format: text

text:
# Critical couplings for chiral symmetry breaking via instantons

## I introduction

Nonperturbative gauge dynamics present many challenges that are yet to be fully understood. One of these is the phenomenon of chiral symmetry breaking. A theory with an $`SU(N_c)`$ gauge symmetry and $`N_f`$ fermions in the fundamental representation has a global chiral symmetry in the massless limit. Provided that $`N_f<5.5N_c`$ this theory is asymptotically free. Close to this threshold the coupling is bounded above due to an infrared fixed point in the beta function. As $`N_f`$ becomes smaller the fixed point value increases. Below a critical value for $`N_f`$ the coupling can grow strong enough to break the chiral symmetry down to the vector symmetry:

$$SU(N_f)_R\times SU(N_f)_L\times U(1)_VSU(N_f)_V\times U(1)_V.$$
(1)
As a result the fermions acquire a dynamical mass, which acts as an order parameter for the spontaneous breaking of the chiral symmetry. This much is well understood, but the respective parts played by gauge exchanges and instantons in this process still needs clarification.

It has been known for some time that gauge exchanges can generate a dynamical mass. To leading order (ladder approximation) in Landau gauge the critical coupling associated with gauge exchange dynamics is

$$\alpha _c^{ge}=\frac{2\pi N_c}{3(N_c^21)}.$$
(2)
Assuming a two-loop beta function, one can show that the critical number of flavors, below which dynamical chiral symmetry breaking occurs, is

$$N_f^c=4N_c\frac{6N_c}{25N_c^215}4N_c.$$
(3)
It is known that instanton  dynamics can also break the chiral symmetry . Attempts to investigate this possibility have been hampered by the presence of an infrared divergence in the integral over the instanton size. In their recent investigation of the critical number of flavors for chiral symmetry breaking via instantons, Appelquist and Selipsky  avoided the problem of infrared divergences by introducing the following two modifications of the Carlitz and Creamer gap equation :

* They introduced a mass dependence for the fermion determinant that is not only valid for the small mass limit  but also for the large mass limit . This function simply makes a sharp transition from the small mass behavior to the large mass behavior. The effect is to introduce a fermion mass scale below which the fermions are integrated out.
* In Reference  all couplings in the instanton expression are allowed to run according to the two-loop beta function. For those values of $`N_f`$ where the beta function has a fixed point the coupling remains fairly constant until it reaches the fermion mass scale. Fermions are integrated out below the fermion mass scale. This causes the beta function to revert back to normal asymptotic free running, which gives a suppression of the integrand in the infrared region because of the way it depends on the coupling.

The result of their investigation was that the critical number of flavors for instantons is about $`4.77N_c`$. From this they concluded that the instanton contribution to chiral symmetry breaking is comparable to that of gauge exchanges.

In this paper we reinvestigate chiral symmetry breaking through instantons, but our investigation differs from that of Reference  in two essential aspects:

* The recently proposed instanton effective action formalism  is used to determine the conditions under which the symmetric vacuum becomes unstable. This formalism reproduces the Carlitz and Creamer gap equation in the small mass limit for $`SU(2)`$. However, we are not interested in the shape of the mass function, but rather in the critical couplings and the critical number of flavors.
* We concentrate on continuous phase transitions, such as found for chiral symmetry breaking through gauge exchanges. The effective action formalism makes it clear that the instanton contribution responsible for this type of transition is not the one–instanton amplitude of Figure 1a but rather the instanton–anti-instanton amplitude with two mass insertions, shown in Figure 1b.

The latter point needs clarification. The effective action can be interpreted as an effective potential. This makes it easier to determine when the stability of the symmetric vacuum is affected by the dynamics. For small couplings the global minimum of the effective potential is located at the origin, where the order parameter is zero. When the coupling is increased the global minimum remains at the origin until the coupling crosses the critical value where the phase transition occurs. At this point the global minimum can either jump discontinuously to a nonzero value of the order parameter, indicating a first order phase transition, or it can move continuously (though non-analytically) to a nonzero value of the order parameter, indicating a continuous phase transition. For a first order phase transition a local minimum must develop as the coupling is increased. This becomes deeper as the coupling is increased further until it is below the minimum at zero and so becomes the global minimum when the coupling crosses the critical value. A continuous phase transition appears when the global minimum ‘rolls’ out of the origin. This implies that the minimum at the origin must flatten out and become unstable. To investigate first order phase transitions one must be able to analyze the effective potential at arbitrarily large values of the order parameter. Unfortunately the effective potential is not reliable at large values of the order parameter because it is not possible to make a reliable truncation of the series of diagrams in the effective potential for large order parameters. For a continuous phase transition, on the other hand, the order parameter would be arbitrarily small close enough to the transition point. Hence, the order parameter can be used as an expansion parameter, allowing one to make reliable truncations of the series of diagrams. For this reason we restrict ourselves to the investigation of continuous phase transitions.

In a stability analysis for continuous phase transitions the one–instanton amplitude is irrelevant. The reason is as follows. The effective potential consists of terms with positive powers of the order parameter. Near the origin the nondynamical kinetic part of the potential is second order in the order parameter. Hence, to destabilize the potential at the origin the dynamical terms must be of second order or smaller. Terms with higher powers of the order parameter will become insignificant compared to the kinetic term when the order parameter approaches zero. Looking at the one–instanton diagram, shown in Figure 1a, one sees that this term always comes with as many powers of the order parameter as it takes to close off all the zeromode lines. For $`N_f`$ flavors there would be $`N_f`$ factors of the order parameter. This means that for $`N_f>2`$ the one–instanton term cannot compete with the kinetic term near the origin. The leading contribution to the dynamic part of the potential that is second order in the order parameter is the instanton–anti-instanton term with two mass insertions shown in Figure 1b. Therefore only this term is considered in our calculation. It turns out that this term does not have an infrared problem in our stability analysis.

The main result of our stability analysis is presented in terms of an expression for arbitrary $`N_f`$ and $`N_c`$ from which one can compute the critical couplings for chiral symmetry breaking via instantons. We determine the critical numbers of flavors for $`N_c=3,4,5`$ and $`6`$, assuming a two-loop beta function. Numerical values for critical couplings are provided in the fixed point regions of these values of $`N_c`$, up to the respective critical numbers of flavors. These results indicate that the critical couplings for the formation of 2-point functions via instantons are much smaller than those for gauge exchange dynamics when the number of flavors becomes large. The increasing strength of the instanton dynamics can be understood in terms of the increase in the number of fermion lines of the instanton vertices.

The instanton effective action formalism is briefly reviewed in Section II. We distinguish between the dynamical and nondynamical terms of the effective action. Section III addresses the nondynamical terms and the dynamical term is considered in Section IV. We present and discussed the results of this calculation in Section V and conclude with a short summary in Section VI.

## II Instanton effective action formalism

The 2-point effective action  in the instanton formalism of Reference  is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[S]=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left(S^1\right)\right\}+\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\left(S_m^1S^1\right)S\right\}+W_{2PI}[S]$$
(4)
where the fermion modal propagator, $`S_m`$, consists of different propagators for the different types of modes associated with an instanton background configuration. We parameterize the full fermion propagator $`S`$ by

$$S(p)=\frac{1}{ip/\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)}=\frac{ip/\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)}{p^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(p)}$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$ is the dynamical mass function.

One can classify the terms of the effective action as either dynamical or nondynamical. Dynamical terms are those that vanish when the coupling is set to zero, while the nondynamical terms are those that remain. The first two one-loop kinetic terms in (4) are nondynamical terms. They consist of one-loop diagrams that are only composed of the full fermion propagator $`S`$ and the fermion modal propagator, $`S_m`$.

The dynamical term $`W_{2PI}[S]`$ in (4) is the sum of all 2PI vacuum diagrams constructed with Feynman rules for:

* the $`2N_f`$-point instanton vertices, $`𝒱_I`$ and $`𝒱_A`$, given below;
* the full fermion propagator $`S`$, given in (5); and
* an integral over the collective coordinates (sizes, positions and color orientations) of all instantons in the diagram.

The dynamics in this analysis are provided by the instantons and are represented by the instanton vertices:

$$𝒱_I=𝒜\underset{n}{\overset{N_f}{}}\left(\delta _0S_0^1\psi _n^0\right)\left(\overline{\psi }_n^0S_0^1\overline{\delta }_0\right),$$
(6)
where $`S_0^1`$ is the inverse bare propagator and the functional derivatives $`\delta _0(=\delta /\delta \eta _0)`$ and $`\overline{\delta }_0(=\delta /\delta \overline{\eta }_0)`$ operate on the zeromode parts of the fermion sources, $`\eta _0`$ and $`\overline{\eta }_0`$. The expression for anti-instantons, $`𝒱_A`$, differs from the expression in (6) only in that the zeromode functions, $`\psi ^0`$ and $`\overline{\psi }^0`$, have the opposite helicities.

The coefficient of the instanton vertex is the integrand of the ’t Hooft instanton amplitude :

$$𝒜=\kappa \gamma (\alpha )\frac{1}{\rho ^5}(\mu \rho )^{b_0+N_f}.$$
(7)
Here $`\rho `$ is a scale parameter for the size of the instanton and $`b_0=\frac{1}{3}(11N_c2N_f)`$.

The dependence on the gauge coupling in (7) is contained in

$$\gamma \left(\alpha (\mu )\right)=\left(\frac{2\pi }{\alpha (\mu )}\right)^{2N_c}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi }{\alpha (\mu )}\right).$$
(8)
The factor $`(\mu \rho )^{b_0}`$ appearing in (7) can be incorporated into the exponent part of $`\gamma (\alpha )`$. This then leads to one-loop running as a function of $`\rho `$ for the coupling in the exponent in $`\gamma (\alpha )`$. The instanton expression in (7) can be computed to higher orders which would cause the coupling in the monomial part of $`\gamma (\alpha )`$ to run as a function of $`\rho `$ as well, but always at one order less than the coupling in the exponent. To all orders one would expect that both couplings run according to the exact beta function. Hence, assuming that the two-loop beta function is an accurate enough representation of the exact beta function, one can allow both couplings in $`\gamma (\alpha )`$ to run according to the two-loop beta function . This is what we shall assume so that we can make the replacement $`\gamma (\alpha (\mu ))(\mu \rho )^{b_0}\gamma (\alpha (\rho ))`$.

The shape of $`\gamma (\alpha )`$ as a function of $`\alpha `$ is shown in Figure 2. The instanton amplitude peaks at a value of $`\alpha =\pi /N_c`$.

The prefactor in (7) is

$$\kappa =\frac{2\mathrm{exp}(5/6)\mathrm{exp}(BN_fCN_c])}{\pi ^2(N_c1)!(N_c2)!}$$
(9)
where we follow  and use the one-loop values: $`B=0.2917`$, $`C=1.5114`$ in MS-bar .

Note that unlike the case in Reference  the integration over the color orientations has not yet been done in (6). To alleviate the combinatorical calculations, this step is postponed until after the propagators are connected and unnecessary gauge transformations are cancelled. However, $`\kappa `$ in (9) already contains the volume of the factor group, $`SU(N_c)/G`$, where $`G`$ is the subgroup that leaves the instantons invariant. All that remains of the integration over color orientations is a color averaging integral.

The expression of the fermion zeromode function in singular gauge that appears in (6) is

$$\psi ^0(x)=\frac{\sqrt{2}\rho x_\mu \gamma _\mu U^\alpha }{\pi \sqrt{\mu }\sqrt{x^2}(\rho ^2+x^2)^{3/2}},$$
(10)
where $`\mu `$ is the renormalization scale***The $`\mu `$ is included here to get a mass dimension of $`\frac{3}{2}`$ for the fermion zeromodes. and $`x^2`$ denotes an Euclidean dot-product: $`x_\mu x_\mu `$. The Euclidean Dirac matrices, $`\gamma _\mu `$, are here defined so that $`\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\mathrm{tr}\{\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \}=4\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\gamma _\mu ^{}=\gamma _\mu `$. The $`U^\alpha `$ denotes a Dirac spinor with isospin index $`\alpha `$. (The isospin index is implicit in $`\psi ^0(x)`$.) This spinor is normalized such that $`_\alpha \overline{U}_\alpha U^\alpha =1`$ and it obeys the identity $`_\alpha U^\alpha \overline{U}_\alpha =\frac{1}{4}(1+\gamma _5)`$.

We shall also later need the Fourier-transform of the zeromode function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^0(p)=\psi ^0(x)\mathrm{exp}(ixp)d^4x=i\frac{2\pi \sqrt{2}\rho p_\mu \gamma _\mu U^\alpha }{\sqrt{\mu }p^2}f\left(\frac{\rho \sqrt{p^2}}{2}\right),$$
(11)
where the function,

$$f(x)=2x\left[I_0(x)K_1(x)I_1(x)K_0(x)\right]2I_1(x)K_1(x),$$
(12)
is defined in terms of modified Bessel functions .

## III The nondynamical terms

The trace over the inverse modal propagator in (4) contains an integral over all the collective coordinates involved in the diagram. The general form of the result of this integration is the inverse bare propagator, $`S_0^1=ip/`$, multiplied by a momentum-dependent scalar form factor, which we shall assume to be equal to 1.

In terms of (5) the nondynamical terms in (4), which we denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kin}`$, becomes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kin}=\left(\frac{4\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(p)}{p^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(p)}2\mathrm{ln}\left[p^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(p)\right]\right)\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}.$$
(13)
It is customary to introduce an infrared cutoff at the momentum scale where $`p_0=\mathrm{\Sigma }(p_0)`$. Close to the phase transition point $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$ is very small so that $`p_00`$. An expansion of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kin}`$ in term of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)/p`$ contains only even powers. We drop the terms that are independent of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$ because they do not affect the location of the minimum and we drop the terms that are higher than second order in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$ because they are suppressed. The result is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kin}^{(2)}=\frac{N_cN_f}{4\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)^2p𝑑p.$$
(14)
Now we make a redefinition of the integration variables and do a Fourier transformation. For this purpose we define

$$p=\mu \mathrm{exp}(t)\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)=\mu \mathrm{exp}(t)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\sigma (\omega )\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)𝑑\omega $$
(15)
where $`\mu `$ is the renormalization scale. Now we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kin}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_cN_f\mu ^4}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma (\omega _1)\sigma (\omega _2){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _1t)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _2t)𝑑t𝑑\omega _1𝑑\omega _2`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_cN_f\mu ^4}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma (\omega )\sigma (\omega )𝑑\omega .`$ (17)
## IV The dynamical term

The instanton–anti-instanton term that is quadratic in the dynamical mass looks as follows: each mass insertion closes off two lines of an instanton vertex. The remaining lines are all connected between the two vertices. (See Figure 1b.) The resulting diagram is expressed as

$$W_{2PI}^{(2)}=\kappa ^2\gamma (\alpha (\rho _1))\gamma (\alpha (\rho _2))(\mu ^2\rho _1\rho _2)^{N_f}D(\rho _1)D(\rho _2)G(\rho _1,\rho _2)\frac{1}{\rho _1^5}\frac{1}{\rho _2^5}𝑑\rho _1𝑑\rho _2$$
(18)
where $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ denote the sizes of the two instantons; the combinatorial factor $``$ simply counts the number of terms associated with this diagram; $`D(\rho _1)`$ and $`D(\rho _2)`$ are the parts of the expression due to the two mass loops and $`G(\rho _1,\rho _2)`$ is the part of the expression due to the remaining fermion loops.

### A The combinatorics and color averaging

To count the number of terms we start by considering all the possible ways that the propagators can close off the lines of the two instanton vertices to give a diagram with two mass loops. Then we perform the color averaging and add up all the different terms.

Recall that each line of an instanton vertex has a specific flavor associated with it. There is one incoming and one outgoing line for each flavor. Because the propagator is flavor diagonal it must connect lines of the same flavor. Hence, there are $`N_f`$ distinct ways to connect one of the two mass insertions, each leaving the other mass insertion and the remaining fermion lines with only one way to be connected.

Next we perform the averaging over the color orientations of the two respective instantons. The color orientations are represented by gauge transformations that operate on the zeromodes:

$$\psi ^0g\psi ^0\mathrm{and}\overline{\psi }^0\overline{\psi }^0g^1.$$
(19)
In the mass loops they cancel because there we have a $`g`$ and a $`g^1`$ from the same instanton. The gauge transformations of the remaining lines can be combined into relative gauge transformations of one instanton with respect to the other: $`g_1^1g_2=g_r`$ or $`g_2^1g_1=g_r^1`$. Thus the two color averaging integrals become one trivial ($`=1`$) and one nontrivial averaging integral. The nontrivial integral contains $`(N_f1)`$ factors of $`g_r`$ and $`g_r^1`$. The result of the averaging is a series of tensor structures each multiplied by a coefficient that depends on $`N_f`$ and $`N_c`$. General expressions for these coefficients are provided in Reference . The tensor structures indicate how color indices of the same instanton are interconnected. This in turn determines how the fermion lines between the two instantons are closed off into fermion loops and thereby determines the form of the momentum integrals.

The evaluation of all these momentum integrals is too challenging to attempt. However, we expect that the sizes of the momentum integrals do not differ by more that an $`O(1)`$ factor and that the variations would average out. Therefore we set them all equal and estimate their typical size in Section IV C. Each tensor structure consists of $`(N_f1)!`$ terms because of all the possible permutations of the $`(N_f1)`$ pairs of fermion lines between the two instantons. The different tensor structures denote different relative permutations of one line with respect to the other in the $`(N_f1)`$ pairs of fermion lines. All tensor structures that are associated with the same conjugacy class in the permutation group have the same coefficient.

Because we assume that the momentum integrals are the same, we only have to add all the coefficients of all the tensor structures multiplied by the number of terms associated with each tensor structure. It can be shown that for permutations of $`(N_f1)`$ elements,

$$\underset{classes}{}\alpha _iN_i=\frac{(N_c1)!}{(N_c+N_f2)!},$$
(20)
where $`N_i`$ is the number of group elements in the $`i`$-th conjugacy class of the permutation group and $`\alpha _i`$ is the coefficient of the tensor structures in that class. To get the total count we have to multiply (20) by $`N_f`$ for the number of ways to connect the mass loops and by $`(N_f1)!`$ for the number of terms in each tensor structure. The resulting combinatorial factor is

$$=\frac{N_f!(N_c1)!}{(N_c+N_f2)!}.$$
(21)
### B The mass insertions

Using (5) and (11) we obtain the following expressions for the mass loops

$`D(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^0(p)S_0^1(p)S(p)S_0^1(p)\mathrm{\Psi }^0(p)\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)}{p^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(p)}f^2\left(\frac{\rho p}{2}\right)p^3𝑑p}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Sigma }(p)f^2\left(\frac{\rho p}{2}\right)p𝑑p}+O\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^3(p)/p^3\right)`$ (24)
where we again made use of the approximations introduced in Section III. Next we again make a redefinition of the integration variables and do a Fourier transformation as in (15). In addition we define

$$\frac{\rho \mu }{2}=\mathrm{exp}(\eta )\mathrm{and}f\left(\mathrm{exp}(a)\right)=f_0(a)$$
(25)
As a result we have

$`D(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{exp}(2\eta ){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma (\omega )\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)f_0^2(t+\eta )\mathrm{exp}(t)𝑑t𝑑\omega `$ (26)
$`=`$ $`4\mathrm{exp}(\eta ){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma (\omega )\mathrm{exp}(i\omega \eta )F(\omega )𝑑\omega `$ (27)
where

$$F(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega a)f_0^2(a)\mathrm{exp}(a)𝑑a.$$
(28)
### C The remaining fermion loops

The rest of the fermion lines between the two instanton vertices combine into

$$G(\rho _1,\rho _2)=\underset{i}{\overset{2N_f2}{}}\left[\frac{d^4p_i}{(2\pi )^4}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^0(p_i)S_0^1(p_i)S(p_i)S_0^1(p_i)\mathrm{\Psi }^0(p_i)\right](2\pi )^4\delta ^4\left(\underset{i}{}p_i\right).$$
(29)
The fermion lines pair up into fermion loops due to the color contractions that appear after the averaging over color orientations. Considering one such loop, we find

$`I(\rho _1,\rho _2,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_a^0(p)S_0^1(p)S(p)S_0^1(p)\mathrm{\Psi }_b^0(p)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_b^0(q)S_0^1(q)S(q)S_0^1(q)\mathrm{\Psi }_a^0(q)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(2\pi )^4}{\mu ^2}}\rho _1^2\rho _2^2{\displaystyle \frac{pq}{p^2q^2}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1p}{2}}\right)f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _2p}{2}}\right)f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1q}{2}}\right)f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _2q}{2}}\right)+O\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^2/\mu ^2\right)`$ (31)
where in the first line we explicitly show the color indices on the zeromodes. By defining

$$J(k,\rho _1,\rho _2)=I(\rho _1,\rho _2,p,pk)\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4},$$
(32)
one can write (29) as

$$G(\rho _1,\rho _2)=\underset{i}{\overset{N_f1}{}}\left[\frac{d^4k_i}{(2\pi )^4}J(k_i,\rho _1,\rho _2)\right](2\pi )^4\delta ^4\left(\underset{i}{}k_i\right).$$
(33)
We shall not attempt to evaluate (33) exactly, but instead estimate its size in terms of the number of fermion loops. It turns out that the $`\rho `$-integrals are dominated in the region where $`\rho _1\rho _2`$. Therefore we set $`\rho _1=\rho _2=\rho `$ in the arguments of the $`f`$-functions. Then (32) becomes

$$J(k,\rho _1,\rho _2)=\frac{8\pi \rho _1^2\rho _2^2}{\mu ^2}\frac{p^2pk}{p^2(pk)^2}f^2\left(\frac{\rho p}{2}\right)f^2\left(\frac{\rho \sqrt{(pk)^2}}{2}\right)p^3\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )𝑑\theta 𝑑p.$$
(34)
For the region where $`p>k`$ we set $`\sqrt{(pk)^2}=p`$ inside the $`f`$-function and for $`p<k`$ we set $`\sqrt{(pk)^2}=k`$. Upon evaluating the angular integral we arrive at

$$J(k,\rho _1,\rho _2)=\frac{(2\pi )^2\rho _1^2\rho _2^2}{\mu ^2}\left[_0^k\frac{p^2}{2k^2}f^2\left(\frac{\rho p}{2}\right)f^2\left(\frac{\rho k}{2}\right)p𝑑p+_k^{\mathrm{}}\left(1\frac{k^2}{2p^2}\right)f^4\left(\frac{\rho p}{2}\right)p𝑑p\right].$$
(35)
If we assume that $`\rho _1>\rho _2`$ then $`\rho =\rho _1`$, because the $`f`$-function with the largest $`\rho `$ dominates. Defining

$$x=\frac{p\rho _1}{2}\mathrm{and}y=\frac{k\rho _1}{2}$$
(36)
one can write (35) as

$$J(k,\rho _1,\rho _2)=\frac{\pi ^2\rho _2^2}{\mu ^2}\left[\frac{8f^2(y)}{y^2}_0^yf^2(x)x^3𝑑x+16_y^{\mathrm{}}f^4(x)x𝑑x8y^2_y^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{x}f^4(x)𝑑x\right]\frac{\pi ^2\rho _2^2}{\mu ^2}R(y).$$
(37)
The size of the area under $`R(y)`$ is $`\frac{1}{2}`$. This function determines the momentum dependence under the remaining momentum integrals in (33). To assess the size of the remaining integrals we note that (33) has $`(N_f2)`$ integrals over $`k_i`$. This will give $`(N_f3)`$ angular integrals. (One can arrange it that each $`k_i`$ at most contracts with its two neighbors). Together with the definitions in (36) we estimate the size of the remaining momentum integrals to be

$$\underset{i}{\overset{N_f1}{}}\left[\frac{d^4k_i}{(2\pi )^4}R\left(\frac{k_i\rho _1}{2}\right)\right](2\pi )^4\delta ^4\left(\underset{i}{}k_i\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{N_f1}\left[\frac{16}{\rho _1^4}(2\pi )^2\right]^{N_f2}.$$
(38)
Our estimate for the sizes of $`G(\rho _1,\rho _2)`$ then gives

$$G(\rho _1,\rho _2)\frac{\rho _1^4\pi ^2}{8}\left[\frac{2\rho _2^2}{\mu ^2\rho _1^4}\right]^{N_f1}.$$
(39)
## V Results and discussion

The integrand of (18) is invariant under an interchange of $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$. Therefore, one can split the $`\rho _2`$-integration into two regions, divided by the value of $`\rho _1`$. First, we consider only the part where $`\rho _2<\rho _1`$. When we substitute (39) into this part we find

$$W_{\rho _2<\rho _1}^{(2)}=\frac{2^{N_f}\pi ^2}{16}\kappa ^2\mu ^2\gamma (\alpha (\rho _1))\gamma (\alpha (\rho _2))D(\rho _1)D(\rho _2)\rho _1^{33N_f}\rho _2^{3N_f7}𝑑\rho _1𝑑\rho _2.$$
(40)
One can see that the $`\rho _2`$-integral is dominated by the region near the $`\rho _1`$-boundary. For this reason one can set $`\gamma (\alpha (\rho _2))=\gamma (\alpha (\rho _1))`$. The integrand of the $`\rho _1`$-integral has its dominant region around some value $`\rho _m`$, close to $`\mu `$. Since we consider cases with large numbers of flavors, the coupling runs slowly. Therefore one can set $`\gamma (\alpha (\rho _1))=\gamma (\alpha (\rho _m))=\gamma _0`$.

Next we use (25) to redefine the variables in (40) and we substitute in (27). The result is

$`W_{\rho _2<\rho _1}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mu ^4\kappa ^2\pi ^22^{N_f}\gamma _0^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma (\omega _1)\sigma (\omega _2)F(\omega _1)F(\omega _2)`$ (42)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\eta _1}}\mathrm{exp}([53N_f+i\omega _1]\eta _1)\mathrm{exp}([3N_f5+i\omega _2]\eta _2)d\eta _2d\eta _1d\omega _1d\omega _2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^4\kappa ^2\pi ^32^{N_f}\gamma _0^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma (\omega _1)\sigma (\omega _2)F(\omega _1)F(\omega _2){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \left(\omega _1+\omega _2\right)}{3N_f5+i\omega _2}}𝑑\omega _1𝑑\omega _2`$ (43)
Now we add the part where $`\rho _2>\rho _1`$. This is the same as (43) but with $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ interchanged. Then we evaluate one of the $`\omega `$-integrals. The result is

$`W_{2PI}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{\rho _2<\rho _1}^{(2)}+W_{\rho _2>\rho _1}^{(2)}`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`\mu ^4\kappa ^2\pi ^32^{N_f}\gamma _0^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma (\omega )\sigma (\omega )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(3N_f5)F(\omega )F(\omega )}{(3N_f5)^2+\omega ^2}}\right]𝑑\omega .`$ (45)
The maximum value of the part of the integrand in the brackets is at $`\omega =0`$ with $`F(0)^20.3`$. We notice that this term does not have an infrared divergence.

Comparing the result in (45) with the nondynamical term in (17) one can see that the potential becomes unstable at the origin when

$$\kappa ^2\pi ^32^{N_f}\gamma _0^2\left[\frac{F(0)^2}{3N_f5}\right]>\frac{N_cN_f}{2\pi }.$$
(46)
This can be expressed as

$$\gamma _0>1,$$
(47)
where

$$(N_c,N_f)=\frac{2F(0)\mathrm{exp}(5/6)\mathrm{exp}(BN_fCN_c)}{(N_c2)!}\sqrt{\frac{2^{N_f+1}(N_f1)!}{(3N_f5)(N_f+N_c2)!N_c!}}$$
(48)
only depends on $`N_c`$ and $`N_f`$.

The critical coupling for instanton dynamics $`\alpha _c^I`$ is the one for which

$$\gamma \left(\alpha (\rho _m)=\alpha _c^I\right)=\frac{1}{(N_c,N_f)}.$$
(49)
It necessarily has to be smaller than $`\pi /N_c`$. The requirement in (49), together with (48), is the main result of our analysis. From it one can compute $`\alpha _c^I`$ for any value of $`N_c`$ and $`N_f>4/3`$. Numerical estimates of $`\alpha _c^I`$ for various values of $`N_c`$ and $`N_f`$ are provided in Figure 3.

Before we discuss these critical couplings we need to clarify the ranges of numbers of flavors for which these critical couplings are computed. These ranges are defined under the assumption that the running of the coupling is governed by the two-loop beta function – an assumption which becomes more accurate as the coupling becomes smaller. We only compute the critical couplings in the region of $`N_f`$ where the two-loop beta function has an infrared fixed point. The left-hand end of each curve in Figure 3 is therefore the point where a fixed point value appears, which moves down from infinity as a function of increasing $`N_f`$.

The right-hand ends of the curves in Figure 3 indicate the critical numbers of flavors $`N_f^c`$ above which chiral symmetry breaking does not occur. When there is a nontrivial infrared fixed point in the beta function the maximum coupling that can be reached is the fixed point coupling. Assuming a two-loop beta function the fixed point coupling is given by

$$\alpha _{}=\frac{b}{c}=\frac{4\pi (11N_c2N_f)N_c}{34N_c^313N_c^2N_f+3N_f}$$
(50)
where $`b`$ and $`c`$ are respectively the first and second coefficients in the beta function. The critical numbers of flavors $`N_f^c`$ is reached when the fixed point coupling given by (50) falls below the critical coupling, obtained from solving (49). Therefore for values of $`N_f`$ above $`N_f^c`$ the coupling is unable to reach the critical value so that chiral symmetry breaking does not occur. The critical number of flavors, $`N_f^c`$ are $`13.48,17.95,22.41`$ and $`26.87`$ for $`N_c=3,4,5,`$ and $`6`$, respectively. This gives $`N_f^c4.5N_c`$, compared to $`4.77N_c`$, reported in Reference .

We computed critical couplings for $`N_c=3,4,5`$ and $`6`$ and for $`N_f`$ in the fixed point region up to $`N_f^c`$. The results are shown in Figure 3. From these results we make the following observations:

* The critical coupling decreases as either $`N_c`$ or $`N_f`$ increases.
* The values of the critical couplings near $`N_f^c`$ are small compared to the equivalent critical coupling for gauge exchanges given in (2). Compare, for example, the $`N_c=3`$ values. We obtain $`\alpha _c^I=0.37`$, while the equivalent gauge exchange value is $`\alpha _c^{ge}=\pi /4=0.785`$.
* Toward smaller values of $`N_f`$ the instanton critical couplings become more comparable to their gauge exchange counterparts.

On this basis we conclude that instanton dynamics are much stronger than gauge dynamics for large numbers of flavors.

## VI summary

We have used the instanton effective action formalism of Reference  to compute the critical couplings for the formation of 2-point functions. For this analysis we restricted ourselves to continuous phase transitions for chiral symmetry breaking, which implies that we only consider the instanton–anti-instanton amplitude with two mass insertions. We found that this amplitude does not suffer from an infrared divergence. Couplings are allowed to run according to the two-loop beta functions. The resulting critical couplings indicate that instanton dynamics are much stronger than gauge dynamics for large numbers of flavors.

## Acknowledgements

The author wants to express his appreciation for the valuable comments of Bob Holdom. He also wants to thank Craig Burrell for his help in the preparation of this manuscript.


text:
# Bose condensates at high angular momenta

## Abstract

We exploit the analogy with the Quantum Hall (QH) system to study weakly interacting bosons in a harmonic trap. For a $`\delta `$-function interaction potential the “yrast” states with $`LN(N1)`$ are degenerate, and we show how this can be understood in terms of Haldane exclusion statistics. We present spectra for 4 and 8 particles obtained by numerical and algebraic methods, and demonstrate how a more general hard-core potential lifts the degeneracies on the yrast line. The exact wavefunctions for $`N=4`$ are compared with trial states constructed from composite fermions (CF), and the possibility of using CF-states to study the low $`L`$ region at high $`N`$ is discussed.
PACS numbers: 03.75.Fi, 05.30.Jp, 73.40.Hm

The close relation between high angular momentum states of a condensate of weakly interacting hard core bosons  and the Quantum Hall (QH) effect was recently pointed out . The essential observation is that the weak interaction limit allows for a two-dimensional description of the boson system in terms of lowest Landau level (LLL) wave functions  – just as for a QH system, and they are both described by wave functions containing powers of the Laughlin-Jastrow factor $`_{i<j}(z_iz_j)`$, where $`z_i`$ is the complex coordinate of the $`i^{th}`$ particle. As pointed out by Cooper and Wilkin , the two systems can in fact be mapped onto each other by a standard Leinaas-Myrheim transformation , attaching an odd number of units of statistical flux to each particle. This enables us to use both intuition and techniques from the QH system to study rotating Bose condensates. In this paper we shall mainly discuss the angular momentum region $`N(N1)L2N(N1)`$, where the ground state corresponding to a $`\delta `$-function two-body interaction is degenerate. We explicitly show how these degeneracies can be understood via a mapping to a system of free anyons in the LLL, and then show how the degeneracy is broken by a more general short range potential containing derivatives of delta functions. We also make a detailed comparison between algebraically calculated exact wave functions and trial wave functions formed from so called compact states of composite fermions, a construction orginally due to Jain and Kawamura . In particular, we will emphasize the importance of a certain class of wavefunctions where the polynomial part is translationally invariant.
Although for computational reasons we have results only for few particles, $`N=4,6`$ and 8, it is clear that some of our results, like the degeneracy structure of the yrast line, hold for any $`N`$. We also believe that many features of the results for the CF wave functions will generalize to higher $`N`$ .
Since the flux attachment changes the angular momentum by $`mN(N1)/2`$, where $`m`$ is the number of fluxes attached, the boson - fermion mapping would apparently only be useful for studying angular momenta that are out of reach of present experiments (which are limited to the strong interaction regime and $`LN`$). However, there are some indications that fermionic techniqes could be useful for $`L`$ as low as $`N`$, i.e. for the so called single vortex state. Although we will return to this point at the end of the paper, we shall for now, without any further apologies, consider the theoretical problem of understanding the region $`N(N1)L2N(N1)`$ of the yrast line.

The simplest model for a hard-core interaction is a delta function potential. We thus consider a model of $`N`$ interacting spinless bosons in a harmonic trap of strength $`\omega `$. In the limit of weak interaction, this may be rewritten  as a two-dimensional lowest Landau level (LLL) problem in the effective “magnetic” field $`B_{eff}=2m\omega `$ with the Hamiltonian taking the form

$`H=\omega L+g{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\delta ^2(𝐫_i𝐫_j)`$ (1)
($`\mathrm{}=1`$), where $`L_il_i=L_z`$ is the total angular momentum. The single-particle states spanning our Hilbert space are $`\eta _{0,l}=(2^{l+1}\pi l!)^{1/2}z^l\mathrm{exp}(\overline{z}z/4)`$ with $`z=\sqrt{2m\omega }(x+iy)`$.

In Figs. 1 and 2 we show the interaction energy, in units of $`g/4\pi `$ as a function of the total angular momentum $`L`$ for $`N=4`$, $`L20`$ and $`N=8`$, $`30L56`$, respectively. The many-body states are obtained from Lanczos diagonalization suitable for large and relatively sparse matrices . The Fock space is spanned by single-particle states that are characterized only by the positive quantum numbers $`l`$, where $`0lL`$. (Similar exact diagonalization studies have recently been reported in  and .) We note the following properties in the many-body spectra: Since increasing the angular momentum spreads out the particles in space, the yrast energy, i.e. the lowest possible interaction energy for given $`L`$, decreases with increasing $`L`$. For each state in the spectrum, there exists a set of “daughter states” with higher values of $`L`$, having exactly the same (interaction) energy as the original state. These daughters are simply center-of-mass excitations of the original states, thus having the same many-body correlations.

For $`LN(N1)`$ there are zero energy states, which can be understood by noting that any wavefunction of the form

$`\psi (z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_N)={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(z_iz_j)^2S(z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_N),`$ (2)
where $`S(z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ is a symmetric polynomial in the $`z_i`$:s, has zero interaction energy. Since the factor $`_{i<j}(z_iz_j)^2`$ contributes an angular momentum $`L_0=N(N1)`$, states of the type (2) exist for $`LL_0`$.

At $`L=N(N1)`$ there is a unique state with zero interaction energy corresponding to $`S(z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_N)=1`$, while the states at higher $`L`$ typically are degenerate. The systematics of these degeneracies can be understood by a mapping to anyons in the lowest Landau level. The essential observation is that the wave functions (2) describe anyons in the LLL with statistics parameter $`\alpha =2`$ (in general, the statistics parameter is given by the exponent of the Jastrow factor). It is known that anyons in the LLL obey Haldane’s fractional exclusion statistics (FES), and following Ref., one can use this knowledge to construct the allowed many-body states for given $`N`$ and $`L`$ as angular momentum excitations of the Laughlin-like state at $`L=N(N1)`$. According to the definition of FES, each particle in the system blocks $`\alpha =2`$ single-particle states, and many-particle states with total angular momentum $`L`$ are constructed by occupying single-particle states, with a minimum distance of $`\alpha =2`$ between each pair of occupied levels (for an example, see Fig. 3). The number of allowed configurations then gives the degeneracy of the state for a given $`L`$.

Table 1 shows the degeneracies of some of the states on the $`N=4`$ yrast line, as obtained from the anyon mapping, and they are in exact agreement with our numerical results.

This construction implicitly uses that all the eigenstates on the yrast line for $`L>N(N1)`$ contain the Jastrow factor $`_{i<j}(z_iz_j)^2`$, so the degeneracies can also be found as the number of ways one can distribute $`M=LL_0`$ units of angular momentum among $`N`$ particles.

For a more general hard core potential, the $`E=0`$ states on the yrast line above $`L=N(N1)`$ are no longer degenerate. To demonstrate this point and study how the degeneracy is broken, we add a potential of the form

$`V=c_1^2\delta ^2(zz^{})+c_2^4\delta ^2(zz^{}),`$ (3)
that was originally used by Trugman and Kivelson in the context of the fractional QH effect. The term $`^2\delta ^2(zz^{})`$ does not contribute to the interaction energy for fully symmetric states, whereas the $`^4\delta ^2(zz^{})`$ term gives small corrections to the spectra in Figs. 1 and 2 (at the percent level for the parameters used in the inset of Fig. 4, where we show regularized forms of the potentials (1) and (3)).

We have examined how the potential (3) splits up the degeneracies of the zero interaction energy yrast states, by exact algebraic diagonalization, using computer algebra. Here we have directly used the form (2), and systematically exploited that for a given $`L`$, all states corresponding to center-of-mass excitations of lower $`L`$-eigenstates are orthogonal to the subspace of “new” states. The latter subspace consists of translation invariant (TI) polynomials, i.e. functions invariant under a simultaneous, constant shift $`z_iz_i+a`$ of all the coordinates. Following Trugman and Kivelson, we have used a basis constructed from elementary symmetric functions $`s_n`$. For given $`N`$ and $`L`$, the basis consists of all possible combinations

$`|k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_ns_1^{k_1}(z_i)s_2^{k_2}(\stackrel{~}{z}_i)\mathrm{}s_N^{k_N}(\stackrel{~}{z}_N){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(z_iz_j)^2,`$ (4)
such that $`_{n=1}^Nnk_n=LL_0`$. Note that, for $`n2`$, we have introduced the new variables $`\stackrel{~}{z}_iz_iz_c`$, with $`z_c`$ the center-of-mass coordinate $`z_c=(z_i)/N`$. The basis states spanning the TI subspace are identified as those with $`k_1=0`$. The diagonalization is thus performed within this subspace only, which reduces the matrix dimension substantially. The resulting spectrum for $`N=4`$, with the coefficient $`c_2`$ in (3) set equal to 1, is shown in Fig. 4. We notice the close similarity between Fig. 1 and 4. In both cases, the yrast line passes through the same number of steps, with the same step lengths, as $`L`$ is increased by $`N(N1)`$, to the point where the yrast energy becomes zero. At the point $`L=2N(N1)`$, the zero-energy yrast state is again non-degenerate and of the Laughlin type, i.e. $`_{i<j}(z_iz_j)^4`$, whereas the subsequent yrast states have degeneracies corresponding to FES with statistics parameter $`\alpha =4`$. Including even higher derivative terms in the repulsive potential would subsequently split up the higher regions of the yrast line. Finally, note that the yrast states corresponding to cusps, i.e. states that are followed by a “plateau” in the yrast line, are always in the TI subspace.

The algebraic diagonalization used here is limited in practice to smaller particle numbers and angular momenta than the numerical scheme used in Figs. 1 and 2. However, the present approach has the advantage that it provides explicit, analytic expressions for the eigenfunctions, in terms of symmetric polynomials. This gives some additional insight into the structure of the yrast states, and in particular the region below the single vortex in the case of a pure delta function interaction. Bertsch and Papenbrock  recently proposed and numerically tested the following form for the yrast states at $`2LN`$,

$`\psi _L(z_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p_1<p_2<\mathrm{}<p_L}{}}(z_{p_1}z_c)(z_{p_2}z_c)\mathrm{}(z_{p_L}z_c).`$ (5)
This is just the symmetric polynomial $`s_L(\stackrel{~}{z}_i)`$, i.e. the state $`|0\mathrm{}\mathrm{1..0}`$ (with the 1 in the $`L`$th place), in the notation of (4) (without the Jastrow factor in the present case of a pure delta function interaction). This state is a basis state in the TI subspace for all $`2LN`$. In the cases where this is the only basis state ($`L=2,3`$ for $`N3`$), it is thus obvious that (5) is exact. Furthermore, performing the algebraic diagonalization up to $`L=N`$ for $`N=4`$ and $`N=6`$, we have confirmed that even when the translation invariant subspace is spanned by more than one basis vector, the basis state (5) is always an exact eigenstate.

We now turn to a study of a class of wave functions that can be constructed in analogy with the so-called Jain states for the fractional QHE. The main idea is to map the strongly interacting LLL bosons to weakly interacting composite fermions by attaching an odd number $`m`$ of flux quanta to each particle. Trial wavefunctions with angular momentum $`L`$ are thus constructed as non-interacting fermionic wavefunctions with angular momentum $`Lm/2N(N1)`$, multiplied by $`m`$ Jastrow factors and projected onto the LLL,

$`\psi _L=𝒫\left(f_F(z_i,\overline{z}_i){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(z_iz_j)^m\right).`$ (6)
Here, $`f_F`$ is a Slater determinant consisting of single-particle wave functions $`\eta _{n,l}(z,\overline{z})z^lL_n^l(\overline{z}z/2)`$ where $`n`$ is the Landau level index ( $`ln`$), and $`L_n^l`$ a generalized Laguerre polynomial.

Originally used for the homogeneous states relevant for the fractional QHE, wavefunctions of the type (6) were later employed to describe inhomogeneous systems such as quantum dots and recently by Cooper and Wilkin  to study the bosonic yrast lines for up to 10 particles in the case of a pure delta function interaction.

In short, the LLL projection in (6) amounts to the replacement $`\overline{z}_i2_i`$ in the polynomial part of the wave function. However, there are several ways of doing this in practice, and we shall compare the different projection methods when constructing trial wave functions for the yrast states in Figs. 1 and 4. The most straightforward way is to replace the $`\overline{z}`$:s with derivatives in the final polynomial, obtained after multiplying out the Slater determinant and the Jastrow factors and moving all $`\overline{z}`$:s to the left. In practice, this method is applicable only for small particle numbers, when the number of derivatives involved is not too large. We shall refer to this method as “Method I” and apply it in a few special cases for comparison.

Alternatively, noting that

$`\left|\begin{array}{ccc}\eta _{11}& \eta _{12}& ..\\ \eta _{21}& \eta _{22}& ..\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& ..\\ \eta _{N1}& \eta _{N2}& ..\end{array}\right|{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(z_iz_j)^{2p}=\left|\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{11}& \stackrel{~}{\eta }_{12}& ..\\ \stackrel{~}{\eta }_{21}& \stackrel{~}{\eta }_{22}& ..\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& ..\\ \stackrel{~}{\eta }_{N1}& \stackrel{~}{\eta }_{N2}& ..\end{array}\right|,`$ (15)
where $`\eta _{ij}\eta _i(z_j,\overline{z}_j)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{ij}\eta _i(z_j,\overline{z}_j)_{kj}(z_jz_k)^p`$, one can first absorb $`2p`$ Jastrow factors in the Slater determinant, and then project entry by entry. Since the wave function (6) contains an odd number $`m`$ of Jastrow factors, one finally has to compensate by multiplying the resulting polynomial by $`_{i<j}(z_iz_j)^{m2p}`$. We shall refer to this as Method II and use it as follows; for a delta function interaction, where the wave function contains $`m=1`$ Jastrow factor, it is appropriate to use $`p=1`$ (Method IIa). In the case of the $`^4\delta `$-potential, the Jain construction will involve absorbing $`m=3`$ flux quanta in the wave function, and we shall compare projection with $`p=1`$ (Method IIa) and $`p=2`$ (Method IIb). (Note that Method IIa is in a sense trivial, since it relates the wavefunctions at $`L`$ and $`L+N(N1)`$ by multiplication with two Jastrow factors.)

We have already stressed the significance of the TI subspace - these are the states that determine the shape of the yrast line. It is very appealing that there is a special set of the states (6) that are in this subspace, namely the so called compact states  which are characterized by having the $`n`$:th Landau level occupied from $`l_n=n`$ to $`l_n=l_n^{max}`$ without any “holes”. In the context of the QH effect, the important property of the compact states is that they are homogeneous. When describing quantum dots using the non-interacting composite fermion model (NICFM), one can show that CF candidates for the cusp states must be compact, and the same line of arguments was later used for bosons . From the point of view of the wavefunctions, the importance of the compact states is that they are in the TI subspace, and it is rather remarkable that for all L where a compact state can be constructed, the one with the lowest CF energy has a large overlap with the lowest exact state in the TI subspace. This is true, independent of whether or not the state is a ground state, i.e. corresponds to a cusp in the yrast line. In the following discussion, we shall only be concerned with the wavefunctions, and will not discuss whether or not the NICFM can give a good description of the energy spectrum, a question that was already discussed in some detail .

$`\delta `$-function potential: In this case we have calculated the Jain wavefunctions (6) corresponding to all compact states for $`N=4`$, $`0L12`$, taking $`m=1`$ and using projection method IIa ($`p=1`$). If there are two compact states with the same $`L`$, we use the one with the lowest CF effective energy. In table II we show the overlap with the exact algebraic wavefunctions. A “1” indicates that the wavefunctions are identical. For comparison we have also included the overlaps with the wavefunctions corresponding to projection method I, as given by Cooper and Wilkin. We note that all the compact states have very large overlap with the exact eigenstates. That the CF wavefunction is exact for $`L=2,3`$ is a simple consequence of the TI property and that there is only one state in the TI subspace at these $`L`$ values. That the $`L=7`$ state comes out exact is more surprising, and we have no good explanation for this. It would be interesting to pursue the exact diagonalization to higher $`N`$ in order to see if there are other non-trivial CF states that are exact. We also note that the direct projection (method I) does slightly better than method II.

$`^4\delta `$-function potential: Here we calculated the Jain wavefunctions (6) corresponding to all, lowest CF-energy, compact states for $`N=4`$, $`12L24`$ taking $`m=3`$ and using projection methods IIa ($`p=1`$) and IIb $`(p=2`$). For comparison, we also used method I for three $`L`$ values. In table III we show the overlap with the exact algebraic wavefunctions. We again note that all the compact states (except $`L=17`$ with projection method I) have very large overlap with the exact eigenstates, and that for $`L=17,19`$, the CF state is not the ground state. Comparing the different projection methods, we see that in many, but not all cases they give identical results. In particular, one should note that method IIb does not reproduce the exact wavefunction for $`L=14,15`$ where the TI subspace is non-degenerate. This means that that projection gives a wave function that is not in the space of states given by (2). The same effect is even more striking for $`L=17`$, where method IIb gives the exact wave function, whereas direct projection (method I) gives a rather poor overlap, indicating that a large component is not in the subspace (2).

Finally, we comment on the possibility to use CF wavefunctions in the experimentally more relevant case of low $`L`$, and in particular for the single vortex state at $`L=N`$. Rather surprisingly, the overlaps between the CF and the exact wavefunction (5) tend to get larger with increasing particle number, at least up to $`N=10`$. It thus seems worthwhile to use the CF approach to construct trial wavefunctions for the single vortex for general $`N`$. The single vortex CF state is in fact unique, if one demands that in addition to being compact, it should also have minimal CF cyclotron energy. The relevant Slater determinant is formed from the single particle states $`\eta _{n,n}`$ for $`n=N2,N1,\mathrm{}0`$ and $`\eta _{01}`$, and, using projection method I, the resulting wavefunction takes the following rather compact form,

$`\psi _{L=N}={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(1)^nz_n{\displaystyle \underset{k<l;k,ln}{}}\left(_k_l\right){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(z_iz_j).`$ (16)
Although the $`N^2`$ derivatives make it difficult to evaluate this function for large $`N`$, it can easily be handled in integrals of the form $`_id^2z_i\mathrm{exp}(1/2_i\overline{z}_iz_i)f(\overline{z}_i)\psi _{L=N}`$ by partial integrations. Alternatively one can use projection Method II, where the wavefunction becomes a determinant of linear combinations of elementary symmetric polynomials. In both cases, it should be possible to compare with the exact wavefunction (5) using Monte Carlo methods.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: We are very grateful to B. Mottelson for introducing us to the physics of rotating Bose condensates, and for numerous fruitful discussions. We also wish to thank M. Manninen, G. Kavoulakis and R.K. Bhaduri for discussions and M. Koskinen for giving advice on the numerical work. This work was financially supported by the Academy of Finland, the Swedish Natural Science Research Council, the TMR programme of the European Community under contract ERBFMBICT972405, the “Bayerische Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst”, and the NORDITA Nordic project “Confined electronic systems”.


text:
# Confined Maxwell Field and Temperature Inversion Symmetry

## 1  <br>Introduction.

Temperature inversion symmetry occurs in the free energy associated with the Casimir effect  at finite temperature and it is linked to the nature of the boundary conditions imposed on the quantum vacuum oscillations. As shown by Ravndal and Tollefsen , temperature inversion symmetry holds for massless bosonic fields and symmetric boundary conditions and also for massless fermionic fields and antisymmetric boundary conditions. Temperature inversion symmetry was initially studied by Brown and Maclay  who wrote the scaled free energy associated with the Casimir effect at finite temperature as a sum of three contributions, namely: a zero temperature contribution, that is, the Casimir energy density at zero temperature, a Stefan-Boltzmann contribution proportional the fourth power of the scaled temperature $`\xi :=Td/\pi `$, and a non-trivial contribution. The three contributions to the scaled free energy can be combined into a single double sum:

$$f(\xi )=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2\pi \xi )^4}{[m^2+(2\pi n\xi )^2]^2},$$
(1)
where the term corresponding to $`n=m=0`$ is excluded. Setting $`n=0`$ and summing over $`m`$ with $`m0`$, we obtain the Stefan-Boltzmann limit $`\pi ^6\xi ^4/45`$. On the other hand, setting $`m=0`$ and summing over $`n`$ with $`n0`$, we obtain the zero temperature Casimir term $`\pi ^2/720`$. This function has the following property:

$$(2\pi \xi )^4f\left(1/4\pi \xi \right)=f\left(\xi \right),$$
(2)
which is the mathematical statement of the temperature inversion symmetry. It was also shown by Gundersen and Ravndal  that the scaled free energy associated with massless fermions fields at finite temperature submitted to MIT boundary conditions satisfy the relation given by Eq.(2) and therefore exhibts temperature inversion symmetry. Tadaki and Takagi  have calculated Casimir free energies for a massless scalar field obeying Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions on both plates and found this symmetry. For the parallel plate geometry and mixed boundary conditions it is possible to circunvent the restrictions found by  and discuss temperature inversion symmetry by reconizing that with respect to the evaluation of the free energy this arrangement is equivalent to the difference between two Dirichlet (or Neumann) plates . In the case of a massless scalar field at finite temperature and periodic boundary conditions, it is possible to show that the partition function, and consequently the free energy, can be written in a closed form such that the temperature inversion symmetry becomes explicit . Here we shall show that for the case of the Maxwell field confined by a perfectly conduting rectangular cavity this symmetry is also present, provided that we generalize the transformations that relate the high and the low temperature regimes.

Throughout this letter we employ units such that Boltzmann constant $`k_B`$, the speed of light $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}=h/2\pi `$ are set equal to the unity.

## 2 Evaluation of Helmholtz free energy

Helmholtz free energy for the confined Maxwell field within a perfectly conducting rectangular box can be evaluated by means of the generalized zeta function technique , . First we introduce the global zeta function which is defined by

$$\mu ^{2s}\zeta \left(s\right)=\mu ^{2s}\underset{p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\{n\}}{}\left[\left(\frac{2\pi p}{\beta }\right)^2+\omega _{\{n\}}^2\right]^s$$
(3)
where $`\beta =1/T`$ , the reciprocal of the temperature $`T,`$ is the periodic length along the Euclidean time direction and a mass scale parameter $`\mu `$ was introduced in order to keep Eq.(3) dimensionless; $`\omega _{\{n\}}^2`$ are the eigenvalues associated with the Euclidean time-independent modal equation

$$\mathrm{}_𝐱\phi _{\{n\}}(𝐱)=\omega _{\{n\}}^2\phi _{\{n\}}(𝐱),$$
(4)
where $`𝐱=(x,y,z)`$ and $`\mathrm{}_𝐱`$ is the Laplacian operator. The Helmholtz free energy function $`F\left(\beta \right)`$ for bosonic fields can be obtained from the knowledge of the global zeta function through the relation

$$F\left(\beta \right)=\frac{1}{2\beta }\frac{}{s}\left[\mu ^{2s}\zeta \left(s\right)\right]_{s=0}.$$
(5)
The eigenfrequencies associated with the allowed electromagnetic normal modes within a perfectly conducting rectangular box of linear dimensions $`a,b,c`$ are given by

$$\omega _{lmn}^2=\left(\frac{l\pi }{a}\right)^2+\left(\frac{m\pi }{b}\right)^2+\left(\frac{n\pi }{c}\right)^2,$$
(6)
where $`l,m,n`$ $`\{1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$. For $`l,n,m0`$ there are two possible polarization states and for $`l=0`$ or $`m=0`$ or $`n=0`$ there is one polarization state only. Eigenfrequencies for which three or two of the integers $`l,m,n`$ are simultaneously zero are not allowed. It follows that the generalized zeta function for the case in question reads

$`\mu ^{2s}\zeta \left(s\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mu ^{2s}{\displaystyle \underset{l,m,n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{l\pi }{a}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{b}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{c}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p\pi }{\beta }}\right)^2\right]^s`$ (7)
$`+\mu ^{2s}{\displaystyle \underset{l,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{l\pi }{a}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{b}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p\pi }{\beta }}\right)^2\right]^s`$
$`+\mu ^{2s}{\displaystyle \underset{l,n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{l\pi }{a}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{c}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p\pi }{\beta }}\right)^2\right]^s`$
$`+\mu ^{2s}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{b}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{c}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p\pi }{\beta }}\right)^2\right]^s,`$
If we now separate the terms corresponding to the zero temperature sector by setting $`p=0`$, then it will be easily seen that we can rewrite Eq.(7) formally as a sum of Epstein functions (see the Appendix) which reads

$`2^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mu }}\right)^{2s}\zeta (s)`$ $`=`$ $`2^4E_4(s;1/a^2,1/b^2,1/c^2,4/\beta ^2)+2^3E_3(s;1/a^2,1/b^2,1/c^2)`$ (8)
$`+2^3E_3(s;1/a^2,1/b^2,4/\beta ^2)+2^2E_2(s;1/a^2,1/b^2)`$
$`+2^3E_3(s;1/a^2,1/c^2,4/\beta ^2)+2^2E_2(s;1/a^2,1/c^2)`$
$`+2^3E_3(s;1/b^2,1/c^2,4/\beta ^2)+2^2E_2(s;1/b^2,1/c^2)`$
In order to regularize Eq.(8) it is convenient to rewrite it as a sum of generalized zeta functions and this can be accomplished by making use of Eqs. ($`(A.4)`$) and (Appendix) in the appendix. Equation (8) then takes the form

$`2^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mu }}\right)^{2s}`$ $`\zeta `$ $`\left(s\right)=A_4(s;1/a^2,1/b^2,1/c^2,4/\beta ^2)A_2(s;1/a^2,4/\beta ^2)`$ (9)
$`A_2(s;1/b^2,4/\beta ^2)A_2(s;1/c^2,4/\beta ^2)+4E_1(s;4/\beta ^2).`$
Finally, we can regularize Eq.(9) by applying the reflection formula, Eq.($`(A.3)`$) on all terms except the last one which is already regularized thus obtaining

$`\mu ^{2s}\zeta \left(s\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{2s}abc\beta }{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2s\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(s\right)}}A_4(2s;a^2,b^2,c^2,\beta ^2/4)`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{2s}a\beta }{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1s\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(s\right)}}A_2(1s;a^2,\beta ^2/4)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{2s}b\beta }{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1s\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(s\right)}}A_2(1s;b^2,\beta ^2/4)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{2s}c\beta }{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1s\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(s\right)}}A_2(1s;c^2,\beta ^2/4)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\right)^{2s}\zeta _R\left(2z\right),`$
where $`\zeta _R\left(2z\right)`$ is the Riemann zeta function and we have also made use of the fact that $`E_1(z;a)=a^z\zeta _R\left(2z\right)`$. Notice that all terms on the R.H.S. of Eq.(10) are zero when $`s0`$ except the last one, that is, $`\zeta \left(0\right)0`$ since $`\zeta _R\left(0\right)=(1/2)\mathrm{ln}(2\pi )`$. This will give rise to a scale-dependent term absent in previous calculations related to this problem . By making use of Eq.( 5) we see that the Helmholtz free energy for the confined electromagnetic field confined within a perfectly conducting rectangular box at finite temperature is

$`F(a,b,c,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{abc}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l,m,n,p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(a^2l^2+b^2m^2+c^2n^2+\frac{p^2\beta ^2}{4}\right)^2}}`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{l,p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(a^2l^2+\frac{p^2\beta ^2}{4}\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{m,p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(b^2m^2+\frac{p^2\beta ^2}{4}\right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n,p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(c^2n^2+\frac{p^2\beta ^2}{4}\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu \beta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\right).`$
The presence of a scale-dependent term is a leftover from the renormalization procedure carried on via the generalized zeta method and introduces an ambiguity in the Helmholtz free energy related to the problem in question. This ambiguity is introduced whenever $`\zeta (s)`$ is not zero at $`s=0`$, see for instance. It was shown by Myers  that this ambiguty is a legitimate feature of the generalized zeta function regularization method, whenever the theory is massive or/and interacting and/or some dimensions are compactified. As consequence the usual mode sum method and the generalized zeta function method are not always equivalent. However, the usual mode sum method can be modified so as to include the complexities of a scale dependence . At zero temperature and for the simple geometrical cavity that we are considering here scale-dependent terms are not expected. This is confirmed by the independent calculations due to Lukosz , Ruggiero et al , Ambjorn and Wolfram  and the present authors. Here it is clear that the scale dependence is introduced by the generalized zeta function regularization method due to the imposition of periodic conditions on the Euclidean time direction. For our purposes the ambiguity in the free energy can be solved by the additional physical requirement that in unconstrained space, that is, for a very large rectangular box, the only surviving term must be the Stefan-Boltzmann term. It is seen then that $`\mu `$ should be equal to $`\sqrt{2\pi }/\beta `$.

## 3 Temperature inversion symmetry

The explicit verification is of temperature inversion symmetry in the case of the system in question is complicated by the fact that in addition to the inverse temperature parameter $`\beta `$ we have to deal with three other length parameters, namely, $`a,b`$ and $`c`$, the measures of the sides of the rectangular cavity. At finite temperature and periodic or antiperiodic conditions along one spatial direction, or Dirichlet, or Neumann plane surfaces located perpendicularly to one spatial direction only two characteristic lengths are involved, a feature that rends this verification easier. Neverheless, by making recourse to a simple trick we shall show that temperature inversion symmetry is also present here.

First notice that the denominator of the first term on the R.H.S of Eq.(11) can be rewritten as $`a^2l^2+b^2m^2+c^2n^2=\kappa ^2\left(a^2q^2+b^2r^2+c^2t^2\right)`$, where $`\{q,r,t\}`$ is a sequence of three integers with no common factor and $`\kappa `$ is the common factor of $`\left\{l,m.n\right\}`$. For the sequence $`\{q,r,t\}`$ we define a characteristic length $`d_{\{q,r,t\}}`$ by

$$d_{\{q,r,t\}}^2:=a^2q^2+b^2r^2+c^2t^2.$$
(12)
Let us also define the dimensionless variable

$$\xi _{\{q,r,t\}}:=\frac{2d_{\{q,r,t\}}}{\beta }.$$
(13)
The remaining terms on the R.H.S. of Eq.(11) can be treated in a simpler way. For example, for the second term we define

$$\xi _a:=\frac{2a}{\beta },$$
(14)
Then making the replacement: $`_{l,m,n=\mathrm{}}_{\{q,r,t\}}_{\kappa =\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}`$, the free energy density corresponding to Eq.(11) can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F(a,b,c,\beta )}{abc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{q,r,t\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\kappa ,p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_{\{q,r,t\}}^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{\{q,r,t\}}^4}{\left(\kappa ^2\xi _{\{q,r,t\}}^2+p^2\right)^2}}`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi a^2bc}}{\displaystyle \underset{l,p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _a^2}{\left(l_a^2\xi _a^2+p^2\right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ab^2c}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _b^2}{\left(m_b^2\xi _b^2+p^2\right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi abc^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _c^2}{\left(n^2\xi _c^2+p^2\right)}}`$
The zero temperature limit of Eq.(15) is obtained by reconizing that when $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ the dimensionless parameters $`\xi _{\{q,r,t\}},\xi _a,\xi _b,\xi _c0`$ and the surviving terms in Eq.(15) correspond to $`p=0`$, as the reader can easily verify. Going back to our initial set of indexes $`l,m,n`$ we obtain

$$E_0==\frac{abc}{16\pi ^2}\underset{l,m,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\left[a^2l^2+b^2m^2+c^2n^2\right]^2}+\frac{\pi }{48}(\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}+\frac{1}{c}),$$
(16)
which is in perfect agreement with the result obtained by Lukosz  and also by Ruggiero et al..

In order to introduce temperature inversion symmetry for this problem let us now define the dimensionless functions

$$_{\{q,r,t\}}\left(\xi _{\{q,r,t\}}\right):=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\underset{\kappa ,p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{𝒯_{\{q,r,t\}}^4}{\left(\kappa ^2\xi _{\{q,r,t\}}^2+p^2\right)^2},$$
(17)
and

$$_a\left(\xi _a\right):=\frac{1}{16\pi }\underset{l,p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\xi _a^2}{\left(l_a^2\xi _a^2+p^2\right)},$$
(18)
with similar definitions for $`_b\left(\xi _b\right)`$ and $`_c\left(\xi _c\right)`$. Therefore, in terms of these functions we can write the free energy density as

$$\frac{F}{V}=\underset{\{q,r,t\}}{}\frac{_{\{q,r,t\}}\left(\xi _{\{q,r,t\}}\right)}{d_{\{q,r,t\}}^4}+\frac{_a\left(\xi _a\right)}{aV}+\frac{_b\left(𝒯_b\right)}{bV}+\frac{_c\left(\xi _c\right)}{cV},$$
(19)
where $`V=abc`$. It is not hard to see that the functions $`_{\{q,r,t\}}\left(\xi _{\{q,r,t\}}\right)`$ exhibit the following property

$$\xi _{\{q,r,t\}}^4_{\{q,r,t\}}\left(\frac{1}{\xi _{\{q,r,t\}}}\right)=_{\{q,r,t\}}\left(\xi _{\{q,r,t\}}\right).$$
(20)
In the same way

$$\xi _a^2f_a\left(\frac{1}{\xi _a}\right)=f_a\left(\xi _a\right),$$
(21)
Equations (20) and (21) plus two similar equations for the functions $`_b\left(\xi _b\right)`$ and $`_c\left(\xi _c\right)`$ describe temperature inversion symmetry for the case in question, that is, all terms in Eq.(19) can be inverted by making use of these formulae.

In the very high temperature limit we expect the leading contribution to be the Stefan-Boltzmann term, $`\pi ^2/\left(45\beta ^4\right)`$. Now we argue that our transformations are applied in order to generate from the unique Stefan-Boltzmann density term, an infinite number of terms which must be added at zero temperature, and inversely, each term at zero temperature goes to the unique Stefan-Boltzmann term. In this form, that is, as far as the energy density is concerned, we can apply the temperature inversion symmetry transformations to several Casimir systems, including of course the ones previously analyzed in the literature. The specific form of the transformations depends on the particular system at hand, but the procedure is the same.

Now, we can easily check that $`_{\{q,r,t\}}\left(0\right)=\pi ^2/720`$, and that $`_a\left(\xi _a\right)=_b\left(\xi _b\right)=_c\left(\xi _c\right)=\pi /48`$. Then, making use of Eqs.(20) and (21) we write

$$\xi _{\{q,r,t\}}^4_{\{q,r,t\}}\left(\mathrm{}\right)=\frac{\pi ^2}{720},$$
(22)
and

$$\xi _a^2_a\left(\mathrm{}\right)=\xi _b^2_b\left(\mathrm{}\right)=\xi _c^2_c\left(\mathrm{}\right)=\frac{\pi }{48}.$$
(23)
Taking these results into Eq.(19) we obtain

$$F\left(a,b,c,\beta 0\right)\frac{abc\pi ^2}{45\beta ^4}+\frac{\pi }{12\beta ^2}\left(a+b+c\right),$$
(24)
which is in agreement with  with respect to the leading terms in the high temperature approximation. As expected, the Stefan-Boltzmann term is the leading term in this limit.

It is convenient to rewrite Eq.(5), or its equivalent Eq.(19), with the zero temperature terms and the Stefan-Boltzmann term separated from the non-trivial temperature corrections,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{V}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{45\beta ^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{12\beta ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ab}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ac}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{bc}}\right)`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l,m,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[a^2l^2+b^2m^2+c^2n^2\right]^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{48abc}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{q,r,t\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\kappa ,p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(\kappa ^2d_{\{q,r,t\}}^2+\beta ^2p^2\right)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi bc}}{\displaystyle \underset{l,p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(4a^2l^2+\beta ^2p^2\right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ac}}{\displaystyle \underset{l,p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(4b^2l^2+\beta ^2p^2\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ab}}{\displaystyle \underset{l,p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(4c^2l^2+\beta ^2p^2\right)}}.`$
The last two lines of Eq.(25) represent the non-trivial temperature-dependent corrections. The first term in the third line is equivalent to a set of conducting plates with each pair of plates characterized by a distance $`d_{\{q,r,t\}}`$, which means that we can take advantage of results already established in the literature regarding high and low temperature approximations for a pair of conducting plates.

## 4 Conclusions

In this letter we have employed generalized zeta function techniques in its global version to derive the finite temperature vacuum energy associated with an electromagnetic field confined within a perfectly conducting rectangular box. We have shown that Helmholtz free energy for the problem in question is scale dependent, a feature that was not present in previous calculations concerning this problem at zero temperature ,  and finite temperature . The scale dependence is a remainder that tell us that the theory was renormalized by the way of the generalized zeta function method. We have also shown that the concept of temperature inversion symmetry can be extended so as to include the elctromagnetic field confined by perfectly conducting rectangular cavity. The main point here is the recognition that the concept of temperature inversion symmetry can be extended in the sense that it must be applied separately to the different terms comprising the non-trivial part of the free energy density, with each term behaving differently under this symmetry. This is the content of Eqs. (20) and (21). The most important feature of temperature inversion symmetry is that it allows us to establish a relationship between the zero and low-temperature sector of the Helmholtz free energy and the high-temperature one. This can be very useful since in general it is easier to obtain low-temperature expansions. In particular, it is possible to relate the zero temperature Casimir effect to the Stefan-Boltzmann term in a straightforward way.

## Appendix

Multidimensional homogeneous Epstein function  (see also Elizalde et al. for a modern presentation) are defined by

$$E_N(z;a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}a_N)=\underset{n_1,n_2,..n_N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(a_1n_1^2+a_2n_2^2+\mathrm{}+a_Nn_N^2\right)^z,$$
$`(A.1)`$
for $`\mathrm{}z>N/2`$ and $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}a_N>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Generalized zeta functions. $`A_N(z;a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}a_N)`$ are defined by ,

$$A_N(z;a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}a_N)=\underset{n_1,n_2,..n_N=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left(a_1n_1^2+a_2n_2^2+\mathrm{}+a_Nn_N^2\right)^z,$$
$`(A.2)`$
for $`\mathrm{}z>N/2`$ and $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}a_N>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. The prime means that the term corresponding to $`n_1=n_2=\mathrm{}=n_N=0`$ must be excluded from the summation. A useful reflection formula reads envolving these functions is

$$A_N(z;a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}a_N)=\frac{\pi ^{\frac{N}{2}+2z}}{\sqrt{a_1\mathrm{}a_N}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{N}{2}z\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(z\right)}A_N(\frac{N}{2}z;1/a_1,1/a_2,\mathrm{..1}/.a_N).$$
$`(A.3)`$
Relationships between generalized zeta functions and Epstein functions can be derived from the very definition given by ($`(A.2)`$). For example,

$$A_2(z;a_1,a_2)=2^2E_2(z;a_1,a_2)+2E_1(z;a_1)+2E_1(z;a_2)$$
$`(A.4)`$
and

$`A_4(z;a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)=2^4E_4(z;a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)+2^3E_3(z;a_1,a_2,a_3)`$
$`+2^3E_3(z;a_1,a_2,a_4)+2^3E_3(z;a_1,a_3,a_4)+2^2E_2(z;a_1,a_2)+2^2E_2(z;a_1,a_3)`$
$`+2^3E_3(z;a_2,a_3,a_4)+2^2E_2(z;a_2,a_3)+2^2E_2(z;a_1,a_4)+2^2E_2(z;a_2,a_4)`$
$`+2^2E_2(z;a_3,a_4)+2E_1(z;a_1)+2E1(z;a_2)+2E1(z;a_3)+2E_1(z;a_4),(A.5)`$
of which use was made in this letter.

### Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge useful converstions with Dr. A. A. Actor.