\le |\tilde{\phi}_l|^2\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{or} \ \ \ \ \ 

816: \ p_e^2+m_l^2\le |\tilde{\phi}_l|^2\,,\ \ \ \ (p_e^2\ge 0)\,.

817: \eqe

818: %*********

819: So if no off-shellness in Minkowskian or Euclidean signature is 

820: allowed for on the one hand. On the other hand, statistical fluctuations of 

821: on-shell $\phi$-particles are strongly Boltzmann suppressed and thus negligible. 

822: We conclude 

823: that the solution $\phi$ in Eq.\,(\ref{solBPSE}) is 

824: stabilized against fluctuations $\delta\phi$ and the potential $V_E$ in Eq.\,(\ref{potentialE}) 

825: is a truly effective one. Thus $\phi$ is nothing but a background for the 

826: thermodynamics of the topologically trivial sector of the theory. 

827: As we will see in Sec.\,\ref{TSCE}, topologically trivial quantum fluctuations $\delta a_\rho$ 

828: generate only a tiny correction to the tree-level value $V_E(\phi)$.    

829: 

830: Before we investigate the properties of the fluctuations $\delta a_\rho$ 

831: let us complete our construction of the ground state. 

832: The ground-state configurations $a_\rho^{bg}$ 

833: needs to be a pure-gauge solution to the classical equation of motion Eq.\,(\ref{GF}). In order for 

834: $a_\rho^{bg}$ not to break the rotational invariance of the system 

835: it needs to be pure gauge. Inserting the background (\ref{solBPSE}) 

836: (winding numbers: $\{l=1,\dots,l=N/2\}$ for MGSB) into Eq.\,(\ref{GF}), 

837: we obtain the following pure-gauge solution: 

838: %**********

839: \eqb

840: \label{curvfree}

841: a^{bg}_\rho=\frac{\pi}{e}\,T \delta_{\rho 4}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}

842: \lambda_1& {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} &\cdots\\ 

843: {\bf 0}&2\,\lambda_1& {\bf 0} &\cdots\\ 

844: {\bf 0}& {\bf 0}& \ddots & \\ 

845: \vdots& \vdots& & 

846: \end{array}\right)\,.

847: \eqe

848: %***********

849: Moreover, we have

850: %**********

851: \eqb

852: \label{covder0}

853: {\cal D}_\rho\phi=0\,

854: \eqe

855: %***********

856: on $\phi, a^{bg}_\rho$. A remarkable thing has happened: 

857: On a macroscopic level we describe the generation 

858: of a nontrivial holonomy by interactions 

859: between trivial holonomy calorons, mediated by trivial-topology fluctuations, 

860: in terms of a macroscopic holonomy associated with $a^{bg}_\rho$! 

861: For the microscopic physics this implies the generation of (rare) nontrivial-holonomy calorons 

862: and their subsequent dissociation into magnetic monopoles. On a mesoscopic level, 

863: this is nothing but the Kibble mechanism for monopole creation \cite{Kibble1976} arising from the 

864: domanization of color orientations of $\phi$. 

865: Moreover, the vanishing pressure and energy density of a hypothetical 

866: ground state composed of noninteracting trivial-holonomy calorons, 

867: is shifted to $\mp V_E(\phi)$ with 

868: %*********

869: \eqb

870: \label{gspot}

871: V_E(\phi)=\frac{\pi}{2}\,\Lambda_E^3 T \mbox{N(N+2)}\,

872: \eqe

873: %*********

874: by gluon exchange (insert Eqs.\,(\ref{curvfree}) and (\ref{covder0}) into Eq.\,(\ref{actE})). 

875: 

876: Let us now split the topologically trivial part in Eq.\,(\ref{decfl}) 

877: further into the ground-state part $a^{bg}_\rho$ and fluctuations $\delta a_\rho$:

878: %******

879: \eqb

880: \label{gffluct}

881: a_\rho=a^{bg}_\rho+\delta a_\rho\,.

882: \eqe

883: %******

884: To make the mass spectrum of the fluctuations $\delta a_\rho$ 

885: visible it would be desirable to work in unitary 

886: gauge where $a^{bg}_\rho\equiv 0$ and thus no coupling 

887: of $\delta a_\rho$ to the background $a^{bg}_\rho$ takes place. 

888: 

889: The gauge rotation $\Omega\equiv e^{i\theta}$, 

890: which transforms $\phi$ and $a_\rho$ according to

891: %**********

892: \eab

893: \label{gurot}

894: \phi &\to& \Omega^\dagger\,\phi\,\Omega\nonumber\\ 

895: a_\rho&\to& \Omega^\dagger\,a_\rho\,\Omega+\frac{i}{e}\,(\pd_\rho\Omega^\dagger)\,\Omega

896: \eae

897: %***********

898: from winding gauge to unitary gauge is for MGSB  given as 

899: %***********

900: \eqb

901: \label{thetamat}

902: \theta=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}

903: -\pi\lambda_1T\tau & {\bf 0 }& {\bf 0} &\cdots\\ 

904: {\bf 0}&-2\pi\lambda_1T\tau & {\bf 0} &\cdots\\ 

905: {\bf 0}&{\bf 0}& \ddots & \\ 

906: \vdots& \vdots& & 

907: \end{array}\right)\equiv \left(\begin{array}{cccc}

908: \theta_1 & {\bf 0 }& {\bf 0} &\cdots\\ 

909: {\bf 0}&\theta_2& {\bf 0} &\cdots\\ 

910: {\bf 0}&{\bf 0}& \ddots & \\ 

911: \vdots& \vdots& & 

912: \end{array}\right)\,.

913: \eqe 

914: %********* 

915: Notice that the gauge transfromation $\Omega$ as parametrized by Eq.\,(\ref{thetamat}) is {\sl not} periodic due to its 

916: first, third, fifth, ... block being {\sl antiperiodic} in $\tau$. 

917: Is a nonperiodic 

918: gauge transformation physically admissible? Let us discuss this 

919: for the SU(2) case only. We can make $\Omega=\exp[\frac{-i\pi\lambda_1}{T}]$ 

920: periodic at the expense of sacrificing its smoothness at the point $\tau=\frac{1}{2T}$ 

921: by 

922: %********

923: \eqb

924: \label{omegatrafo}

925: \Omega\rightarrow \tilde{\Omega}=\Omega Z(\tau)\,

926: \eqe

927: %********

928: where $Z(\tau)$ is a local (electric) $Z_2$ transformation of the form

929: %********

930: \eqb

931: \label{loccentertr}

932: Z(\tau)=2\Theta(\tau-\frac{1}{2T})-1\,,

933: \eqe

934: %********

935: and $\Theta$ denotes the Heavyside step function:

936: %*********

937: \eqb

938: \label{Hevayside}

939: \Theta(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}

940: 0\,,\ \ \ \ (x<0)\,,\\ 

941: \frac{1}{2}\,,\ \ \ \ (x=0)\,,\\ 

942: 1\,,\ \ \ \ \ (x>0)\,.

943: \end{array}\right.\,.

944: \eqe

945: %***********

946: Applying $\Omega^\prime$ 

947: to $a_\mu=a^{bg}_\rho+\delta a_\rho$, 

948: where $\delta a_\rho$ is a periodic fluctuation in winding gauge, we have

949: %**********

950: \eab

951: \label{trafiwtoug}

952: a_\rho&\rightarrow &\tilde{\Omega}^\dagger(a^{bg}_\rho+\delta a_\rho)\tilde{\Omega}+

953: \frac{i}{e}\pd_\rho \tilde{\Omega}^\dagger\tilde{\Omega}\nonumber\\ 

954: &=& \Omega^\dagger(a^{bg}_\rho+\delta a_\rho)\Omega+

955: \frac{i}{e}\left((\pd_\rho\Omega^\dagger)\Omega+(\pd_\rho Z(\tau))Z(\tau)\right)\nonumber\\ 

956: &=&\Omega^\dagger\delta a_\rho\Omega+\frac{2i}{e}\delta(\tau-\frac{1}{2T})Z(\tau)\nonumber\\ 

957: &=&\Omega^\dagger\delta a_\rho\Omega\,.

958: \eae

959: %***********

960: Since $\Omega^\dagger(0)=-\Omega^\dagger(\frac{1}{T})=\Omega(0)=-\Omega(\frac{1}{T})$ 

961: we conclude that if the fluctuation $\delta a_\rho$ 

962: is periodic in winding gauge it is also periodic in unitary

963: gauge. It thus is irrelevant whether we integrate out the 

964: fluctuations $\delta a_\rho$ in winding or unitary gauge in a loop expansion 

965: of thermodynamical quantities: 

966: Hosotani's mechanism \cite{Hosotani1983} does not take place. What changes though 

967: is the Polyakov loop evaluated on 

968: the background configuration $a^{bg}_\rho$:

969: %*********

970: \eqb

971: \label{Polch}

972: P[a^{bg}_\rho]=-{\bf 1} \rightarrow P[0]={\bf 1}\,.

973: \eqe

974: %***********

975: We conclude that the theory has two equivalent ground states and 

976: that the global electric $Z_{\tiny\mbox{2,elec}}$ symmetry is spontaneously broken. We thus have shown that 

977: the elecric phase is, indeed, {\sl deconfining}. 

978: The generalization of this result to SU(N) with N even is straight forward.    

979: 

980: In unitary gauge 

981: we have

982: %**********

983: \eqb

984: \label{solBPSEug}

985: \hspace{-0.5cm}\tilde{\phi}_l(\tau)\equiv\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda_E^3}{2\pi T l}}\,\lambda_3\,.

986: \eqe

987: %*********

988: Thus the field $\phi$ is constant and diagonal. Moreover, we have

989: %******

990: \eqb

991: \label{Gug}

992: G_{\mu\nu}^a[a_\rho]=G_{\mu\nu}^a[\delta a_\rho]\,.

993: \eqe

994: %**************

995: The gauge-covariant kinetic term for $\phi$ in the action Eq.\,(\ref{actE}) reduces to a sum over 

996: mass terms for the TLH modes contained in $\delta a_\rho$. The TLH (TLM)

997: modes are massive (massless) quasiparticles 

998: associated with three (two) polarization states. As we will show 

999: in \cite{HerbstHofmannRohrer2004} by computing the two-loop correction to the thermodynamical pressure for N=2 

1000: these quasiparticles are practically noninteracting for sufficiently large temperatures. 

1001: 

1002: \subsubsection{The case of odd N\label{oddN}}

1003: 

1004: If N is odd then a decomposition of $\phi$ into SU(2) blocks only is no longer possible. One of the SU(2) blocks 

1005: in Eq.\,(\ref{SU2diag}) is then replaced by 

1006: an SU(3) block. Imposing MGSB and counting the number of independent 

1007: stable and unstable magnetic monopoles microscopically on the one hand and macroscopically 

1008: in the electric and the magnetic phase on the other hand, 

1009: see Sec.\,(\ref{CMP}), we conclude that temporal winding should 

1010: take place within the SU(3) block as in Eq.\,(\ref{solBPSE}) but now in 

1011: each of the two independent SU(2) subalgebras only 

1012: for half the time. The first SU(2) subgroup is generated by 

1013: $\bar{\lambda}_i$, ($i=1,\cdots,3$) where

1014: %*********

1015: \eqb

1016: \label{barla}

1017: \bar{\lambda}_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0&0&0\\ 

1018: 0&0&1\\ 

1019: 0&1&0\end{array}\right)\,,\ \ \ 

1020: \bar{\lambda}_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0&0&0\\ 

1021: 0&0&-i\\ 

1022: 0&i&0\end{array}\right)\,,\ \ \ 

1023: \bar{\lambda}_3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0&0&0\\ 

1024: 0&1&0\\ 

1025: 0&0&-1\end{array}\right)\,.

1026: \eqe

1027: %*********

1028: The second SU(2) subgroup is generated by 

1029: $\tilde{\lambda}_i$, ($i=1,\cdots,3$) where

1030: %*********

1031: \eqb

1032: \label{tildela}

1033: \tilde{\lambda}_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0&0&1\\ 

1034: 0&0&0\\ 

1035: 1&0&0\end{array}\right)\,,\ \ \ 

1036: \tilde{\lambda}_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0&0&-i\\ 

1037: 0&0&0\\ 

1038: i&0&0\end{array}\right)\,,\ \ \ 

1039: \tilde{\lambda}_3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1&0&0\\ 

1040: 0&0&0\\ 

1041: 0&0&-1\end{array}\right)\,.

1042: \eqe

1043: %*********

1044: The solution of the BPS equation (\ref{BPSEP}) for the SU(3) block can be obtained by applying the following prescription to 

1045: a single block (\ref{solBPSE}) of {\sl odd} winding number 

1046: $K(l)$ in Eq.\,(\ref{SU2diag}): generate two configurations $\tilde{\phi}_{l,1}$ and $\tilde{\phi}_{l,2}$ 

1047: by replacing the 

1048: Pauli matrix $\lambda_i$ in Eq.\,(\ref{solBPSE}) by $\bar{\lambda}_i$ in the first half period, $0\le\tau\le 1/(2T)$, and 

1049: by zero in the second  half period, $1/(2T)<\tau<1/T$, and by replacing the Pauli matrix $\lambda_i$ 

1050: in Eq.\,(\ref{solBPSE}) by zero in the first half period, $0<\tau<1/(2T)$, and 

1051: by $\tilde{\lambda}_i$ in the second half period, $1/(2T)\le\tau\le 1/T$. Add 

1052: $\tilde{\phi}_{l,1}$ and $\tilde{\phi}_{l,2}$ to generate a new 

1053: solution to the BPS equation (\ref{BPSEP}) over the entire period. Within this block a member 

1054: of the third, dependent SU(2) algebra is generated at $\tau=0,1/(2T)$. To which block 

1055: $l$ of odd winding number $K(l)$ 

1056: this prescription is applied is a boundary condition to the BPS equation. 

1057: For simplicity we will proceed in this paper by only quoting results for the case N=3.

1058: 

1059: It is clear that for even $N\ge 6$ a decomposition of $\phi$ may contain an even number of SU(3) 

1060: blocks besides SU(2) blocks. For definiteness, 

1061: we only consider the decomposition into SU(2) blocks as proposed in Eq.\,(\ref{SU2diag}). 

1062: 

1063: \subsection{Tree-level mass spectrum of TLH modes}

1064: 

1065: In absence of radiative corrections only N(N$-$1) TLH modes acquire 

1066: mass by the adjoint Higgs mechanism. TLM modes aquire tiny 

1067: screening masses radiatively. 

1068: This effect will be discussed in Sec.\,\ref{Radcor}. 

1069: 

1070: In unitary gauge, the TLH mass spectrum calculates as 

1071: %***********

1072: \eqb

1073: \label{massspectrum}

1074: m_k^2=-2e^2\,\mbox{tr}\,[\phi,t^{k}][\phi,t^{k}]\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ (k=1,\cdots,\mbox{N(N$-$1)})\,.

1075: \eqe

1076: %***********

1077: The SU(N) generators $t^k$, which are associated with the 

1078: TLH modes, are  

1079: %********

1080: \eab

1081: \label{TLgen}

1082: t^{IJ}_{rs}&=&1/2\,(\delta_r^I\delta_s^J+\delta_s^I\delta_r^J)\,,\ \ \ 

1083: \bar{t}^{IJ}_{rs}=-i/2\,(\delta_r^I\delta_s^J-\delta_s^I\delta_r^J)\,,\nonumber\\ 

1084: (I&=&1,\cdots,\mbox{N};\,J>I;\,r,s=1,\cdots,\mbox{N})\,. 

1085: \eae

1086: %*********

1087: By virtue of Eqs.\,(\ref{solBPSEug}), (\ref{massspectrum}), (\ref{TLgen}) we obtain:

1088: %********

1089: \eqb

1090: \label{TLHmasses}

1091: m_{IJ}^2=\bar{m}_{IJ}^2=e^2(\phi_I-\phi_J)^2=

1092: e^2\,\frac{\Lambda_E^3}{2\pi T}\left\{\begin{array}{cc}

1093: \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{I/2}}-

1094: \frac{1}{\sqrt{J/2}}\right)^2\,,&\hspace{0.5cm}(I\,\mbox{even}, J\,\mbox{even})\\ 

1095: \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{(I+1)/2}}-

1096: \frac{1}{\sqrt{(J+1)/2}}\right)^2\,,&\hspace{0.5cm}(I\,\mbox{odd}, J\,\mbox{odd})\\ 

1097: \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{(I+1)/2}}+

1098: \frac{1}{\sqrt{J/2}}\right)^2\,,&\hspace{0.5cm}(I\,\mbox{odd}, J\,\mbox{even})\\ 

1099: \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{I/2}}+

1100: \frac{1}{\sqrt{(J+1)/2}}\right)^2\,,&\hspace{0.5cm}(I\,\mbox{even}, J\,\mbox{odd})\,\,.

1101: \end{array}\right.

1102: \eqe

1103: %*********

1104: For N=3 we have

1105: %******

1106: \eab

1107: \label{n3}

1108: m_{12}^2&=&m_{13}^2=\bar{m}_{12}^2=\bar{m}_{13}^2=e^2\,\frac{\Lambda_E^3}{2\pi T}\nonumber\\ 

1109: m_{23}^2&=&\bar{m}_{23}^2=4e^2\,\frac{\Lambda_E^3}{2\pi T}\ \ \ \ \ \mbox{or}\nonumber\\ 

1110: m_{12}^2&=&m_{23}^2=\bar{m}_{12}^2=\bar{m}_{23}^2=e^2\,\frac{\Lambda_E^3}{2\pi T}\nonumber\\ 

1111: m_{13}^2&=&\bar{m}_{13}^2=4e^2\,\frac{\Lambda_E^3}{2\pi T}\,.

1112: \eae

1113: %******

1114: 

1115: \subsection{Thermodynamical self-consistency and 

1116: $e(T)$ at one loop\label{TSCE}}

1117: 

1118: The TLH modes $\delta a^k_\rho$ are thermal quasiparticle fluctuations on tree-level 

1119: since their masses $m_{IJ}$ and $\bar{m}_{IJ}$, given in Eqs.\,(\ref{TLHmasses}) and (\ref{n3}), 

1120: are $T$ dependent. Moreover, the ground-state pressure, given by $-V_E$, is linearly 

1121: dependent on $T$, see Eq.\,(\ref{gspot}). Thermodynamical quantities such as the pressure, 

1122: the energy density, or the

1123: entropy density are interrelated by Legendre transformations as 

1124: derived from the partition function associated with 

1125: the underlying SU(N) Yang-Mills Lagrangian. To assure 

1126: that the same Legendre transformations are valid in the effective electric theory, where ground-state pressure 

1127: and particle masses are temperature dependent, a condition for thermodynamic self-consistency needs 

1128: to be imposed. In general, this condition assures that $T$-derivatives of quantities that enter the 

1129: action {\sl density} of the effective theory (in our case the TLH masses and the ground-state pressure) 

1130: cancel one another. 

1131: 

1132: Let us formulate this condition at one-loop accuracy. It is convenient to 

1133: work with dimensionless quantities. The quantity $a_k$ (mass over temperature) 

1134: is defined as

1135: %*************

1136: \eqb

1137: \label{dimlessdef}

1138: a_k\equiv c_k a\,\ \ \ \ \ \mbox{where} \ \ \ \ \  a\equiv e\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda_E^3}{2\pi T^3}}\,,

1139: \ \ \ \ (k=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}(\mbox{N}-1))\,,

1140: \eqe

1141: %*************

1142: and the coefficient $c_k$ is equal to the square root of one of the numbers 

1143: appearing to the right of the curly bracket in Eq.\,(\ref{TLHmasses}) or, for N=3, to 

1144: 1 or 2, compare with Eq.\,(\ref{n3}). Recalling 

1145: our definition of a dimensionless temperature

1146: %********

1147: \eqb

1148: \label{lambdaE}

1149: \lambda_E\equiv \frac{2\pi T}{\La_E}\,,

1150: \eqe

1151: %********

1152: we have

1153: %*******

1154: \eqb

1155: \label{massP}

1156: a=2\pi e\lambda_E^{-3/2}\,.

1157: \eqe

1158: %*******

1159: Let us also define the (negative definite) function $\bar{P}(a)$ as

1160: %*********

1161: \eqb

1162: \label{P(a)}

1163: \bar{P}(a)\equiv\int_0^\infty dx \,x^2\,\log[1-\exp(-\sqrt{x^2+a^2})]\,.

1164: \eqe

1165: %*********

1166: Ignoring higher loop corrections, the total thermodynamical pressure 

1167: $P(\lambda_E)$ associated with the diagrams in 

1168: Fig.\,(\ref{diagpress}) calculates as

1169: %********

1170: \eqb

1171: \label{treelP}

1172: P(\lambda_E)=-\La_E^4\left\{\frac{2\lambda_E^4}{(2\pi)^6}\left[2(\mbox{N}-1)\bar{P}(0)+

1173: 3\sum_{k=1}^{\tiny\mbox{N(N-1)}}\bar{P}(a_k)\right]+

1174: \frac{\lambda_E}{2}\left(\frac{\mbox{N}}{2}+1\right)\mbox{N}\right\}\,\ \ (\mbox{N\ \ even})\,.

1175: \eqe

1176: %*******

1177: In Eq.\,(\ref{treelP}) we have neglected the `nonthermal' contribution $-\Delta V_E$ to the 

1178: one-loop bubbles in Fig.\,\ref{diagpress} which is estimated as (quantum fluctuations are cut 

1179: off at the compositeness scale $|\phi|$)

1180: %*********

1181: \eqb

1182: \label{1loopvacbubble}

1183: \Delta V_E<(\mbox{N}^2-1)\frac{3}{8\pi^2}\int_0^{|\phi|}dp\, p^3\log\left(\frac{p}{|\phi|}\right)=

1184: -3(\mbox{N}^2-1)\frac{|\phi|^4}{128\pi^2}\,.

1185: \eqe

1186: %********

1187: To neglect $-\Delta V_E$ is well justified for sufficiently small N, say N$<$20, since we have

1188: %**********

1189: \eqb

1190: \label{DeltaV}

1191: \left|\frac{\Delta V_E}{V_E}\right|<

1192: (\mbox{N}^2-1)\frac{3}{128\pi^2}\left(\frac{|\phi|}{\La_E}\right)^6\sim 

1193: (\mbox{N}^2-1)\frac{3}{128\pi^2}\,\lambda_E^{-3}\,,

1194: \eqe

1195: %**********

1196: and we will show later that the minimal temperature in the electric phase 

1197: $\lambda_{c,E}$ is much larger than unity. 

1198: 

1199: For N=3 we obtain 

1200: %********

1201: \eqb

1202: \label{treelP3}

1203: P(\lambda_E)=-\La_E^4\left\{\frac{2\lambda_E^4}{(2\pi)^6}\left[4\bar{P}(0)+3\left(

1204: 4\bar{P}(a)+2\bar{P}(2a)\right)\right]+

1205: 2\lambda_E\right\}\,\ \ \ (\mbox{N=3})\,.

1206: \eqe

1207: %*******

1208: %***********************

1209: \begin{figure}

1210: \begin{center}

1211: \leavevmode

1212: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

1213: \leavevmode

1214: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

1215: \vspace{2.5cm}

1216: \special{psfile=Fig-4a.ps angle=0 voffset=-75

1217:          hoffset=-100 hscale=60  vscale=60}

1218: \end{center}

1219: \caption{Diagrams contributing to the pressure when radiative corrections are 

1220: ignored. A thick line corresponds to TLH modes and a 

1221: thin one to TLM modes. The cross depicts the ground-state contribution arising 

1222: from caloron `condensation'.  

1223: \label{diagpress}}      

1224: \end{figure}

1225: %************************

1226: A particular Legendre transformation following from the partition function of the underlying 

1227: theory maps pressure into energy density as

1228: %*********

1229: \eqb

1230: \label{rhoPree}

1231: \rho=T\frac{dP}{dT}-P\,.

1232: \eqe

1233: %*********

1234: For Eq.\,(\ref{rhoPree}) to hold also in the effective electric theory the following situation 

1235: has to be {\sl arranged for}: only the explicit 

1236: T-dependence in $P$, arising from the explicit T-dependence of the 

1237: Boltzmann weight, should contribute to the derivative $\frac{dP}{dT}$ while implicit $T$ dependences 

1238: of gauge-boson masses and the ground-state pressure ought to cancel one other. 

1239: This condition is expressed as \cite{Gorenstein1995}

1240: %************** 

1241: %*********

1242: \eqb

1243: \label{TSC}

1244: \pd_a P=0\,.

1245: \eqe

1246: %*********

1247: Before we proceed let us recall that the $\lambda_E$ dependence of the ground-state pressure, as indicated

1248: in Eqs.\,(\ref{gspot}) and (\ref{treelP}), could be expressed in terms of a dependence on the 

1249: mass parameter $a$ by virtue of Eq.\,(\ref{massP}) if the $\lambda_E$ dependence of the gauge 

1250: coupling constant $e$ was known. Keeping this in mind, we derive from Eqs.\,(\ref{TSC}), (\ref{treelP}), and 

1251: (\ref{treelP3}) the following evolution equation 

1252: %********

1253: \eqb

1254: \label{eeq}

1255: \pd_a \lambda_E=-\frac{24\,\lambda_E^4\,a}{(2\pi)^6 

1256: \mbox{N(N+2)}}\sum_{k=1}^{\tiny\mbox{N(N-1)}}c_k^2 D(a_k)\,,\ \ (\mbox{N\ \ even})\,.

1257: \eqe

1258: %*********

1259: For N=3 we have

1260: %********

1261: \eqb

1262: \label{eeq3}

1263: \pd_a \lambda_E=-\frac{12\,\lambda_E^4\,a}{(2\pi)^6} 

1264: \left(D(a)+2D(2a)\right)\,,\ \ (\mbox{N=3})\,.

1265: \eqe

1266: %*********

1267: The function $D(a)$ is defined as

1268: %**********

1269: \eqb

1270: \label{DA}

1271: D(a)\equiv \int_0^{\infty} dx\,

1272: \frac{x^2}{\sqrt{x^2+a^2}}\frac{1}{\exp(\sqrt{x^2+a^2})-1}\,.

1273: \eqe

1274: %**********

1275: Eqs.\,(\ref{eeq}) and (\ref{eeq3}) describe the evolution of temperature as a 

1276: function of tree-level gauge boson mass. The right-hand sides of these equations 

1277: are negative definite since the function $D(a)$ in Eq.\,(\ref{DA}) 

1278: is positive definite, see Fig.\,\ref{DAf}.

1279: %***********************

1280: \begin{figure}

1281: \begin{center}

1282: \leavevmode

1283: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

1284: \leavevmode

1285: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

1286: \vspace{4.5cm}

1287: \special{psfile=Fig-2.ps angle=0 voffset=-140

1288:          hoffset=-120 hscale=50  vscale=40}

1289: \end{center}

1290: \caption{The function $a\,D(a)$.\label{DAf}}      

1291: \end{figure}

1292: %************************

1293: As a consequence, the solutions $\lambda_E(a)$ 

1294: to Eqs.\,(\ref{eeq}) and (\ref{eeq3}) can be inverted to $a(\lambda_E)$. In Fig.\,\ref{laofa} a solution 

1295: for N=2 subject to the initial condition $\lambda_{E,P}\equiv\lambda_E(a=0)=10^3$ is shown. 

1296: We have noticed numerically that the low-temperature behavior of $\lambda_E(a)$ 

1297: is practically independent of the value $\lambda_{E,P}$ as long as $\lambda_{E,P}$ is 

1298: sufficiently large. Let us show this analytically. For $a$ sufficiently smaller than unity we may 

1299: expand the right-hand side of Eq.\,(\ref{eeq}) only taking the 

1300: linear term in $a$ into account. The inverse of the solution is then of the following form

1301: %********

1302: \eqb

1303: \label{anasolv}

1304: a\propto \lambda_E^{-3/2}\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{\lambda_E}{\lambda_{E,P}}\right)^3}\,.

1305: \eqe

1306: %********

1307: For $\lambda_E$ sufficiently smaller than $\lambda_{E,P}$ this can be approximated as

1308: %********

1309: \eqb

1310: \label{anasolapp}

1311: a\propto\lambda_E^{-3/2}\,.

1312: \eqe

1313: %********

1314: The dependence in Eq.\,(\ref{anasolapp}) thus 

1315: is an {\sl attractor}. So at whatever asymptotically high temperature the formation of the 

1316: adjoint Higgs field $\phi$ out of noninteracting trivial-holonomy calorons 

1317: is assumed does not influence the behavior of the theory at much 

1318: lower temperatures. This result is reminiscent of the 

1319: ultraviolet-infrared decoupling property of the renormalizable, 

1320: underlying theory.  

1321: 

1322: Notice that Fig.\,(\ref{DAf}) and Eq.\,(\ref{eeq}) imply that there are 

1323: fixed points of the evolution $\lambda_E(a)$ at $a=0$ and $a=\infty$. 

1324: The points $\lambda_{E,P}\equiv\lambda_E(a=0)$ and $\lambda_{E,c}\equiv\lambda_E(a=\infty)$ are 

1325: associated with the highest and the lowest attainable temperaturesin the electric phase, respectively. 

1326: In a bottom-up evolution no information can be obtained about $\lambda_{E,P}$ if the temperature that is maximally 

1327: reached is sufficiently smaller than $\lambda_{E,P}$.  

1328: In a top-down evolution, where $\lambda_{E,P}$ is set as a boundary value, the prediction of 

1329: $\lambda_{E,c}$ is independent of $\lambda_{E,P}$. These two 

1330: statements are immediate consequences of the existence of an 

1331: attractor in the thermodynamical evolution. 

1332: 

1333: Numerically inverting the solution $\lambda_E(a)$ to $a(\lambda_E)$, the evolution of the gauge coupling constant 

1334: $e$ can be computed using Eq.\,(\ref{massP}):

1335: %*******

1336: \eqb

1337: \label{coupP}

1338: e(\lambda_E)=\frac{1}{2\pi}a(\lambda_E)\lambda_E^{3/2}\,.

1339: \eqe

1340: %*******

1341: We show the result in Fig.\,\ref{eoflam} for N=2,3. Before we interprete this result 

1342: a remark on the interpretation of the effective gauge coupling constant $e$ for $T\sim T_P$ is in order. 

1343: Since $e$ determines the 

1344: strength of the interaction between nontopological gauge field fluctuations $\delta a_\rho$ 

1345: and the {\sl coherent} caloron state $\phi$ there is, in general, no reason for it 

1346: to be equal to the gauge coupling constant $\bar{g}$ of the fundamental Yang-Mills theory. 

1347: However, for temperatures very close to $T_P$, where $\phi$ is assumed to form 

1348: (see also Sec.\,\ref{MPlanck}), the coupling constant $e$ should be roughly equal to $\bar{g}$. 

1349: From Fig.\,\ref{eoflam} we see that the effective gauge coupling constant $e\sim\bar{g}$ 

1350: evolves to values larger than unity 

1351: shortly below the initial temperature $\lambda_{E,P}$. This is in agreement 

1352: with our assumption that trivial-holonmy SU(2) {\sl calorons} (of sufficiently small `instanton' radius) 

1353: have a large action and thus contribute sizably to the partion function of the underlying theory, 

1354: compare with Eq.\,(\ref{GPYSeffth}). For a grandly unifying SU(N) gauge theory we argue 

1355: in Sec.\,\ref{MPlanck} that $\lambda_{E,P}\sim \frac{M_P}{\La_E}$ where $M_P\gg \La_E$ denotes the

1356: cutoff scale for the description in terms of a local, four-dimensional field theory. 

1357: 

1358: There is no handle on the relation between the fundamental gauge coupling 

1359: $\bar{g}$ and $e$ after the condensate has formed and is sustained by interactions 

1360: between the trivial-holonomy calorons. Since collective effects are strong 

1361: they can make up for a large value of the action of an isolated caloron generated by a 

1362: small value of $\bar{g}$. This may justify the use of universal 

1363: perturbative expressions for the beta function in lattice 

1364: simulation at low temperatures.

1365: 

1366: Notice that the dependence of $a$ on $\lambda_E$ in 

1367: Eq.\,(\ref{anasolapp}) is canceled in the dependence of $e$ on $\lambda_E$ 

1368: such that a plateau is reached quickly in Eq.\,(\ref{coupP}). We interprete the fact that the 

1369: gauge coupling constant $e$ remains constant for a large range of temperatures 

1370: as another indication for the existence of spatially isolated and conserved 

1371: magnetic charges in the system, see also Sec.\,\ref{CMP}. 

1372: %***********************

1373: \begin{figure}

1374: \begin{center}

1375: \leavevmode

1376: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

1377: \leavevmode

1378: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

1379: \vspace{4.5cm}

1380: \special{psfile=Fig-4.ps angle=0 voffset=-150

1381:          hoffset=-130 hscale=50  vscale=50}

1382: \end{center}

1383: \caption{The solution $\lambda_E(a)$ to Eq.\,(48) for N=2 subject to the 

1384: boundary condition $\lambda_{E,P}\equiv\lambda_E(a=0)=10^3$.\label{laofa}}      

1385: \end{figure}

1386: %************************

1387: During the relaxation of $e$ to its plateau value 

1388: constituent BPS magnetic monopoles residing in dissociating nontrivial-holonomy 

1389: calorons form as isolated defects 

1390: \cite{KraanVanBaalNPB1998,vanBaalKraalPLB1998,Diakonov}. Since the 

1391: interaction between a monopole and an antimonopole, as mediated by TLM modes, 

1392: is screened \cite{KorthalsAltes,HoelbingRebbiRubakov2001} these defects need 

1393: not be considered explicitly in the effective, thermal theory discussed in the present work. Implicitly, 

1394: their presence is accounted for here by the holonomy of the 

1395: background field $a^{bg}_\rho$.  

1396:  

1397: The effective gauge coupling constant 

1398: $e$ runs into a logarithmic (needle) pole at $\lambda_{E,c}$ of the form

1399: %********

1400: \eqb

1401: \label{logpolee}

1402: e(\lambda_E)\propto-\log(\lambda_E-\lambda_{E,c})\,,

1403: \eqe

1404: %********

1405: compare with Fig.\,\ref{laofa}. 

1406: 

1407: The plateau values for $e$ are $e\sim 5.1$ and $e\sim 4.2$ 

1408: for N=2 and N=3, respectively. For a given N they do not depend on where the 

1409: boundary condition $\lambda_{E,P}\equiv\lambda_E(a=0)$ is set if $\lambda_{E,P}$ is sufficiently larger than

1410: $\lambda_{E,c}$. For N=2 we have $\lambda_{E,c}=11.65$ and for N=3 we have $\lambda_{E,c}=8.08$. 

1411: It thus is self-consistently justified to neglect the one-loop quantum corrections 

1412: to $V_E(\phi)$ as they are estimated in Eq.\,(\ref{DeltaV}).

1413: %***********************

1414: \begin{figure}

1415: \begin{center}

1416: \leavevmode

1417: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

1418: \leavevmode

1419: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

1420: \vspace{5.5cm}

1421: \special{psfile=Fig-5.ps angle=0 voffset=-170

1422:          hoffset=-130 hscale=60  vscale=60}

1423: \end{center}

1424: \caption{The low-temperature evolution of the gauge 

1425: coupling $e$ in the electric phase for 

1426: N=2 (grey line) and N=3 (black line). The gauge coupling 

1427: diverges logarithmically, $e\propto -\log(\lambda_{E}-\lambda_{c,E})$, at 

1428: $\lambda_{E,c}=11.65\ (\mbox{N=2})$ and $\lambda_{E,c}=8.08\ (\mbox{N=3})$. 

1429: The plateau values are $e=5.1\ (\mbox{N=2})$ and $e=4.2\ (\mbox{N=3})$.\label{eoflam}}      

1430: \end{figure}

1431: %************************

1432: Naively, one would conclude that the large plateau values would render the 

1433: fluctuations $\delta a_\rho$ to be very strongly coupled and that radiative 

1434: corrections to the thermodynamical potentials would thus be uncontrolled. This, however, 

1435: does not happen due to the fact that the TLH modes acquire masses by the Higgs mechanism 

1436: which are proportional to $e$ and due to the existence of a compsiteness scale 

1437: $|\phi|$. The latter constrains the momentum $p$ of quantum fluctuations 

1438: in $\delta a_\rho$ as

1439: %********

1440: \eab

1441: \label{qfconstr}

1442: |p^2-m^2_k|&\le &|\tilde{\phi}_l|^2\,,\ \ (\mbox{TLH, Minkowskian})\,,\ \ 

1443: |p^2|\le |\tilde{\phi}_l|^2\,, \ \ (\mbox{TLM, Minkowskian})\,,\nonumber\\ 

1444: \ p_e^2+m_k^2&\le&|\tilde{\phi}_l|^2\,,\ \  (\mbox{TLH, Euclidean})\,, \ \ 

1445: p_e^2\le |\tilde{\phi}_l|^2\,, \ \  (\mbox{TLM, Euclidean})\,.

1446: \eae

1447: %******** 

1448: Since in nonlocal two-loop contributions, see Fig.\,\ref{looppress}, 

1449: each TLH line is on-shell for $e>1$ the effect 

1450: of a strongly coupled vertex is compensated by the very 

1451: small phase space that is allowed for the progagation of 

1452: a TLM mode coupling to the TLH mode. The center-of-mass energy flowing into or out of a four-vertex 

1453: is constrained in addition to Eq.\,(\ref{qfconstr}) 

1454: to be smaller than $|\tilde{\phi}_l|$. We show in \cite{HerbstHofmannRohrer2004} 

1455: that the two-loop contributions to 

1456: the pressure for SU(2) are, depending on temperature, at most $\sim 0.1$\% 

1457: of the one-loop result.

1458: 

1459: \subsection{What is $T_P$?\label{MPlanck}}  

1460: 

1461: At temperatures 

1462: larger than the highest attainable temperature $T_P$ in the electric phase (corresponding to $a=0$) 

1463: a grandly unifying SU(N) gauge symmetry, which generates all matter and its (nongravitational) 

1464: interactions in the Universe at lower temperatures, would be unbroken. We assume here 

1465: that gravity is a perfectly classical theory up to the Planck 

1466: mass $M_P$ \footnote{This assumption is usually made 

1467: in field-theory models of cosmological 

1468: inflation.}. The perturbative phase of the SU(N) Yang-Mills theory at 

1469: $T>T_P$ would have a trivial vacuum state represented by weakly interacting 

1470: quantum fluctuations. The momenta associated with these 

1471: fluctuations can be maximally as hard as some cutoff scale at which the 

1472: four-dimensional setup ceases to be reliable. Common belief is that this cutoff scale is 

1473: $M_P$. 

1474: 

1475: The highest temperature $T_{\tiny\mbox{cutoff}}$ 

1476: attainable in the perturbative phase thus is comparable to $M_P$, $T_{\tiny\mbox{cutoff}}\sim M_P$. 

1477: At temperatures rnaging between $T_{\tiny\mbox{cutoff}}$ and $T_P$ perturbative 

1478: vacuum fluctuations would generate a cosmological 

1479: constant $\La_{\tiny\mbox{cosmo}}$ given as

1480: %*********

1481: \eqb

1482: \label{wbLambdacosmo}

1483: \La_{\tiny\mbox{cosmo}}\sim M_P^4\,.

1484: \eqe

1485: %**********

1486: At $T_{\tiny\mbox{cutoff}}$ the vacuum energy density $M_P^4$ 

1487: would be comparable to the thermal energy density of on-shell fluctuations 

1488: $\sim T_{\tiny\mbox{cutoff}}^4$. While the former is constant 

1489: the later dies off quickly as the Universe cools down. Thus for $T$ 

1490: slightly smaller than $T_{\tiny\mbox{cutoff}}$ the vacuum energy density dominate the expansion hence the 

1491: Universe would rapidly decrease its temperature as 

1492: %*********

1493: \eqb

1494: \label{decT}

1495: T\sim \exp[-M_P \Delta t] T_{\tiny\mbox{cutoff}}\,

1496: \eqe

1497: %********* 

1498: where $\Delta t\equiv t-t_P$ and $t_P\sim M^{-1}_P$. A sudden termination 

1499: of this Planck-scale inflation would occur at $T=T_P$ where 

1500: the field $\phi$ comes into existence. While the {\sl radiation} component of the total 

1501: energy density is continuous across the phase boundary 

1502: at $T_P$ the energy density of the {\sl ground-state} 

1503: would be discontinuously reduced from $M_P^4$ to 

1504: $\sim T_P \La_{YM,\tiny\mbox{N}}^3$, see Eq.(\ref{gspot}). On the one hand, 

1505: this release of latent heat is a characteristic for a (strong if $T_P\ll T_{\tiny\mbox{cutoff}}$) 

1506: 1$^{\tiny\mbox{st}}$ order transition. On the other hand, the order parameter $a$ for the onset of the electric

1507: phase is continuous, see Fig.\,(\ref{eoflam}) (screening masses are comparable 

1508: on both sides of the phase boundary, see Eq.\,(\ref{thermPiweakcoupl})). 

1509: But this is signalling a 2$^{\tiny\mbox{nd}}$ order phase transition. There is only one way 

1510: to avoid this 

1511: contradiction: The phase boundary at 

1512: $T_P$ needs to be hidden beyond the point 

1513: $T_{\tiny\mbox{cutoff}}\sim M_P$, that is, $T_P\ge T_{\tiny\mbox{cutoff}}$. 

1514: 

1515: The reader may 

1516: object that our conclusion about the 2$^{\tiny\mbox{nd}}$ order 

1517: of the phase transition (order parameter $a$) is resting on a 

1518: one-loop analysis of the gauge-coupling evolution. Usually, 

1519: it is understood that such a mean-field treatment breaks down close 

1520: to a 2$^{\tiny\mbox{nd}}$ order transition due to fact that long range 

1521: correlations mediated by low-momentum quantum fluctuations become important. 

1522: In the electric phase these long-range correlations are, however, 

1523: contained in the field $\phi$ which does not fluctuate at 

1524: any temperature $T_{E,c}<T\le T_P$. Due to $|\phi|$ being a 

1525: cutoff for the quantum fluctuations of the TLM 

1526: and TLH modes and due to the fact that $|\phi|$ dies off as $T^{-1/2}$ the long-range correlating effects of 

1527: TLM and TLH quantum fluctuations can safely be 

1528: neglected if $T_P\gg\La_E$. The above discussion and conclusion thus are valid.

1529: 

1530: So far we had in mind the simplified case of MGSB at $T_P$ in 

1531: grandly unifying SU(N) Yang-Mills theory. We know from experiment, however,  

1532: that gauge-symmetry breakdown at $T_P$ is {\sl not} maximal in Nature. If the gauge-symmetry breaking 

1533: by $\phi$ at $T_P$ is submaximal, however, the 

1534: same contradiction between the orders of the

1535: phase transition arises for $T_P<M_P$. In this case a 

1536: fundamental gauge symmetry SU(N) would be broken 

1537: to a product of group with factors SU(M) M$<$N or U(1). Recall, 

1538: that submaximal gauge-symmetry breaking in the electric phase takes

1539: place if SU(2) blocks in $\phi$ with equal winding number 

1540: are generated at $T_P$, see Eq.\,(\ref{SU2diag}).

1541: 

1542: The theory would then condense magnetic SU(M) color and magnetic U(1) monopoles at the 

1543: temperature $T_{E,c}$. While condensates of the latter are described by 

1544: complex scalar fields, see Sec.\,\ref{magPT}, condensates of the

1545: former are, again, described by adjoint Higgs fields. Maximal or submaximal 

1546: breakings of the residual SU(M) gauge symmetries would be possible at the electric-magnetic 

1547: transition of the fundamental SU(N) theory. For the effective 

1548: description of SU(M) thermodynamics at $T<T_{E,c}$ this 

1549: boundary condition effectively is set during the phase transition at $T_{E,c}$ and not at $T_P$. 

1550: By matching the thermodynamical pressures at $T_{E,c}$ the scale $\La_E^\prime$ of the 

1551: effective theory SU(M) is determined in terms of the scale $\La_E$ 

1552: of the fundamental SU(N) theory and the pattern of symmetry breaking at $T_P$ and $T_{E,c}$. 

1553: After a sequence of such matching procedures has taken place (in which residual U(1) 

1554: factors have thermodynamically decoupled) a hierarchy 

1555: between $\La_E$ and the scale $\La_E^{\prime\cdots\prime}$ of an effective 

1556: SU(L) theory ($L\ll N$), seen experimentally at low energies (or local 

1557: temperatures for that matter), is generated. 

1558: 

1559: To summarize, 

1560: we provided an argument that in a grandly unifying and four-dimensional SU(N) Yang-Mills theory the dynamical 

1561: generation of the adjoint background field $\phi$ must 

1562: take place at a temperature $T_{\tiny\mbox{cutoff}}\sim M_P$ where the local 

1563: field-theory description breaks down. Any lower SU(L) gauge symmetry, which is 

1564: generated from the SU(N) theory by a sequence of condensations of (color) monopoles and confining

1565: transitions, is matched to its `predessesor' theory in 

1566: 2$^{\tiny\mbox{nd}}$ order like phase transitions. The scale of this SU(L) gauge theory can be much 

1567: lower than the scale $\Lambda_E$ of the fundamental SU(N) theory. 

1568: 

1569: 

1570: \subsection{Stable und unstable magnetic monopoles\label{CMP}}

1571: 

1572: Due to the presence of an adjoint Higgs field $\phi$ 

1573: in the electric phase there are 't Hooft-Polyakov magnetic monopoles 

1574: \cite{'tHooft1974,Polayakov1974} which are centered at 

1575: the isolated zeros of $\phi$. On a mesoscopic level, these zeros occur at points in space 

1576: where four or more color-orientation domains of a 

1577: given block $\tilde{\phi}_l$ meet \cite{Kibble1976}. Microscopically, 

1578: BPS monopoles \cite{PrasadSommerfield1974} are contained within 

1579: decaying nontrivial-holonomy calorons \footnote{A perturbative analysis of 1-loop radiative corrections to an isolated 

1580: instanton were performed in \cite{'tHooft1976}. In \cite{Diakonov} this was done for 

1581: the nontrivial-holonomy caloron. As a result a repulsive potential for the constituent monopole and 

1582: antimonopole was obtained for a sufficiently large holonomy.}. 

1583: 

1584: Close to $T_P$ we have $\bar{g}\sim e$, and the 

1585: following processes take place: 

1586: Trivial-holonomy calorons grow rapidly in size, 

1587: start to overlap, and thus generate calorons with holonomy by their 

1588: interactions. If this holonomy is sufficiently large then two following processes take place: (i) 

1589: SU(2) nontrivial-holonomy calorons of the same embedding in SU(N) decay independently into 

1590: their constituent magnetic monopoles and antimonopoles, and (ii) SU(2) 

1591: nontrivial-holonomy calorons generated from trivial-holonomy calorons 

1592: of different SU(2) embeddings\footnote{Recall, that we have assumed that these calorons 

1593: come with different topological charge to 

1594: obtain maximal symmetry breaking.} in SU(N) do not decay into constituent 

1595: monopoles and antimonopoles since they would have to live in instable 

1596: superpositions of the embeddings of the asymptotic 

1597: trivial-holonomy calorons. While the former process generates stable magnetic 

1598: dipoles the latter generates instable monopoles and antimonopoles.

1599:  

1600: In our macroscopic approach it is hard to see how the size of a typical trivial-holonomy 

1601: caloron changes with temperature after $e$ has reached its plateau value 

1602: since $e$ plays a different role than the fundamental coupling constant

1603: $\bar{g}$. We may, however, infer from lattice simulations that trivial-holonomy calorons 

1604: are large enough to not generate a topological susceptibility on lattices of 

1605: presently feasible sizes. 

1606: 

1607: A magnetic monopole-antimonopole pair, which is connected by a magnetic flux line, becomes a stable dipole 

1608: if the pair has a sufficiently large spatial separation. 

1609: In this case the monopole and the antimonopole are practically 

1610: noninteracting \cite{HoelbingRebbiRubakov2001} and 

1611: thus are stable defects. If a single monopole is produced then it 

1612: is unstable unless it connects with its antimonopole, produced in 

1613: an independent collision. N$-$1 independent SU(2) subgroups exist and so 

1614: N$-$1 independent magnetic monopoles may occur in the case of MGSB. 

1615: Since the monopole constituents in a caloron are BPS 

1616: saturated we also expect an isolated monopole in a stable monopole-antimonopole pair 

1617: to be BPS saturated. The analytical expression 

1618: for an SU(2) charge-one BPS monopole in a gauge where the Higgs field $\phi$ 

1619: winds around the group manifold at spatial infinity \cite{PrasadSommerfield1974} is given as

1620: %**********

1621: \eqb

1622: \label{BPSmonop}

1623: A^a_0=0\,,\ \ \ \ A^a_i=\epsilon_{aij}\hat{r}_j\frac{1-K(r)}{er}\,,\ \ \ \ \phi^a=\hat{r}_a \frac{H(r)}{er}\,,

1624: \eqe

1625: %**********

1626: where $r\equiv \sqrt{\vec{r}^2}$, and $\hat{r}$ is a spatial unit vector. 

1627: The form of the functions $K(r)$ and $H(r)$ is

1628: %********

1629: \eqb

1630: \label{KandH}

1631: K(r)=\frac{Cr}{\sinh(Cr)}\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ H(r)=Cr\coth(Cr)-1\,.

1632: \eqe

1633: %********

1634: In Eqs.\,(\ref{KandH}) the mass scale $C$ is proportional to the asymptotic Higgs 

1635: modulus $|\phi(|\vec x|\to\infty)|$ and the gauge coupling constant $e$. 

1636: The mass of a BPS monopole is given as \cite{PrasadSommerfield1974}

1637: %**********

1638: \eqb

1639: \label{monopmass}

1640: M=\frac{8\pi}{\sqrt{2}\,e} |\phi(|\vec x|\to\infty)|\,.

1641: \eqe

1642: %***********

1643: A dual, abelian field strength $\tilde{G}_{\mu\nu}$ can be defined as 

1644: \cite{'tHooft1974}

1645: %********

1646: \eqb

1647: \label{tT}

1648: \tilde{G}_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\phi^a G_{\mu\nu}^a}{|\phi|}-

1649: \frac{\epsilon_{abc}}{e|\phi|^3}\phi_a ({\cal D}_\mu \phi)_b ({\cal D}_\mu \phi)_c\,.

1650: \eqe

1651: %***********

1652: The expression in Eq.\,(\ref{tT}) reduces to $\tilde{G}_{\mu\nu}=\pd_\mu a^3_\nu-\pd_\nu a^3_\mu$ 

1653: in unitary gauge $\phi^a=\delta^{a3}|\phi|$. Eq.\,(\ref{tT}) defines the field strength of a 

1654: dual photon which couples 

1655: to the magnetic charge $4\pi/e$ of the monopole. 

1656: Both the gauge dynamics involving only dual photons and magnetic monopoles and 

1657: the entire gauge dynamics in the electric phase are blind with respect to the 

1658: magnetic (local in space) center symmetry $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N,mag}}$ 

1659: (the field strength ${G}_{\mu\nu}$, the field $\phi$ and the covariant derivative 

1660: ${\cal D}_\mu \phi$ are invariant under center transformations and, 

1661: as a consequence of Eq.\,(\ref{tT}) so is the dual field strength 

1662: $\tilde{G}_{\mu\nu}$). However, a local-in-time 

1663: transformation $\in Z_{\tiny\mbox{N,elec}}$ may transform the Dirac string between 

1664: a static monopole and a static antimonopole in a given SU(2) embedding 

1665: into a Dirac string belonging to a dipole in a different SU(2) 

1666: embedding. This does not violate the 

1667: conservation of total magnetic charge and certainly has no effect 

1668: on any gauge invariant quantity. In an effective theory, 

1669: where monopoles are condensed degrees of freedom, a local $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N,elec}}$ 

1670: transformation should thus be represented by a local permutation of the 

1671: fields describing the monopole condensates and the gauge-field fluctuations 

1672: which couple to them. In such an effective theory the action thus ought to be 

1673: invariant under these local permutations.

1674: 

1675: How can we see the occurrence of stable and unstable magnetic monopoles in the macroscopic, 

1676: effective theory for the electric phase? In winding gauge the temporal winding 

1677: of the $l^{\tiny\mbox{th}}$ SU(2) block in $\phi$ 

1678: is complemented by spatial winding at isolated points in 3D space. By a large, $\tau$ 

1679: dependent gauge transformation the monopole's spatially asymptotic SU(2) 

1680: Higgs field is rotated to spatial constancy and into the direction given 

1681: by the temporal winding of the unperturbed block $\tilde{\phi}_l$. Its 

1682: Dirac string rotates as a function of Euclidean time. Since this monopole is stable, 

1683: a correlated antimonopole must exist. We arrive at a dipole rotating 

1684: about its center of mass at an 

1685: angular frequency $2\pi l T$. This rotation is an 

1686: artifact of our choice of gauge. Rotating the dipole to unitary gauge by the gauge 

1687: function $\theta_l$ in Eq.\,(\ref{thetamat}), we arrive 

1688: at a (quasi)static dipole. There are isolated 

1689: coincidence points (CPs) in time where the lower right (upper left) corner 

1690: of the $l^{\tiny\mbox{th}}$ ($(l+1)^{\tiny\mbox{th}}$) 

1691: SU(2) block (now ($l=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}/2-1$))

1692: together with the number zero of its 

1693: right-hand (left-hand) neighbour are proportional to the generator $\lambda_3$. 

1694: Coincidence also takes place between the first and last diagonal entry in $\phi$. 

1695: At a CP, spatial winding may take place at isolated points in 3D space. Moreover, 

1696: coincidence also takes place between nonadjacent 

1697: SU(2) blocks and the first and last diagonal entry in $\phi$. The associated 

1698: monopoles are, however, not independent. The spatial winding associated with the additional 

1699: SU(2) generators `flashing out' at the CPs corresponds to unstable magnetic monopoles.  

1700: 

1701: Summing up all independent monopole species, we have: 

1702: %*********

1703: \eqb

1704: \label{counting}

1705: \frac{\mbox{N}}{2}+\frac{\mbox{N}}{2}-1=\mbox{N}-1\,.

1706: \eqe

1707: %*********

1708: In the case N=3 the field $\phi$ winds with winding number one in each of the 

1709: two independent SU(2) subalgebras for half the time, see Sec\,\ref{oddN}. The match between these 

1710: subalgebras happens at the CPs $\tau_{CP}=0,1/(2T)$ where an element of the 

1711: third, dependent SU(2) algebra is generated, see Sec.\,\ref{oddN}. Due to these CPs we have 

1712: unstable monopoles.

1713: 

1714: \subsection{Outlook on radiative corrections\label{Radcor}}

1715: 

1716: \subsubsection{Contributions to the TLM self-energy}

1717: 

1718: Let us now investigate for N=2 and at one loop the simplest contribution to 

1719: the polarization tensor for the TLM mode. A complete investigation of 

1720: two-loop contributions to the pressure is the objective of \cite{HerbstHofmannRohrer2004}. We work in unitary 

1721: gauge $\phi=\mbox{diag}(\phi_1,\phi_2)$, $a_\rho^{bg}=0$. 

1722: This condition fixes the gauge up to U(1) rotations 

1723: generated by $\lambda_3$. This remaining gauge freedom can be used to gauge the TLM mode to 

1724: transversality: $\pd_i \delta a^{\tiny\mbox{TLM}}_i=0$ (radiation or Coulomb gauge). 

1725: No ghost fields need to be introduced 

1726: in unitary-Coulomb gauge. 

1727: 

1728: After an analytical continuation to Minkowskian signature\footnote{For the purpose of the present 

1729: work we do not need the matrix formulation of the real-time propagators.} 

1730: the asymptotic propagator of a free TLM mode is given as \cite{LandsmanWeert1987}

1731: %**************

1732: \eqb

1733: \label{TLMprop}

1734: D^{\tiny\mbox{TLM},0}_{\mu\nu,ab}(k,T)=-\delta_{ab}P^T_{\mu\nu}

1735: \left(\frac{i}{k^2}+2\pi\delta(k^2)n_B(|k_0|/T)\right)\,

1736: \eqe

1737: %**************

1738: where 

1739: %***********

1740: \eab

1741: \label{PT}

1742: P^T_{00}&=&P^T_{0i}=P^T_{i0}=0\,,\nonumber\\ 

1743: P^T_{ij}&=&\delta_{ij}-\frac{k_ik_j}{\vec{k}^2}\,,

1744: \eae

1745: %***********

1746: and $n_B(x)\equiv\frac{1}{\exp[x]-1}$ denotes the Bose distribution function. 

1747: The analytically continued asymptotic propagator of 

1748: a free TLH mode $D^{\tiny\mbox{TLH},IJ,0}_{\mu\nu,ab}(k,T)$ 

1749: is that of a massive vector boson

1750: %***********

1751: \eqb

1752: \label{TLHprop} 

1753: D^{\tiny\mbox{TLH},IJ,0}_{\mu\nu,ab}(k,T)=-\delta_{ab}

1754: \left(g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{m_{IJ}^2}\right)

1755: \left[\frac{i}{k^2-m_{IJ}^2}+2\pi\delta(k^2-m_{IJ}^2)n_B(|k_0|/T)\right]\,.

1756: \eqe

1757: %**********

1758: The vertices for the interactions of TLH and TLM modes are the usual ones. 

1759: In unitary-Coulomb gauge the 4D loop integrals over quantum fluctuations 

1760: are cut off at the compositeness scale $|\phi|(T)$ of the effective theory. 

1761: Thermal fluctuations, associated with 3D loop integrals, are automatically cut off 

1762: by the distribution function $n_B$.

1763: %***********************

1764: \begin{figure}

1765: \begin{center}

1766: \leavevmode

1767: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

1768: \leavevmode

1769: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

1770: \vspace{3.5cm}

1771: \special{psfile=Fig-6.ps angle=0 voffset=-90

1772:          hoffset=-130 hscale=60  vscale=60}

1773: \end{center}

1774: \caption{A tadpole contribution to the self-energy of the TLH mode.\label{tadpole}}      

1775: \end{figure}

1776: %************************

1777: Let us now look at the tadpole contribution to $\Pi_{a=3,\mu\rho}$ as shown in Fig.\,\ref{tadpole}. 

1778: This diagram decomposes into a part for the vacuum fluctuations in the loop, 

1779: which has a $T$ dependence only due to the $T$ dependence of TLH masses, 

1780: and a thermal part. Contracting the Lorentz indices, the former can be calculated as

1781: %***********

1782: \eqb

1783: \label{vacPi}

1784: \Pi^{\tiny\mbox{vac},\mu}_{a=3,\mu}=-\frac{3(e|\tilde{\phi}|)^2}{2\pi^2}\int_0^{\sqrt{1-(2e)^2}}dx\,

1785: \frac{x^3(4+\frac{x^2}{(2e)^2})}{x^2+(2e)^2}\,

1786: \eqe

1787: %***********

1788: while the thermal part reads

1789: %**********

1790: \eqb

1791: \label{thermPi}

1792: \Pi^{\tiny\mbox{therm},\mu}_{a=3,\mu}=\frac{18}{\pi^2}(e|\tilde{\phi}|)^2\int_0^\infty dy\,

1793: \frac{y^2}{\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}}\,\,\frac{1}{\exp\left[2\pi\lambda_E^{-3/2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}\right]-1}\,.

1794: \eqe

1795: %************ 

1796: It is instructive to perform the weak and strong coupling limits 

1797: in Eqs.\,(\ref{vacPi}) and (\ref{thermPi}). 

1798: 

1799: \noindent For $e<\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, we obtain 

1800: %***********

1801: \eqb

1802: \label{vacPiweakcoupl}

1803: \Pi^{\tiny\mbox{vac},\mu}_{a=3,\mu}=-\frac{3|\tilde{\phi}|^2}{32\pi^2}\left(1+16\,e^2-

1804: 80\left(1-\frac{12}{5}\log(2e)\right)\,e^4\right)\,

1805: \eqe

1806: %***********

1807: and for $e\ll 1$

1808: %**********

1809: \eqb

1810: \label{thermPiweakcoupl}

1811: \Pi^{\tiny\mbox{therm},\mu}_{a=3,\mu}\to 3\pi^2\,(eT)^2+O(e^4)\,.

1812: \eqe

1813: %************

1814: For $e\gg \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ there is no vacuum contribution, $\Pi^{\tiny\mbox{vac},\mu}_{a=3,\mu}=0$.

1815: The thermal part reads 

1816: %**********

1817: \eqb

1818: \label{thermstrongcoupl}

1819: \Pi^{\tiny\mbox{therm},\mu}_{a=3,\mu}\to\frac{18}{\pi^3}\,e^3\,\Lambda_E^2\,\lambda_E^{1/2}\,

1820: K_1(4\pi\,e\,\lambda_E^{-3/2})\,

1821: \eqe

1822: %************

1823: where $K_1(x)$ denotes a modified Bessel function. 

1824: The weak coupling result for the thermal part in Eq.\,(\ref{thermPiweakcoupl}) coincides, 

1825: up to a numerical factor, with the perturbative expression for the electric 

1826: screening (or Debye) mass-squared, as it should. In the limit of infinite coupling, 

1827: which is reached due to the logarithmic pole for 

1828: $\lambda_E\searrow\lambda_{E,c}$, see Eq.\,(\ref{logpolee}), 

1829: the thermal part in Eq.\,(\ref{thermstrongcoupl}) vanishes. 

1830: This agrees qualitatively with results obtained in 

1831: thermal quasiparticle models fitted to lattice data 

1832: \cite{Biro1990,Peshier1995,LevaiHeinz1998}. It was found in these models that the Debye mass 

1833: vanishes for $T\searrow T_{E,c}$ \footnote{We foretake at this point that the deconfinement phase transiiton

1834: seen on the lattice is the electric-magnetic transition at $T_{E,c}$. We will discuss 

1835: in Sec.\,\ref{complat} why the lattice is not capable of measuring infrared 

1836: sensitive quantities such as the pressure at temperatures below $T_{E,c}$.}. 

1837: A large and {\sl constant} value of $e$, as it is generated 

1838: by one-loop evolution (compare with Eqs.\,(\ref{anasolapp}) and (\ref{coupP})), 

1839: implies that the approximation leading to Eq.\,(\ref{thermstrongcoupl}) breaks down for 

1840: high temperatures. It is, however, clear from Eq.\,(\ref{thermPi}) that the 

1841: weak coupling result at $O(e^2)$ in Eq.\,(\ref{thermPiweakcoupl}) 

1842: gives an upper bound on the contribution to the screening mass-squared at any 

1843: temperature and any value of the 

1844: coupling constant.

1845: 

1846: We expect that the situation is similar for the nonlocal one-loop diagrams. 

1847: As for the tadpole correction in 

1848: the polarization operator of a TLH

1849: mode there is a contribution $\propto e^2$ for strong coupling which arises from the 

1850: vacuum part with the TLM mode in the loop. This contribution is, however, 

1851: suppressed due to the constraint that the center-of-mass energy flowing into or out of 

1852: the vertex must be smaller than $|\phi|$ \cite{HerbstHofmannRohrer2004}. 

1853:  

1854: 

1855: \subsubsection{Loop expansion of the pressure}

1856: 

1857: Two-loop diagrams contributing to the pressure in a real-time formulation 

1858: are indicated in Fig.\,\ref{looppress}. We do not compute them here but in 

1859: \cite{HerbstHofmannRohrer2004} for N=2. 

1860: A general remark concerning thermodynamical self-consistency 

1861: is in order already here. Recall, that on one-loop level 

1862: we have obtained an evolution equation from the requirement of thermal 

1863: self-consistency $\pd_a P=0$. This gave a functional relation between temperature and mass  

1864: which could be inverted for all temperatures in the electric phase. 

1865: After the relation Eq.\,(\ref{coupP}) between 

1866: coupling constant $e$ and mass $a$ was exploited we obtained 

1867: a functional dependence of the effective gauge coupling constant 

1868: $e$ on temperature. Equivalently, we could have 

1869: demanded $\pd_e P=0$ since $e$ is the only variable parameter of our 

1870: effective theory for the electric phase. This would have {\sl directly} 

1871: generated an evolution equation for temperature 

1872: as a function of $e$. 

1873: 

1874: Radiative corrections $\Delta P$ to the 

1875: pressure have a separate dependence on $a$ and $e$, 

1876: %*********

1877: \eqb

1878: \label{radpressure}

1879: \Delta P=T^4 \Delta\tilde{P}(e,a,\lambda_E)\,,

1880: \eqe

1881: %**********

1882: where $\Delta\tilde{P}$ is a dimensionless function of its dimensionless arguments. 

1883: To implement thermodynamical self-consistency by demanding $\pd_a P=0$ one has to 

1884: express the explicitly appearing $e$ in Eq.\,(\ref{radpressure}) 

1885: in terms of $a$ by means of Eq.\,(\ref{coupP}) and distinguish temperature 

1886: dependences arising from a simple rescaling and those 

1887: arising from the $T$ dependent ground-state physics. For SU(2) we have 

1888: %*********

1889: \eqb

1890: \label{e(a)}

1891: \frac{m^2}{|\phi|^2}\equiv e^2(a,\lambda_E)=\frac{T^2}{2}\,\times\frac{a^2}{|\phi|^2}=

1892: \frac{\lambda_E^2}{8\pi^2}\times a^2\lambda_E\,.

1893: \eqe

1894: %*******

1895: The first factor on the right-hand sides of Eq.\,(\ref{e(a)}) arises 

1896: from rescaling, so only the second factor needs to be differentiated: 

1897: %*********

1898: \eqb

1899: \label{e(a)D}

1900: \pd_a e(a,\lambda_E)=\frac{\lambda_E^2}{8\pi^2}\times\left(2a\lambda_E+a^2\pd_a\lambda_E\right)\,.

1901: \eqe

1902: %*******

1903: After solving $\pd_a P=0$ for the term $\pd_a\lambda_E$ 

1904: we obtain a modified right-hand side of the 

1905: evolution equation Eq.\,(\ref{eeq}). The inverted solution to this 

1906: evolution equation describes the dependence of mass on temperature or, 

1907: after applying Eq.\,(\ref{massP}), the dependence of $e$ on temperature 

1908: when two-loop diagrams for the pressure are taken into account. 

1909: %***********************

1910: \begin{figure}

1911: \begin{center}

1912: \leavevmode

1913: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

1914: \leavevmode

1915: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

1916: \vspace{3.5cm}

1917: \special{psfile=Fig-7.ps angle=0 voffset=-90

1918:          hoffset=-100 hscale=60  vscale=60}

1919: \end{center}

1920: \caption{Two-loop diagrams contributing to the pressure. Thick lines denote propagators of TLH modes, 

1921: thin lines those of TLM modes.\label{looppress}}      

1922: \end{figure}

1923: %************************

1924: The Euclidean momenta $p_e$ of off-shell fluctuations of the TLH-modes are constrained by the condition 

1925: %*********

1926: \eqb

1927: \label{osmomTLH}

1928: p^2_e\le|\phi|^2(1-c_k^2\,e^2\,\frac{|\tilde{\phi}_1|}{|\phi|^2})\,,\ \ \ \ 

1929: (k=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}(\mbox{N}-1))\,,

1930: \eqe

1931: %***********

1932: and by the requirement that the total momentum squared 

1933: flowing into or our of a four-vertex cannot be larger than $|\phi|^2$, s

1934: ee Eq.\,(\ref{Mineuosn}) and Eq.\,(\ref{dimlessdef}). Since at one loop $e$ is smaller than unity 

1935: for $T\sim T_P$ only, we expect TLH-mode quantum 

1936: fluctuations to be absent at temperatures lower than $T_P$ also at 

1937: higher-loop accuracy. 

1938: 

1939: 

1940: \section{The magnetic phase\label{MP}}

1941: 

1942: \subsection{The electric-magnetic phase transition\label{magPT}}

1943: 

1944: In Sec.\,\ref{CMP} we have discussed how stable and unstable BPS monopoles 

1945: are generated as isolated objects in the electric phase. For definiteness we have assumed MGSB 

1946: by the adjoint scalar $\phi$. The mass of the N/2 stable BPS monopole species is given as in 

1947: Eq.\,(\ref{monopmass}) when replacing $\phi\to\tilde{\phi}_l\,,\ (l=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}/2)$. 

1948: As a consequence of the evolution of the gauge 

1949: coupling $e(\lambda_E)$ following from Eq.\,(\ref{eeq}) the mass of a stable 

1950: monopole vanishes at $\lambda_E=\lambda_{E,c}$ due 

1951: the logarithmic pole of $e$. Stable monopoles do not 

1952: carry any Euclidean action at 

1953: this point, and thus they condense. 

1954: 

1955: TLM modes, which couple to isolated 

1956: monopoles with strength $g=\frac{4\pi}{e}$, become dual gauge bosons. They couple to the 

1957: monopole {\sl condensates} with a strength $g$, which may now 

1958: continuously vary with temperature, starting with $g=0$ at $\lambda_E=\lambda_{E,c}$. 

1959: The TLH modes of the electric phase decouple kinematically at 

1960: $\lambda_E=\lambda_{E,c}$ since their masses, $\propto e|\phi|$, diverge. 

1961: At the onset of the {\sl magnetic} phase, 

1962: where N/2 species of stable monopoles are condensed, we are thus left with an 

1963: effective Abelian theory of $\mbox{N}-1$ dual gauge fields $a^D_{\mu,k}$, $(k=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}-1)$ 

1964: and N/2 condensates of stable monopoles described by complex scalar fields 

1965: $\varphi_l\,,\ (l=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}/2)$. The temporal winding of these fields is the 

1966: same as that of the associated SU(2) blocks $\tilde{\phi}_l$ in the electric phase. 

1967: For N=3 there are two independent condensates of stable monopoles. 

1968: 

1969: What happens to the N/2$-$1 independent unstable monopoles (N even, $\mbox{N}>3$? 

1970: Unstable monopoles are generated by gluon exchanges 

1971: between trivial-holonomy calorons in different SU(2) embeddings. We conclude, 

1972: that at $\lambda_E=\lambda_{E,c}$ the intact continuous gauge symmetry 

1973: U(1)$^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}$ of the electric phase becomes a gauge symmetry 

1974: U(1)$_D^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}$ which is spontaneously 

1975: broken as 

1976: %***********

1977: \eqb

1978: \label{breaking}

1979: \mbox{U}(1)_D^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}\to \mbox{U}(1)_D^{\tiny\mbox{N/2-1}} 

1980: \ (\mbox{N}>3)\,

1981: \eqe

1982: %************

1983: for $\lambda_E<\lambda_{E,c}$ in the magnetic phase. For $N=2,3$ the spontaneous 

1984: breakdown of continuous gauge symmetry is maximal. The monopole condensate 

1985: $\bar{\varphi}_k$, which is associated with the 

1986: dual gauge-field fluctuation $\delta a^D_{\mu,k}$, is  

1987: defined as

1988: %*********

1989: \eqb

1990: \label{monopcondsit}

1991: \bar{\varphi}_k=\left\{\begin{array}{c} \hspace{-1.1cm}\varphi_i\,,\ \ \ (k=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}/2)\,,\nonumber\\ 

1992:  0\,,\ \ \ (k=\mbox{N}/2+1,\cdots,\mbox{N}-1)\,,\end{array}\right.\,.

1993: \eqe

1994: %**********

1995: The local $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N,elec}}$ symmetry acts 

1996: on $\delta a_{\mu,k}^D, \bar{\varphi}_k$ as a 

1997: local-in-time permutation (see the discussion in Sec.\,\ref{CMP})

1998: %********

1999: \eqb

2000: \label{localcenter}

2001: (\delta a^D_{\mu,k},\bar{\varphi}_k)\to 

2002: (\delta a^D_{\mu,(k+j(\tau))\tiny{\mbox{mod\, (N-1)}}},\bar{\varphi}_{(k+j(\tau))

2003: \tiny{\mbox{mod\, (N-1)}}})\,,\ \ \ \ (j\in \bf{Z})\,.

2004: \eqe

2005: %******** 

2006: In Eq.\,(\ref{localcenter}) the integer-valued functions $j$ are piecewise constant 

2007: on extended regions of Euclidean spacetime. The symmetry defined in Eq.\,(\ref{localcenter}) 

2008: leaves the ground state of the system invariant, and thus 

2009: the discrete, local symmetry $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N},elec}$ is unbroken in 

2010: the magnetic phase. As a consequence the {\sl global} 

2011: $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N},elec}$ associated with the Polyakov loop as an 

2012: order parameter is also unbroken, see also Sec.\,\ref{polyaloop}. 

2013: 

2014: 

2015: \subsection{Monopole condensates, macroscopically\label{windingmag}}

2016: 

2017: The effective theory describing the magnetic phase is 

2018: constructed in close analogy to the effective theory 

2019: describing the electric phase. Recall, that we assume 

2020: MGSB in the electric phase. Since the condensation of monopoles is driven by their 

2021: masslessness the complex scalar fields $\varphi_l$, 

2022: which describe the monopole condensates, 

2023: are energy- and pressure-free in the absence of 

2024: monopole interactions mediated by dual gauge-field fluctuations in the topologically trivial sector 

2025: of the theory. For the N=2 case the exponent of the phase of the local field $\varphi$ is defined as

2026: %*********

2027: \eqb

2028: \label{defvarphiloc}

2029: i\log\left[\frac{\varphi}{|\varphi|}\right]=\la \int d\Sigma_{\mu\nu} \tilde{G}_{\mu\nu}

2030: \ra_{\tiny\mbox{z. m. of n.i. magn.

2031: monop.}}\,.

2032: \eqe

2033: %*********

2034: In Eq.\,(\ref{defvarphiloc}) the dual field strength $\tilde{G}_{\mu\nu}$ is the 't Hooft tensor of 

2035: Eq.\,(\ref{tT}), the (surface-) integal is over a spatial 

2036: 2-sphere of infinite radius, and the average is over the zero-mode deformations of a 

2037: noninteracting magnetic monopole. Again, Eq.\,(\ref{defvarphiloc}) defines a dimensionless 

2038: entity in accord with the fact that the Yang-Mills scale is a parameter to be 

2039: measured and not to be calculated. The right-hand side of Eq.\,(\ref{defvarphiloc}) measures the magnetic 

2040: flux. If monopoles are point-like, that is, if 

2041: they are massive, then the right-hand side of 

2042: Eq.\,(\ref{defvarphiloc}) vanishes identically due to cancellation of ingoing and outgoing 

2043: fluxes. If monopoles are massless (condensed), that is, if their charges are 

2044: spread over the entire Universe, 

2045: then this cancellation does not take place, see \cite{HerbstHofmann2004} for a more 

2046: detailed investigation. It is clear that definition (\ref{defvarphiloc}) relies on 

2047: definitions (\ref{locdefphi}) and (\ref{tT}). So when expressed in terms of 

2048: fundamental caloron and topologically trivial fields it looks quite involved. 

2049: No (nonlocally defined) lattice operator of this type has ever been constructed. 

2050: One more point needs to be discussed: The phase in Eq.\,(\ref{defvarphiloc}) should be a function of Euclidean time $\tau$, 

2051: see Eq.\,(\ref{BPSsolM}). From the definition of the 't Hooft tensor, Eq.\,(\ref{tT}), we 

2052: see that such a time dependence manifests itself in terms a $\tau$ dependent 

2053: angle in adjoint color space between 

2054: the fields $\phi^a$ and $G_{\mu\nu}^a$. Deep in the electric phase, where monopoles are 

2055: isolated defects, this angle is subject to a 

2056: global gauge choice for the direction of winding of the field $\phi^a$.  In the magnetic phase, where 

2057: monopoles are condensed, the global gauge choice in the electric phase 

2058: is promoted to a {\sl local} gauge 

2059: choice for the composite field $\varphi$. This situation is reminiscent of 

2060: Kaluza-Klein like gemoetarical compactifications where 

2061: global space-time symmetries along `extra' dimensions become gauge symmetries upon 

2062: compactification \cite{Kaluza1921,Klein1926} within a low-energy formulation of the theory. 

2063: This also seems to happens in the low-energy formulation of the Yang-Mills 

2064: theory being in its magnetic phase.    

2065: 

2066: The fields $\varphi_l$ are 

2067: energy- and pressure-free if and only if their Euclidean time dependence is BPS saturated. 

2068: Moreover, the $\varphi_l$ must be periodic in time, and their gauge invariant 

2069: modulus must not depend on spacetime. Since BPS monopoles have resonant 

2070: excitations \cite{ForgasVolkov2003}, which are activated by the exchanges of 

2071: dual gauge bosons, one expects the ground-state energy 

2072: of the system and the tree-level mass spectrum of dual 

2073: gauge-field fluctuations to be $T$ dependent. 

2074: The local permutation symmetry discussed in Secs.\,\ref{CMP} and 

2075: \ref{magPT} is respected by the effective potential 

2076: $\tilde{V}_{M}(\varphi_1,\cdots,\varphi_{\tiny\mbox{N}/2})$ if it 

2077: decomposes into a {\sl sum over potentials} $V_{M}(\varphi_l)$:

2078: %********

2079: \eqb

2080: \label{potmagn}

2081: \tilde{V}_M(\varphi_1,\cdots,\varphi_{\tiny\mbox{N}/2})\equiv\sum_{l=1}^{\tiny\mbox{N}/2} 

2082: V_{M}(\varphi_l)\,.

2083: \eqe

2084: %*********

2085: The potential $V_{M}$ is uniquely determined by the above conditions. We have

2086: %********

2087: \eqb

2088: \label{singlepotM}

2089: V_{M}(\varphi_l)\equiv\overline{v_{M}(\varphi_l)}v_{M}(\varphi_l)

2090: \, \ \ \ \ \mbox{and} \ \ \ \ v_{M}(\varphi_l)=i\La_M^3/\varphi_l\,.

2091: \eqe

2092: %********

2093: In Eq.\,(\ref{singlepotM}) $\La_M$ denotes a mass scale which is 

2094: related to the mass scale $\La_E$ in the electric phase by a matching 

2095: condition, see Sec.\,\ref{MCC}. The effective action for the magnetic phase 

2096: reads

2097: %**********

2098: \eqb

2099: \label{effactM}

2100: S_M=\int_0^{1/T}

2101: d\tau\int d^3x\,\left[\frac{1}{4}\sum_{k=1}^{\tiny\mbox{N}-1}\,

2102: \tilde{G}_{\mu\nu,k}\tilde{G}_{\mu\nu,k}+

2103: \frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{l=1}^{\tiny\mbox{N}/2}\overline{\tilde{{\cal D}}_{\mu,l}\varphi_l}

2104: \tilde{{\cal D}}_{\mu,l}\varphi_l+\tilde{V}_M(\varphi_1,\cdots,\varphi_{\tiny\mbox{N}/2})\right)\right]\,.

2105: \eqe

2106: %**********

2107: In Eq.\,(\ref{effactM}) $\tilde{G}_{\mu\nu,l}$ 

2108: denotes the Abelian field strength of the dual field $a^D_{\mu,l}$, $\tilde{G}_{\mu\nu,l}\equiv 

2109: \pd_\mu a^D_{\nu,l}-\pd_\nu a^D_{\mu,l}$, the covariant derivative is defined as 

2110: $\tilde{{\cal D}}_{\mu,l}\equiv \pd_\mu+ig\,a^D_{\mu,l}$, and $g$ denotes 

2111: the magnetic gauge coupling constant. One remark concerning the normalization of the kinetic 

2112: terms for the fields $\varphi_l$ is in order. The ratio between the gauge kinetic term $\frac{1}{4}\,

2113: \tilde{G}_{\mu\nu,l}\tilde{G}_{\mu\nu,l}$ and the kinetic term 

2114: $\frac{1}{2}\,\tilde{{\cal D}}_{\mu,l}\varphi_l\tilde{{\cal D}}_{\mu,l}\varphi_l$ 

2115: defines the mass spectrum of the gauge-field fluctuations $\delta a^D_{\mu,l}$ in unitary gauge. 

2116: A redefinition of the factor in front of 

2117: $\tilde{{\cal D}}_{\mu,l}\varphi_l\tilde{{\cal D}}_{\mu,l}\varphi_l$ (and $\tilde{V}_M$) 

2118: changes this ratio. At the same time, however, the scale $\La_M$ is changed because the 

2119: matching condition - equality of the pressure in the magnetic and electric phase at the phase boundary - 

2120: is unchanged. 

2121: The canonical normalization used in Eq.\,(\ref{effactM}) 

2122: is thus nothing but a convention for defining the scale $\La_M$ in terms of $\La_E$.  

2123: 

2124: \noindent The solutions to the BPS equations

2125: %********

2126: \eqb

2127: \label{BPSM}

2128: \pd_\tau \varphi_l=\bar{v}_{M}(\bar{\varphi}_l)

2129: \eqe

2130: %********

2131: read 

2132: %********

2133: \eqb

2134: \label{BPSsolM}

2135: \varphi_l=\sqrt{\frac{\La_M^3}{2\pi T K(l)}}\exp[-2\pi i T K(l)\tau]

2136: \eqe

2137: %********

2138: where $K(l)$ is an integer. The condition of MGSB by 

2139: minimal ground-state energy in the electric phase translated into  

2140: %********

2141: \eqb

2142: \label{maxsymbr}

2143: K(l)=l\,.

2144: \eqe

2145: %********

2146: Since the $l^{\tiny\mbox{th}}$ stable monopole species in the electric phase is 

2147: associated with zeros of the $l^{\tiny\mbox{th}}$ SU(2) block in $\phi$ the temporal 

2148: winding of its {\sl condensate} $\varphi_l$ is accordingly. 

2149: From Eqs.\,(\ref{BPSsolM}) and (\ref{maxsymbr}) we derive a potential 

2150: %*********

2151: \eqb

2152: \label{potMsol}

2153: 1/2\,\tilde{V}_M=\frac{\pi\mbox{N(N+2)}}{8}\,T\Lambda_M^3 

2154: \eqe

2155: %*********

2156: for even N. For N=3 we obtain

2157: %*********

2158: \eqb

2159: \label{potMsolN3}

2160: 1/2\,\tilde{V}_M=\pi\,T\Lambda_M^3\,. 

2161: \eqe

2162: %********* 

2163: Again, statistical fluctuations of the fields $\varphi_l$ are negligible and quantum fluctuations 

2164: are absent:

2165: %*********

2166: \eqb

2167: \label{qsflphiM}

2168: \frac{\pd^2_{|\varphi_l|} V_{M}(\varphi_l)}{T^2}=24\pi^2l^2\,,\ \ \ \ \ 

2169: \frac{\pd^2_{|\varphi_l|} V_{M}(\varphi_l)}{|\varphi_l|^2}=6\,l^3\lambda_M^3\,.

2170: \eqe

2171: %*********

2172: In Eq.\,(\ref{qsflphiM}) we have defined $\lambda_M\equiv \frac{2\pi T}{\La_M}$. For $\mbox{N}=2,3$ 

2173: $\lambda_M$ is larger than unity throughout the magnetic phase, see Sec.\,\ref{TSCM}. 

2174: Since the fields $\varphi_l$ do not fluctuate they are a background 

2175: to the macroscopic gauge-field equations of

2176: motion 

2177: %*********

2178: \eqb

2179: \label{eomdualG}

2180: \pd_\mu \tilde{G}_{\mu\nu,l}=ig\left[\overline{\tilde{{\cal D}}_{\nu,l}\varphi_l}\varphi_l-\bar{\varphi_l}

2181: \tilde{{\cal D}}_{\nu,l}\varphi_l\right]\,.

2182: \eqe

2183: %********* 

2184: There exist pure-gauge solutions to Eq.\,(\ref{eomdualG}) given as

2185: %*******

2186: \eqb

2187: \label{pgsolM}

2188: a^{D,bg}_{\mu,l}=\delta_{\mu 4}\frac{2\pi l}{g}\,T\,.

2189: \eqe

2190: %********

2191: Again, a macroscopic `holonomy' is created by interacting monopoles which can be 

2192: related to the existence of isolated loops of magnetic flux: ANO vortices. 

2193: We have $\tilde{{\cal D}}_{\nu,l}\varphi_l=0$. 

2194: As a consequence, the action in Eq.\,(\ref{effactM}) reduces to the potential term 

2195: on the ground-state solutions $\varphi_l, a^{D,bg}_{\mu,l}$. This results in a shift of 

2196: the ground-state energy density and pressure to $\pm 1/2\,\tilde{V}_M$, respectively.

2197: 

2198: \noindent Nonperiodic gauge functions  

2199: %*******

2200: \eqb

2201: \label{grM}

2202: \theta_l=2\pi l T\tau

2203: \eqe

2204: %*******

2205: transform each pair $\varphi_l,\, a^{D,bg}_{\mu,l}$ to unitary gauge

2206: %********

2207: \eqb

2208: \label{unitgaugeM}

2209: \varphi_l=|\varphi_l|\,,\ \ \ \ \  a^{D,bg}_{\mu,l}=0\,.

2210: \eqe

2211: %********

2212: In analogy to the electric phase one shows that 

2213: the gauge rotations $\Omega_l=e^{\theta_l}$ leave intact the 

2214: periodicity of the fluctuations $\delta a^D_{\mu,l}$. These gauge rotations thus 

2215: do not change the physics upon integrating out the fields $\delta a^D_{\mu,l}$ 

2216: at one loop. Due to the effective theory being Abelian and the monopole condensates $\varphi_l$ 

2217: inert the one-loop calculation is exact. There is, however, a pronounced difference 

2218: to the electric phase. In winding as well as in unitary gauge the 

2219: Polyakov loop evaluated on each of the background fields $a^{D,bg}_{\mu,l}$ 

2220: is {\sl unity}. We conclude that the ground state of the system is unique, 

2221: much in contast to the electric phase, and thus that the global 

2222: $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N,elec}}$ symmetry is {\sl restored}. For a discussion of the 

2223: full Polyakov loop see Sec.\,\ref{polyaloop}. Hence the magnetic phase confines 

2224: fundamental test charges at the same time as it allows for the propagation of 

2225: massive, Abelian gauge modes!      

2226: 

2227: 

2228: \subsection{Gauge-field excitations and \\ thermodynamical self-consistency\label{TSCM}}

2229: 

2230: 

2231: The Abelian Higgs mechanism generates a tree-level

2232: mass spectrum for the fluctuations $\delta a^D_{\mu,l}$. It is given as

2233: %********

2234: \eqb

2235: \label{massspecM}

2236: m_l=g|\varphi_l|\equiv a_l\,T\,.

2237: \eqe

2238: %*********

2239: Due to the noncondensation of unstable monopoles there are N/2$-1$ 

2240: dual gauge field fluctuations 

2241: %********

2242: \eqb

2243: \label{masslessM}

2244: \delta a^D_{\mu,i}\,,\ \ (i=\mbox{N}/2+1,\cdots,\mbox{N})\,

2245: \eqe

2246: %********

2247: which are massless. In analogy to the electric phase we derive 

2248: an evolution equation for temperature as a function of mass from the 

2249: requirement of thermodynamical self-consistency, $\pd_a P=0$ 

2250: (for the definition of $a$ in the magnetic phase

2251: see Eq.\,(\ref{defM})). Notice that the 

2252: one-loop expression for thermodynamical quantities and the tree-level masses of

2253: the dual gauge boson fluctuations $\delta a^D_{\mu,k}\,,\ (k=1,\mbox{N}-1)$ are exact due to 

2254: the effective theory being Abelian. We obtain  

2255: %********

2256: \eqb

2257: \label{evolMeven}

2258: \pd_a\lambda_M=-\frac{96}{(2\pi)^6 \mbox{N(N+2)}}\lambda_M^4\, a

2259: \sum_{l=1}^{\tiny{\mbox{N/2}}}c_l^2 D(a_l)\,,

2260: \ \ \ (\mbox{N\ \ even})\,.

2261: \eqe

2262: %**********

2263: For N=3 we have

2264: %********

2265: \eqb

2266: \label{evolM3}

2267: \pd_a\lambda_M=-\frac{12}{(2\pi)^6}\lambda_M^4\, a D(a)\,.

2268: \eqe

2269: %**********

2270: In Eqs.\,(\ref{evolMeven}) and (\ref{evolM3}) we have defined:

2271: %********

2272: \eab

2273: \label{defM}

2274: c_l&\equiv&\frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}\,,\ \ \ \ 

2275: \lambda_M\equiv\frac{2\pi T}{\La_M}\,,\nonumber\\  

2276: a&\equiv& \frac{g}{T}|\varphi_1|=2\pi\,g\,\lambda_M^{-3/2}\,,\ \ \ \ a_l\equiv c_l a\,.

2277: \eae

2278: %*********

2279: In deriving Eqs.\,(\ref{evolMeven}) and (\ref{evolM3}) 

2280: we have neglected the `nonthermal' contribution $-\Delta \tilde{V}_M$ to the pressure which is 

2281: very small for sufficiently small N (quantum fluctuations are cut 

2282: off at the compositeness scales $|\varphi_l|$):

2283: %**********

2284: \eqb

2285: \label{DeltaVM}

2286: \left|\frac{\Delta \tilde{V}_M}{\tilde{V}_M}\right|<

2287: 3\,\frac{\mbox{N}-1}{128\pi^2}\left(\frac{|\varphi_1|}{\La_M}\right)^6\sim 

2288: 3\,\frac{\mbox{N}-1}{128\pi^2}\,\lambda_M^{-3}\,.

2289: \eqe

2290: %**********

2291: The function $D(a)$ is defined in Eq.\,(\ref{DA}). The evolution equations 

2292: (\ref{evolMeven}) and (\ref{evolM3}) have fixed points at $a=0,\infty$ which correspond to 

2293: the highest and lowest attainable temperatures in the magnetic phase, 

2294: $\lambda_{E,c}$ and $\lambda_{M,c}$, respectively. 

2295: 

2296: The $\lambda_M$ dependence of the gauge coupling constants $g$ 

2297: is obtained by inverting the solutions to Eqs. (\ref{evolMeven}) and 

2298: (\ref{evolM3}) and using the relation between $g$, $\lambda_M$ and $a$ in 

2299: Eq.\,(\ref{defM}) afterwards. Results for N=2,3 are shown in Fig.\,\ref{gevol}.

2300: %***********************

2301: \begin{figure}

2302: \begin{center}

2303: \leavevmode

2304: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

2305: \leavevmode

2306: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

2307: \vspace{4.5cm}

2308: \special{psfile=Fig-8.ps angle=0 voffset=-140

2309:          hoffset=-140 hscale=60  vscale=60}

2310: \end{center}

2311: \caption{The evolution of the gauge 

2312: coupling constant $g$ in the magnetic phase for 

2313: N=2 (thick grey line) and N=3 (thick black line). The gauge coupling constant 

2314: diverges logarithmically, $g\propto -\log(\lambda_{M}-\lambda_{M,c})$, at 

2315: $\lambda_{M,c}=6.41$ (N=2) and $\lambda_{M,c}=5.82$ (N=3). \label{gevol}}      

2316: \end{figure}

2317: %************************

2318: The gauge coupling constant $g$ increases continuously from $g=0$ at the electric-magnetic 

2319: phase boundary ($\lambda_M=\lambda_{E,c}$) until it diverges logarithmically at $\lambda_{M,c}$. 

2320: A continuous behavior of the magnetic 

2321: coupling is not in contradiction with magnetic charge conservation 

2322: since no isolated magnetic charges appear 

2323: in the magnetic phase: magnetic monopoles are only present in condensed 

2324: form, and there are no collective monopole excitations, see Eq.\,(\ref{qsflphiM}). The 

2325: continuous rise of $g$, starting from zero at $\lambda_{M,c}$, implies a continuous behavior of the 

2326: mass parameter $a$ in Eq.\,(\ref{defM}). Since $a$ is the measurable order parameter 

2327: for monopole condensation this situation is reminiscent of a 

2328: 2$^{\tiny\mbox{nd}}$ order phase transition. We compute the critical exponent of this 

2329: transition for N=2 in Sec.\,\ref{critexpo}.

2330: 

2331: Lowering $\lambda_M$ towards $\lambda_{M,c}$ the core size of ANO vortices 

2332: becomes large, the monopole condensates are more and 

2333: more distorted by magnetic flux lines, and thus it becomes increasingly 

2334: irrelevant in what SU(2) embedding a particular monopole lives. Formerly 

2335: unstable monopoles acquire longevity and thus additional monopole 

2336: condensates form at $\lambda_{M,c}$: $\bar{\varphi}_i\not=0\,,\ (i=\mbox{N}/2+1,\cdots,\mbox{N}-1)$ for 

2337: $\lambda_M\sim \lambda_{c,M}$. 

2338: As a consequence, {\sl all} dual gauge-boson fluctuations $\delta a^D_{\mu,k}\,,\ (k=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}-1)$ 

2339: are very massive close to $\lambda_{M,c}$ and decouple thermodynamically at $\lambda_{M,c}$. 

2340: The equation of state at $\lambda_M=\lambda_{c,M}$ thus is 

2341: %********

2342: \eqb

2343: \label{eosMc}

2344: \rho(\lambda_{M,c})=-P(\lambda_{M,c})\,.

2345: \eqe

2346: %********

2347: At $\lambda_{M,c}$, where all dual gauge-field fluctuations are very massive, the continuous 

2348: dual gauge symmetry $U(1)_D^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}$ is broken 

2349: completely.

2350: 

2351: \subsection{Polyakov loop in the electric and the magnetic phase\label{polyaloop}}

2352: 

2353: In this section we show that the Polyakov loop, which is an order parameter 

2354: for the deconfining transition, indeed is finite in the electric 

2355: and close to zero in the magnetic phase. In each phase the Polyakov loop of the full 

2356: effective theory (now we also consider the fluctuations $\delta a_\rho$) 

2357: formulated in Euclidean spacetime and unitary gauge is defined as

2358: %***********

2359: \eab

2360: \label{Ployeff}

2361: {\bf P}&=&Z^{-1}\times\exp[-S_{cl}]\times

2362: \int {\cal D}\delta b_\rho\,\exp\left[-i\gamma\int_0^{T^{-1}} d\tau\,\delta b_4^{b.g.}\right]\times\nonumber\\ 

2363: & &\exp\left[-\int_0^{T^{-1}}d\tau d^3x\left\{\frac{1}{4}G^2[\delta b_\rho]+

2364: \sum_k m^2_k\,\delta b_{\mu,k}\delta b_{\mu,k}\right\}\right]\,.

2365: \eae

2366: %**********

2367: where $\gamma=\{e,g\}$ and $\delta b_\rho=\{\delta a_\rho,\delta a^D_\rho\}$ 

2368: depending on whether we discuss the electric or the magnetic phase. The term 

2369: $\exp[-S_{cl}]$ refers to the vanishing weight of the ground state in 

2370: the partition function $Z$ in either phase. This weight, however, cancels in expectation 

2371: values. 

2372: %***********************

2373: \begin{figure}

2374: \begin{center}

2375: \leavevmode

2376: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

2377: \leavevmode

2378: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

2379: \vspace{3.5cm}

2380: \special{psfile=Fig-8b.ps angle=0 voffset=-120

2381:          hoffset=-240 hscale=60  vscale=70}

2382: \end{center}

2383: \caption{The data set used for the fit of the critical exponent $\nu$.\label{nudata}}      

2384: \end{figure}

2385: %************************ 

2386: Since the fluctuations $\delta b_\rho$ 

2387: are periodic in time they are decomposed as

2388: %********

2389: \eqb

2390: \label{fourierb}

2391: \delta b_\rho(\tau,{\vec x})=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{n=\infty} 

2392: \exp\left[2\pi in \frac{\tau}{T}\right]\bar{b}_{\rho,n}({\vec x})\,.

2393: \eqe

2394: %********

2395: Modes with $n\not=0$ make the Polyakov-loop 

2396: phase in Eq.\,(\ref{Ployeff}) unity, are action-suppressed, 

2397: and thus they are irrelevant. Zero modes ($n=0$) make a contribution 

2398: to the Polyakov-loop phase if they are not action-suppressed. This is the case 

2399: if both of the following conditions are met: (i) there is no mass term for these 

2400: fluctuations and (ii) we have $\pd_i\bar{b}_{\rho,0}({\vec x})\sim 0$ where $\pd_i$ 

2401: denotes a spatial derivative. In the electric 

2402: phase TLM modes are massless and thus their space-indepent zero-mode fluctuations 

2403: generate the bulk of the (finite) Polyakov loop. For N=2,3 there are no massless 

2404: fluctuations in the magnetic phase and thus condition (i) is violated. As a consequence, none of 

2405: the fluctuations $\delta b_\rho$ can contribute 

2406: to the Polyakov loop in a substantial way in the magnetic phase and thus we have 

2407: ${\bf P}\sim 0$. For N$>$3 the presence of unstable magnetic monopoles in the 

2408: magnetic phase prevents some of the TLM modes to pick up a mass by the Abelian 

2409: Higgs mechanism. Thus the Polyakov loop should be small but nonvanishing in 

2410: the magnetic phase.    

2411: 

2412: \subsection{Critical exponent for the SU(2) electric-magnetic transition\label{critexpo}}

2413: 

2414: In this section we compute the critical exponent $\nu$ for the 

2415: electric-magnetic transition for N=2. The obvious order parameter for this transition is 

2416: the `photon' mass. 

2417: 

2418: The data set in Fig.\,\ref{nudata} is generated from an inversion of the numerical solution to the 

2419: evolution equation Eq.\,(\ref{evolMeven}). The following model is used to fit the data

2420: %********

2421: \eqb

2422: \label{modeldata}

2423: a(\lambda_M)=C\times |\lambda_M-\lambda_{M,em}|^\nu

2424: \eqe

2425: %********

2426: where $C$ and $\nu$ are constants, $\lambda_{M,em}$ denotes the critical 

2427: temperature $T_{e,c}$ in units of $\frac{\Lambda_M}{2\pi}$, and $a$ is the dimensionless `photon' mass. 

2428: Recall, that the value $\lambda_{E,c}=11.65$ is obtained from the position of the logarithmic pole 

2429: of the coupling constant $e$ in the {\sl electric phase}. By matching the pressure at 

2430: the electric-magnetic phase boundary, see Sec.\ref{MCC}, this translates into a 

2431: value $\lambda_{M,em}=7.337$.  

2432: 

2433: To perform the actual fit we 

2434: have used Mathematica's NonlinearFit function which is contained in the 

2435: statistics package. In Fig.\,\ref{shapeFIT} the 

2436: critical behavior of the `photon' mass $a$ is shown.

2437: %***********************

2438: \begin{figure}

2439: \begin{center}

2440: \leavevmode

2441: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

2442: \leavevmode

2443: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

2444: \vspace{3.5cm}

2445: \special{psfile=Fig-8a.ps angle=0 voffset=-130

2446:          hoffset=-140 hscale=60  vscale=50}

2447: \end{center}

2448: \caption{The function $a(\lambda_M)$ in the vicinity of the electric-magnetic phase transition. 

2449: The region between the dashed vertical lines corresponds to the data set in Tab.\,1 which generates the 

2450: least sensitivity of $\nu$ on the length of the 

2451: fitting interval $\Delta=|\lambda_{M,\tiny\mbox{min,fit}}-\lambda_{M,em}|$.\label{shapeFIT}}      

2452: \end{figure}

2453: %************************   

2454: To determine the length of the fitting interval 

2455: $\Delta=|\lambda_{M,\tiny\mbox{min,fit}}-\lambda_{M,em}|$ where $\nu$ is 

2456: least sensitive to changes in $\lambda_{M,\tiny\mbox{min,fit}}$ we numerically 

2457: determine the inflexion point $\Delta_{\tiny\mbox{inflex}}$ of the function $\nu=\nu(\Delta)$, 

2458: see Fig.\,\ref{inflexionpoint}. We obtain 

2459: %*********

2460: \eqb

2461: \label{inflexpo}

2462: \Delta_{\tiny\mbox{inflex}}=0.29\pm0.05\,.

2463: \eqe

2464: %*********

2465: We emphasize that this interval is well contained in the fitting 

2466: interval used in \cite{deForcrandEliaPepe2001} where the critical exponent was determined 

2467: from the expectation of the dual string tension. Their fit interval $0\le t\le 1$ with 

2468: $t\equiv\frac{T_{M,em}-T}{T_{M,em}}$ correponds to an interval length 

2469: $\Delta=\lambda_{M,em}\sim 7.34$!  

2470: 

2471: The interval of least senstivity $\Delta_{\tiny\mbox{inflex}}=0.29\pm0.05$ 

2472: translates into 

2473: %**********

2474: \eqb

2475: \label{nuFITst}

2476: \nu=0.61+0.02-0.01\,.

2477: \eqe

2478: %**********

2479: Alternatively, we can determine $\nu$ by a fit in 

2480: very small intervals around $\lambda_{M,em}$. In this case we obtain the result expected from a naive

2481: mean-field analysis, $\nu\to 0.5$. However, the fitted 

2482: prefactor $C$ varies considerably for very small intervals around $\lambda_{M,em}$. 

2483: It is worth mentioning at this point that the `would-be' critical 

2484: exponent for N=3 has at least 

2485: two inflexion points as a function of $\Delta$. This makes a unique determination 

2486: of the physical value of $\nu$ 

2487: impossible and clearly indicates that the phase transition is not second order anymore. A small latent 

2488: heat is associated with the electric-magnetic transition for N=3, see Fig.\,\ref{rho}, 

2489: which makes it 

2490: weakly first order. This is seen on the lattice \cite{LuciniTeperWenger2003}.   

2491: 

2492: The critical exponent for the 3D Ising 

2493: model (same universality class as SU(2) Yang-Mills \cite{SvetitskyYaffe1982-1,SvetitskyYaffe1982-2}) 

2494: is $\nu_{\tiny\mbox{Ising}}\sim 0.63$. As it seems, the effective theories for the electric and the 

2495: magnetic phases have passed an important test!    

2496:  

2497:  

2498: \section{The center phase\label{CVCM}} 

2499: 

2500: \subsection{Isolated center vortices in the magnetic phase} 

2501: 

2502: Away from the points $\lambda_{E,c}$ and $\lambda_{M,c}$ there 

2503: are isolated vortices in the magnetic 

2504: phase which form closed loops due to the 

2505: conservation of magnetic flux. Along the 

2506: core region of a vortex, where the monopole condensate vanishes, 

2507: $\bar{\varphi}_k\approx 0$, monopoles and antimonopoles form a closed 

2508: chain and move into opposite directions \cite{Olejnik1997}. 

2509: Along a vortex loop the magnetic flux is $2\pi\,k/N\,,\ (k=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}-1)$ 

2510: with respect to the dual gauge field $a^D_{\mu,k}$. This coins the 

2511: name center vortex loop.

2512: %***********************

2513: \begin{figure}

2514: \begin{center}

2515: \leavevmode

2516: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

2517: \leavevmode

2518: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

2519: \vspace{3.5cm}

2520: \special{psfile=Fig-8c.ps angle=0 voffset=-120

2521:          hoffset=-140 hscale=60  vscale=50}

2522: \end{center}

2523: \caption{Dependence of the critical exponent $\nu$ on the length of the fitting 

2524: interval $\Delta=|\lambda_{M,\tiny\mbox{min}}-\lambda_{M,c}|$. The inflexion point 

2525: of the curve is at $\Delta_{\tiny\mbox{inflex}}=

2526: 0.29\pm0.05$ corresponding to $\nu=0.61+0.02-0.01$.\label{inflexionpoint}}      

2527: \end{figure}

2528: %************************ 

2529: The typical action $S_{\tiny\mbox{ANO}}$ and energy $E_{\tiny\mbox{ANO}}$ of a center vortex loop can be 

2530: estimated since an analytical solution to the Abelian Higgs 

2531: model is known \cite{NielsenOlesen1973}:

2532: %********

2533: \eqb

2534: \label{ANOana}

2535: S_{\tiny\mbox{ANO}}\sim\frac{1}{g^2}\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ E_{\tiny\mbox{ANO}}\propto \frac{1}{g}\,.

2536: \eqe

2537: %********

2538: As a consequence of Eq.\,(\ref{ANOana}) center vortex 

2539: loops do not carry action and are 

2540: massless at $\lambda_{M,c}$ where $g$ 

2541: diverges. They condense to form a new ground state of 

2542: the system: a phase transition takes place. As we will show below this phase 

2543: transition is nonthermal and of the Hagedorn type.

2544: 

2545: \subsection{Center vortex condensates, macroscopically}

2546: 

2547: Since center vortex loops are extended, one-dimensional 

2548: objects the local scalar fields $\Phi_k(x)\,,\ (k=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}-1)$ 

2549: describing their respective condensates have to be 

2550: defined in a nonlocal way. We formally define the fields $\Phi_k(x)$ 

2551: in terms of an average over the dual Abelian gauge 

2552: fields $A^D_{\mu,k}$ of the magnetic phase 

2553: (the part belonging to an ANO or center vortex is included in $A^D_{\mu,k}$!) as

2554: %*********

2555: \eqb

2556: \label{Wilsonloopx}

2557: \frac{\Phi_k(x)}{|\Phi_k(x)|}=\la \exp\left[ig\oint dz_\mu A^D_{\mu,k}\right]\ra_{A^D_{\mu,k}}\,.

2558: \eqe

2559: %*********

2560: In Eq.\,(\ref{Wilsonloopx}) the integration contour is spatial and circular, 

2561: its center is at $x$, and circle's diameter is infinite. In absence of a Yang-Mills scale 

2562: $\Lambda_C$, which is a relevant situation 

2563: when investigating the ground-state structure in the center phase due 

2564: to the missing gauge-mode propagation, only dimensionless quantities 

2565: like in Eq.\,(\ref{Wilsonloopx}) can be computed. As we shall see below, the presence of 

2566: $\Lambda_C$ can only be observed in the excitation spectrum (selfintersections of center-vortices). 

2567: We may always chose a parametrization of the integration 

2568: contour $z(\xi)$ in Eq.\,(\ref{Wilsonloopx}) 

2569: such that $0\le\xi\le 1$. 

2570: 

2571: A (local) magnetic center rotation can be expressed as

2572: %*********

2573: \eqb

2574: \label{centerrot}

2575: \Omega(z)=\exp\left[\frac{2\pi i}{\mbox{N}} \sum_{k=1}^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}\chi_k(z)\right]\,

2576: \eqe

2577: %*********

2578: where $\chi_k(z)$ is either $k$ or zero. The dual gauge field $A^D_{\mu,k}$ transforms 

2579: under $\Omega(z)$ as

2580: %*********

2581: \eqb

2582: \label{trafocenterrot}

2583: A^D_{\mu,k}\to A^D_{\mu,k}-g^{-1}\frac{2\pi}{\mbox{N}}\pd_\mu \chi_k(z)\,.

2584: \eqe

2585: %*********

2586: %***********************

2587: \begin{figure}

2588: \begin{center}

2589: \leavevmode

2590: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

2591: \leavevmode

2592: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

2593: \vspace{4.5cm}

2594: \special{psfile=Fig-9.ps angle=0 voffset=-140

2595:          hoffset=-140 hscale=50  vscale=50}

2596: \end{center}

2597: \caption{The phase of a local magnetic center transformation along a 

2598: circular contour parametrized by $0\le \xi\le 1$ and its 

2599: decomposition into boxes. \label{locCP}}      

2600: \end{figure}

2601: %************************

2602: According to the definition (\ref{Wilsonloopx}) a 

2603: magnetic center rotation $\Omega(z)$ may locally add a 

2604: magnetic flux quantum \cite{'tHooft1978} to the flux contained 

2605: in $\Phi_k$. This is possible since we may have 

2606: $\Omega(z(0))\not=\Omega(z(1))$. The action of the local magnetic 

2607: center rotation $\Omega(z)$ on the complex field $\Phi_k(x)$ is as follows:

2608: %********

2609: \eqb

2610: \label{centerphi}

2611: \Phi_k(x)\to\left\{\begin{array}{c}\exp[\pm\frac{2\pi i k}{\tiny\mbox{N}}]\,\Phi_k(x),\ \ \ 

2612: (|\chi_k(z(1))-\chi_k(z(0))|=k)\,,\\ 

2613: \,\,\,\,\,\Phi_k(x)\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{otherwise} \end{array}\right.\,.

2614: \eqe

2615: %*********

2616: Obviously, the action of 

2617: $\Omega(z)$ on $\Phi_k(x)$ may locally change the phase of the field $\Phi_k$, 

2618: and thus the ground state is not invariant under local magnetic center 

2619: transformations: $Z_{\mbox{N,mag}}$ as a discrete gauge symmetry is spontaneously 

2620: broken in the center phase. 

2621: 

2622: The local center transformation $\Omega$ singles out possible 

2623: `boundaries of the circle' at the positions $z(\xi_n)$, ($\xi_0=0,\cdots$),  

2624: where it jumps, see Fig.\,\ref{locCP}. The size and direction of an 

2625: $\Omega$-induced magnetic flux quantum - an observable quantity - 

2626: should not depend on the admissible re-parametrizations 

2627: $\xi(\zeta)$, $(0\le\zeta\le 1)$ with $\xi(0)\in\{\xi_n\}$. 

2628: For example, a translation 

2629: %********

2630: \eqb

2631: \label{zeta}

2632: \xi(\zeta)=\zeta+\xi_1

2633: \eqe

2634: %********

2635: would have shifted the `boundary of the circle' at $z(\xi=0)$ to $z(\xi=\xi_1)$. Thus 

2636: it would have generated a different flux quantum. To avoid such an ambiguity 

2637: we have to impose that a 

2638: reparametrization of the circle is compensated for by an according local 

2639: permutation of the fields $\Phi_k(x)$: if flux quanta $\frac{2\pi k}{\mbox{N}}$ and 

2640: $\frac{2\pi l}{\mbox{N}}$, ($l\not=k$), 

2641: were generated by $\Omega$ in the parameterizations 

2642: $\xi$ and $\zeta$, respectively, then a 

2643: permutation with $\Phi_l\to\Phi_k$ needs to be 

2644: performed {\sl after} the reparametrization $\zeta$ was implemented. 

2645: This yields the same flux quantum as in parametrization 

2646: $\xi$. Now, the discontinuous phase 

2647: change in Eq.\,(\ref{centerphi}) is 

2648: provided by the {\sl dynamics} in an effective theory 

2649: and is not externally imposed. As a consequence, 

2650: the demand for invariance of a generated flux quantum 

2651: under admissible contour-reparametrizations translates 

2652: into an invariance of the effective Lagrangian under local permutations 

2653: of the set $\{\Phi_1(x),\cdots,\Phi_{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}(x)\}$. The following Lagrangian 

2654: satisfies this requirement:

2655: %************

2656: \eqb

2657: \label{actcenter}

2658: {\cal L}_C=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}

2659: \left[\pd_\mu\Phi_k \pd_\mu\Phi_k+V_C(\Phi_k)\right]\,.

2660: \eqe

2661: %************

2662: It is clear from Eq.\,(\ref{actcenter}) that the transformation 

2663: in Eq.\,(\ref{centerphi}) is only a symmetry of the potential term 

2664: due to the noninvariance of the kinetic terms under the jumps in the fields $\Phi_k$. 

2665: However, because of the conservation of magnetic flux (only closed loops of center vortex 

2666: flux can be generated) one quantum of center flux created by a jump at one point in spacetime

2667: is compensated by an opposite quantum of 

2668: center flux created by the opposite jump at another point. 

2669: The spacetime integral over ${\cal L}_C$, the action, 

2670: is therefore invariant under local center rotations which induce magnetic 

2671: flux in a closed flux line. Based on the continuum Lagrangian 

2672: in Eq.\,(\ref{actcenter}) it would be interesting to perform a 

2673: lattice simulation of the transition to the center phase taking any member of the set $\{|\Phi_k|\}$ as an 

2674: order parameter. 

2675: %***********************

2676: \begin{figure}

2677: \begin{center}

2678: \leavevmode

2679: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

2680: \leavevmode

2681: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

2682: \vspace{6.5cm}

2683: \special{psfile=Fig-9-10-10.ps angle=0 voffset=-200

2684:          hoffset=-140 hscale=50  vscale=50}

2685: \end{center}

2686: \caption{The potential $V_C=\overline{v_C(\Phi)}v_C(\Phi)$ corresponding 

2687: to the definition in Eq.\,(\ref{vCright}) 

2688: for N=2,3,4 and $\La_C=\Lambda^\prime_C$. 

2689: $|\Phi|$ is given in units of $\La_C$ and $V_C$ in units of $\La_C^4$. Notice the minima $V_C=0$ at 

2690: the N$^{\tiny\mbox{th}}$ unit roots. \label{pot234}}      

2691: \end{figure}

2692: %************************

2693: The function $V_C(\Phi)$ in Eq.\,(\ref{actcenter}) can be written as 

2694: $V_C(\Phi)=\overline{v_C(\Phi)}v_C(\Phi)$. Let us now discuss the properties of 

2695: the function $v_C$. If a matching to the magnetic phase would 

2696: take place in thermodynamical equilibrium and a classical treatment of the ground-state dynamics could be 

2697: justified at this point then the Euclidean time 

2698: dependence of the (periodic) fields $\Phi_k$ would have to be BPS

2699: saturated. Only in this case do the fields $\Phi_k$ describe the condensates of 

2700: zero-energy center-vortex loops \footnote{Recall, that all gauge-boson fluctuations are 

2701: decoupled in the center

2702: phase. As a consequence, interaction between center vortices are extremely local.}. 

2703: 

2704: At first sight a candidate for $v_C$ would 

2705: be $v_{C,\tiny\mbox{trial}}(\Phi_k)=i\Lambda_C^3/\Phi_k$. The potential $V_C$ would then not only 

2706: be $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N,mag}}$ but also $U(1)^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}$ symmetric. The 

2707: latter (global) symmetry, however, does not exist in SU(N) Yang-Mills theory 

2708: and thus $v_{C,\tiny\mbox{trial}}$ is excluded.

2709: 

2710: A function $v_C(\Phi_k)$, which is covariant {\sl only} 

2711: under $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N}}$ transformations and, at the same time, allows for periodic and 

2712: BPS saturated solutions along the Euclidean time coordinate $\tau$ \cite{Hofmann2002}, 

2713: see Fig.\,\ref{H2000},

2714: %***********************

2715: \begin{figure}

2716: \begin{center}

2717: \leavevmode

2718: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

2719: \leavevmode

2720: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

2721: \vspace{4.5cm}

2722: \special{psfile=Fig-9n.ps angle=0 voffset=-140

2723:          hoffset=-190 hscale=60  vscale=40}

2724: \end{center}

2725: \caption{Numerical solutions to the BPS equation $\pd_\tau\Phi =\overline{v_C(\Phi)}$ 

2726: for N=2,3,4. \label{H2000}}      

2727: \end{figure}

2728: %************************

2729: \footnote{The latter requirement derives from a consideration of 

2730: the limit $\mbox{N}\to\infty$ where these solutions are of 

2731: physical relevance, see below.}, is uniquely given as

2732: %***********

2733: \eqb

2734: \label{vCright}

2735: v_C(\Phi_k)=i\left(\frac{\Lambda_C^3}{\Phi_k}-\frac{\Phi_k^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}}

2736: {(\Lambda^\prime_C)^{\tiny\mbox{N-3}}}\right)\,

2737: \eqe

2738: %***********\

2739: where $\Lambda_C$ and $\Lambda^\prime_C$ denote mass scales that are a priori independent. 

2740: The N degenerate minima of the potential $V_C(\Phi_k)$ are at

2741: %*********

2742: \eqb

2743: \label{minPot}

2744: |\Phi^{\tiny\mbox{min}}_k|=\left[\La_C^3 (\Lambda^\prime_C)^{\tiny\mbox{N-3}}\right]^{1/\tiny\mbox{N}}\,.

2745: \eqe

2746: %********

2747: At these minima the potential $V_C$ {\sl vanishes}. Periodic solutions to the BPS 

2748: equations

2749: %*********

2750: \eqb

2751: \label{PBScenter}

2752: \pd_\tau\Phi_k=\bar{v_C(\Phi_k)}

2753: \eqe

2754: %*********

2755: are parameterized by a winding number $\in\bf{Z}$ in analogy to the situation in the magnetic phase. 

2756: The fields $\Phi_l\,,\ \ (l=1,\cdots,\mbox{N}/2)$, which 

2757: are associated with vortices formed from the stable dipoles of the electric phase, are 

2758: winding accordingly. For the fields $\Phi_i\,,\ \ (i=\mbox{N}/2+1,\cdots,\mbox{N}-1)$, being associated 

2759: with vortices formed from independent monopoles, which are unstable in the electric phase, no winding numbers can be 

2760: derived. This uncertainty in assigning winding numbers for the fields $\Phi_i$ 

2761: is reflected in the appearance of an additional mass scale $\Lambda^\prime_C$ in 

2762: Eq.\,(\ref{vCright}). In the cases N=2,3, however, only {\sl stable}, independent monopoles exist, 

2763: and thus we can set $\La_C=\Lambda^\prime_C$. 

2764: 

2765: In Fig.\,\ref{pot234} the 

2766: graphs of the potential $V_C$ for N=2,3,4 and for $\La_C=\Lambda^\prime_C$ are shown. 

2767: Notice the ridges and the valleys of 

2768: negative and positive tangential curvature, respectively. 

2769: Due to the BPS saturation a solution 

2770: $\Phi_k$ to Eq.\,(\ref{PBScenter}) is guaranteed to carry no energy. This statement is, however, only then useful 

2771: for the description of the ground state if the classical approximation can be 

2772: justified. At finite N the modulus of BPS saturated solutions 

2773: is no longer $\tau$ independent, see Fig.\,\ref{H2000}. 

2774: On the one hand, this situation is in contradiction 

2775: to thermal equilibrium. On the other hand, we can not trust the classical approximation 

2776: since tangential fluctuations $\theta_k$, defined as

2777: %***********

2778: \eqb

2779: \label{TanModes}

2780: \Phi_k=|\Phi_k|\exp[i\frac{\theta_k}{\Lambda_C}]\,,

2781: \eqe

2782: %************

2783: can be tachyonic and therefore destabilize the classical solution to Eq.\,(\ref{PBScenter}), see 

2784: Fig.\,\ref{tac}. In the electric and the magnetic phase tangential fluctuations of the caloron and the monopole

2785: condensates are would-be Goldstone modes giving rise to longitudinal polarizations 

2786: of gauge boson fluctuations. Due to the absence of a continuous gauge 

2787: symmetry in the center phase no gauge-field fluctuations exist 

2788: which could `eat' the tangential fluctuations. How to integrate out tachyonic tangential 

2789: modes analytically is conceptually unclear. The only definite statement we 

2790: can make at present is that they rapidly drive the expectation of the fields 

2791: $\Phi_k$ towards the minima of $V_C$: $\Phi_k$ relaxes to one of the minima 

2792: of $V_C$ along an outward directed spiral in the complex plane. During this process magnetic flux quanta 

2793: are locally generated by discontinuous phase changes of $\Phi_k$ due the tunneling through the 

2794: regions where the tangential fluctuations are tachyonic.   

2795: %***********************

2796: \begin{figure}

2797: \begin{center}

2798: \leavevmode

2799: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

2800: \leavevmode

2801: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

2802: \vspace{4.5cm}

2803: \special{psfile=Fig-9-10-1.ps angle=0 voffset=-140

2804:          hoffset=-120 hscale=50  vscale=50}

2805: \end{center}

2806: \caption{The ratio $\left.\pd^2_{\theta_k} V_C(\Phi_k)/|\Phi_k|^2\right|_{|\Phi_k(0)|=0.8\La_C}$ ($V_C$ defined 

2807: in Eq.\,(\ref{vCright}) and $\Lambda_C=\La_C^\prime$) as a function of $\frac{\theta_k}{\La_C}$ 

2808: for N=2 (thick grey line), N=3 (thick black line), N=4 (dashed line), and N=10 

2809: (thin solid line). \label{tac}}      

2810: \end{figure}

2811: %************************

2812: Once the field $\Phi_k$ has settled into one of the minima 

2813: of $V_C$ the situation is classical again. At the minima we have 

2814: %*******

2815: \eqb

2816: \label{minimacur}

2817: \left.\frac{\pd^2_{\theta_k} V_C(\Phi_k)}{|\Phi_k|^2}\right|_{\Phi^{\tiny\mbox{min}}_k}=

2818: \left.\frac{\pd^2_{|\Phi_k|} V_C(\Phi_k)}

2819: {|\Phi_k|^2}\right|_{\Phi^{\tiny\mbox{min}}_k}

2820: =2\mbox{N}^2>1\,.

2821: \eqe

2822: %*******

2823: The approximation $\La_C=\La_C^\prime$ used in Eq.\,(\ref{minimacur}) is exact for N=2,3. 

2824: Since radial {\sl and} tangential quantum fluctuations are heavier than the 

2825: compositeness scale $\Phi^{\tiny\mbox{min}}_k$ they are absent in the effective theory. 

2826: As a consequence, the vanishing value of $V_C$ at the minima receives {\sl no} 

2827: radiative corrections.

2828: 

2829: In the limit $\mbox{N}\to\infty$ only the pole term of the potential 

2830: $V_C$ survives for $|\Phi_k|<|\Phi^{\tiny\mbox{min}}_k|$ and 

2831: thus we recover the situation of a global 

2832: $U(1)^{\tiny\mbox{N}-1}$ symmetry. The $\tau$ dependence of the solutions to the BPS equation 

2833: (\ref{PBScenter}) is then a pure phase and no 

2834: tachyonic but only massless tangential fluctuations exist. These fluctuations 

2835: lead to an instantaneous reheating at the phase boundary. The order parameter $|\Phi_k|$ jumps 

2836: from zero to a finite value across the phase boundary. While the energy density of the 

2837: ground-state jumps to zero at the phase boundary (BPS saturation), 

2838: the ground-state pressure jumps to zero only after 

2839: $|\Phi_k|=|\Phi^{\tiny\mbox{min}}_k|$ is reached. 

2840: 

2841: At finite N a flux quantum and a radial displacement $\Delta|\Phi_k|$ 

2842: are generated in each tunneling process. This reduces the ground-state energy 

2843: density locally and brings the field $\Phi_k$ closer to one of the 

2844: minima of $V_C$. The closer $\Phi_k$ to a minimum the less likely a 

2845: tunneling process since the 

2846: associated energy gain is quickly reduced ($|\pd_{|\Phi_k|}V_C|$ decreases!). 

2847: If the number of tunneling processes taking place until 

2848: relaxation would be roughly independent of N then 

2849: for small N many unit-root directions will be reached in a relaxation process 

2850: and thus it is likely that the 

2851: average value of $\Phi_k$ close to the phase boundary is 

2852: close to zero. For large N only a small angular sector 

2853: would be reached by tunneling and thus close to the phase 

2854: boundary the average value of $\Phi_k$ is not close to zero: a strong discontinuity of $\Phi_k$ across the 

2855: transition should be observed.

2856: 

2857: Closed center-vortex flux lines can self-intersect and in this way form 

2858: isolated $Z_{\tiny\mbox{N}}$ monopoles which reverse the flux, see Fig.\,\ref{intersect} for the N=2 case.

2859: %***********************

2860: \begin{figure}

2861: \begin{center}

2862: \leavevmode

2863: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

2864: \leavevmode

2865: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

2866: \vspace{4.5cm}

2867: \special{psfile=Fig-18.ps angle=0 voffset=-120

2868:          hoffset=-170 hscale=60  vscale=50}

2869: \end{center}

2870: \caption{The creation of an isolated $Z_2$ monopole by self-intersection 

2871: of a $Z_2$ center vortex. \label{intersect}}      

2872: \end{figure}

2873: %************************

2874: Let us discuss the case N=2 more explicitly. 

2875: During the phase transition the process leading to self intersection can be performed $L$ times 

2876: on a nonintersecting vortex loop. This generates $L$ isolated $Z_2$ 

2877: monopoles, each of mass $\sim \Lambda_C$, such that the mass $M_L$ 

2878: of the $L$-monopole state is $M_L\sim L\Lambda_C$. Since the number of possible 

2879: $L$-monopole states roughly grows as $L!$ 

2880: (see \cite{BenderWu1976} for a more precise estimate) we conclude that the density of 

2881: states $\rho(E)$ for the particle excitations in the center phase of an SU(2) theory 

2882: is over-exponentially growing in energy $E$:

2883: %*********

2884: \eqb

2885: \label{rhoenergydesn}

2886: \rho(E)>\Lambda_C\exp\left[\frac{E}{\Lambda_C}\right]\,.

2887: \eqe

2888: %**********

2889: For N$>$2 the situation is similar. So we conclude that there exists a 

2890: highest temperature $T_{\tiny\mbox{H}}\sim \Lambda_C$ in the center 

2891: phase of an SU(N) Yang-Mills theory: a situation which was 

2892: anticipated for any strongly interacting four dimensional field theory a 

2893: long time ago \cite{Hagedorn1965}, see also \cite{HongLiu2004} for a discussion of the Hagedorn transition in

2894: an SU(N) matrix model. Moreover, we conclude that 

2895: the center-magnetic phase transition can by no means be

2896: thermal (the spatial homogeneity of the system is violated during the transition) 

2897: and thus that the thermodynamical pressure may jump across the transition.

2898: A single and a one-time self-intersecting center-vortex loop for N=2 are 

2899: {\sl fermions} \cite{Hofmann20033}. This result is crucial for 

2900: our understanding of the nature of leptons in the present Standard Model of 

2901: Particle Physics. The time scale for the relaxation to one of the minima of $V_C$ 

2902: is roughly given by $|(\Phi^{\tiny\mbox{vac}}_k)|^{-1}$. A quantitative investigation 

2903: of this reheating process would need methods of nonequilibrium field theory, see 

2904: for example \cite{nonequ}. In a thermal approach it would be interesting 

2905: to check in a lattice simulation of the {\sl effective theory} 

2906: in the center phase Eq.\,(\ref{actcenter}) whether a density of states 

2907: as in Eq.\,(\ref{rhoenergydesn}) is indeed seen.

2908: 

2909: The fact that the pressure and the energy density of the ground state are 

2910: precisely vanishing at the minima $\Phi^{\tiny\mbox{vac}}_k$ and that there 

2911: are no radiative corrections to this situation clearly is of 

2912: cosmological relevance.

2913:  

2914:  

2915: \section{Scale matching\label{MCC}}

2916: 

2917: The scales $\La_E$ and $\La_M$, which determine the magnitudes of the 

2918: adjoint Higgs field $\phi$ and the 

2919: monopole condensates $\varphi_l$ at a given temperature in the electric and the magnetic phase, 

2920: can be 

2921: related by imposing the condition that the thermodynamical pressure $P$ be continuous 

2922: across the thermal electric-magnetic phase transition. Disregarding the mismatch in the number of 

2923: polarizations for some TLM modes in the electric 

2924: phase and some dual gauge bosons in the magnetic phase, we derive 

2925: %********

2926: \eqb

2927: \label{laElaM}

2928: \Lambda_E=(1/4)^{1/3}\Lambda_M\,\ \ \ \ (\mbox{N\ \ even})\,.

2929: \eqe

2930: %********

2931: For N=3 we have $\Lambda_E=(1/2)^{1/3}\Lambda_M$. The match between the 

2932: magnetic and the center phase is less determined for the following reasons: 

2933: (i) For N$>$3 the 

2934: winding numbers of the fields $\Phi_i\,\ \ (i=\mbox{N}/2+1,\cdots,\mbox{N}-1)$ 

2935: close to the center-magnetic phase boundary are dynamically generated during the phase transition 

2936: and so cannot be derived from the boundary conditions for 

2937: the electric phase. For N=2 and N=3 the winding numbers of $\Phi_1$ and 

2938: $(\Phi_1,\Phi_2)$ are unity, and we can set 

2939: $\Lambda_C=\Lambda^\prime_C$ in Eq.\,(\ref{vCright}). 

2940: (ii) An analytical description based on the potential $V_C$ 

2941: of the center-magnetic phase transition at finite N breaks down 

2942: at the phase boundary, see Sec.\,(\ref{CVCM}).

2943: 

2944: In the electric and in the magnetic phase (recall that the latter confines fundamental test charges) 

2945: we encounter the thermodynamical analogue to dimensional transmutation in perturbation theory: 

2946: Assuming MGSB, a single, fixed mass scale determines the thermodynamics of the SU(N) Yang-Mills 

2947: theory in these phases. At a given temperature 

2948: this mass scale can be experimentally inferred from the mass 

2949: spectrum of the gauge boson fluctuations. 

2950: 

2951: \section{Pressure, energy density, and entropy density\label{PEEN}}

2952: 

2953: \subsection{Numerical results}

2954: 

2955: In this section we present our numerical results for one-loop 

2956: temperature evolutions of thermodynamical potentials through the 

2957: electric and magnetic phase. For the actual computations we consider N=2,3 only. 

2958: 

2959: \noindent In the electric phase the pressure $P$ divided by $T^4$ is given as

2960: %**********

2961: \eqb

2962: \label{pressureEP}

2963: \frac{P}{T^4}=-\frac{(2\pi)^4}{\lambda_E^4}

2964: \left[\frac{2\lambda_E^4}{(2\pi)^6}\left\{2\,(\mbox{N}-1)\bar{P}(0)+

2965: 3\sum_{k=1}^{\tiny\mbox{N(N-1)}}\bar{P}(a_k)\right\}+

2966: \frac{\lambda_E}{2}\left(\frac{\mbox{N}}{2}+1\right)\mbox{N}\right]\,,\ \ (\mbox{N\ \ even})\,,

2967: \eqe

2968: %**********

2969: where the function $\bar{P}(a)$ and the dimensionless mass parameters $a_k$ are 

2970: defined in Eqs.\,(\ref{P(a)}) and (\ref{dimlessdef}), respectively, and MGSB is assumed. 

2971: In the magnetic phase we have

2972: %**********

2973: \eqb

2974: \label{pressureMP}

2975: \frac{P}{T^4}=-\frac{(2\pi)^4}{\lambda_M^4}

2976: \left[\frac{2\lambda_M^4}{(2\pi)^6}\left\{2\,(\frac{\mbox{N}}{2}-1)\bar{P}(0)+

2977: 3\sum_{l=1}^{\tiny\mbox{N}/2}\bar{P}(a_l)\right\}+

2978: \frac{\lambda_M}{16}\mbox{N}(\mbox{N}+2)\right]\,,\ \ (\mbox{N\ \ even})\,.

2979: \eqe

2980: %**********

2981: The dimensionless mass parameters $a_l$ are defined in 

2982: Eqs.\,(\ref{massspecM}) and Eq.\,(\ref{defM})). 

2983: 

2984: For N=3 we have in the electric and the magnetic phase, respectively:

2985: %**********

2986: \eab

2987: \label{pressure3EPpressure3MP}

2988: \frac{P}{T^4}&=&-\frac{(2\pi)^4}{\lambda_E^4}

2989: \left[\frac{2\lambda_E^4}{(2\pi)^6}\left\{4\bar{P}(0)+

2990: 3\left(4\,\bar{P}(a)+2\,\bar{P}(2a)\right)\right\}+

2991: 2\lambda_E\right]\,,\ \ (\mbox{N=3})\,,\nonumber\\ 

2992: \frac{P}{T^4}&=&-\frac{(2\pi)^4}{\lambda_M^4}

2993: \left[\frac{12\lambda_M^4}{(2\pi)^6}

2994: \bar{P}(a)+\lambda_M\right]\,,\ \ (\mbox{N=3})\,.

2995: \eae

2996: %**********

2997: The mass parameters $a_k$ and $a_l$ evolve with temperature according to the (inverted) 

2998: solutions to Eqs.\,(\ref{eeq}), (\ref{eeq3}), (\ref{evolMeven}), and (\ref{evolM3}).

2999: 

3000: Our results for $\frac{P}{T^4}$ as 

3001: a function of temperature in the electric and 

3002: magnetic phase are shown in Fig.\,\ref{pressure}.

3003: %***********************

3004: \begin{figure}

3005: \begin{center}

3006: \leavevmode

3007: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

3008: \leavevmode

3009: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

3010: \vspace{4.5cm}

3011: \special{psfile=Fig-10.ps angle=0 voffset=-160

3012:          hoffset=-250 hscale=70  vscale=70}

3013: \end{center}

3014: \caption{$\frac{P}{T^4}$ as a function of temperature for N=2,3. The horizontal lines denote 

3015: the respective asymptotic values. For N=2 we have $\lambda_{E,c}=11.65$ 

3016: and for N=3 $\lambda_{E,c}=8.08$. \label{pressure}}      

3017: \end{figure}

3018: %************************

3019: %***********************

3020: \begin{figure}

3021: \begin{center}

3022: \leavevmode

3023: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

3024: \leavevmode

3025: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

3026: \vspace{4.5cm}

3027: \special{psfile=Fig-22.ps angle=0 voffset=-160

3028:          hoffset=-180 hscale=70  vscale=70}

3029: \end{center}

3030: \caption{$\frac{P}{T^4}$ as a function of temperature for N=3 as obtained on a $16^3\times4$ 

3031: lattice using the differential method with a universal two-loop 

3032: perturbative $\beta$ function \cite{Brown1988,Deng1988} and using the integral 

3033: method (solid line) \cite{EngelsFingberg1990}. The figure is taken 

3034: from \cite{EngelsFingberg1990}.  

3035: \label{pressureLat}}      

3036: \end{figure}

3037: %************************

3038: Notice that the pressure is negative 

3039: in the electric phase close to $\lambda_{E,c}$ and 

3040: even more so in the magnetic phase where the ground-state 

3041: strongly dominates the thermodynamics.

3042: 

3043: \noindent In the electric phase the energy density $\rho$ divided by $T^4$ is given as

3044: %**********

3045: %************

3046: \eqb

3047: \label{rhoEP}

3048: \frac{\rho}{T^4}=\frac{(2\pi)^4}{\lambda_E^4}

3049: \left[\frac{2\lambda_E^4}{(2\pi)^6}\left\{2\,(\mbox{N}-1)\bar{\rho}(0)+

3050: 3\sum_{k=1}^{\tiny\mbox{N(N-1)}}\bar{\rho}(a_k)\right\}+

3051: \frac{\lambda_E}{2}\left(\frac{\mbox{N}}{2}+1\right)\mbox{N}\right]\,,\ \ (\mbox{N\ \ even})\,,

3052: \eqe

3053: %**********

3054: where the function $\bar{\rho}(a)$ is defined as

3055: %**********

3056: \eqb

3057: \label{rhobar}

3058: \bar{\rho}(a)\equiv \int_{0}^{\infty}dx\,x^2 \frac{\sqrt{x^2+a^2}}{\exp(\sqrt{x^2+a^2})-1}\,.

3059: \eqe

3060: %**********

3061: In the magnetic phase we have

3062: %**********

3063: \eqb

3064: \label{rhoMP}

3065: \frac{\rho}{T^4}=\frac{(2\pi)^4}{\lambda_M^4}

3066: \left[\frac{2\lambda_M^4}{(2\pi)^6}\left\{2\,(\frac{\mbox{N}}{2}-1)\bar{\rho}(0)+

3067: 3\sum_{l=1}^{\frac{\tiny\mbox{N}}{2}}\bar{\rho}(a_l)\right\}+

3068: \frac{\lambda_M}{16}\mbox{N}(\mbox{N}+2)\right]\,,\ \ (\mbox{N\ \ even})\,.

3069: \eqe

3070: %********** 

3071: For N=3 we have in the electric and the magnetic phase, respectively:

3072: %**********

3073: \eab

3074: \label{rho3EPrho3MP}

3075: \frac{\rho}{T^4}&=&\frac{(2\pi)^4}{\lambda_E^4}

3076: \left[\frac{2\lambda_E^4}{(2\pi)^6}\left\{4\bar{\rho}(0)+

3077: 3\left(4\,\bar{\rho}(a)+2\,\bar{\rho}(2a)\right)\right\}+

3078: 2\lambda_E\right]\,,\ \ (\mbox{N=3})\,,\nonumber\\ 

3079: \frac{\rho}{T^4}&=&\frac{(2\pi)^4}{\lambda_M^4}

3080: \left[\frac{12\lambda_M^4}{(2\pi)^6}

3081: \bar{\rho}(a)+\lambda_M\right]\,,\ \ (\mbox{N=3})\,.

3082: \eae

3083: %**********

3084: Our results for $\frac{\rho}{T^4}$ as 

3085: a function of temperature in the electric and 

3086: magnetic phase are shown in Fig.\,\ref{rho}. Slight discontinuities at $\lambda_{E,c}$ are seen. 

3087: This is explained by the mismatch in the number of 

3088: polarizations of fluctuating gauge bosons across the electric-magnetic transition - 

3089: an approximation to scale-matching - 

3090: and the fact that continuity in $P$ does not imply continuity in $\rho$. Again, 

3091: the energy density is dominated by the

3092: ground-state contribution in the electric phase close to the electric 

3093: magnetic transition and even more so in the magnetic

3094: phase. 

3095: %***********************

3096: \begin{figure}

3097: \begin{center}

3098: \leavevmode

3099: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

3100: \leavevmode

3101: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

3102: \vspace{4.5cm}

3103: \special{psfile=Fig-11.ps angle=0 voffset=-150

3104:          hoffset=-250 hscale=70  vscale=70}

3105: \end{center}

3106: \caption{$\frac{\rho}{T^4}$ as a function of temperature for N=2,3. The horizontal lines denote 

3107: the respective asymptotic values. \label{rho}}      

3108: \end{figure}

3109: %************************

3110: The entropy density $S$ is defined as the derivative of the 

3111: pressure with respect to temperature:

3112: %*********

3113: \eqb

3114: \label{Sdef}

3115: S\equiv\frac{dP}{dT}\,.

3116: \eqe

3117: %*********

3118: Using the thermodynamical relation $\rho=T\frac{dP}{dT}-P$, we may write

3119: %********

3120: \eqb

3121: \label{sdef}

3122: \frac{S}{T^3}=\frac{1}{T^4}\left(\rho+P\right)\,.

3123: \eqe

3124: %********

3125: Our results for $S/T^3$ are shown in Fig.\,\ref{ST3}. 

3126: The reasons for the slight discontinuities at $\lambda_{E,c}$ are the same as in the 

3127: case $\frac{\rho}{T^4}$. The entropy density $S$ is a measure for the `mobility' of gauge 

3128: boson excitations. That $S$ is zero at the critical 

3129: temperature $\lambda_{M,c}$ for the center transition 

3130: is explained by the fact that all dual gauge 

3131: bosons acquire an infinite mass there and thus no fluctuating degrees 

3132: of freedom are left in the thermodynamical balance.  

3133: 

3134: 

3135: \subsection{Comparison with the lattice\label{complat}}

3136: 

3137: An early lattice measurements of the energy density $\rho$ 

3138: and the interaction measure $\Delta\equiv \rho-3P$ in a pure SU(2) gauge theory 

3139: were reported on in \cite{EnKaSaMo1982}. In that work the critical temperature $T_c$ for 

3140: the deconfinement transition was determined from the critical behavior of the 

3141: Polyakov-loop expectation and the peak position 

3142: of the specific heat using a Wilson action. The function $\Delta(T)$ was extracted by multiplying the 

3143: lattice $\beta$ function with the difference of plaquette expectations at finite and zero temperature. 

3144: This assures that $\Delta$ vanishes as $T\to 0$. What is subtracted at finite $T$ is, however, 

3145: {\sl not} the value $\Delta(T=0)$ since the associated plaquette expectation is 

3146: multiplied with the value of the $\beta$ function at {\sl finite} $T$. Apart from this 

3147: approximation, the use of a perturbative $\beta$ function was assumed for all 

3148: temperatures. 

3149: %***********************

3150: \begin{figure}

3151: \begin{center}

3152: \leavevmode

3153: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

3154: \leavevmode

3155: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

3156: \vspace{5.0cm}

3157: \special{psfile=Fig-12.ps angle=0 voffset=-150

3158:          hoffset=-250 hscale=70  vscale=70}

3159: \end{center}

3160: \caption{$\frac{S}{T^3}$ as a function of temperature for N=2,3. The horizontal lines denote 

3161: the respective asymptotic values. \label{ST3}}      

3162: \end{figure}

3163: %************************ 

3164: The lattice results for $\rho$ differ drastically from 

3165: our results for temperatures close the deconfinement, that is, the electric-magnetic 

3166: transition. We obtain

3167: %*****

3168: \eqb

3169: \label{rhooverrhoSBc}

3170: \left.\frac{\rho}{\rho_{SB}}\right|_{T\sim T_{E,c}}\sim 1.49

3171: \eqe

3172: %*****

3173: where $\rho_B\equiv\frac{\pi^2}{5}T^4$ denotes the Stefan-Boltzmann limit 

3174: (ideal gas of massless gluons with two polarizations). On 

3175: the lattice, this ratio is measured to be

3176: smaller than unity. At $T\sim 5T_{E,c}$ we obtain 

3177: %*****

3178: \eqb

3179: \label{rhooverrhoSB5}

3180: \left.\frac{\rho}{\rho_{SB}}\right|_{T\sim 5\,T_{E,c}}\sim 1.34\,

3181: \eqe

3182: %*****

3183: while the lattice measures a ratio of about 0.85. Our asymptotic 

3184: value\footnote{The asymptotic temperature $\lambda_{E,as}=75$ is determined 

3185: by the boundary condition $\lambda_E(0)=1000$ for solving the evolution equations 

3186: (\ref{eeq}) and (\ref{eeq3}).} is 

3187: %*****

3188: \eqb

3189: \label{rhooverrhoSBa}

3190: \left.\frac{\rho}{\rho_{SB}}\right|_{T\sim 6.4\,T_{E,c}}\sim 1.33\,.

3191: \eqe

3192: %*****

3193: Notice the latent heat released at the electric magnetic transition for N=3 

3194: (Fig.\,\ref{rho}). 

3195: 

3196: Our result for the pressure $P$ indicates negative values for $T$ 

3197: close to $T_{E,c}$ (see Fig.\, \ref{pressure}) - much in 

3198: contrast to the positive values obtained 

3199: in \cite{EnKaSaMo1982}. At $T\sim 5 T_{E,c}$ we obtain

3200: %*****

3201: \eqb

3202: \label{PoverrhoSB5}

3203: \left.\frac{P}{P_{SB}}\right|_{T\sim 5\,T_{E,c}}\sim 1.30\,

3204: \eqe

3205: %*****

3206: while the lattice measures ($P$ is extracted 

3207: from the measured values of 

3208: $\Delta$ and $\rho$) a ratio of about 0.88. Our asymptotic 

3209: value for $P$ is 

3210: %*****

3211: \eqb

3212: \label{PoverrhoSBa}

3213: \left.\frac{P}{P_{SB}}\right|_{T\sim 6.4\,T_{E,c}}\sim 1.32\,.

3214: \eqe

3215: %*****

3216: The asymptotic values of Eqs.\,(\ref{rhooverrhoSBa}) and 

3217: (\ref{PoverrhoSBa}) are very close to the ratio $R$ of the number of polarizations 

3218: for massive TLH modes and massless TLM modes and the 

3219: number of polarizations for massless gluon modes with two polarizations:

3220: %*************

3221: \eqb

3222: \label{R}

3223: R=\frac{2\times 3+1\times 2}{3\times 2}=\frac{4}{3}\sim 1.33\,.

3224: \eqe

3225: %************

3226: Indeed, at $\lambda_E\sim 75$ the mass 

3227: parameter $a$, defined in Eq.\,(\ref{massP}), is 

3228: $a\sim 2\pi\frac{5.5}{650}\sim 0.053$ and 

3229: therefore the Boltzmann suppression of TLH modes is small. 

3230: At extremely high temperatures a TLH mode `remembers' its massiveness 

3231: at low temperatures in terms of an extra polarization coming from 

3232: a tiny mass which, however, still solves the infrared problem 

3233: of naive perturbation theory.  

3234: 

3235: For a comparison with N=3 lattice data we use the results obtained with a Wilson action in 

3236: \cite{Bielfeld1996} on the lattice of the largest 

3237: time extension, $N_\beta=8$. In the vicinity of the transition point $T_{E,c}$ 

3238: the situation for both $\rho$ and $P$ is similar as for N=2: 

3239: drastic differences between the lattice measurements and 

3240: our results occur. Again, $P$ comes out negative in our calculation, 

3241: contradicting the positive values obtained in 

3242: \cite{Bielfeld1996}. It should be remarked at this point that a 

3243: lattice simulation of $P$, which did not rely on the integral method (see below) 

3244: as it was used in \cite{Bielfeld1996}, has seen negative 

3245: pressure for $T$ not far above $T_{c,e}$ \cite{Deng1988}. Moreover, 

3246: the most negative value of $P/T^4\sim -0.5$ obtained 

3247: in \cite{Deng1988} very close to the phase transition coincides 

3248: with our result at the electric-magnetic transition, 

3249: see Figs.\,\ref{pressure} and \ref{pressureLat}.  

3250: 

3251: 

3252: \noindent At $T=5\,T_{E,c}$ we have

3253: %**********

3254: \eqb

3255: \label{rhoN3}

3256: \left.\frac{\rho}{\rho_{SB}}\right|_{T\sim 5\,T_{E,c}}\sim 1.38

3257: \eqe

3258: %**********

3259: while the lattice measures a ratio of about 0.93. Our asymptotic 

3260: value for $\rho$ is 

3261: %*****

3262: \eqb

3263: \label{rhooverrhoSB3a}

3264: \left.\frac{\rho}{\rho_{SB}}\right|_{T\sim 8.86\,T_{E,c}}\sim 1.37\,.

3265: \eqe

3266: %*****

3267: For the pressure $P$ we obtain at $T=5\,T_{E,c}$:

3268: %*****

3269: \eqb

3270: \label{PoverrhoSB35}

3271: \left.\frac{P}{P_{SB}}\right|_{T\sim 5\,T_{E,c}}\sim 1.34\,

3272: \eqe

3273: %*****

3274: while the lattice measures a ratio of about 0.97. Our asymptotic 

3275: value for $P$ is 

3276: %*****

3277: \eqb

3278: \label{PoverrhoSB3a}

3279: \left.\frac{P}{P_{SB}}\right|_{T\sim 8.86\,T_{E,c}}\sim 1.36\,.

3280: \eqe

3281: %*****

3282: Both asymptotic values in Eqs.\,(\ref{rhooverrhoSB3a}) and 

3283: (\ref{PoverrhoSB3a}) are very close to the ratio of 

3284: polarizations $R=\frac{11}{8}=1.375$.

3285: 

3286: According to Fig.\,(\ref{ST3}) the entropy 

3287: density $\frac{S}{T^3}$ vanishes at $T_{M,c}$. In our approach 

3288: this reflects the fact that at $T_{M,c}$ all gauge-field are thermodynamically decoupled 

3289: because of their infinite mass. As a consequence, 

3290: thermodynamics is entirely determined by the ground state. 

3291: This is not observed in the lattice simulations \cite{EngelsKarschScheideler1999} 

3292: for both N=2,3 where a continuous behavior 

3293: of $\frac{S}{T^3}$ across the deconfinement transition at $T_{E,c}$ was obtained.

3294: 

3295: In \cite{Brown1988} a discontinuous behavior of $\frac{S}{T^3}$ was observed for N=3 

3296: using a Wilson action and a perturbative beta function. 

3297: There is an excellent agreement of their 

3298: result with our result for temperatures ranging $T_{E,c}$ down to $T_{M,c}$, 

3299: compare Figs.\,\ref{ST3} and \ref{ST3lat}. 

3300: %***********************

3301: \begin{figure}

3302: \begin{center}

3303: \leavevmode

3304: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

3305: \leavevmode

3306: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

3307: \vspace{5.0cm}

3308: \special{psfile=Fig-13.ps angle=0 voffset=-150

3309:          hoffset=-180 hscale=50  vscale=50}

3310: \end{center}

3311: \caption{$\frac{S}{T^3}$ as a function of $\beta$ 

3312: obtained in SU(3) lattice gauge theory using the differential method and a 

3313: perturbative beta function. The simulations were performed on (a) $16^3\times 4$, (b) 

3314: $24^3\times 4$, (c) $16^3\times 6$ (open circles) and $20^3\times 6$ (closed circles), and 

3315: (d) $24^3\times 6$ lattices. Using the $24^3\times 6$ lattice, the critical 

3316: value of $\beta$ is between 5.8875 and 5.90. \label{ST3lat}}      

3317: \end{figure}

3318: %************************

3319: The almost discontinuous 

3320: behavior in Fig.\,(\ref{ST3}) is due to the large rise 

3321: of the magnetic gauge coupling with decreasing temperature. 

3322: According to Fig.\,(\ref{gevol}) the `duration' $\delta T\equiv\frac{T_{E,c}-T_{M,c}}{T_{E,c}}$ 

3323: of the magnetic phase is only $\delta T\sim 0.1$. In a lattice simulation the resolution of 

3324: such a small temperature interval depends very much on the choice of the beta function. 

3325: In \cite{Brown1988} a universal perturbative beta function was used which may have lead to interprete 

3326: the behavior of $\frac{S}{T^3}$ as discontinuous in 

3327: dependence on temperature. Since $\frac{S}{T^3}$ is a 

3328: quantity which is much less sensitive to the infrared physics 

3329: than, say, $\frac{P}{T^4}$ (the direct 

3330: contribution of the ground state is canceled out in $\frac{S}{T^3}$) the use of (the universal part of) a 

3331: perturbative beta function 

3332: in the lattice simulations \cite{Brown1988} may be justified. We stress at this point 

3333: that lattice simulations based on lattice sizes of 1-3 times the inverse Yang-Mills scale 

3334: are not capable of being sensitive to the infrared effects of the theory which 

3335: have correlation lengths of the order of the gauge couplings $e$ and $g$ times the inverse Yang-Mills 

3336: scale at decoupling (Standard Model physics in the electroweak sector 

3337: suggest that $e_{\tiny\mbox{decoup}}\sim g_{\tiny\mbox{decoup}}\sim 10^6\,$!).

3338: 

3339: The alert reader would 

3340: object that the thermodynamical relation

3341: %**********

3342: \eqb

3343: \label{pdt}

3344: dP=S\,dT\,,

3345: \eqe

3346: %**********

3347: which implies that in a homogeneous thermal system the pressure has to be a 

3348: monotonic function of temperature, is violated at the center transition ($T_{c,M}$), see 

3349: Fig.\,\ref{pressure}, where with decreasing temperature 

3350: the pressure quickly rises from a negative to a value close to zero

3351: \footnote{This effect should be the 

3352: more pronounced the higher N is \cite{LuciniTeperWenger2003}.}. What is the resolution of 

3353: this puzzle? There are two anwers. First, on a microscopic level, the 

3354: homogeneity of the system at the point where center

3355: vortices start to condense is badly violated by the generation of 

3356: (intersecting) center-vortex loops through discontinuous and local 

3357: phase changes of the fields $\Phi_k(x)$ 

3358: in Eq.\,(\ref{Wilsonloopx}). The derivation of Eq.\,(\ref{pdt}) 

3359: from the partition function, however, relies on homogeneity. 

3360: Second, assuming homgeneity, one can easily convinces oneself that 

3361: the spectral density $\rho(E)$ in the center phase is 

3362: exponentially increasing with energy $E$\footnote{The number

3363: of center vortex loops with $L$ intersections increases stronger than 

3364: factorially with $L$ and the energy of a vortex state with $L$ intersections 

3365: is $\propto L\Lambda_C$, for the SU(2) case see \cite{BenderWu1976} where a counting of the vacuum

3366: diagrams in a $\lambda\phi^4$ theory is carried out.}:

3367: %*******

3368: \eqb

3369: \label{specdens}

3370: \rho(E)\propto\exp[\frac{E}{T_{\tiny\mbox{H}}}]\,.

3371: \eqe

3372: %*******

3373: Thus the partition function diverges at $T=T_{\tiny\mbox{H}}\sim T_{c,M}$, 

3374: the homogeneous system would need an infinite amount of energy per volume 

3375: to increase the temperature beyond $T_{\tiny\mbox{H}}$. We conclude that 

3376: homogeneity is violated at $T=T_{\tiny\mbox{H}}$. We conclude that the SU(N) YM dynamics 

3377: indeed predicts a violation of the thermodynamical relation in Eq.\,(\ref{pdt}) 

3378: at $T=T_{\tiny\mbox{H}}\sim T_{c,M}$ \footnote{The author would like to thank 

3379: D. T. Son for initiating this discussion.}.

3380: 

3381: What are the possible reasons for the qualitative difference between the results obtained 

3382: in \cite{Bielfeld1996,EngelsKarschScheideler1999} and \cite{Brown1988,Deng1988}? To avoid the use 

3383: of derivatives of the bare coupling, which are multiplying the sum of spatial 

3384: and time plaquette averages in the 

3385: differential method for the computation of the pressure, the integral method was introduced in 

3386: \cite{EngelsFingberg1990}. Using a perturbative beta function 

3387: in the differential method, negative values for the pressure for $T$ close to 

3388: $T_c$ and a rapid approach of the $\rho$ and

3389: $P$ to their respective ideal gas limits were obtained in \cite{Deng1988}. 

3390: The rapid approach to the ideal gas limit in $\rho$ is also obtained in the present approach, 

3391: compare Eqs.\,(\ref{rhooverrhoSB5}), 

3392: (\ref{rhooverrhoSBa}) and Eqs.\,(\ref{rhoN3}),(\ref{rhooverrhoSB3a}). 

3393: At the time when the results in 

3394: \cite{Brown1988,Deng1988} appeared a negative pressure was regarded as 

3395: unphysical and attributed to the use of a 

3396: perturbative beta function. The integral method proposed in \cite{EngelsFingberg1990} 

3397: solely generates positive pressure. This method {\sl assumes} the validity of the 

3398: thermodynamical limit in the lattice simulation. Namely, 

3399: for large spatial volume the thermodynamical relation

3400: %*********

3401: \eqb

3402: \label{ptd}

3403: P=T\frac{\pd\ln Z}{\pd V}

3404: \eqe

3405: %*********

3406: valid for a finite volume $V$ is approximated by 

3407: %*********

3408: \eqb

3409: \label{ptdL}

3410: P=T\frac{\ln Z}{V}\,

3411: \eqe

3412: %*********

3413: so that the pressure equals minus the free energy density.

3414: In Eqs.\,(\ref{ptd}) and (\ref{ptdL}) $Z$ denotes the partition function. 

3415: Based on Eq.\,(\ref{ptdL}) the derivative of the 

3416: pressure with respect to the bare coupling $\beta=\frac{2\mbox{N}}{\bar{g}^2}$ 

3417: can be expressed as an expectation over the sum of spatial and time plaquettes 

3418: without the beta-function prefactor. Thus the pressure can be obtained 

3419: by an integral over $\beta$ up to an unknown integration constant. The latter 

3420: is chosen in such a way that the pressure vanishes at a temperature well 

3421: below $T_c$. Instead of only integrating over minus the sum of spatial and 

3422: time plaquette expectations twice 

3423: the plaquette expectation at $T=0$ 

3424: was added to the integrand in \cite{Bielfeld1996,EngelsKarschScheideler1999} 

3425: to assure that the pressure vanishes at $T=0$. We would like to stress that 

3426: this prescription does not follow from relation (\ref{ptdL}). 

3427: Thus it seems to be natural that integral and differential methods 

3428: generate qualitatively different results. The results for $P(T)$ obtained by the 

3429: integral method show a rather large dependence on the cutoff and the time extent $N_\tau$ of the lattice 

3430: \cite{Bielfeld1996}. We believe that this 

3431: reflects the considerable deviation from the assumed 

3432: thermodynamical limit for so-far available lattice sizes. The problem 

3433: was addressed in \cite{EngelsKarschScheideler1999} where a 

3434: correction factor $r$ was introduced to relate $P$ 

3435: obtained with the integral method to $P$ obtained 

3436: with the differential method. For a given $N_\tau$ 

3437: the factor $r$ was determined from the pressure ratio at $\bar{g}=0$. 

3438: Subsequently, this value of $r$ was used at finite coupling $\bar{g}$ to extract the spatial anisotropy 

3439: coefficient $c_\sigma$ (essentially the beta function) 

3440: by demanding the equality of the pressure obtained 

3441: with the integral and the differential method. 

3442: In doing so, twice the plaquette expectation at $T=0$ was, again, added to minus 

3443: the sum of spatial and time plaquette expectations in the expression 

3444: for the pressure using the differential method. It may be questioned 

3445: whether a simple multiplicative correction $r$ does correctly 

3446: account for finite-size and cutoff effects and, if yes, 

3447: whether it is justified to determine $r$ in the limit 

3448: of noninteracting gluons\footnote{The $c_\sigma$-values obtained in this way 

3449: do not coincide with those obtained in \cite{Klassen1998}.}.  

3450: 

3451: To summarize, we observe a qualitative disagreement 

3452: between the lattice results \cite{EnKaSaMo1982,Bielfeld1996} for $\rho$ and $P$, using the integral method, 

3453: and the results of the present approach 

3454: for temperatures close to $T_{E,c}$. At $T\sim 5\,T_{E,c}$ there is better agreement. 

3455: Although for N=3 our negative values for $P$ in the vicinity of $T_{E,c}$ 

3456: disagree with those obtained with the differential method 

3457: (we obtain a modulus at $T_{E,c}$ which {\sl coincides} with that of the minimal value obtained by using a 

3458: perturbative beta-function differential method \cite{Deng1988}). On the other hand, 

3459: the entropy density obtained in \cite{Brown1988} with the differential method 

3460: agrees well with our results. This is expected since the entropy 

3461: is an infrared insensitive quantity.

3462: 

3463: 

3464: \section{Conclusions and Outlook\label{CO}}

3465: 

3466: We have developed a nonperturbative approach to SU(N) Yang-Mills thermodynamics 

3467: which is based on the (self-consistent) assumption 

3468: that the theory `condenses' SU(2) embedded, BPS saturated 

3469: topological fluctuations of trivial holonomy 

3470: at an asymptotically high temperature. In \cite{HerbstHofmann2004} we have shown 

3471: for the SU(2) case the redundancy of this assumption. 

3472: The concept for the construction of an effective theory based 

3473: on the above assumption is similar to that applied to the construction of 

3474: the macroscopic field theory for superconductivity \cite{GinzburgLandau1950,Abrikosov1957}. 

3475: We stress that the effects on nontrivial topology die 

3476: off in a power-like fashion in the effective theory 

3477: (as a function of temperature). Thus the perturbatively 

3478: derived suppression of topologically nontrivial field 

3479: configurations does take place in our effective theory as well.   

3480: 

3481: We have constructed a (uniquely determined) potential for the thermodynamics of an 

3482: energy- and pressure-free adjoint Higgs background $\phi$ 

3483: which macroscopically describes the collective effects due to noninteracting, 

3484: trivial-holonomy calorons in the only deconfining phase of the 

3485: theory which we call electric phase for obvious reasons. As a consequence, 

3486: the ground state of the system is described by a 

3487: BPS saturated solution to the field equation of the scalar 

3488: sector and an associated pure-gauge configuration solving the macroscopic 

3489: equation of motion for trivial-topology gauge-field fluctuations. 

3490: The latter has macroscopic, nontrivial holonomy and 

3491: thus describes the presence of isolated magnetic monopoles being generated 

3492: from decaying nontrivial-holonomy calorons as a result of microscopic 

3493: interactions between trivial-holonomy calorons. These interactions are mediated 

3494: by the trivial-topology sector of the theory. The modulus of $\phi$ falls off as 

3495: $\propto T^{-1/2}$ and the ground-state pressure is only linear in $T$ so that 

3496: nonperturbative effects (apart from extra polarizations for excitations) 

3497: are {\sl irrelevant} at asymptotically high temperatures.

3498: 

3499: Some of the topologically trivial gauge-field fluctuations 

3500: are massive on tree-level due to the adjoint Higgs mechanism, and 

3501: the underlying SU(N) gauge symmetry is

3502: spontaneously broken accordingly. An evolution equation, describing the temperature 

3503: dependence of the effective gauge coupling constant $e$, was obtained from the requirement of thermodynamical

3504: self-consistency of the effective theory. The two fixed points of this 

3505: evolution were identified. These fixed points 

3506: predict the existence of a highest and a lowest

3507: attainable temperature in the electric phase.  

3508: Based on the evolution $e(T)$ a physical argument was given why caloron 

3509: `condensation' in a grandly unifying theory must take place at a temperature close 

3510: to the cutoff scale for validity of a local, four dimensional 

3511: field-theory description. We have investigated some aspects of the loop expansion of 

3512: thermodynamical potentials in the effective electric theory. Our conclusion 

3513: is that the present nonperturbative approach resolves the infrared problems associated with the usual, 

3514: perturbative loop expansion. We investigate the two-loop corrections 

3515: to the pressure for N=2 in \cite{HerbstHofmannRohrer2004}. Two-loop contributions to the 

3516: pressure are corrections 

3517: to the one-loop contributions which 

3518: range within the $0.1$\% level. Thus as far a bulk thermodynamical quantities are concerned 

3519: the gauge-boson fluctuations in the electric fields are 

3520: practically {\sl noninteracting} at the expense of 

3521: some of them being thermal quasiparticles.  

3522: 

3523: The downward temperature evolution of the effective gauge coupling $e$ has an attractor and 

3524: thus the IR-UV decoupling observed in the underlying theory due to 

3525: renormalizability is recovered in the effective theory. The temperature evolution $e(T)$ 

3526: predicts a transition, driven by the 

3527: condensation of magnetic monopoles, to a phase with less gauge symmetry 

3528: (magnetic phase, confining heavy fundamental test charges). This transition 

3529: is the deconfinement-confinement transition identified in lattice simulations. Due to the 

3530: typical correlation length in the monopole condensate being of the order of $e_{\tiny\mbox{decoup}}\times

3531: \Lambda^{-1}$, where $\Lambda$ denotes the Yang-Mills scale and 

3532: $e_{\tiny\mbox{decoup}}\gg 1$, it is very hard 

3533: (in practice impossible) for lattice simulations performed within the magnetic phase to 

3534: predict thermodynamical quantities that are 

3535: infrared sensitive. 

3536: 

3537: The macroscopic ground-state structure of the 

3538: magnetic phase is determined in analogy to the electric phase, and, 

3539: as a consequence, some of the residual (dual) 

3540: gauge-field fluctuations acquire mass by the Abelian Higgs mechanism. The evolution of the 

3541: magnetic gauge coupling constant $g$, again being a consequence of 

3542: thermodynamical self-consistency, predicts 

3543: the existence of a highest and a lowest attainable temperature 

3544: also for the magnetic phase. At the lowest temperature a transition to the center phase, 

3545: where center-vortex loops are condensed into the ground state, takes place. Assuming maximal gauge-symmetry 

3546: breaking in the electric phase, {\sl all} gauge-field modes decouple thermodynamically at the 

3547: transition point, and at this point the equation of state is maximally negative, $P=-\rho$. 

3548: 

3549: The magnetic-center transiton is of 

3550: the Hagedorn type and thus nonthermal. A remarkable feature of the center phase is that 

3551: ground-state pressure and energy density are {\sl precisely} zero after a period of rapid 

3552: reheating has taken place. This follows from the shape of the effective potential $V_C$ for the 

3553: vortex-condensate fields $\Phi_k$ which implements the spontaneous 

3554: breakdown of the local center symmetry $Z_{\mbox{N,mag}}$. 

3555: 

3556: In the limit N$\to\infty$ analytical access to the center-vortex dynamics is granted by the 

3557: thermodynamical and quantum mechanical stability of the 

3558: classical solutions to the BPS equations for the center-vortex fields. 

3559: For finite N this stability is lost 

3560: due to the presence of tachyonic modes if the center-vortex condensates $\Phi_k$ 

3561: are away from the minima of their potential. Once the 

3562: minima are reached, no fluctuations in $\Phi_k$ exist for any $\mbox{N}\ge 2$, 

3563: and thus the result of a vanishing 

3564: ground-state energy and pressure, which is based on the 

3565: classical analysis, is strictly reliable. 

3566: 

3567: For N=2,3 the present approach predicts a Stefan-Boltzmann 

3568: like behavior (with additional polarizations) of the thermodynamical potentials pressure, energy density, 

3569: and entropy density at temperatures of about $10\,T_{E,c}$. 

3570: Throughout the magnetic phase we predict a {\sl negative} 

3571: equation of state which is in contradiction to lattice results for N=2,3 

3572: using the integral method. For the (infrared insensitive) entropy density at N=3 

3573: we obtain excellent agreement with lattice data generated with the 

3574: differential method and a perturbative beta function.

3575: 

3576: There are many applications of the approach presented in this paper. In \cite{Hofmann20032} we have 

3577: proposed that a strongly interacting gauge theory underlying the leptonic sector of the Standard Model 

3578: should be based on the following gauge group   

3579: %************

3580: \eqb

3581: \label{SIGUE}

3582: SU(2)_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}\times SU(2)_{e}\times SU(2)_{\mu}\times SU(2)_{\tau}\cdots\,.

3583: \eqe

3584: %***********

3585: In addition, mixing angles for the gauge bosons of one factor with 

3586: those of the other factors at temperatures much higher than the Yang-Mills 

3587: scale of the last factor should be supplied. In Eq.\,(\ref{SIGUE}) the Yang-Mills scale of the first factor is 

3588: roughly given (but can be precisely determined 

3589: \cite{Hofmann20032}) by the temperature $T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ 

3590: of the cosmic microwave background $\sim 10^{-4}\,\mbox{eV}$. The 

3591: Yang-Mills scales of the other factors are roughly given by the mass of the corresponding charged leptons. 

3592: While the CMB-scale theory is in its magnetic phase 

3593: very close to the magnetic-electric transition (only there is the dual gauge boson, the photon, massless) 

3594: the other theories are in their center phases generating the stable leptons as solitons (neutrino ... single

3595: center-vortex loop, charged lepton ... center-vortex loop with one self-intersection.). 

3596: The two polarization states of these solitons 

3597: arise as a consequence of the spontaneously broken, local $Z_{2,\tiny\mbox{mag}}$ symmetry. The photon, 

3598: which is the fluctuating degree of freedom in the magnetic phase of 

3599: the CMB-scale theory, would couple to the electric charges and the 

3600: magnetic moments of these leptons because the gauge dynamics subject to Eq.\,(\ref{SIGUE}) was 

3601: embedded into the gauge dynamics subject to a higher gauge group SU(N) at temperatures 

3602: larger than the mass of the heaviest charged lepton. The same reasoning goes through 

3603: for the coupling of the photon to quarks if we allow for SU(3) factors in Eq.\,(\ref{SIGUE}). 

3604: Given the mixing angles it is possible to compute the 

3605: electric charge of each soliton from the plateau value of the gauge-coupling evolution in the 

3606: electric phase in each factor theory. Since the CMB-scale theory is in its magnetic phase at the magnetic-electric transition 

3607: (a very small magnetic gauge coupling constant $g$) the ground state of the universe at present

3608: is slightly superconducting: a possible explanation for 

3609: intergalactic magnetic fields. The ground-state energy density due to 

3610: the CMB-scale theory is about 1\% of the gravitationally observed value \cite{WMAP2003,Hofmann20032}, no 

3611: contribution. Recall, that no ground-state energy density of pressure is generated by 

3612: SU(N) Yang-Mills theories in their center phases. We believe that the missing part can be 

3613: linked to a CP violating, additional 

3614: term in the Yang-Mills action \cite{Wilczek2004}, see also \cite{AlexanderMoffat2004} 

3615: for another intelligent (albeit incomplete) way of addressing 

3616: the cosmological constant `problem'. That the temperature of the 

3617: Universe is stabilized at $T=T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ follows from the behavior of the energy density $\rho$ at the

3618: electric-magnetic transition, see Fig.\,\ref{rho}. This is an extraordinary useful fact 

3619: since it allows for our mere existence \footnote{Biology would be unthinkable 

3620: with a massive photon.}. The decoupled $W^\pm$ bosons of 

3621: SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ are stable since they cannot decay into the matter that would 

3622: arise if SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ would go into its center phase (a disaster for 

3623: entropy generating individuals). They are an extraordinarily viable candidate for clustering dark matter (the stuff 

3624: responsible for the anomalous rotation curves of galaxies).   

3625: 

3626: The $Z_0$ and the $W_{\pm}$ 

3627: bosons of the Standard Model would be interpreted as the thermodynamically 

3628: decoupled dual and TLH gauge-boson 

3629: fluctuations of the $SU(2)_{e}$ factor in Eq.\,(\ref{SIGUE}). One would expect to 

3630: see heavy gauge bosons $Z^\prime_0$ and $W^\prime_{\pm}$, arising 

3631: from the factor $SU(2)_{\mu}$ in Eq.\,(\ref{SIGUE}), at about $\frac{m_\mu}{m_e}\sim 200$ 

3632: times the mass of the $Z_0$ and the $W_{\pm}$ bosons, respectively. There is no {\sl fluctuating} 

3633: Higgs-field in this (stepwise) description of electroweak symmetry breaking. Obviously, 

3634: a lot of the extraordinarily precisely checked features of 

3635: the Standard Model can not be derived at the present stage of development, 

3636: for example the absence of flavor-changing neutral currents 

3637: on tree-level. Moreover, it is 

3638: questionable that scattering processes like $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$, say, at the $Z_0$ resonance 

3639: can be well understood in a thermodynamical framework. 

3640: It is, however, conspicuous that the total cross section

3641: of this process deviates substantially from the QED prediction for $\sqrt{s}\sim m_e, m_\mu$ 

3642: \cite{QEDtests}. The apparent structurelessness of a charged lepton as measured 

3643: for momentum transfers away from its mass 

3644: may be understood by the over-exponentially rising density of (instable) 

3645: states in the center phase of the SU(2)$_e$, SU(2)$_\mu$, ... Yang-Mills theories in Eq.\,(\ref{SIGUE}).   

3646: 

3647: To make contact with ultra-relativistic heavy ion collision our approach to pure SU(3) Yang-Mills 

3648: theory would have to be extended to include fundamentally charged fermions. The assumption of 

3649: rapid thermalization, which underlies the (very successful) hydrodynamical approach to 

3650: the early stages of an ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collision 

3651: \cite{ShuryakTeaney2001}, would be explained 

3652: by rigid correlations in the magnetic phase (magnetic monopole condensate) 

3653: or the electric phase (caloron `condensate') if the ground-state structure 

3654: of a pure SU(3) gauge theory would not 

3655: significantly be altered by the presence of quarks. 

3656: 

3657: To describe thermalized Quantum Chromodynamics 

3658: one would introduce quarks as fundamental fermionic fields 

3659: $\psi_i$ where $i$ is a flavor index and the color index is implicit. 

3660: Quarks may couple to the caloron `condensate' $\phi$ 

3661: in the electric phase via Yukawa terms

3662: %*********

3663: \eqb

3664: \label{Yuk}

3665: \kappa\sum_i \bar{\psi}_i\phi\psi_i

3666: \eqe

3667: %********

3668: and to topologically trivial gauge-field fluctuation $\delta a_\rho$ 

3669: via the usual covariant derivative. Due to 

3670: Eq.\,(\ref{Yuk}) quarks acquire mass dynamically. The ground-state structure in this approach 

3671: would be the same as the one of a pure SU(3) 

3672: Yang-Mills theory. In addition to gauge-field loops there 

3673: would be quark loops in the expansion of the thermodynamical potentials. 

3674: Thermodynamical self-consistency would imply a system of two coupled 

3675: evolution equations whose solutions would predict $e(T)$ and $\kappa(T)$ and can be used to compute 

3676: the temperature dependence of the thermodynamical potentials. Presumably, the dynamical quark 

3677: masses would become large close to the transition to the magnetic phase. 

3678: This would mean that chiral

3679: symmetry is dynamically broken. As a consequence, quarks would decouple 

3680: thermodynamically at the phase boundary and be replaced by (relatively strongly interacting) 

3681: chiral Goldstone modes in the magnetic phase. The latter could overcompensate 

3682: the negative pressure generated by the ground state of 

3683: condensed magnetic monopoles. An extension of this approach to the case 

3684: of finite quark chemical potential $\mu_q$ should be relatively straight forward.  

3685: A more fundamental approach, were quarks arise as topological solitons in the 

3686: center phases of various SU(3) Yang-Mills 

3687: theories, would be much more difficult.    

3688: 

3689: Due to the dominance of the ground state in the magnetic phase a 

3690: gauge theory for cosmological inflation based on SU(N) Yang-Mills 

3691: thermodynamics would be a natural application. This would 

3692: be a gauge-theory realization of warm inflation \cite{Berera}. 

3693: Density perturbations generated in the magnetic phase would be dominated by 

3694: thermal fluctuations. Along these lines an attempt to construct 

3695: a gauge theory for warm inflation was made in \cite{HofmannKeil2002}.  

3696: 

3697: If the entire matter of the Universe would be described in terms of a `mother' SU(N) Yang-Mills 

3698: theory, which break into SU(K) factors at $M_P$, 

3699: then the energy-momentum tensor of the ground state would vanish 

3700: identically for all those `daughter' theories that are in their center 

3701: phases now. {\sl No cosmological constant is generated by the latter.}

3702: 

3703: 

3704: \section*{Acknowledgments}

3705: The author would like to thank B. Garbrecht, H. Gies, Th. Konstandin, T. Prokopec, H. Rothe, K. Rothe, 

3706: M. Schmidt, I.-O. Stamatescu, and W. Wetzel for very helpful, continuing discussions. 

3707: Important support for numerical calculations was provided by J. Rohrer and is 

3708: thankfully acknowledged. 

3709: Very useful discussions with P. van Baal, E. Gubankova, J. Moffat, J. Polonyi, D. Rischke, and F. Wilczek and 

3710: illuminating conversations with D. B\"odeker, R. Brandenberger, G. Dunne, Ph. de Forcrand, A. Guth, 

3711: F. Karsch, A. Kovner, M. Laine, H. Liu, C. Nunez, R. D. Pisarski, K. Rajagopal, K. Redlich, D. T. Son, 

3712: A. Vainshtein, J. Verbaarschot, and F. Wilczek are gratefully acknowledged. 

3713: The warm hospitality of the Center for 

3714: Theoretical Physics at M.I.T, where part of this research was carried out 

3715: (sponsored by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), is thankfully acknowledged.\\  

3716: This paper is dedicated to my family.    

3717: 

3718: 

3719: \bibliographystyle{prsty}

3720: 

3721: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

3722: 

3723: \bibitem{Higgs2000} 

3724: G. Gomez-Ceballos {\sl et al.}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 16S1B}, 839 (2001). 

3725: 

3726: \bibitem{RHIC2003} 

3727: U. W. Heinz and P. F. Kolb, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 702}, 269 (2002). 

3728: 

3729: \bibitem{ShuryakTeaney2001}

3730: D. Teaney, J. Lauret, and E. V. Shuryak, nucl-th/0110037.

3731: 

3732: \bibitem{Linde1982}

3733: A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 108}, 389 (1982).

3734: 

3735: \bibitem{Guth1982}

3736: A. H. Guth and S. Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 49}, 1110 (1982). 

3737: 

3738: \bibitem{Starobinsky1982}

3739: A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 117}, 175 (1982). 

3740: 

3741: \bibitem{WMAP2003}

3742: D. N. Spergel {\sl et al.}, Astrophys. J. Suppl. {\bf 148}, 175 (2003).

3743: 

3744: \bibitem{Dai2002}

3745: Z. G. Dai {\sl et al.}, Astrophys. J. {\bf 580}, L7 (2002).

3746: 

3747: \bibitem{IMF}

3748: J. Bagchi {\sl et al.}, New Astron. {\bf 7}, 249 (2002). 

3749: 

3750: \bibitem{Hagedorn1965} 

3751: R. Hagedorn, Nuovo Cim. Suppl. {\bf 3}, 147 (1965).

3752: 

3753: \bibitem{GrossWilczek1973}

3754: D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 30}, 1343 (1973).\\ 

3755: D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 8}, 3633 (1973). 

3756: 

3757: \bibitem{Politzer1973} 

3758: H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 30}, 1346 (1973). 

3759: 

3760: \bibitem{Linde1980}

3761: A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 96}, 289 (1980).

3762: 

3763: \bibitem{BraatenPisarski1990}

3764: J. C. Taylor and S. M. H. Wong,  Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 346}, 115 (1990).\\  

3765: E. Braaten and R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 337}, 569.

3766: 

3767: \bibitem{Bodeker1998}

3768: D. B\"odeker, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 426}, 351 (1998). 

3769: 

3770: \bibitem{Bodapps1998}

3771: P. Arnold, D. T. Son, and L. G. Yaffe, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 105020 (1999).\\   

3772: J.-P. Blaizot and E. Iancu, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 557}, 183 (1999).\\  

3773: D. F. Litim and C. Manuel, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 4981 (1999).

3774: 

3775: \bibitem{Kajantie2002}

3776: K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and Y. Schroder , Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 105008 (2003).\\ 

3777: K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and Y. Schroder, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 10 (2001).

3778: 

3779: \bibitem{Blaizot2003}

3780: J.-P. Blaizot, E. Iancu, and A. Rebhan, hep-ph/0303185.

3781: 

3782: \bibitem{Hofmann2003F}

3783: R. Hofmann, hep-ph/0312046. 

3784: 

3785: \bibitem{Hofmann2000t2003}

3786: R. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 065012 (2000).\\ 

3787: R. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 105021 (2000).\\ 

3788: R. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 125025 (2002).\\ 

3789: R. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 065015 (2003).

3790:   

3791: \bibitem{GinzburgLandau1950}

3792: V. L. Ginzburg and L. D. Landau, JETP {\bf 20}, 1064 (1950).

3793: 

3794: \bibitem{Abrikosov1957}

3795: A. A. Abrikosov, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 5}, 1174 (1957).

3796: 

3797: \bibitem{Wetterich1996}

3798: C. Wetterich, Z. Phys.C {\bf 72}, 139 (1996).

3799: 

3800: \bibitem{HarrigtonShepard1977}

3801: B. J. Harrington and H. K. Shepard, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, 105007 (1978).

3802: 

3803: \bibitem{PrasadSommerfield1975}

3804: M. K. Prasad and C. M. Sommerfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 35 }, 760 (1975); 

3805: E.B. Bogomolnyi, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 24}, 449 (1976). 

3806: 

3807: \bibitem{Nahm1984}

3808: W. Nahm, Lect. Notes in Physics. 201, eds. G. Denaro, e.a. (1084) p. 189.

3809: 

3810: \bibitem{KraanVanBaalNPB1998}

3811: T. C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 533}, 627 (1998). 

3812: 

3813: \bibitem{vanBaalKraalPLB1998}

3814: T. C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 435}, 389 (1998).

3815: 

3816: \bibitem{Brower1998}

3817: R. C. Brower, D. Chen, J. Negele, K. Orginos, and C-I Tan, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 73}, 557 (1999). 

3818:  

3819: \bibitem{GrossPisarskiYaffe1981}

3820: D. J. Gross, R. D. Pisarski, and L. G. Yaffe, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 53}, 43 (1981). 

3821: 

3822: \bibitem{BPST}

3823: A. Belavin, A. Polyakov, A. Schwartz, and Yu. Tyupkin, Phys. Lett. {\bf 59}, 85 (1975).

3824: 

3825: \bibitem{Diakonov} 

3826: D. Diakonov, N. Gromov, V. Petrov, and S. Slizovskiy, hep-th/0404042.

3827: 

3828: \bibitem{Kibble1976}

3829: T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A {\bf 9}, 1387 (1976).

3830: 

3831: \bibitem{HerbstHofmann2004}

3832: U. Herbst and R. Hofmann, hep-th/0411214.

3833: 

3834: \bibitem{DiakonovPetrov2003}

3835: D. Diakonov and V. Petrov,  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 105007 (2003).

3836: 

3837: \bibitem{Hosotani1983}

3838: Y. Hosotani, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 126}, 309 (1983).

3839: 

3840: \bibitem{HerbstHofmannRohrer2004}

3841: U. Herbst, R. Hofmann, and J. Rohrer, hep-th/0410178.

3842: 

3843: \bibitem{Gorenstein1995}

3844: M. I. Gorenstein and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 5206 (1995).

3845: 

3846: \bibitem{Biro1990}

3847: T. S. Biro, P. Levai and B. M\"uller, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 42}, 3078 (1990). 

3848: 

3849: \bibitem{Peshier1995}

3850: A. Peshier {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 54}, 2399 (1996).  

3851: 

3852: \bibitem{LevaiHeinz1998}

3853: P. Levai and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev.  D {\bf 57}, 1879 (1998). 

3854: 

3855: \bibitem{KorthalsAltes}

3856: C. P. Korthals Altes, hep-ph/0406138,hep-ph/0408301.\\ 

3857: C. P. Korthals Altes, Acta Phys. Polon. B {\bf 34}, 5825 (2003).\\ 

3858: P. Giovannangeli and C. P. Korthals Altes, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 608}, 203 (2001).\\  

3859: C. Korthals-Altes, A. Kovner, and Misha A. Stephanov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 469}, 205 (1999). 

3860: 

3861: \bibitem{HoelbingRebbiRubakov2001}

3862: Ch. Hoelbing, C. Rebbi, and V. A. Rubakov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 034506 (2001). 

3863: 

3864: \bibitem{'tHooft1974}

3865: G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 79}, 276 (1974).

3866: 

3867: \bibitem{Polayakov1974} 

3868: A. M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. {\bf 20}, 194 (1974).  

3869: 

3870: \bibitem{PrasadSommerfield1974}

3871: M. K. Prasad and C. M. Sommerfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 35}, 760 (1975)

3872: 

3873: \bibitem{'tHooft1976}

3874: G. 't Hooft, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 14}, 3432 (1976).

3875: 

3876: \bibitem{LandsmanWeert1987}

3877: N. P Landsman and C. G. van Weert, Phys. Rep. {\bf 145}, 141 (1987)

3878: 

3879: \bibitem{Hofmann2002}

3880: R. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 125025 (2002). 

3881: 

3882: \bibitem{ForgasVolkov2003}

3883: P. Forgas and M. Volkov, hep-th/0311062.

3884: 

3885: \bibitem{Kaluza1921} 

3886: T. Kaluza, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math.Phys.) {\bf 1921}, 966 (1921).

3887: 

3888: \bibitem{Klein1926} 

3889: O. Klein, Z. Phys. {\bf 37}, 895 (1926).\\ 

3890: O. Klein, Surveys High Energ.Phys. {\bf 5}, 241 (1986). 

3891: 

3892: \bibitem{Olejnik1997}

3893: L. Del Debbio {\sl et al.}, proc. 

3894: NATO Adv. Res. Workshop on Theor. 

3895: Phys., Zakopane (1997) [hep-lat/9708023].

3896: 

3897: \bibitem{NielsenOlesen1973}

3898: H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 61}, 45  (1973). 

3899: 

3900: \bibitem{'tHooft1978}

3901: G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 138}, 1 (1978). 

3902: 

3903: \bibitem{deForcrandEliaPepe2001}

3904: Ph. de Forcrand, M. D'Elia, and M. Pepe,  Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 1438 (2001).

3905: 

3906: \bibitem{SvetitskyYaffe1982-1}

3907: B. Svetitsky and L. G. Yaffe, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 210}, 423  (1982). 

3908: 

3909: \bibitem{SvetitskyYaffe1982-2}

3910: B. Svetitsky and L. G. Yaffe, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 26}, 963 (1982).

3911: 

3912: \bibitem{Hofmann20033}

3913: R. Hofmann, hep-ph/0312051. 

3914: 

3915: \bibitem{HongLiu2004}

3916: H. Liu, hep-th/0408001. 

3917: 

3918: \bibitem{nonequ}

3919: J.H. Traschen and R.H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 42}, 2491 (1990).\\ 

3920: L. Kofman, A.D. Linde and A.A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 3195 (1994).\\ 

3921: J. Berges and J. Serreau, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 111601 (2003).  

3922: 

3923: \bibitem{EnKaSaMo1982}

3924: J. Engels {\sl et} al., Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 205}[FS5], 545 (1982).

3925: 

3926: \bibitem{Bielfeld1996}

3927: G. Boyd {\sl et} al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 4169 (1995).\\ 

3928: G. Boyd {\sl et} al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B469}, 419 (1996). 

3929: 

3930: \bibitem{EngelsKarschScheideler1999}

3931: J. Engels, F. Karsch, T. Scheideler, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 564}, 302 (1999).  

3932: 

3933: \bibitem{Brown1988}

3934: F. R. Brown {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61}, 2058 (1988).  

3935: 

3936: \bibitem{Deng1988}

3937: Y. Deng, in BATAVIA 1988, proc. LATTICE 88, 334.\\ 

3938: J. Engels {\sl et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 252}, 625  (1990).

3939: 

3940: \bibitem{EngelsFingberg1990}

3941: J. Engels {\sl et al.},  Phys. Lett. B {\bf 252}, 625 (1990).

3942: 

3943: \bibitem{LuciniTeperWenger2003}

3944: B. Lucini, M. Teper, and U. Wenger, JHEP {\bf 0401}, 061 (2004). 

3945: 

3946: \bibitem{BenderWu1976} 

3947: C. M. Bender and T. T. Wu, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 7}, 1620 (1973). 

3948:  

3949: \bibitem{Klassen1998}

3950: T. R. Klassen, Nucl. Phys.  B {\bf 533}, 557 (1998). 

3951: 

3952: \bibitem{Hofmann20032}

3953: R. Hofmann, hep-ph/0312048. 

3954: 

3955: \bibitem{QEDtests}

3956: A. Ashkin, L. A. Page, and W. M. Woodard, Phys. Rev. {\bf 94}, 357 (1953).\\ 

3957: W. C. Barber, G. E. Becker, and E. L. Chu, Phys. Rev. {\bf 89}, 950 (1953).\\ 

3958: M. B. Scott, A. O. Hanson, and E. M. Lyman, Phys. Rev. {\bf 84}, 638 (1951).\\ 

3959: W. C. Barber {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 16}, 1127 (1966). \\ 

3960: W. C. Barber {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D3}, 2796 (1971). \\ 

3961: R. B. Blumenthal {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. {144}, 1199 (1966).\\ 

3962: H. Alvensleben {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 21}, 1501 (1968).\\ 

3963: J. G. Asbury {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 18}, 65 (1967).\\  

3964: J. E. Augustin {\sl et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B31}, 673 (1970).\\ 

3965: V. E. Balakin {\sl et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B34}, 99 (1971). \\ 

3966: V. E. Balakin {\sl et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B37}, 435 (1971).\\  

3967: C. Bernadini, in proc. 1971 intern. 

3968: symposium on electron and photon interactions at high energies, Cornell

3969: University, Ithaca, N. Y., Aug. 23-27 1971.\\ 

3970: P. Dittmann and V. Hepp, Z. Phys. {\bf C10}, 283 (1981), Erratum-ibid.{\bf C11}, 271 (1981). 

3971: 

3972: \bibitem{Wilczek2004}

3973: F. Wilczek, hep-ph/0408167.

3974: 

3975: \bibitem{AlexanderMoffat2004}

3976: S. Alexander, M. Mbonye, and J. Moffat, hep-th/0406202. 

3977: 

3978: \bibitem{Reinhardt} 

3979: H. Reinhardt {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 085004 (2002).\\ 

3980: H. Reinhardt, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 119}, 658 (2003).\\  

3981: H. Reinhardt and T. Tok, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 065004 (2003). 

3982: 

3983: \bibitem{Berera}

3984: A. Berera, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 3218 (1995).\\  

3985: A. Berera, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 54}, 2519 (1996).

3986: 

3987: \bibitem{HofmannKeil2002} 

3988: R. Hofmann and M. T. Keil, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 023527 (2002).\\ 

3989: R. Hofmann and M. T. Keil, hep-ph/0204203, published in *Cape Town 2002, 

3990: Dark matter in astro- and particle physics* 296-305. 

3991: 

3992: \baselineskip25pt

3993: 

3994: \end{thebibliography}

3995:  

3996: 

3997:      

3998: 

3999: 

4000: 

4001: 

4002: \end{document}

4003: