1: % -*- mode: LaTeX; tex-main-file: "main.tex"; -*-
2:
3: \section{Klebanov-Strassler system}
4: \label{KS}
5:
6: \subsection{KS Background}
7: \label{KS:bg}
8:
9: The effective 5-d model describing the bulk dynamics of the KS system
10: contains seven scalar fields. We will use the Papadopoulos-Tseytlin
11: \cite{Papadopoulos:2000gj} variables $(x,p,y,\Phi,b,h_1,h_2)$.
12: In the following, we shall briefly summarize the general relations for
13: this system and the KS background solution. For more details, see our
14: earlier paper \cite{Berg:2005pd} and references therein.
15:
16: The sigma-model metric is
17: %
18: \begin{multline}
19: \label{KS:Gab}
20: G_{ab} \partial_\mu \phi^a \partial^\mu \phi^b =
21: \partial_\mu x \partial^\mu x
22: + 6 \partial_\mu p \partial^\mu p
23: + \frac12 \partial_\mu y \partial^\mu y
24: + \frac14 \partial_\mu \Phi \partial^\mu \Phi
25: + \frac{P^2}2 \e{\Phi-2x} \partial_\mu b \partial^\mu b +\\
26: +\frac14 \e{-\Phi-2x} \left[
27: \e{-2y} \partial_\mu (h_1-h_2) \partial^\mu (h_1-h_2)
28: +\e{2y} \partial_\mu (h_1+h_2) \partial^\mu (h_1+h_2) \right]~,
29: \end{multline}
30: %
31: and the superpotential reads
32: %
33: \begin{equation}
34: \label{KS:W}
35: W = -\frac12 \left( \e{-2p-2x} +\e{4p} \cosh y \right)
36: +\frac14 \e{4p-2x} \left( Q + 2Pb h_2 + 2Ph_1 \right)~.
37: \end{equation}
38: %
39: Here, $Q$ and $P$ are constants related to the number of D3-branes and
40: wrapped D5-branes, respectively.
41:
42:
43: It is useful to introduce the KS radial variable $\tau$ by
44: %
45: \begin{equation}
46: \label{KS:taudef}
47: \partial_\tau = \e{-4p} \partial_r~.
48: \end{equation}
49: %
50: Here and henceforth, a field variable denotes the
51: background of that field ($p$ in this case), while the sigma-model covariant $\mfa$ will be used for
52: fluctuations. In terms of $\tau$, the KS background solution of
53: \eqref{method:bg2} is given by
54: %
55: \begin{align}
56: \label{KS:Phisol}
57: \Phi &= \Phi_0~,\\
58: \label{KS:ysol}
59: \e{y} &= \tanh (\tau/2)~, \\
60: \label{KS:bsol}
61: b &= - \frac{\tau}{\sinh \tau}~, \\
62: \label{KS:h1sol}
63: h_1 &= -\frac{Q}{2P}
64: + P\e{\Phi_0} \coth \tau (\tau\coth \tau-1)~,\\
65: \label{KS:h2sol}
66: h_2 &= P\e{\Phi_0} \frac{\tau \coth \tau -1}{\sinh \tau}~,\\
67: \label{KS:xsol}
68: \frac23 \e{6p+2x} &= \coth \tau -\frac{\tau}{\sinh^2 \tau}~,\\
69: \label{KS:psol}
70: \e{2x/3-4p} &= 2 P^2 \e{\Phi_0} 3^{-2/3} h(\tau) \sinh^{4/3} \tau~,
71: \end{align}
72: %
73: with
74: %
75: \begin{equation}
76: \label{KS:hsol}
77: h(\tau) = \int\limits_\tau^\infty \rmd \vartheta\,
78: \frac{\vartheta\coth\vartheta -1}{\sinh^2 \vartheta} \left[
79: 2\sinh(2\vartheta) -4\vartheta \right]^{1/3}~.
80: \end{equation}
81: %
82: Moreover, one can show that the warp function $A$ satisfies
83: %
84: \begin{equation}
85: \label{KS:A}
86: \e{-2A-8p} \sim \left(\e{-6p-2x} \sinh \tau \right)^{2/3} h(\tau)~,
87: \end{equation}
88: %
89: where the proportionality factor depends on an integration constant
90: that sets the 4-d momentum scale.
91:
92: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
93:
94: \subsection{KS spin-2 spectrum}
95: \label{KS:spin2}
96:
97: \begin{table}[t]
98: \caption{Mass spectrum of spin-2 glueballs in the KS background ($m^2<100$),
99: and comparison with
100: Krasnitz' WKB results \cite{Krasnitz:2003pj}. Krasnitz' values have been
101: normalized such that the seventh masses (the highest he calculated)
102: agree. \label{KS:Tab1}}
103: \begin{center}
104: \begin{tabular}{|r|r|}
105: \hline
106: $n$ & Krasnitz \\ \hline
107: 1 &1.06 \\
108: 2 & 2.39 \\
109: 3 & 4.52 \\
110: 4 & 6.65 \\
111: 5 & 9.62 \\
112: 6 & 13.1 \\
113: 7 & 17.1 \\ \hline
114: \end{tabular}
115: %\end{center}
116: %\end{table}
117: \hspace{1cm}
118: %\begin{table}[t]
119: %\begin{center}
120: \begin{tabular}{|r|r||r|r||r|r|} \hline
121: $n$ & $m^2$ & $n$ & $m^2$ & $n$ & $m^2$ \\ \hline
122: 1 & 1.044 &
123: 8 & 21.62 &
124: 15 & 68.78 \\
125: 2 & 2.369 &
126: 9 & 26.73 &
127: 16 & 77.69 \\
128: 3 & 4.227 &
129: 10 & 32.38 &
130: 17 & 87.15 \\
131: 4 & 6.624 &
132: 11 & 38.57 &
133: 18 & 97.15 \\
134: 5 & 9.561 &
135: 12 & 45.31 &
136: & \\
137: 6 & 13.04 &
138: 13 & 52.59 &
139: & \\
140: 7 & 17.06 &
141: 14 & 60.41 &
142: & \\ \hline
143: \end{tabular}
144: \end{center}
145: \end{table}
146:
147: \begin{figure}[t]
148: \begin{center}
149: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{data/KSspin2.eps}
150: \vspace{-5mm}
151: \end{center}
152: \caption{Mass-squared values of spin-2 states. The solid line
153: represents the fit \eqref{KS:spin2fit}.\label{KS:Plot1}}
154: \end{figure}
155:
156:
157:
158: Let us start the numerical analysis of fluctuations in the KS
159: background with the simplest case: the free massless scalar describing
160: the transverse traceless components of fluctuations of the bulk
161: metric.
162: Specifically, we are interested in the spectrum of spin-2
163: glueballs, expanding on earlier work by Krasnitz \cite{Krasnitz:2000ir,Krasnitz:2003pj}.
164:
165: The equation of motion \eqref{method:eqe}, after substituting the
166: appropriate relations from the previous subsection, takes the form
167: %
168: \begin{equation}
169: \label{KS:eqe}
170: \left( \partial_\tau^2 +2 \e{-6p-2x} \partial_\tau -k^2 \e{-2A-8p}
171: \right) \mfe =0~,
172: \end{equation}
173: %
174: where we omitted tensor indices on $\mfe$. Defining
175: %
176: \begin{equation}
177: \label{KS:Idef}
178: I(\tau) = \frac{h(\tau)}{h(0)}
179: \end{equation}
180: %
181: and appropriately choosing the integration constant in the warp
182: function \eqref{KS:A} such that
183: %
184: \begin{equation}
185: \label{KS:Adef}
186: \e{-2A-8p} = \left( \e{-6p-2x} \sinh\tau \right)^{2/3} I(\tau)~,
187: \end{equation}
188: %
189: we can rewrite \eqref{KS:eqe} as
190: %
191: \begin{equation}
192: \label{KS:eqe.num}
193: \left\{ \partial_\tau^2 +2 \e{-6p-2x} \partial_\tau -
194: k^2 I(\tau) \left( \e{-6p-2x} \sinh\tau \right)^{2/3} \right\} \mfe
195: =0~.
196: \end{equation}
197: %
198: The choice of momentum scale normalization in \eqref{KS:Adef} is a little
199: unusual, but convenient in what follows.
200:
201: In this simple one-component system, the method described in
202: Sec.~\ref{method:method1} is sufficiently robust.\footnote{There is only
203: one dominant and one subdominant asymptotic behaviour, and the
204: latter is sufficiently suppressed for large $\tau$ with respect to
205: the former.}
206: For this method, first we need to find the regular behaviour at $\tau=0$, from which
207: the initial conditions will be inferred. For small $\tau$, we find to
208: leading order $\e{-6p-2x} \approx 1/\tau$ and $I(\tau)\approx 1$, so that
209: a regular solution of \eqref{KS:eqe.num} is found to behave as
210: %
211: \begin{equation}
212: \label{KS:e.regsol}
213: \mfe_\text{reg} = 1 + \frac{k^2}6 \tau^2 + \Order{\tau^4}~,
214: \end{equation}
215: %
216: whereas the singular behaviour, which starts with $1/\tau$, is discarded.
217: Notice that the choice of momentum scale in \eqref{KS:Adef} makes the
218: $k^2$ term in \eqref{KS:e.regsol} independent of $h(0)$, a good thing since
219: the value of $h(0)$ is known only from numerical evaluation of \eqref{KS:hsol}.
220:
221: The second step of this method is to consider the asymptotic UV region. For large $\tau$ we have,
222: again to leading order, $\e{-6p-2x} \approx 2/3$ and $I(\tau)\sim \tau
223: \e{-4\tau/3}$. Therefore, the generic dominant asymptotic behaviour
224: is just
225: %
226: \begin{equation}
227: \label{KS:e.asympt}
228: \mfe_\text{dom} = 1 + \Order{\e{-2\tau/3}}~.
229: \end{equation}
230: This tells us that we must simply search for values of $k^2$ for which the
231: regular solution tends to zero for large $\tau$.
232:
233: We find a discrete spectrum of spin-2 states, the first of which are
234: reported and compared to Krasnitz' values in
235: Table~\ref{KS:Tab1}. Krasnitz' results, which were obtained using a
236: WKB approximation, are in good agreement with ours.
237: As shown in Fig.~\ref{KS:Plot1}, the spectrum fits nicely to a quadratic
238: curve. A least-square fit yields
239: %
240: \begin{equation}
241: \label{KS:spin2fit}
242: m^2 \approx 0.2715\, n^2 +0.4936\, n +0.2969~.
243: \end{equation}
244: As we will find in the next section, the coefficient of the $n^2$ term
245: enjoys a certain degree of universality.
246:
247:
248: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
249:
250: \subsection{KS 7-scalar system: Setup}
251: \label{KS:7scalarsetup}
252:
253: Now, we turn to the most difficult system of our paper: the seven
254: coupled scalar fields in the KS background. All scalars appear to be
255: fully coupled in the bulk, but we follow the insight gleaned from the
256: ``moderate UV'' approximation
257: \cite{Berg:2005pd} to decouple a $4 \times 4$ set of fields
258: (the ``glueball sector'') from a $3 \times 3$ set (the
259: ``gluinoball sector'') to leading order in the UV, as will be seen in
260: Sec.~\ref{KS:7scalarbcs}. The system of
261: field equations we consider follows from \eqref{method:eqa}
262: upon changing the radial coordinate to $\tau$. One finds
263: %
264: \begin{equation}
265: \label{KS:7scalar.eom}
266: \left[ (\partial_\tau -M) (\partial_\tau-N) -k^2 \e{-2A-8p} \right]
267: \mfa =0~,
268: \end{equation}
269: %
270: where we have dropped the tensor indices, and the matrices $M$ and $N$
271: are defined by
272: %
273: \begin{equation}
274: \begin{split}
275: \label{KS:7scalar.MNdef}
276: M^a_{~b} &= -N^a_{~b} -K^a_{~b} -2 \e{-2x-6p} \delta^a_b~,\\
277: N^a_{~b} &= \e{-4p} \left( \partial_b W^a -\frac{W^aW_b}{W} \right)~,\\
278: K^a_{~b} &= 2\e{-4p} \G{a}{bc}W^c~.
279: \end{split}
280: \end{equation}
281: %
282: As before, we fix the momentum scale as in \eqref{KS:Adef}.
283:
284: Now, the matrices $M$ and $N$ \emph{a priori} depend on the constants $P$ and
285: $\Phi_0$. However, there is a linear field
286: transformation that removes this dependence from \eqref{KS:7scalar.eom}.
287: This implies that these constants can affect the mass spectrum
288: only by an overall change of the momentum scale, which is not
289: visible in our effective 5-d approach.
290: Starting with the fluctuation vector $\mfa=
291: (\delta x,\delta p,\delta y,\delta\Phi,\delta b,\delta h_1,\delta h_2)^T$,
292: the linear transformation that accomplishes this is $\mfa' = R \mfa$ with
293: %
294: \begin{equation}
295: \label{KS:rotateda}
296: \mfa'=\left(\delta x, \delta p, \frac{\delta h_1}{P\e{\Phi_0}},
297: \delta \Phi, \delta y, \delta b, \frac{\delta
298: h_2}{Pe^{\Phi_0}} \right)^T
299: \end{equation}
300: %
301: and we also rotate the matrices by, \eg $N' = R N R^{-1}$.
302: Henceforth, we shall consider the rotated matrices,
303: dropping primes.
304: The somewhat lengthy expressions for the rotated matrices $K$ and
305: $N$ (that are now independent of $P$ and $\Phi_0$ as advertised) as well as the sigma-model
306: metric $G$ can be found in Appendix~\ref{appendix:KSmats}.
307:
308:
309:
310: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
311:
312: \subsection{KS 7-scalar system: Boundary conditions}
313: \label{KS:7scalarbcs}
314:
315: In this section, we will consider the asymptotic (large-$\tau$) and
316: deep-IR (small-$\tau$)
317: behaviour of the solutions of \eqref{KS:7scalar.eom},
318: which are needed to fix the boundary (initial) conditions for the
319: numerical integration.
320:
321: Let us start with the large-$\tau$ region. Asymptotically, the matrices and the warp
322: term in \eqref{KS:7scalar.eom} can be expanded in
323: powers of $\e{-\tau}$, such that\footnote{The ``coefficients'' may contain rational
324: functions of $\tau$, but no exponentials.}
325: %
326: \begin{equation}
327: \label{KS:KNexp}
328: K = K^{(0)} + \e{-\tau} K^{(1)} + \Order{\e{-2 \tau}}~, \quad
329: N = N^{(0)} + \e{-\tau} N^{(1)} + \Order{\e{-2 \tau}}~.
330: \end{equation}
331: %
332: In what follows, we can always drop the $\Order{\e{-2\tau}}$ terms (the reason
333: for this will become clearer later on, cf.\ the discussion below (\ref{KS:7scalar.asyeqn2})).
334: For the sake of brevity, we write the matrices in block form,
335: %
336: \begin{equation}
337: \label{KS:matrixblock}
338: K = \begin{pmatrix}
339: K_{4\times 4} & K_{4 \times 3} \\
340: K_{3\times 4} & K_{3 \times 3}
341: \end{pmatrix}~,
342: \end{equation}
343: %
344: and analogously for $N$. Then, the matrices in \eqref{KS:KNexp} are
345: %
346: \begin{align}
347: \label{KS:K044}
348: K^{(0)}_{4\times 4} &=
349: \begin{pmatrix}
350: 0 & 0 & \frac{2}{3(\tau-1/4)} & 0 \\
351: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
352: -2& 0 & -\frac{1}{\tau-1/4} & -1 \\
353: 0 & 0 & \frac{4}{3(\tau-1/4)} & 0
354: \end{pmatrix}~, \\
355: \label{KS:K033}
356: K^{(0)}_{3\times 3} &=
357: \begin{pmatrix}
358: 0 & 0 & - \frac{4}{3(\tau-1/4)} \\
359: 0 & -\frac{1}{\tau-1/4} & 0 \\
360: 2 & 0 & -\frac{1}{\tau-1/4}
361: \end{pmatrix}~, \\
362: \label{KS:K034}
363: K^{(0)}_{4\times 3} &= K^{(0)}_{3\times 4} = 0~,
364: \end{align}
365: %
366: \begin{align}
367: \label{KS:N044}
368: N^{(0)}_{4\times 4} &=
369: \begin{pmatrix}
370: -\frac{1}{\tau+1/4} & -\frac{4\tau-1}{\tau+1/4} &
371: -\frac{2}{3(\tau+1/4)} & 0 \\
372: -\frac{2(\tau-1/4)}{3(\tau+1/4)} &
373: -\frac{2(\tau+5/4)}{3(\tau+1/4)} & \frac{2}{9(\tau+1/4)} & 0 \\
374: \frac{1}{\tau+1/4} & \frac{4\tau-1}{\tau+1/4} &
375: \frac{2}{3(\tau+1/4)} & 1 \\
376: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
377: \end{pmatrix}~,\\
378: \label{KS:N033}
379: N^{(0)}_{3\times 3} &=
380: \begin{pmatrix}
381: -1 & 0 & 0 \\
382: 0 & 0 & 1 \\
383: -2 & 1 & 0
384: \end{pmatrix}~,\\
385: \label{KS:N034}
386: N^{(0)}_{4\times 3} &= N^{(0)}_{3\times 4} = 0~,
387: \end{align}
388: %
389: and
390: %
391: \begin{align}
392: \label{KS:K143}
393: K^{(1)}_{4\times 3} &=
394: \begin{pmatrix}
395: 0 & \frac{4(\tau-1)}{3(\tau-1/4)} &
396: -\frac{4\tau}{3(\tau-1/4)} \\
397: 0 & 0 & 0 \\
398: -4(\tau-2) & 0 & 4 \\
399: 0 & -\frac{8(\tau-1)}{3(\tau-1/4)} & -\frac{8\tau}{3(\tau-1/4)}
400: \end{pmatrix}~, \\
401: \label{KS:K134}
402: K^{(1)}_{3\times 4} &=
403: \begin{pmatrix}
404: 0 & 0 & \frac{8\tau}{3(\tau-1/4)} & 0 \\
405: -4(\tau-1) & 0 & 0 & 2(\tau-1) \\
406: 4(\tau-2) & 0 & 4 & 2(\tau-2)
407: \end{pmatrix}~, \\
408: \label{KS:K133}
409: K^{(1)}_{4\times 4} &= K^{(1)}_{3\times 3} = 0~,
410: \end{align}
411: %
412: \begin{align}
413: \label{KS:N143}
414: N^{(1)}_{4\times 3} &=
415: \begin{pmatrix}
416: \frac{1}{\tau+1/4} & -\frac{4(\tau-1)}{3(\tau+1/4)} &
417: \frac{4\tau}{3(\tau+1/4)} \\
418: \frac{2(\tau-1/4)}{3(\tau+1/4)} & \frac{4(\tau-1)}{9(\tau+1/4)} &
419: -\frac{4\tau}{9(\tau+1/4)} \\
420: \frac{4\tau^2 -5\tau-5/2}{\tau+1/4} & \frac{16\tau-1}{3(\tau+1/4)}
421: & -\frac{4\tau}{3(\tau+1/4)} \\
422: 0 & 0 & 0
423: \end{pmatrix}~, \\
424: \label{KS:N134}
425: N^{(1)}_{3\times 4} &=
426: \begin{pmatrix}
427: \frac{2}{\tau+1/4} & \frac{8(\tau-1/4)}{\tau+1/4} &
428: \frac{4}{3(\tau+1/4)} & 0 \\
429: \frac{2(\tau-1)}{\tau+1/4} & \frac{8(\tau-1)(\tau-1/4)}{\tau+1/4}
430: & \frac{4(\tau-1)}{3(\tau+1/4)} & -2(\tau-1) \\
431: -\frac{2(\tau-2)}{\tau+1/4} &
432: -\frac{8(\tau-2)(\tau-1/4)}{\tau+1/4} &
433: -\frac{4(\tau-2)}{3(\tau+1/4)} & -2(\tau-2)
434: \end{pmatrix}~,\\
435: \label{KS:N133}
436: N^{(1)}_{4\times 4} &= N^{(1)}_{3\times 3} = 0~.
437: \end{align}
438: %
439: The transformation $\mfa \rightarrow \mfa'$, cf.\ \eqref{KS:rotateda},
440: has brought the matrices into this nice block form.
441: We also need
442: %
443: \begin{equation}
444: \label{KS:xpasy}
445: \e{-2x-6p} = \frac23 +\Order{\e{-2\tau}}
446: \end{equation}
447: %
448: as well as
449: %
450: \begin{equation}
451: \label{KS:warpinf}
452: \e{-2A-8p} = \frac{3^{1/3}}{h(0)} \left(\tau-\frac14\right) \e{-2\tau/3}
453: \left[ 1 +\Order{\e{-2\tau}} \right]~.
454: \end{equation}
455: %
456: It is a useful check that the leading-order terms of these
457: expressions coincide with the respective quantities evaluated in the Klebanov-Tseytlin
458: background \cite{Klebanov:2000nc}.
459:
460: Since \eqref{KS:warpinf} is exponentially suppressed, the leading
461: order terms of the asymptotic solutions will be independent of the
462: momentum $k$.
463: We note that this is just as we assumed in Sec.~\ref{method:polestruc}.
464: In contrast, in the MN system, the asymptotic behaviours of the
465: solutions depend on $k$ [cf.\ \eqref{MN:a2}].
466:
467: The asymptotic UV solutions, including the leading and some subleading
468: terms, are found by iteratively solving the equations
469: %
470: \begin{align}
471: \label{KS:7scalar.asyeqn}
472: \left( \partial_\tau-N^{(0)} \right) \phi^{(n)} &= \psi^{(n)}
473: + \e{-\tau} N^{(1)} \phi^{(n-1)}~, \\
474: \label{KS:7scalar.asyeqn2}
475: \left( \partial_\tau-M^{(0)} \right) \psi^{(n)} &=
476: \beta \left(\tau-\frac14\right) \e{-2 \tau/3} \phi^{(n-1)}
477: + \e{-\tau} M^{(1)} \psi^{(n-1)}~,
478: \end{align}
479: %
480: where $\beta = 3^{1/3}k^2 /h(0)$, and we set $\phi^{(-1)}=\psi^{(-1)}=0$. The solutions $\phi^{(0)}$ are
481: the leading order terms of the asymptotic solutions.
482: Again, we will drop all $\Order{\e{-2\tau}}$ terms in the iteration. The reason for this is the following.
483: Dropping subleading terms in the initial conditions leads to
484: systematic errors in the numerical solutions, which must obviously
485: be kept smaller than the relevant parts of the solutions. This implies
486: that the initial conditions of all behaviours we use must be given to
487: the same order in $\e{-\tau}$. We will use the mid-point method of
488: Sec.~\ref{method:method2}, in which only the subdominant asymptotic
489: behaviours are needed. Now, the leading term of the weakest subdominant
490: behaviour goes like $\e{-8\tau/3}$, whereas the strongest subdominant
491: behaviour goes like $\e{-\tau}$. Thus, they differ by $\e{-5\tau/3}$
492: and we can drop $\Order{\e{-2\tau}}$
493: corrections.\footnote{The same argument holds for the method of
494: Sec.~\ref{method:method1}, where only the dominant solutions are
495: needed. The weakest dominant solution goes like $\e{-\tau/3}$, the
496: strongest one like $\e{4\tau/3}$.}
497:
498: The somewhat lengthy expressions of the asymptotic solutions are
499: deferred to Appendix~\ref{KSasympt}.
500:
501: Now, let us consider the small-$\tau$ region. In order to find the
502: independent behaviours for small $\tau$, we expand the matrices
503: in \eqref{KS:7scalar.eom} about $\tau=0$ and make an ansatz of
504: the form
505: %
506: \begin{equation}
507: \label{KS:7scalar.regansatz}
508: \mfa(\tau) = \tau^q \left( \mfa_0 + \tau \mfa_1 + \tau^2 \mfa_2 +
509: \tau^3 \mfa_3 +\cdots \right)~,
510: \end{equation}
511: %
512: with some undetermined number $q$, and constant vectors $\mfa_n$,
513: $n=0,1,2,\ldots$. These are then determined recursively from the
514: equation of motion (using computer algebra).
515: It turns out that, of the 14 solutions,
516: there exist four solutions with $q=0$, one with $q=1$, three with
517: $q=2$, four with $q=-1$, and one each with $q=-2$ and $q=-3$. Thus,
518: there exist eight solutions, whose components are finite at $\tau=0$,
519: and six with singular component behaviour.
520: However, the regularity condition \eqref{method:regcond} tells us that one
521: of the solutions with $q=0$ is, in fact, singular.
522: Therefore, we arrive at precisely seven regular and seven singular
523: solutions. The independent small-$\tau$ behaviours are listed
524: in Appendix~\ref{app:KSregsols}.
525:
526:
527: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
528:
529:
530: \subsection{KS spin-0 spectrum}
531: \label{KS:spin0spec}
532:
533: Analogously to the MN case, instead of 7 coupled 2nd order ODEs,
534: it is more convenient to solve 14 coupled 1st order ODEs.
535: Thus, let us rewrite \eqref{KS:7scalar.eom} as
536: \begin{equation}
537: \label{KS:eq.num}
538: \partial_\tau \begin{pmatrix} \mfa \\ \mfb \end{pmatrix} =
539: \begin{pmatrix} N & 1 \\ k^2 \e{-2A-8p} & M \end{pmatrix}
540: \begin{pmatrix} \mfa \\ \mfb \end{pmatrix}~.
541: \end{equation}
542:
543: \begin{figure}[ht]
544: \begin{center}
545: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{data/det_rough.eps}
546: %
547: \caption{$\det \gamma$ as a function of $k^2$. For clarity, we have
548: taken the 14th root of the absolute value of the determinant (leaving
549: its sign untouched). The plot shows
550: clearly that there are no zero crossings for positive $k^2$. The inset
551: shows the zeros of $\det \gamma$ for the first three spin-0 states.
552: \label{detplots}}
553: \end{center}
554: \end{figure}
555:
556: \begin{figure}[ht]
557: \begin{center}
558: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{data/det_5.3_5.78_3.eps}
559: \caption{Here we plot $\det \gamma$ in the range $k^2 \in [-5.8 \ldots -5.3]$.
560: The inset zooms in on the region around $k^2=-5.63$, where there are two zeros.
561: \label{KS:detsmooth2}}
562: \end{center}
563: \vspace{-5mm}
564: \end{figure}
565:
566: \begin{table}[h]
567: \begin{center}
568: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
569: $m^2$ & 0.185 & 0.428 & 0.835 & 1.28 & 1.63 & 1.94 & 2.34 \\ \hline
570: & 2.61 & 3.32 & 3.54 & 4.12 & 4.18 & 4.43 & 4.43 \\ \hline
571: & 5.35 & 5.63 & 5.63 & 6.59 & 6.66 & 6.77 & 7.14 \\ \hline
572: \end{tabular}
573: \end{center}
574: \vspace{-5mm}
575: \caption{Low-lying Klebanov-Strassler spin-0 mass states,
576: extracted from zero-crossings in Fig.~\ref{detplots}.
577: More values are given in Appendix \ref{KSspec}.}
578: \label{KSmasstable}
579: \end{table}
580:
581: We apply the midpoint determinant method
582: as outlined in section \ref{method:method2}. That is, we compute
583: the $14\times 14$ matrix
584: %
585: \begin{equation}
586: \label{KS:mid-point}
587: \gamma=
588: \begin{pmatrix} \areg & \asub \\
589: \breg & \bsub
590: \end{pmatrix}_{\tau=\tau_{\rm mid}}
591: \end{equation}
592: %
593: as a function of $k^2$ and look for zero crossings of $\det\gamma$.
594: A rough plot of $\det \gamma$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{detplots}. We verify that
595: there are no zero crossings for positive $k^2$. The zero crossings of
596: $\det \gamma$ can be found by zooming in on a particular region of the
597: plot, as shown, for example, in the inset.
598: As the determinant itself changes over many orders of magnitude, it is useful to plot
599: $\pm |\det \gamma|^{1/14} \equiv
600: \mathrm{sign}(\det \gamma) |\det \gamma|^{1/14}$ instead.
601: The sharp turns in the inset are merely
602: artifacts of this, as is apparent from Fig.~\ref{KS:detsmooth2},
603: where $\det \gamma$ itself is displayed without the 14th root, and there are no sharp turns.
604:
605: We have calculated all mass values up to $m^2=600$. The first few are listed in Table~\ref{KSmasstable}; for a more extended list see Table~\ref{Table:KSextended} in Appendix \ref{KSspec}. Our results exhibit two interesting features. First, it appears that several mass values are nearly degenerate, such as the two values about $m^2\approx 4.43$ and two values about $m^2\approx 5.63$. The origin of this in our calculation can be seen in Fig.~\ref{KS:detsmooth2}: The $\det \gamma$ curve barely seems to touch the $k^2$-axis, and only zooming in reveals that there are two crossings. As we do not have a dynamical explanation of it, it is possible that this near degeneracy is accidental, or it may indicate a multiplet originating from a weakly broken symmetry of the low-energy effective theory.
606:
607: The second interesting feature is the appearance, for large masses, of a periodic pattern of period 7 in the consecutive spectrum excitation number $n$. On the left hand side of Fig.~\ref{towerplots}, this pattern is easily visible. Hence, we split the spectrum into 7 towers of mass states, one of which is shown on the right hand side of Fig.~\ref{towerplots}. From now on, we
608: distinguish excitation numbers of individual towers, denoted by $n_t$,
609: from the excitation number $n$ of the whole spin-0 spectrum.
610:
611:
612: \begin{figure}[ht]
613: \begin{center}
614: \includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{data/pattern.eps}
615: \hspace{0.5cm}
616: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{data/ktower.eps}
617: %
618: \caption{On the left, we see that for high $m^2$, it is easy to
619: identify the periodicity ``empirically'' as 7. On the right,
620: we have extracted one tower
621: (\ie every 7th point) from the full spectrum, enumerated states in that tower by
622: a parameter $n_t$ (the ``excitation number'') and fit those points
623: to a quadratic curve starting with the third point.
624: As shown in the inset, $m^2 \sim n_t^2$
625: is not a good description for very low $n_t$, unlike in the spin-2 case.
626: \label{towerplots}}
627: \end{center}
628: \end{figure}
629:
630:
631: Like the spin-2 spectrum, the seven spin-0 spectra also exhibit
632: quadratic dependence of $m^2$ on excitation number $n_t$.
633: Leaving out the first two values of each tower (i.e.\ $n_t=1,2$) least square fits
634: of the ``large $m^2$'' behavior
635: (using mass values up to
636: $m^2=600$) yield
637: %
638: \begin{equation}
639: \label{KS:spin0fit}
640: \begin{split}
641: m^2 & \approx 0.271\, n_t^2 +0.774\, n_t +0.562~, \\
642: m^2 & \approx 0.270\, n_t^2 +0.928\, n_t -0.430~, \\
643: m^2 & \approx 0.275\, n_t^2 +0.769\, n_t +1.921~, \\
644: m^2 & \approx 0.272\, n_t^2 +1.017\, n_t +1.023~, \\
645: m^2 & \approx 0.272\, n_t^2 +1.119\, n_t +0.337~, \\
646: m^2 & \approx 0.271\, n_t^2 +1.150\, n_t +0.648~, \\
647: m^2 & \approx 0.273\, n_t^2 +1.082\, n_t +2.544~.
648: \end{split}
649: \end{equation}
650: %
651: The last digit of the leading coefficients (i.e.\ the coefficients of the
652: $n_t^2$ terms) can vary slightly if one performs the fits with
653: more than two states from each tower left out. Still, it is obvious that
654: within some uncertainties the leading coefficients all coincide rather
655: well, both amongst each other and also with the coefficient of the spin-2 tower \eqref{KS:spin2fit},
656: leading to roughly universal behaviour at large $n_t$.
657: %\footnote{Fitting
658: %all data points without first splitting them into seven distinct towers
659: %would have given a very different value for the leading coefficient,
660: %$0.0056$.}
661:
662:
663:
664:
665: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
666:
667: \subsection{KS 7-scalar system: Quadratic confinement}
668: \label{sec:mixing}
669:
670: If one plots the {\it experimental} values for squared meson
671: masses $m^2$ (e.g.\ for the first few resonances of the $\rho$ meson)
672: against their consecutive number $n$, the data
673: obeys $m^2 \sim n$ to good accuracy.\footnote{Since
674: there should be no confusion here, we omit the subscript ``t" on $n_t$ from now on.}
675: One might call this ``linear confinement''.
676: Karch, Katz, Son and Stephanov (KKSS)
677: \cite{Karch:2006pv} emphasized that there are no known supergravity
678: backgrounds that reproduce this experimental fact about mesons
679: from AdS/CFT.
680:
681: In fact, the claim of KKSS was even stronger (p.\ 13): that
682: for all known supergravity backgrounds $m^2 \sim n^2$,
683: which is ``quadratic confinement''.
684: Extending these arguments to our setting,
685: one might expect to see quadratic confinement in, say, the
686: Klebanov-Strassler background. A priori, given the complexity of fluctuations around the
687: Klebanov-Strassler solution, %with complicated sigma-model metric and all,
688: one could have expected that no such general statement could
689: be made except possibly in some extreme asymptotic regime.
690:
691: This expectation turns out to be wrong.
692: Although we cannot be absolutely sure from our analysis, the
693: KKSS claim that $m^2 \sim n^2$
694: seems resoundingly apparent in Fig.~\ref{towerplots} and the fits
695: \eqref{KS:spin0fit}.
696: Since the KS theory is in any case not QCD, linear confinement is not crucial to have,
697: but our results strengthen the case for finding controllable
698: models that do exhibit linear confinement (the metric-scalar model given
699: in \cite{Karch:2006pv} seems promising, but so far has not been shown to be the solution
700: of any known theory).
701:
702: Of course, one would expect that much of the low-energy dynamics of the
703: theory would be determined by the lowest-lying mass states, and they
704: have a richer structure than the large-$n$ asymptotics --- a glimpse of this can be seen
705: in the inset on the right hand side of Fig.~\ref{towerplots}.
706: Since the KS theory incorporates spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry,
707: this should have left its mark on our spectrum. We do observe some interesting patterns,
708: but we have not been able to link them conclusively to symmetry breaking. This deserves further study.
709:
710: As alluded to in the introduction, operator mixing is even more subtle
711: here than in standard AdS/CFT. We have
712: computed the spin-0 mass spectrum, but we have not said what the mass
713: states are composed of in terms of dual gauge theory operators. Some of the problems of
714: identifying the mass states were already addressed in section
715: \ref{method:polestruc}, i.e.\ the ambiguity in the
716: normalization of the dominant asymtptotic solutions and the
717: freedom to add to a given dominant solution multiples of asymptotic
718: solutions of equal or weaker strength. Thus we do not attempt
719: to give a further interpretation of the mass states.
720: We just content ourselves by noticing that there is actually a quantity
721: that is easy to obtain with our method, namely the coefficients
722: $d_{\lambda,i}$ from (\ref{method:eigen.subdom}). These can
723: be determined straightforwardly by solving (\ref{method:mid-point})
724: at the various mass values. This gives information on the composition of
725: the ``cavity mode'' (that we called $\mfa_\lambda$ in chapter \ref{method})
726: corresponding to a mass state in terms of
727: our basis of subdominant solutions. However, as the interpretation
728: in terms of operator mixing is not clear to us, we refrain from
729: determining these coefficients explicitly here. Moreover, also the quantities
730: $Z_{\lambda,i}$, defined in (\ref{method:Zdef2}), could be determined in principle.
731: They correspond to the residues of the mass poles if $N_\lambda$, introduced in
732: (\ref{method:Ydef}), is really one, as
733: in the case of asymptotic AdS spaces (see Appendix \ref{appads}).
734:
735: % Clearly, a generic mass state
736: % will be a mix of various gauge theory states. We do not know how to
737: % deal with this in general, but here is an outline of how it might be
738: % resolved.
739: %
740: % Recall that in our approach, eq.\ \eqref{method:gammac}
741: % tells us that mass states are found by looking for values of $k^2$ where
742: % \begin{equation}
743: % \gamma_{ij}c_{j} = 0 \; .
744: % \label{gammacrepeated}
745: % \end{equation}
746: % We computed $\gamma_{ij}$ for each model, and looked for zeros
747: % of its determinant. But \eqref{gammacrepeated}
748: % contains more information; that there is
749: % (at least) one eigenvector $c_j$ with zero eigenvalue.
750: % This eigenvector tells us
751: % the linear combination of original initial conditions that ``create''
752: % the regular and integrable bulk solution.
753: %
754: % In fact, when viewed this way, equation \eqref{gammacrepeated} begs the
755: % question: what is the decomposition of each mass state into the original
756: % states?
757: % A first step towards answering that question is: what is the mass state in
758: % terms of the fields at the UV cutoff?
759: % We can decompose $c_i$ in UV boundary conditions $\tilde{d}_i$
760: % (cf.\ \eqref{duality}), but $\tilde{d}_i=0$ for the mass state.
761: % In the absence of $\tilde{d}_i$, we can as a first guess
762: % decompose it in $d_i$ (assuming they have the same relative behavior):
763: % \begin{equation}
764: % c_i = \mu_{ij} d_j
765: % \end{equation}
766: % %c_{i}\areg^a_{,i} = d_{j} \asub^a_{,j} \; .
767: % for some coefficients $\mu_{ij}$. Interpreting $\mu_{ij}$ as
768: % ``wavefunction coefficients'', we would like to think of the square of
769: % each one as the probability to find the UV state labelled by $j$ as
770: % part of
771: % the composite mass state $c_i$.
772: % We give these for a few mass states in Table \ref{mixingtable}.
773: % \begin{table}
774: % \begin{center}
775: % \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
776: % $m^2$ & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 \\ \hline \hline
777: % 1.28 & 11\% & 11\% & 11\% & 0\% & 23\% & 23\% & 23\% \\ \hline
778: % 1.63 & 8\% & 8\% & 8\% & 0\% & 26\% & 26\% & 26\% \\ \hline
779: % 4.12 & 33\% & 33\% & 33\% & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% \\ \hline
780: % \end{tabular}
781: % \end{center}
782: % \vspace{-5mm}
783: % \caption{Mixing table for a few sample mass eigenstates{\bf [These
784: % are wrong, we should first agree whether the outlined approach is OK]}}
785: % \label{mixingtable}
786: % \end{table}
787: % Granting this, we can transform back to Apreda variables (see Table
788: % \ref{T11table}) and consider the conformal limit.
789: % Doing so, we see that the state labelled
790: % ``4'' is the glueball,
791: % so none of the states in Table \ref{mixingtable} contain a
792: % significant glueball admixture. State ``3'' contains the
793: % gluinoball, so this type of analysis would seem to indicate that many
794: % of our states are in fact more gluinoball than glueball. We leave this
795: % at these remarks. \hmm{More details? Less details?}
796:
797: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
798:
799: \subsection{Comparison to hardwall approximations}
800: \label{sec:hardwall}
801:
802: \begin{table}[t]
803: \begin{center}
804: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|} \hline
805: values from Table \ref{KSmasstable} & $\tau_{\rm IR}=0.5$ & $\tau_{\rm IR}=0.75$
806: & $\tau_{\rm IR}=1$ \\
807: \hline
808: 0.19 & 0.27 & 0.30 & 0.34 \\
809: 0.42 & 0.56 & 0.63 & 0.71 \\
810: 0.83 & 0.86 & 1.03 & 1.14 \\
811: 1.29 & 1.39 & 1.62 & 1.83 \\
812: 1.63 & 1.78 & 1.89 & 2.03 \\
813: 1.94 & 2.32 & 2.42 & 2.57 \\
814: 2.35 & 2.43 & 2.56 & 2.75 \\
815: 2.61 & 3.26 & 3.39 & 3.70 \\
816: 3.33 & 3.58 & 3.80 & 4.09 \\
817: 3.53 & 4.06 & 4.22 & 4.40 \\
818: 4.13 & 4.30 & 4.60 & \\
819: 4.17 & 4.54 & 4.81 & \\
820: 4.43 (2x) & 4.71 & &\\
821: \hline
822: \end{tabular}
823: \end{center}
824: \vspace{-5mm}
825: \caption{Comparison of our mass values with a toy
826: hardwall model as described in the text (only values up to $m^2=5$
827: are included). This
828: demonstrates that the spectrum indeed
829: strongly depends on the IR dynamics.}
830: \label{hardwalltable}
831: \end{table}
832:
833: In this section, we would like to give some arguments supporting our conviction
834: stated in the introduction that the detailed form
835: of the spectrum depends crucially on the details of the IR dynamics in
836: the gauge theory. Holographically, this means that it is important to use
837: the full Klebanov-Strassler background to determine the low
838: lying mass eigenvalues. To illustrate this, we compare our spectrum with
839: a naive toy hardwall model. In particular, one might hope to find the right spectrum
840: by using the Klebanov-Tseytlin approximation of the KS background.
841: This is roughly equivalent to cutting off the KS background at some value
842: $\tau_{\rm IR}$ of order one (the two solutions differ strongly only for
843: $\tau \le 0.8$). In order to use the determinant method described in
844: Sec.~\ref{method:method1}, one would like to impose seven independent
845: initial conditions at $\tau_{\rm IR}$ and then solve the equations numerically
846: from the IR towards
847: the UV. One again demands that there is a linear combination
848: of those numerical solutions that
849: does not contain any dominant solutions $\mfa_{\rm dom}$ when expanded in a basis of asymptotic
850: solutions.
851: Lacking any guiding principle for choosing these initial conditions,
852: we arbitrarily impose that all components of the seven scalar
853: fields should vanish at $\tau_{\rm IR}$, whereas for each initial condition
854: one of the first derivatives are taken to be unity. This gives seven
855: independent initial conditions. The resulting spectrum is contained
856: in Table~\ref{hardwalltable} for several values of $\tau_{\rm IR}$,
857: together with the correct mass values. Obviously, the ``toy spectra''
858: depend on the value of $\tau_{\rm IR}$, but they also differ strongly from
859: the correct values. We believe that this holds more
860: generally, even if one had a different set of initial conditions
861: than these, whether or not they are physically motivated.
862:
863: To summarize, we do not see any way of implementing a hard-wall approximation that reproduces the correct spectrum of Table~\ref{KSmasstable}.
864:
865: