1:
2:
3:
4: %\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
5: %
6: %\docuumentclass[12pt]{article}\newcommand{\format} {\normalformat}
7: \documentclass{JHEP3}\newcommand{\format} {\JHEPformat}
8:
9: \usepackage{amsmath}
10: \usepackage{epsfig}
11: \usepackage{latexsym}
12:
13: %\usepackage[dvips]{graphics}
14: %\usepackage{color}
15: %\input{psfig}
16:
17:
18:
19: % definitions, and new commands
20:
21: \newcommand{\normalformat} {
22: \usepackage{hyperref}
23: \bibliographystyle{utcaps}
24: \newcommand{\maketitlepage} {
25: \begin{titlepage}
26: \renewcommand{\thepage}{\roman{page}}
27: \begin{flushright}\thepreprint\end{flushright}\bigskip
28: \begin{center}{\LARGE\bf\thetitle}\end{center}\bigskip
29: \begin{center}\theauthor\end{center}
30: \begin{center}{\em\theaddress}\end{center}\bigskip
31: \begin{abstract}\theabstract\end{abstract}\vfill
32: \thedate
33: \newpage
34: \tableofcontents
35: \end{titlepage}
36: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
37: }
38:
39:
40: % Set equation numbering to (1.1) format
41: \numberwithin{equation}{section}
42: \renewcommand{\caption}[1]
43: {\refstepcounter{figure}{\small{\bf Figure \thefigure:} ##1}}
44: \newcommand{\acknowledgments} {\section*{Acknowledgments}}
45: }
46:
47:
48: \newcommand{\JHEPformat} {
49: \bibliographystyle{JHEP}
50: \newcommand{\maketitlepage} {}
51: \abstract{\theabstract}
52: \keywords{\thekeywords}
53: \preprint{\thepreprint}
54: }
55:
56: \newcommand{\TITLE}[1] {\newcommand{\thetitle} {#1}\title{#1}}
57: \newcommand{\ABSTRACT}[1] {\newcommand{\theabstract} {#1}}
58: \newcommand{\AUTHOR}[1] {\newcommand{\theauthor} {#1}}
59: \newcommand{\ADDRESS}[1] {\newcommand{\theaddress} {#1}}
60: \newcommand{\DATE}[1] {\newcommand{\thedate} {#1}\date{#1}}
61: \newcommand{\KEYWORDS}[1] {\newcommand{\thekeywords} {#1}}
62: \newcommand{\PREPRINT}[1] {\newcommand{\thepreprint} {#1}}
63:
64:
65:
66:
67: \def\half{\frac{1}{2}}
68:
69: \def\pa{\partial}
70:
71: \def\rt{\rightarrow}
72: \def\tr{{\tilde\rho}}
73:
74:
75: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
76: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
77: % \newcommand{\eel}[1]{\label{#1}\end{equation}}
78: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
79: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
80: %\newcommand{\eeal}[1]{\label{#1}\end{eqnarray}}
81:
82: % \renewcommand{{\over}}[2]{\frac{#1}{#2}}
83:
84:
85: \newcommand{\LL}{e^{2\lambda(r)}}
86: \newcommand{\NN}{e^{2\nu(r)}}
87: \newcommand{\PP}{e^{-2\phi(r)}}
88: \newcommand{\non}{\nonumber \\}
89: \newcommand{\CR}{\non\cr}
90:
91:
92: \def\a{\alpha}
93: \def\b{\beta}
94: \def\r{\rho}
95: \def\rp{r_+}
96: \def\tq{\tilde{q}}
97: \def\om{\Omega}
98: \def\la{\lambda}
99:
100: \def\m{\mu}
101: \def\g{\gamma}
102: \def\l{\lambda}
103: \def\n{\nu}
104: \def\vf{\varphi}
105:
106: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
107:
108:
109:
110:
111:
112:
113:
114: %========================================================================
115: \TITLE{Non-critical, near extremal $AdS_6$ background
116: as a holographic laboratory of four dimensional YM theory}
117: %========================================================================
118:
119:
120:
121:
122:
123:
124: \ADDRESS{School of Physics and Astronomy\\
125: The Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences\\
126: Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, 69978, Israel
127: }
128:
129: \author{Stanislav Kuperstein, Jacob Sonnenschein\\
130: School of Physics and Astronomy\\
131: The Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences\\
132: Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, 69978, Israel\\
133: E-mail:
134: \email{kupers@post.tau.ac.il, cobi@post.tau.ac.il}
135: }
136:
137:
138: \ABSTRACT{We study certain properties of the low energy regime of a
139: theory which resembles four dimensional
140: YM theory in the framework of a non-critical holographic gravity dual. We use for the latter the
141: near extremal $AdS_6$ non-critical SUGRA. We extract the glueball spectra that associates with the
142: fluctuations of the dilaton, one form and the graviton and compare the results to those of
143: the critical near extremal $D4$ model and lattice simulations. We show an area law behavior for
144: the Wilson loop and screening for the 't Hooft loop. The Luscher term is found to be
145: $-\frac{3}{24}\frac {\pi}{L}$.
146: We derive the Regge trajectories of glueballs associated with the
147: spinning folded string configurations.
148: }
149:
150:
151: \DATE{2004}
152:
153:
154: \KEYWORDS{Non-critical supergravity, AdS/CFT correspondence}
155:
156:
157: \PREPRINT{TAUP-2781-04\\{\tt hep-th/0411009}}
158:
159: \format
160:
161:
162: \begin{document}
163:
164: \maketitlepage
165:
166:
167:
168:
169:
170:
171:
172:
173:
174:
175:
176:
177:
178:
179:
180:
181:
182: % -------------------------------------------
183:
184:
185: \section{ Introduction and Summary}
186:
187:
188:
189: Ten dimensional type IIB superstring theory on $AdS_5\times S^5$ is holographically equivalent to
190: four dimensional ${\cal N}=4$ super Yang Mills theory.
191: The $S^5$ transverse space with its $SO(6)$
192: isometry is required to dualize the R symmetry of the boundary gauge theory.
193: Using this logic the superstring dual of ${\cal N}=1$ SYM should admit an $S^1$ as a transverse
194: dimension and the dual of the non-supersymmetric YM theory should be five dimensional with no transverse space.
195: The fifth dimension plays the role of the re-normalization scale of the dual gauge theory.
196:
197: Critical ten dimensional string (SUGRA) theories which are the
198: anti-holographic
199: duals of confining gauge theories
200: with ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetry are characterized by a KK sector of
201: states which are of
202: the same mass scale as the
203: hadronic states. There is no apparent way to disentangle
204: these KK states from the hadronic states.
205: This situation shows up for instance in the KS \cite{Klebanov:2000hb}
206: and MN \cite{Maldacena:2000yy} models.
207:
208: The KK modes combined with the argument about the R symmetry
209: serves as a motivation to study non-critical string theories,
210: as candidates for the string of QCD.
211: This idea was originally introduced in ~\cite{Polyakov:1998ju}
212: where a proposal of a dual of pure YM in terms of a 5d non-critical
213: gravity background was made. Following this paper there were several attempts to
214: find solutions of the non-critical effective action that are adequate as duals
215: of gauge theories ~\cite{Klebanov:1998yy} ~\cite{Ferretti:1998xu}
216: ~\cite{Ferretti:1999gj}
217: ~\cite{Klebanov:1998yz} ~\cite{Garousi:1999fu}
218: ~\cite{Minahan:1999yr} ~\cite{Nekrasov:1999mn}
219: ~\cite{Billo:1999nf} ~\cite{Armoni:1999fb}
220: ~\cite{Imamura:1999um} ~\cite{Ghoroku:1999bk}.
221:
222: Recently, in \cite{Kuperstein:2004yk} we investigated
223: the supergravity equations of motion associated with non-critical ($d>1$) type II
224: string theories that incorporate RR forms. Several classes of solutions were derived.
225: In particular we found analytic backgrounds with a structure of
226: $AdS_{p+2}\times S^{k}$ and numerical solutions that asymptote
227: a linear dilaton with a topology of $R^{1,d-3}\times R \times S^1$.
228: Unfortunately, for all these solutions the curvature in string units
229: is proportional to $c=10-d$ and it cannot be reduced by taking a large $N$ limit
230: like in the critical case. This means that the supergravity approximation
231: is not really valid. We conjectured, however, that the higher order corrections
232: will modify the radii, while leaving the
233: geometrical structure of the background unchanged.
234: We also presented the AdS black hole backgrounds associated
235: with the $AdS_{p+2} \times S^k$ solutions.
236: In \cite{Polyakov:2000fk} the elevation of the SUGRA non-critical background into
237: sigma models was discussed. Models with AdS target spaces
238: which have $\kappa$-symmetry and are completely integrable were derived.
239: Another important development in this program of deriving the string of QCD has been made
240: in \cite{Klebanov:2004ya} where the
241: $AdS_5\times S^1$ was derived from a non-critical SUGRA action
242: that includes a term associated with a space filling
243: flavor brane.
244:
245: The goal of this paper is to go one step forward and extract gauge dynamical properties
246: of confining theories from
247: a non-critical SUGRA laboratory. In \cite{Kuperstein:2004yk} two classes of SUGRA
248: backgrounds were shown to be duals of
249: confining gauge theories: (i) near extremal AdS backgrounds (ii) backgrounds
250: that asymptote a linear dilaton background. Since the latter were numerical solutions
251: we choose to use the former option, namely
252: a thermal AdS background.
253: To describe a four dimensional confining gauge theory we use the near extremal $AdS_6$ background.
254: The $AdS_6$ model, which is a member of the family of solutions mentioned above,
255: includes a zero form field strength that may be associated with a
256: $D4$ brane in a similar way to the $D8$ brane of the critical type IIA superstring theory.
257: Near extremality, or the incorporation of a black hole, is achieved
258: by compactifying one of the $D4$ world-sheet coordinates on a circle and imposing
259: anti-periodic boundary conditions.
260: Some preliminary calculations have already been made in \cite{Kuperstein:2004yk}.
261: In this paper we consider both SUGRA
262: as well as semi-classical string computations. The first kind includes the extraction
263: of the glueball spectra associated with the fluctuations of the dilaton,
264: the graviton and the one form. Wilson loops, 't Hooft loops and spinning folded closed
265: string are among the second kind.
266:
267: An important question that is addressed in this paper is whether the results about the
268: gauge dynamics that one derives from the non-critical models differ from those
269: one extracts from the
270: critical ones and in what ways. Here is brief summary of the answer to this question.
271:
272: \begin{itemize}
273: \item
274: As advertised above, in comparison with the critical near extremal $D4$ brane model, the non-critical model
275: lacks the KK modes associated with the transverse $S^4$.
276: And, thus, in our case the corrections to everything we compute can be
277: large.
278: \item
279: The gauge theory dual of the non-critical SUGRA, is a theory in the large $N$ limit. However, unlike the
280: usual limit of the AdS/CFT correspondence, here 't Hooft parameter is of order one
281: $g^2 N\sim 1$ and not very large.
282: \item
283: Though the derivation of the glueball spectrum is similar to the one performed in the critical
284: case there are certain differences in the resulting glueball spectra. For instance,
285: in the critical supergravity approach there is a degeneracy
286: between the $2^{++}$, $1^{++}$ and $0^{++}$ glueball states. This degeneracy is not present in our
287: results. On the other hand, we find that $M(2^{++})/M(0^{-+})=1$ is
288: similar to the critical
289: supergravity result $M(2^{++})/M(0^{-+}) \approx 1.2$ and the
290: lattice result $M(2^{++})/M(0^{-+}) \approx 1.08$ .
291:
292: \item
293: The classical string configurations that correspond to the Wilson
294: loop and the 't Hooft loop admits the same behavior in the ten dimensional and six
295: dimensional string models, namely, area law behavior for the former and
296: screening for the latter. However the corresponding string tension behaves like
297: $T_s\sim \sqrt{g^2 N} T^2$ and $\sim T^2$ respectively, where $T$,
298: the ``temperature'' is the inverse of the circumference of the
299: compactified $S^1$. A similar difference occurs also for the
300: tension of the folded spinning closed strings that admit a Regge trajectory behavior.
301:
302: \item
303: The quantum fluctuations around the above classical configurations
304: differ between the critical and non-critical models simply due to the
305: fact that the number of bosonic (and presumably also fermionic) directions is different.
306:
307:
308: For instance the Luscher term that measures the quantum deviation from
309: the linear potential was shown to be $-\frac{7}{24}\frac {\pi}{L}$ in
310: the critical case where $L$ is the separation distance between the corresponding quark and anti-quark.
311: Assuming that the fermionic fluctuations
312: are massive due to the coupling to the RR fluxes, as is the case in the critical model,
313: the bosonic contributions take the form of $-\frac{3}{24}\frac
314: {\pi}{L}$, which is closer to the result found in lattice simulations.
315:
316:
317: \item
318: The KK modes of the critical string model take part as intermediate states
319: in amplitudes of hadronic states. Intermediate states in non-critical models
320: of the type we consider here do not include these KK modes.
321: For instance it was shown in \cite{Sonnenschein:1999re} that the
322: dominant mode in the correlator of two Wilson loops is a KK mode in the critical model.
323: In the non-critical case it is replaced by a glueball mode.
324: \end{itemize}
325:
326:
327:
328:
329:
330:
331:
332:
333:
334:
335:
336:
337:
338:
339: The organization of the paper is as follows.
340: In Section \ref{Gs} we present the non-critical supergravity solution.
341: Section \ref{Tgs} is devoted to the calculation of the glueball spectrum
342: in the gauge theory in the context of non-critical supergravity.
343: We find an expression for the WKB approximation to the spectrum,
344: then compare it with numerical results for the lowest states.
345: We also compare our results to the lattice $YM_4$ results.
346: Although the lattice calculations and the supergravity calculations
347: are valid in different regions (weak and strong coupling respectively)
348: we find that there is a qualitative agreement between the results.
349: In Section \ref{TWl} we give the stringy description of the $4d$ Wilson line. As
350: expected the background satisfies the condition for the area law behavior.
351: We also compute
352: the classical energy
353: of the Wilson line.
354: In Section \ref{TtHl} we discuss the 't Hooft line.
355: Similarly to the critical case the calculations in the non-critical
356: background show that there is a screening of magnetic charge in the gauge theory.
357: In Section \ref{Css} we analyze the equation of motion of the string sigma model
358: in the given background. We find a remarkably simple semi-classical dispersion relation
359: for a closed rotating string configuration. This relation describes a
360: Regge trajectory in the dual gauge theory.
361:
362:
363:
364:
365:
366: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
367:
368:
369: \section{General setting}
370: \label{Gs}
371:
372:
373:
374: The non-critical AdS black hole solution presented in \cite{Kuperstein:2004yk}
375: has the following form:
376:
377: \begin{equation} \label{eq:bh}
378: l_s^{-2} ds^2 =
379: \left( \frac{u}{R_{AdS}} \right)^2
380: \left[ f(u) d\theta^2 -dt^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{p-1} dx_i^2 \right]
381: + \left(\frac{R_{AdS}}{u} \right)^2
382: \frac{du^2}{ f(u) }
383: + R_{S^k}^2 d \Omega_k^2,
384: \end{equation}
385: where $f(u)=\left(1 - \left( \frac{u_\Lambda}{u} \right)^{p+1} \right)$
386: is the thermal factor.We denote here the location of the horizon by
387: $u_\Lambda$ to indicate the fact that it determines the scale
388: $\Lambda_{QCD}$ in the dual gauge theory.
389: Other authors denote it as $u_0$ or $u_T$ or $u_{KK}$.
390: The radii appearing in the metric are:
391:
392:
393: \begin{equation} \label{eq:AdSSRadii}
394: R_{AdS} = \left( \frac{(p+1)(p+2-k)}{c} \right)^{1/2}
395: \quad \textrm{and} \quad
396: R_{S^k} = \left( \frac{(p+2-k)(k-1)}{c} \right)^{1/2}.
397: \end{equation}
398: For $(p,k)=(3,5)$ and $(p,k)=(5,4)$ this metric was considered in
399: \cite{Hashimoto:1998if} \cite{Csaki:1998qr}
400: (for the radii of the critical case),
401: where the calculation of the glueball spectra in $YM_{3}$ and $YM_{4}$
402: was performed using critical $d=10$ supergravity.
403: In this paper we will analyze the $(p,k)=(4,0)$ case in the context of non-critical supergravity.
404: This will provide an alternative "non-critical" description of $YM_{4}$.
405:
406: Apart from the metric (\ref{eq:bh}) the background includes the constant dilaton:
407:
408: \begin{equation}
409: e^{2 \phi_{0} } = \frac{2 c}{p+2} \frac{1}{Q^2}
410: \qquad
411: \textrm{with}
412: \qquad
413: c=10 - d = 8 -p -k.
414: \end{equation}
415: Here $Q$ is the RR flux.
416: The coordinate $\theta$ has to be periodic in order to avoid a
417: conical singularity at $u=u_\Lambda$. The circle parameterized by $\theta$
418: shrinks smoothly to zero if the period is chosen to be:
419:
420:
421: \begin{equation}
422: \beta =\frac{4 \pi R_{AdS}^2}{(p+1) u_\Lambda}.
423: \end{equation}
424:
425:
426:
427:
428:
429:
430:
431:
432:
433:
434:
435:
436:
437:
438: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
439:
440:
441:
442: \section{The glueball spectra}
443: \label{Tgs}
444:
445:
446:
447: According to the AdS/CFT correspondence \cite{Witten:1998zw} in order to determine
448: the glue-ball mass spectrum we
449: must solve the linearized supergravity equations of motion in the
450: background (\ref{eq:bh}).
451: For calculation of the glue-ball spectra in the framework of the critical supergravity
452: see \cite{Csaki:1998qr}, \cite{deMelloKoch:1998qs}, \cite{Hashimoto:1998if},
453: \cite{Constable:1999gb}, \cite{Brower:1999nj}, \cite{Minahan:1998tm}
454: \cite{Brower:2000rp}, \cite{Brower:2000rp}, \cite{Caceres:2000qe}.
455: In $d=6$ the supergravity excitation we are interested in are those of the dilaton,
456: the metric and the RR one-form appearing in the non-critical action.
457: We should note that the RR 3-form in $d=6$ is not
458: an independent field since its 4-form field strength is
459: Hodge dual to the 2-form field strength of
460: the RR 1-form.
461: There is also a possibility to add the NS-NS $2$-form field perturbation,
462: but we will not do it in this paper.
463:
464: It appears that perturbing the equations of motion in the
465: string frame leads to a complicated mixing between the dilaton and the
466: metric modes. We therefore will switch to
467: the Einstein frame,
468: where the action takes the following form:
469:
470: \begin{equation} \label{eq:TheActionEf}
471: S = \int d^{d} x \sqrt{g}
472: \left( \mathcal{R} - \frac{4}{d-2}(\pa\phi)^2 +
473: \frac{c}{\alpha^\prime} e^{\frac{4}{d-2} \phi} \right)
474: - \half \sum_{l=2,6} \int e^{\frac{d-2l}{d-2} \phi} F_{l} \wedge \star F_{l}.
475: \end{equation}
476: In the following we will perform the calculation for general $p$, while
477: substituting the relevant value $p=4$ ($d=6$) only in the final results.
478: The background solution of (\ref{eq:TheActionEf}) involves the AdS
479: black hole metric (\ref{eq:bh}), the constant dilaton $\phi^{(0)}$
480: and the RR $(p+2)$-form, which plays
481: the role of the cosmological constant as we pointed out above.
482: We write the perturbed fields as $g_{MN}= g^{(0)}_{MN} + h_{MN}$ and
483: $\phi= \phi^{(0)} + \bar{\phi}$
484: and arrive at the following set of linearized equations of motion
485: for the metric, the dilaton and the RR $1$-form:
486:
487: \bea
488: \label{eq:MetricLem}
489: \nabla_M \nabla_{N} h^L_L + \nabla^2 h_{MN} - 2 \nabla^L \nabla_{(M}h_{LN)}
490: &=& \frac{2(p+1)}{R_{AdS}^2}h_{MN},
491: \\
492: \label{eq:DilatonLem}
493: \nabla^2 \bar{\phi} &=& \frac{(p+1)(p+2)}{R_{AdS}^2} \bar{\phi},
494: \\
495: \label{eq:1formLem}
496: \nabla^M F^{(2)}_{MN} &=& 0,
497: \eea
498: where in the Einstein frame $R^2_{AdS}=\frac{1}{c}(p+1)(p+2) e^{-\frac{4}{p}\phi^{(0)}}$.
499: We see that the metric satisfies the linearized version of the usual
500: Einstein equation in $p+2$ dimensions with a negative cosmological constant.
501: On the other hand the dilaton equation (\ref{eq:DilatonLem}) differs from the Laplacian
502: equation $\nabla^2 \bar{\phi}=0$ one obtains in the critical $AdS_5 \times S^5$ case.
503: The term on the r.h.s. of (\ref{eq:DilatonLem}) appears due to the non-critical term
504: in the action (\ref{eq:TheActionEf}). Remarkably this equation
505: is similar to the dilaton equation in the critical dimension, which
506: includes the contribution of the
507: non-zero KK modes on the compact transversal space.
508:
509:
510:
511:
512:
513: The WKB approximation of the graviton spectrum in the AdS black hole background
514: was thoroughly analyzed by \cite{Constable:1999gb} for
515: arbitrary $p$.
516: Generally one may consider various polarization of the graviton.
517: This results in states that correspond to the $2^{++}$, $1^{++}$ and $0^{++}$ glueball spectra
518: in the dual gauge theory.
519: In this section we will quote the results of the WKB calculation
520: in the graviton case and will compare it to numerical results.
521: We will also analyze the dilaton and RR $1$-form equations.
522: Exactly as in the 10d critical case we can assign the
523: correct parity and charge conjugation eigenvalues to the
524: corresponding glueball states by considering the coupling between the
525: supergravity fields and the boundary gauge theory.
526: This coupling can be determined from a DBI action plus a WZ term
527: for a single D$4$-brane in the given background.
528: For instance, from the WZ part one finds the RR field $A_{(1)}$
529: with a leg along the compact $\theta$-direction
530: couples to the gauge field $F_{\mu\nu}$ through the term
531: $\epsilon^{ijkl} A_\theta F_{ij} F_{kl}$. It means that this term
532: $(P,C) = (-,+)$ and hence $A_\theta \to 0^{-+}$.
533: Similarly, for the RR field polarized along the non-compact
534: world volume directions we obtain $A_\mu \to 1^{++}$.
535: We also have $\phi \to 0^{++}$, since the dilaton couples to
536: to the operator $\phi F^2$.
537:
538:
539:
540:
541:
542:
543:
544:
545:
546:
547: \subsection{The dilaton and the RR $1$-form spectra}
548:
549:
550: We start by introducing the ansatz for the the dilaton field
551: $\bar{\phi} = b(u) e^{ikx}$, where $b(u)$ depends only on the radial
552: coordinate and $k_\mu$ is a $p$-vector along the Minkowski part of the metric.
553: We then have $M^2=-k^2$ as the Lorentz invariant mass-squared of the
554: dual operator.
555: We will not discuss here the KK modes related to solutions with a
556: non-trivial dependence on the compact coordinate $\theta$.
557: Plugging this ansatz into the dilaton equation (\ref{eq:DilatonLem})
558: and using the explicit form of the metric (\ref{eq:bh}) for $k=0$ we obtain
559: a 2nd order differential equation for $b(u)$:
560:
561: \begin{equation} \label{eq:LindDil1}
562: \pa_u \left( \left( u^{p+2} -u \right) \pa_u b(u) \right) +
563: \left( M^2 R_{AdS}^4 u^{p-2} - (p+1)(p+2) u^{p} \right) b(u) =0
564: .
565: \end{equation}
566: Here the last term appears due to the non-Laplacian part in the
567: equations of motion.
568: In order to put the equation into
569: a Schr\"oedinger like form we follow \cite{Constable:1999gb} and
570: re-define the wave function according to $b(u) = \gamma(u) \xi(u)$
571: with:
572:
573: \begin{equation}
574: \gamma(u) \equiv \sqrt{\frac{u-u_\Lambda}{u \left(u^{p+1}-u^{p+1}_\Lambda \right)}}
575: \end{equation}
576: and introduce a new radial coordinate defined by $u=u_\Lambda \left(1+e^y \right)$.
577: Now the equation (\ref{eq:LindDil1}) reduces to:
578:
579: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Schroedinger1}
580: - \xi^{\prime \prime}(y) + V(y) \xi(y) =0.
581: \end{equation}
582: where the effective potential takes the following form:
583:
584:
585:
586:
587: \FIGURE[t]{
588: \label{Vdilaton20}
589: \centerline{\input{Vdilaton20.pstex_t}}
590: \caption{The effective potential (\ref{eq:DilPot}) for $p=4$ and
591: $\frac{MR_{AdS}^2}{u_\Lambda}=20$.
592: The plot demonstrates that there are two classical turning points at
593: $y=y_+$ and at $y=-\infty$.
594: }}
595:
596:
597: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:DilPot}
598: V(y) &=&\frac{1}{4} + \frac{e^{2y} \left(p(p+2) (1+e^y)^{2(p+1)}-2p(p+2)(1+e^y)^{p+1} -1 \right)}
599: {4 (1+e^y )^2 ((1+e^y)^{p+1}-1)^2} \nonumber \\
600: && - \left( \left( \frac{M R_{AdS}^2}{u_\Lambda} \right)^2
601: - (p+1)(p+2)(1+e^y)^2 \right) \frac{e^{2y}(1+e^y)^{p-3}}{(1+e^y)^{p+1}-1}.
602: \end{eqnarray}
603: Although the analytic expression (\ref{eq:DilPot}) is very
604: complicated, the potential still has a relatively simple shape
605: as it shown on Fig. (\ref{Vdilaton20}).
606:
607: Before proceeding, note that for $u \gg u_\Lambda$
608: (at large $y$) one has
609: \mbox{$\gamma(u) \approx \left( \frac{u}{R} \right)^{-(p+1)/2}$} and therefore
610: for any function $\xi(y)$, which goes to zero at $y \to \infty$,
611: the associated wave function $b(u)$ is normalizable
612: with respect to the $AdS_{p+2}$ metric measure.
613:
614: Given the explicit form of the potential the mass parameter
615: may be fixed be requiring that the Schr\"oedinger equation (\ref{eq:Schroedinger1})
616: produces a bound state at zero energy. Despite the complicated form of
617: the potential, it is, however, clear that there are no tachyonic (or $M^2=0$) modes in this case,
618: since for $M^2<0$ the potential $V(y)$ is positive everywhere.
619: Hence the corresponding operator in the gauge theory has a mass gap.
620:
621:
622: We will analyze the spectrum of the excitations applying the WKB
623: approximation following the method developed in \cite{Minahan:1998tm}.
624: This approximation is valid for large $M^2$, where the potential well is sufficiently deep.
625: The asymptotic
626: behavior of the potential (\ref{eq:DilPot}) is given by:
627:
628: \bea
629: V(y \to \infty) &\approx& \frac{1}{4}(p+1)(5p+9)
630: - \frac{1}{2} ((p+1)(5p+9)-1) e^{-y}
631: \nonumber \\
632: && \qquad + \left( \frac{3}{4} ((p+1)(5p+9)-1)
633: - \frac{M^2 R_{AdS}^4}{u_\Lambda^2} \right) e^{-2y}+\ldots
634: \nonumber \\
635: V(y \to -\infty) &\approx& \left(\frac{1}{4}(p+1)(5p+9)
636: - \frac{M^2 R_{AdS}^4}{(p+1) u_\Lambda^2} \right) e^y + \ldots.
637: \eea
638: It means that to the leading order in $\frac{M R_{AdS}^2}{u_\Lambda}$
639: the classical turning points are:
640:
641: \begin{equation}
642: y_+ = \ln \left( \left( \frac{4}{(p+1)(5p+9)}\right)^{1/2} \frac{M R_{AdS}^2}{u_\Lambda} \right)
643: \qquad
644: \textrm{and}
645: \qquad
646: y_{-} = - \infty.
647: \end{equation}
648: Note that the point $y_-$ corresponds in terms of the original radial
649: coordinate to $u=u_\Lambda$.
650: In the WKB approximation the potential satisfies:
651:
652: \begin{equation} \label{eq:WKB}
653: \left(k-\half \right) \pi = \int_{y_-}^{y^+} \sqrt{-V(y)} dy,
654: \end{equation}
655: where $k$ is a positive integer.
656: Using the method of \cite{Minahan:1998tm} we expand the integral
657: as a series in powers of $\frac{u_\Lambda}{MR_{AdS}^2}$ leaving only the
658: terms appearing at $O(M)$ and $O(M^0)$.
659: To leading order in $M$ the integral (\ref{eq:WKB})
660: is approximated by:
661:
662: \begin{equation}
663: \int_{-\infty}^{y^+} \sqrt{-V(y)} dy
664: \approx \frac{M R_{AdS}^2}{u_\Lambda} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
665: \frac{e^{y}(1+e^y)^\frac{p-3}{2}}{\left((1+e^y)^{p+1}-1\right)^{1/2}} dy
666: \approx \frac{M R_{AdS}^2}{u_\Lambda} \frac{\sqrt{\pi} \Gamma \left(\frac{1}{p+1} \right)}
667: {(p+1)\Gamma \left(\half+\frac{1}{p+1} \right)} .
668: \end{equation}
669: There are two contributions to the next order term in the $1/M$
670: expansion.
671: The first contribution comes from integrating to $\infty$ instead of
672: $y_+$ in the leading order term. Therefore we should subtract from the
673: result the following contribution:
674:
675: \begin{equation}
676: \frac{M R_{AdS}^2}{u_\Lambda} \int^{\infty}_{y^+}
677: \frac{e^{y}(1+e^y)^\frac{p-3}{2}}{\left((1+e^y)^{p+1}-1\right)^{1/2}} dy
678: \approx \half \left((p+1)(5p+9)\right)^{1/2}.
679: \end{equation}
680: The second contribution comes from the integration
681: near $y=y_+$:
682:
683: \begin{equation}
684: \int^{y^+} \left(
685: \sqrt{-V(y)}
686: - \frac{M R_{AdS}^2}{u_\Lambda}
687: \frac{e^{y}(1+e^y)^\frac{p-3}{2}}{\left((1+e^y)^{p+1}-1\right)^{1/2}}
688: \right)dy
689: \approx \half \left((p+1)(5p+9)\right)^{1/2} \left(1-\frac{\pi}{2} \right).
690: \end{equation}
691: Finally, adding up and
692: solving for $M$ in terms of $k$ and substituting $p=4$
693: we obtain the masses of the spin-$0$ dilaton excitations:
694:
695: \begin{equation} \label{eq:WKBphi}
696: M^2_{\mathbf{0^{++}}, \phi} \approx \frac{39.66}{\beta^2} k (k +5.02) + O(k^0)
697: \quad
698: \textrm{with}
699: \quad
700: \beta = \frac{4 \pi R_{AdS}^2}{5 u_\Lambda}.
701: \end{equation}
702: We can also find the spectrum using the "shooting technique". Solving
703: (\ref{eq:LindDil1}) numerically and matching the boundary condition at $u=u_\Lambda$
704: and $u=\infty$ results in a discrete set of eigenvalues of $M^2_k$.
705: Table \ref{TablePhi} compares the WKB expression (\ref{eq:WKBphi}) and the numerical
706: results. We see a nice agreement which improves for higher $k$.
707:
708:
709: \TABLE[tb]{
710: \label{TablePhi}
711: \begin{tabular}[b]{|c|r|r|}
712: \hline
713: $k$ & WKB & Numerical \\
714: \hline
715: \ \ 1 & $15.45$ & $19.09$ \\
716: \ \ 2 & $23.60$ & $26.14$ \\
717: \ \ 3 & $30.89$ & $32.88$ \\
718: \ \ 4 & $37.83$ & $39.47$ \\
719: \ \ 5 & $44.58$ & $45.98$ \\
720: \ \ 6 & $51.21$ & $52.44$ \\
721: \hline
722: \end{tabular}
723: \caption{Comparison of the $0^{++}$-glueball masses $M_{0^{++},\phi}$ in units of $\beta^{-1}$.
724: The WKB approximation is very close to the numerical results.}
725: }
726:
727:
728:
729:
730: Next let us analyze the scalar glueballs related to the RR $1$-form $A_M$
731: directed completely along the compact $\theta$-coordinate.
732: We will consider the ansatz
733: $A_\theta = a(u) e^{ikx}$ with all other components vanishing
734: identically.
735: It will be useful to re-write the $1$-form equation of motion (\ref{eq:1formLem})
736: as:
737:
738: \begin{equation} \label{eq:1formEM}
739: \pa_M \left( \sqrt{g} g^{NK} g^{ML} (\pa_K A_L - \pa_L A_K) \right)=0.
740: \end{equation}
741: For our ansatz the only non-trivial equation occurs for $N=\theta$.
742: The 2-nd order differential equation for
743: $a(u)$ reads:
744:
745: \begin{equation} \label{eq:a(u)}
746: \pa^2_u a(u) + \frac{p}{u} \pa_u a(u) + M^2 R_{AdS}^4
747: \frac{u^{p-3}}{u^{p+1} - u_\Lambda^{p+1}} a(u ) =0.
748: \end{equation}
749: Following the same steps as in the dilaton case we end up with
750: the following effective potential:
751:
752: \FIGURE[tb]{
753: \label{Vrr5}
754: \centerline{\input{Vrr5.pstex_t}}
755: \caption{The effective potential (\ref{eq:RRPot}) for $p=4$ and
756: $\frac{MR_{AdS}^2}{u_\Lambda}=5$.
757: There are two classical turning points at
758: $y=y_+$ and at $y=y_-$.
759: }}
760:
761:
762: \begin{equation} \label{eq:RRPot}
763: V(y) = \frac{1}{4} + \frac{p(p-2) e^{2y}}{4(1+e^y )^2}
764: - \left(\frac{M R_{AdS}^2}{u_\Lambda} \right)^2
765: \frac{e^{2y}(1+e^y)^{p-3}}{(1+e^y)^{p+1}-1}.
766: \end{equation}
767: The typical form of the potential is presented on Fig. (\ref{Vrr5}).
768: In this case the classical turning points are situated at:
769:
770: \begin{equation}
771: y_+ \approx \ln \left( \frac{2 M R_{AdS}^2}{(p-3) u_\Lambda} \right)
772: \quad
773: \textrm{and}
774: \quad
775: y_- \approx - 2 \ln \left( \frac{2 M R_{AdS}^2}{\sqrt{p+1} u_\Lambda} \right).
776: \end{equation}
777: Note that in this case the inner
778: turning point is located away from the surface $u=u_\Lambda$.
779: Finally, the spectrum of the glueballs related to the RR $1$-form
780: perturbation directed along the compact coordinate is:
781:
782: \begin{equation} \label{eq:WKBAtheta}
783: M^2_{\mathbf{0^{-+}}, A_{\theta}} \approx \frac{39.66}{\beta^2} k \left(k +
784: \frac{3}{2} \right) + O(k^0).
785: \end{equation}
786: We compare this result to the numerical solutions of (\ref{eq:a(u)}) in Table
787: \ref{TableA}. Again the agreement is very close.
788:
789: \TABLE[tb]{
790: \label{TableA}
791: \begin{tabular}[h]{|c|r|r|}
792: \hline
793: $k$ & WKB & Numerical \\
794: \hline
795: \ \ 1 & $9.96$ & $10.21$ \\
796: \ \ 2 & $16.67$ & $16.81$ \\
797: \ \ 3 & $23.14$ & $23.25$ \\
798: \ \ 4 & $29.54$ & $29.62$ \\
799: \hline
800: \end{tabular}
801: \qquad
802: \begin{tabular}[h]{|c|r|r|}
803: \hline
804: $k$ & WKB & Numerical \\
805: \hline
806: \ \ 1 & $7.72$ & $7.44$ \\
807: \ \ 2 & $14.08$ & $13.96$ \\
808: \ \ 3 & $20.41$ & $20.32$ \\
809: \ \ 4 & $26.72$ & $26.65$ \\
810: \hline
811: \end{tabular}
812: \caption{Comparison of the $0^{-+}$ glueball masses $M_{0^{-+}, A_\theta}$ (left)
813: and the $1^{++}$ glueball masses $M_{1^{++}, A_\mu}$ (right)
814: in units of $\beta^{-1}$.
815: For $0^{-+}$ masses the WKB approximation is close to the numerical results for any $k$.}
816: }
817:
818:
819: Next let us consider the RR $1$-form with legs along the non-compact coordinates
820: $x_\mu$'s. Now the ansatz is $A_\mu = v_\mu \alpha(u) e^{ikx}$
821: with $v \cdot k =0$ and plugging this into (\ref{eq:1formEM})
822: we get:
823:
824: \begin{equation} \label{eq:b(u)}
825: \pa^2_u \alpha(u) + \frac{p u^{p+1} + u_\Lambda^{p+1}}{u \left( u^{p+1} - u_\Lambda^{p+1} \right)}
826: \pa_u \alpha(u) + M^2 R_{AdS}^4 \frac{u^{p-3}}{u^{p+1} - u_\Lambda^{p+1}} \alpha(u ) =0.
827: \end{equation}
828: In this case the effective potential is:
829:
830: \begin{eqnarray}
831: V(y) &=& \frac{1}{4} + \frac{e^{2y} \left(p(p-2) (1+e^y)^{2(p+1)}-2(p^2+2)(1+e^y)^{p+1} -1 \right)}
832: {4 (1+e^y )^2 ((1+e^y)^{p+1}-1)^2}
833: \nonumber \\
834: && \qquad \qquad - \left(\frac{M R_{AdS}^2}{u_\Lambda} \right)^2
835: \frac{e^{2y}(1+e^y)^{p-3}}{(1+e^y)^{p+1}-1}
836: \end{eqnarray}
837: and the classical turning points are:
838:
839: \begin{equation}
840: y_+ \approx \ln \left( \frac{2 M R_{AdS}^2}{(p-1) u_\Lambda} \right)
841: \quad
842: \textrm{and}
843: \quad
844: y_- \approx - \infty.
845: \end{equation}
846: The WKB mass formula for the spectrum of the glueballs associated with
847: RR $1$-form directed along the non-compact coordinates is:
848:
849:
850: \begin{equation}
851: M^2_{\mathbf{1^{++}}, A_{\mu}} \approx \frac{39.66}{\beta^2} k \left(k +
852: \frac{1}{2} \right) + O(k^0).
853: \end{equation}
854: We compare this result to the numerical solutions of (\ref{eq:b(u)}) in Table
855: \ref{TableA}. Again the agreement is very close.
856:
857:
858:
859:
860:
861:
862:
863:
864: \subsection{The graviton spectra}
865:
866:
867:
868:
869: \TABLE[tb]{
870: \label{TableV}
871: \begin{tabular}[h]{|c|r|r|}
872: \hline
873: $k$ & WKB & Numerical \\
874: \hline
875: \ \ 1 & $11.35$ & $12.57$ \\
876: \ \ 2 & $18.36$ & $19.43$ \\
877: \ \ 3 & $24.99$ & $25.99$ \\
878: \ \ 4 & $31.49$ & $32.44$ \\
879: \hline
880: \end{tabular}
881: \caption{Comparison of the $1^{-+}$ glueball masses $M_{1^{-+}, h_{\theta\mu}}$
882: in units of $\beta^{-1}$.}
883: }
884:
885:
886:
887:
888:
889: The wave equations (\ref{eq:MetricLem}) for the metric fluctuations
890: about the $AdS_{p+1}$
891: black hole background
892: have been analyzed by \cite{Constable:1999gb}. Here we will use these results for $p=4$.
893: For different polarizations the linearized equation (\ref{eq:MetricLem})
894: reproduces a set of differential equations for spin-$2$, spin-$1$ and spin-$0$ glueballs.
895: The spin-$2$ part corresponds to the graviton polarized in the direction parallel
896: to the hyper-surface spanned by the world-volume coordinates $x_\mu$'s.
897: The appropriate ansatz for the metric in this case is:
898:
899: \begin{equation} \label{eq:polarization}
900: h_{ab} = \epsilon_{ab} \left(\frac{u}{R_{AdS}} \right)^2 H(u),
901: \end{equation}
902: where $\epsilon_{ab}$ is a constant traceless polarization tensor and
903: the differential equation for the function $H(u)$ is:
904:
905:
906: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Tde}
907: \pa_u \left( \left( u^{p+2} - u^{p+1}_\Lambda u \right) \pa_u H(u)\right)
908: - M^2 R_{AdS}^4 u^{p-2} H(u) =0.
909: \end{equation}
910: The effective potential in derived from this equation is:
911:
912: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:TPot}
913: V(y) &=&\frac{1}{4} + \frac{e^{2y} \left(p(p+2) (1+e^y)^{2(p+1)}-2p(p+2)(1+e^y)^{p+1} -1 \right)}
914: {4 (1+e^y )^2 ((1+e^y)^{p+1}-1)^2} \nonumber \\
915: && - \left( \frac{M R_{AdS}^2}{u_\Lambda} \right)^2
916: \frac{e^{2y}(1+e^y)^{p-3}}{(1+e^y)^{p+1}-1}.
917: \end{eqnarray}
918: It was pointed out in \cite{Constable:1999gb} that
919: this effective potential is identical to the potential
920: one obtains for a minimally coupled scalar ($\nabla^2 \phi =0$). Based on this observation
921: the authors concluded that there is a degeneracy between the tensor and the scalar excitation.
922: As we see, however, in the framework of non-critical
923: supergravity the dilaton is not minimally coupled,
924: but rather satisfies the equation (\ref{eq:DilatonLem}), and therefore the effective potentials
925: (\ref{eq:DilPot}) and (\ref{eq:TPot})
926: are different.
927:
928: Following the same steps as in the scalar glueball case we can find the
929: WKB expression for the spectrum and compare it to the numerical results obtained
930: directly from (\ref{eq:Tde}).
931: The final result is:
932:
933: \begin{equation} \label{eq:WKBT}
934: M^2_{\mathbf{2^{++}}, h_{\mu \nu}} \approx \frac{39.66}{\beta^2} k \left(k +
935: \frac{3}{2} \right) + O(k^0).
936: \end{equation}
937: Surprisingly this expression is identical to the result (\ref{eq:WKBAtheta})
938: for the $0^{-+}$ glueballs in
939: the previous subsection. Moreover,
940: this degeneracy holds also beyond the WKB approximation, since
941: the numerical calculations also produce the same spectrum.
942: This is quite unexpected, since
943: there is no redefinition of the function $H(u)$ or/and of the radial coordinate $u$,
944: that brings the differential equation (\ref{eq:Tde}) to the form (\ref{eq:a(u)})!
945: We will return to this result in the end of the section, while comparing
946: our results to the lattice calculations.
947:
948:
949:
950: \TABLE[b]{
951: \label{TableS}
952: \begin{tabular}[h]{|c|r|r|}
953: \hline
954: $k$ & WKB & Numerical \\
955: \hline
956: \ \ 1 & $9.96$ & $6.34$ \\
957: \ \ 2 & $16.67$ & $15.58$ \\
958: \ \ 3 & $23.14$ & $22.43$ \\
959: \ \ 4 & $29.54$ & $29.01$ \\
960: \hline
961: \end{tabular}
962: \caption{Comparison of the $0^{++}$ glueball masses $M_{0^{++},h_{\theta\theta}}$
963: in units of $\beta^{-1}$.
964: The WKB approximation is close to the numerical results only for $k>1$.}
965: }
966:
967:
968:
969: Finally, let us quote the results for the spin-$1$ and spin-$0$ modes.
970: The solution that appears as vector in the gauge theory
971: is given by the ansatz (\ref{eq:a(u)}) with the polarization tensor
972: satisfying:
973:
974: \begin{equation}
975: \epsilon_{\theta \mu} = v_{\mu},
976: \qquad
977: \textrm{where}
978: \qquad
979: k \, \cdot \, v =0
980: \quad
981: \textrm{and}
982: \quad
983: v^2=1.
984: \end{equation}
985: The ansatz is consistent with the equation of motion
986: provided that $H(u)$ satisfies:
987:
988: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Vde}
989: \pa^2_u H(u) + \frac{(p+2)}{u} \pa_u H(u) +
990: \frac{M^2 R_{AdS}^4 u^{p-3}}{ \left(u^{p+1}-u_\Lambda^{p+1} \right)} H(u) =0.
991: \end{equation}
992: The effective potential in this case is given by:
993:
994: \begin{equation}
995: V(y) = \frac{1}{4} + \frac{p(p+2)e^{2y}}{4(1+e^y )^2}
996: - \left(\frac{M R_{AdS}^2}{u_\Lambda} \right)^2
997: \frac{e^{2y}(1+e^y)^{p-3}}{(1+e^y)^{p+1}-1}.
998: \end{equation}
999: For $p=4$ the WKB approximation to the $1^{-+}$-glueball spectrum is:
1000:
1001: \begin{equation} \label{eq:WKBV}
1002: M^2_{\mathbf{1^{-+}}, h_{\theta \nu}} \approx \frac{39.66}{\beta^2} k \left(k +
1003: \frac{9}{4} \right) + O(k^0).
1004: \end{equation}
1005: Table (\ref{TableV}) compares the WKB expression to the numerical results.
1006:
1007:
1008:
1009: The scalar perturbation of the metric leads to a complicated set of differential
1010: equation and here we will only quote the result of \cite{Constable:1999gb} for the WKB formula:
1011:
1012: \begin{equation} \label{eq:WKBS}
1013: M^2_{\mathbf{0^{++}}, h_{\theta \theta}} \approx \frac{39.66}{\beta^2} k \left(k +
1014: \frac{3}{2} \right) + O(k^0).
1015: \end{equation}
1016: Remarkably this expression reproduces the result (\ref{eq:WKBT}) for the $2^{++}$-glueballs.
1017: This degeneracy, however, does not hold beyond the WKB approximation as one can see
1018: comparing the spectrum of the $2^{++}$ and $0^{-+}$-glueballs in Table (\ref{TableA})
1019: and the results in Table (\ref{TableS}), where we present the numerical results for the
1020: $0^{++}$-glueballs.
1021:
1022:
1023:
1024:
1025:
1026: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1027:
1028:
1029:
1030: \subsection{Comparison}
1031:
1032:
1033:
1034:
1035:
1036:
1037: In Fig. \ref{TNCTL} we compare
1038: the glueball spectrum for $YM_4$ in strong coupling
1039: calculated above with the lattice spectrum \cite{Morningstar:1997ff} for pure $SU(3)$ $YM_4$.
1040: In Fig. \ref{TC} we collect the results one obtains using the critical supergravity approach.
1041: Few remarks are in order:
1042:
1043:
1044:
1045:
1046:
1047: \FIGURE[tb]{
1048: \label{TNCTL}
1049: \centerline{ \input{TableNonCritical.pstex_t} \input{TableLattice.pstex_t}}
1050: \caption{The AdS glueball spectrum for $YM_4$ computed in the
1051: framework of non-critical supergravity
1052: (left) and the corresponding lattice results (right). The AdS scale is adjusted to set the lowest
1053: $2^{++}$ state to the the lattice result
1054: in units of the hadronic scale $1/r_0 = 410 \textrm{MeV}$. }}
1055:
1056:
1057:
1058: \begin{itemize}
1059: \item
1060: Although we did not succeed to reproduce accurate mass ratios for
1061: all glueball states, we see that there is a remarkable similarity
1062: between our strong coupling spectrum and the lattice results.
1063: For example, from the lattice computations one has $M(0^{-+})/M(0^{++}) \approx 1.504$,
1064: while our calculation gave $M(0^{-+})/M(0^{++}) \approx 1.610$.
1065: \item
1066: As in the critical supergravity calculations the lowest
1067: $0^{++}$-glueball state comes from the scalar component of the metric, and not from
1068: the dilaton.
1069: \item
1070: We saw above that the masses of the $2^{++}$ and the $0^{-+}$-glueball
1071: are identical even beyond the WKB approximation. Remarkably, in the lattice YM
1072: spectrum the lowest masses of these states are quite close, more precisely
1073: $M(2^{++})/M(0^{-+}) \approx 1.082$. In the critical supergravity computation
1074: the ratio is $M(2^{++})/M(0^{-+}) \approx 1.203$.
1075:
1076:
1077:
1078:
1079: \FIGURE[tb]{
1080: \label{TC}
1081: \centerline{\input{TableCritical.pstex_t}}
1082: \caption{The AdS glueball spectrum for $YM_4$ computed in the
1083: near extremal $AdS_7 \times S^4$ background with further reduction to the type IIA SUGRA solution.
1084: The AdS scale is adjusted to set the lowest
1085: $2^{++}$ state to the the lattice result in units of the
1086: hadronic scale $1/r_0 = 410 \textrm{MeV}$.
1087: }}
1088:
1089:
1090:
1091:
1092: \item
1093: In Witten's setup \cite{Witten:1998zw} one starts from the $AdS_7 \times S^4$ background and than
1094: introduces two circles $S^1 \times S^1$ with the anti-periodic boundary conditions on one
1095: of them and taking the radii to zero one reduces the world volume to four
1096: dimensions.
1097: In this limit $M$ theory reduces to type IIA string theory
1098: on the non-conformal $D_4$ background with infinite temperature.
1099: Let us denote the coordinates of the
1100: $AdS_7$ black hole metric by $\theta$, $x_{i=1,2,3,4}$, $x_{11}$ and $u$.
1101: Here $\theta$ and $x_{11}$ are the two compact directions and $u$ is the radial coordinates.
1102: The reduction to the type IIA background
1103: corresponds to the compactification on $x_{11}$.
1104: The graviton polarization tensor has $(5 \times 6)/2-1=14$ independent components.
1105: It decomposes into $9$-dimensional tensor, $4$-dimensional vector
1106: and $1$-dimensional scalar irreducible representation.
1107: The graviton equation of motion, therefore, leads to three distinct wave equations
1108: as we saw in the previous subsection.
1109: This immediately implies that after dimensional reduction to $10d$
1110: we obtain a \emph{degenerate} spectrum. In particular, the tensor wave
1111: equation (\ref{eq:Tde}) for $p=5$ will lead to the $2^{++}$, $1^{++}$ and
1112: $0^{++}$ degenerate glueball spectrum in $d=4$. Similarly the vector equation
1113: (\ref{eq:Vde}) for $p=5$ corresponds to the $1^{++}$ and
1114: $0^{++}$ glueballs.
1115: There is no degeneracy between these states in our approach, since
1116: we have only \emph{one} compact coordinate.
1117: Moreover, there is a scalar field $h^\alpha_\alpha$ coming from the trace
1118: of the metric on the $S^4$, which is related to the $0^{++}$-state in the gauge theory.
1119: For this field the critical supergravity prediction is
1120: $m_{0^{++},h^\alpha_\alpha}/m_{2^{++}} \approx 2.28$.
1121: In our model this field do not appear since there is no compact transversal space.
1122:
1123: \item
1124: For large $k$ the WKB expressions (\ref{eq:WKBphi}), (\ref{eq:WKBAtheta}),
1125: (\ref{eq:WKBT}), (\ref{eq:WKBV}), (\ref{eq:WKBS}) for the glueball masses
1126: reduce to
1127:
1128: \begin{equation}
1129: M \approx \frac{C_p}{\beta} k,
1130: \end{equation}
1131: where $C_p$ is a constant depending on $p$. In the critical supergravity calculation ($p=5$)
1132: one has $C_5 \approx 5.42$
1133: and in our case ($p=4$) we get $C_4 \approx 6.30$. It means that we obtain
1134: different asymptotic behaviors in our
1135: non-critical description and Witten's model. Unfortunately, we
1136: cannot compare this result to the lattice YM, since it provides only masses of the lowest
1137: states.
1138:
1139:
1140:
1141: \end{itemize}
1142:
1143:
1144:
1145:
1146:
1147:
1148:
1149:
1150: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1151:
1152: \section { The Wilson loop}
1153: \label{TWl}
1154:
1155:
1156: The stringy description of the Wilson loop \cite{Maldacena:1998im} \cite{Rey:1998ik} is in terms
1157: of a NG string whose end-points are "nailed" at two points on the
1158: boundary of the AdS black hole space-time, namely at $u=\infty, x=\pm L/2$,
1159: where $x$ denotes one of the 3d space directions.
1160: In \cite{Kinar:1998vq} the classical energy of the Wilson loop associated with a
1161: background with a general dependence on the radial direction was written down.
1162: In particular it was proved that a sufficient condition for an area law behavior is
1163: that:
1164: \begin{equation}
1165: g_{uu}g_{00}(u_d)\rightarrow \infty
1166: \qquad
1167: \textrm{and}
1168: \qquad
1169: g_{00}(u_d)>0,
1170: \end{equation}
1171: where $u_d$ is a particular point along the $u$ direction.
1172: In this case the string tension is given by $T_s = g_{00}(u_d)$.
1173:
1174: It is very easy to verify that our background metric (\ref{eq:bh}) obeys this condition
1175: for $u_d=u_\Lambda$
1176: and hence the potential of a quark anti-quark pair of the dual gauge theory
1177: is indeed linear in the separation distance $L$.
1178: In fact using the results of \cite{Kinar:1998vq}, we can write down the full
1179: expression for the classical energy of the Wilson line. It takes for our case the following form:
1180:
1181: \begin{equation}
1182: E= \frac {1}{2\pi} \left ( \frac {u_\Lambda}{R_{AdS}}\right )^2 \cdot L - 2 \kappa
1183: + \mathcal{O} \left( ( \log L)^\gamma e^{-\alpha L} \right)
1184: \end{equation}
1185: where $\alpha= \sqrt{5} \frac{u_\Lambda}{R_{AdS}^2}$, $\gamma$ is a positive constant
1186: and the constant $\kappa$ is given by:
1187:
1188: \begin{equation}
1189: \kappa = \frac{1}{2 \pi}
1190: \int_{u_\Lambda}^{\infty} du
1191: \left( \left( 1- \left( \frac{u_\Lambda}{u} \right)^{5} \right)^{-1/2}
1192: -1 \right) \approx 0.309 \frac{u_\Lambda}{2 \pi}.
1193: \end{equation}
1194:
1195:
1196:
1197:
1198: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1199:
1200: \subsection{ The Luscher term}
1201:
1202:
1203: The Luscher term is the sum of the contributions of quantum fluctuations that adds to the
1204: classical quark anti-quark potential.
1205: In a superstring it incorporates both the bosonic as well as the fermionic fluctuations.
1206: In the present case of the non-critical string,
1207: we lack a formulation of the fermionic part of the action and in fact
1208: it is plausible that even prior to invoking the anti-periodic
1209: boundary condition along the thermal circle,
1210: the model is not space-time supersymmetric.
1211: Hence, we discuss here only the bosonic quantum fluctuations.
1212: However, it might be that in spite of this ignorance
1213: we can predict the form of the full contribution of the
1214: quantum fluctuations.
1215: Recall that in the critical case, due to the coupling to the RR fields, all the fermionic
1216: modes are massive so that in that case the contributions of the massless modes are coming only
1217: from the bosonic sector.
1218: Since in our non-critical model we also have RR fields it is quite
1219: plausible that a similar mass generation for the fermions will take place.
1220:
1221: The fluctuations along the bosonic directions fall into two classes:
1222: massless modes and massive modes.
1223: The latter contribute to the quark anti-quark potential a Yukawa like
1224: term $\sim e^{-mL}$,
1225: where $m$ is the mass of the mode. Since in computing Wilson loops we
1226: take $L\rightarrow \infty$, the contribution of massive
1227: modes is negligible. The contribution of a massless mode has the form
1228: $-\frac{1}{24} \frac{\pi}{L}$. Thus what is left to be determined is the number of massless modes.
1229: It turns out that this issue, which is very crucial when comparing to
1230: the lattice result, is a subtle one and
1231: there are contradicting claims about it in the literature.
1232: In \cite{Greensite:1999jw} \cite{Bigazzi:2004ze}
1233: in the context of the critical theory it was found that there are
1234: two massive bosonic modes. Applying this result to our case it will
1235: imply that there
1236: are altogether
1237: $6-2-2=2$ massless modes and hence $\Delta E_B \sim -\frac{2}{24} \frac{\pi}{L} $.
1238: It is very tempting to adopt this result since it
1239: agrees with the current value found in lattice calculations.
1240: However, following \cite{Kinar:1999xu} we claim that in fact the
1241: number of massive modes in one and hence we
1242: end up with a Luscher term:
1243:
1244: \begin{equation}
1245: \Delta E_B =-\frac{3}{24} \frac{\pi}{L}
1246: \end{equation}
1247: whereas in the critical case the result was $\Delta E_B =-\frac{7}{24} \frac{\pi}{L} $.
1248: Obviously even without using the results of \cite{Greensite:1999jw}
1249: \cite{Bigazzi:2004ze},
1250: the outcome of the non-critical string model
1251: is closer to the value measured in the lattice calculations than the
1252: result of the critical string model.
1253:
1254: Since for the comparison with lattice simulations,
1255: the difference between the result of \cite{Greensite:1999jw}
1256: \cite{Bigazzi:2004ze}
1257: and our claim is important, let us briefly comment
1258: about the source of the discrepancy following
1259: the derivation of \cite{Kinar:1999xu}. The idea there is to fix the
1260: gauge of the NG action by $\tau=t, \sigma=u_{cl}$
1261: so that the fluctuation in the $(x,u)$ plane is along the normal to the classical configuration.
1262: It was shown that choosing this gauge avoids potential problems
1263: of the $\sigma=u$ and $\sigma=x$ gauges.
1264: It was further shown that one of the modes that was found in
1265: \cite{Greensite:1999jw} to be massive must be massless since
1266: it corresponds to a Goldstone boson associated with a breaking of a
1267: rotation invariance \cite{Kinar:1999xu}.
1268:
1269:
1270:
1271:
1272:
1273:
1274: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1275:
1276:
1277: \subsection{ The correlator of two Wilson loops}
1278:
1279:
1280: The correlator of two Wilson loops in the context of the $AdS_5\times S^5$ model
1281: was discussed in \cite{Gross:1998gk} \cite{Zarembo:1999bu}.
1282: It was shown that when the separation of the
1283: two loops in AdS$_{5}$ is of the order of their size, there is a solution of the
1284: string equation of motion that describes a connected surface ending on
1285: the two loops. As the separation increases the tube
1286: shrinks, and becomes unstable.
1287: At large distances the correlation is due to the exchange of
1288: supergravity modes in the bulk between the world-sheets of the loops.
1289: The long distance correlator was calculated in \cite{Berenstein:1998ij}.
1290: An analysis of the long distance correlator for the near extremal
1291: $AdS_5\times S^5$ model
1292: in the limit of large temperature that corresponds to the
1293: low energy effective action of the pure three dimensional
1294: YM theory was performed in \cite{Sonnenschein:1999re}.
1295: It was shown that the correlator was dominated by an exchange of a KK
1296: ``scalarball'' mode which is lighter than any of the glueball modes.
1297:
1298: Let us now address the correlator for our non-critical near extremal $AdS_6$ model.
1299: It is plausible that the transition between a connecting world-sheet
1300: into an exchange of a SUGRA modes will take place here also.
1301: For separation distances much greater than the distance
1302: between the endpoints of each string, the correlator is given by:
1303:
1304: \begin{equation} \label{cor}
1305: \log \left[ \frac{ \left< W(0)W(R) \right>}{ \left< W(0) \right> \left<W(R) \right>} \right]
1306: = \sum_{i,k} \int {\cal A}_{1} \int {\cal A}_{2}
1307: \ f_{1}^{i,k} \ f_{2}^{i,k} \ G^{i,k},
1308: \end{equation}
1309: where $R$ is the distance between the two loops, ${\cal A}_{i}$ are
1310: the areas of the two loops,
1311: $k$ is the mode number and
1312: $f_{1}^{i,k}, \ f_{2}^{i,k}$ are the couplings of the field $i$
1313: to the world-sheet and $G^{i,k}$ is the propagator.
1314: There are two clear differences between this expression
1315: and the corresponding one in the critical case:
1316: (i) The sum of the modes here does not include any of the KK modes
1317: associated with the $S^5$ and hence only glueballs
1318: (and modes associated with the thermal $S^1$).
1319: (ii) For each of the modes like the dilaton, the graviton etc.
1320: we do not sum over all the spherical harmonics associated with the $S^5$.
1321: The dilaton coupling follows
1322: simply from the relation between the Einstein and string frame
1323: metrics, $g_{s}=g_{E}e^{\phi}$. Therefore the one dilaton coupling
1324: is $1$. The coupling to the other modes are in general $u$ dependent
1325: \cite{Sonnenschein:1999re}.
1326:
1327: There are at least three types of correlators that one can study:
1328: (i) Correlators of circular loops located on planes in the space
1329: spanned by the $x^i$ coordinates.
1330: (ii) Correlators of infinite strips
1331: along $(t, x^i)$ planes (iii) Wilson loops along $(\theta, x^i)$.
1332: The first two types where discussed first
1333: for the $AdS_5\times S^5$ string in \cite{Berenstein:1998ij} and in
1334: \cite{Sonnenschein:1999re} the three types were discussed in
1335: the near extremal case which is dual to the low energy regime of
1336: $3d$ pure YM theory (contaminated with KK modes).
1337: In a similar way the correlator of type (ii) in our non-critical model
1338: should correspond to the potential between two external mesons of $4d$
1339: pure YM theory.
1340: The result we find for this potential is:
1341:
1342: \begin{equation} \label{pot}
1343: V_{mm} \sim \frac{1}{T} \log \left[
1344: \frac{ \left<W(0)W(R) \right>}{ \left<W(0) \right> \left<W(R)\right>}\right] \sim
1345: \frac {1}{N^{2}} K_{0}(M_{\varphi_{00}}R) ,
1346: \end{equation}
1347: where $T$ is the temporal length of each strip,
1348: $K_{0}$ is a modified Bessel function and $\varphi_{00}$ is the lightest scalar glueball mode.
1349: Based on the analysis of Section \ref{Tgs},
1350: this mode will be the $0^{++}$ that associates with the graviton.
1351: Note that the amplitude scales like $\frac{1}{N^2}$.
1352: This is also the behavior in the critical case. In the latter case the
1353: amplitude is also proportional to $g_{YM}^2 N$
1354: which relates to the radius of the $AdS_5$ and hence does not show up in our formulation.
1355:
1356:
1357:
1358:
1359:
1360: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1361:
1362:
1363: \section { The 't Hooft loop}
1364: \label{TtHl}
1365:
1366:
1367:
1368: It is well known that in confining gauge theories a monopole
1369: anti-monopole are screened from each other. The corresponding potential is determined via
1370: the 't Hooft loop in a similar way that the potential between a quark and anti-quark is
1371: determined from the Wilson loop.
1372: The stringy description of a monopole is a $D2$ brane that ends on a D$4$ brane
1373: so that the 't Hooft loop is described by a $D2$ brane that is attached to the
1374: boundary of the background in two points.
1375: In the context of critical string theories the 't Hooft loop was determined in
1376: \cite{Brandhuber:1998er} for the case of the near extremal D$4$ brane background,
1377: and it was shown that indeed in that case the system
1378: of a monopole and anti-monopole was energetically favorable
1379: in comparison with the bound state system, which implies that
1380: the monopole and anti-monopole are indeed screened from each other.
1381:
1382: Let us perform a similar calculation for our setup.
1383: We take the world-volume of the $D2 $ brane to be
1384: along the directions $t$, $x$ and $\theta$, namely it wraps the $S^1$.
1385: We will assume that the radial coordinate $u$ along the $D2$ brane depends only on
1386: $x$.
1387: The action of the $D2$ brane takes the form:
1388:
1389: \begin{equation}
1390: S = \frac{1}{(2\pi\alpha')^{3/2}}
1391: \int d\tau d \sigma_1 d \sigma_2 e^{-\phi_0} \sqrt{ \textrm{det} h_{\textrm{ind}} }
1392: = \beta \int_{-L/2}^{L/2} dx \frac {u}{ R_{AdS}}
1393: \sqrt { {u^\prime}^2 + \left( \frac{u}{ R_{AdS}} \right)^4 f(u) } ,
1394: \end{equation}
1395: where $f(u)=1-(u_\Lambda/u)^5$ is the thermal factor
1396: and $L$ is the separation distance between the pair
1397: since the action does not depend on $x$ explicitly
1398: the solution of the equation of motion satisfies:
1399:
1400: \begin{equation}
1401: \left( \frac{u}{R_{AdS}} \right)^5 f(u)
1402: \left( {u^\prime}^2 + \left( \frac{u}{ R_{AdS}} \right)^4 f(u) \right)^{-1/2} =
1403: \textrm{const}.
1404: \end{equation}
1405: Defining $u_{\textrm{min}}$ to be the minimal value $u(x)$ we arrive at the following
1406: expression for the separation distance $L$:
1407:
1408: \begin{equation}
1409: L = \int dx = 2 \int _{u_\Lambda} ^\infty \frac{du}{u^\prime} =
1410: 2 \frac{R^2_{Ads}}{u_{\textrm{min}}} \epsilon^{1/2}
1411: \int_1^\infty dy
1412: \frac{y}{ \sqrt{(y^5-1+\epsilon) (y^5 -\epsilon y -1+\epsilon)} },
1413: \end{equation}
1414: where $\epsilon \equiv f(u_{\textrm{min}}) $.
1415: For $u_{\textrm{min}} \to u_\Lambda$ we have $\epsilon \to 0 $ and $L \to \infty$.
1416: To compute the binding energy we have to subtract the
1417: masses of the free monopole and anti-monopole, namely the energy
1418: of two parallel $D2$ branes stretched from the boundary to the horizon.
1419: The final result is:
1420:
1421: \begin{equation} \label{eq:tHooftEnergy}
1422: \Delta E \sim \beta \frac{u_{\textrm{min}}^2}{u_\Lambda} \left[
1423: \int_1^\infty dy \, y^2
1424: \left( \sqrt{ \frac{y^5-1+\epsilon }{ y^5 -\epsilon y -1+\epsilon } } -1 \right)
1425: -\frac{1}{3} \left( 1 - \left( \frac{u_\Lambda}{u_{\textrm{min}} } \right)^3 \right)
1426: \right] .
1427: \end{equation}
1428: For $L \beta^{-1} \gg 1 $ ($\epsilon \approx 0$) the energy is positive
1429: which means that the zero-energy configuration of two parallel $D2$ branes ending on the horizon
1430: is energetically favorable. We conclude therefore that in the "YM region" there is
1431: no force between the monopole and the anti-monopole
1432: and there is a screening of the magnetic charge.
1433:
1434: Finally we should note that though our final conclusion matches the results of
1435: \cite{Brandhuber:1998er}, the
1436: explicit expression for the energy (\ref{eq:tHooftEnergy}) differs from
1437: the expression derived in \cite{Brandhuber:1998er}.
1438:
1439:
1440:
1441:
1442:
1443: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1444:
1445:
1446: \section{Closed spinning strings in the $AdS_{p+1}$ black hole background}
1447:
1448: \label{Css}
1449:
1450:
1451:
1452:
1453:
1454:
1455:
1456:
1457: The glueball spectrum that was extracted from the supergravity in section 2 is
1458: obviously limited to states of spin not higher than two. To study the spectrum
1459: of glueballs of higher spin one has to consider stringy configurations rather than
1460: supergravity modes. The string configurations which are dual to glueballs of
1461: higher spin are spinning folded closed strings \cite{Gubser:2002tv}.
1462: In particular we would like to investigate the possibility that the high spin glueballs
1463: furnish a close string Regge trajectory.
1464: Our task is to check whether the non-critical strings associated with the $AdS_6$
1465: black hole admit
1466: classical spinning configurations, compute the relation between the
1467: angular momentum and energy of such
1468: configurations and incorporate quantum fluctuations.
1469: This type of analysis was done previously in the context of AdS black hole \cite{Armoni:2002fr},
1470: in the framework of the KS and MN models in
1471: \cite{PandoZayas:2003yb} and recently for the critical near extremal
1472: D4 brane in \cite{Bigazzi:2004ze}.
1473:
1474:
1475: Let us analyze now what are the condition of having
1476: classical spinning string solutions of the equations of motion.
1477: Since the background depends only on the radial coordinate $u$, the
1478: equation of motion with respect to this coordinate plays a special
1479: role.
1480: Suppose now that we perform a coordinate transformation $u
1481: \rightarrow \rho(u)$,
1482: then the equation of motion with respect to $\rho$ in the Polyakov formulation reads:
1483: \begin{equation}\label{eomrho}
1484: -2\pa_\alpha ( g_{\rho\rho}\pa^\a \rho) + \frac{d g_{\rho\rho}}{d\rho} \pa_\a \rho \pa^\a \rho
1485: -\frac{d g_{00}}{d\rho} \pa_\a t \pa^\a t
1486: +\frac{d g_{ii}}{d\rho} \pa_\a x^i \pa^\a x^i +
1487: \frac{d g_{\theta\theta}}{d\rho} \pa_\a \theta \pa^\a \theta
1488: = 0
1489: \end{equation}
1490: It is trivial to check that a spinning string of the form:
1491:
1492:
1493:
1494: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:foldedstring}
1495: &X^0 = e \tau \qquad
1496: X^1 = e \cos \tau \sin \sigma \qquad
1497: X^2 = e \sin \tau \sin \sigma & \nonumber \\
1498: &\theta = \textrm{const} \qquad \qquad
1499: \rho = \textrm{const} ,&
1500: \end{eqnarray}
1501: solves the other equations of motion and that for such a configuration
1502: the first two terms of (\ref{eomrho}) and the last vanish.
1503: Since the configuration has non trivial $X^0$ and $X^i$, (\ref{eomrho})
1504: is obeyed if at a certain value of $\rho=\rho_0$
1505: $\frac{d g_{00}}{d\rho}|_{\rho=\rho_0}=\frac{d g_{ii}}{d\rho}|_{\rho=\rho_0}=0$.
1506: It is natural to make a coordinate transformation such that around
1507: the horizon:
1508:
1509: \begin{equation}
1510: g_{uu}du^2 = d\rho^2 \rightarrow \qquad \frac{d \rho}{d u} = \frac{R_{AdS}}{u} f^{1/2}(u).
1511: \end{equation}
1512: In the new coordinates $u_\Lambda$, namely the horizon, is mapped into
1513: $\rho=0$ as can be seen from
1514:
1515:
1516:
1517: \begin{equation}
1518: \rho \approx \frac{2 R_{AdS}}{\left(5 u_\Lambda \right)^{1/2}} (u-u_\Lambda)^{1/2}
1519: = \frac{\beta}{2 \pi} (u-u_\Lambda)^{1/2},
1520: \end{equation}
1521: and for the metric:
1522:
1523: \begin{equation}
1524: -g_{00} = g_{ii} \approx \left( \frac{u_\Lambda}{R_{AdS}} \right)^2 +
1525: \frac{5 u_\Lambda^2}{2 R_{AdS}^4} \cdot \rho^2 + \ldots.
1526: \end{equation}
1527: It implies that:
1528: \begin{equation} \label{eq:condition}
1529: g_{00} \vert_{\rho=0,u=u_\Lambda} \neq 0
1530: \qquad
1531: \textrm{and}
1532: \quad
1533: \pa_\rho g_{00} \vert_{\rho=0,u=u_\Lambda} = 0.
1534: \end{equation}
1535: which means that indeed for a spinning configuration at $\rho=0$ the equation of motion
1536: (\ref{eomrho}) is obeyed.
1537: In fact this is precisely one of the two possible sufficient
1538: conditions to have an area law Wilson loop \cite{Kinar:1998vq}.
1539: Moreover, it implies that the spinning string stretches along the
1540: horizon which is often referred to as the
1541: ``wall'' or the `` end of the world floor'' exactly as the static configuration of the string that
1542: corresponds to the Wilson loop does.
1543: This relation between the condition for confinement and for spinning string configurations
1544: and the fact that the string, like the Wilson loop string, is along the wall,
1545: was observed also
1546: in \cite{PandoZayas:2003yb} for folded close string
1547: in the KS and MN models and for open strings in the near extremal D4 brane model
1548: in \cite{PandoZayas:2003yb}.
1549: It is very plausible that this relation is universal and
1550: applies to any SUGRA dual of a confining gauge theory.
1551:
1552: It is also easy to check that the classical configuration (\ref{eq:foldedstring})
1553: at the wall $\rho=0$ obeys
1554: on top of the equations of motion also the Virasoro constraint.
1555: For this solution the classical energy of the string configuration
1556: is:
1557:
1558: \begin{equation}
1559: E = \frac{e}{2 \pi \alpha^\prime} \int g_{00} \vert_{\rho=0} d \sigma =
1560: 2 \pi T_{\textrm{s}} e g_{00} \vert_{\rho=0}.
1561: \end{equation}
1562: Similarly the classical angular momentum is:
1563:
1564: \begin{equation}
1565: J = \pi T_{\textrm{s}} e^2 g_{ii} \vert_{\rho=0}.
1566: \end{equation}
1567: Recalling that $g_{00} (0) = g_{ii} (0) \neq 0$ we end up with the following
1568: result:
1569:
1570: \begin{equation}
1571: J = \half \alpha^\prime_{\textrm{eff}} E^2 = \half \alpha^\prime_{\textrm{eff}} t
1572: \qquad
1573: \textrm{where}
1574: \qquad
1575: \alpha^\prime_{\textrm{eff}} = \frac{\alpha^\prime}{g_{00}(0)} =
1576: \frac{\alpha^\prime}{\alpha^\prime\left( \frac{u_\Lambda}{R_{AdS}} \right)^2}
1577: = \frac{15/2}{u_\Lambda^2} .
1578: \end{equation}
1579:
1580:
1581:
1582:
1583:
1584: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1585:
1586:
1587:
1588:
1589:
1590:
1591: \subsection{ Quantum corrections- deviations from linearity}
1592:
1593:
1594:
1595: It is well known that the basic linear relation between the
1596: angular momentum and $E^2\equiv t$ receives corrections.
1597: The ``famous'' correction is the intercept $\alpha_0$
1598: which is a constant $t$ independent so that once included the
1599: trajectory reads $\half \alpha^\prime_{\textrm{eff}} t + \alpha_0$.
1600: In the string derivation of the Regge trajectory the intercept
1601: is a result of the quantum correction and hence it is
1602: intimately related to the Luscher term.
1603: For instance in the bosonic string in $d$ dimensions the intercept is $(d-2)\frac{\pi}{24}$.
1604: This result is achieved by adding quadratic fluctuations to the classical configurations and
1605: ``measuring'' the impact of these fluctuations on $J$ and $E$.
1606: It turns out that in the canonical quantization of the
1607: Polyakov formulation, using the Virasoro constraint,
1608: one finds that \cite{Tseytlin:2003ac}:
1609:
1610: \begin{equation}
1611: e(E-\bar E) = J- \bar J + \int d\sigma {\cal H}(\delta x^i),
1612: \end{equation}
1613: where $\bar E$ and $\bar J$ are the classical values of the energy and angular momentum and
1614: ${\cal H}(\delta x^i) $ is the world-sheet Hamiltonian expressed in terms of the fluctuating fields.
1615: Using this procedure, as well as a path integral calculation,
1616: the contributions of the quantum fluctuations were computed
1617: in the KS and MN models \cite{PandoZayas:2003yb}
1618: and in the near near extremal $D4$ model \cite{Bigazzi:2004ze}.
1619: From the result of the latter one can be easily extract the form of the result also for our
1620: non-critical model. There are two apparent differences, though: (i) The number of physical
1621: bosonic directions which is here 4 rather 8, (ii) The fact that we do
1622: not have a formulation for the fermionic fluctuations in our model.
1623: Hence, we can only determine the contribution of
1624: the bosonic fluctuations to the non linearities of the trajectory.
1625: The bosonic modes include $3$ massless modes and one massive mode.
1626: The latter has a $\sigma$-dependent mass.
1627: Its contribution was calculated in \cite{Bigazzi:2004ze} \cite{PandoZayas:2003yb}.
1628: Collecting all the contributions we get:
1629:
1630: \begin{equation}
1631: J = \half \alpha^\prime_{\textrm{eff}}(E-z_0)^2 - \frac{3}{24} \pi + \Delta_{\textrm{f}},
1632: \end{equation}
1633: where $z_0$ is proportional to $u_\Lambda$ and $\Delta_{\textrm{f}}$
1634: will be the contribution of the massless and massive fermionic modes.
1635: We thus see that there is a non trivial bosonic intercept
1636: $\alpha_0= \half \alpha^\prime_{\textrm{eff}}z_0^2 - \frac{3}{24} \pi$,
1637: but in addition there is also a term linear in $E$.
1638: A difference between the result in the critical model
1639: \cite{Bigazzi:2004ze} and the non-critical one is in the proportionally
1640: factor between $z_0$ and $u_\Lambda$.
1641:
1642:
1643:
1644:
1645:
1646:
1647:
1648:
1649:
1650:
1651:
1652:
1653:
1654:
1655: %===============
1656: \acknowledgments
1657: %===============
1658:
1659:
1660:
1661:
1662: We would like to thank Ido Adam, Yaron Oz and Ofer Aharony for
1663: fruitful discussions.
1664: J.S. would like to thank Leo Pando Zayas and Diana Vaman.
1665: He also wants to thank the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics
1666: at UC, Santa Barbara and the Department of Physics
1667: of the University of Texas at Austin, where part of this work was done.
1668: This work was supported in part by the German-Israeli Foundation for
1669: Scientific Research and by the Israel Science Foundation.
1670:
1671:
1672:
1673:
1674:
1675:
1676:
1677:
1678:
1679:
1680:
1681:
1682:
1683: \appendix
1684:
1685:
1686:
1687:
1688:
1689:
1690:
1691: \bibliography{xx}
1692:
1693:
1694: \end{document}
1695:
1696:
1697:
1698: