1: \input harvmac.tex
2:
3: \input epsf.tex
4:
5: \def\figin{\epsfcheck\figin}\def\figins{\epsfcheck\figins}
6: \def\epsfcheck{\ifx\epsfbox\UnDeFiNeD
7: \message{(NO epsf.tex, FIGURES WILL BE IGNORED)}
8: \gdef\figin##1{\vskip2in}\gdef\figins##1{\hskip.5in}% blank space instead
9: \else\message{(FIGURES WILL BE INCLUDED)}%
10: \gdef\figin##1{##1}\gdef\figins##1{##1}\fi}
11: \def\DefWarn#1{}
12: \def\figinsert{\goodbreak\midinsert}
13: \def\ifig#1#2#3{\DefWarn#1\xdef#1{fig.~\the\figno}
14: \writedef{#1\leftbracket fig.\noexpand~\the\figno}%
15: \figinsert\figin{\centerline{#3}}\medskip\centerline{\vbox{\baselineskip12pt
16: \advance\hsize by -1truein\noindent\footnotefont{\bf Fig.~\the\figno:} #2}}
17: \bigskip\endinsert\global\advance\figno by1}
18:
19:
20: \font\sf = cmss10
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22:
23: %\draftmode
24:
25:
26: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
27:
28: { \Title{\vbox{\baselineskip12pt \hbox{hep-th/0508058 }
29: \vbox{\baselineskip12pt \hbox{UB-ECM-PF-05/20 }}
30: %{\vbox{\baselineskip12pt \hbox{ecm } }}
31: }}
32: {\vbox{
33: {\centerline { A 1+1 field theory spectrum from M theory}
34: %{\centerline {from M theory} }
35: }}}}
36:
37: \bigskip
38: \centerline{
39: Maria Jose Rodriguez$^a$\footnote{$^{\ast}$}{majo@ecm.ub.es}
40: and Pere Talavera$^b$\footnote{$^{\star}$}{pere.talavera@upc.edu} }
41: \bigskip~
42:
43: \centerline{$^a$
44: Departament d'Estructura i Constituents de la Mat\`eria,}
45: \centerline{
46: Universitat de Barcelona,
47: Diagonal 647, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain}
48:
49: \medskip
50:
51: \centerline{$^b$ Departament de F{\'\i}sica i Enginyeria Nuclear,}
52: \centerline{ Universitat Polit\`ecnica de Catalunya, Jordi Girona
53: 1--3, E-08034 Barcelona, Spain }
54:
55:
56: \vskip .3in
57:
58: \baselineskip12pt
59: \vfill
60:
61:
62: The spectrum of a 1+1 dimensional field
63: theory with dynamical quarks is constructed. We focus in testing the possible brane embeddings that can support fundamental matter. The requirement on the wave function normalisation and
64: the dependence on the quark mass of the quark condensate
65: allow to discard most of the embeddings. We pay attention to some more
66: general considerations comparing the behaviour of the non-compact theory at
67: different dimensions. In particular
68: we explored the possibility that the AdS/CFT duality ``formalism'' introduce a scale breaking parameter at $(1+1)d$ allowing the existence of {\sl classical} glueballs and its possible relation with point-like string configurations.
69: The screening effects and the appearance of a possible phase transition
70: is also discussed.
71:
72: \vfill
73:
74:
75: \Date{August 2005} \eject \baselineskip14pt
76:
77:
78: %\listtoc
79: %\writetoc
80:
81:
82: \newsec{Motivation and conclusions}
83:
84: %\ZhitnitskyUM
85: \lref\ZhitnitskyUM{
86: A.~R.~Zhitnitsky,
87: ``On Chiral Symmetry Breaking In QCD In Two-Dimensions (N(C) $\to$
88: Infinity),''
89: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 165}, 405 (1985)
90: [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 43}, 999.1986\ YAFIA,43,1553 (1986\ YAFIA,43,1553-1563.1986)].
91: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B165,405;%%
92: }
93:
94: %\HorowitzBJ
95: \lref\HorowitzBJ{
96: G.~T.~Horowitz and H.~Ooguri,
97: ``Spectrum of large N gauge theory from supergravity,''
98: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80}, 4116 (1998)
99: [arXiv:hep-th/9802116].
100: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802116;%%
101: }
102:
103: %\'tHooftHX
104: \lref\tHooftHX{
105: G.~'t Hooft,
106: ``A Two-Dimensional Model For Mesons,''
107: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 75}, 461 (1974).
108: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B75,461;%%
109: }
110:
111:
112: %\ColemanCI
113: \lref\ColemanCI{
114: S.~R.~Coleman,
115: ``There Are No Goldstone Bosons In Two-Dimensions,''
116: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 31}, 259 (1973).
117: %%CITATION = CMPHA,31,259;%%
118: }
119:
120: %\WittenZW
121: \lref\WittenZW{
122: E.~Witten,
123: ``Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge
124: theories,''
125: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 2}, 505 (1998)
126: [arXiv:hep-th/9803131].
127: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9803131;%%
128: }
129:
130:
131: %\GrinsteinXK
132: \lref\GrinsteinXK{
133: B.~Grinstein and R.~F.~Lebed,
134: ``Explicit quark-hadron duality in heavy-light meson weak decays in the 't
135: Hooft model,''
136: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 1366 (1998)
137: [arXiv:hep-ph/9708396].
138: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708396;%%
139: }
140:
141:
142: %\DalleyYY
143: \lref\DalleyYY{
144: S.~Dalley and I.~R.~Klebanov,
145: ``String spectrum of (1+1)-dimensional large N QCD with adjoint matter,''
146: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47}, 2517 (1993)
147: [arXiv:hep-th/9209049].
148: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9209049;%%
149: }
150:
151: %\BrandhuberER
152: \lref\BrandhuberER{
153: A.~Brandhuber, N.~Itzhaki, J.~Sonnenschein and S.~Yankielowicz,
154: ``Wilson loops, confinement, and phase transitions in large N gauge theories
155: from supergravity,''
156: JHEP {\bf 9806}, 001 (1998)
157: [arXiv:hep-th/9803263].
158: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9803263;%%
159: }
160:
161: %\ParedesIS
162: \lref\ParedesIS{
163: A.~Paredes and P.~Talavera,
164: ``Multiflavour excited mesons from the fifth dimension,''
165: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 713}, 438 (2005)
166: [arXiv:hep-th/0412260].
167: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0412260;%%
168: }
169:
170:
171: %\DeserWQ
172: \lref\DeserWQ{
173: S.~Deser,
174: ``Absence Of Static Solutions In Source - Free Yang-Mills Theory,''
175: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 64}, 463 (1976).
176: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B64,463;%%
177: }
178:
179: %\ColemanHD
180: \lref\ColemanHD{
181: S.~R.~Coleman,
182: ``There Are No Classical Glueballs,''
183: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 55}, 113 (1977).
184: %%CITATION = CMPHA,55,113;%%
185: }
186:
187: %\PagelsCK
188: \lref\PagelsCK{
189: H.~Pagels,
190: ``Absence Of Periodic Solutions To Scale Invariant Classical Field Theories,''
191: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 68}, 466 (1977).
192: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B68,466;%%
193: }
194:
195: %\BabingtonVM
196: \lref\BabingtonVM{
197: J.~Babington, J.~Erdmenger, N.~J.~Evans, Z.~Guralnik and I.~Kirsch,
198: ``Chiral symmetry breaking and pions in non-supersymmetric gauge / gravity
199: duals,''
200: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 066007 (2004)
201: [arXiv:hep-th/0306018].
202: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0306018;%%
203: }
204:
205: %\CallanPS
206: \lref\CallanPS{
207: C.~G.~.~Callan, N.~Coote and D.~J.~Gross,
208: ``Two-Dimensional Yang-Mills Theory: A Model Of Quark Confinement,''
209: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 13}, 1649 (1976).
210: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D13,1649;%%
211: }
212:
213: %\GrossGK
214: \lref\GrossGK{
215: D.~J.~Gross and H.~Ooguri,
216: ``Aspects of large N gauge theory dynamics as seen by string theory,''
217: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 106002 (1998)
218: [arXiv:hep-th/9805129].
219: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9805129;%%
220: }
221:
222: %\PolchinskiUF
223: \lref\PolchinskiUF{
224: J.~Polchinski and M.~J.~Strassler,
225: ``The string dual of a confining four-dimensional gauge theory,''
226: arXiv:hep-th/0003136.
227: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0003136;%%
228: }
229:
230:
231: %\AharonyUP
232: \lref\AharonyUP{
233: O.~Aharony,
234: ``The non-AdS/non-CFT correspondence, or three different paths to QCD,''
235: arXiv:hep-th/0212193.
236: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212193;%%
237: }
238: There has been a lot of effort in trying to understand the low-energy
239: dynamics of non-supesymmetric
240: asymptotically free gauge theories from the supergravity
241: duals ( see for instance \refs{\GrossGK, \WittenZW, \PolchinskiUF,\AharonyUP}).
242: Most of these studies are focous
243: at dimensions $d=4,3$ where confinement can only be understood
244: as a dynamical feature while the case
245: of dimension $d=2$ is relegated to oblivion, probably because confinement
246: is automatically incorporated in the theory even at perturbative level. The most salient point is precisely that the theory is fully resoluble in a suitable limit.
247:
248: Field theory models at $d=2$
249: while retaining some features of the four dimensional
250: QCD theory as quark confinement and chiral symmetry breaking, still differs
251: substantially in many crucial aspects from it: {\sl i)} there are no
252: dynamical gluons and hence strings are only build from matter quanta alone.
253: {\sl ii)} There is no chromomagnetic field, a key point to understand
254: confinement in 3+1 dimensions and {\sl iii)}
255: it neither contains spin.
256:
257: We want to elaborate here on the physical spectra, vectors, massive scalars
258: and possible glueballs, one can find
259: when dealing with one of these non-supersymmetric confining backgrounds
260: in $d=2$ \WittenZW. We shall argue, that parallel to the field theory expectations, the supergravity model properties are as follows: there is spontaneous symmetry breaking, there are massless particles, the physical vectors acquires a mass.
261: There are, obviously, still many lacking desired features but is encouraging to obtain some of the expected field theory results emerging from brane configurations.
262:
263: In order to illustrate the field theory side we are after for, we review it briefly.
264:
265: \subsec{Field theory set up}
266:
267: The field theory parallel we want mainly to study is the 1+1 dimensions
268: SU(N$_c$) gauge theory coupled to matter field in the
269: fundamental representation, \refs{\tHooftHX,\CallanPS} namely the 't Hooft
270: model. Although our initial setup will be related to the
271: SU(N$_c$) gauge field coupled to static fermions in the adjoint representation
272: \DalleyYY .
273:
274: The main difference between both settings are found in their interpretation as
275: string models:
276: while the 't Hooft model can be thought of as an open string model
277: with a single rising Regge trajectory spectrum, the coupling to adjoint matter
278: produces a kind of closed string with multiple Regge trajectories.
279:
280: In the case of SU(N$_c$) YM coupled to fundamental matter, our main
281: purpose, the Minkowsky
282: space action is taken to be
283: \eqn\qcddos{
284: S = \int d^2 x {\rm Tr}\left[ \bar{q}\left(i \gamma^\mu D_\mu-m_q\right)
285: q -{1\over 2 g_{{\rm
286: strong}}^2} F^{\mu\nu} F_{\mu\nu}\right]\,,
287: }
288: where $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu- \partial_\nu A_\mu+
289: i[A_\mu,A_\nu]$ and the covariant derivative is $D_\mu \Phi= \partial_\mu
290: \Phi+ i[A_\mu,\Phi]\,.$
291: In this case the
292: quark-antiquark sector admits an infinite tower of confined color-singlets.
293:
294: The reason for this solubility lies in the very defining features of the model.
295: The large N$_c$ limit eliminates all the sea quark contributions together
296: with the non-planar gluon diagrams. On the other hand the
297: fact of being in an axial gauge, $A_+=0$, and being the action independent
298: of $x_-$ derivatives allows to disentangle the gluon
299: self-coupling by gauging away $A_-\,.$ The only remaining Feynman diagrams
300: in the 2-PI Green function are the rain-bow and ladder type, whose
301: Schwinger-Dyson equation, giving the meson spectrum, can be solved
302: in principle numerically.
303:
304: \medskip
305:
306: The content of the paper is: we first start reviewing the construction of the non-supersymmetric background in a very synthetic way, it mainly should introduce the notation we shall follow and all the possible relevant embeddings. In sec. 3 a possible physical embedding providing matter in the fundamental is introduced. We check that from the initial two possibilities only one is feasible due to the normalisation at infinity. For the remaining solution we look for the relation between the chiral condensate and the quark mass. After comparison with the field theory and lattice calculations we find that the obtained results do not follow their trends. In accordance we turn to the evaluation of other embeddings in sec. 4. Once more the behaviour of the wave function at infinite imposes serious restrictions on the allowed solutions. For the remaining solutions we find the massive scalar and vector mesons spectra.
307:
308: Thenceforth
309: the subjects we treat has no special relation of been
310: treating a 1+1 dimensional theory,
311: but on the fact of having added fundamental matter.
312: In sec. 5, following field theory arguments, we argue on the possible existence of classical glueballs. We present both, numerical and analytical evidence that the formalism can not account to their existence. Although we dot not obtain glueball modes we check in sec. 6 the existence of oscillating modes on a ``cigar'' type configuration. This configuration was suggested to be related, at least in the four dimensional case, to the supergravity glueball spectra. The existence of the screening effect, hence the existence of at least two different phases, is discussed in sec. 7.
313:
314:
315: \newsec{Non-extremal Dp-brane model }
316:
317: We shall introduce the main notation for the different quantities used in the text.
318: The starting point is the metric and the dilaton field
319: \eqn\metricex{ds^2 = h^{-1/2} dx_\parallel^2
320: +h^{1/2}\left(dU^2 + U^2 d\Omega_{8-p}^2\right)\,,\quad e^{\phi}=\left(2\pi\right)^{2-p} g_{\rm YM}^2 h^{(3-p)/4}\,.
321: }
322: The transverse space to the brane has dimension $9-p\,,$
323: and the wrap factor is given by
324: \eqn\wrap{h^{-1}={U^{7-p}\over \left(g_{\rm YM} \sqrt{d_p N_c}\right)^2}\,.
325: }
326: In the remainder it will probe
327: useful to define $R_p^{7-p}=\left(g_{\rm YM} \sqrt{d_p N_c}\right)^2\,.$
328:
329: The non-extremal metric is obtained by imposing anti-periodic boundary conditions on the adjoint fermions, so that they become massive \WittenZW\
330: \eqn\metricnonex{ds^2 = h^{-1/2} \left(dy_\parallel^2+f(U) d\theta_2^2\right)
331: +h^{1/2}\left({dU^2\over f(U)} + U^2 d\Omega_{8-p}^2\right)\,,
332: }
333: where the function $f$
334: \eqn\ffunction{f(U) = 1-\left(U_h\over U\right)^{7-p}\,,}
335: contains an IR scale, $U_h\,,$ that breaks
336: conformal invariance.
337: Notice that at very high energy, $U\gg U_h$,
338: \metricnonex\ reduces to \metricex .
339: To avoid the conical singularity the period of the compact $\theta_2$
340: variable is chosen to be $\delta \theta_2 = 4 \pi/(7-p) (R_p/U_h)^{(7-p)/2}
341: U_h\,.$ This compactification has a mass scale associated
342: \eqn\kkmas{
343: m_{KK}= {2\pi\over \delta\theta_2}={1\over 2 U_h} (7-p)
344: \left({U_h \over R_p}\right)^{(7-p)/2} \,.
345: }
346: {}For energy scales lower than $m_{KK}$ the theory is effectively $p$-dimensional.
347: The transverse part of the Dp-brane can be parametrised by a set of coordinates
348: $\vec{z}=\left(z^1,\dots,z^{9-p}\right)$ suitable to write it
349: as conformally flat
350: \eqn\metricnonextwo{ds^2 = h^{-1/2} \left(dy_\parallel^2+f(U) d\theta_2^2\right)
351: +K(\rho) d\vec{z}\cdot d\vec{z}\,,
352: }
353: where $\rho^2 = \vec{z}\cdot \vec{z}$~ and $d\vec{z}\cdot d\vec{z} = d\rho^2
354: +\rho^2 d\Omega_{8-p}^2\,.$
355: In order to obtain \metricnonextwo\ one identifies
356: \eqn\relchange{K(\rho) = h^{1/2}\left({U\over \rho}\right)^2\,,
357: }
358: and perform the change of variables
359: $
360: \partial_\rho U=U \sqrt{f(U) }/\rho\,.
361: $
362: When inserting \ffunction\ in the previous expression one gets
363: \eqn\ufrho{U(\rho)= \left[ {1\over 2}
364: \left({U_h\rho\over A}\right)^{{7-p\over 2}}
365: + {1\over 2}\left({U_hA\over \rho}\right)^{{7-p\over 2}} \right]^{2\over 7-p}\,,
366: }
367: %\KruczenskiUQ
368: \lref\KruczenskiUQ{
369: M.~Kruczenski, D.~Mateos, R.~C.~Myers and D.~J.~Winters,
370: ``Towards a holographic dual of large-N(c) QCD,''
371: JHEP {\bf 0405}, 041 (2004)
372: [arXiv:hep-th/0311270].
373: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0311270;%%
374: }
375: with $A$ an integration constant. In order to conform the notation in
376: \KruczenskiUQ\ we set $\left(U_h/A\right)^{{7-p\over 2}}=2\,,$ from where
377: \eqn\ufrhofinal{U(\rho)= \rho \left[ 1
378: + {1\over 4}\left({U_h\over \rho}\right)^{7-p} \right]^{{2\over 7-p}}\,.
379: }
380:
381: \bigskip
382: %\KarchSH
383: \lref\KarchSH{
384: A.~Karch and E.~Katz,
385: ``Adding flavor to AdS/CFT,''
386: JHEP {\bf 0206}, 043 (2002)
387: [arXiv:hep-th/0205236].
388: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205236;%%
389: }
390:
391:
392: To incorporate matter in the fundamental representation one embeds
393: a probe-brane wrapping trivial circles on the transverse space of
394: \metricnonextwo\ \KarchSH.
395: Bearing that in mind we shall depict the transverse space in a way that respect
396: the symmetries of the would be embedded-brane. As previously mentioned
397: we are interested in study the parallel of QCD$_{1+1}$. The responsible
398: of the background will be a stack of D2-branes and
399: the possible embeddings are given by the arrows
400:
401: \medskip
402: $$\vbox{
403: \halign{ # & \quad # & $\, $# & $\, $#& $\, $#& $\,$ #& $\,$ #
404: & $\,$ #& $\,$ #& $\,$ # &$\,$ # \cr
405: D2: & 0 & 1 & 2 & $\_$ & $\_$ & $\_$ & $\_$ & $\_$ & $\_$ & $\_ \,$ \cr
406: D4: & 0 & 1 & $\_$ & 3 & 4 & 5 & $\_$ & $\_$ & $\_$ & $\_ \,$ \cr
407: D6: & 0 & 1 & $\_$ & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & $\_$ & $\_ \,$ \cr
408: D8: & 0 & 1 & $\_$ & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 \cr
409: }}$$
410: \medskip
411:
412: Attending to the symmetries of the possible embedded Dm-probe brane
413: the background field metric is written as
414: \eqn\metricdtwo{
415: ds^2_{{\rm p}=2} = h^{-1/2}
416: \left( ds^2\left({\sf E}^{(1,1)}\right)+f(U) d\theta_2^2\right) + K(\rho) \left(
417: d\Omega_{m-1}^2 + d\Omega_{8-m}^2 \right)\,,
418: }
419: Being from now on $\lambda$~and~$r$~the radii of the transverse n-spheres to the
420: Dp-brane, with $\rho^2=\lambda^2 +r^2\,.$
421:
422: \newsec{Chiral symmetry breaking}
423:
424: The embedding of $N_f$ Dm-probe brane in the ambient space of $N_c$ Dp-brane
425: ($p\le m$) can be approximated by the DBI action
426: \eqn\dbi{
427: S^{(p)}_{\rm Dm}
428: = -{1\over (2\pi)^m g_s \ell_s^{m+1}} \int d^{m+1}\sigma e^{-\phi}
429: \sqrt{-{\rm det} g}\,,
430: }
431: if $N_f$ is held fixed and $N_c \gg N_f$. In \dbi\
432: $g$ refers to the pullback metric. For later purposes
433: the Dm-brane tension is defined as
434: $T_{\rm Dm} = \left((2\pi)^m g_s \ell_s^{m+1}\right)^{-1}\,,$ and its
435: world-volume coordinates will be parametrised by
436: $\sigma^{0,\ldots\,,m}=x^{0,\ldots\,,p-1},z^{p,\ldots \,, m}\,.$
437:
438: In the sequel, and to perform the embedding,
439: we shall deal with an ansatz concerning the position
440: of the Dm-brane in the space spanned for the latest n-sphere in
441: \metricdtwo\ . This n-sphere will be parametrised
442: by the radii $r$~and the angles $\phi^a$ $(a=0,\dots\,,n-2)\,.$ Then the
443: ansatz is chosen to be \BabingtonVM
444: \eqn\ansatzone{ r(\lambda)\,,\quad \phi^a={\rm fixed}\,,\quad\tau=
445: {\rm fixed}\,,
446: }
447: where the latest condition will be relaxed afterwards.
448:
449: \medskip
450:
451: \subsec{Embedding on D2-branes}
452:
453: The possible embeddings on a D2-brane bulk geometry were sketched previously
454: and their action read
455: \eqn\embededmetddos{
456: S_{\rm Dm}= -T_{\rm Dm} \int d^{m+1}\sigma
457: \left({R_2\over \rho}\right)^{5(m-4)/4} \left(1+{U_h^5\over 4 \rho^5}
458: \right)^{(16-m)/10}\lambda^{m-2} \sqrt{1+\dot{r}^2} \sqrt{h_{\Omega_{m-2}}}
459: \,,
460: }
461: with $h_{\Omega_{m-2}} $ the determinant on a unit (m+1) dimensional sphere.
462: \smallskip
463: The classical
464: equation of motion for the transverse, $r(\lambda)\,,$ mode is
465: $$
466: {d\over d\lambda}\left[{\lambda^{m-2}\over\rho^{5(m-4)/4}}
467: \left(1+{1\over 4}
468: \left({U_h\over\rho}\right)^5\right)^{(16-m)/10}
469: {\dot{r}\over {\sqrt{1+\dot{r}^2}}}\right]=
470: -{1\over 16 \rho^2} U_h^5
471: $$
472: \eqn\eommfor{ {\lambda^{m-2}\over\rho^{5m/4}} \left(1+{1\over 4}
473: \left({U_h\over\rho}\right)^5\right)^{(6-m)/10} r\,
474: \sqrt{1+\dot{r}^2} \left(3(4+m) + 20 (m-4)\left({\rho\over
475: U_h}\right)^5\right)\,. } The BPS case is recovered by setting
476: $U_h=0\,,$ then a particular solution to \eommfor\ is $r(\lambda)=
477: {\rm constant}$ reflecting that no force acts on the Dm-brane. To
478: analyze further \eommfor\ is worth to rescale it as $\lambda\to U_h
479: \lambda \,, r \to U_h r \,, \rho\to U_h\rho\,. $ The differential
480: equation is non-linear and it was not possible to find an analytic
481: solution to \eommfor\ therefore we analyzed it asymptotically.
482: More in concrete, we search for solutions in the asymptotic region
483: with finite distance between the D2 and the Dm branes. That is
484: $\lambda\to\infty\,,~ r(\lambda)\to r_\infty\,. $ This in turn
485: implies $\dot{r}\to 0$~ and $\rho\sim\lambda\,$ which can be thought
486: as the linearisation of the equation.
487: With the above behaviour \eommfor\ becomes
488: \eqn\eommforasy{ {d\over d\lambda} \left[\lambda^{3-m/4}\,
489: \dot{r}\right]= -{1\over 16} r(\lambda) {1 \over \lambda^{m/4+4}}
490: \left( 3(4+m) + 20 (m-4) \lambda^5\right) \,. }
491: Notice that
492: $\lambda \to \infty\,$ appears as an irregular (regular)
493: singular point in the D6-brane (D4-brane)
494: embedding signaling some kind of illness in its solutions.
495: {}For the two
496: possible non-trivial embbedings one obtains
497: \eqn\eommforasyonly{
498: {\rm D4}:\quad {d\over d\lambda} \left[\lambda^2 \dot{r}\right]= -{3\over
499: 2} {r(\lambda)\over \lambda^5} \,, \qquad {\rm D6}:\quad {d\over d\lambda}
500: \left[\lambda^{3/2} \dot{r}\right]= -{5\over 2} {r(\lambda)\over
501: \lambda^{1/2}} \,, } while for the former one can find a
502: normalisable solution for the radial coordinate \eqn\soleommforasy{
503: r(\lambda) = A {1\over\sqrt{\lambda}} J_{-{1\over 5}}\left(
504: {\sqrt{6}\over 5} {1\over \lambda^{5/2}}\right) + B
505: {1\over\sqrt{\lambda}} J_{{1\over 5}}\left( {\sqrt{6}\over 5}
506: {1\over \lambda^{5/2}}\right)\,, } the latter embedding presents an
507: asymptotic oscillatory behaviour thus lacking any physical
508: interpretation. We shall focous on the D4 case in the remainder.
509:
510: The D4 embedding case reduces to,
511: for arbitrary large $\lambda$ values,
512: \eqn\approxsoleommforasy{
513: r(\lambda) = r_\infty + {c\over \lambda}\,.
514: }
515: The physical interpretation of the coefficients $r_\infty$~and $c$ is the same
516: as in the QCD$_{3+1}$ case \KruczenskiUQ\ : they are related to the quark mass
517: and the chiral condensate respectively
518: \eqn\physc{
519: m_q = {U_h\over 2\pi} r_\infty\,,\quad {\delta {\cal E}\over \delta m_q}=\langle \bar{q}q\rangle=
520: -8\pi^2 T U_h^2 c\,.
521: }
522:
523: In order to gain more intuition on the solution, we inspect the region
524: $r_\infty\gg$. This must be a small perturbation to the BPS state. Inserting
525: $r(\lambda) = r_\infty+\delta r(\lambda)$ in \eommfor\
526: leads, at leading order in $\delta r$,
527: \eqn\leadingdquatre{
528: {d\over d\lambda}\left(\lambda^2 \delta\dot{r}\right) \approx
529: -{3\over 2} r_\infty {\lambda^2\over\left(r_\infty^2+\lambda^2\right)^{7/2}
530: }\,.
531: }
532: Integrating with the boundary conditions: {\it i)} $\dot{r}\vert_{\lambda=0}=0$
533: and {\it ii)} $\delta r\vert_{\lambda\to\infty}=0$ gives the final answer
534: \eqn\finaladquatre{r(\lambda) \approx r_\infty+
535: {3r_\infty^2 + 2 \lambda^2\over 10 r_\infty^3
536: \left(r_\infty^2+\lambda^2\right)^{3/2}}\,.
537: }
538: {}From the asymptotic result we can match the coefficients of the previous
539: relation with those of \approxsoleommforasy\ getting $c(r_\infty) \sim
540: 1/(5r_\infty^3)$, i.e. the chiral condensate scales as $1/m_q^3\,,$ for large quark masses.
541: We shall comment on that behaviour latter on in connection to the field theory
542: expectations.
543: Notice that \finaladquatre\ has negative (positive)
544: derivative for increasing positive (negative)
545: values of $\lambda$, expecting then, a kind of bump or repulsion between the
546: D4 and the D2-branes near the origin.
547:
548:
549: \ifig\ejdos{In the l.h.s. panel there is plotted
550: the D4 profile in the 8-9 plane. The D2-brane is the dashed line. In the r.h.s. we plotted the scaling of the quark condensate with respect to the quark mass.
551: }{
552: \epsfxsize 2.7 in\epsfbox{fig1.eps}
553: \epsfxsize 2.7 in\epsfbox{JE.eps}}
554:
555: \smallskip
556:
557: In \ejdos\ l.h.s.
558: we depicted the profile of the D4 probe-brane in the $8-9$ transverse
559: plane. The D2-brane is located on the x-axis. In the r.h.s. we have evaluated numerically
560: the coefficients $c$ and $r_\infty$ coming from \eommfor. The numerical results
561: corroborates all the previous analytical findings.
562:
563: %\bigskip
564: %\noindent {\it 3.1.1. Spheric approximation}
565: %\medskip
566:
567: \bigskip
568:
569:
570: %\subsec{Field theory interpretation}
571:
572: We can compare without further ado the previous findings with the corresponding
573: field theory. At high energy or in processes involving heavy-quarks
574: is well known that the use of summe-rules can provide the desired
575: link between the hadron observables in terms of the fundamental degrees of freedom.
576: {}For heavy-quarks, the quark condensate behaves as $\langle \overline{q} q\rangle \sim
577: \langle FF\rangle /m_q^r$ been $r$ a c-number fixed on dimensional grounds. The dimensional counting derived from \qcddos~ leads to: $[q]=E^{1/2}$ and $[F]=E$ hence it follows that $r=1\,,$ {\sl i.e.} $\langle \overline {q} q\rangle \sim 1/m_q\,.$ The previous expressions does not match with its purported supergravity dual.
578:
579:
580: \newsec{$\overline{{\rm Dm}}$-D2-Dm system}
581:
582: %\SakaiCN
583: \lref\SakaiCN{
584: T.~Sakai and S.~Sugimoto,
585: ``Low energy hadron physics in holographic QCD,''
586: arXiv:hep-th/0412141.
587: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0412141;%%
588: }
589: It is clear that \ansatzone~ is not able to reproduce the proper quark condensate in $1+1$ consequently we shall turn now to another ansatz involving the compact direction
590: \KruczenskiUQ . In the 4 dimensional case this was throughly
591: explored in \SakaiCN.
592: The embedding for the D4, D6 and D8 (generically denoted Dm) in the bulk of
593: the D2 with $U(\theta_2)$ gives an action
594: %\eqn\embetau{ds^2_{\rm Dm} = h^{-1/2} dy_\parallel^2 + \left(
595: %h^{-1/2} f(U) + {h^{1/2}\over f(U)} \left(\partial_{\theta_2}U\right)^2
596: %\right) d\theta_2^2 + h^{1/2} U^2 d\Omega_{m-2}^2\,.
597: %}
598: %The action \dbi\ reads with \embetau\
599: \eqn\actiontau{
600: S_{\rm Dm}= -{T_{\rm Dm}\over g_{\rm YM}^2} \int d^{m+1}\sigma \left( f(U) +
601: {h\over f(U)} \left(\partial_{\theta_2}U\right)^2 \right)^{1/2} U^{m-2}
602: h^{(m-6)/4} \sqrt{h_{\Omega_{m-2}}}\,,
603: }
604: that does not depend explicitly on $\theta_2\,.$
605: This last fact allows to obtain a first integral of motion
606: %\eqn\hamil{
607: %H(U)= - {U^{m-2}f(U) h^{(m-6)/4}\over \sqrt{f(U)+{h\over f(U)}
608: %\left(\partial_{\theta_2}U\right)^2 }} \sqrt{h_{\Omega_{m-2}}}\,.
609: %}
610: \eqn\taut{
611: \theta_2(U)= \sqrt{f(U_0) U_0^{11-m/2}} \int_{U_0}^U {dU\over
612: h^{-1/2} f(U) \sqrt{f(U) U^{11-m/2} - f(U_0) U_0^{11-m/2} }}\,,
613: }
614: where $U_0\,$ is fixed by the condition $\partial_{\theta_2}U=0\,.$
615: {}From now on we choose without lost of generality $U_0=U_h\,.$
616:
617: {}For convenience we change variables.
618: In the setup \actiontau~ the $U(\theta_2)$ coordinates
619: are related to the cylindrical ones by
620: \eqn\cili{
621: U^{7-p} = U_h^{7-p} + U_h^{5-p} r^2\,,\quad
622: \theta = {2 \pi\over \delta\theta_2}\theta_2\,,
623: }
624: and these in turn with the Cartesian ones by the standard projection
625: $y=r \cos\theta\,,\quad z=r\sin\theta\,.$ In the latter set, the BPS
626: solution $U=U_h$ reads $y=0$. In the following we shall
627: perturb the metric around this BPS solution obtaining the spectra and
628: checking its stability.
629:
630: Instead of finding the quark mass dependence of the
631: quark condensate as previously we turn to the direct evaluation of the spectra.
632:
633: \subsec{Worldvolume spectra}
634:
635: One of our aim is to obtain the low-energy spectrum in the afore presented theory, similarly to \HorowitzBJ\ a discrete pattern is expected.
636: To work out the first order corrections to the
637: spectra of the worldvolume fields it suffices to expand the
638: action up to quadratic order. We shall deal with the correction to
639: the scalar/pseudoscalar and gauge fields.
640:
641:
642: \bigskip
643: \noindent {\it 4.1.2. Vector mesons}
644: \medskip
645:
646: {}For gauge fields the relevant part of the Lagrangian density can be written as
647: \eqn\gaugelag{
648: {\cal L}= -\tilde{T}_1 \alpha^{\prime 2} U^{-(14+m)/4}\left( 2 R_2^5 F_{\mu\nu}
649: F^{\mu\nu}
650: +25 {U^8\over U_h^3} F_{\mu z} F_{\nu z} \eta^{\mu\nu} \right)\,.
651: }
652: Like we look for the single states in the $S^{m-2}$
653: we have set to zero the component of the gauge in the compact space.
654: This is turn eliminates any contribution of the Chern-Simon terms.
655:
656: In order to find the spectrum we expand the field contend of \gaugelag\
657: in a complete set of eigenfunctions in the transverse coordinate $z$:
658: $A_\mu(x^\mu,z) = \sum_n B_\mu^{(n)}(x^\mu)
659: \psi_n(z)\,, A_z(x^\mu,z) = \sum_n \varphi_\mu^{(n)}(x^\mu)
660: \phi_n(z)\,.$ To normalise canonically the kinetic terms of the Yang-Mills
661: ($A_\mu$), the vectors fields ($B_\mu$) and scalar or pseudoscalar particle
662: ($\varphi$) we use the rescaled variable $Z=z/U_h\,.$
663: Defining the function $K(U)=\left(U/U_h\right)^{7-p}=1+Z^2$
664: the gauge part of the
665: action derived from \gaugelag\ is proportional to
666: \eqn\actfs{
667: S_{\rm Dm} \sim - \int dZ\, d^2x K^{-(14+m)/20} \left[
668: {1\over 4} F_{\mu \nu}^{(r)} F^{\mu \nu(s)}
669: \psi_r \psi_s +{1\over 2} K^{8/5} m_{KK}^2
670: B_\mu^{(r)} B^{\mu(s)}\partial_Z \psi_r\, \partial_Z \psi_s
671: \right]\,,
672: }
673: with the proper normalisation condition for the $\psi$~ and $\phi$~ modes.
674: %\eqn\norm{
675: %8 \tilde{T} \alpha^{\prime 2} R_2^5 U_h^{(26-m)/4}
676: %\int dZ K^{(22-m)/20} \psi_r \psi_s = \delta_{rs}\,.
677: %}
678: The Born level e.o.m. for the $\psi$ mode can be derived from \actfs\
679: \eqn\psimode{
680: -K^{(14+m)/20} \partial_Z \left( K^{(18-m)/20} \partial_Z \psi_r\right)
681: =\lambda_r \psi_r\,,
682: }
683: where we have identify the squared mass of $\psi$ with the eigenvalue
684: $\lambda\,.$
685:
686: %The normalisation of the scalar or pseudoscalar mode is fixed to
687: %\eqn\normphi{
688: %50 \tilde{T} \alpha^{\prime 2} U_h^{(46-m)/4}
689: %\int dZ K^{(54-m)/20} \phi_r \phi_s = \delta_{rs}\,.
690: %}
691: With the use of \psimode\ and the identification
692: $\phi_n \to m_{kk}^{-1}/\sqrt{\lambda_n} \partial_Z \psi_n\,\,(n\ge 1)\,,$
693: the modes with $n\ge 1$ can be gauged away by redefining $B_\mu^{(n)}\,.$
694: %\to B_\mu^{(n)}+\partial_\mu \varphi^{(n)}/(M_K\sqrt{\lambda_n})\,.$
695: This leads to the final action
696: \eqn\finalact{
697: S_{\rm Dm} = -\int d^2x \left[ {1\over 2}
698: \partial_\mu \varphi^{(0)} \partial^\mu \varphi^{(0)} +\sum_{n\ge 1}\left(
699: {1\over 4} F_{\mu\nu}^{(n)}F^{\mu\nu\,(n)}+{1\over 2} M_n^2 B_\mu^{(n)}
700: B^{\mu\,(n)}
701: \right)\right]\,.
702: }
703: The above expression indicates that the scalar/pseudoscalar and the Yang-Mills fields are massless while
704: the vector field $B$ acquires a mass $M_n^2=\lambda_n m_{KK}^2\,$
705: dictated by the eigenvalues in \psimode.
706:
707: In the remainder
708: of this section we shall determine the massive vector spectrum. {}For that purpose
709: we focous in the eigenvalues of \psimode\ . We solve \psimode\ asymptotically,
710: at $Z\gg$. This solution together with the boundary conditions at the horizon
711: gives an allowed discrete set of $\lambda_n\,.$
712:
713:
714: To search for the asymptotic form of the wave function in \psimode\ we apply the Frobenius method. The point $z\to \infty~$ is a singular regular one. {}For $m=4,6~$ we find two roots for the indicial equation. One
715: of then corresponds to a non-normalisable solution while the other leads to
716: $\psi \sim Z^{(m-8)/10}\,.$ {}For the case $ m=8 $ the roots of the indicial equation are degenerate and it does not contain normalisable wave functions.
717: In the former case the eigenfunctions can be expanded in power series
718: $\psi = \sum \alpha_k Z^{-2k/5-(8-m)/10 }\,$ with coefficients
719: following from \psimode. Once the arbitrariness in the first one
720: is removed by choosing $\alpha_0=1\,,$
721: the asymptotic behaviour of $\psi$ in \psimode\ is fixed.
722: The first coefficients
723: are: $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=\alpha_4=\alpha_7=0\,,
724: \alpha_3=25\, \lambda_n/(3 m -60)\,,
725: \alpha_5=(144-26m+m^2)/(20m-560)\,,
726: \alpha_6=625 \,\lambda_n^2/(18(640-52m+m^2))\,.$
727:
728: In addition to the asymptotic behaviour the regularity at the origin,
729: $Z=0\,,$ demands $\psi\,$ to be and even or and odd function. These
730: constraints pins down a discrete set of eigenvalues in \psimode\ corresponding
731: to the vector masses depicted in table~2.
732:
733: \bigskip
734:
735: {\vbox{\ninepoint{
736: $$
737: \vbox{\offinterlineskip\tabskip=0pt
738: \halign{\strut\vrule#
739: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
740: %&~$#$~\hfil\vrule
741: %&~$#$~\hfil\vrule
742: &~$#$~\hfil\vrule
743: &~$#$~\hfil\vrule
744: &~$#$\hfil
745: &\vrule#
746: \cr
747: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
748: \noalign{\hrule}
749: &
750: {\rm Eigenvalue}
751: &
752: m=4
753: &
754: m=6\,\,
755: &\cr
756: \noalign{\hrule}
757: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
758: &
759: \quad\quad\,\,\lambda_1
760: &
761: 0.309
762: &
763: 0.149
764: &\cr
765: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
766: &
767: \quad\quad\,\,\lambda_2
768: &
769: 1.591
770: &
771: 1.290
772: &\cr
773: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
774: &
775: \quad\quad\,\,\lambda_3
776: &
777: 3.811
778: &
779: 3.349
780: &\cr
781: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
782: &
783: \quad\quad\,\,\lambda_4
784: &
785: 6.983
786: &
787: 6.361
788: &\cr
789: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
790: \noalign{\hrule}}
791: \hrule}$$
792: \vskip-10pt
793: \noindent{\bf Table 2:}
794: {\sl
795: The vector, axial-vector
796: spectrum for different dimensional embbedings as obtained by
797: \psimode\ .
798: }
799: \vskip10pt}}}
800:
801:
802: Notice that in increasing the number of transverse directions the mass of the vector, axial-vector decreases in accordance with the absorption probabilities for emission on the brane.
803:
804: %\MinahanTM
805: \lref\MinahanTM{
806: J.~A.~Minahan,
807: ``Glueball mass spectra and other issues for supergravity duals of {QCD}
808: models,''
809: JHEP {\bf 9901}, 020 (1999)
810: [arXiv:hep-th/9811156].
811: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9811156;%%
812: }
813:
814: \ifig\ejdos{vector and axial-vector squared masses as a function of the state. To guide the eye we have link the states with lines. Even if in appearance seems to appears a linear behaviour this is no the case.
815: }{
816: \epsfxsize 2.7 in\epsfbox{statesv.eps}}
817:
818: \smallskip
819: The squared masses of the vectors and vector-axial fields are represented in \ejdos. {}For both a quadratic expressions in terms of the principal quantum number, $a+b n + c n^2\,$ holds.
820:
821:
822:
823: \bigskip
824: \noindent {\it 4.1.1. Massive scalar mesons}
825: \medskip
826:
827: We are now in a position to obtain in a similar manner the massive scalar
828: spectrum. {}For that purpose we excite the scalar sector with the ansatz $y(x^\mu,z)\,.$ Notice that contrary to the assignment in \KruczenskiUQ\ $y$ does not depend on the $S^{m-2}$ coordinates.
829:
830:
831: %By choosing the ansatz $y(x^\mu,z)$ for the scalar field,
832: %the induced metric on the Dm-brane reads
833: %$$
834: %ds^2= \left( h^{-1/2} \eta_{\mu\nu} + {4\over 25} h^{1/2} \partial_\mu y
835: %\partial_\nu y \right) dx^\mu dx^\nu
836: %+{8\over 25} h^{1/2} \left( \partial_z y - g(r) z y \right)
837: %\partial_\mu y\, dx^\mu dz
838: %$$
839: %\eqn\ind{
840: %+ {4\over 25} h^{1/2} \left( 1 - g(r) z( z +2 y \partial_z y)
841: %+ (\partial_z y)^2\right) dz^2 + h^{1/2} U^2 d\Omega_{m-2}^2\,,
842: %}
843: %with $g(r) = 1/r^2 (1-(U_h/U)^{5-p})\,.$
844:
845: %Defining the function $K(U)=\left(U/U_h\right)^{7-p}=1+Z^2$
846: In terms of the function $K\,$ the induced Dm action takes the form
847: \eqn\scalaraction{S_{\rm Dm}= - \tilde{T}
848: %{4\over 25} \tilde{T} {R^5\over U_h^{(10+m)/4}}
849: \int dZ d^2x \left(
850: {1\over 2}K^{-(14+m)/20} \partial_\mu y\, \partial^\mu y+
851: {1\over 2} m_{KK}^2 K^{(18-m)/20} \partial_Z y\, \partial_Z y
852: +{3\over 5} m_{KK}^2 y^2
853: \right)\,,
854: }
855: %($\tilde{T}$ is a rescaled tension)
856: whose corresponding energy density is positive,
857: ensuring the brane stability under small perturbations.
858: To obtain a two-dimensional field theory description, we
859: expand the scalar field in a complete set of eigenfunctions in the
860: transverse direction:
861: $y(x^\mu,z)=\sum_n {\cal U}^{(n)}(x^\mu) \rho_n(z)\,.$
862: This allows to fix the equation of motion (e.o.m.) at tree level for the $\rho$ mode
863: \eqn\scamode{
864: -K^{(14+m)/20} \left[\partial_Z \left( K^{(18-m)/20} \partial_Z \rho_n \right) -\delta \rho_n\right]= \lambda_n \rho_n\,,\quad \delta={6\over 5}.
865: }
866: Notice that the previous expression is identical to \psimode\ with the only
867: exception of the second term in the squared brackets. Thus {\sl naively
868: taking the limit $\delta \to 0\,$ we shall recover the vector spectrum.}
869:
870: All these ingredients together with the requirement of a canonical normalisation of the kinetic term
871: %With this,
872: %the normalisation of the kinetic term imposes the condition
873: %\eqn\norsca{
874: %- {4\over 25} \tilde{T} {R^5\over U_h^{(10+m)/4}}
875: %\int dZ
876: %K^{-(14+m)/20} \rho_r \rho_s =\delta_{rs}\,,
877: %}
878: fixes the lagragian density
879: \eqn\scac{
880: {\cal L}= -{1\over 2} \sum_n \left( \partial_\mu {\cal U}^{(n)}
881: \partial^\mu {\cal U}^{(n)} + M_n^2 {\cal U}^{(n)}{\cal U}^{(n)} \right)\,,\quad M_n^2 =m_{KK}^2 \lambda_n\,.
882: }
883:
884: In order to analise the asymptotic behaviour for the different embbedings
885: it is convenient to perform the change of variables $Z\to \omega^{-1/a}\,,$
886: with $a$ been an arbitrary positive
887: c-number fixed only by the requirement of canceling
888: possible poles at $\omega\to 0\,.$ Then \scamode\ becomes
889: \eqn\diffdos{
890: \partial_\omega^2 \rho(\omega) + p(\omega) \partial_\omega \rho(\omega)
891: +q(\omega)\rho(\omega)=0\,,
892: }
893: with
894: \eqn\changesca{
895: \lim_{\omega\to 0} p(\omega) \to {(m+10a -8) \over 10\, a \,\omega}
896: \,,\quad
897: \lim_{\omega\to 0}q(\omega)\to-{1\over a^2} \left(\delta\, \omega^{-(20+(2+m)/a)/10}-\lambda
898: \omega^{-2+6/(5a) }\right)\,,
899: }
900: where we have only displayed the divergent terms.
901: Notice that $\lim_{\omega \to 0} \omega\, p(\omega) \to 0$ while
902: $\lim_{\omega \to 0} \omega^2\, q(\omega) $ depends on the actual value of
903: $a\,.$ We can choose
904: the coefficient $a$ to cancel either the first or the second pole in
905: $q(\omega)$ but not both simultaneously. In the vector case $a$ was
906: precisely chosen to make the $\lambda$ term in $q(\omega)$ analytic. Now
907: is not possible, provided $\delta \neq 0\,.$ The conclusions are far obvious:
908: the massive scalar wave function has not power series representation in the
909: asymptotic region and hence it should be a non-analytic function.
910: This implies that the solution of \scamode~ does not go smoothly to
911: the one obtained in \psimode~ as $\delta \to 0\,.$
912: To assess the correctness of this assertion we assume $\delta$~ to be a
913: free, small parameter and perform perturbation theory around the vector
914: solution \psimode. If correct the previous findings,
915: we expect to obtain the failure on the perturbation
916: theory assumptions at some point. We write \diffdos~ as a Schr\"odinger like
917: equation at zero energy with the potentials
918: \eqn\pot{
919: V(x) + \delta\,v_{\rm pert}(x) = {(m-18)\left((2+m)x^2-20\right)\over 400
920: (1+x^2)^2}
921: -{\lambda \over (1+x^2)^{8/5}} + \delta (1+x^2)^{(m-18)/20}\,.
922: }
923: The correction to the ground state energy ($E=E_0+\delta\,E_1$)~ reads
924: \eqn\en{
925: E_1= {\int_0^\infty dx \psi^2_0 (1+x^2)^{(m-18)/10}\over
926: \int_0^\infty dx \psi^2_0}\,,
927: }
928: where $\psi_0$~ stands for the ground state ({\sl i.e.} $\lambda_1$) wave function in
929: \psimode.
930:
931: The failure of perturbation theory can be traced back in the correction to the
932: wave function ($\rho = \psi_0 + \delta\, \psi_1$)
933: \eqn\wfpt{
934: \psi_1(x) = \psi_0(x) \int_0^x dz {1\over (1+z^2)^{(m-18)/20} \psi_0(z)^2}
935: \int_0^z dt \psi_0(t)^2 (1+t^2)^{(m-18)/10}\,.
936: }
937: The behaviour of $\psi_1$~ is unbounded at large distance, contrary to
938: that of $\psi_0\,.$ This contradict the assumption, $\lim_{x\to\infty} \psi_1
939: \to 0$ where \en,\wfpt~ are built in.
940: In conclusion the solution of \scamode~
941: is not an analytic function of $\delta$ at the boundary.
942: %This does not prevent it to have physical meaning, so far: it can well be that
943: %$\rho$~ is a complex function with a cut along the real axis.
944:
945:
946: %\CsakiQR
947: \lref\bender{
948: C.~M.~ Bender, S.~A.~ Orszag,
949: ``Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers,''
950: Springer Verlag (1991)
951: }
952:
953:
954: %\SternDY
955: \lref\SternDY{
956: J.~Stern,
957: ``Two alternatives of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in {QCD},''
958: arXiv:hep-ph/9801282.
959: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801282;%%
960: }
961:
962:
963: To elaborate more on the physical relevance of the solution to \scamode~
964: we apply the matching procedure \bender. {}For large, but finite, values
965: of $\lambda$~ the solutions to \scamode~ are not normalisable and hence
966: the model does not contain nor scalars neither pseudoscalar massive particles.
967: The fact that pseudoscalars particles are massless is not
968: in conflict with been in a chiral symmetry broken phase \SternDY:
969: the only necessary and sufficient criterion of
970: spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking (SB$\chi$S)
971: is a non-zero value of the left-right
972: correlation function $i \lim_{m\to 0} \int\,d^4x \langle
973: \Omega\vert T L_\mu^i(x)R_\nu^j(0)\vert\Omega\rangle =
974: -{1\over 4} \eta_{\mu\nu} \delta^{ij} F_0^2\,$ been $L_\mu$~ and $R_\mu$~ the
975: Noether currents generating the left and right chiral rotations respectively
976: and $F_0\,,$ an order parameter,
977: given by $\langle 0\vert A_\mu^i\vert\pi^j \vec{p}\rangle
978: = \delta^{ij} F_0 p_\mu\,.$
979: There are certainly many other order parameters, such as local quark
980: condensates
981: $\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\,,\langle\bar{q}\sigma_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} q\rangle
982: \ldots\,.$ A non-zero value of each of them by itself implies SB$\chi$S,
983: but the converse is not true {\sl i.e.} SB$\chi$S can take place ($F_0\ne 0$)
984: even if some of those condensate vanishes. In particular there is no
985: available proof that $\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\ne 0$ is a necessary consequence of
986: SB$\chi$S.
987:
988: \lref\NarayananGH{
989: R.~Narayanan and H.~Neuberger,
990: ``The quark mass dependence of the pion mass at infinite N,''
991: arXiv:hep-lat/0503033.
992: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0503033;%%
993: }
994:
995: \bigskip
996:
997: In conclusion the spectrum of this second type of embedding reduces
998: to massless pseudoscalars and massive vectors and axials.
999: To wit its reliability we compare
1000: with the original 't Hooft model. There the full 2PI Green function amounts to
1001: \eqn\thooft{
1002: M_n^2 \varphi_n(x)=\left( {m_q^2-\beta^2 \over x} +
1003: {m_{\bar{q}}^2-\beta^2 \over 1-x}\right) \varphi_n(x)-\beta^2
1004: \int_0^1 dy\, \varphi_n(y) {\rm P} \left[{1\over(y-x)^2}\right]\,,
1005: }
1006: with $x\in[0,1]$ the momentum fraction carried by the quark in the light-cone
1007: coordinates and $\beta^2 = g_{\rm strong}^2/(2 \pi) (N_c-1/N_c)\,.$
1008: Furthermore $\beta$ plays the analogous role in $(1+1)d$
1009: of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\,$ in $(3+1)d\,$ \GrinsteinXK .
1010: The spectrum of \thooft\ contains a single increasing
1011: Regge trajectory
1012: $
1013: M_\pi^2 \sim \beta^2 n\,, (n=1,2,\ldots)\,,
1014: $
1015: which is consistently found in the weak coupling regime, $
1016: m_q\gg g_{\rm strong}\sim {1\over\sqrt{N_c}}\,$ \ZhitnitskyUM\ and agrees
1017: with lattice calculations \NarayananGH.
1018: Then the lack of massive pseudoscalars in these
1019: type of embedding discards any possibility of these been
1020: a realistic duals to the $1+1$ 't Hooft model.
1021:
1022:
1023:
1024:
1025:
1026: \newsec{Supergravity glueballs}
1027:
1028: %\CsakiQR
1029: \lref\CsakiQR{
1030: C.~Csaki, H.~Ooguri, Y.~Oz and J.~Terning,
1031: ``Glueball mass spectrum from supergravity,''
1032: JHEP {\bf 9901}, 017 (1999)
1033: [arXiv:hep-th/9806021].
1034: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9806021;%%
1035: }
1036:
1037: %\PonsDK
1038: \lref\PonsDK{
1039: J.~M.~Pons, J.~G.~Russo and P.~Talavera,
1040: ``Semiclassical string spectrum in a string model dual to large N QCD,''
1041: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 700}, 71 (2004)
1042: [arXiv:hep-th/0406266].
1043: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0406266;%%
1044: }
1045:
1046:
1047: %\PeardonJR
1048: \lref\PeardonJR{
1049: M.~J.~Peardon,
1050: ``Coarse lattice results for glueballs and hybrids,''
1051: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 63}, 22 (1998)
1052: [arXiv:hep-lat/9710029].
1053: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9710029;%%
1054: }
1055:
1056: %\DashenCK
1057: \lref\DashenCK{
1058: R.~F.~Dashen, B.~Hasslacher and A.~Neveu,
1059: ``Nonperturbative Methods And Extended Hadron Models In Field Theory. 3.
1060: Four-Dimensional Nonabelian Models,''
1061: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 10}, 4138 (1974).
1062: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D10,4138;%%
1063: }
1064:
1065: %\AntonuccioRB
1066: \lref\AntonuccioRB{
1067: F.~Antonuccio and S.~Dalley,
1068: ``Glueballs from (1+1)-dimensional gauge theories with transverse degrees of
1069: freedom,''
1070: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 461}, 275 (1996)
1071: [arXiv:hep-ph/9506456].
1072: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506456;%%
1073: }
1074:
1075: %\BartnikAM
1076: \lref\BartnikAM{
1077: R.~Bartnik and J.~Mckinnon,
1078: ``Particle - Like Solutions Of The Einstein Yang-Mills Equations,''
1079: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 61}, 141 (1988).
1080: %%CITATION = PRLTA,61,141;%%
1081: }
1082:
1083: %\TseytlinCS
1084: \lref\TseytlinCS{
1085: A.~A.~Tseytlin,
1086: ``On non-abelian generalisation of the Born-Infeld action in string
1087: theory,''
1088: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 501}, 41 (1997)
1089: [arXiv:hep-th/9701125].
1090: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9701125;%%
1091: }
1092:
1093: %\Gal'tsovVN
1094: \lref\GaltsovVN{
1095: D.~Gal'tsov and R.~Kerner,
1096: ``Classical glueballs in non-Abelian Born-Infeld theory,''
1097: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 5955 (2000)
1098: [arXiv:hep-th/9910171].
1099: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9910171;%%
1100: }
1101:
1102: It was known long ago that classical Yang-Mills theory does not posses
1103: in $d=2,4$ finite energy non-singular time-independent solutions \refs{\DeserWQ, \PagelsCK}.
1104: It was also proven that neither periodic in time solutions can exist
1105: \ColemanHD. It is then remarkable that in the AdS/CFT correspondence
1106: a {\sl classical} background metric can account for these quantum objects at $d=3,4$ \CsakiQR.
1107:
1108: \smallskip
1109:
1110: In $1+1$ the situation is as follows: in 1-dimensional space there is no possibility of having transverse gluons. The role of these transverse gluons in the glueball formation is to fix some scale that breaks the conformal invariance of the pure Yang-Mills theory. In the absence of this scale glueballs can not exist. It is not shocking then that models with adjoint fermions \AntonuccioRB, higgs fields \DashenCK\ or gravity \BartnikAM\ in $1+1$-dimensions contains glueballs, provided these fields couple to gluons and gives the desired scale. The same role can be played by the use of a formalism incorporating some modification of the standard Yang-Mills density lagrangian that explicitly breaks scale invariance. This is the case of the DBI action \TseytlinCS. This was the precise case in the field theory side \GaltsovVN.
1111: We shall check whether the model \metricnonex\
1112: reflects this peculiarity.
1113:
1114: Following \WittenZW\ we assume that the dilaton field couples to the
1115: ${\rm Tr} F^2$ operator. In Einstein
1116: frame the e.o.m. for the scalar fluctuations are obtained via
1117: $
1118: \partial_\mu\left(\sqrt{g} g^{\mu \nu}\partial_\nu\tilde{\phi}
1119: \right)=0\,.
1120: $
1121: In order to solve the previous expression
1122: and calculate the mass spectrum we follow an
1123: analogue procedure to the higher dimensional case \CsakiQR\ and choose a
1124: plane wave ansatz along the $\Re^{(1,1)}$ directions,
1125: $\tilde{\phi} = e^{i k\cdot x} \chi(U)\,.$ Using \metricnonex\ the e.o.m.
1126: for the $d=2$~ massless dilaton boils down to
1127: \eqn\kk{
1128: %2 U (U^5-U_h^5) \chi''(U) + (7 U^5 + 3 U_h^5) \chi'(U) + 2 M^2 R^5
1129: %U \chi(U) =0\,,
1130: \partial_U\left(U^{-3/2}(U^5-U_h^5)\chi'(U)\right) + U^{-3/2} M^2 R^5 \chi(U)=0\,,\quad M^2 =-( k_1^2 - k_2^2)\,.}
1131: %Generically denoted as $\partial_U\left(f(U)\partial_U\chi\right) +g(U)\chi=0\,.$
1132: The asymptotic solution
1133: depicts a normalisable term $\chi(U) \sim U^{-5/4} J_{5/6}( U^{-3/2})
1134: \sim U^{-5/2}$.
1135: %\eqn\solkk{
1136: %\chi(U)= A {M^{5/6}\over U^{5/4}} J_{-5/6}({2\over 3U^{3/2}} MR^{5/2})
1137: %+ B {M^{5/6}\over U^{5/4}} J_{5/6}({2\over 3U^{3/2}} M R^{5/2})\,,
1138: %}
1139: {}For large values of $U$ \kk\ can be solved by a series solution with negative power
1140: $\chi= \sum _{n=0}^\infty a_n U^{-(n+5/2)}U_h^{-n}\,.$ The first few non-vanishing coefficients are given by: $a_3=-2M^2R^5/(33 U_h^3)\,, a_5=1/3\,,a_6=2M^4R^{10}/(1683U_h^6)\,,$ where the arbitrary normalisation is fixed by the choice $a_0=1\,.$
1141:
1142: The geometry must be regular at the horizon, thus we demand $\psi(U_h)$ to be regular. This fixes the possible
1143: values of $M\,.$ We have scanned a wide range of possible values of $M$ and found no solution satisfying the proper boundary conditions.
1144: In order to clarify the result we turn to a semi-classical evaluation of the spectra.
1145:
1146:
1147: %\subsec{Semi-classical WKB approximation}
1148:
1149:
1150: {\sl Semi-classical WKB approximation}:
1151: A possible way to tackle \kk\ is to focous in highly excited states.
1152: There the depth of the potential is
1153: sufficient large for a semi-classical approximation be justified.
1154: Following \MinahanTM\ we perform first a functional change
1155: %$\psi=\left(f(U)\right)^{1/2} \chi$
1156: after which the potential can be written as a Schr\"odinger type
1157: equation at zero energy. %$\partial_U^2 \psi(U) - \tilde{V}(U) \psi(U)=0\,.$
1158: Second we change
1159: variable to $U= F(\omega)$.
1160: The latter step forces to choose a new multiplicative factor to bring once more the remaining expression to a Schr\"odinger type one.
1161: %In terms of the former one the new potential reads, $
1162: %V(\omega)=\tilde{V}(F(\omega)) (\partial_UF)^2-Q_F(\omega)/2\,,$ being $Q_F$ the Schwarzian derivative of %$F$.
1163: All in all, applying the generic change of variables $\omega=\log(U^{7-p}-U_h^{7-p})\,$ the new potential reads (for $p=2$)
1164: \eqn\kksc{
1165: V(\omega)= {e^{\omega} (4 U_h^5+e^{\omega}) \over 16 (U_h^5+e^{\omega})^2}
1166: -{M^2 R^5\over 25} {e^{\omega}\over (U_h^5+e^{\omega})^{8/5}}
1167: \,,
1168: }
1169: \ifig\potkk{The potential \kksc\ . Dashed lines correspond to $d=4,3$ (short
1170: and long dashed respectively) while full line corresponds to $d=2\,.$
1171: We have applied to each case the change of variables
1172: $\omega=\log(U^{7-p}-U_h^{7-p})\,.$
1173: }{
1174: \epsfxsize 3 in\epsfbox{fig3.eps}
1175: }
1176: that is depicted as the full line in \potkk\ in comparison with the corresponding potentials at $d=4,3\,.$ As one can see increasing the number of transverse coordinates the depth of the well is reduced. The question is whether for $d=2$ still there is room to support at least the lowest state.
1177:
1178: The potential in \kksc\ takes the following asymptotic forms
1179: \eqn\potshort{
1180: V(\omega \ll) = \left({1\over 4 U_h^5} -{M^2 R^5 \over 25 U_h^8}\right) e^{\omega} +
1181: \left(-{7\over 16 U_h^{10}} +{8 M^2 R^5\over 125 U_h^{13}}\right) e^{2\omega}
1182: +\cdots\,.
1183: }
1184: \eqn\potlong{
1185: V(\omega \gg) = {1\over 16} - {M^2 R^5\over 25} e^{-3 \omega/5} +
1186: { U_h^{5}\over 8} e^{-\omega}
1187: +\cdots\,.
1188: }
1189:
1190: Hence the classical turning point at large $\omega$ is approximately
1191: \eqn\yplus{
1192: \omega_+ \approx {5\over 3}\log\left({16 M^2R^5\over 25}\right)\,,
1193: }
1194: while the inner turning point is located at $\omega_-\to -\infty\,.$
1195: In terms of the original variable $U$ reads
1196: $
1197: \omega_-=R\,.
1198: $
1199:
1200: Then expanding at leading order in ${1\over M^2 R^5}$ the Borh-Sommerfeld expression leads to
1201: \eqn\wkb{
1202: \left(n-{1\over 2}\right)\pi \approx {1\over 5} M R^{5/2} \int_{-\infty}^{\omega_+} d\omega \,{e^{\omega/2}\over e^\omega+U_h^5 } +{\cal O}\left({1\over M^2 R^5}\right)\,.
1203: }
1204: A few remarks are in order: we discard the procedure in \MinahanTM\ that
1205: sets $\omega_+\to \infty\,,$ and subtract the corresponding piece as a perturbation because \wkb\ becomes divergent. This is why we should bear in mind that the upper integration limit depends on the expansion parameter.
1206: The integration can be done analytically in terms of hypergeometric functions, but its results is not very illuminating. After this we are lead with and equality that for a given $n$ can not be saturated for a any value of $M^2\,.$
1207:
1208: \medskip
1209:
1210: Hence even if apparently the potential in \potkk\ has a minimum, it is not sufficient deep to hold
1211: even the ground state. We think that this does not enter in contradiction with the results of \GaltsovVN. First of all because in deriving \kk\ one never makes use of the DBI action and secondly because the duality must give pure YM theory and not gluons coupled to gravity, hence the gravitons can not play the role of breaking any scale.
1212: Although this line of reasoning, is striking that the role of the parameter $U_h$ or the coupling of the dilaton to the Liouville field in the gravity side does not provide the desired breaking, probably this is an indication that classical glueballs are protected in two dimensions also in the supergravity side.
1213:
1214:
1215: \newsec{Breathing modes: pulsating string on $\Re^+\times \Re^+$}
1216:
1217: In the following we shall inspect, for the general setup \metricnonex, a point-like string configuration that corresponds to a particle
1218: moving on the meridian of a 2-dimensional ``cigar'' shape surface, $U(\tau)\,, t(\tau)$ with the rest of coordinates constant. In $3+1$ dimensions is was shown that this configuration was directly linked with the glueball spectra at leading order \PonsDK. In our setup glueballs do not exist, but as we shall see a pulsating configuration still exits.
1219: In the conformal gauge
1220: the solutions to the e.o.m. and the Virasoro constraints
1221: describe null geodesics of \metricnonex\
1222: with solutions dictated by
1223: \eqn\t{
1224: \dot{t}={c\over 2}\left({R_2\over U}\right)^{(7-p)/2}\,, \quad
1225: \dot{u}= \pm {c\over 2}\sqrt{f(U)}\,.
1226: }
1227: This corresponds to an harmonic oscillation with target space period
1228: \eqn\temps{
1229: \Delta T= 2 \int_{U_h}^\infty dU \left({R_p\over U}\right)^{(7-p)/2}
1230: {1\over \sqrt{f(U)}}\,,
1231: }
1232: and angular frequency $\omega_0 = 2\pi/\Delta T\,.$
1233:
1234: To determine the spectrum we work, for convenience, with the Nambu-Goto
1235: action considering a general setting $U(\tau)\,,t(\tau)\,, \theta_2=m\sigma\,.$
1236: With this ansatz the lagrangian density for \metricnonex\ reduces to
1237: $
1238: {\cal L}= - m \left(h^{-1} f(U) - \partial_\tau{U}^2\right)^{1/2}\,,
1239: $
1240: that with the change of variables
1241: $${d\zeta\over dU}= {R^{(7-p)/2}\over \sqrt{U^{7-p}-U_h^{7-p}}}$$
1242: becomes
1243: $ {\cal L}= - m \sqrt{h^{-1} f(\zeta)} \left(1- \partial_\tau{\zeta}^2\right)\,.
1244: $
1245: Its associated hamiltonian defines a one dimensional system with potential
1246: $V=m^2 h^{-1/2} f(\zeta)/2\,.$ The semi-classical energy levels are given
1247: by
1248: $$
1249: \left(2n +{1\over 2}\right) \approx
1250: \int d\zeta \sqrt{ E_n^2 - m^2 h^{-1/2} f(\zeta) }
1251: $$
1252: \eqn\levels{
1253: =
1254: 2 \int_{U_h}^{U_1(m)}
1255: \left({R \over U}\right)^{(7-p)/2}
1256: \sqrt{ E_n^2 f(U)^{-1} - m^2 \left({U\over R}\right)^{(7-p)/2} }\,,
1257: }
1258: where the upper turning point,
1259: $U_1(m)^{7-p} = (E^2/m^2) R^{(7-p)/2}-U_h^{7-p}\,,$
1260: diverges in the massless limit. In this case and for large
1261: energy states \levels\ reduces to
1262: $
1263: E_n
1264: %\approx \omega_0 \left(n+{1\over 4}\right)
1265: \approx n \omega_0
1266: $
1267: that for $p=2$~ gives
1268: \eqn\en{
1269: E_n\approx - \sqrt{\pi } n \left({U_h^3\over R^5}\right)^{1/2} {
1270: \Gamma(-1/5) \over \Gamma(3/10)}
1271: \,.
1272: }
1273: Despite its appearance is positive defined.
1274:
1275: %{}For two dimensions reduces to
1276: %$\Delta T=
1277: %-2 \sqrt{\pi }{R^{5/2}\over U_h^{3/2}}{\Gamma(3/10)\over
1278: %\Gamma(-1/5)}\,.
1279:
1280:
1281: %\GreensiteBE
1282: \lref\GreensiteBE{
1283: J.~Greensite and M.~B.~Halpern,
1284: ``Suppression Of Color Screening At Large N,''
1285: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 27}, 2545 (1983).
1286: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D27,2545;%%
1287: }
1288:
1289: %\GrossBP
1290: \lref\GrossBP{
1291: D.~J.~Gross, I.~R.~Klebanov, A.~V.~Matytsin and A.~V.~Smilga,
1292: ``Screening vs. Confinement in 1+1 Dimensions,''
1293: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 461}, 109 (1996)
1294: [arXiv:hep-th/9511104].
1295: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9511104;%%
1296: }
1297:
1298: %\ItzhakiDD
1299: \lref\ItzhakiDD{
1300: N.~Itzhaki, J.~M.~Maldacena, J.~Sonnenschein and S.~Yankielowicz,
1301: ``Supergravity and the large N limit of theories with sixteen
1302: supercharges,''
1303: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 046004 (1998)
1304: [arXiv:hep-th/9802042].
1305: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802042;%%
1306: }
1307: \newsec{Quark-antiquark potential}
1308:
1309: The Wilson loop is in YM the order parameter signalling confinement.
1310: In the case of adding matter it still can be used for this purpose.
1311: The case of YM theory coupled to adjoint matter was extensively studied in
1312: \BrandhuberER. For the case at hand, addition of fundamental matter
1313: supported on probe-branes, the expressions for the energy and quark-antiquark
1314: separation are identical to those depicted in \BrandhuberER\ with the only
1315: exception that an upper cutoff (given by the brane position in the transverse
1316: space) appears in the integration \ParedesIS. For finite transverse distance we have
1317: \eqn\en{
1318: E_{\rm unsub} = {U_0\over \pi} \int_1^{U_{\rm Dm}/U_0}\,dy\,{y^{7-p}\over
1319: \sqrt{\left(y^{7-p}-1\right)\left(y^{7-p}-\lambda\right)}}\,,
1320: }
1321: \eqn\long{
1322: L= 2 {R_p^{(7-p)/2}\over U_0^{(5-p)/2}} \int_1^{U_{\rm Dm}/U_0}\,dy\,{1\over
1323: \sqrt{\left(y^{7-p}-1\right)\left(y^{7-p}-\lambda\right)}}\,,
1324: }
1325: with $\lambda = (U_h/U_0)^{7-p}\,.$ In the case of dealing with probe branes at infinity one has to subtract the bare quark mass in order to obtain a finite result
1326: \eqn\ensu{
1327: E_{\rm sub} = E_{\rm unsub}- {U_0\over \pi} \int_1^{U_{\rm Dm}/U_0}\,dy\,\sqrt{ {y^{7-p}\over
1328: y^{7-p}-\lambda }}\,.
1329: }
1330:
1331:
1332: We turn first to the asymptotic values.
1333: The long and short string limits can be attained when the turning point
1334: approaches
1335: the horizon, $\lambda\to 1^+$ and $U_0\to U_{\rm Dm}^-$ respectively. At leading order
1336: \eqn\long{
1337: E_{\rm long}
1338: \approx {1\over 2\pi} \left({U_h\over R_p}\right)^{(7-p)/2} L +\ldots\,,
1339: \quad
1340: E_{\rm short}
1341: \approx {1\over 2\pi}\left({U_{{\rm Dm}}\over R_p}\right)^{(7-p)/2} L + \ldots\,.
1342: }
1343: Thus there is an universal linear behaviour at both energy ends. We {\sl stress} that, is suggestive, the interpretation of this phenomena at high-energy as a color screening effect: while in pure YM at large-N$_c$~ deconfinement by color screening is suppressed, \GreensiteBE, one can argue that is the addition of fundamental matter the responsible of this shape \GrossBP.
1344: To substantiate furthermore this claim we
1345: increasing the distance between the probe brane with the original stack. Then
1346: this linear behaviour disappears recovering the usual coulomb potential\footnote{$\dag$}{One needs to subtract then the corresponding bare quantities.}.
1347: Eventhough we must bear in mind that we have only deal with the bosonic sector and the fermionic corrections are unavoidable for a correct treatment.
1348: Notice also that both expressions in \long\
1349: are afflicted with some drawbacks: increasing indiscriminately the energy we probe the compact dimension in $S^1$, while in the other extreme one can neither trust all the way to the infrared limit.
1350: In decreasing the energy at the point where $U\sim g_{\rm YM}^2$ the system description is in terms of $M2$ branes \ItzhakiDD.
1351:
1352: \medskip\
1353:
1354: %\BrandhuberJR
1355: \lref\BrandhuberJR{
1356: A.~Brandhuber and K.~Sfetsos,
1357: ``Wilson loops from multicentre and rotating branes, mass gaps and phase
1358: structure in gauge theories,''
1359: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 3}, 851 (1999)
1360: [arXiv:hep-th/9906201].
1361: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906201;%%
1362: }
1363:
1364:
1365: %\BachasXS
1366: \lref\BachasXS{
1367: C.~Bachas,
1368: ``Convexity Of The Quarkonium Potential,''
1369: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 33}, 2723 (1986).
1370: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D33,2723;%%
1371: }
1372:
1373: As second and concluding remark it is instructive to look at the concavity conditions of the inter-quark
1374: potential \BachasXS\
1375: \eqn\concavity{
1376: {dE_{\bar{q}q}\over dL} >0\,,\quad {d^2E_{\bar{q}q}\over dL^2} \le0\,.
1377: }
1378: These have already been study in several systems \BrandhuberJR. Contrary to the systems studied
1379: in the above reference our E vs. L relations show a smooth behaviour.
1380: As one can verify
1381: $\partial_{U_0} L$ is a monotonic decreasing function of $U_0$ with
1382: zeros lying outside the physical region.
1383: %While $\partial_{U_0} E$ displays vanishing values inside the region of interest.
1384:
1385: \ifig\enluo{Energy as a function of the string
1386: turning point $U_0\,$ as \en\ and \ensu. Short (long) dashed curve corresponds to $p=4,(3)\,,$
1387: while the full curve to $p=2$
1388: We have set $R=U_h=1\,$ for illustrative purposes.
1389: }{
1390: \epsfxsize 2.7 in\epsfbox{fig4.eps}
1391: \epsfxsize 2.7 in\epsfbox{fig5.eps}}
1392:
1393: In \enluo\ we depict the energy versus the string turning point using a subtracted and unsubtracted relation. Notice that the expression \ensu\ has an intermediate maximum while \en\ only takes its maximum in one of the edges. Like the difference between the two procedures is just a renormalisation scheme choice both must be equivalent, hence we conclude that with the addition of fundamental matter the shape of the subtracted energy can not be interpreted as a phase transition phenomena.
1394: These values of the energy must be compared with the ones needed for the opening of the compact dimensions, corresponding roughly to energies of the order of the
1395: the Kaluza-Klein masses \kkmas\ $m_{KK}= 1.5,2,2.5$ for $p=4,3,2$ respectively. While in \en\ these suppose a constraint for the allowed region in $U_0\,,$ only short strings are allowed, seems that \ensu\ includes also the long string case.
1396:
1397: The expression of the energy as a function of the inter-quark separation for \en\ can be easily worked out
1398: \eqn\ders{
1399: {dE_{\rm unsub}\over dL} = {\lambda\over 2\pi} U_0^{(7-p)/2} + \left({E_{\rm unsub} \over U_0}
1400: -{\lambda\over 2\pi} {U_0^{(5-p)/2}\over R_p^{(7-p)/2}} L \right) {1\over
1401: \partial_{U_0} L}\,.
1402: }
1403:
1404:
1405: %\newsec{Wilson correlators}
1406:
1407: %\newsec{Baryons}
1408:
1409:
1410: %The volume term defines a integration constant
1411: %\eqn\volume{
1412: %{h^{-1}\over \sqrt{{(\partial_\sigma U)^2\over f(U)}+h^{-1}}}\,.
1413: %}
1414:
1415: \newsec{Summary}
1416:
1417: We have inspected the matter content of a 1+1 dimensional field theory with the hope of finding some resemblance with QCD$_{1+1}\,$ that we know to be fully solvable in the strong coupling regime. From the two possible general supergravity
1418: ansatz we have studied the first one does not lead to the correct
1419: relation between the quark condensate and the quark mass dependence. While for
1420: the second type of embedding the
1421: spectrum reduces to massless pseudoscalars and massive vectors and axials.
1422:
1423: Even if at first sight none of the trials to embed matter in the fundamental
1424: representation seems successful,
1425: the model contains several interesting properties as confinement and chiral
1426: symmetry breaking. Probably the lesson to learn is that the
1427: most sensible way to obtain a reliable model of QCD$_{1+1}$ is not to
1428: directly compactify on an $S^6$ but compactify QCD$_{3+1}$ or
1429: QCD$_{2+1}$ on an $S^2 $ or on an $S^2 $ respectively. This
1430: would lead hopefully to the proper relation between the quark condensate
1431: and quark mass in the first type of embeddings discussed.
1432:
1433: Together with this, we have looked for classical realisation of glueball in the D2-brane. Notice that this scalar sector is not the same as the one obtained in sec. 4.1.1. The former corresponds to the Kaluza-Klein singlets states over the initial $S^6\,,$ while the latter is obtained by exciting modes on the probe brane.
1434: These scalars are protected to appear in accordance to the field
1435: theory expectations. We have compared the difference with the same {\sl family}
1436: of models but with different compact dimensions and elucidated, based on a
1437: semi-classical analysis, the reasons that leads to the lack of this kind of
1438: scalars.
1439:
1440: {}Furthermore we have checked that even if glueballs are absent one can
1441: obtain a cigar-like configuration. In $d=4$ the spectrum of this
1442: configuration reduces to that of the glueballs. This seems to be an exceptional case and we do not find deeper explanation for the coincidence.
1443:
1444: \ifig\ejdos{The full (dashed) line describes the subtracted (unsubtracted)
1445: energy as a function of the string length.
1446: }{
1447: \epsfxsize 3 in\epsfbox{fig6.eps}}
1448:
1449: \smallskip
1450: We have also looked at the quark-antiquark potential. The behaviour,
1451: in particular the extrema,
1452: of the energy as a function of the string turning point depends on
1453: a point dependent finite subtraction. The difference
1454: between both procedures, subtracted and unsubtracted,
1455: is a renormalisation scheme choice, thus
1456: we conclude that the shapes in \ejdos~ can not be interpreted as a phase
1457: transition.
1458:
1459: \bigskip
1460:
1461: {\bf Acknowledgements}
1462:
1463: \smallskip
1464:
1465: We thank J.~Boronat, J.~Casulleras, T.~Sakai, J.~Soto, S.~Sugimoto and O.~Varela
1466: for discussions. Also A.~Cotrone for suggestions.
1467: This
1468: work is partially supported by
1469: the grants CYT FPA 2004-04582-C02-01, CIRIT GC 2001SGR-00065 and by
1470: the European Community's
1471: Human Potential Programme under contract MRTN-CT-2004-005104
1472: `Constituents, fundamental forces and symmetries of the universe'.
1473: M.~J.~R.~ wants to thank the Generalitat of Catalunya
1474: for her FI-IQUC research grant.
1475:
1476:
1477:
1478:
1479: \listrefs
1480: \bye
1481:
1482:
1483:
1484: One can make use of the fact that the
1485: non-locatility in \thooft\ can be neglected to a good extend
1486: in the case of
1487: {\sl light quark masses} \NarayananGH\ . In that case \thooft\ is
1488: suitable mapped on to a second order differential equation which solution can be
1489: cast as
1490: \eqn\pionone{
1491: \mu_\pi^2(m_q)= {2 \sqrt{2}\pi\over 3} \beta^{-1} m_q
1492: + 8 \left(1-{\pi^2\over 90}\right) \beta^{-1} m_q^2 + \ldots\,,
1493: }
1494: which in practice follows the same low-energy expansion as the 3+1 dimensional
1495: theory. The behaviour dictated by \pionone\ agrees with the numerical
1496: simulations.
1497: This result is in conflict with our previous findings. The most reasonable
1498: reason is that the t'Hooft model is solvable in the weak coupling regimen, while
1499: the AdS/CFT relations holds in the strong coupling phase.
1500: