1: \documentclass{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{latexsym}
4: \usepackage{amssymb,amsfonts,amsmath}
5: %\usepackage{epsfig,epic}
6: \usepackage{epsf}
7: \usepackage[dvips]{color}
8: \title{The decay of unstable k-strings in SU(N) gauge theories at zero and
9: finite temperature}
10: \author{Ferdinando Gliozzi}
11: %\date{October, 2004}
12: \newcommand{\eq}{\begin{equation}}
13: \newcommand{\en}{\end{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\ear}{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand{\rae}{\end{eqnarray}}
16: \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}}
17: \newcommand{\C}{\mathbb{C}}
18: \newcommand{\uu}{\mathbb{I}}
19: \newcommand{\R}{{\cal R}}
20: \newcommand{\s}{{\cal S}}
21: \newcommand{\bra}{\langle}
22: \newcommand{\ket}{\rangle}
23: \newcommand{\um}{\frac12}
24: \newcommand{\tr}{{\rm tr}\,}
25: \newcommand{\Tr}{{\rm tr}^{~}}
26: \definecolor{M_Beige} {rgb}{0.96 , 0.96 , 0.86}
27: \newcommand{\CBei}[1]{\textcolor{M_Beige}{#1}}
28:
29: \definecolor{M_Brown} {rgb}{0.65 , 0.16 , 0.16}
30: \newcommand{\CBro}[1]{\textcolor{M_Brown}{#1}}
31:
32: \definecolor{M_Gold} {rgb}{1.00 , 0.84 , 0.00}
33: \newcommand{\CGol}[1]{\textcolor{M_Gold}{#1}}
34:
35: \definecolor{M_LemonChiffon} {rgb}{1.00 , 0.98 , 0.80}
36: \newcommand{\CLem}[1]{\textcolor{M_LemonChiffon}{#1}}
37: \definecolor{M_Orange} {rgb}{1.00 , 0.60 , 0.00}
38: \newcommand{\COra}[1]{\textcolor{M_Orange}{#1}}
39:
40: \definecolor{M_Pink} {rgb}{1.00 , 0.75 , 0.80}
41: \newcommand{\CPin}[1]{\textcolor{M_Pink}{#1}}
42:
43: \definecolor{M_Violet} {rgb}{0.93 , 0.51 , 0.93}
44: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
45: \newcommand{\Cbla}[1]{\textcolor{black}{#1}}
46: \newcommand{\Cblu}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{#1}}
47: \newcommand{\Ccya}[1]{\textcolor{cyan}{#1}}
48: \newcommand{\Cgre}[1]{\textcolor{green}{#1}}
49: \newcommand{\Cred}[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}
50: \newcommand{\Cyel}[1]{\textcolor{yellow}{#1}}
51: \newcommand{\Cwhi}[1]{\textcolor{white}{#1}}
52: \newcommand{\CVio}[1]{\textcolor{M_Violet}{#1}}
53: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
54: \newcommand{\resection}[1]{\setcounter{equation}{0}\section{#1}}
55: \newcommand{\appsection}[1]{\addtocounter{section}{1}
56: \setcounter{equation}{0} \section*{Appendix \Alph{section}~~#1}}
57: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
58:
59: \begin{document}
60: %\begin{flushright}
61: %IFUM-793-FT
62: %\end{flushright}
63: \maketitle
64: \noindent
65: Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, Universit\`a di Torino and\\ INFN,
66: sezione di Torino, via P. Giuria, 1, I-10125 Torino, Italy.\\
67: \vskip0.5cm\noindent
68: e-mail: gliozzi@to.infn.it\\
69: %\begin{minipage}[0cm]{\textwidth}
70: %\vspace{-16cm}
71: %\hfill IFUM-793-FT
72: %\end{minipage}
73: \begin{abstract}
74: Sources in higher representations of $SU(N)$ gauge theory at $T=0$
75: couple with apparently stable strings with tensions depending on
76: the specific representation rather than on its $N-$ality. Similarly
77: at the deconfining temperature these sources carry their own
78: representation-dependent critical exponents. It is pointed out that in
79: some instances one can evaluate exactly these exponents by fully
80: exploiting the correspondence between the 2+1 dimensional critical
81: gauge theory and the $2d$ conformal field theory in the same universality
82: class. The emerging functional form of the Polyakov-line correlators
83: suggests a similar form
84: for Wilson loops in higher representations which helps in understanding
85: the behaviour of unstable strings at $T=0$. A generalised Wilson loop in
86: which along part of its trajectory a source is converted in a gauge
87: invariant way into higher representations with same $N-$ality could
88: be used as a tool to estimate the decay scale of the unstable strings.
89:
90: \end{abstract}
91:
92: \section{Introduction}
93:
94: One of the most fascinating aspects of numerical experiments in lattice
95: gauge theory is the possibility to make many controlled changes to
96: explore the response of the strong interaction dynamics. In particular, we
97: can vary the quark masses, the number $N$ of colours and even remove
98: the sea quarks. In this way one is led to study pure $SU(N)$ gauge theory
99: to probe the main properties of the confining vacuum.
100:
101: In this context, the linear rising of the static potential between a pair
102: of quarks in the fundamental representation is well described
103: by a thin flux tube, or string, joining the two quarks.
104: Excited colour sources, {\it i.e.} sources in a higher representation $\R$ of
105: the gauge group, behave at intermediate distances in a similar way,
106: giving rise to the formation of a confining string with a string tension
107: $\sigma_\R$. However most strings of this kind are expected to be unstable: the
108: long distance properties of the string attached to a source in a
109: representation $\R$ built up of $j$ copies of the fundamental representation
110: should depend only on its $N-$ality $k^{~}_\R\equiv j~({\rm mod} N)$ because
111: all representations with same $k$ can be converted into each other by the
112: emission of a proper number of soft gluons. As a consequence, the heavier
113: $\R-$strings are expected to decay into the string with smallest string
114: tension within the same $N$-ality class, called $k-$string.
115: For a recent discussion on this subject see \cite{as}.
116:
117: General heuristic
118: arguments suggest that stable $k-$strings belong to the anti-symmetric
119: representation with $k$ quarks, as it has been supported by exact results
120: in various approaches to ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric $SU(N)$ gauge theories
121: \cite{ds,hsz,hk} as well as by lattice calculations in some $SU(N)$ pure
122: gauge models \cite{dprv,lt,ltw,dprv2}.
123:
124: In this paper we address the question of stability of strings
125: attached to sources in different representations with the same $N-$ality.
126: Although most numerical experiments based on large Wilson loops
127: \cite{cj,pt,sd,ba,cp} seem to defy the above theoretical arguments,
128: yielding apparently stable string tensions which depend on $\R$ rather
129: than on its $N-$ality, this kind of behaviour has been fully understood,
130: at least in the case of the adjoint string. Since the $N-$ality of the adjoint
131: representation is zero, the static potential of two adjoint sources is
132: expected to level off at large
133: separations. Correspondingly, the associated string should decay into
134: a pair of bound sates of a static adjoint colour source and a gluon field,
135: sometimes called glue-lump in the literature. Knowing the mass of the glue-lumps
136: one can even evaluate the scale $r_{adj}$ at which the adjoint string
137: breaks \cite{pt}.
138:
139: The lack of any sign of adjoint string breaking
140: in the above-mentioned studies, while measuring the static potential from
141: Wilson loops only, indicates that such an operator has a
142: poor overlap with the true ground state. This fact has been directly
143: demonstrated in $2+1$ $SU(2)$ gauge theory \cite{krde} where,
144: using a variance reduction algorithm allowing to detect signals down to
145: $10^{-40}$, it has been clearly observed a rectangular Wilson loop
146: $W(r>r_{adj},t)$
147: changing sharply its slope as a function of $t$ from that associated to
148: the unbroken string (area-law decay) to that of the broken-string state
149: (perimeter-law decay) at a distance much longer than the adjoint string
150: breaking scale $r_{adj}$.
151:
152: Alternatively, one can enlarge the basis of the operators used to extract
153: the adjoint potential
154: in order to find a better overlap to the true ground state, following a
155: multichannel method originally advocated in \cite{cm}.
156: Indeed adjoint sources, contrarily to what happens in the case of fundamental
157: representation, can form gauge invariant \Cblu{open} Wilson lines, like those
158: depicted in Fig.\ref{Figure:1} $a$ and $b$, having a good overlap with
159: the two glue-lump state. In this way a rather abrupt crossover between
160: string-like and broken string states has been clearly seen at the expected
161: distance $r_{adj}$ both in $2+1$ \cite{st} and $3+1$ \cite{fp} $SU(2)$
162: gauge models.
163: The same multichannel method allowed to observe breaking of
164: fundamental string in various gauge theories coupled to dynamical matter
165: fields in 2+1 \cite{pw} and 3+1 dimensions \cite{ks}, including QCD with two
166: flavours \cite{bdl}. Also in these cases ordinary Wilson loops do not show
167: clear signs of string breaking even at sizes much larger than the expected
168: breaking scale, except in a particularly simple case, the 2+1
169: $\Z_2$ gauge-Higgs model \cite{Gliozzi:2004cs}, where, using a
170: variance reduction algorithm like in \cite{krde}, fundamental string
171: breaking has been convincingly demonstrated.
172: \par
173: One of the results of the present work is the generalisation of the multichannel method to the decay of unstable strings of non-vanishing $N-$ality.
174: To this aim we define in Sect.\ref{mixed} a new kind of gauge-invariant
175: operators, the \Cblu{mixed Wilson loops}, (see Fig.\ref{Figure:1} $c$ and $d$)
176: where along one or more segments of the closed path $\gamma$
177: (the dashed lines in Fig.\ref{Figure:1}) the static source carries the
178: quantum numbers of an excited representation $\R$ of $N-$ality $k$,
179: while in the remaining path
180: (solid lines) the source lies in the stable, fully anti-symmetric
181: representation. These operators have a good overlap with the stable
182: $k-$string state and constitute the most obvious generalisation of the
183: glue-lump operators drawn in Fig.\ref{Figure:1} $a$ and $b$.
184: \par The above construction follows a general discussion of the expected
185: overlap properties of ordinary Wilson loops in excited representation.
186: This leads to a rough estimate of the decay scale of the unstable
187: strings and offers a simple explanation of the apparent stability of
188: these strings at $T=0$.
189: \vskip .3 cm
190: \par
191: The $T>0$ situation is less problematic. According to a simple diagrammatic
192: argument \cite{gp}
193: the correlator of Polyakov lines is expected to have a good
194: overlap with the true ground state. These correlators
195: in non-fundamental representations have been studied in
196: various instances \cite{cb,ot,Muller:1991xj,DelDebbio:2004zc}
197: and it has easily observed the screening of the adjoint representation,
198: and the decay of excited representations of non vanishing triality in $SU(3)$
199: and even the decay of the symmetric 2-index representation into the
200: anti-symmetric one in $SU(4)$ \cite{DelDebbio:2003tk}. A difficulty
201: of the $T>0$ approach is to extract reliable estimates of the breaking
202: or decay scales of unstable strings at $T=0$.
203: \begin{figure}
204: \centering
205: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{newop.eps}
206: %\vspace{5cm} % amount of vertical space needed
207: \caption{Glue-lump operators and mixed Wilson lines. The operators depicted in
208: $a$ and $b$ describe adjoint Wilson lines decaying in the vacuum. They
209: are used to extract the adjoint static potential in the multichannel method.
210: The operators $c$ and $d$, described in the text, generalise the glue-lump operators to the case of representations of non zero $N-$ality .}
211: \label{Figure:1}
212: \end{figure}
213: \vskip .3 cm
214: \par
215: A much more challenging problem emerges at the deconfining point: in gauge
216: theories with continuous phase transition one
217: obvious question concerns the critical behaviour of the Polyakov lines
218: in arbitrary representations. Over the years,many studies have been
219: dedicated to this subject \cite{gw,dam,jk,ctd,dh,pi}.
220: \par The surprising result is
221: that sources of higher representations, according to various numerical
222: experiments \cite{dam,ctd,dh}, correspond to \Cblu{different} magnetisation
223: exponents, one exponent for each representation. Universality arguments would,
224: for such continuous phase transitions, place the finite-temperature $SU(N)$
225: gauge theory in the universality class of $\Z_N$ invariant spin model in one
226: dimension less \cite{sy}.
227: The spin operator is mapped into the Polyakov line in the fundamental
228: representation. What about the Polyakov lines in higher representations of
229: $SU(N)$? There appears to be no room for independent exponents for these
230: higher representations from the point of view of the abelian spin system,
231: since there is simply no obvious analogue of the non-abelian process of
232: soft gluons emission, creating higher representations in the same $N-$ality
233: class.
234:
235: Actually a mean field approximation of the the effective $SU(2)$
236: Polyakov-line action at criticality in the $d\to \infty$ limit shows that the
237: leading amplitudes of higher representations vanish at strong coupling,
238: and the sub-leading exponents become dominant, thus each higher representation
239: source carries its own critical exponent\cite{dh}.
240:
241: Here we reach a similar conclusion for $SU(3)$ and $SU(4)$ critical
242: theories in $2+1$ dimensions starting from a different point of view:
243: we find a map between the operator product expansion (OPE) of the Polyakov
244: operators in the gauge theory and the corresponding spin operators in the
245: two-dimensional conformal field theory which describes the associated
246: spin system at criticality. As a result, we are able to conjecture,
247: for instance, an exact value for the $\eta$ exponent (or anomalous dimension)
248: of the sources in the \Cblu{\sl symmetric} representation made with
249: two quarks (Sect.\ref{polyakov}). The resulting functional form of the
250: Polyakov-Polyakov correlator at criticality of this excited representation
251: is the starting point of an Ansatz for the vacuum expectation value
252: of the Wilson loop associated to sources in higher representations at $T=0$
253: (Sect.\ref{decay}). Section \ref{mixed} is dedicated to
254: the construction of mixed Wilson loops and finally in Sect.
255: \ref{conclusion} we draw some conclusions.
256: \section{Polyakov loops at criticality}
257: \label{polyakov}
258: Consider a $d+1$ dimensional pure gauge theory undergoing a continuous
259: deconfinement transition at the critical temperature $T_c$. The effective model describing the behaviour of Polyakov lines at finite $T$ will be a
260: $d-$dimensional spin model with a global symmetry group coinciding with
261: the center of the gauge group. Svetitsky and Yaffe \cite{sy} (SY) were
262: able to show that this effective model has only short-range
263: interactions, then it follows from universality arguments that the
264: spin model belongs in the same universality class of the original
265: gauge model and the high temperature phase of the gauge theory is like the
266: low temperature phase of the spin system.
267:
268: It is clear that this SY conjecture, which has passed several numerical
269: tests, becomes very predictive for $d=2$, where, using the methods of
270: conformal field theory (CFT), the critical behaviour can be determined
271: exactly. For example, the critical properties of $2+1$ dimensional $SU(3)$
272: gauge theory at deconfinement coincide with those of the 3-state Potts model,
273: as it has been checked in numerical simulations \cite{ctd}.
274:
275: What is needed to fully exploit the predictive power of the SY conjecture
276: is a mapping relating the physical observables of the gauge theory to the
277: operators of the dimensionally reduced model, as first advocated in
278: \cite{Gliozzi:1997yc}.
279:
280: The correspondence between the Polyakov line
281: in the fundamental representation
282: $f$ and the order parameter $\sigma$ of the spin model is the first entry
283: in this mapping:
284: \eq
285: \Tr_f(U_{\vec{x}}) ~\sim~ \sigma(\vec{x})~,
286: \en
287: $U_{\vec{x}}$ is the gauge group element associated to the closed path
288: winding once around the periodic imaginary time direction intersecting
289: the spatial plane at the point $\vec{x}$. The above equivalence is only
290: valid in a weak sense, that is, when the left-hand-side of the equation
291: is inserted in a correlation function of the gauge theory and the right-hand
292: side in the corresponding correlator of the spin model.
293: \par It is now natural to ask what operators in the CFT correspond to
294: Polyakov lines in higher representations. \Cblu{On the gauge side}
295: these can be obtained by a proper combination of products of Polyakov
296: lines in the fundamental representation, using repeatedly the general
297: property
298: \eq
299: \Tr_\R(U)\,\Tr_\s(U)=\sum_{\R'\in\R\otimes\s}\Tr_{\R'}(U)~,
300: \label{decompo}
301: \en
302: valid for any pair of irreducible representations of an arbitrary group.
303: In order to control the singularities in the correlator functions
304: due to evaluation of local operators at the same point
305: we may resort to the operator product expansion (OPE). The OPE of Polyakov operator in the fundamental representation can be written in the form
306: \eq
307: \Tr_f(U_{\vec{x}})\; \tr_f(U_{\vec{y}})=
308: \sum_{\R\in f\otimes f}C_\R(\vert\vec{x}-\vec{y}\vert)\,\Tr_{\R}(U_{(\vec{x}+\vec{y})/2})
309: +\dots
310: \en
311: where the coefficients $C_\R(r)$ are suitable functions (they become powers
312: of $r$ at the critical point) and the dots represent the contribution of
313: higher dimensional local operators. The important property of this OPE
314: is that the local operators are classified according to the irreducible
315: representations of $G$ obtained by the decomposition of the direct product
316: of the representations of the two local operators in the left-hand side.
317:
318: \Cblu{On the CFT side} we have a similar structure. The order parameter
319: $\sigma$ belongs to an irreducible representation $[\sigma]$ of the Virasoro
320: algebra \cite{bpz} and the local operators contributing to an OPE are
321: classified according to the decomposition of the direct product of the
322: Virasoro representations of the left-hand-side operators. This decomposition
323: is known as fusion algebra and can be written generically as
324: \eq
325: [\chi_i]\star[\chi_j]= c_{ij}^k[\chi_k]
326: \label{fusion}
327: \en
328: where the integers $ c_{ij}^k$ are the fusion coefficients.
329: In the case of three-state Potts model there is a finite number of
330: representations that we list along with their scaling dimensions
331: \footnote{Actually the critical three-state Potts model is invariant under
332: a larger algebra than that of Virasoro, the so-called ${\cal W}_3$ algebra,
333: and the representations listed in (\ref{potts}) are irreducible
334: representations of such a larger algebra. A complete list of
335: these fusion rules can be found for instance in \cite{Fuchs:1998qn}.}
336:
337:
338: \eq
339: \begin{matrix}
340: {\uu}~({\rm identity});& \sigma,\,\sigma^+~({\rm spin~fields});&
341: \epsilon~({\rm energy});&\psi,\psi^+\\
342: ~&~&~&\\
343: x_{\uu}=0&x_\sigma=\frac2{15}& x_\epsilon=
344: \frac4{15}& x_\psi=\frac43\\
345: \end{matrix}
346: \label{potts}
347: \en
348:
349: The fusion rules we need are
350: \eq
351: [\sigma]\star[\sigma]=[\sigma^+]+[\psi^+]~;~\,[\sigma]\star[\sigma^+]=
352: [{\uu}]+[\epsilon]~;~\,[\psi]\star[\epsilon]=[\sigma]~.
353: \label{fusion3}
354: \en
355:
356: Comparison of the first equation with the analogous one of the gauge side
357: \eq
358: \{3\}\otimes\{3\}=\{\bar{3}\}+\{6\}~,
359: \en
360: owing to the correspondence $\Tr_{\bar{f}}(U_{\vec{x}})\sim
361: \sigma^+(\vec{x})$, yields a new entry of the gauge/CFT correspondence
362: \eq
363: \Tr_{\{6\}}(U_{\vec{x}}) ~\sim~ \psi^+(\vec{x})+
364: c\,\sigma^+(\vec{x})~,
365: \label{c6}
366: \en
367: where there are no a priori reasons for the vanishing of the
368: coefficient $c$. Hence the Polyakov-Polyakov critical correlator
369: of the symmetric representation $\{6\}$ is expected to have the
370: following general form in the thermodynamic limit
371: \eq
372: \bra\Tr_{\{6\}}(U_{\vec{x}})\;\Tr_{\{\bar{6}\}}(U_{\vec{y}})
373: \ket_{SU(3)}^{~}=
374: \frac{c_s}{r^{2x_\sigma}}+\frac{c_u}{r^{2x_\psi}}~,
375: \label{c66}
376: \en
377: with $r=\vert\vec{x}-\vec{y}\vert$ and $c_s,c_u$ suitable coefficients.
378: Since $x_\sigma<x_\psi$, the second term drops off more rapidly than the
379: first, thus at large distance this correlator behaves like that of
380: the anti-symmetric representation $\{\bar{3}\}$ as expected also at zero
381: temperature.
382:
383: A similar reasoning can be applied to the second fusion rule
384: (\ref{fusion3}), which is the general form relating the order parameter to
385: the energy operator in spin systems. The gauge side of this equation is
386: \eq
387: \{3\}\otimes\{\bar{3}\}=\{1\}+\{8\}
388: \label{b33}
389: \en
390: which leads to the new entry
391: \eq
392: \Tr_{adj}(U_{\vec{x}})~\sim~ a+\epsilon(\vec{x})~,
393: \label{cadj}
394: \en
395: which is expected to be valid for any $SU(N)$ gauge theory undergoing
396: a continuous phase transition.
397: The constant $a$ can be numerically evaluated\cite{jk} using the
398: expected finite-size behaviour
399: \eq
400: \bra\Tr_{adj}(U)\ket=a+\frac b{L^{2-1/\nu}}~,
401: \en
402: where $L$ is the spatial size of the system and we used the general relation
403: $x_\epsilon=d-1/\nu$ relating the scaling
404: dimension of the energy operator to the thermal exponent $\nu$.
405:
406: Finally the third fusion rule ( \ref{fusion3}), combined with (\ref{cadj}),
407: can be interpreted as the CFT counterpart of the soft gluon emission which
408: converts into each other stable $(\sim\sigma)$ and unstable $(\sim\psi)$
409: strings.
410: \vskip .3 cm
411:
412: Another example of this gauge/CFT correspondence can be worked out in the
413: 2+1 dimensional $SU(4)$ gauge model, where now the $2d$ CFT is the symmetric
414: Ashkin-Teller model \cite{Kadanoff:1978pv}. It describes two Ising
415: models with spin fields $\sigma(\vec{x})$ and $\tau(\vec{x})$ with scaling
416: dimensions $x_\sigma=x_\tau=\frac18$ coupled through a local four spin
417: interaction which depends on a coupling constant $g$.
418:
419: The model is invariant under three different $\Z_2$ transformations:
420: \eq
421: \sigma\to-\sigma~;~~\tau\to-\tau~;~~\sigma\leftrightarrow\tau~.
422: \label{sym}
423: \en
424: The first two correspond to symmetries that can be spontaneously broken
425: by a thermal variation, leading to an order-disorder transition. Hence
426: they should be associated to the center $\Z_4$ of the gauge group. The
427: $\sigma\leftrightarrow\tau $ symmetry, on the contrary, cannot
428: be spontaneously broken by a thermal variation and corresponds
429: to charge conjugation.
430: The first entry of the gauge/CFT correspondence can therefore be written
431: in the form
432: \eq
433: \Tr_{\{4\}}(U_{\vec{x}}) ~\sim~ \theta(\vec{x})=
434: e^{-i\pi/4}\,\left(\sigma(\vec{x})+i\tau(\vec{x})\right)~.
435: \label{f4}
436: \en
437: The phase $\pi/4$ comes from the observation that
438: charge conjugation $ \sigma\leftrightarrow\tau $ should correspond, on the
439: gauge side, to complex conjugation; this gives the constraint
440: \eq
441: \begin{matrix} \theta(\vec{x})& \longrightarrow &\theta^*(\vec{x})\\
442: ~& \sigma\leftrightarrow\tau &~\\
443: \end{matrix}~,
444: \en
445: which fixes such a phase factor.
446:
447: The local operators which occur in the OPE of
448: $\theta(\vec{x})\;\theta(\vec{y})$ or
449: $\theta(\vec{x})\;\theta^*(\vec{y})$
450: are the so-called ``ploarization'' $\pi(\vec{x})\in[\pi]=[\sigma]\star[\tau]$
451: and the ``cross-over'' operator $\rho(\vec{x})\in[\rho]=
452: [\sigma]\star[\sigma]-[\tau]*[\tau]$ as well as the energy $\epsilon$
453: and the identity.
454:
455: The Ashkin-Teller model is not an isolated
456: critical system like the three-state Potts model, but describes a
457: line of fixed points depending on the coupling parameter $g$.
458: While the spin fields retain along the fixed line their scaling dimensions,
459: $\epsilon$, $\pi$ and $\rho$ have $g-$dependent scaling
460: dimensions. They obey, however, the simple relations
461: \eq
462: \frac{x_\pi}{x_\epsilon}=\frac14~,~~x_\rho\,x_\epsilon=1~.
463: \en
464: Numerical experiments \cite{deForcrand:2003wa} indicate that the critical
465: $SU(4)$ gauge theory is located near the four-state Potts model,
466: corresponding to $x_\epsilon=\um$ \cite{Kadanoff:1978pv}.
467:
468: Let us consider the $SU(4)$ representations made with two quarks. We have
469: \eq
470: \{4\}\otimes\{4\}=\{6\}+\{10\}~,
471: \en
472: where the anti-symmetric representation $\{6\}$ is real,
473: $i.e.$ $[\Tr_{\{6\}}(U)]^*= \Tr_{\{6\}}(U)$, being the vector
474: representation of $SO(6)\sim SU(4)$. On the CFT side, using (\ref{f4})
475: in the OPE of $\theta(\vec{x})\;\theta(\vec{y})$ yields at once
476: \eq
477: [\theta]\star[\theta]=[\pi]+[\rho]~,
478: \en
479: where $[\pi]=[\sigma]\star[\tau]$ is real and even under charge
480: conjugation $\sigma\leftrightarrow\tau$, while $[\rho]$ is purely imaginary and odd. We have therefore
481: two new entries for the $SU(4)$/CFT correspondence
482: \eq
483: \begin{split}
484: \Tr_{\{6\}}(U_{\vec{x}})~\sim ~\pi(\vec{x})~,\\
485: \Tr_{\{10\}}(U_{\vec{x}})~\sim ~\rho(\vec{x})+c\,\pi(\vec{x})~,
486: \end{split}
487: \en
488: where $c$ must be different from zero, because $\Tr_{\{10\}}(U)$
489: is not purely imaginary.
490:
491: In analogy with Eq.(\ref{c66}) we can write
492: \eq
493: \bra\Tr_{\{10\}}(U_{\vec{x}})\,\,\Tr_{\{\bar{10}\}}(U_{\vec{y}})
494: \ket^{~}_{SU(4)}=
495: \frac{c_s}{r^{x_\epsilon/2}}+\frac{c_u}{r^{2/x_\epsilon} }~,
496: \label{c10}
497: \en
498: with both $c_s$ and $c_u$ are different from zero. This
499: shows that the Polyakov-Polyakov correlator in the symmetric
500: representation with $N-$ality 2, even if at short distance is controlled
501: by the irrelevant operator $\rho$, at large
502: distance behaves exactly like the anti-symmetric rep. with the
503: same $N-$ality, as expected under physical grounds.
504: \section{Decay of unstable strings at zero temperature}
505: \label{decay}
506:
507: As mentioned in the introduction, the difficulty in observing string
508: breaking or string decay with the Wilson loop seems to indicate nothing
509: more than that it has a very small overlap with the broken-string or
510: stable string state.
511: Why? being a general phenomenon which occurs for any gauge group,
512: including $\Z_2$, in pure gauge models as well as in models coupled
513: to whatever kind of matter, it requires a general explanation which should
514: not depend on detailed dynamical properties of the model.
515: A simple explanation in the case of gauge models coupled with matter was
516: proposed in \cite{Gliozzi:2004cs}, which now we enforce in the
517: present case.
518:
519: The general form of the Polyakov correlator in higher representations of
520: $SU(N)$ found in Eq.s(\ref{c66}) and (\ref{c10}) suggests a simple
521: Ansatz describing the asymptotic functional form
522: of the vacuum expectation value of a large, rectangular, Wilson loop in
523: a higher representation $\R$ coupled to an unstable string which should
524: decay into a stable $k-$string
525: \footnote{For sake of simplicity we neglect the $1/r$ term in the potential
526: which accounts for the quantum fluctuations of the flux tube.}
527: \eq
528: \bra W_\R(r,t)\ket\simeq c_u\exp[-2\mu_{\R}^{~}(r+t)-\sigma_{\R}^{~} rt]+c_s
529: \exp[-2\mu_\R' (r+t)-\sigma_k^{~} rt]
530: \label{Ansatz}
531: \en
532: Similar proposals are described in \cite{krde,as}.
533: The first term describes the typical area-law decay produced at intermediate
534: distances by the unstable string with tension $\sigma_{\R}^{~}$.
535: The second term is instead the contribution expected
536: by the stable $k-$string in which the $\R-$string decays. In the case
537: of adjoint representation (zero $N-$ality)
538: one has $\sigma_0=0$ and the perimeter term $\mu'_{adj}$ denotes
539: the mass of the lowest glue-lump. Eq.(\ref{Ansatz}) has to be understood as an
540: asymptotic expansion which approximates $\bra W_\R(r,t)\ket$ when
541: $r,t>r_o$, where $r_o$ may be interpreted as the scale where the confining
542: string forms.
543: \begin{figure}
544: \centering
545: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{potr.eps}
546: %\vspace{5cm} % amount of vertical space needed
547: \caption{A schematic view of the static potential between sources belonging to
548: an excited representation $\R$ (dashed line).
549: $V_u$ is the potential experienced at
550: intermediate distances generated by the unstable string. $V_s$ is the
551: asymptotic behaviour, controlled by the string tension $\sigma^{~}_k$
552: of the stable string in which the unstable string decays. $r^{~}_\R$ is
553: the decay scale.}
554: \label{Figure:2}
555: \end{figure}
556:
557: When $t$ and $r$ are sufficiently large, no
558: matter how small $c_s$ is, the above Ansatz
559: implies that at long distances the stable string
560: eventually prevails, since
561: $\Delta\sigma\equiv\sigma_\R-\sigma_k>0$, hence the first
562: term drops off more rapidly than the second. With the emergence of this
563: long-distance effect a closely related question comes in: at what distance
564: the stable string shows up? it depends on the
565: difference $\Delta\mu\equiv\mu'_\R-\mu^{~}_\R$. Since
566: \eq
567: -\frac1t\log\bra W_\R(r,t)\ket=2\mu'_\R+\sigma_k^{~}r-
568: \frac1t\log\left[c_s+{c_u}e^{r2\Delta\mu}
569: e^{-t(r\Delta\sigma -2\Delta\mu)}\right]~,
570: \label{logw}
571: \en
572: we have (see Fig.\ref{Figure:2})
573: \eq
574: V_\R(r)=V_s(r)=2\mu'_\R+\sigma_k^{~}r~,~~~ r>r_\R^{~}~,
575: \label{pots}
576: \en
577: where
578: \eq
579: V_\R(r)=-\lim_{t \to\infty}
580: \frac1t\log\bra W_\R(r,t)\ket
581: \label{poto}
582: \en
583: is the static potential
584: and $r_\R^{~}$ is the value of $r$ which annihilates the exponent in
585: Eq.(\ref{logw})
586: \eq
587: r_\R^{~}=\frac{2\Delta \mu}{\Delta \sigma}\equiv2\frac{\mu'_\R-\mu^{~}_\R}
588: {\sigma^{~}_\R-\sigma^{~}_k}~.
589: \label{scale}
590: \en
591: Creation of unstable strings requires $\mu'_\R>\mu^{~}_\R$
592: (see Fig.\ref{Figure:2}). In the case of
593: zero $N-$ality the above equation yields the usual estimate of the adjoint
594: string breaking scale. The inclusion of the $\frac1r$ terms in this analysis
595: does not modify substantially the numerical estimates.
596: Notice that the mass $\mu_\R^{~}$ and
597: $\mu'_\R$ are not UV finite because of the additive self-energy divergences
598: (linear in 3+1 dimensions, logarithmic in 2+1 dimensions), which cannot be
599: absorbed in a parameter of the theory. However, these divergences should
600: cancel in their difference, hence $r^{~}_\R$ is a purely dynamical scale,
601: defined for any non fully antisymmetric representation of $SU(N)$, which
602: cannot be tuned by any bare parameter of the theory.
603:
604: When $r$ is less than the decay scale $r^{~}_\R$ Eq.(\ref{pots}) is no longer
605: valid and is replaced by
606: \eq
607: V_\R(r)=V_u(r)=2\mu^{~}_\R+\sigma_\R^{~}r~,~~~ r_o<r<r_\R^{~}~.
608: \label{potu}
609: \en
610: Thus the Ansatz (\ref{Ansatz}) describes the unstable string decay as a level
611: crossing phenomenon, as observed in the adjoint string.
612: \par
613: It is worth noting that, though $c_u$ and $c_s$ must be non-vanishing
614: quantities, they do not contribute to $V_\R(r)$, whereas play a
615: fundamental role in the
616: possibility to observe string decay when both $r$ \Cblu{and} $t$ are finite.
617: It is easy to see that for $r<r^{~}_\R$ and $t$ large enough the unstable
618: string cannot decay, the reason being that $V_u(r)<V_s(r)$ in this range.
619: In order to avoid the unphysical behaviour in which the decay is visible
620: only in a finite interval of $t$, it is obvious that $c_s$ cannot be
621: too big. More precisely, we must assume
622: \eq
623: c_u\, e^{-2\mu^{~}_\R(r+t)-\sigma_\R^{~} rt}\geq c_s\,
624: e^{-2\mu'_\R(r+t)-\sigma_k^{~} rt}~,~
625: r_o\leq r\leq r^{~}_\R~,~
626: t\ge r_o~.
627: \label{Ineq}
628: \en
629: With the help of Eq.(\ref{scale}), this inequality can be recast into the form
630: \eq
631: \log\frac{c_s}{c_u}\leq\Delta\sigma\,
632: \left[r^{~}_\R(r+t)-rt\right]~~,
633: ~r_o\leq r\leq r^{~}_\R,~t\ge r_o~.
634: \label{ineq}
635: \en
636: To minimise the right-hand-side we put $r=t=r_o$ and get
637:
638: \eq
639: \log\frac{c_s}{c_u}\leq\Delta\sigma\,
640: r_o\,(2r^{~}_\R-r_o)~~.
641: \label{bound}
642: \en
643: Such an upper bound constitutes the main obstruction to observe string decay
644: in the ordinary Wilson loop $W_\R$. Indeed, when $r>r^{~}_\R$ the
645: distance $t^{~}_\R$
646: where the second term of the Ansatz (\ref{Ansatz}) equals the first, then
647: it makes possible to see the decay, is given by
648: \eq
649: t^{~}_\R\,(r-r^{~}_\R)=r\,r^{~}_\R-\frac1{\Delta\sigma}
650: \log\frac{c_s}{c_u}\ge\, r^{~}_\R \,(r- 2r_o)+r_o^2~~,
651: \en
652: which shows that $ t^{~}_\R\gg r^{~}_\R$ unless $ r\gg r^{~}_\R$,
653: and we shall argue shortly that $r^{~}_\R> r_{adj}$.
654: From a
655: computational point of view it is very challenging to reach such
656: length scales \footnote {In 3+1 dimensional $SU(2)$
657: gauge model, for instance, $r_{adj}\sim 1.25$ fm \cite{fp}.}
658: in the measure of $ \bra W_\R(r,t)\ket $.
659: This explains why unstable string decay has not yet been observed at zero
660: temperature.
661: \par The evaluation of $r^{~}_\R$
662: is problematic, because Eq.(\ref{scale}) implies an estimate of
663: the self-energy $\mu'_\R$, which contributes to the sub-dominant term of the
664: Ansatz (\ref{Ansatz}), hence from a numerical point of view it is almost
665: hopeless. We shall see that the mixed Wilson loop can be used as a
666: simple tool to extract this quantity.
667:
668: Waiting for a computational work which will provide us with this information,
669: we now try to combine together some known facts in order to get a rough
670: estimate of $r^{~}_\R$. Numerical data on \Cblu{unstable}
671: strings in 3+1 dimensional $SU(3)$ \cite{sd,ba} and $SU(2)$ \cite{cp}
672: gauge theories seem to support Casimir scaling \cite{aop}, which tells us that
673: the static potential between sources in the representation $\R$ is proportional
674: to that of fundamental sources according to
675: \eq
676: V_\R(r)\simeq \frac{{\cal C}_\R}{{\cal C}_f}\,V_f(r)~~,
677: \label{casimir}
678: \en
679: where ${\cal C}_\R$ is the quadratic Casimir operator of the representation
680: $\R$. This implies
681: \eq
682: \sigma_\R^{~} \simeq \frac{{\cal C}_\R}{{\cal C}_f}\,\sigma~,
683: ~~\mu_\R^{~} \simeq\frac{{\cal C}_\R}{{\cal C}_f} \, \mu~,
684: \label{cas}
685: \en
686: where $\sigma$ and $\mu$ refer to the fundamental representation.
687: Since the additive UV divergence of $\mu^{~}_\R$ is cancelled by that of
688: $\mu'_\R$ in the difference $\Delta\mu$, it is quite natural to expect
689: $\mu'_\R$ also proportional to ${\cal C}_\R$. However, only the
690: unstable $\R-$strings have a non-vanishing $\mu'$, hence we assume
691: \eq
692: \mu'_\R\simeq\frac{{\cal C}_\R}{{\cal C}_{adj}}\,\,\mu'_{adj}~,
693: \label{mumu}
694: \en
695: where, as noted above, $\mu'_{adj}$ is the mass of the lowest glue-lump.
696: Thus, combining Eq.s(\ref{scale}),(\ref{cas}) and (\ref{mumu}) leads to
697: \eq
698: r_\R^{~}\simeq \,\frac{{\cal C}_\R}
699: {{\cal C}_\R-\sigma^{~}_k/{\sigma}}\;r_{adj}^{~}~,
700: \label{esca}
701: \en
702: hence $r^{~}_\R> r_{adj}$ for any \Cblu{unstable} string coupled to
703: a colour source with non-vanishing $N-$ality. For instance, in the $SU(2)$
704: case, the $j=\frac32$ is unstable against decaying into the fundamental
705: string with $j=\frac12$, thus $r^{~}_{\frac32}\simeq\frac54 r_{adj}$.
706:
707: Notice that, unlike the unstable strings, the
708: \Cblu{stable} $k-$strings tension
709: $\sigma_k/\sigma$ does not obey Eq.(\ref{cas}).
710: Numerical experiments
711: \cite{dprv,lt,ltw,dprv2} as well as consistency of $N\to\infty$ limit
712: \cite{as} point to a sizable
713: violation of the Casimir scaling and some works \cite{dprv,dprv2} find
714: good agreement with the so called sine law discovered in some supersymmetric
715: gauge models\cite{ds,hsz,hk}.
716: \par
717: Our rough estimate of the decay lengths of unstable strings were derived under
718: a number of (strong) assumptions. A better definition, based on the
719: multichannel method, will be described in the next section.
720: \section{Mixed Wilson loops}
721: \label{mixed}
722: To warm up, let us consider the construction of a $SU(N)$ glue-lump operator
723: which creates a glue-lump at the point $\vec{x}$ and annihilates it at the
724: point $\vec{y}$.
725: \begin{figure}
726: \centering
727: \includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{gluelump.eps}
728: %\vspace{5cm} % amount of vertical space needed
729: \caption{Generating operator of the gluelump, as described in
730: Eq.(\ref{glu}).}
731: \label{Figure:3}
732: \end{figure}
733:
734:
735: The starting point is the gauge-invariant operator depicted in Fig.
736: \ref{Figure:3}
737: \eq
738: P(\vec{x})^i_j\;\;U^\dagger(\vec{x},\vec{y})^j_k\;\;
739: Q(\vec{y})^k_l\;\; U(\vec{x},\vec{y})^l_i~~,
740: \label{glu}
741: \en
742: where $P(\vec{x})$ and $Q(\vec{y})$ are the source and the sink of the
743: gluelump. For simplicity, the points $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{y}$
744: are chosen on the same coordinate axis. In a 3D cubic lattice, for instance,
745: a good overlap with the
746: lowest $0^+$ state is obtained by
747: choosing $P$ and $Q$ as the `clover leaves' \cite{mc} formed by the four
748: plaquettes orthogonal to $\vec{y}-\vec{x}$. $U(\vec{x},\vec{y})$
749: is a shorthand notation for the parallel transporter formed by the product
750: of the link variables in the fundamental
751: representation along the straight path connecting the sites
752: $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{y}$. Let us focus on the indices $i$ and $j$ of the
753: operators $U$ and $U^\dagger$. They belong to the reducible representation
754: $\{N\}\otimes\{\bar{N}\}=\{N^2-1\}+\{1\}$. In order to project out the singlet
755: and allow propagating the adjoint representation only, we
756: perform the substitution
757: \eq
758: {U^\dagger}^j_k \,U^l_i\to {U^\dagger}^j_k\, U^l_i-\frac1N\,\delta^j_i \,
759: {U^\dagger}^m_k\, U^l_m= {U^\dagger}^j_k\, U^l_i-\frac1N\,\delta^j_i\;\delta^l_k~.
760: \en
761: Inserting this projection in (\ref{glu}) yields
762: \eq
763: G(\vec{x},\vec{y})=\tr(PUQU^\dagger)-\frac1N\,\tr P\;\tr Q~.
764: \label{gluelump}
765: \en
766: In the case of $SU(2)$ we can use the trace identity
767: \eq
768: \tr A\,\tr B=\tr(A\,B)+\tr(A\,B^{-1})~,
769: \label{ti}
770: \en
771: valid for any pair of $2\times2$ unimodular matrices
772: \footnote{Actually it can be shown that the most general solution of
773: the functional equation $\phi(A)\,\phi(B)=\phi(A\,B)+\phi(A\,B^{-1})$,
774: where $A$ and $B$ are arbitrary elements of an unspecified group $G$ and
775: $\phi$ is a class function, is $G\equiv SL(2,\C)$ and $\phi$ is the character
776: of its fundamental representation. A study of this kind of relationships for various groups can be found in\cite{gv}. },
777: with $A=P$ and $B=UQU^\dagger$ and recast
778: Eq.(\ref{gluelump}) in the form used by the lattice community
779: \eq
780: G(\vec{x},\vec{y})=\um\tr[PU(Q-Q^\dagger)U^\dagger]\equiv
781: \um\tr(P\sigma^a)\Gamma_{ab}\tr(Q\sigma^b)~,
782: \en
783: where the $\sigma^a\equiv\sigma_a$ are the Pauli matrices , $a=1,2,3$, and
784: \eq
785: \Gamma_{ab}=\um\tr(\sigma_aU\sigma_bU^\dagger)~.
786: \en
787:
788:
789: \begin{figure}
790: \centering
791: \includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{wilmix.eps}
792: %\vspace{5cm} % amount of vertical space needed
793: \caption{Mixed Wilson loop. The loop $(PUVUQU^\dagger)$ denotes a static source in the fundamental representation $f$. The three coincident
794: lines $U,U,U^\dagger$ at the top are drawn separately for clarity. They
795: belong to the reducible representation $f\otimes f\otimes \bar{f}$.
796: Projection on a irreducible component is described in the text. }
797: \label{Figure:4}
798: \end{figure}
799:
800: To construct a \Cblu{mixed Wilson loop} let us start by considering an
801: arbitrary closed path $\gamma=u\,v$ made by the composition of two open paths
802: $u$ and $v$. Let $U$ and $V$ be the group elements associated with
803: these two paths respectively. The associated standard Wilson loop is
804: \eq
805: W(\gamma)=\tr(UV)~.
806: \label{wo}
807: \en
808: where the trace is taken , here and in the following, in the fundamental
809: representation $f$ of the \Cblu{\sl non-abelian} gauge group $G$. We want to
810: transform $W$ in a mixed Wilson loop in which the source along the path $u$
811: carries the quantum numbers of an
812: higher representation $\R$ belonging to the same $N-$ ality class of $f$.
813: In analogy with the construction of the gluelump operator, we start
814: by considering the gauge-invariant
815: generating operator (see Fig.\ref{Figure:4})
816: \eq
817: P^m_i\,U^i_l\,V^l_j\,U^j_k\,Q^k_n\,{U^\dagger}^n_m
818: \label{genera}
819: \en
820: where $P$ and $Q$ can be taken as the source operators associated to the
821: ``clovers'' orthogonal to the path $\gamma$ at the junctions separating $u$
822: and $v$. Along the path $u$ now propagates a source belonging to the
823: reducible $f\otimes f\otimes\bar{f} $. We have then to project on
824: some irreducible component.
825:
826:
827: To make a specific, illustrative example, let us consider the case of
828: $SU(3)$, where we have
829: \eq
830: \{3\}\otimes \{3\}\otimes\{\bar{3}\}=2\{3\}+\{\bar{6}\}+\{15\}~.
831: \en
832: We want to project on the $\{\bar{6}\}$ representation which has the same
833: triality of $\{3\}$. It may be selected, for instance, by anti-symmetrizing
834: the indices $i$ and $j$ and eliminating the traces
835: with the index $m$ in the matrix elements $P^m_i\,V^l_j$ .
836: Namely, we take the combination
837:
838: \eq
839: \frac32(P^m_j\,V^l_i-P^m_i\,V^l_j)+
840: \frac34[(\delta^m_i\,V^l_j -\delta^m_j\,V^l_i) \tr P-(VP)^l_j\,\delta^m_i+
841: \delta^m_j\,(VP)^l_i]
842: \label{prj6}
843: \en
844: and saturate with $ U^i_l\,U^j_k\,Q^k_n\,{U^\dagger}^n_m$, getting finally
845: \eq
846: \begin{split}
847: W^{~}_{\{3\}\to\{\bar{6}\}}(\gamma)=\frac32\left[\tr(PUQU^\dagger)\,\tr(VU)-
848: \tr(PUVUQU^\dagger)\right]+\\
849: \frac34\left[\tr P\, \tr(VUQ)-\tr(VPUQ)+\tr (VPU)\,\tr Q-\tr P\tr(VU)\,\tr Q
850: \,\right]~.
851: \label{w36}
852: \end{split}
853: \en
854: The fraction $u$ of $\gamma$ belonging to $\{\bar{6}\}$ is of course arbitrary. Moving the two junctions along $\gamma$ we can manage as to shrink the
855: length $\vert v\vert$ of $v$ to zero, hence $V$ is the identity matrix
856: $V=\uu$ and the whole loop carries the quantum numbers of $\{\bar{6}\}$.
857: In this limit the two clovers associated to $P$ and $Q$, which have opposite
858: orientations, overlap, hence $P=Q^\dagger$.
859: As a check of Eq.(\ref{w36}) we can now
860: integrate over $Q$, using the standard orthogonality relations of the
861: irreducible characters
862: \eq
863: \begin{split}
864: \int_{Q\in G}dQ\,\Tr_\R(Q\,A)\Tr_{\R'}(Q^\dagger B)=\delta_{\R,\R'}
865: \,\frac 1{d_\R}\Tr_\R(A^\dagger B)\\
866: \int_{Q\in G}dQ\,\Tr_\R(Q\,A\,Q^\dagger B)=
867: \frac 1{d_\R}\Tr_\R(A^\dagger B)~,
868: \end{split}
869: \en
870: written for any arbitrary compact group $G$. $\Tr_\R$ is the character,
871: {\sl i.e.} the trace calculated in the irreducible representation $\R$ and
872: $d_\R=\Tr_\R(\uu)$ its dimension.
873:
874: Putting in Eq.(\ref{w36}) $V=\uu$, $P=Q^\dagger$ and integrating on $Q$ yields
875: \eq
876: \um\left[ (\tr U)^2-\tr(U^2)\right]\tr U^\dagger-\tr U=
877: \um\left[(\tr U^\dagger)^2+\tr({U^\dagger}^2)\right]=
878: \Tr_{\{\bar{6}\}}(U)~,
879: \en
880: where the $SU(3)$ identity $\um[ (\tr U)^2-\tr(U^2)]=\tr U^\dagger$ and
881: its conjugate have been used.
882:
883: Similarly, in the $SU(2)$ case, the mixed Wilson loop associated to the
884: pair of representations $j=\um$ and $j=\frac32$ turns out to be
885: \eq
886: \begin{split}
887: W^{~}_{\um\to\frac32}(\gamma)=\tr(PUVUQU^\dagger)+\tr(PUQU^\dagger)\tr(UV)-\\
888: \frac13\left[\tr(PUQV)+\tr(PUV)\,\tr Q+\tr P\left(\tr(VUQ)+\tr(VU)\,\tr Q
889: \right)\right]~,
890: \end{split}
891: \en
892: where the normalisation is chosen, like in the $SU(3)$ case, in such a way
893: that integration on $Q$ after putting $V=\uu$ and $P=Q^\dagger$ gives
894: \eq
895: \int_{Q\in SU(2)}dQ\,W^{~}_{\um\to\frac32}=
896: \Tr_{\frac32}(U)\equiv\tr(U^2)\,\tr U~.
897: \en
898: \par
899: It is clear that the above construction can be generalised to any non-abelian
900: group and, in particular, to any fully anti-symmetric representation
901: of $N-$ality $k$ of $SU(N)$, which can be converted through the emission and
902: the reabsorption of a glue-lump to an excited representation $\R$.
903: It is also clear that one can build up mixed Wilson loops of the
904: type drawn in Fig.\ref{Figure:1} $c$ and $d$ that we denote respectively as
905: $W^{~}_{k\to\R}(r,t)$ and $W^{~}_{\R\to k\to\R}(r,t)$\footnote{The ``time''
906: variable $t$ is the vertical line in Fig.\ref{Figure:1}.}.
907: \par The static potential $V_\R(r)$ between the $\R$ sources and the
908: decay of the
909: associated unstable string into the stable $k-$string can then be extracted
910: from measurements of the matrix correlator
911: \eq
912: C(r,t)=\left(
913: \begin{matrix}
914: \bra W^{~}_{\R}(r,t)\ket &\bra W^{~}_{k\to\R}(r,t)\ket\\
915: \bra W^{~}_{k\to\R}(r,t)\ket&\bra W^{~}_{\R\to k\to\R}(r,t)\ket
916: \end{matrix}
917: \right)~,
918: \label{cor}
919: \en
920: where $W^{~}_{\R}(r,t)$ is the ordinary Wilson loop when the whole
921: rectangle $(r,t)$ is in the $\R$ representation. This is the
922: generalisation of the multichannel method we alluded in the Introduction.
923: Denoting by $\lambda(r,t)$ the highest eigenvalue of Eq.(\ref{cor})
924: we have
925: \eq
926: V_\R(r)=-\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac1t\log\lambda(r,t)~,
927: \en
928: which from a computational point of view is much better than the definition
929: (\ref{poto}), because the mixed Wilson loops have, by construction, a much
930: better overlap with the stable $k-$string state.
931: In this way it will possible to evaluate the decay scale $r_\R$.
932: One could also try to get a rough estimate of this quantity through
933: Eq.(\ref{scale}). Indeed the instability of the $\R-$string leads to conjecture that the vacuum expectation value of
934: $W^{~}_{k\to\R}(\gamma)$ should behave asymptotically as
935: \eq
936: \bra W^{~}_{k\to\R}(\gamma)\ket\propto e^{-\mu_\R^{~}\vert v\vert-
937: \mu_\R'\vert u\vert-\sigma^{~}_k A}~,
938: \en
939: where $A$ is the area of the minimal surface encircled by $\gamma$ and
940: $\vert v\vert$ and $\vert u\vert$ are the lengths of the paths which carry
941: the quantum numbers of the representations $k$ and $\R$, respectively.
942: This seems the most effective way to estimate the quantity $\mu'_\R$
943: and therefore $r^{~}_\R$.
944: \section{Conclusion}
945: \label{conclusion}
946: In this paper we gained some insight into the physics of $SU(N)$ pure
947: gauge theory by using in two different ways the standard decomposition
948: of the direct product of irreducible representations of the gauge group.
949:
950: First, we mapped this decomposition into the fusion rules of the effective CFT
951: describing the critical behaviour of the finite-temperature deconfinement
952: of those 2+1 dimensional gauge theories which undergo a continuous phase
953: transition.
954:
955: We worked out two specific examples, $SU(3)$ and $SU(4)$, which
956: led us to conjecture the exact critical exponents to be attributed to Polyakov
957: lines in some higher representations of the gauge group.
958: The resulting functional form of these Polyakov-Polyakov correlators at
959: critically suggests generalising it to $T=0$ Wilson loops in higher
960: representations for any $SU(N)$. The proposed Ansatz offers a simple,
961: general explanation of the difficulty to observe decaying unstable strings
962: while measuring Wilson loops only.
963:
964: The other way we exploited the mentioned decomposition in irreducible
965: representations has been used to define a new gauge-invariant operator,
966: the mixed Wilson loop $W^{~}_{\R\to\s} (\gamma)$ , which describes a
967: source belonging to an irreducible representation $\R$ which is converted into
968: another representation $\s$
969: along part of its trajectory $\gamma$. Gauge invariance requires $\R$ and
970: $\s$ having the same $N-$ality. This new operator could be used as a tool
971: to study the decay of the unstable strings, a recurrent theme of this work.
972:
973:
974: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
975: \bibitem{as} A. Armoni and M. Shifman, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 671}, 67 (2003)
976: [arXiv:hep-th/0307020].
977: \bibitem{ds} M.R. Douglas and S.H. Shenker, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 481}, 513 (1995)
978: [arXiv:hep-th/9503163].
979: \bibitem{hsz} A. Hanany, M.J. Strassler and A. Zaffaroni, Nucl Phys. B
980: {\bf 513}, 87 (1998)[arXiv:hep-th/9707244].
981: \bibitem{hk} C.P. Herzog and I. R. Klebanov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 526}, 388
982: (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0111078].
983: \bibitem{dprv} L. Del Debbio, H. Panagopoulos, P. Rossi and E. Vicari, Phys.
984: Rev. D {\bf 65}, 021501 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0106185].
985: \bibitem{lt}B. Lucini and M. Teper, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 105019 (2001)
986: [arXiv:hep-lat/0107007].
987: \bibitem{ltw}B. Lucini, M. Teper and U. Wengler, JHEP {\bf 0406}, 012
988: (2004 ) [arXiv:hep-lat/0404008].
989: \bibitem{dprv2} L. Del Debbio, H. Panagopoulos, P. Rossi and E. Vicari,
990: JHEP {\bf 01} , 009 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0111090].
991: \bibitem{cj} N.A. Campbell, I.H. Jorysz, C. Michael, Phys. Lett.B {\bf 167}
992: (1986) 91.
993: \bibitem{pt} G. Poulis and H.D. Trottier, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 400}(1997)358
994: [arXiv:hep-lat/9504015]; C. Michael, ArXiv:hep-lat/9809211.
995: \bibitem{sd} S. Deldar, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}(2000) 034509
996: [arXiv:hep-lat/9911008]
997: \bibitem{ba}G. Bali, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62} (2000) 114503
998: [arXiv:hep-lat/0006022].
999: \bibitem{cp} C. Piccioni, arXiv:hep-lat/0503021.
1000: \bibitem{krde} S.Kratochvila and P.de Forcrand, Nucl Phys. B {\bf 671}
1001: (2003) 103 [arXiv:hep-lat/0306011].
1002: \bibitem{cm} C. Michael, Nucl Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.){\bf 26} (1992) 417.
1003: \bibitem{st}P.W. Stephenson, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 550} (1999) 427
1004: [arXiv:hep-lat/9902002]; O. Philipsen and H. Wittig, Phys. Lett.
1005: B {\bf 451} (1999) 146 [arXiv:hep-lat/9902003].
1006: \bibitem{fp}P. de Forcrand and O.Philipsen, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 475} (2000) 280
1007: [arXiv:hep-lat/9912050]; K.Kallio and H.D. Trottier,
1008: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66} (2002)
1009: 034503 [arXiv:hep-lat/0001020].
1010: \bibitem{pw} O. Philipsen and H.Wittig, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}
1011: (1998) 4056 [Erratum-ibid.{\bf 83} (1999) 2684][hep-lat/9807020];
1012: F.Gliozzi and A.Rago, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66} (2002) 074511
1013: [arXiv:hep-lat/0206017].
1014: \bibitem{ks}F. Knechtli and R. Sommer [ALPHA Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B
1015: {\bf 440} (1998) 345 [arXiv:hep-lat/9807022] and Nucl. Phys.
1016: B {\bf 590} (2000) 309
1017: [hep-lat/0005021].
1018: \bibitem{bdl}G.S. Bali, H. Neff, Th. D\"ussel, Th Lippert,
1019: K.Schilling, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71} (2005) 114513 [hep-lat/0505012].
1020:
1021: \bibitem{mc} C. Michael, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 259} (1985) 58
1022: \bibitem{Gliozzi:2004cs}
1023: F.~Gliozzi and A.~Rago,
1024: %``Overlap of the Wilson loop with the broken-string state,''
1025: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 714} (2005) 91
1026: [arXiv:hep-lat/0411004].
1027: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0411004;%%
1028:
1029:
1030: \bibitem{gp}F.Gliozzi and P. Provero, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 556} (1999) 76
1031: [arXiv:hep-lat/9903013]; Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 83} (2000) 46
1032: [arXiv:hep-lat/99070231].
1033:
1034:
1035:
1036: \bibitem{cb} C. Bernard, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 108} (1982) 431; Nucl Phys. B
1037: {\bf 219} (1983) 341.
1038: \bibitem{ot} S.Ohta, M. Fukugita and A. Ukawa, Phys. Lett B {\bf 173}(1986)
1039: 15.
1040: \bibitem{mf} H. Markum and M.E. Faber, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 200} (1988) 343.
1041:
1042: %\cite{Muller:1991xj}
1043: \bibitem{Muller:1991xj}
1044: M.~M\"uller, W.~Beirl, M.~Faber and H.~Markum,
1045: %``Universality of the confinement string in multiplet potentials,''
1046: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 26} (1992) 423.
1047: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,26,423;%%
1048:
1049: %\cite{DelDebbio:2004zc}
1050: \bibitem{DelDebbio:2004zc}
1051: L.~Del Debbio, H.~Panagopoulos and E.~Vicari,
1052: %``N-ality and topology at finite temperature,''
1053: arXiv:hep-th/0409203.
1054: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0409203;%%
1055: %\cite{DelDebbio:2003tk}
1056: \bibitem{DelDebbio:2003tk}
1057: L.~Del Debbio, H.~Panagopoulos and E.~Vicari,
1058: %``Confining strings in representations with common n-ality,''
1059: JHEP {\bf 0309} (2003) 034
1060: [arXiv:hep-lat/0308012].
1061: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0308012;%%
1062: \bibitem{gw} M. Gross and J. F. Wheater, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 54} (1985) 389;
1063: P. H. Damgaard , Phys. Lett. B {\bf 183}(1987) 81;
1064: M.E.Faber, H. Markum and M. Meinahart, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 36} (1987)
1065: 632.
1066: \bibitem{dam} P.H. Damgaard, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 194} (1987) 107;
1067: K. Redlich and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 213} (1988) 191;
1068: J. Christensen and P.H.Damagaard, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 348}
1069: (1991) 226; Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 354} (1991) 339.
1070: \bibitem{jk} J. Kiskis, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 41} (1990) 3204; J.Kiskis and
1071: P. Vranas, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 49} (1994) 528.
1072: \bibitem{ctd} Christensen, G. Thorleifsson, P.H.Damagaard and
1073: J.F. Wheater, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 374} (1992) 225.
1074: \bibitem{dh} P.H. Damgaard and M. Hasenbusch, Phys. Lett. B
1075: {\bf 331} (1994) 400.
1076: \bibitem{pi} R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62} (2000) 111501
1077: \bibitem{sy}B. Svetitsky and L.G. Yaffe, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 210} [FS6]
1078: (1982) 423.
1079:
1080: %\cite{Gliozzi:1997yc}
1081: \bibitem{Gliozzi:1997yc}
1082: F.~Gliozzi and P.~Provero,
1083: %``The Svetitsky-Yaffe conjecture for the plaquette operator,''
1084: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 1131
1085: [arXiv:hep-lat/9701014].
1086: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9701014;%%
1087:
1088:
1089: \bibitem{bpz} A.A. Belavin, A.M. Polyakov and A. B. Zamolodchikov,
1090: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 241} (1984) 333.
1091:
1092: \bibitem{Fuchs:1998qn}
1093: J.~Fuchs and C.~Schweigert,
1094: %``Completeness of boundary conditions for the critical three-state Potts
1095: %model,''
1096: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 441} (1998) 141
1097: [arXiv:hep-th/9806121].
1098: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9806121;%%
1099: %\cite{Kadanoff:1978pv}
1100: \bibitem{Kadanoff:1978pv}
1101: L.~P.~Kadanoff and A.~C.~Brown,
1102: %``Correlation Functions On The Critical Lines Of The Baxter And Ashkin-Teller
1103: %Models,''
1104: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 121} (1979) 318.
1105: %%CITATION = APNYA,121,318;%%
1106: %\cite{deForcrand:2003wa}
1107: \bibitem{deForcrand:2003wa}
1108: P.~de Forcrand and O.~Jahn,
1109: %``Deconfinement transition in 2+1-dimensional SU(4) lattice gauge theory,''
1110: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 129} (2004) 709
1111: [arXiv:hep-lat/0309153].
1112: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0309153;%%
1113:
1114:
1115:
1116:
1117: \bibitem{aop} J. Ambj\o rn, P.Olesen and C. Peterson, Nucl Phys. B
1118: {\bf 240},186 (1984; Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 240}, 533 (1984).
1119:
1120: \bibitem{gv} F.Gliozzi and M.A. Virasoro, Nucl Phys. B {\bf 164}(1980) 141.
1121:
1122: \end{thebibliography}
1123:
1124: \end{document}
1125:
1126: