1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{dcolumn}
5: \usepackage{bm}
6:
7:
8: \begin{document}
9: \newcommand{\gdhi}{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$\partial$}}
10:
11: \def\Sp{\mathop{\mathrm{Sp}}\nolimits}
12: \def\sgn{\mathop{\mathrm{sgn}}\nolimits}
13: \def\erfc{\mathop{\mathrm{erfc}}\nolimits}
14: \def\tr{\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}
15: \def\as{\mathop{\mathrm{as}}\nolimits}
16: \def\val{\mathop{\mathrm{val}}\nolimits}
17:
18: \title{Soliton solutions in an effective action for SU(2) Yang-Mills theory:
19: including effects of higher-derivative term}
20: % Force line breaks with \\
21:
22: \author{N.Sawado}
23: \email{sawado@ph.noda.tus.ac.jp}
24: \author{N.Shiiki}
25: \email{norikoshiiki@mail.goo.ne.jp}
26: \author{S.Tanaka}
27: \affiliation{
28: Department of Physics, Faculty of Science and Technology,
29: Tokyo University of Science, Noda, Chiba 278-8510, Japan
30: }
31: \date{\today}
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: The Skyrme-Faddeev-Niemi (SFN) model which is an O(3) $\sigma$ model in three
35: dimensional space upto fourth-order in the first derivative is regarded as a
36: low-energy effective theory of SU(2) Yang-Mills theory.
37: One can show from the Wilsonian renormalization group argument that
38: the effective action of Yang-Mills theory recovers the SFN in the infrared
39: region. However, the thoery contains an additional fourth-order term
40: which destabilizes the soliton solution.
41: In this paper, we derive the second derivative term perturbatively
42: and show that the SFN model with the second derivative term
43: possesses soliton solutions.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \pacs{11.10.Lm, 11.27.+d, 12.38.Aw, 12.38.Lg, 12.39.Dc}
47:
48: \maketitle
49:
50: \section{\label{sec:level1}Introduction\protect\\ }
51: The Skyrme-Faddeev-Niemi (SFN) model which is an O(3) $\sigma$ model
52: in three dimensional space upto fourth-order in the first derivative
53: has topological soliton solutions with torus or knot-like structure.
54: The model was initiated in 70's~\cite{faddeev75} and its interest has
55: been extensively growing. The numerical simulations were performed in
56: Refs.~\cite{faddeev97,gladikowski97,sutcliffe98,hietarinta99,hietarinta00},
57: the integrability was shown in Ref.~\cite{aratyn99}, and the application to
58: the condensed matter physics~\cite{babaev02} and the Weinberg-Salam
59: model~\cite{fayzullaev} were also considered.
60: The recent research especially focuses on the consistency between
61: the SFN and fundamental theories such as QCD~\cite{faddeev99,langmann99,
62: shabanov99,cho02}.
63: In those references, it is claimed that the SFN action should be deduced
64: from the SU(2) Yang-Mills (YM) action at low energies.
65: One can also show from the Wilsonian renormalization group argument that
66: the effective action of Yang-Mills theory recovers the SFN in the infrared
67: region~\cite{gies01}.
68: However, the derivative expansion for slowly varying
69: fields $\bm{n}$ upto quartic order brings an additional fourth-order term
70: in the SFN model to destabilize the soliton solution.
71:
72: Similar situations can be seen also in various topological soliton
73: models. In the Skyrme model, the chirally invariant lagrangian
74: with quarks produces fourth order terms after the derivative expansion
75: and they destabilize the soliton solution~\cite{dhar85,aitchison85}.
76: To recover the stability of the skyrmion, the author of Ref.\cite{marleau01}
77: introduced a large number of higher order terms in the first derivative
78: whose coefficients were determined from the coefficients of the
79: Skyrme model by using the recursion relations.
80: Alternatively, in Ref.~\cite{gies01} Gies pointed out the possibility that
81: the second derivative order term can work as a stabilizer for the soliton.
82:
83: In this paper, we examine the Gies's supposition by numerical analysis.
84: In section \ref{sec:level2}, we give an introduction to the Skyrme-Faddeev-Niemi
85: model with its topological property.
86: In section \ref{sec:level3}, we show how to derive the SFN model action
87: from the SU(2) Yang-Mills theory. In section \ref{sec:level4},
88: soliton solutions of this truncated YM action are studied.
89: In order to find stable soliton solutions, we introduce
90: a second derivative term which can be derived in a perturbative
91: manner.
92: The naive extremization scheme, however, produce the fourth
93: order differential equation and the model has no stable soliton solution.
94: Failure of finding the soliton is caused by the
95: basic feature of the second derivative field theory.
96: In section \ref{sec:level5}, the higher derivative theory and
97: Ostrogradski's formulation are reviewed. We show the absence
98: of bound state in the second derivative theory using an example in
99: quantum mechanics and introduce the perturbative treatment for the
100: second derivative theory.
101: In section \ref{sec:level6}, we present our numerical results.
102: In section \ref{sec:level7} are concluding remarks.
103:
104: \section{\label{sec:level2}Skyrme-Faddeev-Niemi model\protect\\}
105: The Faddeev-Niemi conjecture for the low-energy model of SU(2)
106: Yang-Mills theory is expressed by following effective action:
107: \begin{eqnarray}
108: S_{\rm SFN}=\Lambda \int d^4x\Bigl[\frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu \bm{n})^2
109: +\frac{g_1}{8}(\bm{n}\cdot \partial_\mu \bm{n}\times \partial_\nu \bm{n})^2 \Bigr]
110: \label{fsn_ac}
111: \end{eqnarray}
112: where $\bm{n}(\bm{x})$ is a three component vector field normalized as
113: $\bm{n}\cdot\bm{n}=1$. The mass scale $\Lambda$ is a free parameter
114: and in this paper we set $\Lambda=1$.
115: Stable soliton solutions exist when $g_1 > 0$.
116:
117: The static field $\bm{n}(\bm{x})$ maps $\bm{n}:R^3\mapsto S^2$ and
118: the configurations are classified by the topological maps characterized
119: by a topological invariant $H$ called Hopf charge
120: \begin{eqnarray}
121: H=\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\int A \wedge F,~~F=dA
122: \label{hopf}
123: \end{eqnarray}
124: where $F$ is the field strength and can be written as
125: $F=(\bm{n}\cdot d\bm{n}\wedge d\bm{n})$.
126:
127: The static energy $E_{\rm stt}$ from the action (\ref{fsn_ac}) has
128: a topological lower bound~\cite{ward98},
129: \begin{eqnarray}
130: E_{\rm stt}\ge K H^{3/4}
131: \label{lowerbound}
132: \end{eqnarray}
133: where $K=16\pi^2\sqrt{g_1}$.
134:
135:
136: Performing numerical simulation, one can find that the static configurations
137: for $H=1,2$ have axial symmetry~\cite{sutcliffe98}.
138: Thus ``the toroidal ansatz'' which was studied in Ref.\cite{gladikowski97}
139: is suitable to be imposed on these configurations. The ansatz is given by
140: \begin{eqnarray}
141: &&n_1=\sqrt{1-w^2(\eta,\beta)}\cos(N\alpha+v(\eta,\beta))\,, \nonumber \\
142: &&n_2=\sqrt{1-w^2(\eta,\beta)}\sin(N\alpha+v(\eta,\beta)\,,
143: \label{toroidal} \\
144: &&n_3=w(\eta,\beta)\,, \nonumber
145: \end{eqnarray}
146: where $(\eta,\beta,\alpha)$ is toroidal coordinates which are related to
147: the $R^3$ as follows:
148: \begin{eqnarray}
149: x=\frac{a\sinh\eta\cos\alpha}{\tau},y=\frac{a\sinh\eta\sin\alpha}{\tau},
150: z=\frac{a\sin\beta}{\tau}
151: \end{eqnarray}
152: with $\tau=\cosh\eta-\cos\beta$.
153:
154: The function $w(\eta,\beta)$ is subject to the boundary conditions $w(0,\beta)=1,w(\infty,\beta)=-1$
155: and is periodic in $\beta$. $v(\eta,\beta)$ is set to be $v(\eta,\beta)=M\beta+v_0(\eta,\beta)$ and
156: $v_0(,\beta)$ is considered as a constant map.
157: Equation (\ref{hopf}) then gives $H=NM$.
158:
159: In this paper we adopt a simpler ansatz than (\ref{toroidal}), which
160: is defined by
161: \begin{eqnarray}
162: &&n_1=\sqrt{1-w^2(\eta)}\cos(N\alpha+M\beta)\,,\nonumber \\
163: &&n_2=\sqrt{1-w^2(\eta)}\sin(N\alpha+M\beta)\,,
164: \label{afz} \\
165: &&n_3=w(\eta)\,, \nonumber
166: \end{eqnarray}
167: where $w(\eta)$ satisfies the boundary conditions $w(0)=1,w(\infty)=-1$.
168: We numerically study soliton solutions for both ansatz (\ref{toroidal})
169: and (\ref{afz}). By comparing those results, we found that this simple
170: ansatz produces at most 10\% errors and it does not affect to the
171: property of the soliton solution.
172:
173: By using (\ref{afz}), the static energy is written in terms of the function
174: $w(\eta)$ as
175: \begin{eqnarray}
176: &&E_{\rm stt}=2\pi^2a \int d\eta
177: \Biggl[
178: \frac{(w')^2}{1-w^2}+(1-w^2) U_{M,N}(\eta) \nonumber \\
179: &&\hspace{2cm}+\frac{g_1}{4a^2}\sinh\eta\cosh\eta (w')^2
180: U_{M,N}(\eta)\Biggr]\,,\nonumber \\
181: &&\hspace{1cm}w'\equiv \frac{dw}{d\eta},~~
182: U_{M,N}(\eta)\equiv \Bigl(M^2+\frac{N^2}{\sinh^2\eta}\Bigr)\,. \nonumber
183: \end{eqnarray}
184: The Euler-lagrange equation of motion is then derived as
185: \begin{eqnarray}
186: &&\frac{w''}{1-w^2}+\frac{ww'^2}{(1-w^2)^2}+U_{M,N}(\eta)w \nonumber \\
187: &&+\frac{g_1}{2a^2}\Bigl(-2N^2\coth^2\eta w'+(\cosh^2\eta+\sinh^2\eta)
188: U_{M,N}(\eta)w' \nonumber \\
189: &&+\sinh\eta\cosh\eta U_{M,N}(\eta)w''\Bigr)=0\,.
190: \label{fsn_eq}
191: \end{eqnarray}
192: The variation with respect to $a$ produces the equation for variable $a$.
193: Soliton solutions are obtained by solving the equations for $a$ as
194: well as for $w$.
195:
196: \section{\label{sec:level3}Effective action in the Yang-Mills theory
197: with CFNS decomposition\protect\\}
198: In this section, we briefly review how to derive the
199: SFN effective action from the action of SU(2) Yang-Mills theory in the
200: infrared limit~\cite{shabanov99,gies01}.
201: For the gauge fields $\bm{A}_\mu$, the Cho-Faddeev-Niemi-Shabanov
202: decomposition is applied~\cite{faddeev99,langmann99,shabanov99,cho02}
203: \begin{eqnarray}
204: \bm{A}_\mu=\bm{n}C_\mu+(\partial_\mu\bm{n})\times\bm{n}+\bm{W}_\mu\,.
205: \label{cfns}
206: \end{eqnarray}
207: The first two terms are the ``electric'' and ``magnetic'' Abelian connection,
208: and $\bm{W}_\mu$ are chosen so as to orthogonal to $\bm{n}$,
209: $\bm{W}_\mu\cdot\bm{n}=0$.
210: Obviously, the degrees of freedom on the left- and right-hand side
211: of Eq.(\ref{cfns}) do not match. While the LHS describes
212: $3_{\rm color}\times 4_{\rm Lorentz}=12$, the RHS is comprised of
213: $(C_\mu:)4_{\rm Lorentz}+(\bm{n}:)2_{\rm color}+(\bm{W}_\mu:)3_{\rm color}
214: \times4_{\rm Lorentz}-4_{\bm{n}\cdot\bm{W}_\mu=0}=14$ degrees freedom.
215: Shabanov introduced in his paper \cite{shabanov99} the following constraint
216: \begin{eqnarray}
217: \bm{\chi}(\bm{n},C_\mu,\bm{W}_\mu)=0,~{\rm with}~~\bm{\chi}\cdot\bm{n}=0\,.
218: \end{eqnarray}
219: The generating functional of YM theory can be written by using
220: Eq.(\ref{cfns}) as
221: \begin{eqnarray}
222: {\cal Z}=\int {\cal D}\bm{n}{\cal D}C{\cal D}\bm{W}\delta(\bm{\chi})
223: \Delta_{\rm FP}\Delta_{\rm S}e^{-S_{\rm YM}-S_{\rm gf}}\,.
224: \label{vf0}
225: \end{eqnarray}
226: $\Delta_{\rm FP}$ and $S_{\rm gf}$ are the Faddeev-Popov determinant and
227: the gauge fixing action respectively, and Shabanov introduced another
228: determinant $\Delta_{\rm S}$ corresponding to the condition $\bm{\chi}=0$.
229: YM and the gauge fixing action is given by
230: \begin{eqnarray}
231: &&S_{\rm YM}+S_{\rm gf}=\int d^4x\Bigl[\frac{1}{4g^2}\bm{F}_{\mu\nu}\cdot\bm{F}_{\mu\nu}
232: +\frac{1}{2\alpha_{\rm g} g^2}(\partial_\mu \bm{A}_\mu)^2\Bigr] \,. \nonumber
233: \end{eqnarray}
234: Inserting Eq.(\ref{cfns}) into the action, one obtains the vacuum functional
235: \begin{eqnarray}
236: &&{\cal Z}=\int {\cal D}\bm{n}e^{-{\cal S}_{\rm eff}(\bm{n})} \nonumber \\
237: &&~~~=\int {\cal D}\bm{n} e^{-{\cal S}_{\rm cl}(\bm{n})}\int {\cal D}\tilde{C}{\cal D}\bm{W}_\mu
238: \Delta_{\rm FP}\Delta_{\rm S}\delta({\bm \chi}) \nonumber \\
239: &&~~~\times e^{-(1/2g^2)\int(\tilde{C}_\mu M^C_{\mu\nu}\tilde{C}_\nu+\bm{W}_\mu \bar{M}^{\bm{W}}_{\mu\nu}\bm{W}_\nu
240: +2C_\nu K^C_\nu+2\bm{W}_\mu\cdot\bm{K}^{\bm{W}}_\mu)}
241: \nonumber \\
242: \end{eqnarray}
243: with
244: \begin{eqnarray}
245: &&M^C_{\mu\nu}=-\partial^2\delta_{\mu\nu}+\partial_\mu\bm{n}\cdot\partial_\nu\bm{n}\,, \nonumber \\
246: &&M^{\bm{W}}_{\mu\nu}=-\partial^2\delta_{\mu\nu}-\partial_\mu\bm{n}\otimes\partial_\nu\bm{n}
247: +\partial_\nu\bm{n}\otimes\partial_\mu\bm{n}\,, \nonumber \\
248: &&\bm{Q}^C_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu\bm{n}\partial_\nu+\partial_\nu\bm{n}\partial_\mu+\partial_\mu\partial_\nu\bm{n}\,,
249: \\
250: &&K^C_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\nu(\bm{n}\cdot\partial_\nu\bm{n}\times\partial_\mu\bm{n})
251: +\partial_\mu\bm{n}\cdot\partial^2\bm{n}\times\bm{n}\,, \nonumber \\
252: &&\bm{K}^{\bm W}_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu(\bm{n}\times\partial^2\bm{n})\,,
253: \hspace{1cm}{\rm (in~gauge~\alpha_g=1}) \nonumber
254: \end{eqnarray}
255: and
256: \begin{eqnarray}
257: &&\bar{M}^{\bm{W}}_{\mu\nu}:=M^{\bm{W}}_{\mu\nu}-\bm{Q}_{\mu s}{M^C}^{-1}_{s\lambda}\bm{Q}_{\lambda \nu}\,, \nonumber \\
258: &&\tilde{C}_\mu=C_\mu+\bm{W}_s\cdot \bm{Q}_{s\lambda}{M^C}^{-1}_{\lambda\mu}\,.
259: \end{eqnarray}
260: The classical action of $\bm{n}$ including the gauge fixing term is given by
261: \begin{eqnarray}
262: {\cal S}_{\rm cl}=\int d^4x\Bigl[\frac{1}{4g^2}(\partial_\mu\bm{n}\times \partial_\nu\bm{n})^2
263: +\frac{1}{2 \alpha_{\rm g} g^2}(\partial^2\bm{n}\times\bm{n})^2\Bigr]\,.\nonumber \\
264: \end{eqnarray}
265: The $\delta$ functional is expressed by its Fourier transform
266: \begin{eqnarray}
267: \delta(\bm{\chi})=\int {\cal D}\bm{\phi}e^{-i\int (\bm{\phi}\cdot \partial\bm{W}_\mu
268: +\bm{\phi}\cdot C_\mu\bm{n}\times \bm{W}_\mu+(\bm{\phi}\cdot\bm{n})(\partial_\mu\bm{n}\cdot\bm{W}_\mu))}\,.
269: \nonumber \\
270: \end{eqnarray}
271: Integrating over $C,\bm{W},\bm{\phi}$, we finally obtain
272: \begin{eqnarray}
273: &&e^{-S_{\rm eff}}=e^{-S_{\rm cl}}\Delta_{\rm FP}\Delta_{\rm S}
274: (\det M^C)^{-1/2} (\det \bar{M}^{\bm{W}})^{-1/2}
275: \nonumber \\
276: &&\hspace{1cm}\times (\det -Q^{\bm{\phi}}_\mu (\bar{M}^{\bm{W}})^{-1}_{\mu\nu}
277: Q^{\bm{\phi}}_\nu)^{-1/2} \label{determ}
278: \end{eqnarray}
279: where several nonlocal terms and the higher derivative components have been
280: neglected.
281:
282: We perform the derivative expansion for the four determinants in
283: Eq.~(\ref{determ}) under the following assumptions
284: \begin{itemize}
285: \item [(i)]the theory is valid for the momenta $p$ with $k<p<\Lambda$ ($k,\Lambda$ are
286: infrared and ultraviolet cut-off)
287: \item [(ii)]$|\partial\bm{n}| \ll k$
288: \item [(iii)]the higher derivative terms, such as $\partial^2\bm{n}$ are omitted.
289: \end{itemize}
290: The effective action is then given by
291: \begin{eqnarray}
292: &&S_{\rm eff}=\int d^4x\Bigl[\frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu \bm{n})^2
293: +\frac{g_1}{8}(\partial_\mu \bm{n}\times \partial_\nu \bm{n})^2 \nonumber \\
294: &&\hspace{2cm}+\frac{g_2}{8}(\partial_\mu \bm{n})^4
295: \Bigr]\,.
296: \label{fsn2}
297: \end{eqnarray}
298: For $g_1>0$ and $g_2=0$, the action is identical to the FSN effective
299: action~(\ref{fsn_ac}).
300:
301: In order to get the stable soliton solutions, $g_2$ must be
302: positive~\cite{gladikowski97}. However, $g_2$ is found to be
303: negative according to the above analysis.
304: Therefore we consider higher-derivative terms and investigate
305: if the model with the higher-derivatives possess soliton solutions.
306:
307: \section{\label{sec:level4}Search for the stable soliton solutions (1)\protect\\}
308: The static energy is derived from Eq.(\ref{fsn2}) as
309: \begin{eqnarray}
310: E_{\rm stt}&=& \int d^3x\Bigl[\frac{1}{2}(\partial_i \bm{n})^2
311: +\frac{g_1}{8}(\partial_i \bm{n}\times \partial_j \bm{n})^2
312: +\frac{g_2}{8}(\partial_i \bm{n})^4 \Bigr] \nonumber \\
313: &:=&E_2(\bm{n})+E_4^{(1)}(\bm{n})+E_4^{(2)}(\bm{n})\,.
314: \end{eqnarray}
315: A spatial scaling behaviour of the static energy, so called Derrick's scaling
316: argument, can be applied to examine the stability of the soliton~\cite{sutcliffe05}.
317: Considering the map
318: $\bm{x}\mapsto \bm{x}'=\mu\bm{x}~(\mu>0)$, with
319: $\bm{n}^{(\mu)}\equiv \bm{n}(\mu\bm{x})$, the static energy scales as
320: \begin{eqnarray}
321: e(\mu)&=&E_{\rm stt}(\bm{n}^{(\mu)}) \nonumber \\
322: &=&E_2(\bm{n}^{(\mu)})+E_4^{(1)}(\bm{n}^{(\mu)})+E_4^{(2)}(\bm{n}^{(\mu)}) \nonumber \\
323: &=&\frac{1}{\mu}E_2(\bm{n})+\mu(E_4^{(1)}(\bm{n})+E_4^{(2)}(\bm{n}))\,.
324: \label{derrick}
325: \end{eqnarray}
326: Derrick's theorem states that if the function $e(\mu)$ has no stationary point,
327: the theory has no static solutions of the field equation with finite density,
328: other than the vacuum.
329: Conversely, if $e(\mu)$ has stationary point, the possibility of
330: having finite energy soliton solutions is not excluded.
331: Eq.(\ref{derrick}) is stationary at $\mu=\sqrt{E_2/(E_4^{(1)}+E_4^{(2)})}$.
332: Then, the following inequality
333: \begin{eqnarray}
334: &&g_1(\partial_i\bm{n}\times\partial_j\bm{n})^2+g_2(\partial_i\bm{n})^2(\partial_j\bm{n})^2 \nonumber \\
335: &&=g_1(\partial_i\bm{n})^2(\partial_j\bm{n})^2-g_1(\partial_i\bm{n}\cdot\partial_j\bm{n})^2
336: +g_2(\partial_i\bm{n})^2(\partial_j\bm{n})^2 \nonumber \\
337: &&\geqq g_2(\partial_i\bm{n}\cdot\partial_j\bm{n})^2
338: ~~~~(\because (\partial_i\bm{n})^2(\partial_j\bm{n})^2\geqq (\partial_i\bm{n}\cdot\partial_j\bm{n})^2) \nonumber \\
339: \end{eqnarray}
340: ensures the possibility of existence of the stable soliton solutions for $g_2\geqq 0$.
341: As mentioned in the section \ref{sec:level3}, $g_2$ should be negative at least within
342: our derivative expansion analysis of YM theory.
343:
344: A promising idea to tackle the problem was suggested by Gies~\cite{gies01}.
345: He considered the following type of effective action, accompanying second
346: derivative term
347: \begin{eqnarray}
348: &&S_{\rm eff}=\int d^4x\Bigl[\frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu \bm{n})^2
349: +\frac{g_1}{8}(\partial_\mu \bm{n}\times \partial_\nu \bm{n})^2
350: \nonumber \\
351: &&\hspace{2cm}-\frac{g_2}{8}(\partial_\mu \bm{n})^4
352: +\frac{g_2}{8}(\partial^2 \bm{n}\cdot\partial^2 \bm{n})
353: \Bigr]\,.
354: \label{fsn_ac2}
355: \end{eqnarray}
356: Here we choose positive value of $g_2$ and assign the explicit negative sign
357: to the third term. In principle, it is possible to estimate the second derivative term
358: by the derivative expansion without neglecting
359: throughout the calculation.
360: The calculation is, however, very laborious and hence we show only
361: one simple example of the $C$ determinant.
362: The determinant is real and thus it is expanded as follows
363: \begin{eqnarray}
364: &&\log(\det M^C)^{-1/2}
365: =-\frac{1}{2}{\rm Tr}\log(-\partial^2+\partial_\mu\bm{n}\cdot\partial_\mu\bm{n}) \nonumber \\
366: &&~~\to-\frac{1}{4}{\rm Tr}\log[\partial^4
367: -2(\partial\bm{n})^2\partial^2+(\partial\bm{n})^4-\partial^2(\partial\bm{n})^2]
368: \nonumber \\
369: &&~~=-\frac{1}{4}{\rm Tr}\log(\partial^4) \nonumber \\
370: &&~~~~~-\frac{1}{4}{\rm Tr}\log\Bigl[1-2\frac{(\partial\bm{n}^2)}{\partial^2}
371: +\frac{(\partial\bm{n})^4}{\partial^4}
372: -\frac{\partial^2(\partial\bm{n})^2}{\partial^4}\Bigr] \nonumber \\
373: &&~~=-\frac{1}{4}{\rm Tr}\log(\partial^4) \nonumber \\
374: &&~~~~~-\frac{1}{4}{\rm Tr}\Bigl[-2\frac{(\partial\bm{n}^2)}{\partial^2}
375: +\frac{(\partial\bm{n})^4}{\partial^4}
376: -\frac{\partial^2(\partial\bm{n})^2}{\partial^4}\Bigr] \nonumber \\
377: &&~~~~~+\frac{1}{8}{\rm Tr}\Bigl[-2\frac{(\partial\bm{n})^2}{\partial^2}\Bigr]^2
378: +O((\partial\bm{n})^6)
379: \end{eqnarray}
380: where we have defined $\partial_\mu\bm{n}\cdot\partial_\mu\bm{n}\to(\partial\bm{n})^2,
381: (\partial_\mu\bm{n}\cdot\partial_\nu\bm{n})^2\to(\partial\bm{n})^4$.
382: Employing the integral formulas~\cite{gies01}
383: \begin{eqnarray}
384: &&\int_{[k,\Lambda]} \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{1}{p^2}=\frac{1}{16\pi^2}(\Lambda^2-k^2)\,, \nonumber \\
385: &&\int_{[k,\Lambda]} \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{1}{p^4}=\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\log\frac{\Lambda}{k} \nonumber
386: \end{eqnarray}
387: together with the equality (up to second derivative)
388: \begin{eqnarray}
389: \partial^2(\partial_\mu\bm{n}\cdot\partial_\mu\bm{n})=-\partial^2(\bm{n}\cdot\partial^2\bm{n})
390: = -\partial^2\bm{n}\cdot\partial^2\bm{n}\,,
391: \end{eqnarray}
392: we obtain the form for the $C$ determinant
393: \begin{eqnarray}
394: &&\log(\det M^C)^{-1/2}= \nonumber \\
395: &&-\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\int d^4x\Bigl[(\Lambda^2-k^2) (\partial_\mu\bm{n})^2
396: -\log\frac{\Lambda}{k}(\partial_\mu\bm{n}\times\partial_\nu\bm{n})^2 \nonumber \\
397: &&\hspace{1.5cm}+\log\frac{\Lambda}{k}(\partial_\mu\bm{n})^4
398: -\log\frac{\Lambda}{k}(\partial^2\bm{n}\cdot\partial^2\bm{n})\Bigr]\,.
399: \end{eqnarray}
400: The other determinants can be estimated in a similar manner.
401:
402: The static energy of Eq.(\ref{fsn_ac2}) with the ansatz (\ref{afz}) is written as
403: \begin{eqnarray}
404: &&E_{\rm stt}=2\pi^2a \int d\eta
405: \Biggl[
406: \frac{(w')^2}{1-w^2}+(1-w^2) U_{M,N}(\eta) \nonumber \\
407: &&+\frac{g_1}{4a^2}\sinh\eta\cosh\eta (w')^2
408: U_{M,N}(\eta)\nonumber \\
409: &&-\frac{g_2}{4a^2}\sinh\eta\cosh\eta\biggl[\frac{(w')^2}{1-w^2}
410: +(1-w^2)U_{M,N}(\eta)\biggr]^2 \nonumber \\
411: &&+\frac{g_2}{4a^2}\biggl[\Bigl(\coth\eta+\sinh^2\eta-\sinh\eta\cosh\eta\Bigr)
412: \frac{(w')^2}{1-w^2} \nonumber \\
413: &&\hspace{1cm}+(\sinh\eta\cosh\eta-\sinh^2\eta)(1-w^2)M^2 \nonumber \\
414: &&\hspace{1cm}+2\Bigl\{ \frac{w(w')^3}{(1-w^2)^2}
415: +\frac{w' w''}{1-w^2}
416: +w w'U_{M,N}(\eta) \Bigr\}\nonumber \\
417: &&\hspace{1cm}+\sinh\eta\cosh\eta\Bigl\{ \frac{1}{1-w^2}\Bigl[\frac{(w')^2}{1-w^2}
418: +w w'' \nonumber \\
419: &&\hspace{1.5cm}+(1-w^2)U_{M,N}(\eta)\Bigr]^2
420: +(w'')^2\Bigr\}\biggr]
421: \Biggl], \nonumber \\
422: &&\hspace{4cm}w''\equiv \frac{d^2w}{d\eta^2}.\nonumber
423: \nonumber
424: \end{eqnarray}
425: The Euler-Lagrange equation of motion is derived by
426: \begin{eqnarray}
427: -\frac{d^2}{d\eta^2}\Bigl(\frac{\partial E_{\rm stt}}{\partial w''}\Bigr)
428: +\frac{d}{d\eta}\Bigl(\frac{\partial E_{\rm stt}}{\partial w'}\Bigr)
429: -\frac{\partial E_{\rm stt}}{\partial w}=0 \,,
430: \end{eqnarray}
431: which is too complicated and thus we adopt the following notation
432: \begin{eqnarray}
433: &&f_0(w,w',w'')+g_1f_1(w,w',w'') \nonumber \\
434: &&\hspace{1.5cm}+g_2f_2(w,w',w'',w^{(3)},w^{(4)})=0\,.
435: \label{fsn_eq2}
436: \end{eqnarray}
437: Here $w^{(3)},w^{(4)}$ represent the third and the fourth derivative with
438: respect to $\eta$. The first two terms of Eq.(\ref{fsn_eq2}) are
439: identical to those in Eq.(\ref{fsn_eq}).
440:
441: Unfortunately, we could not find out stable soliton solutions from
442: Eq.(\ref{fsn_eq2}) for any value of $g_2$.
443:
444: From the relation
445: \begin{eqnarray}
446: \int d^4x[(\partial^2 \bm{n}\cdot\partial^2 \bm{n})-(\partial_\mu \bm{n})^4]
447: =\int d^4x(\partial^2 \bm{n}\times\bm{n})^2\,,
448: \end{eqnarray}
449: one easily finds that the static energy obtained from the last two terms
450: in Eq.(\ref{fsn_ac2})
451: \begin{eqnarray}
452: \tilde{E}^{(2)}_4=\int d^3x(\partial^2 \bm{n}\times\bm{n})^2
453: \label{energy2}
454: \end{eqnarray}
455: gives the positive contribution. The total static energy is stationary
456: at $\mu=\sqrt{E_2/(E_4^{(1)}+\tilde{E}_4^{(2)})}$ and hence the possibility
457: of existence of soliton solutions is not excluded.
458: And also, the positivity of Eq.(\ref{energy2}) does not spoil the lower
459: bound (\ref{lowerbound}) of original SFN and the possibility is still
460: not excluded, too.
461:
462: Therefore, we suspect that the absence of the stable soliton is caused
463: by the fact that {\it higher derivative theory has no lower bound state}.
464: We shall investigate the lower bound in the higher derivative theory
465: in detail in the next section.
466:
467: \section{\label{sec:level5}Higher derivative theory\protect\\}
468: In this section, we address the basic problems in the higher derivative
469: theory~\cite{pais,smilga,eliezer89,jaen,simon} which essentially falls
470: into two categories. The first problem concerns the increase in the
471: number of degrees of freedom. For example, if the theory contains
472: second derivative terms, the equation of motion becomes up to the order
473: in the fourth derivative. Thus, four parameters are required for
474: the initial conditions. If one considers more higher order terms,
475: the situation gets worse. However, this is not serious problem for
476: our study because our concern is the existence of static soliton solutions.
477: The second problem is that the actions of the theory are not bounded from
478: below. This feature makes the higher derivative theories unstable.
479:
480: The lagrangian and the hamiltonian formalism with higher derivative was firstly developed
481: by Ostrogradski~\cite{ostrogradski}. We consider the lagrangian containing up to $n$th order derivatives
482: \begin{eqnarray}
483: S=\int dt {\cal L}(q,\dot{q},\cdots,q^{(n)})\,.
484: \end{eqnarray}
485: Taking the variation of the action $\delta S=0$ leads the Euler-lagrange equation of motion
486: \begin{eqnarray}
487: \sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^i\frac{d^i}{dt^i}\Bigl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial q^{(i)}}\Bigr)=0\,.
488: \end{eqnarray}
489: The hamiltonian is obtained by introducing $n$ generalized momenta
490: \begin{eqnarray}
491: p_i=\sum_{j=i+1}^n (-1)^{j-i-1}\frac{d^{j-i-1}}{dt^{j-i-1}}\Bigl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial q^{(j)}}\Bigr)\,,
492: i=1,\cdots,n,
493: \end{eqnarray}
494: or
495: \begin{eqnarray}
496: &&p_n=\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial q^{(n)}}\,, \nonumber \\
497: &&p_i=\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial q^{(i)}}-\frac{d}{dt}p_{i+1}\,,~~i=1,\cdots,n-1,
498: \label{canonical momenta}
499: \end{eqnarray}
500: and $n$ independent variables
501: \begin{eqnarray}
502: &&q_1\equiv q\,,\nonumber \\
503: &&q_i\equiv q^{(i-1)}\,,~~(i=2,\cdots,n)\,.
504: \end{eqnarray}
505: The lagrangian now depends on the $n$ coordinates $q_i$ and on the first derivative $\dot{q}_n=q^{(n)}$.
506: The hamiltonian is defined as
507: \begin{eqnarray}
508: {\cal H}(q_i,p_i)=\sum^n_{i=1}p_i\dot{q}_i-{\cal L}=\sum^{n-1}_{i=1} p_i q_{i+1}+p_n \dot{q}_n-{\cal L}\,.
509: \end{eqnarray}
510: The canonical equations of motion turn out to be
511: \begin{eqnarray}
512: \dot{q}_i=\frac{\partial {\cal H}}{\partial p_i}\,,~~\dot{p}_i=-\frac{\partial {\cal H}}{\partial q_i}\,.
513: \end{eqnarray}
514:
515: We consider a simple example including second derivative term \cite{simon}, defined as
516: \begin{eqnarray}
517: {\cal L}=\frac{1}{2}(1+\varepsilon^2\omega^2)\dot{q}^2-\frac{1}{2}\omega^2q^2-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^2\ddot{q}^2\,,
518: \end{eqnarray}
519: where constant $\epsilon$ works as a coupling constant of second derivative term.
520: The equation of motion is
521: \begin{eqnarray}
522: (1+\varepsilon^2 \omega^2)\ddot{q}+\omega^2 q+\varepsilon^2 q^{(4)}=0\,.
523: \label{eq_quanta}
524: \end{eqnarray}
525: From Eq.~(\ref{canonical momenta}), one gets
526: \begin{eqnarray}
527: &&\pi_{\dot{q}}=\frac{\partial{\cal L}}{\partial \ddot{q}}=-\varepsilon^2\ddot{q}\,, \nonumber \\
528: &&\pi_q=\frac{\partial{\cal L}}{\partial \dot{q}}-\frac{d}{dt}\Bigl(\frac{\partial{\cal L}}{\partial \ddot{q}}\Bigr)
529: =(1+\varepsilon^2\omega^2)\dot{q}+\varepsilon^2\dddot{q}\,.
530: \end{eqnarray}
531: Thus the hamiltonian becomes
532: \begin{eqnarray}
533: {\cal H}&=&\dot{x}\pi_q+\ddot{q}\pi_{\dot{q}}-{\cal L} \nonumber \\
534: &=&\dot{q}\pi_q-\frac{1}{2\varepsilon^2}\pi_{\dot{q}}^2
535: -\frac{1}{2}(1+\varepsilon^2\omega^2)\dot{q}^2+\frac{1}{2}\omega^2q^2\,.
536: \end{eqnarray}
537: We introduce the new canonical variables
538: \begin{eqnarray}
539: &&q_+=\frac{1}{\omega\sqrt{1-\varepsilon^2\omega^2}}(\varepsilon^2\omega^2\dot{q}-\pi_q)~,\nonumber \\
540: &&p_+=\frac{w}{\sqrt{1-\varepsilon^2\omega^2}}(q-\pi_{\dot{q}})\,, \nonumber \\
541: &&q_-=\frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{1-\varepsilon^2\omega^2}}(\dot{q}-\pi_q)~, \nonumber \\
542: &&p_-=\frac{1}{\varepsilon\sqrt{1-\varepsilon^2\omega^2}}(\varepsilon^2\omega^2 q-\pi_{\dot{q}})\,,
543: \nonumber
544: \end{eqnarray}
545: and the hamiltonian has of the form by using these variables
546: \begin{eqnarray}
547: {\cal H}\to \frac{1}{2}(p_+^2+\omega^2 q_+^2)-\frac{1}{2}(p_-^2+\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2} q_-^2)\,. \nonumber
548: \end{eqnarray}
549: The corresponding energy spectra is then given by
550: \begin{eqnarray}
551: E=(n+\frac{1}{2})\omega-(m+\frac{1}{2})\frac{1}{\varepsilon}~,~~n,m=0,1,2,\cdots
552: \end{eqnarray}
553: One can see that in the limit $\epsilon\to 0$ the energy goes to
554: negative infinity rather than approaching to the harmonic oscillator
555: energy eigenstates.
556:
557: To obtain physically meaningful solutions, we employ the perturbative
558: analysis where the solution is expanded in terms of the small coupling
559: constant and the Euler-Lagrange equation of motion is replaced with the
560: corresponding perturbative equation.
561: The solutions of the equations of motion that are ill behaved in the limit
562: $\epsilon\to 0$ are excluded from the very beginning~\cite{eliezer89,jaen,simon}.
563:
564: We assume that the solution of Eq.(\ref{eq_quanta}) can be written as
565: \begin{eqnarray}
566: q_{\rm pert}(t)=\sum^{\infty}_{n=0} \epsilon^n q(t)\,. \label{q}
567: \end{eqnarray}
568: Substituting Eq.(\ref{q}) into Eq.(\ref{eq_quanta}) and taking time
569: derivatives of these equations, we obtain the constraints for higher
570: derivative terms
571: \begin{eqnarray}
572: &&O(\epsilon^0) \nonumber \\
573: &&\hspace{3mm}equation :~~\ddot{q}_0+\omega^2q_0=0\,, \label{cnst00} \\
574: &&\hspace{3mm}constraints :~~\dddot{q}_0=-\omega^2\dot{q}_0, \ddddot{q}_0=\omega^4 q_0\,. \label{cnst01} \\
575: &&O(\epsilon^2) \nonumber \\
576: &&\hspace{3mm}equation :~~\ddot{q}_2+\omega^2\ddot{q}_0+\omega^2 q_2+\ddddot{q}_0=0\,, \nonumber \\
577: &&\hspace{13mm}\Rightarrow \ddot{q}_2+\omega^2q_2=0\,,~~({\rm using}~(\ref{cnst00}),(\ref{cnst01}))\,, \label{cnst20} \\
578: &&\hspace{3mm}constraints :~~\dddot{q}_2=-\omega^2\dot{q}_2, \ddddot{q}_2=\omega^4 q_2\,. \label{cnst21} \\
579: &&O(\epsilon^4) \nonumber \\
580: &&\hspace{3mm}equation :~~\ddot{q}_4+\omega^2\ddot{q}_2+\omega^2 q_4+\ddddot{q}_2=0\,, \nonumber \\
581: &&\hspace{13mm}\Rightarrow \ddot{q}_4+\omega^2q_4=0\,,~~({\rm using}~(\ref{cnst20}),(\ref{cnst21}))\,, \\
582: &&\hspace{3mm}constraints :~~\dddot{q}_4=-\omega^2\dot{q}_4, \ddddot{q}_4=\omega^4 q_4\,. \label{cnst4}
583: \end{eqnarray}
584: Combining these results, we find the perturbative equation of motion up to $O(\epsilon^4)$
585: \begin{eqnarray}
586: \ddot{q}_{\rm pert}+\omega^2q_{\rm pert}=O(\epsilon^6)\,.
587: \end{eqnarray}
588: which is the equation for harmonic oscillator.
589:
590: \begin{figure}
591: \includegraphics[height=7cm, width=9cm]{Fig1}
592: \caption{\label{fig:Fig1} The function $w(\eta)$ for $g_1=0.4, g_2=0,0.05,0.1$
593: (the rescaling radial coordinate $x=\eta/(1-\eta)$ is used). }
594: \end{figure}
595: \begin{figure}
596: \includegraphics[height=7cm, width=9cm]{Fig2}
597: \caption{\label{fig:Fig2} The energy density for $g_1=0.4, g_2=0,0.05,0.1$.}
598: \end{figure}
599:
600: \begin{figure}
601: \includegraphics[height=7cm, width=9cm]{Fig3}
602: \caption{\label{fig:Fig3} The energy as a function of $g_2$($g_1=0.4$).}
603: \end{figure}
604:
605: \section{\label{sec:level6}Search for the stable soliton solutions (2) -- perturbative analysis --\protect\\}
606: Let us employ the perturbative method introduced in the last section to our
607: problem. We assume that $g_2$ is relatively small and can be considered as
608: a perturbative coupling constant. Thus, the perturbative solution is written
609: by a power series in $g_2$
610: \begin{eqnarray}
611: w(\eta)=\sum^\infty_{n=0}g_2^n w_n(\eta)\,.
612: \label{sol_expand}
613: \end{eqnarray}
614: Substituting Eq.(\ref{sol_expand}) into Eq.(\ref{fsn_eq2}), we obtain
615: the classical field equation in $O(g^0_2)$
616: \begin{eqnarray}
617: f_0(w_0,w_0',w_0'')+g_1f_1(w_0,w_0',w_0'')=0\,. \label{classical}
618: \end{eqnarray}
619: Taking derivatives for both sides in Eq.(\ref{classical}) and solving
620: for $w_0'',w_0^{(3)},w_0^{(4)}$ read the following form
621: of the constraint equations for higher derivatives
622: \begin{eqnarray}
623: w_0^{(i)}=F^{(i)}(w_0,w_0')\,,~~i=2,3,4\,.
624: \label{constraint}
625: \end{eqnarray}
626: The equation in $O(g^1_2)$ can be written as
627: \begin{eqnarray}
628: (f_0+g_2 f_1)_{O(g^1_2)}+f_2(w_0,w_0',w_0'',w_0^{(3)},w_0^{(4)})=0\,.
629: \label{fsn_eq21}
630: \end{eqnarray}
631: Substituting the constraint equations (\ref{constraint}) into Eq.(\ref{fsn_eq21})
632: and eliminate the higher derivative terms, one can obtain the perturbative
633: equation of motion
634: \begin{eqnarray}
635: f_0(w,w',w'')+g_1 f_1(w,w',w'')+g_2 \tilde{f}_2(w,w')=O(g^2_2)\,.\nonumber \\
636: \label{fsn_eq2_p}
637: \end{eqnarray}
638:
639: Now Eq.(\ref{fsn_eq2_p}) has topological soliton solutions.
640: Our results of the estimated function $w(\eta)$ and the energy density are displayed
641: in Figs.\ref{fig:Fig1},\ref{fig:Fig2}.(In all figures, we show the results for the
642: case of Hopf charge $H=2;N=2,M=1$). We have small changes for varying the
643: coupling constant $g_2$. The dependence of the $g_2$ for the total energy
644: is shown in Fig.\ref{fig:Fig3}.
645: It can be seen that the change is moderate with respect to $g_2$.
646:
647: \section{\label{sec:level7}Summary\protect\\}
648: In this paper we have studied the Skyrme-Faddeev-Niemi
649: model and its extensions by introducing the reduction scheme of the SU(2)
650: Yang-Mills theory to the corresponding low-energy effective model.
651: The requirement of consistency between the low-energy effecive action
652: of the YM and the SFN type model lead us to take into account second
653: derivative terms in the action.
654: However, we found that such an action including the second derivative terms
655: does not have stable soliton solutions.
656: This is due to the absence of the energy bound in higher
657: derivative theory.
658: This fact inspired us to employ the perturbative analysis to our effective
659: action. Within the perturbative analysis, we were able to obtain the topological
660: soliton solutions.
661:
662: Our analysis is based on perturbation and the coupling constant $g_2$ is
663: assumed to be small.
664: However, Wilsonian renormalization analysis of YM theory~\cite{gies01}
665: suggest that the coupling constants $g_1,g_2$ (and the mass scale parameter
666: $\Lambda$) depend on the renormalization group time $t=\log k/\Lambda$
667: ($k,\Lambda$ are infrared, ultraviolet cutoff parameter) and those are
668: almost comparable. To improve the analysis, we could perform the
669: next order of perturbation, but it is tedius and spoils the simplicity
670: of the FSN model unfortunately.
671:
672: It should be noted that our solutions do not much differ from
673: the solution of original SFN model, at least in the perturbative regime.
674: We suspect that some appropriate truncation ({\it like} ``extra fourth order term
675: + second derivative term'') always supply the stable solutions that are
676: close to the original SFN model. Thus we conclude that the topological
677: soliton model comprised of the ``kinetic term + a special fourth order
678: term'' like SFN model is a good approximation.
679:
680: \begin{acknowledgments}
681: The authors thank to Kei-Ichi Kondo for drawing our attention to the
682: coefficient problem of this model.
683: \end{acknowledgments}
684:
685:
686: \begin{thebibliography}{qq}
687: \bibitem{faddeev75} L.Faddeev,
688: Report No.IAS Print-75-QS70, 1975.
689: \bibitem{faddeev97} L.Faddeev and A.Niemi,
690: Nature (London) {\bf 387}, 58 (1997).
691: \bibitem{gladikowski97} Jens Gladikowski and Meik Hellmund,
692: Phys. Rev.D {\bf 56}, 5194 (1997).
693: \bibitem{sutcliffe98}Richard A.Battye and Paul M.Sutcliffe,
694: Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 455}, (1999.)
695: \bibitem{hietarinta99} Jarmo Hietarinta and Petri Salo,
696: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 451},60 (1999).
697: \bibitem{hietarinta00} Jarmo Hietarinta and Petri Salo,
698: Phys. Rev.D {\bf 62}, 081701(R) (2000).
699: \bibitem{aratyn99} H.Aratyn, L.A.Ferreira, A.H.Zimerman,
700: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 456},162 (1999).
701: \bibitem{babaev02} Egor Babaev, Ludvig Faddeev and Antti J.Niemi,
702: Phys. Rev.B {\bf 65}, 100512 (2002).
703: \bibitem{fayzullaev} B.A.Fayzullaev, M.M.Musakhanov, D.G.Pak,
704: and M.Siddikov,
705: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 609}, 442 (2005).
706: \bibitem{faddeev99} Ludvig Faddeev and Antti J.Niemi,
707: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 22}, 1624 (1999).
708: \bibitem{langmann99} Edwin Langmann, Antti J.Niemi,
709: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 463}, 252 (1999).
710: \bibitem{shabanov99} Sergei V. Shabanov,
711: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 458}, 322 (1999).
712: \bibitem{cho02} Y.M.Cho, H.W.Lee, D.G.Pak,
713: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 525}, 347 (2002).
714: \bibitem{gies01}Holger Gies,
715: Phys. Rev.D {\bf 63}, 125023 (2001).
716: \bibitem{dhar85} Avinash Dhar, R.Shankar, and Spenta R.Wadia,
717: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 31}, 3256 (1985).
718: \bibitem{aitchison85} Ian Aitchison, Caroline Fraser, Elaine Tudor and Josef Zuk,
719: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 165}, 162 (1985).
720: \bibitem{marleau01} L. Marleau, J.F. Rivard,
721: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 036007 (2001)
722: \bibitem{ward98}R.S.Ward,
723: Nonlinearity {\bf 12}, 241 (1999).
724: \bibitem{sutcliffe05} Nicholas Manton and Paul Sutcliffe,
725: {\it Topological Solitons},
726: (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
727: \bibitem{ostrogradski} M.Ostrogradski,
728: Mem.Ac.St.Petersbourg {\bf 6}, 185 (1850).
729: \bibitem{pais} A.Pais and G.E.Uhlenbeck,
730: Phys. Rev. {\bf 79}, 145 (1950).
731: \bibitem{smilga} A.V.Smilga,
732: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 706}, 598 (2005).
733: \bibitem{eliezer89} D.A.Eliezer, R.P.Woodard,
734: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 325}, 389 (1989).
735: \bibitem{jaen} X.Ja\'en, L.Llosa and A. Morina,
736: Phys. Rev.D {\bf 34}, 2302 (1986).
737: \bibitem{simon} Jonathan Z.Simon,
738: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 41}, 3720 (1990);
739: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43}, 3308 (1991).
740: \end{thebibliography}
741: \end{document}
742: