text:
# Chiral symmetry breaking, color superconductivity and quark matter phase diagram: a variational approach

## I Introduction

The structure of vacuum in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) is one of the most interesting questions in strong interaction physics . The evidence for quark and gluon condensates in vacuum is a reflection of its complex nature , whereas chiral symmetry breaking is an essential feature in the description of the low mass hadron properties. Due to the nonperturbative nature of QCD in this regime different effective models have been used to understand the nature of chiral symmetry breaking. These have been constructed, for the most part, in the framework of a Nambu-Jona- Lasinio (NJL) model with a four fermion interaction. There also have been attempts to generalise this in the case of Coulomb gauge QCD with an effective propagator simulating the effects of confining potentials . Studies at finite temperatures using imaginary time formulation of finite temperature field theory have also been carried out.

Recently there has been a lot of interest in strongly interacting matter at high densities. In particular, a color superconducting phase for it involving diquark condensates has been considered with a gap of about 100 MeV . The studies have been done with an effective four fermion interaction between quarks , direct instanton approach  or a perturbative QCD calculation at finite density . There has also been a study of this phase in NJL model . In the NJL model however,the aspect of chiral symmetry breaking in presence of diquark condensates has not been considered. Such a question has been considered in Ref. in an instanton induced four fermion interaction model within a mean field approximation. In this note, we use a different method to study the problem. We consider a variational approach with an explicit assumption for the ground state having both quark antiquark and diquark condensates. The actual calculations are carried out for the NJL model such that the minimisation of the free energy density determines which condensate will exist at what density.

We organise this paper as follows. In section II we construct the ground state as a vacuum realignment with quark antiquark as well as diquark condensates. The finite temperature and density effects are included within the framework of thermofield dynamics  through a thermal Bogoliubov transformation involving doubling of the Hilbert space. In section III we shall consider an effective model as is considered for chiral symmetry breaking in Coulomb gauge QCD . To solve the gap equation exactly we shall further take a four fermion point interaction limit of the same similar to NJL model. In section IV we solve the gap equations for the mass and the superconducting gap,determine the phase diagram and discuss the results. Finally, we give a summary in section V.

## II  An ansatz for the ground state

As noted earlier we shall include here the effects of both chiral symmetry breaking as well as diquark pairing. For the consideration of chiral symmetry breaking, we shall take the perturbative vacuum state with chiral symmetry as $`|0`$. In this basis we shall take the quarks as massless. We shall then assume a specific vacuum realignment which breaks chiral symmetry because of interaction.

We have seen earlier that chiral symmetry breaking takes place with the formation of quark antiquark condensates in perturbative vacuum . We consider the quark field operator expansion in momentum space given as

$`\psi (𝐱)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{\psi }(𝐤)e^{i𝐤𝐱}𝑑𝐤}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \left[U_0(𝐤)q_I^0(𝐤)+V_0(𝐤)\stackrel{~}{q}_I^0(𝐤)\right]e^{i𝐤𝐱}𝑑𝐤},`$ (2)
where

$`U_0(𝐤)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \sigma \widehat{k}\end{array}\right),`$ (5)
$`V_0(𝐤)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sigma \widehat{k}\\ 1\end{array}\right).`$ (8)
The subscript $`I`$ and the superscript $`0`$ indicate that the operators $`q_I^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_I^0`$ are two component ones which annihilate or create quanta acting upon the perturbative or the chiral vacuum.

We now consider vacuum destabilisation leading to chiral symmetry breaking  described by,

$$|vac=𝒰_Q|0,$$
(9)
where

$$𝒰_Q=\mathrm{exp}(q_I^0(𝐤)^{}(𝝈𝐤)h(𝐤)\stackrel{~}{q}_I^0(𝐤)d𝐤h.c.).$$
(10)
In the above, we have suppresed the flavor and color indices on the two component quark and antiquark operators. Further $`h(𝐤)`$ is a real function of $`|𝐤|`$ which describes vacuum realignment for quarks of a given flavor. We consider here two flavors and take the condensate function $`h(𝐤)`$ to be the same for u and d quarks. Clearly, a nontrivial $`h(𝐤)`$ shall break chiral $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ symmetry to the custodial symmetry $`SU(2)_V`$ for the light quark doublet . In what follows we shall exploit this result.

Having defined the state as in Eq.(9) for chiral symmetry breaking, we shall next define the state involving diquarks. We note that as per BCS result such a state will be dynamically favored if there is an attractive interaction between the quarks . Such an interaction exists in QCD in the qq color antitriplet, Lorentz scalar and isospin singlet channel. In the flavor antisymmetric channel the interaction can be scalar, pseudoscalar or vector whereas in flavor symmetric channel only the axial vector channel is attractive. In the present work, we shall consider the ansatz state involving diquarks as

$$|\mathrm{\Omega }=U_d|vac=\mathrm{exp}(B_d^{}B_d)|vac,$$
(11)
where

$$_d^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left[q_r^{ia}(𝐤)^{}f(𝐤)q_r^{jb}(𝐤)^{}ϵ_{ij}ϵ_{3ab}+\stackrel{~}{q}_r^{ia}(𝐤)f_1(𝐤)\stackrel{~}{q}_r^{jb}(𝐤)ϵ_{ij}ϵ_{3ab}\right]𝑑𝐤.$$
(12)
In the above, $`i,j`$ are flavor indices, $`a,b`$ are the color indices and $`r(=\pm 1/2)`$ is the spin index. As noted earlier we shall consider systems with two flavors and three colors. We have also introduced here two trial functions $`f(𝐤)`$ and $`f_1(𝐤)`$ respectively for the diquark and diantiquark channel. As may be noted the state constructed in eq.(11) is spin singlet and is antisymmetric in color and flavor. The corresponding Bogoliubov transformation for the operators is given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}q_{Ir}^{ia}(𝐤)\\ q_{Ir}^{kc}(𝐤)^{}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}f(𝐤)& r\frac{f(𝐤)}{|f(zbfk)|}ϵ_{ik}ϵ_{3ac}\mathrm{sin}f(𝐤)\\ r\frac{f^{}(𝐤)}{|f(𝐤)|}ϵ_{ki}ϵ_{3ca}\mathrm{sin}f(𝐤)& \mathrm{cos}f(𝐤)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}q_{Ir}^{ia}(𝐤)\\ \stackrel{~}{q}_{Ir}^{kc}(𝐤)\end{array}\right).`$ (19)
In a similar manner one can write down the Bogoliubov transformation for the antiquark operators corresponding to $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ basis.

Finally, to include the effect of temperature and density we obtain the state at finite temperature and density $`|\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ,\mu )`$ by a thermal Bogoliubov transformation over the state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ using thermofield dynamics (TFD) as described in ref.s  . We have,

$$|\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ,\mu )=𝒰_{\beta ,\mu }|\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(20)
where $`𝒰_{\beta ,\mu }`$ is

$$𝒰_{\beta ,\mu }=e^{^{}(\beta ,\mu )(\beta ,\mu )},$$
(21)
with,

$$^{}(\beta ,\mu )=q_I^{}(𝐤)^{}\theta _{}(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )\underset{¯}{q}_I^{}(𝐤)^{}+\stackrel{~}{q}_I^{}(𝐤)\theta _+(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{q}}_I^{}(𝐤)d𝐤.$$
(22)
In Eq.(22) the ansatz functions $`\theta _\pm (𝐤,\beta ,\mu )`$ will be related to quark and antiquark distributions and the underlined operators are the operators in the extended Hilbert space associated with thermal doubling in TFD method. Thus the ansatz functions at finite temperature and density given in Eq.(20) invloves five functions - $`h(𝐤)`$, for the quark anti quark condensates, $`f(𝐤)`$ and $`f_1(𝐤)`$ describing respectively the diquark and diantiquark condensates and $`\theta _\pm (𝐤,\beta ,\mu )`$ to include the temperature and density effects. All these functions are to be obtained by minimising the thermodynamic potential. This will involve an assumption about the effective hamiltonian . We shall carry out this minimisation in the next section.

## III estimation of the pressure and the model

Since the low and medium energy behaviour of QCD is not well understood one has to make assumptions about the effective interaction between the quarks. To consider chiral symmetry breaking in the Coulomb gauge pairing model  one had the effective action

$$𝒮_{eff}=d^4x\overline{\psi }(x)(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu )\psi (x)+\frac{1}{2}d^4xd^4yg^2(xy)J_\mu ^aD_{ab}^{\mu \nu }(xy)J_\nu ^b(y),$$
(23)
where,

$$J_\mu ^a(x)=\overline{\psi }^k(x)\gamma _\mu (\frac{\lambda ^a}{2})\psi ^k(x).$$

A sum over color indices $`a`$ and $`b`$ is implied, $`g`$ is the strong coupling constant and, $`D_{ab}^{\mu \nu }(xy)`$ is the full gluon propagator. This effective action may be thought of as resulting from integrating out the gluonic degrees of freedom from the full QCD Lagrangian keeping only the bilinear terms of the quark currents. While dealing with the gluon sector, to make things computable, one uses different approximations for the full propagator which is written down in Coulomb gauge . The most obvious one is to neglect transeverse gluons completely maintaining only the instantaneous Coulomb interactions. This was done in Ref. for chiral symmetry breaking. Another possibilty is to neglect retardation effects for the transverse gluons and have e.g. $`D^{ij}(p)=D^{ij}(𝐩,p_0)`$ \- the so called Breit interaction. In such instantaneous approximations one can interpret the product of the coupling constant and the gluon propagator as the Fourier tranform of the effective quark antiquark potential. Different effective potentials such as confining, Richardson, and a screened potential for the transverse part have been considered for chiral symmetry breaking in Coulomb gauge pairing model.

To deal with the case of finite temperature and density one might take one loop resummed perturbative QCD results at finite temperature and densities  for the propagator. However, we shall here assume a point like interaction approximation. The reason we shall choose this is its simplicity regarding its solvability. Further we can compare the results with those of NJL model calculations . The delta function interaction produces short distance singularities and so to regulate the integrals we shall restrict the phase space inside the sphere $`|𝐩|<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus the effective Hamiltonian we shall be considering is given by

$$=\psi ^{}(i𝜶\mathbf{})\psi +\frac{g^2}{2}J_\mu ^aJ^{\mu a}.$$
(24)
We next write down the expectation values of various operators in the thermal vacuum given in Eq.(20). These expressions would be used to calculate thermal expectation value of the Hamiltonian to compute the thermodynamic potential. We define

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ,\mu )|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha (𝐤)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\beta (𝐤^{})^{}|\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ,\mu )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{+\alpha \beta }(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )\delta (𝐤𝐤^{}),$$
(25)
and,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ,\mu )|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\beta (𝐤)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha (𝐤^{})|\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ,\mu )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )\delta (𝐤𝐤^{}),$$
(26)
where,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+F_1(𝐤)F(𝐤)+\left(\gamma ^0\mathrm{sin}2h(𝐤)+𝜶\widehat{𝐤}\mathrm{cos}2h(𝐤)\right)\left(1F(𝐤)F_1(𝐤)\right)\right),$$
(27)
and,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+F(𝐤)F_1(𝐤)\left(\gamma ^0\mathrm{sin}2h(𝐤)+𝜶\widehat{𝐤}\mathrm{cos}2h(𝐤)\right)\left(1F(𝐤)F_1(𝐤)\right)\right).$$
(28)
Here, the effect of diquark condensate and the temperature and/or density dependence is encoded in the function $`F(𝐤)`$ and $`F_1(𝐤)`$ given as

$$F(𝐤)=\mathrm{sin}^2f(𝐤)+\mathrm{cos}2f(𝐤)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}(𝐤,\beta ,\mu ),$$
(29)
and,

$$F_1(𝐤)=\mathrm{sin}^2f_1(𝐤)+\mathrm{cos}2f_1(𝐤)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _+(𝐤,\beta ,\mu ).$$
(30)
Clearly, at zero temperature and zero density the functions $`F`$ and $`F_1`$ vanish and the projection operators reduce to the forms considered earlier,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm (\stackrel{}{k},\beta )=\frac{1}{2}\left[1\pm (\gamma ^0\mathrm{sin}2h(k)+\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{k}\mathrm{cos}2h(k))\right].$$
(31)
Further, at zero density but finite temperature $`\theta _{}=\theta _+`$ and projection operators reduce to ,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm (\stackrel{}{k},\beta )=\frac{1}{2}\left[1\pm \mathrm{cos}2\theta (\gamma ^0\mathrm{sin}2h(k)+\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{k}\mathrm{cos}2h(k))\right].$$
(32)
We also have

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ,\mu )|\psi _\alpha ^{ia}(\stackrel{}{x})\psi _\gamma ^{jb}|\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{ij}ϵ^{3ab}}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle e^{i𝐤𝐱}𝒫_{+\gamma \alpha }(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )𝑑𝐤},`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ,\mu )|\psi _\alpha ^{ia}(\stackrel{}{x})\psi _\gamma ^{jb}|\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{ij}ϵ^{3ab}}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle e^{i𝐤𝐱}𝒫_{\alpha \gamma }(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )𝑑𝐤},`$ (34)
where,

$$𝒫_+(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )=\frac{1}{4}\left[S(𝐤)+\left(\gamma ^0\mathrm{sin}2h(𝐤)𝜶\widehat{𝐤}\mathrm{cos}2h(𝐤)\right)A(𝐤)\right]\gamma _5C,$$
(35)
and,

$$𝒫_{}(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )=\frac{C\gamma _5}{4}[(S(𝐤)+(\gamma ^0\mathrm{sin}2h(𝐤)𝜶\widehat{𝐤}\mathrm{cos}2h(𝐤))A(𝐤)].$$
(36)
Here, $`C=i\gamma ^2\gamma ^0`$ is the charge conjugation matrix (we use the notation of Bjorken and Drell) and the functions $`S(𝐤)`$ and $`A(𝐤)`$ are given as,

$$S(𝐤)=\mathrm{sin}2f(𝐤)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{}(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )+\mathrm{sin}2f_1(𝐤)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _+(𝐤,\beta ,\mu ),$$
(38)
and,

$$A(𝐤)=\mathrm{sin}2f(𝐤)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{}(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )\mathrm{sin}2f_1(𝐤)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _+(𝐤,\beta ,\mu ),$$
(39)
Using Eq. (26) we have for the kinetic energy part

$$T\mathrm{\Omega },\beta ,\mu |\psi ^{}(i𝜶\mathbf{})\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }\beta \mu =\frac{\gamma }{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝐤\mathrm{cos}2h(𝐤)(1FF_1),$$
(40)
where, the degenracy factor $`\gamma =12`$ corresponding to spin(2), color(3) and flavor(2) degrees of freedom. $`T`$ in Eq.(40) above, however, includes the contribution of the perturbative zero point energy corresponding to $`h(𝐤)=0=f(𝐤)=f_1(𝐤)`$. Subtracting this out we have the contribution from the kinetic energy

$$𝒯=T\widehat{T}|_{h=f=f_1=\theta _\pm =0}=\frac{\gamma }{(2\pi )^3}|𝐤|\left[2\mathrm{sin}^2h(𝐤)+\mathrm{cos}2h(𝐤)(F+F_1)\right].$$
(41)
Similarly the contribution from the interaction term in Eq.(24) after subtracting out the zero point pertuturbative energy turns out to be

$$𝒱\mathrm{\Omega },\beta ,\mu |\frac{g^2}{2}J_\mu ^aJ^{\mu a}|\mathrm{\Omega }\beta \mu =V_1+V_2$$
(42)
where, the contribution $`V_1`$ arises from using Eq.s (25), (26) and is given as

$$V_1=\frac{g^2}{2}N_f\frac{(N_c^21)}{2}2(I_1^22I_2^2)=8g^2(I_1^22I_2^2)$$
(43)
with,

$$I_1=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝐤(FF_1)$$
(44)
and

$$I_2=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝐤(1FF_1)\mathrm{sin}2h(𝐤).$$
(45)
The term $`V_2`$ arises from using Eq.(35)and (36) and we have

$$V_2=\frac{2g^2}{3}(2I_3^2+I_4^2),$$
(46)
where

$$I_3=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝐤S(𝐤)$$
(47)
and

$$I_4=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝐤A(𝐤)\mathrm{sin}2h(𝐤).$$
(48)
Then the free energy density is

$$=ϵ\mu N=𝒯+𝒱\mu N$$
(49)
where, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential and $`N`$ is quark number density. Further,

$$N=\psi ^{}\psi =\frac{\gamma }{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝐤(FF_1)=\gamma I_1.$$
(50)
Finally, for the entropy density we have

$$s=\frac{\gamma }{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝐤\left(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}ln\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{}ln\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{}+sin^2\theta _+lnsin^2\theta _++\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _+ln\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _+\right)$$
(51)
and the thermodynamic potential which is negative of pressure is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=𝒫=ϵ\mu N\frac{1}{\beta }s$$
(52)
Now if we minimise the thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to $`h(𝐤)`$,we get

$$tan2h(𝐤)=\frac{8g^2I_2}{3|𝐤|}\frac{M}{|𝐤|}.$$
(53)
where, $`M=8g^2I_2/3`$. Substituting this back in Eq.(45) we have the mass gap equation

$$M=\frac{8g^2I_2}{3}=\frac{8g^2}{3}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{M}{\sqrt{𝐤^2+M^2}}(1FF_1)𝑑𝐤.$$
(54)
Clearly, the above includes the effect of diquark condensates as well as temperature and density through the functions $`F`$ and $`F_1`$ given in Eq.s (29) and (30) respectively. The zero temperature and density limit is given by setting $`F=0=F_1`$ which has the same structure as in NJL model .

Next, minimising the thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to $`f`$ and $`f_1`$ yields

$$tan2f(𝐤)=\frac{2g^2}{9}\frac{\left(2I_3I_4\mathrm{sin}2h\right)}{\sqrt{𝐤^2+M^2}\left(\mu \frac{4g^2}{3}I_1\right)}$$
(55)
and,

$$tan2f_1(𝐤)=\frac{2g^2}{9}\frac{\left(2I_3+I_4\mathrm{sin}2h\right)}{\sqrt{𝐤^2+M^2}+\left(\mu \frac{4g^2}{3}I_1\right)}.$$
(56)
We might further simplify equations (55) and (56) by noting from Eq.s (47), (48), (39) and (38) that the integral $`I_4`$ is small compared to $`I_3`$, as the integrand in the former is a difference of two postive quantities whereas the latter is a sum of these two quantities. In addition, the integrand in $`I_4`$ is suppresed by the quark antiquark condensate function $`\mathrm{sin}2h(𝐤)`$ which is not the case in $`I_3`$. Finally, this apart, in Eq.s (55) and (56) the numerical coefficient in the second term of the numerator is small compared to that in the first term. Thus, we can approximate

$$tan2f(𝐤)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{E\nu }$$
(57)
$$tan2f_1(𝐤)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{E+\nu },$$
(58)
where, the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(4g^2/9)I_3`$, $`E=\sqrt{𝐤^2+M^2}`$ and $`\nu =\mu 4g^2/3I_1`$ is the chemical potential in presence of interaction . From the definition of superconducting gap and Eq.(47) we have the superconducting gap equation given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{4g^2}{9}I_3=\frac{4g^2}{9(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝐤\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+(E\nu )^2}}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{}(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+(E+\nu )^2}}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _+(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )\right)$$
(59)
Finally, minimisation of the thermodynamic potential with respect to the thermal functions $`\theta _\pm (𝐤,\beta ,\mu )`$ gives

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta \omega _{})+1}$$
(60)
and

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _+=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta \omega _+)+1}$$
(61)
where, $`\omega _\pm =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\xi _\pm ^2}`$ and $`\xi _\pm =(E\pm \nu )`$. Therefore, with all the ansatz functions determined from the minimisation of the thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ,\mu )`$, the mass gap equation (54) and superconducting gap equations are given respectively as

$$\frac{4g^2}{3}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝐤\frac{1}{\sqrt{𝐤^2+M^2}}\left(\frac{\xi _{}}{\omega _{}}tanh(\frac{\beta \omega _{}}{2})+\frac{\xi _+}{\omega _+}tanh(\frac{\beta \omega _+}{2})\right)=1$$
(62)
$$\frac{4g^2}{9}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝐤\left(\frac{tanh(\frac{\beta \omega _{}}{2})}{\omega _{}}+\frac{tanh(\frac{\beta \omega _+}{2})}{\omega _+}\right)=1$$
(63)
Equation (62) is the generalisation of the mass gap equation considered at zero temperature and density of Ref. to include the effect of finite temperature and density  alongwith the effect of diquark condensates. Similarly, Eq.(63) is the relativistic generalisation of the BCS gap equation  in the presence of a dynamically generated mass gap through a quark antiquark condensate structure for the vacuum. These are the main new features of the present work.

## IV Solution of the gap equations and results

Before trying to solve the coupled gap equations (62) and (63) we discuss the solutions in the following two different limiting cases, so that we make connection with earlier studies .

* Case–I :Only quark antiquark condensate i.e. $`h(𝐤)0;f(𝐤)=0=f_1(𝐤)`$
In this limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and the gap equation (62) reduces to

$$M=\frac{8g^2}{3}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{M}{\sqrt{𝐤^2+M^2}}(1n_+n_{})𝑑𝐤$$
(64)
where,

$$n_\pm =\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta (E(𝐤)\pm \nu ))+1}$$

This is the same equation as obtained in Ref. except for numerical factors before the integrand. This is due to the difference in the Lorentz structure of the four fermion interaction term. In Ref.  the interaction term is $`(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2+((\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\tau \psi )^2`$ that can originate from a Fierz transformation of the $`J_\mu ^aJ^{\mu a}`$ interaction as considered here. In Ref. only $`J_0^aJ^{0a}`$ term was included. We might however mention here that keeping $`J_0J_0`$ term only will make the pressure negative at high densities even when the condensate vanishes. At zero temperature the mass gap is given by the solution of the equation

$$\frac{4g^2}{3\pi ^2}_{k_f}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{k^2dk}{\sqrt{k^2+M^2}}=1$$
(65)
where the fermi mometum $`k_f`$is defined through the (interacting) chemical potential $`\nu `$ as $`k_f^2+M^2=\nu ^2`$. We also note that this gap equation is derived here by minimising the thermodynamic potential over a variational ansatz and not through a mean field approximation  or a Hartree Fock calculation. The critical fermi momentum is given by the density where $`M=0`$ and is given at zero temperature by,

$$k_f^c=\mathrm{\Lambda }(1\frac{3\pi ^2}{2g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})^{1/2}$$
(66)
and the corresponding quark number density is given by $`n_0=\gamma k_f^{c3}/6\pi ^2`$. The variation of mass gap as a function of fermi momentum is shown in Fig. (1). We have chosen the value of the coupling $`g^2=55.98GeV^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.67GeV`$ as typical values. In fact, they have been chosen so that the diquark condensate function vanishes at the same critical temperature as in Ref..

With this choice of parameters, the dynamically generated quark mass at zero temperature and density becomes about 490 GeV which is rather high compared to the standard value of around 300 MeV. With a lower value of $`g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ the same could be made smaller. The critical density in this model turns out to be about $`1.7/fm^3`$ corresponding to a value of the fermi momentum $`k_f^c`$ of $`0.4GeV`$. In Fig.2 we have plotted the pressure as a function of fermi momentum. Here we have added the bag constant $`ϵ_0`$ which is the energy density at zero quark number density at zero temperature . This turns out to be about $`(0.2GeV)^4`$. As observed earlier  the pressure has a cusp like structure and becomes negative at finite density. The portion of the curve that goes down with fermi momentum corresponds to a nontrivial mass gap solution and the portion that increases with density correponds to zero mass solution of the mass gap equation (62). As in Ref, and unlike Ref. the effects of interactions do not disappear beyond the chiral symmetry restoration phase. This is due to the fact that there is no running coupling involved here and in fact, the pressure grows as $`n^2`$ or $`k_f^6`$ at high densities as may be expected from the interaction term $`V_1`$ involving $`I_1^2=N^2/\gamma ^2`$ given in Eq.(43). However, one has to keep in mind that to be consistent with the philosophy of high momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the fermi momentum should be less than the cut off momentum. The negative pressure at intermediate densities can be understood in terms of mechanical instability and can have the interpretation that uniform nonzero density quark matter will break up into droplets of finite density in which chiral symmetry is restored surrounded by empty space with zero pressure and density. It is tempting to identify these droplets with nucleons within which the density is nonzero and $`\overline{q}q`$ =0— a fact reminiscent of bag models. Nothing within the model however implies that the droplets have quark number three .
* Case– II:No chiral condensate but only diquark condensate i.e. $`h(𝐤)=0`$ $`f(𝐤)0`$, $`f_1(𝐤)0`$

In this case, the quark mass arising from chiral condensate is zero and the superconducting gap equation (63) reduces to

$$1=\frac{2g^2}{9\pi ^2}_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }k^2𝑑k\left[\frac{1}{\omega _{}}tanh(\frac{\beta \omega _{}}{2})+\frac{1}{\omega _+}tanh(\frac{\beta \omega _+}{2})\right]$$
(67)
where, as before $`\omega _\pm =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\xi _\pm ^2}`$ but, with $`\xi _\pm =|𝐤|\pm \nu `$. This is the relativistic generalisation of BCS gap equation in superconductivity . It has the same structure as in Ref in the limit the form factor is replaced by a sharp cutoff as in Ref. and apart from the numerical factor preceeding the integrand. Further, this can be rearranged to interpret separately contributions arising from particles, antiparticles and holes . We have chosen the values of the coupling and the cutoff as in Ref. so as to get the same critical temperature as in Ref.. The gap equation at zero temperature is given as

$$1=\frac{2g^2}{9\pi ^2}_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }k^2𝑑k\left[\frac{1}{\omega _{}}+\frac{1}{\omega _+}\right]$$
(68)
The superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is plotted in Fig 3. While obtaining the solution of the gap equation (68) we also insist that a nontrivial solution of the gap equation is acceptable only if the corresponding free energy is smaller than that with no gap. The gap increases with fermi momentum, has a maximum of about 90 MeV around fermi momentum 550 MeV, beyond which the effect of cutoff is felt and it vanishes at around $`k_f=600`$ MeV.

The resulting equation of state i.e. pressure as a function of fermi momentum is plotted in Fig.4. There is no unstable phase as discussed for chiral condensate case with negative pressure. Because of the interaction term, the equation of state does not go over to the free massless equation of state beyond the critical density. We have plotted the pressure in Fig.4 for fermi momentum upto 600 MeV noting that the cutoff here is about 650 MeV.
* Case– III: $`h(𝐤)0;`$$`f(𝐤)0`$and $`f_1(𝐤)0`$.
Here we solve the coupled gap equations (62) and (63) which at zero temperature but finite density reduce to

$$\frac{2g^2}{3\pi ^2}𝑑k\frac{k^2}{E}\left(\frac{\xi _{}}{\omega _{}}+\frac{\xi _+}{\omega _+}\right)=1$$
(69)
$$\frac{2g^2}{9\pi ^2}𝑑kk^2\left(\frac{1}{\omega _{}}+\frac{1}{\omega _+}\right)=1$$
(70)
where, $`\omega _\pm =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\xi _\pm ^2}`$; $`\xi _\pm =E\pm \nu `$ and $`E=\sqrt{𝐤^2+M^2}`$. To solve the above equations numerically, we take $`\nu `$ as an input and obtain the values of mass gap $`M`$ and the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ so that both the equations are satisfied simultaneously. The chemical potential $`\nu `$ is related to the fermi momentum as $`k_f=\sqrt{\nu ^2M^2}`$. The resulting mass gap and the superconducting gap are plotted in Fig. 5 and Fig 6 respectively. For the sake of comparison we have also plotted the mass gap without diquark condensate (case–I) in Fig 5,and, superconducting gap without chiral gap (case–II) in Fig. 6. As may be noted, the mass gap does not change very much through the inclusion of diquark condensates. The superconducting gap however starts at a lower threshold and varies slowly compared to the case of no mass gap. Both the curves however merge at the chiral restoration point.

We have also plotted the equation of state , pressure as a function of fermi momentum in Fig.7. The equation of state does not change very much compared to the case with only quark antiquark condensates.

This should be expected as the effect of diquark condensate is small in the region where chiral condensate is nonvanishing. As may be evident from Fig. there is a region from $`k_f0.1`$ fm till $`k_f0.4`$ fm where simultaneous existence of both types of condensates is possible. However, in this region the pressure becomes negative. As in case I, this will correspond to mechanical instability. The finite density matter will break into droplets of finite density in which chiral symmetry is restored and the matter is in a superconducting phase surrounded by empty space with zero pressure and density. Below $`k_f=0.1`$ fm the phase with only quark antiquark condensates and for $`k_f>0.4`$ fm the phase with diquark condensates is thermodynamically feasible. However, one should not extrapolate to fermi momenta higher than the cutoff momentum of the model to be consistent with the philosophy of high momentum cutoff.

### A The phase diagram

To discuss the phase diagram we have solved the two gap equations Eq.(62) and Eq. (63) at finite temperature and density to calculate different thermodynamic quantities. The result of such a calculation for the mass gap is shown in Fig.(8). Similarly the superconducting gap at different temperatures is shown in Fig.(9).

The superconducting gap decreases with temperature and vanishes at around 55 MeV. Similarly the mass gap also decreases with temperature and vanishes at about 270 MeV at zero density. The superconducting transition is a second order phase transition. The chiral phase transition is first order at zero density but is second order at high temperature. The pressure at different temperatures is shown in Fig.10 as a function of $`(n/n_0)^{1/3}`$, where n is number density and $`n_0=(2/\pi ^2)\nu _c^3`$ is the critical number density at zero temperature. The cusp in the pressure density curve, indicating a first order phase transition, vanishes at about 84 MeV. At temperaures beyond that the pressure increases monotonically with density.

To discuss the critical line for the chiral transition in the number density and temperature plane we need to solve the gap equation (62) with mass gap equated to zero i.e. the critical line satisfies the equation

$$\frac{4g^2}{3\pi ^2}_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑kk\left(1\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta (k\nu ))+1}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta (k+\nu ))+1}\right)=1$$
(71)
As the distribution functions are rapidly decreasing functions of momentum we may approximate the upper limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. In that case Eq.(71) reduces to

$$\nu ^2+\tau ^2=\nu _c^2$$
(72)
where,$`\tau =\pi T/\sqrt{3}`$ and $`\nu _ck_f^c=\mathrm{\Lambda }(13\pi ^2/(2g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$, the critical chemical potential or fermi momentum at zero temperature calculated earlierin Eq.(66). It may be useful to write down this relation in terms of number densities rather than the chemical potential using the relation

$$n=\frac{6}{\pi ^2}_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑kk^2\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta (k\nu ))+1}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta (k+\nu ))+1}\right)\frac{2}{\pi ^2}\nu (\nu ^2+\pi ^2T^2)$$
(73)
where, we again take infinity as the upper limit in the momentum integration as was done in Eq.(71). This leads to the equation for the critical line in the number density plane as

$$n/n_0=\left(1(\frac{\tau }{\nu _c})^2\right)^{1/2}\left(1+2(\frac{\tau }{\nu _c})^2\right)$$
(74)
where, $`n_0=(2/\pi ^2)\nu _c^3`$ is the critical density at zero temperature. This approximate solution is shown by the dotted line in Fig11. The numerical solution for the critical line with the finite cutoff for the momentum is shown by the solid curve in the same figure. As the chiral phase transition is a first order phase transition at zero temperature and is second order at high temperature there will be a tricritical point for the chiral phase transition below which there will be a mixed phase. This mixed phase here will correspond to the phase with droplets of finite density quark matter in the superconducting but chiral symmetric phase surrounded by empty space with $`n=0,P=0,\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and chiral symmetry broken phase. This can be obtained by a Maxwell construction to exclude the part of the phase diagram where pressure decreases with density. This is shown as the dashed curve in Fig.11. The tricritical point in this model turns out to be 84 MeV.

We have also shown in Fig.11 the critical line for the color superconducting phase by the dot-dashed line. The decreasing part of this line is due to the fact that we have taken a cut off in the momentum and at high enough density the superconducting gap vanishes as shown in Fig. 9.

A detailed quantitative comparison of our results with those in Ref. is not very meaningful since our model is a simple, schematic one. However, it is very reassuring that the structure of the phase diagram is very similar to the one obtained by Berges and Rajagopal .

## V summary

We have analysed in a current current point interaction model the structure of vacuum with quark antiquark as well as diquark pairs. The methodology used is a variational one with an explicit construct of the trial state. The present work is not based on a mean field approximation . Because of the point interaction structure we could solve for the gap functions explicitly. If we had taken the interaction term with a potential the gap equation would become an integral equation. It will be interesting to include a realistic effective potential and solve for the gap equation. There appears to be a region depending upon the coupling where both chiral condensates as well as diquark condensates are thermodynamically feasible. Presence of diquark condensate does not modify the dynamical mass of the quarks. The dynamical mass however affects the threshold for superconducting gap. The equation of state does not differ very much with inclusion of diquark condensates. We also obtain the complete phase diagram of the system in overall agreement with that of Ref.. Finally, our results suggests that our simple model contains the essential physics of the system.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

HM would like to thank Amruta Mishra for numerous discussions.


format: text

text:
# Correlations due to localization in quantum eigenfunctions of disordered microwave cavities

\[

## Abstract

Non-universal correlations due to localization are observed in statistical properties of experimental eigenfunctions of quantum chaotic and disordered microwave cavities. Varying energy$`E`$ and mean free path $`l`$ enable us to experimentally tune from localized to delocalized states. Large level-to-level Inverse Participation Ratio (IPR $`I_2`$) fluctuations are observed for the disordered billiards, whose distribution is strongly asymmetric about $`I_2`$. The density auto-correlations of eigenfunctions are shown to decay exponentially and the decay lengths are experimentally determined. All the results are quantitatively consistent with calculations based upon nonlinear $`\sigma `$models.

\]

The universal properties of quantum chaotic systems have been extensively studied in terms of their eigenvalue and eigenfunction statistics . In Random Matrix Theory (RMT), the Gaussian distribution of eigenfunction amplitudes $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r})`$ leads to the universal Porter-Thomas (PT) distribution for the densities $`|\psi |^2`$, which has been observed in microwave cavities  as well as other systems. However, non-universality has important manifestations, for instance due to periodic orbits which lead to scars in eigenfunctions, and localization arising from quantum interference in diffusion. While there have been many theoretical treatments, from semiclassical periodic orbit theories  to nonlinear sigma models , there have been few experimental studies of eigenfunctions because of their lack of accessibility.

In this paper, we present several striking manifestations of localization in experimental eigenfunctions of disordered microwave billiard cavities. Localization due to boundary or impurity scattering results in correlations that affect statistics and spatial correlations of the eigenfunctions in several measures, leading to deviations from their universal values for quantum chaotic systems. The moments of the density distribution, $`I_n=|\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{r})|^{2n}d^3r`$, in particular the Inverse Participation Ratio $`I_2`$ $`(IPR)`$, and their distributions $`P_{I_n}(I_n)`$, are important measures of the properties of the chaotic and disordered eigenfunctions. In chaotic billiards, $`I_2`$ has a mean value $`I_2`$ close to that of the universal $`2`$-dimensional $`(2D)`$ limiting value of $`3.0`$, with small level-to-level fluctuations $`\delta I_2I_2`$, resulting in a nearly symmetric distribution about $`I_2`$. In disordered billiards not only is the mean value $`I_23.0`$, but the fluctuations are also much greater $`\delta I_2I_2`$. The IPR distribution for the disordered billiards is strongly asymmetric about $`I_2`$, and is quantitatively consistent with the calculations based upon the nonlinear $`\sigma `$models of supersymmetry, parametrized by a conductivity $`g`$ . Spatial correlations are studied in terms of the density auto-correlation $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(r)|^2|\mathrm{\Psi }(r^{^{}})|^2`$ and are shown to die out more rapidly in the disordered billiards compared with the chaotic geometries with a characteristic decay length given by the mean free path $`l`$. Here again the data are in quantitative agreement with the $`\sigma `$model calculations. Our results represent the first quantitative comparison of experiments and theory.

The experiments were carried out using thin $`(`$ height $`d`$ $`<6`$ mm$`)`$ cavities, whose cross-sections can be shaped in essentially arbitrary geometries. For these two dimensional cavities, the operational wave equation is $`(^2+k^2)\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$, where $`\psi =E_z`$ is the microwave electric field. Similar microwave experiments, which exploit this QM-EM mapping, have been used to study quantum chaos in closed  and open systems . Eigenfunctions $`|\psi (r)|^2`$ were directly measured using a cavity perturbation technique . Localization effects were observed by fabricating billiards in which $`1cm`$ circular tiles were placed in a $`44cm`$ x $`21.8cm`$ rectangle at random locations (Fig.1) to act as hard scatterers. (The locations were generated using a random number generator and the tiles placed manually). Several realizations of the disordered geometry were experimentally studied, by varying the density of scatterers from $`12`$ to $`71`$, thus varying mean free path $`l8.9cm`$ to $`3.6cm`$. Earlier experiments  had shown that these disordered geometries are an excellent experimental realization of the classic problem of an electron in a 2-D disordered potential. Subsequent to this work, there have been important theoretical developments , some motivated by our earlier experiments.

The experimental eigenfunctions directly demonstrate the trend toward decreasing localization from disordered-chaotic-integrable as seen in Fig.1, which shows representative experimental eigenfunctions, along with their corresponding IPR $`I_2`$, for several billiards. The strongly localized state Fig.1(a) at $`f=3.04GHz`$ of the disordered billiard with $`N=36`$ scatterers has very large $`I_2=13.42`$. In contrast the more delocalized state at higher frequency $`f=7.33GHz`$ (Fig.1(b)) explores almost all the available coordinate space similar to chaotic cavities and has a smaller $`I_2=4.06`$. For the chaotic Sinai stadium, typical values of the IPR are around $`3.0`$ ($`I_2=3.01`$ for this eigenfunction Fig.1(c)) while for the integrable rectangle billiard Fig.1(d) $`IPR`$ $`I_2=2.25`$ for all eigenfunctions. Fig.1 demonstrates a key advantage of our experiments, which is that by varying $`l`$ and wavevector $`k`$ we are able to access a wide range of the disorder strength $`kl`$, from strongly localized states for $`kl<1`$ to delocalized states with $`kl1`$.

Eigenfunctions such as in Fig.1 were then analyzed in terms of $`I_2`$ and $`P_{I_2}(I_2)`$. In the following, for convenience, we use the notation  $`I_2=|\mathrm{\Psi }(r)|^4𝑑v=u^2𝑑v,w=(I_23)/6`$ , $`u=|\mathrm{\Psi }(r)|^2`$, and $`I_1=|\mathrm{\Psi }(r)|^2𝑑v=1`$, and the integral is over the volume $`v`$ (area in $`2D`$ ). Nearly 250 eigenfunctions were analyzed each containing more than 3200 eigenfunction values.

Fig.2 shows level-to-level variations $`I_2(E)`$ for the Sinai stadium. Here $`I_2`$ is mainly clustered around a mean value of $`I_2=3.0`$, with relatively small level-to-level fluctuations. The IPR distribution $`P_{I_2}(I_2)`$ of the chaotic Sinai-stadium billiard is shown in Fig.3(top). $`P_{I_2}(I_2)`$ is seen to be a nearly symmetric distribution with a small width $`I_2I_2I_2`$.

Ref. demonstrated that the Sinai-stadium billiard data obey the universal Porter-Thomas (P-T) distribution $`P_u(u)=(2\pi u)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(u/2)`$, with $`u=|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ to remarkable degree, while deviations from P-T were demonstrated due to localization in the disordered billiards. The IPR for P-T distribution can be immediately obtained $`I_2=_0^{\mathrm{}}u^2P_u(u)𝑑u=3.0`$, which is a universal value. Note that there are no fluctuations expected about this universal value in RMT, i.e., $`P_{I_2}(I_2)`$ is a $`\delta `$-function at $`I_2=3`$ . Clearly boundary scattering on the system length scale $`R`$ leads to non-universal correlations (e.g. from periodic orbits leading to scars in the wavefunctions). This breaks the assumption in RMT of Gaussian fluctuations of the eigenfunction amplitude, and in turn leads to fluctuations in the distribution $`P_{I_2}(I_2)`$ (although of narrow width) observed in Fig.3(top).

Even more strikingly, the IPRs of the disordered billiards shown in Fig.2 display a remarkably large spectrum of level-to-level fluctuations (Fig.2). For small $`f`$, when $`\lambda >l`$, strong localization leads to large values of $`I_2`$ in the disordered cavity, which can be as high as $`20`$. It is worth noting that the density distributions $`P_u(u)`$of the eigenfunctions deviate strongly from the P-T distribution and are consistent with the large IPR values.(In this paper we have focussed on the billiard with $`l=5.1cm.`$, but similar results were obtained for other billiards and will be presented in a larger publication.)

As $`f`$ is increased (or $`\lambda `$ is decreased), the IPR progressively decreases, approaching the universal limiting value of $`3`$, as shown in Fig.2. The corresponding distribution $`P_{I_2}(I_2)`$ shown in Fig.3(bottom) is strikingly different from the Sinai-stadium case, in that, it is strongly asymmetric, reflecting the very large $`I_2I_2`$ values that are present, and is strongly non-Gaussian. The IPR fluctuations in Fig.2 are closely similar to the famous universal conductance fluctuations of a mesoscopic system.

Recently several theoretical studies have calculated the IPR distribution based on the supersymmetry method . For a mesoscopic system the IPR distribution depends on the conductivity $`g`$ of the system, defined as $`g=\mathrm{ln}(R/l)/w`$ , where $`R`$ is the system size and $`l`$ is the mean free path and $`..`$ is the realization average for a fixed “disorder strength” $`2kl`$. The resulting probability distribution $`P(I_2)`$ for $`I_2<I_2=3`$ is :

$$P_{I_2}(I_2)=C_1\frac{g}{2}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{g}{6}(I_2I_2)\frac{\pi }{2}e^{\frac{g}{3}(I_2I_2)}],$$
(1)
and the corresponding distribution for $`I_2I_2`$ :

$$P_{I_2}(I_2)=C_2\sqrt{\frac{g}{I_2}}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\pi }{6}gI_2)$$
(2)
where $`C_{1\text{ }}`$ and $`C_2`$ are normalization constants.

The solid line in Fig.3(bottom) represents Eq.(2) for $`I_2I_2`$ using a small conductivity $`g=1.0`$ and is seen to describe the data very well. Another way of presenting the comparison with Eq.(2) is by using a scaled variable $`q=gI_2`$ whence the distribution changes to a Porter-Thomas distribution in $`q`$. The system is within the weak disorder limit, i.e. the random phase approximation still valid, and $`g`$ depends weakly on the disorder factor $`2kl`$ . Now rescaling the $`I_2`$ with $`g`$ we obtain the distribution $`P_q(q)`$ (unnormalized) and plot $`\mathrm{ln}[P_q(q)\sqrt{q}]`$ vs $`q`$ in Fig.4. This shows a straight line which implies a good agreement of theory and experiment for IPR distribution in a moderate disordered region where $`I_2I_2`$. This is the first experimental observation of the asymmetric distribution predicted by Prigodin and Altshuler .

We now return to the case of the Sinai-stadium. Although a formulation in terms of a ballistic sigma model has been presented for chaotic cavities, it is not simply amenable to experimental comparison. Instead we use Eq.1 with the assumption that since $`lR,`$ a suitably large conductivity $`(g>>1)`$ can be used. In our experimental case, $`g7.8`$ matches Eq.1 not only for $`I_2<I_2`$, but also for $`I_2>I_2,`$ as shown in Fig.3(top). The nearly symmetric distribution can be understood since the fluctuations arise from correlations at the scale of the system length $`R`$, which is the only length scale in the problem. The values of $`g`$ corresponding to the disordered billiards and the Sinai-stadium billiard are consistent with the $`w`$ values and the mean free paths.

We now show that the experimental data also directly demonstrate the decay of spatial correlations $`\mathrm{\Psi }^2(r)\mathrm{\Psi }^2(r^{})`$ of the eigenfunctions and obtain the decay length, which corresponds to the classical mean free path. To calculate the correlation with arbitrary disorder strength $`2kl`$, defining $`K(r)=|ImG(r^{})|^2/(\pi \nu )^2`$ , where $`G(|rr^{^{}}|)=<r|(EH)^1|r^{}>`$ is the Green function of the disordered system Hamiltonian, then it can be shown  that $`K(r)=|\frac{1}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{1+y^2}J_0[kr(1+\frac{1}{2kl}y)]𝑑y|^2`$.

For the chaotic or ballistic limit $`(2kl>>1),`$ the result for Gaussian fluctuations is $`\mathrm{\Psi }^2(r)\mathrm{\Psi }^2(r^{})1+(I_21)J_0^2(rr^{}),`$ where $`J_0`$ is the first order Bessel function . The correlation for a moderate disordered case with correct limits can be derived repeating the calculations of Ref:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^2(r)\mathrm{\Psi }^2(r^{})`$ $``$ $`1+(I_21)K(k|rr^{}|)`$ (3)
$``$ $`1+(I_21)J_0^2(k|rr^{}|)e^{\frac{k|rr^{^{}}|}{kl}}`$ (4)
These are valid when $`rr^{}l`$. We have solved $`K(k|rr^{^{}}|)`$ numerically. In Fig.5, we plot the average correlation derived from experimental data, numerical calculations of Eq.(3), and analytical expression of Eq.(4) for different disorder strengths $`2kl.`$ For the Sinai billiards, the average correlation starts at $`3`$ and tend to $`1`$ via Friedel oscillations, consistent with Eq.(4) with $`2kl=37`$, which is very large and hence the result is close to that of the universal dependence given by $`kl=\mathrm{}`$. For disordered billiards, the auto-correlation is very large ($`I_2`$) for short lengths, i.e. around $`|rr^{}|0`$ due to localization, but the auto-correlation decays with a decay length scale, responsible for fast fall, and it should go to zero at large $`k|rr^{}|`$. The experimental data shows good agreement with the numerical and analytical calculations for moderate disorder, as shown in Fig.5 for values $`2kl=12`$ and $`7`$. These values are in excellent agreement with the corresponding mean free paths $`(l=3.6`$, $`5.1`$, $`5.9`$ and $`8.9)`$ obtained by directly considering the number of scatterers $`N`$, so that $`l\sqrt{ab/N}`$ and $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the sides of the enclosing rectangle. Thus our analysis directly demonstrates localization and yields a quantitative measure in terms of the correlation decay length.

Returning to the level-to-level $`I_2`$ data in Fig.2 we note that they can be viewed as a form of localization-delocalization transition, tuned by the frequency $`f`$ ! Representing the IPR as $`I_2(E)=I_{2,sm}(E)+\delta I_2(E)`$, i.e. a smooth part $`I_{2,sm}(E)`$ plus fluctuations $`\delta I_2(E)`$, we discuss the trends in $`I_2(E)`$. Calculations in Ref. based on infinite dimensional tight binding model shows that $`I_2(E)`$ diverges exponentially near the critical point $`E_c`$: $`I_2(E)=I_2(E=\mathrm{})\mathrm{exp}(A/|EE_c|^\mu )`$, with $`\mu =\frac{1}{2}`$ , due to very strong correlations of the wave function near $`E_c`$. $`I_2(E=\mathrm{})`$ will be obviously the asymptotic universal value $`3,`$ as predicted by RMT in $`2D`$. Our experimental $`IPR`$ data is as large as $`IPR`$ $``$ $`20`$ (strongly localized), decaying to $`4`$ (weakly localized) at high frequencies upto $`10GHz.`$ In the present case, the smallest scale of the system $`5cm`$ sets a natural lower cut-off frequency $`f_c=c/2l=3GHz`$, so that there are no eigenstates for $`E<`$ $`E_c=f_c^2.`$ For $`EE_c`$ expanding the above equation in first order, we obtain $`I_{2,sm}(E)3+B/|EE_c|^\mu `$. In Fig.2 we have plotted this expression with $`\mu =0.5`$ and $`B=9.0`$ (obtained by a best fit) and compared with the experimental data. The above expression captures the trend of the data. While an exact comparison with any expression is difficult since the fluctuations $`\delta I_2(E)>I_{2,sm}(E),`$ the analysis illustrates that we are observing a frequency driven localized to de-localized transition in a disordered medium in terms of the $`IPR.`$

We have shown that the IPR is an extremely valuable parameter to study real-space localization in quantum eigenfunctions. We have demonstrated for the first time a quantitative analysis of features well beyond universality due to localization in experimental eigenfunctions. The observed IPR distribution is strongly non-Gaussian due to the correlations induced by scattering. The nonlinear sigma-model is in quantitative agreement with the experimental data for moderate localization. Our work thus provide experimental support for the approach based upon quantum diffusion in the localization regime.

This work was supported by NSF-PHY-9722681. S.S. thanks the hospitality of the Quantum Chaos Workshop at the Australian National University, Canberra, where part of this work was carried out. We thank A. Kudrolli for useful discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In conventional (20th century) physics, high energy or high momentum came to be associated with small distances. The physics of the 21st century is likely to be dominated by a very different perspective. According to the Infrared/Ultraviolet connection  which underlies much of our new understanding of string theory and its connection to gravity, physics of increasing energy or momentum is governed by increasingly large distances. Examples include the growth of particle size with momentum  , the origin of the long-range gravitational force in Matrix Theory from high energy quantum corrections  and the IR/UV connection in AdS spaces. Another important manifestation is the spacetime uncertainty principle of string theory

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }t\alpha ^{}.$$
(1.1)
Similar uncertainty principles occur in non-commutative geometry where the coordinates of space do not commute. An important consequence of the non-commutativity is the fact that the particles described by non-commutative field theories have a spatial extension which is proportional to their momentum . This in turn leads to unfamiliar violations of the conventional decoupling of IR and UV degrees of freedom in these theories . In this paper we will describe another example of IR/UV non-decoupling that occurs in AdS/CFT theories. The relevant space-times have the form $`AdS_n\times S^m`$. We are interested in the motion of the graviton and other massless bulk particles on the $`S^m`$. The motion is characterized by an angular momentum $`L`$ or more exactly a representation of the rotation group $`O(m+1)`$. In 20th century physics such particles are regarded as point or almost point particles regardless of $`L`$. In fact we will see that as $`L`$ increases the particles blow up in size very much like the quanta of non–commutative field theories. When the size reaches the radius of the $`S^m`$, the growth can no longer continue and the tower of Kaluza–Klein states terminates. This is the origin of the stringy exclusion principle .

In section 2 we will review the theory of electric dipoles moving in a magnetic field. This system is the basic object of non-commutative field theory. When the theory is defined on a 2-sphere there is a bound on the angular momentum when the ends of the dipole separate to the antipodes of the sphere. In sections 3, 4 and 5 we consider the cases of $`AdS_7\times S^4`$, $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ and $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. In each case we find that the spectrum of angular momentum is bounded and that the bound agrees with expectations from the stringy exclusion principle.

## 2 Dipoles in Magnetic Fields

In this section we briefly review the dipole analogy for non-commutative field theory  . We begin with a pair of unit charges of opposite sign moving on a plane with a constant magnetic field $`B`$. The Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{m}{2}\left(\dot{x}_1^2+\dot{x}_2^2\right)+\frac{B}{2}ϵ_{ij}\left(\dot{x}_1^ix_1^j\dot{x}_2^ix_2^j\right)\frac{K}{2}(x_1x_2)^2.$$
(2.1)
Let us suppose that the mass is so small so that the first term in Eq.(2.1) can be ignored. Let us also introduce center of mass and relative coordinates

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`(x_1+x_2)/2`$ (2.2)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`(x_1x_2)/2.`$ (2.3)
The Lagrangian becomes

$$=Bϵ_{ij}\dot{X}^i\mathrm{\Delta }^j2K\mathrm{\Delta }^2.$$
(2.4)
From Eq.(2.3) we first of all see that $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are non-commuting variables satisfying

$$[X^i,\mathrm{\Delta }^j]=i\frac{ϵ^{ij}}{B}.$$
(2.5)
Furthermore the center of mass momentum conjugate to $`X`$ is

$$P_i=Bϵ_{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }^j.$$
(2.6)
Thus when the dipole is moving with momentum $`P`$ in some direction it is stretched to a size

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }|=|P|/B.$$
(2.7)
in the perpendicular direction. This is the basis for the peculiar non-local effects in non–commutative field theory.

Now suppose the dipole is moving on the surface of a sphere of radius $`R`$. Assume also that the sphere has a magnetic flux $`N`$. In other words there is a magnetic monopole of strength

$$2\pi N=\mathrm{\Omega }_2BR^2.$$
(2.8)
at the center of the sphere. We can get a rough idea of what happens by just saying that when the momentum of the dipole is about $`2BR`$ the dipole will be as big as the sphere. At this point the angular momentum is the maximum value

$$L=PRBR^2.$$
(2.9)
This is of order the total magnetic flux $`N`$.

We will now do a more precise analysis and see that the maximum angular momentum is exactly $`N`$. Parameterize the sphere by two angles $`\theta ,\varphi `$. The angle $`\varphi `$ measures angular distance from the equator. It is $`\pm \pi /2`$ at the poles. The azimuthal angle $`\theta `$ goes from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$. We work in a gauge in which the $`\theta `$ component of the vector potential is non-zero. It is given by

$$A_\theta =N\frac{1\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{2R\mathrm{cos}\varphi }$$
(2.10)
For a unit charged point particle moving on the sphere the term coupling the velocity to the vector potential is

$$_A=A_\theta R\mathrm{cos}\varphi \dot{\theta }=NR\frac{1\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{2R}\dot{\theta }.$$
(2.11)
Now consider a dipole with its center of mass moving on the equator. The positive charge is at position $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ and the negative charge is at $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$. For the motion we consider $`\varphi `$ is time independent. Eq.(2.10) becomes

$$_A=N(\frac{1\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{2})\dot{\theta }N(\frac{1+\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{2})\dot{\theta }$$
(2.12)
or

$$_A=N\mathrm{sin}\varphi \dot{\theta }.$$
(2.13)
Again we want to consider a slow-moving dipole whose mass is so small that its kinetic term may be ignored compared to the coupling to the magnetic field, i.e. $`mR<<N`$. Let us also add a spring coupling

$$_S=\frac{k}{2}R^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi ;$$
(2.14)
for simplicity, we have used the chordal distance in this potential. The total Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{k}{2}R^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi N\mathrm{sin}\varphi \dot{\theta }$$
(2.15)
and the angular momentum is

$$L=N\mathrm{sin}\varphi .$$
(2.16)
The angular momentum will reach its maximum when $`\varphi =\pi /2`$ at which point

$$|L_{max}|=N.$$
(2.17)
The fact that the angular momentum of a single field quantum in non-commutative field theory is bounded by $`N`$ is well known in the context of non–commutative field theory on a sphere . Here we see that it is a large distance effect.

## 3 $`AdS\times S`$

We now study BPS particles moving on the sphere of maximally supersymmetric $`AdS`$ vacua of string and M theory. For simplicity, we present all details of the argument in the case of the M5-brane geometry. Results for the other cases are given in the latter subsections. Note that in all of these cases, the energy of our objects is well below the energy of a stable AdS black hole.

### 3.1 $`AdS_7\times S^4`$

We are interested in the motion of a BPS particle on the 4-sphere of $`AdS_7\times S^4`$. We will assume that the radius of curvature $`R`$ is much larger than the 11 dimensional Planck length $`l_p`$. The analogy with the previous example is very close. The role of the magnetic field is played by the 4-form field strength on the sphere. We call the flux density $`B`$. Quantization of flux requires

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_4BR^4=2\pi N.$$
(3.1)
From the supergravity equations of motion it can be seen  that $`R`$ is given by

$$R=l_p(\pi N)^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$
(3.2)
The assumption of large $`R`$ means $`N>>1`$.

We want to know what happens to a graviton or any other massless 11 dimensional particle when it moves on the 4-sphere in the presence of the 4-form field strength. As long as the angular momentum is small ($`L<<N`$) the graviton is expected to be much smaller than $`R`$, and we can make the approximation that space is locally flat. Furthermore from Eq.(3.1) we see that the field strength $`B`$ is small

$$BN^{\frac{1}{3}}l_p^4.$$
(3.3)
Since the space is almost flat we can locally introduce flat space coordinates $`x^0,\mathrm{}.,x^{10}`$. Let us take the $`B`$ field to lie in the $`(7,8,9,10)`$ directions. The graviton is moving along the $`x^{10}`$ direction. Its momentum is $`P_{10}=L/R`$. This setup is very close to one that was studied by Myers using Matrix Theory .

In matrix theory the 11 dimensional graviton is viewed as a threshold bound state of $`n=P_{10}R_{10}`$ D0-branes. Myers shows that in a background 4-form fieldstrength the D0-brane configuration is described as a spherical membrane with a radius $`r`$ that grows with $`P_{10}`$ according to

$$rBP_{10}l_p^6.$$
(3.4)
Let us assume that this formula is approximately valid until $`r`$ becomes of order $`R`$. In that case when the graviton size becomes $`R`$ it will have momentum

$$P_{10}(max)R/Bl_p^6$$
(3.5)
and angular momentum

$$L_{max}RP_{10}(max)R^2/Bl_p^6N.$$
(3.6)
Thus as in the previous section we find that the maximum single particle angular momentum is $`N`$.

We will now give a more precise calculation which parallels that of section 1. We are interested in the dynamics of a relativistic spherical membrane moving in $`S^4`$. The membrane has zero net charge but it couples to the background field strength. It behaves like the dipole of section 1.

Let us parametrize $`S^4`$ using cartesian coordinates $`X_1,\mathrm{}..,X_5`$ so that

$`X_1`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{cos}\theta _1`$ (3.7)
$`X_2`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2`$ (3.8)
$`X_3`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _3`$ (3.9)
$`X_4`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _3\mathrm{cos}\theta _4`$ (3.10)
$`X_5`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _4.`$ (3.11)
The angles $`\theta _1,\mathrm{}.,\theta _3`$ go from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$. The angle $`\theta _4`$ is the azimuthal angle and goes from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$. Then

$$X_1^2+X_2^2+X_3^2+X_4^2+X_5^2=R^2.$$
(3.12)
Next we embed a spherical membrane in $`S^4`$. We choose to parametrize the surface of the membrane by $`\theta _3,\theta _4`$. The brane is allowed to move in the $`X_1,X_2`$ plane. Its size depends on its location in the $`X_1,X_2`$ plane according to

$$r=R\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2.$$
(3.13)
We see that when the size is at its maximum value, $`r=R`$, the membrane is at the origin $`X_1=X_2=0`$ like the two charges at the ends of the dipole in section 1. Since

$$X_1^2+X_2^2=R^2r^2,$$
(3.14)
the membrane can move around a circle in the plane and have constant size. We also set

$`X_1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{R^2r^2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ (3.15)
$`X_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{R^2r^2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi .`$ (3.16)
In terms of the coordinates $`r,\varphi ,\theta _3,\theta _4`$, the metric on the 4–sphere becomes

$$ds^2=\frac{R^2}{(R^2r^2)}dr^2+(R^2r^2)d\varphi ^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(3.17)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ is the metric of a unit 2–sphere parametrized by $`\theta _3`$ and $`\theta _4`$. From the metric we see that the volume element is just

$$Rr^2drd\varphi d\mathrm{\Omega }_2.$$
(3.18)
The kinetic energy of the membrane is given by the Dirac–Born–Infeld Lagrangian. We are mostly interested in the case when the size of the sphere $`r`$ is constant and close to its maximum value $`R`$. In this case the membrane moves around a circle in the $`X_1,X_2`$ plane of radius $`(R^2r^2)^{1/2}`$ with angular velocity $`\dot{\varphi }`$. Dropping time derivatives of $`r`$, we have

$$_K=T\mathrm{\Omega }_2r^2\sqrt{1(R^2r^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}.$$
(3.19)
Here, $`T`$ is the membrane tension which is given by

$$T=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2l_p^3}$$
(3.20)
in 11-dimensional Planck units.

Next we add the Chern–Simons coupling involving the background field. The contribution of the four-form field strength to the action of the brane per orbit around the $`S^4`$ is

$$S_B=_{wv}C=_\mathrm{\Sigma }F.$$
(3.21)
The first integral is over the world-volume of the brane. $`F=dC`$ is the four-form flux, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a four-manifold in the $`S^4`$ whose boundary is the 3-dimensional surface swept out by the brane during one orbit. Since the background flux is just $`F=Bd\mathrm{vol}`$, where $`B`$ is the constant flux density and $`d\mathrm{vol}`$ is the volume form on $`S^4`$, we have

$$S_B=B\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{\Sigma }).$$
(3.22)
Therefore the Chern-Simons term in the Lagrangian is

$$_B=\frac{S_B}{T}=B\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{\Sigma })\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{2\pi }$$
(3.23)
where $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is the (constant) angular velocity of the brane. Parametrizing the motion as above, the volume of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is

$$\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{\Sigma })=R\mathrm{\Omega }_2_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi _0^rr^2𝑑r^{}=\frac{8\pi ^2}{3}Rr^3.$$
(3.24)
So the Chern-Simons term is

$$_B=\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{2\pi }B\mathrm{\Omega }_4Rr^3=\dot{\varphi }N\frac{r^3}{R^3}$$
(3.25)
where we used the flux quantization condition, Eq.(3.1).

Therefore, the full bosonic Lagrangian is

$$=m\sqrt{1\dot{\varphi }^2(R^2r^2)}+N\frac{r^3}{R^3}\dot{\varphi }$$
(3.26)
with $`m=\mathrm{\Omega }_2Tr^2`$. Using Eq.(3.2) and Eq.(3.15), we also see that

$$\frac{N}{R^3}=T\mathrm{\Omega }_2.$$
(3.27)
From the Lagrangian we find that the angular momentum is given by

$$L=\frac{m\dot{\varphi }(R^2r^2)}{\sqrt{1\dot{\varphi }^2(R^2r^2)}}+N\frac{r^3}{R^3}.$$
(3.28)
The maximum size a membrane can have is $`R`$. Also, the velocity of its center of mass, $`\dot{\varphi }R`$, cannot exceed the speed of light. This implies that the angular momentum has a maximum value given by $`N`$ 111There is an exception to this statement at the pathological value $`r=0`$ which we discuss at the end of this section.:

$$L_{max}=N.$$
(3.29)
When the membrane has maximal size $`R`$, the angular momentum is the maximum value $`N`$. We see that the Kaluza–Klein graviton has a maximum angular momentum in agreement with the stringy exclusion principle. For the energy, we find

$$E=\dot{\varphi }L=\sqrt{\left(\frac{Nr^2}{R^3}\right)^2+\frac{(LNr^3/R^3)^2}{R^2r^2}}.$$
(3.30)
Varying the energy with respect to $`r`$ at fixed $`L`$, we find

$$\frac{dE}{dr}=\frac{r}{E(R^2r^2)^2}\left(LN\frac{r}{R}\right)\left(L2N\frac{r}{R}+N\frac{r^3}{R^3}\right).$$
(3.31)
We see that for $`L<N`$ there exists a stable minimum at

$$r=\frac{L}{N}R.$$
(3.32)
Therefore, the membrane grows as we increase the angular momentum. This is in agreement with Eq.(3.4) 222The cubic factor in $`dE/dr`$ has a positive root at $`0<r<(L/N)R`$ at which the energy has a local maximum and another root at $`r>R`$.. When $`r=R`$ and $`L=N`$, a more careful analysis for the stability of the solution is needed and we do so at the end of this section. The value of the energy at the minimum is

$$E=\frac{L}{R},$$
(3.33)
which is the energy of a Kaluza–Klein graviton with angular momentum $`L`$. From Eq.(3.23), we also find that the velocity of the center of mass equals the speed of light, $`\dot{\varphi }R=1`$.

We now show that there is a stable solution at $`r=R`$ and $`L=N`$. Setting $`\stackrel{~}{r}=Rr`$ and expanding the Lagrangian up to quadratic powers in $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$, we obtain

$$_K=T\mathrm{\Omega }_2R^2+T\mathrm{\Omega }_2R\stackrel{~}{r}(2+\dot{\varphi }^2R^2)T\mathrm{\Omega }_2\stackrel{~}{r}^2(\dot{\varphi }^4R^4+\frac{5}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2R^2+1),$$
(3.34)
and

$$_B=\mathrm{\Omega }_4BR^4\dot{\varphi }(13\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}}{R}+3\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}{R^2})=N\dot{\varphi }R\stackrel{~}{r}\frac{3N}{R^3}\dot{\varphi }R+\stackrel{~}{r}^2\frac{3N}{R^3}\dot{\varphi }R.$$
(3.35)
Using $`N/R^3=T\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, the total Lagrangian becomes

$$=T\mathrm{\Omega }_2R^2+N\dot{\varphi }+T\mathrm{\Omega }_2R\stackrel{~}{r}(23\dot{\varphi }R+\dot{\varphi }^2R^2)T\mathrm{\Omega }_2\stackrel{~}{r}^2(\dot{\varphi }^4R^4+\frac{5}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2R^23\dot{\varphi }R+1).$$
(3.36)
There is an extremum at $`\stackrel{~}{r}=0`$ provided that

$$23\dot{\varphi }R+\dot{\varphi }^2R^2=0.$$
(3.37)
This can be achieved if the velocity $`\dot{\varphi }R=1`$. Thus, when the size of the membrane is $`R`$ its center of mass moves with the speed of light. Furthermore, the extremum is stable since

$$\frac{d^2V(r)}{d^2r}|_{r=R}>0.$$
(3.38)
Thus when the size of the membrane is $`R`$, the angular momentum has its maximum value $`N`$ and the energy is given by

$$E=T\mathrm{\Omega }_2R^2=\frac{N}{R}.$$
(3.39)
At the classical level, this is in exact agreement with the energy of a Kaluza–Klein graviton having angular momentum $`N`$ about the sphere. When $`N>>1`$, the maximal angular momentum is large and the classical formula for the energy agrees with the BPS bound for the energy given the angular momentum. Quantum corrections are suppressed by $`1/N`$. The Kaluza–Klein graviton is a BPS state and its energy should not change under the process of blowing up into a membrane. Again, the size of the brane is determined by the angular momentum. Since the maximum size a brane can have is $`R`$, there is a maximum angular momentum as predicted by the dual conformal field theory. The fact that the energy of the brane agrees with the BPS formula for given angular momentum is a non–trivial test of our model.

We also note that there is a minimum of the energy at $`r=0`$ as well. Classically, it corresponds to a massless particle moving around the equator with angular momentum $`L`$.333We thank Sunny Itzhaki for discussions of this point. Such a solution is singular from the perspective of the gravitational field equations since for angular momenta of order $`N`$, it represents a huge energy (of order $`N^{2/3}`$) concentrated at a point. Therefore it is subject to uncontrolled quantum corrections. In particular, there are quantum corrections proportional to powers of the momentum times the flux density, which are large at angular momenta of order $`N`$.

We have shown in this paper that such a singular solution can be resolved by blowing into a smooth macroscopic membrane of size $`(L/N)R`$. Our classical analysis is expected to be valid for the large membrane. The smooth membrane solution certainly has much more nearby phase space and as a result the true quantum ground state will be overwhelmingly supported at the membrane solution. We believe that this is another example of how string/$`M`$–theory resolves singularities of the type studied rececently in ref..

### 3.2 $`AdS_5\times S^5`$

The extension of our analysis to the other two maximally supersymmetric cases is straightforward and we will be much less explicit. Consider the case of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ first. The radius of the five sphere is given by

$$R=(4\pi g_sN)^{\frac{1}{4}}l_s,$$
(3.40)
where $`g_s`$, $`l_s`$ are the string coupling constant and string length scale and $`N`$ is the number of units of five–form flux on the sphere. We take $`N`$ large keeping $`g_sN`$ fixed and large.

In type IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ with $`N>>1`$, the maximum angular momentum of a BPS particle on the $`S^5`$ is $`N`$ . From the gauge theory perspective, this can be seen from the fact that one builds up such states by a single trace of the $`N\times N`$ scalars in the $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ of $`SO(6)`$. The largest representation of $`SO(6)`$ one can build in this way is the spin-$`N`$ representation, $`\mathrm{Sym}^N\mathrm{𝟔}`$.

From our perspective this is because the particle moving on the sphere expands into a spherical D3-brane. In this case we present only the exact classical analysis of the D3-brane wrapping an $`S^3`$ that moves in $`S^5`$. The bosonic Lagrangian is

$$=_{DBI}+_{CS}=T_{D3}\mathrm{\Omega }_3r^3\sqrt{1(R^2r^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}+\dot{\varphi }N\frac{r^4}{R^4}.$$
(3.41)
The tension of the D3-brane is

$$T_{D3}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3l_s^4g_s}.$$
(3.42)
We will use the relation

$$T_{D3}\mathrm{\Omega }_3=\frac{N}{R^4}.$$
(3.43)
The angular momentum in terms of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is

$$L=\frac{m\dot{\varphi }(R^2r^2)}{\sqrt{1\dot{\varphi }^2(R^2r^2)}}+N\frac{r^4}{R^4}$$
(3.44)
where $`m=T_{D3}\mathrm{\Omega }_3r^3=(N/R^4)r^3`$. Again we see that the angular momentum is bounded by $`N`$ since $`0rR`$ and $`0\dot{\varphi }R1`$. The energy is

$$E=\sqrt{m^2+\frac{(LNr^4/R^4)^2}{R^2r^2}}.$$
(3.45)
Varying the energy with respect to $`r`$ at fixed $`L`$, we find in this case a stable minimum when

$$r^2=\frac{L}{N}R^2.$$
(3.46)
The value of the energy at this minimum again matches the BPS bound when $`L`$ is large, for $`N>>1`$:

$$E=\frac{L}{R}.$$
(3.47)
This is strong evidence that at any appreciable momentum, at least at the (semi-) classical level, the good description of Kaluza–Klein gravitons is in terms of branes, rather than fundamental strings. From the dual CFT, we know that there is a unique BPS state with these quantum numbers; consistency with the exclusion principle implies that it is the one described by the spherical brane.

### 3.3 $`AdS_4\times S^7`$

In this case, we expect the graviton to expand into an M5-brane which is an $`S^5S^7`$. The radius of the sphere is given by

$$R=(2^5\pi ^2N)^{\frac{1}{6}}l_p.$$
(3.48)
The tension of the 5–brane is given by

$$T=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^5l_p^6}$$
(3.49)
and we have the relation

$$m=T\mathrm{\Omega }_5r^5=\frac{N}{R^6}r^5.$$
(3.50)
The Lagrangian is

$$=T\mathrm{\Omega }_5r^5\sqrt{1(R^2r^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}+\dot{\varphi }N\frac{r^6}{R^6}.$$
(3.51)
The angular momentum in terms of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is

$$L=\frac{m\dot{\varphi }(R^2r^2)}{\sqrt{1\dot{\varphi }^2(R^2r^2)}}+N\frac{r^6}{R^6}.$$
(3.52)
The energy is

$$E=\sqrt{m^2+\frac{(LNr^6/R^6)^2}{R^2r^2}}.$$
(3.53)
Varying the energy with respect to $`r`$ at fixed $`L`$, we find in this case a stable minimum when

$$r^4=\frac{L}{N}R^4.$$
(3.54)
The value of the energy at this minimum again matches the BPS bound when $`L`$ is large:

$$E=\frac{L}{R}.$$
(3.55)
### 3.4 Remarks about $`AdS_3`$

We will conclude this section with some comments about $`AdS_3\times S^3\times M_4`$. This case is distinguished in several ways.

First, it is not clear into what the graviton should expand. Consider the geometry built from the D1-D5 system with $`Q_1`$ D-strings and $`Q_5`$ five-branes. The stringy exclusion bound on the angular momentum is $`LQ_1Q_5`$. The graviton is expected to blow up into a circular string moving on the $`S^3`$, but should it be a D5-brane wrapped on the four-manifold, or a D-string?

Secondly, the energetic considerations degenerate in this case. If we assume for argument’s sake that the graviton blows up into either a D-string or wrapped fivebrane which is a circle on the $`S^3`$, we find that the energy at fixed $`L`$ has no nontrivial minimum. Considering some incarnation of the “fractional strings” of  does not help.

It may help to consider the S-dual situation of the F1-NS5 system. In this case, the dynamics of fundamental strings on the relevant sphere are described by a level-$`Q_5`$ $`SU(2)`$ WZW model. One expects the exclusion principle to be related to the affine cutoff on $`SU(2)`$ representations. Finally, a clarification of this case should match the result of  that the exclusion bound occurs at the critical value of the energy for black hole formation. A better understanding remains for future work.

## 4 Conclusions

Physics in non-commutative spaces is characterized by a simple signature – the increase of size on systems with increasing momentum. In this paper we have seen that the motion of massless quanta on the $`S`$ factor of $`AdS_n\times S^m`$ has exactly this behavior. The massless particle blows up into a spherical brane of dimensionality $`m2`$ whose radius increases with increasing momentum. Eventually the radius of the blown up brane becomes equal to the radius of the sphere that contains it. It can no longer grow and the spectrum is terminated. This is the origin of the stringy exclusion principle. Thus we see one more piece of evidence for non-commutativity of space in quantum gravity.

## 5 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Allan Adams, Micha Berkooz, Raphael Bousso, Sumit Das, Antal Jevicki, Jason Prince Kumar, Albion Lawrence, Alec Matusis, and Joe Polchinski for conversations. We are especially grateful to Joe Polchinski for explaining to us the flat-space energetics. We thank Hirosi Ooguri and Sunny Itzhaki for comments about the first version. We would also like to thank Steve Shenker for help with the title. The work of JM is supported in part by the Department of Defense NDSEG fellowship program. The work of LS and NT is supported in part by NSF grant 9870115.