1: \documentclass[prd,a4paper,tightenlines,eqsecnum,nofootinbib,preprint,floatfix,showpacs]{revtex4}
2: %documentclass[prd,a4paper,eqsecnum,nofootinbib,preprint,floatfix,showpacs]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[prd,eqsecnum,nofootinbib,twocolumn,floatfix]{revtex4}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{colordvi}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7: \usepackage{bm}
8:
9: \def\eff{\text{eff}}
10: \def\MEV{\text{MeV}}
11: \def\GEV{\text{GeV}}
12: \def\<{\langle}
13: \def\>{\rangle}
14: \def\bn{{\Boldmath n}}
15: \newcommand{\text}{\rm}
16: \def\Tr{{\rm Tr}\,}
17: \def\tr{{\text tr}\,}
18: \def\Eq#1{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}
19:
20: \renewcommand\Im{{\text Im}\,}
21: \renewcommand\Re{{\text Re}\,}
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \vspace*{1.0in}
26:
27: \title{A precise calculation of the fundamental string tension\\
28: in $SU(N)$ gauge theories in
29: $2+1$ dimensions\vspace*{0.25in}}
30:
31: \author{Barak Bringoltz and Michael Teper\\
32: \vspace*{0.25in}}
33:
34: \affiliation{Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics,
35: University of Oxford,\\
36: 1 Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3NP, UK \\
37: \vspace*{0.6in}}
38:
39: \begin{abstract}
40: We use lattice techniques to calculate the continuum string
41: tensions of $SU(N)$ gauge theories in $2+1$ dimensions.
42: We attempt to control all systematic errors at a level that
43: allows us to perform a precise test of the analytic prediction
44: of Karabali, Kim and Nair. We find that their prediction is
45: within $3\%$ of our values for all $N$ and that the discrepancy
46: decreases with increasing $N$. When we extrapolate our
47: results to $N=\infty$ we find that there remains a discrepancy
48: of $\simeq 1\%$, which is a convincing $\sim 6\sigma$ effect.
49: Thus, while the Karabali-Nair analysis is remarkably accurate
50: at $N=\infty$, it is not exact.
51: \end{abstract}
52: \maketitle
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55: \label{intro}
56:
57: Finding an analytic solution to confinement and the mass
58: spectrum of four dimensional $SU(N)$ Yang-Mills
59: gauge theories continues to be a challenge for theoretical
60: physics. It is in the large-$N$ limit
61: \cite{tHooft}
62: that the relation between gauge field theories and string
63: theory is most natural
64: \cite{Polchinski},
65: and this relation is strengthened by the AdS/CFT
66: correspondence. Indeed a solution to the problem
67: of confinement may shed light on string theories with moderately
68: strong coupling.
69:
70: In lower dimensions, gauge theories are of interest for the
71: same theoretical reasons.
72: In $D=1+1$ all dynamical degrees of freedom can be removed
73: by gauge fixing, and the theory can be analytically solved, with
74: linear confinement arising trivially from the Coulomb potential.
75: Moving up one dimension to $D=2+1$, makes the theory much more
76: complicated. Gluons become dynamical, a linearly
77: confining potential appears to be dynamically generated,
78: and the theory appears to be as analytically intractable
79: as in the four dimensional case. This is unfortunate since
80: the $D=2+1$ theory is also phenomenologically interesting:
81: through dimensional reduction, it approximates
82: the high temperature limit of the four-dimensional theory.
83: Indeed, an analytic solution in $D=2+1$ dimensions would be a
84: significant step forward, and would perhaps
85: bring us closer to a solution of the $D=3+1$ case.
86:
87:
88: While an exact solution to $D=2+1$ gauge theories is not available,
89: Karabali and Nair have claimed to obtain a very good approximation
90: through studying the continuum Hamiltonian, and expressing it in
91: terms of color-singlet fields
92: \cite{KN}.
93: Truncating the Schr\"odinger equation for their ground state
94: functional, they obtained the following prediction for the tension
95: $\sigma$ of the string that binds distant static sources in the
96: fundamental representation:
97: \begin{equation}
98: \frac{\sqrt{\sigma}}{g^2N} = \sqrt{\frac{1-1/N^2}{8\pi}}.
99: \label{KN_sigma}
100: \end{equation}
101: Remarkably, this prediction turns out to be within $\sim 3\%$
102: of the lattice calculated values
103: \cite{Teper_Nd3,Teper_Lucini}
104: for all values of $N$.
105:
106: If one replaces these sources with ones in a general representation,
107: ${\cal R}$, then the analysis of \cite{KN} predicts that the
108: tension $\sigma_{\cal R}$ of the string between these sources, obeys
109: \begin{equation}
110: \sigma_{\cal R}=\sigma \, C_{\cal R},
111: \label{casimir}
112: \end{equation}
113: where $C_{\cal R}$ is the quadratic Casimir of the representation ${\cal R}$.
114: In \Eq{casimir} there are no restrictions on ${\cal R}$, and so this
115: clearly cannot be exact in general: in $D=2+1$ gluons screen color
116: charge and will, for example, break the string if ${\cal R}$ has
117: trivial $N$-ality. However in the limit $N\to \infty$ screening
118: vanishes and, moreover, the lattice calculations
119: \cite{Teper_Nd3,Teper_Lucini}
120: show a decreasing discrepancy with \Eq{KN_sigma} as $N$ increases.
121: Indeed the extrapolated $N = \infty$ lattice value is only
122: about $\sim 1\%$ below the prediction of \Eq{KN_sigma}.
123: At this level of accuracy there are a number of systematic
124: errors that were inadequately controlled in these lattice
125: calculations, and so this leaves open the tantalising possibility
126: that the calculation of
127: \cite{KN}
128: might become exact at $N=\infty$. The purpose of the present paper
129: is to provide a lattice calculation in which all the systematic
130: errors are controlled at a level that allows us to test this
131: possibility.
132:
133: One of these systematic errors has to do with corrections to the
134: string energy as a function of length. This is an interesting
135: theoretical subject of its own, having to do with the nature
136: of the effective string theory that describes the confining flux
137: tube. We expand in detail on this issue in a companion publication
138: \cite{NGpap}
139: and here will only quote a few relevant results. A related issue
140: is how the string tension varies as a function of the representation
141: of the flux. We extend a similar control of systematic errors to
142: these calculations in a second companion paper
143: \cite{CSpap}
144: where we test how well the Casimir scaling in \Eq{casimir}
145: is satisfied -- in particular by stable $k$-strings.
146:
147: In the next section we describe the basic lattice setup.
148: We then describe the methodology used in the calculation of the
149: string tension, what are the important systematic errors, and how
150: we control them. We then provide our results, extrapolate them to
151: the continuum limit, and then extrapolate to $N=\infty$.
152: We finish with our conclusions.
153:
154: Some of our preliminary results, both from this paper and from
155: \cite{NGpap},
156: have been presented in
157: \cite{lat06pap}.
158:
159:
160:
161:
162: %
163: %
164: %
165: \section{Lattice setup}
166: \label{setup}
167:
168: The theory is defined on a discretized periodic Euclidean three
169: dimensional space-time lattice, with spacing $a$ and, typically,
170: with $L_s^2L_t$ sites. The
171: Euclidean path integral is given by
172: \begin{equation}
173: Z=\int DU \exp{\left( -\beta S_{\rm W}\right)},
174: \label{Z}
175: \end{equation}
176: where $\beta$ is the dimensionless lattice coupling, and is related to
177: the dimensionful coupling $g^2$ by
178: \begin{equation}
179: \lim_{a\to 0}\beta=\frac{2N}{ag^2}.
180: \label{betag}
181: \end{equation}
182: In the large--$N$ limit, the 't Hooft coupling $\lambda=g^2N$
183: is kept fixed, and so we must scale $\beta=2N^2/\lambda \propto N^2$
184: in order to keep the lattice spacing fixed (up to $O(1/N^2)$
185: corrections). The action we choose to use is the standard Wilson action
186: \begin{equation}
187: S_{\rm W}=\sum_P \left[ 1- \frac1N {\rm Re}\Tr{U_P} \right],
188: \label{eq:SW}
189: \end{equation}
190: where $P$ is a lattice plaquette index, and $U_P$ is the plaquette
191: variable obtained by multiplying link variables along the circumference
192: of a fundamental plaquette. We calculate observables by performing
193: Monte-Carlo simulation of \Eq{Z}, in which we use a mixture of
194: Kennedy-Pendelton heat bath and over-relaxation steps for
195: all the $SU(2)$ subgroups of $SU(N)$.
196:
197:
198: %
199: %
200: %
201: \section{Methodology}
202: \label{methodology}
203:
204: To obtain the string tension, $\sigma$, we calculate the energy of
205: the lightest flux tube that winds around one of the spatial tori.
206: Extracting the mass from the correlation function is the
207: first area in which we need to control systematic errors,
208: as described below.
209:
210: In the confining phase such a winding flux tube cannot break.
211: Since there are no sources here (in contrast to Wilson loop
212: calculations of the static potential) there are no
213: extraneous contributions to the energy (such as the Coulomb
214: potential) and one can hope to obtain a string description
215: for all lengths $l$ of the flux tube. There is of course a
216: smallest possible length $l_c=1/T_c$, where $T_c$ is the
217: deconfining temperature, below which there are no winding flux
218: tubes. However for $N\geq 4$ the transition is first order
219: \cite{LiddleTeper_Tcd3}
220: and so for larger $N$ we can hope to have a string description
221: for any $l \geq l_c$. Such a description should become
222: particularly simple at $N=\infty$ where mixing and decay
223: vanish. We have performed a careful study of the way the
224: string energy depends on its length, which will be published
225: elsewhere
226: \cite{NGpap}.
227: Here we use those results to bound the theoretical uncertainties
228: in extracting the asymptotic string tension from the string energy,
229: so controlling the associated systematic errors.
230:
231: There are also systematic errors in extrapolating to the
232: continuum $a=0$ limit and, subsequently, to the $N=\infty$
233: limit. These will be discussed below as well.
234:
235:
236: %
237: %
238: \subsection{Extracting string masses from correlation functions}
239: \label{excited}
240:
241: We calculate the energy of the winding flux tube from the
242: correlator of suitably smeared $\vec{p}=0$ Polyakov loops
243: that wind around a spatial torus. This is a standard
244: technique
245: \cite{Teper_Nd3,Teper_Lucini}
246: with the smearing/blocking designed to enhance the projection
247: of our operators onto the ground states. (We use a scheme
248: that is the obvious dimensional reduction of the one in
249: \cite{LTW_ops}.)
250: We calculate with several blocking levels and construct the
251: full correlation matrix. From this we obtain best estimates
252: for the ground and excited string states using a variational
253: method applied to the transfer matrix $\hat{T}=e^{-aH}$ -- again
254: a standard technique
255: \cite{var,Teper_Nd3,Teper_Lucini,LTW_ops}.
256:
257:
258: In practice, our best operator for the string ground state
259: has an overlap $\sim 99\%$ onto that state so that the
260: normalised `ground state' correlation function satisfies
261: \begin{equation}
262: C(t) = (1-|\epsilon|) \exp\{-M_0(l)t\}
263: + |\epsilon_1| \exp\{-M_1(l)t\} + ...
264: \quad ; \quad
265: \sum_{i} |\epsilon_i| = |\epsilon| \sim 0.01
266: \label{correl}
267: \end{equation}
268: where $M_0,M_1$ are the ground and first excited state string
269: energies. (Since our time-torus is finite, we use cosh fits
270: rather than simple exponentials, although in practice we
271: use $L_t$ large enough for any contributions around the
272: `back' of the torus to be negligible.)
273: To extract $M_0$ from this correlator one can
274: fit with a single exponential for $t\geq t_0$, discarding the
275: lower $t$ values so that a statistically acceptable fit is
276: obtained. This is a reasonable approach and one followed in
277: \cite{Teper_Nd3,Teper_Lucini}.
278: However it neglects the systematic error arising from the
279: fact that there is certainly some excited state contribution
280: as demonstrated, for example, by the fact that one cannot obtain
281: a good fit with a single exponential from $t=0$. To control this
282: systematic error we also perform fits with two exponentials,
283: with a fixed mass $M^*$ for the excited state, resulting in
284: a mass $M_0(M^*)$ for the ground state. Typically $M_0(M^*)$
285: is smallest when $M^*$ is as small as possible, i.e. $M^* = M_1$,
286: and is largest when $M^*=\infty$, i.e. effectively a
287: single-exponential fit. So the true value typically satisfies:
288: \begin{equation}
289: M_0(M_1) \le M^{\rm true}_0 \le M_0(\infty).
290: \end{equation}
291: From here on, we refer to the single-cosh fitting procedure by
292: `S', and to the double-cosh fitting procedure, by `D', and add
293: these as superscripts to any
294: relevant results (such as masses, string tensions, etc.).
295: Consequently we shall have two continuum string tensions
296: $\sigma^{S}$, and $\sigma^D$, that bracket the true string tension
297: \begin{equation}
298: \sigma^D \le \sigma^{\rm true} \le \sigma^S.
299: \end{equation}
300:
301:
302:
303:
304: %
305: %
306: \subsection{Extracting string tensions from string energies}
307: \label{sec:Ldep}
308:
309:
310: From the ground state string energy, $M_0(l)$, we need to extract
311: the tension $\sigma$. Taking into account the L\"uscher term
312: \cite{old_works},
313: $\sigma$ is given by
314: \begin{equation}
315: \sigma= \frac{M_0(l)}{l}
316: + \frac{\pi}{6l^2}
317: + O\left(\frac{1}{l^4}\right).
318: \label{sigma_def}
319: \end{equation}
320: In practice using $\surd\sigma l \geq 3$ one can expect the neglected
321: $O(1/l^4)$ corrections to be small. However they represent another
322: systematic error that needs to be controlled. To do this we shall
323: use the results of our study in
324: \cite{NGpap},
325: where we have calculated $M_0(l)$ as a function of $l$ for $N=3,4,6,8$.
326: We have done so in the range
327: $1.3-1.6\stackrel{<}{_\sim}l\sqrt{\sigma}\stackrel{<}{_\sim}3-6.2$
328: and for different lattice spacings. We find that our results can be
329: well encompassed by
330: \begin{equation}
331: \left( \frac{M_0(l)}{\sigma l} \right)^2 =
332: 1 - \frac{\pi}{3\{\sqrt{\sigma} l\}^2}
333: - \frac{0.2(1)}{\{\sqrt{\sigma} l\}^5}.
334: \label{fit}
335: \end{equation}
336: Here the first two terms on the right hand side constitute the exact
337: Nambu-Goto string prediction. It is believed that when one
338: expands $M_0(l)/{\sigma l}$ in inverse powers of $\surd\sigma l$
339: the first two corrections are universal
340: \cite{old_works,new_works}
341: and equal to those for the Nambu-Goto string. (This is
342: consistent with our numerical calculations in
343: \cite{NGpap}.)
344: The next possible correction term corresponds to the last term
345: on the right of \Eq{fit}. We observe that the fitted coefficient is
346: much smaller than the $O(1)$ coefficient characteristic of the other
347: terms. This shows that Nambu-Goto provides a remarkably accurate
348: description of the ground state winding string energy for all
349: possible lengths.
350:
351: The calculations of $M_0(l)$ in this paper are performed for
352: $l\surd\sigma \geq 3$. We extract the corresponding values
353: of $\sigma$ using \Eq{fit}. For such $l$ the contribution of
354: the correction terms that are additional to the L\"uscher
355: correction is in fact almost negligible, as was assumed in
356: earlier calculations
357: \cite{Teper_Nd3,Teper_Lucini}.
358: However now we are able to control the accuracy of that
359: assumption.
360:
361:
362: %
363: %
364: \subsection{Extrapolation to the continuum limit}
365: \label{sec:continuum}
366:
367: To extrapolate to the continuum limit we need to choose a
368: theoretically motivated fitting ansatz for the way $a\surd\sigma$ depends
369: on the bare lattice coupling $\beta$. From \Eq{betag} it is
370: clear that
371: \begin{equation}
372: \lim_{a\to 0}\frac{\beta}{2N^2} a \surd\sigma
373: =
374: \frac{\surd\sigma}{g^2N}.
375: \label{betasig}
376: \end{equation}
377: The leading perturbative correction to this relation will be
378: $O(1/\beta)$. (Note that we do not have here a ratio of physical
379: quantities for which the leading correction would be $O(a^2)$.)
380: Lattice perturbation theory is notoriously ill-behaved and to reduce
381: the higher order corrections we replace $\beta$ by the mean-field
382: improved coupling
383: \cite{parisi_MF}
384: \begin{equation}
385: \beta_{\rm MF}=\beta \times \<\mathrm{Tr}U_P\>
386: \label{betaMF}
387: \end{equation}
388: as in
389: \cite{Teper_Nd3,Teper_Lucini}.
390:
391:
392: In
393: \cite{Teper_Nd3,Teper_Lucini}
394: the continuum extrapolation was performed with a leading
395: $O(1/ \beta_{\rm MF})$ correction. The values of $a\surd\sigma$
396: from the coarser values of $a$ typically did not lie on the fit,
397: and were excluded. Although this is a sensible procedure, it
398: ignores the (small) systematic error due to the neglect of higher
399: order corrections in $1/ \beta_{\rm MF}$. Here we will control
400: this error by fitting with an additional correction
401: \begin{equation}
402: \frac{a\sqrt{\sigma}}{2N^2}\beta_{\rm
403: MF}=\left(\frac{\sqrt{\sigma}}{g^2N} \right)_{\rm continuum} +
404: \frac{a_1}{\beta_{\rm MF}} + \frac{a_2}{\beta^2_{\rm MF}}.
405: \label{continuum}
406: \end{equation}
407: By comparing these fits with linear fits where we constrain
408: $a_2=0$, we shall have an estimate of the effect of higher order
409: corrections. Clearly such a strategy is only possible where
410: the calculations are of sufficient range and accuracy, as in
411: the present paper.
412:
413: It is important to note that this procedure is not without its
414: ambiguities. The expansion in \Eq{continuum} is a weak coupling one
415: which is functionally incorrect in the strong coupling region.
416: If our fit includes one or more points in the strong coupling region,
417: it is these points that may well determine our estimate of the
418: coefficient $a_2$ in \Eq{continuum}, in which case the estimate
419: will be unrelated to its actual value. This problem is
420: exacerbated by the fact that unlike the case in $D=3+1$ (for $N\geq 5$),
421: the separation between strong and weak coupling does not involve a
422: clear-cut first order transition, but rather a cross-over
423: that turns into a smooth phase transition at $N=\infty$
424: \cite{fbmt},
425: very much like the Gross-Witten transition in $D=1+1$
426: \cite{GW}.
427: This crossover peak increases with $N$ and lies in the range
428: $\beta/2N^2 \sim 0.40-0.45$
429: \cite{fbmt},
430: and so in our fits we shall avoid using any values obtained on
431: the strong coupling side of this peak.
432:
433:
434:
435: %
436: %
437: \subsection{Extrapolation to $N=\infty$}
438: \label{sec:planar}
439:
440: The continuum value of $\surd\sigma/g^2N$ is expected to
441: have a finite limit, with leading corrections of $O(1/N^2)$.
442: Hence linear fits in $1/N^2$ can be used to extrapolate
443: to $N=\infty$, as in
444: \cite{Teper_Nd3,Teper_Lucini}.
445: To control the neglected higher order corrections to the linear
446: fit we shall also perform fits using the more general form
447: \begin{equation}
448: \frac{\sqrt{\sigma}}{g^2N}
449: =
450: \left(\frac{\sqrt{\sigma}}{g^2N} \right)_{\rm N=\infty}
451: +\frac{b_1}{N^2} + \frac{b_2}{N^4}
452: \label{contN}
453: \end{equation}
454: and compare the results to those of linear fits ($b_2=0$).
455: There is no reason to believe that this expansion becomes
456: functionally incorrect at small $N$, and we shall use it
457: all the way down to $N=2$.
458:
459:
460: %
461: %
462: %
463: \section{Results}
464: \label{sec:results}
465:
466:
467: In Fig.~\ref{fig1} we plot the values of
468: $a\sqrt{\sigma}\beta_{\rm MF}/(2N^2)$, as obtained from both $S$ and
469: $D$ fits, versus $N^2/\beta_{\rm MF}$ for our SU(4)
470: and SU(6) calculations. We display fits that are
471: quadratic, as in \Eq{continuum}. The $O(1/\beta^2)$ correction is
472: always positive, except possibly for SU(2), so the quadratic
473: fit leads to a significantly higher value
474: than the linear one in the continuum limit.
475: Despite this fact, we see from the figure that the extrapolated
476: string tensions are still lower than the values predicted
477: by Karabali, Kim, and Nair in \Eq{KN_sigma}.
478:
479: \begin{figure}[htb]
480: \centerline{
481: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{continuumN4-6k1.eps}
482: }
483: \caption{The dimensionless quantity
484: $\beta_{\rm MF} \frac{a\sqrt{\sigma}}{2N^2}
485: \stackrel{a\to 0}{\longrightarrow} \frac{\sqrt{\sigma}}{g^2N}$
486: as a function of the improved inverse coupling
487: coupling $1/\beta_{\rm MF}$ for $N=4,6$. The error bars at
488: $1/\beta_{\rm MF}=0$ denote the result of the
489: continuum extrapolation, while the horizontal bars denote the values
490: predicted by Karabali, Kim, and Nair \cite{KN}.}
491: \label{fig1}
492: \end{figure}
493:
494: We give the results of our continuum fits in
495: Tables~\ref{table2}-\ref{table3}, where we also list for comparison
496: the Karabali-Kim-Nair predictions.
497:
498: \begin{table}[htb]
499: \centering{
500: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
501: & $N=2$ & $N=3$ & $N=4$ & $N=5$ & $N=6$ & $N=8$\\ \hline \hline
502: $a^S_1$\,& $-0.0133(7)$ & $-0.0158(4)$ & $-0.0186(9)$ & $-0.0175(9)$ & $-0.0204(8)$ & $-0.0186(8)$\\ \hline
503: $a^D_1$\,& $-0.0122(12)$ & $-0.0152(9)$ & $-0.0168(19)$ & $-0.0160(14)$ & $-0.0200(11)$ & $-0.0186(10)$\\ \hline \hline
504: $a^S_2$\,& $-0.0004(3)$ & $+0.0005(2)$ & $+0.0023(6)$ & $+0.0018(6)$ & $+0.0040(5)$ & $+0.0025(5)$\\ \hline
505: $a^D_2$,& $-0.0009(5)$ & $+0.0004(3)$ & $+0.0012(12)$ & $+0.0010(8)$ & $+0.0039(7)$ & $+0.0025(6)$\\ \hline \hline
506: \end{tabular}
507: }
508: \caption{The parameters $a_{1,2}$ in the fit \Eq{continuum}, which are obtained
509: for the string tensions $\sigma^{S,D}$. The superscripts $S,D$
510: denote the way we fit the correlation function, and bracket the
511: actual string tension (see Section~\ref{excited}).}
512: \label{table2}
513: \end{table}
514:
515:
516: \begin{table}[htb]
517: \centering{
518: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
519: Type of fit & Source of data & $N=2$ & $N=3$ & $N=4$ & $N=5$ & $N=6$ &
520: $N=8$\\ \hline \hline
521: Linear & $M^S$\,& $0.1678(1)$ & $0.1837(2)$ & $0.1892(1)$ & $0.1917(2)$ & $0.1932(2)$ &
522: $0.1948(2)$ \\ \hline
523: Linear & $M^D$\,& $0.1675(3)$ & $0.1831(3)$ & $0.1886(3)$ & $0.1910(4)$ & $0.1927(3)$ &
524: $0.1943(3)$ \\ \hline \hline
525: Quadratic & $M^S$\,& $0.1675(3)$ & $0.1839(2)$ & $0.1902(3)$ & $0.1924(3)$ & $0.1944(3)$ &
526: $0.1955(3)$ \\ \hline
527: Quadratic & $M^D$\,& $0.1666(6)$ & $0.1832(4)$ & $0.1893(7)$ & $0.1915(5)$ & $0.1939(4)$ &
528: $0.1951(4)$ \\ \hline \hline
529: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{KKN prediction}& $0.17275$ & $0.18806$ & $0.19314$ & $0.19544$ & $0.19668$ & $0.19791$ \\
530: \hline
531: \end{tabular}
532: }
533: \caption{Our continuum values of $\sqrt{\sigma}/g^2N$ and the predictions of
534: Karabali, Kim, and Nair (KKN) \cite{KN}. We present results from
535: linear and quadratic extrapolations to the continuum ($a_2=0$ or
536: $a_2$ as a free fit parameter).}
537: \label{table3}
538: \end{table}
539:
540: Since we are interested in the accuracy of the Karabai-Kim-Nair
541: (KKN) prediction with increasing $N$, we define the ratio $r$
542: of that prediction to our lattice values
543: \begin{equation}
544: r\equiv \frac{\left( \sqrt{\sigma}/g^2N\right)_{\rm
545: KKN}}{\left(\sqrt{\sigma}/g^2N\right)_{\rm Lattice}}.
546: \end{equation}
547: We now fit $r^2$ with the form
548: \begin{equation}
549: r^2=(r_\infty)^2 + \frac{c_1}{N^2} + \frac{c_2}{N^4},
550: \end{equation}
551: and present the results for linear fits (with $c_2=0$) and
552: quadratic fits (with $c_2$ as a free parameter) in Table~\ref{table4}
553: below. (The number of degrees of freedom for all fits was $d.o.f=3$.)
554: Finally, we show in Fig.~\ref{fig2} the ratio $r$ plotted against
555: $1/N^2$ with $S$ and $D$ linear fits. As for the continuum
556: extrapolation, the effect of the higher order correction is to
557: lift the $N=\infty$ value towards the Karabali-Nair value,
558: albeit not quite far enough to achieve a perfect match.
559:
560: \begin{table}[htb]
561: \centering{
562: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
563: Type of fit & Source of data & $r_\infty$ & $c_1$ & $c_2$ & $\chi^2/d.o.f.$\\ \hline \hline
564: Linear & $M^S$ & $0.9902(12)$ & $-0.215(32)$ & - & $0.84$ \\ \hline
565: Linear & $M^D$ & $0.9878(17)$ & $-0.245(56)$ & - & $0.64$ \\ \hline \hline
566: Quadratic & $M^S$ & $0.9908(14)$ & $-0.268(58)$ & $0.41(22)$ & $0.98$ \\ \hline
567: Quadratic & $M^D$ & $0.9886(21)$ & $-0.317(103)$ & $0.52(40)$ & $0.57$\\ \hline \hline
568: \end{tabular}
569: }
570: \caption{The extrapolation of $r$ to the large-$N$ limit.}
571: \label{table4}
572: \end{table}
573:
574:
575: \begin{figure}[htb]
576: \centerline{
577: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{large_N_vs_KN.eps}
578: }
579: \caption{The ratio $r$ between the prediction of \Eq{KN_sigma} and
580: our data, as a function of $1/N^2$. The error bar at $1/N^2=0$
581: denotes the linear extrapolation to the $N=\infty$ limit.}
582: \label{fig2}
583: \end{figure}
584:
585:
586: %
587: %
588: %
589: \section{Summary}
590: \label{sec:summary}
591:
592: We have calculated the tensions of strings in the fundamental
593: representation of $SU(N)$ gauge theories in $2+1$ dimensions.
594: Our immediate goal was to test the prediction of Karabali-Nair
595: in \Eq{KN_sigma}, particularly at $N=\infty$, where the screening
596: effects that are clearly not incorporated in that scheme, vanish.
597: Since earlier lattice calculations had already shown that any
598: discrepancy was no more than a few percent, our
599: calculation needed to control a number of previously neglected
600: systematic errors that are small but could be significant at
601: the $\sim 1\%$ level.
602:
603: In this paper we described how we controlled the following errors.
604: Firstly the contribution of excited states to our variationally
605: selected ground state correlators, from which we extract the
606: energy of the ground state winding flux loop. Secondly higher
607: order string corrections in the relationship between this
608: ground state energy and the asymptotic string tension.
609: (Using the results of our companion publication
610: \cite{NGpap}
611: on the effective string theory describing winding flux loops.)
612: Thirdly, higher order corrections in the continuum extrapolation,
613: and fourthly, higher order corrections in the extrapolation
614: in $N$ to $N=\infty$.
615:
616: Our final results are similar to the ones of the older work
617: \cite{Teper_Lucini} which assumed that the systematic errors
618: that we control here, are negligible. We find that this
619: assumption is, as it happens, essentially correct. Our string
620: tensions are $3\%-1\%$ smaller than the prediction of
621: \Eq{KN_sigma}, and a discrepancy persists at $N=\infty$,
622: where our result is
623: \begin{equation}
624: \left(\frac{\sqrt{\sigma}}{g^2N}\right)_{\rm Lattice}
625: =
626: 0.1975 \pm 0.0002 - 0.0005.
627: \label{eq:final}
628: \end{equation}
629: Here the first error is statistical, and the second
630: comes from the difference $\delta \sigma = \sigma_S-\sigma_D>0$.
631: This error can only lower the string tension, away from
632: \Eq{KN_sigma}. Consequently, our result is lower by $0.98\%-1.2\%$
633: than \Eq{KN_sigma}
634: \begin{equation}
635: \lim_{N\to\infty}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\sigma}}{g^2N}\right)_
636: {\rm KKN}
637: =
638: \frac{1}{\sqrt{8\pi}}=0.199471\dots.
639: \end{equation}
640: This difference while small is statistically significant at a
641: compelling $8-5.4$ sigma level (depending on the details of the fit).
642:
643: While it is clear that the leading term in the scheme of
644: \cite{KN}
645: is not exact at $N=\infty$, our results show that it is astonishingly
646: accurate.
647:
648: %
649: %
650: %
651: \section*{Acknowledgements}
652:
653: MT acknowledges very useful discussions with David Gross
654: and V.P. Nair during the KITP `QCD and String Theory' Programme
655: in 2004. BB acknowledges the support of PPARC.
656: The computations were performed on machines
657: funded primarily by Oxford and EPSRC.
658:
659:
660: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
661: \bibitem{tHooft}
662: G.~'t Hooft,
663: %``A PLANAR DIAGRAM THEORY FOR STRONG INTERACTIONS,''
664: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 72}, 461 (1974).
665: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B72,461;%%
666: \bibitem{Polchinski}
667: J.~Polchinski,
668: %``Strings and QCD?,''
669: arXiv:hep-th/9210045.
670: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9210045;%%
671: \bibitem{tHooft2}
672: G.~'t Hooft,
673: %``A Two-Dimensional Model For Mesons,''
674: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 75}, 461 (1974).
675: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B75,461;%%
676: \bibitem{KN}
677: D.~Karabali, C.~j.~Kim and V.~P.~Nair,
678: %``On the vacuum wave function and string tension of Yang-Mills theories in
679: %(2+1) dimensions,''
680: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 434}, 103 (1998)
681: [arXiv:hep-th/9804132], and references within.
682: \bibitem{Teper_Nd3}
683: M.~Teper,
684: %``SU(N) gauge theories in (2+1)-dimensions.''
685: [arXiv:hep-lat/9804008].
686: Phys. Rev. D59:014512, 1999.
687: \bibitem{Teper_Lucini}
688: B.~Lucini and M.~Teper,
689: %``SU(N) gauge theories in 2+1 dimensions: Further results,''
690: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 097502 (2002)
691: [arXiv:hep-lat/0206027].
692: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0206027;%%
693: \bibitem{NGpap}
694: B.~Bringoltz and M.~Teper,
695: in preperation.
696: \bibitem{CSpap}
697: B.~Bringoltz and M.~Teper,
698: in preperation.
699: \bibitem{lat06pap}
700: B.~Bringoltz and M.~Teper,
701: %``String tensions of SU(N) gauge theories in 2+1 dimensions,''
702: arXiv:hep-lat/0610035.
703: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0610035;%%
704:
705: \bibitem{LiddleTeper_Tcd3}
706: J. Liddle and M. Teper, hep-lat/0509082 and in preparation. \\
707: K. Holland, hep-lat/0509041.
708:
709: \bibitem{LTW_ops}
710: B.~Lucini, M.~Teper and U.~Wenger,
711: %``Glueballs and k-strings in SU(N) gauge theories: Calculations with
712: %improved operators,''
713: JHEP {\bf 0406}, 012 (2004)
714: [arXiv:hep-lat/0404008].
715: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0404008;%%
716:
717:
718: %\bibitem{otherworks}
719: % J.~Kuti,\
720: % %``Lattice QCD and string theory,''
721: % PoS {\bf LAT2005}, 001 (2006)
722: % [PoS {\bf JHW2005}, 009 (2006)]
723: % [arXiv:hep-lat/0511023].
724: % %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0511023;%%
725: \bibitem{var}
726: K.~G.~Wilson,
727: Closing remarks at the Abingdon/Rutherford Lattice Meeting,
728: March 1981,
729: K.~Ishikawa, M.~Teper and G.~Schierholz,
730: % ``The Glueball Mass Spectrum In QCD: First Results Of A Lattice Monte Carlo
731: %Calculation,''
732: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 110}, 399 (1982).
733: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B110,399;%%
734: B.~Berg, A.~Billoire and C.~Rebbi,
735: %``Monte Carlo Estimates Of The SU(2) Mass Gap,''
736: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 142}, 185 (1982)
737: [Addendum-ibid.\ {\bf 146}, 470 (1983)].
738: %%CITATION = APNYA,142,185;%%
739: K.~Ishikawa, M.~Teper and G.~Schierholz,
740: % ``The Glueball Mass Spectrum In QCD: First Results Of A Lattice Monte Carlo
741: %Calculation,''
742: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 110}, 399 (1982).
743: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B110,399;%%
744: \bibitem{old_works}
745: M.~L\"uscher, K.~Symanzik and P.~Weisz,
746: %``Anomalies Of The Free Loop Wave Equation In The Wkb Approximation,''
747: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 173}, 365 (1980).
748: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B173,365;%%
749: J.~Polchinski and A.~Strominger,
750: %``Effective string theory,''
751: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 67}, 1681 (1991).
752: %%CITATION = PRLTA,67,1681;%%
753: J.~F.~Arvis,
754: %``The Exact Q Anti-Q Potential In Nambu String Theory,''
755: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 127}, 106 (1983).
756: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B127,106;%
757: \bibitem{new_works}
758: M.~L\"uscher and P.~Weisz,
759: %``String excitation energies in SU(N) gauge theories beyond the free-string
760: %approximation,''
761: JHEP {\bf 0407}, 014 (2004)
762: [arXiv:hep-th/0406205],
763: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0406205;%%
764: %``Quark confinement and the bosonic string,''
765: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 049 (2002)
766: [arXiv:hep-lat/0207003].
767: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0207003;%%
768: J.~M.~Drummond,
769: %``Reply to hep-th/0606265,''
770: arXiv:hep-th/0608109,
771: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0608109;%%
772: %``Universal subleading spectrum of effective string theory,''
773: arXiv:hep-th/0411017.
774: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0411017;%%
775: N.~D.~Hari Dass and P.~Matlock,
776: %``Universality of correction to Luescher term in Polchinski-Strominger
777: %effective string theories,''
778: arXiv:hep-th/0606265.
779: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0606265;%%
780:
781: \bibitem{parisi_MF}
782: G Parisi in {\it High Energy Physics} - 1980 (AIP 1981).
783:
784: \bibitem{fbmt}
785: F. Bursa and M. Teper, hep-th/0511081 to appear in Phys. Rev. D.
786:
787: \bibitem{GW}
788: D. Gross and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 446.
789:
790: %\bibitem{work_with_andreas}
791: %A.~Athenodorou, B.~Bringoltz and M.~Teper,
792: %work in progress.
793: %\bibitem{Minic_et_al}
794: % L.~Freidel, R.~G.~Leigh and D.~Minic,
795: % %``Towards a solution of pure Yang-Mills theory in 3+1 dimensions,''
796: % arXiv:hep-th/0604184,
797: % %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0604184;%%Minic et al.
798: %and references therein.
799:
800: \end{thebibliography}
801:
802: \end{document}
803: