text:
# SU(2) GAUGE THEORY IN COVARIANT (MAXIMAL) ABELIAN GAUGES

## 1 Introduction

An $`SU(2)`$ Lattice Gauge Theory (LGT) on a finite lattice is invariant under the compact group $`𝒢`$

$$𝒢=_{\mathrm{sites}}SU(2).$$
(1)
$`𝒢`$ does not have a smooth continuum limit and it is not entirely clear whether some of the effects observed on the lattice, such as absolute confinement, are due to the compact nature of $`𝒢`$ and are absent in a local Quantum Field Theory (QFT) with non-compact $`SU(2)`$ gauge invariance. The fact that compact (lattice) QED does differ markedly from the continuum theory due to lattice “artefacts” makes this question all the more relevant. These “artefacts” are Abelian monopoles specific to lattice QED – their existence is intimately related to the compactness of the (Abelian) lattice gauge group and they have no continuum analogues. In the Abelian case, one can remove these lattice artefacts by imposing the constraint

$$A_\mu =^1_\mu F_{\mu \nu },$$
(2)
where $`P_{\mu \nu }(x)=e^{iF_{\mu \nu }(x)}`$ is the plaquette variable and $`U_\mu (x)=e^{iA_\mu (x)}`$ is the $`U(1)`$ link variable. On the lattice, Eq. (2) is not just a gauge fixing condition, but in addition eliminates the monopoles associated with harmonic one forms. The continuum limit of this (projected) Abelian LGT is free QED in Landau gauge. If Eq. (2) was not imposed, the gauge invariant transverse photon correlation function of lattice QED was found to differ markedly from what one expects in the continuum.

In view of this example, the question whether the critical limit of a non-Abelian LGT can be described by “QCD” with a non-compact gauge group is legitimate. It has been conjectured that a non-Abelian LGT may not be asymptotically free and exhibit a Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition at a finite value of the coupling constant.

In resolving the issue of the critical limit of a non-Abelian LGT it may be useful to have a physically equivalent local LGT with an equivariant BRST-symmetry whose structure group has been reduced to the maximal Abelian subgroup of the original LGT. The two LGT’s in question are physically equivalent because the expectation values of gauge-invariant operators (i.e. Wilson loops and their linked generalizations) are the same. Although this equivalent Abelian LGT has only been constructed for an $`SU(2)`$-LGT, the method can be generalized to any $`SU(n)`$-LGT. The lattice group $`𝒢`$ of an $`SU(2)`$-LGT is reduced to the maximal Abelian subgroup $``$ by a local Topological Lattice Theory (TLT) that computes the Euler number of the coset $`𝒢/`$,

$$\chi (𝒢/)=_{\mathrm{sites}}\chi (SU(2)/U(1)S_2)=2^{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{sites}},$$
(3)
on each orbit of a lattice configuration using Morse Theory. I should stress that this construction of a TLT is conceptually quite different from the usual Faddeev-Popov procedure and does not require the uniqueness of the solution to a “gauge condition” – the Euler number of the manifold would in fact have to be 1 for this to be the case. There are at least $`2^{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{sites}}`$ gauge equivalent Gribov copies that contribute to $`\chi (𝒢/)`$ on any orbit of the (finite) lattice. The construction of the TLT is mathematically rigorous, because the coset manifold $`𝒢/`$ is compact and finite-dimensional on a finite lattice (albeit of rather large dimension) and the orbit-space of the original LGT is connected. One cannot reduce the full lattice group $`𝒢`$ in this manner because $`\chi (𝒢)=0`$. The best one can do is to reduce the lattice gauge group to the smallest subgroup $``$ for which the Euler number of the coset manifold $`𝒢/`$ does not vanish. In the case of compact $`SU(n)`$ the smallest subgroup which satisfies this requirement is the maximal Abelian one.

Of interest here will be the continuum theory that describes the critical limit of this “partially gauge fixed” LGT. The equivariant BRST-symmetry and $`U(1)`$-invariance together with locality and power-counting renormalizability determine the continuum limit up to lattice artefacts associated with the compactness of the residual $`U(1)`$-structure group. Assuming these Abelian artefacts have been removed in a manner similar to the one prescribed above, the critical limit of this LGT is unique because the BRST-invariance of the LGT is a global one. The continuum model is then described by the local action given below.

Because physical correlation functions are the same in the reduced Abelian LGT and can be shown to satisfy reflection positivity in the original $`SU(2)`$-LGT, the physical states of the “partially gauge fixed” Abelian LGT also have positive norm. By proving the equivalence of the two LGT’s for gauge-invariant correlation functions one thus also verifies the unitarity of the partially gauge-fixed Abelian LGT. The continuum theory describing the critical limit of this LGT should therefore be unitary as well. Note that this proof of the unitarity of the continuum theory is valid non-perturbatively and not just to all orders in perturbation theory. Instead of investigating the critical limit of the original $`SU(2)`$-LGT, we thus will consider the critical limit of the (physically) equivalent LGT with an Abelian structure group and an equivariant BRST-symmetry.

## 2 Continuum SU(2) Gauge Theory in Abelian Gauges

Up to Abelian lattice artifacts mentioned above, the continuum theory describing the critical limit of the “partially gauge fixed” Abelian LGT is completely specified by the global symmetries and power counting. It is described by the Lagrangian

$$=_{\mathrm{inv}.}+_{\mathrm{AG}}+_{\mathrm{aGF}}.$$
(4)
Here $`_{\mathrm{inv}.}`$ is the usual $`SU(2)`$-invariant Lagrangian with the SU(2)-connection $`\stackrel{}{V}_\mu =(W_\mu ^1,W_\mu ^2,A_\mu )`$ written111Latin indices take values in $`\{1,2\}`$ only, Einstein’s summation convention applies and $`\epsilon ^{12}=\epsilon ^{21}=1`$, vanishing otherwise. All results are given in the $`\overline{MS}`$ renormalization scheme. in terms of two (real) vector bosons $`W`$, and an Abelian “photon” $`A`$,

$$_{\mathrm{inv}.}=_{\mathrm{matter}}+\frac{1}{4}(G_{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }+G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\mu \nu }^a),$$
(5)
with

$`G_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu g\epsilon ^{ab}W_\mu ^aW_\nu ^b`$
$`G_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu ^{ab}W_\nu ^bD_\nu ^{ab}W_\mu ^b=_\mu W_\nu ^a_\nu W_\mu ^a+g\epsilon ^{ab}(A_\mu W_\nu ^bA_\nu W_\mu ^b).`$ (6)
$`_{\mathrm{AG}}`$ reduces the invariance to the maximal Abelian subgroup $`U(1)`$ of $`SU(2)`$ in a covariant manner,

$$_{AG}=\frac{F^aF^a}{2\alpha }\overline{c}^aM^{ab}c^bg^2\frac{\alpha }{2}(\overline{c}^a\epsilon ^{ab}c^b)^2,$$
(7)
with

$$F^a=D_\mu ^{ab}W_\mu ^b=_\mu W_\mu ^a+gA_\mu \epsilon ^{ab}W_\mu ^b\mathrm{and}M^{ab}=D_\mu ^{ac}D_\mu ^{cb}+g^2\epsilon ^{ac}\epsilon ^{bd}W_\mu ^cW_\mu ^d.$$
(8)
Like the corresponding Abelian LGT, $`L_{U(1)}=L_{\mathrm{inv}.}+_{\mathrm{AG}}`$ is invariant under $`U(1)`$-gauge transformations and an on-shell BRST symmetry $`s`$ and anti-BRST symmetry $`\overline{s}`$, whose action on the fields is

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill sA_\mu & =& g\epsilon ^{ab}c^aW_\mu ^b\hfill & & \hfill \overline{s}A_\mu & =& g\epsilon ^{ab}\overline{c}^aW_\mu ^b\hfill \\ \hfill sW_\mu ^a& =& D_\mu ^{ab}c^b\hfill & & \hfill \overline{s}W_\mu ^a& =& D_\mu ^{ab}\overline{c}^b\hfill \\ \hfill sc^a& =& 0\hfill & & \hfill \overline{s}\overline{c}^a& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill s\overline{c}^a& =& F^a/\alpha \hfill & & \hfill \overline{s}c^a& =& F^a/\alpha ,\hfill \end{array}$$

(9)
with an obvious extension to include matter fields. On the connections $`A_\mu `$ and $`W_\mu ^a`$ this BRST-variation effects an infinitesimal transformation in the coset $`𝒢/`$ parameterized by the two ghosts $`c^a(x)`$. Note that $`sc^a=0`$ here, because the coset is not a group manifold.

The BRST algebra Eq. (9) closes on-shell on the set of $`U(1)`$-invariant functionals: on functionals that depend only on $`W,A,c`$ and the matter fields, $`s^2`$ for instance effects an infinitesimal U(1)-transformation with the parameter $`\frac{g}{2}\epsilon ^{ab}c^ac^b`$. The algebra Eq. (9) thus defines an equivariant cohomology. It was derived from a more extensive nilpotent (off-shell) BRST-algebra on the lattice by integrating out some of the additional fields. As mentioned in the introduction, the renormalizability and unitarity of this continuum theory is guaranteed because it describes the critical limit of an Abelian LGT that was proven to have the same gauge invariant correlation functions as the original $`SU(2)`$-LGT. Note that the physical sector comprises states created by composite operators of $`A,W`$ and the matter fields in the equivariant cohomology of $`s`$ (or $`\overline{s}`$). They are BRST closed, $`U(1)`$-invariant and do not depend on the ghosts.

For $`\alpha >0`$, Eq. (7) could be considered a “soft” gauge fixing to the Maximal Abelian Gauge (MAG). It differs from what one naively obtains using a Faddeev-Popov procedure by a quartic ghost interaction proportional to $`\alpha `$. Eq. (7) also does not implement the non-linear constraint $`F^a=0`$ exactly. However, setting $`\alpha =0`$ and perturbatively solving the constraint $`F^a=0`$ is not consistent and not the same as taking the limit $`\alpha 0`$. One could have inferred the highly singular nature of this limit from the fact that the 4-ghost interaction diverges at one loop even when the photon- and vector boson propagators are transverse. A 4-ghost counterterm thus is required even in the (formal) limit $`\alpha 0`$ and the leading term in the anomalous dimension of the gauge parameter in fact is $`3g^2/(8\pi ^2\alpha )`$ in this limit. The physical reason for the singular behavior of the limit $`\alpha 0`$ is inherently non-perturbative and nicely exhibited by the lattice calculation: without the quartic ghost interaction, Gribov copies of a configuration conspire to give vanishing expectation values for all physical observables. No matter how small, the quartic ghost interaction is required to have a normalizable partition function and expectation values of physical observables that are identical with those of the original SU(2)-LGT. From a perturbative point of view, $`\alpha 0`$ at finite coupling $`g^2`$ corresponds to a strong coupling limit that is not accessible perturbatively.

$`_{\mathrm{aGF}}`$ in Eq. (4) fixes the remaining $`U(1)`$ gauge invariance and thus defines the perturbative series unambiguously. I will consider a conventional covariant gauge-fixing of the form,

$$L_{\mathrm{aGF}}=\delta [\overline{\omega }(_\mu A_\mu \frac{\xi }{2}b)]=b_\mu A_\mu \frac{\xi }{2}b^2+\overline{\omega }\omega \frac{1}{2\xi }(_\mu A_\mu )^2,$$
(10)
where the last equivalence is obtained by decoupling the Abelian ghosts $`\omega `$ and $`\overline{\omega }`$ and the Nakanishi-Lautrup field $`b`$. $`\delta `$ is a BRST-symmetry defined on the fields as

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill \delta A_\mu & =& _\mu \omega \hfill & & \hfill \delta W_\mu ^a& =& g\omega \epsilon ^{ab}W_\mu ^b\hfill \\ \hfill \delta c^a& =& g\omega \epsilon ^{ab}c^b\hfill & & \hfill \delta \overline{c}^a& =& g\omega \epsilon ^{ab}\overline{c}^b\hfill \\ \hfill \delta \omega & =& 0\hfill & & & & \\ \hfill \delta \overline{\omega }& =& b\hfill & & \hfill \delta b& =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$

(11)
Trivially extending $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ to the additional fields

$$s\omega =s\overline{\omega }=sb=\overline{s}\omega =\overline{s}\overline{\omega }=\overline{s}b=0,$$
(12)
one can verify that $`\delta `$ is nil-potent and anticommutes with $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$

$$\delta ^2=s\delta +\delta s=\overline{s}\delta +\delta \overline{s}=0$$
(13)
As far as algebraic renormalization is concerned, the action Eq. (4) thus is composed of a term in the cohomology of $`\delta `$ that is invariant under the global symmetries $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ given in Eq. (9) and a $`\delta `$-exact term. The latter is not invariant under $`s`$ nor $`\overline{s}`$. Since the global symmetries commute with $`\delta `$, the situation is the same as in any gauge-fixing that breaks some of the global symmetries (or supersymmetries) of the theory. There is a well-defined procedure to handle this case in algebraic renormalization. From a more heuristic point of view, we already know that the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ symmetries of the theory are not anomalous from the lattice regularization of this model. I will therefore not give the algebraic proof here.

What has been gained compared to conventional covariant gauge fixing? Since the present gauge fixing in a sense is “hierarchical”, we are able to single out the maximal Abelian subgroup. As emphasized before, the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ symmetries can be implemented on the lattice and the resulting Abelian LGT shown to be physically equivalent to one with an SU(2) structure group. It may eventually be possible to construct the dual of this Abelian LGT. In addition, the theory described by Eq. (4) does not suffer from a generic Gribov problem due to zero modes of the ghosts. Since the global $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ symmetries are preserved by the lattice regularization, Eq. (4) probably descibes the critical limit of a LGT better than any other set of covariant gauges. Finally, because the Abelian $`\omega `$-ghost and $`\overline{\omega }`$-antighost as well as the Nakanishi-Lautrup field $`b`$ decouple, we effectively end up with a local and covariant gauge-fixed theory with fewer ghosts. This reduction in the number of fields is at the expense of a quartic ghost interaction that gives the ghosts some interesting dynamics of their own.

## 3 The Dynamically Broken SL(2,R) Symmetry

The Lagrangian Eq. (4) also exhibits a global bosonic SL(2,R) symmetry that is generated by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^+=c^a(x)\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{c}^a(x)},\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=\overline{c}^a(x)\frac{\delta }{\delta c^a(x)},$$
(14)
and the ghost number $`\mathrm{\Pi }=[\mathrm{\Pi }^+,\mathrm{\Pi }^{}]`$. This SL(2,R) symmetry is preserved by the regularization (for instance dimensional) and thus is not anomalous. The conserved currents corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm `$ are U(1)-invariant and BRST, respectively anti-BRST exact,

$$j_\mu ^+=c^aD_\mu ^{ab}c^b=sc^aW_\mu ^a,j_\mu ^{}=\overline{c}^aD_\mu ^{ab}\overline{c}^b=\overline{s}\overline{c}^aW_\mu ^a.$$
(15)
I will argue that the global $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry of the theory is spontaneously broken to the Abelian subgroup generated by the ghost number $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. An order parameter for the spontaneous breakdown of the SL(2,R) symmetry thus is

$$\overline{c}^a\epsilon ^{ab}c^b=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(c^a\epsilon ^{ab}c^b)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^+(\overline{c}^a\epsilon ^{ab}\overline{c}^b).$$
(16)
Because the currents Eq. (15) are (anti)-BRST exact, a spontaneously broken SL(2,R) symmetry is accompanied by a BRST-quartet of massless Goldstone states with ghost numbers $`2,1,1`$ and $`2`$. They are U(1)-invariant $`cc`$, $`cW`$, $`\overline{c}W`$ and $`\overline{c}\overline{c}`$ bound states. It is important to note in this context that BRST quartets do not contribute to physical quantities222This is analogous to the decoupling of the Goldstone quartets of the weak interaction in renormalizable $`R_\xi `$ gauges.. The spontaneous breaking of the $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry in a sense is similar to a dynamical Higgs mechanism in the adjoint. The vector bosons $`W`$ aquire a mass (see below) but in contrast to a conventional Higgs mechanism in the adjoint, this mass is not a free parameter of the theory, but can be determined in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$.

To see that ghost condensation will almost invariably occur at weak coupling in the model described by Eq. (4) it is illustrative to compare with the BCS-theory of superconductivity. In BCS-theory, an at low momentum transfers attractive 4-fermion interaction leads to the condensation of certain fermion pairs and the formation of a gap in the quasi-particle spectrum near the Fermi surface. An analogous phenomenon occurs here for ghost and anti-ghost modes corresponding to small eigenvalues of the FP-Operator $`M^{ab}`$ defined by Eq. (8): for zero modes, the bilinear term in Eq. (7) vanishes and the quartic ghost interaction selects the channel in which condensation occurs. The quartic ghost interaction in Eq. (7) is attractive when the color of the ghost and anti-ghost are opposite: it thus leads to the formation of a $`\overline{c}^a\epsilon ^{ab}c^b`$ condensate at arbitrarily weak coupling $`\alpha g^2`$ by the BCS-mechanism. \[The two spin states of a fermion here has an analog in the two color orientations of the ghosts. We choose ghost number to be conserved and observe $`\overline{c}c`$, rather than $`cc`$ or $`\overline{c}\overline{c}`$ condensation, as would be the case if we chose $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Pi }^+`$ as unbroken generators.\] The analogy with BCS-theory is particularly appealing because the operator $`M^{ab}`$ has small eigenvalues whenever the gauge field configuration is in the vicinity of a Gribov horizon. That the ground state may be dominated by such configurations was previously suggested in an attempt to restrict the functional integral to the fundamental modular region of Landau gauge. In the present context, gauge field configurations with non-Abelian monopoles are on the Gribov horizon, since the failure of the gauge fixing condition to an Abelian subgroup is necessary for the presence of monopoles.

Thus, if monopoles are relevant in describing the ground state of the theory, it is not inconceivable that the ghosts will condense. The converse is not necessarily true because $`M^{ab}`$ can have arbitrarily small eigenvalues at field configurations with vanishing monopole number. We will see below that the ghosts already condense in the vicinity of the trivial gauge field configuration. The analogy with BCS-theory suggests that they condense for any value of the quartic coupling $`\alpha g^2`$, with a gap that depends exponentially on $`1/(\alpha g^2)`$.

To perturbatively investigate the consequences of $`\overline{c}^a\epsilon ^{ab}c^b0`$, the quartic ghost interaction in Eq. (7) is linearized by introducing an auxiliary scalar field $`\rho (x)`$ of canonical dimension two. Adding the quadratic term

$$_{\mathrm{aux}}=\frac{1}{2g^2}(\rho g^2\lambda \overline{c}^a\epsilon ^{ab}c^b)^2$$
(17)
to the Lagrangian of Eq. (4), the tree level quartic ghost interaction vanishes at $`\lambda ^2=\alpha `$ and is then formally of $`O(g^4)`$, proportional to the difference $`Z_\lambda ^2Z_\alpha `$ of the renormalization constants of the two couplings333The discrete symmetry $`c^a\overline{c}^a,\overline{c}^ac^a,\rho \rho `$ relating $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ also ensures that $`\rho `$ only mixes with $`\overline{c}^a\epsilon ^{ab}c^b`$..

We will see that the perturbative expansion about a non-trivial solution $`\rho =v0`$ to the gap equation

$$\frac{v}{g^2}=\sqrt{\alpha }c^a(x)\epsilon ^{ab}\overline{c}^b(x)|_{<\rho >=v},$$
(18)
is stable and much better behaved in the infrared.

Defining the quantum part $`\sigma (x)`$ of the auxiliary scalar $`\rho `$ by

$$\rho (x)=v+\sigma (x)\mathrm{with}\sigma =0,$$
(19)
the momentum representation of the Euclidean ghost propagator at tree level becomes

$$c^a\overline{c}^b_p=\frac{p^2\delta ^{ab}+\sqrt{\alpha }v\epsilon ^{ab}}{p^4+\alpha v^2}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega e^{\omega p^2}[\delta ^{ab}\mathrm{cos}(\omega v\sqrt{\alpha })+\epsilon ^{ab}\mathrm{sin}(\omega v\sqrt{\alpha })].$$
(20)
Feynman’s parameterization of this propagator leads to an evaluation of loop integrals using dimensional regularization that is only slightly more complicated than usual.

Using Eq. (20) in Eq. (18) the gap equation to one-loop in $`d=42\epsilon `$ dimensions is,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{\widehat{g}^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mu ^4\sqrt{\alpha }{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{(4\pi \mu ^2\omega )^{2\epsilon }}}\mathrm{sin}(\omega \sqrt{v^2\alpha })`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha v}{8\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi y^2T^2}{\mu ^2e^{1\gamma _E}}}+O(\epsilon )\right].`$
Here $`\gamma _E`$ is Euler’s constant. Including the counterterm

$$\frac{v}{\widehat{g}^2}\frac{v}{\widehat{g}^2}Z_v^2Z_g^2=\frac{v}{\widehat{g}^2}+\frac{\alpha v}{8\pi ^2\epsilon }+O(\widehat{g}^2)$$
(22)
on the left-hand side of Eq. (21) cancels the $`1/\epsilon `$ divergence of the right-hand side of Eq. (21). The renormalized (non-trivial) solution to the gap equation in four dimensions thus is,

$$\alpha v^2=e^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^4,\mathrm{with}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\alpha ,g,\mu )=4\pi \mu ^2e^{\gamma _E\frac{8\pi ^2}{\alpha g^2}}.$$
(23)
Note the exponential dependence of the gap $`v`$ on the quartic coupling $`\alpha g^2`$ expected from BCS-theory. One can show that the solution Eq. (23) corresponds to the global minimum of the effective potential by either directly computing the (one-loop renormalized) effective potential,

$$V(v,\mu ,g,\alpha )=\frac{\alpha v^2}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\alpha v^2}{e^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}+O(g^2),$$
(24)
or by integrating Eq. (21) and noting that $`V(\mathrm{\Lambda },0)=0`$. Consistency requires that the 1PI two-point function of the scalar $`\sigma `$ is positive definite for all Euclidean momenta when Eq. (18) is satisfied. From Eq. (22) one obtains for the anomalous dimension of $`v`$ to one loop

$$\gamma _v=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}Z_v}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu }=\frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}(2\alpha \beta _0)+O(g^4)$$
(25)
where $`\beta _0`$ is the lowest order coefficient of the $`\beta `$-function. At $`\alpha =\beta _0/2`$, the anomalous dimension of $`v`$ is of order $`g^4`$ and corrections to the asymptotic $`v(g0)`$ solution in this particular critical gauge therefore are analytic in $`g^2`$ and may be computed order by order in perturbation theory. In this critical gauge we thus have that the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ describing the minimum of the effective potential $`V(v,\mu ,g,\alpha )`$ is analytically related to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha =\beta _0/2,g,\mu )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}(1+O(g^2))$$
(26)
In other gauges $`v0`$ at weak coupling is either much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$ (for $`\alpha \beta _0/2`$), or much smaller (for $`\alpha \beta _0/2`$). To leading order in the loop expansion, the anomalous dimension Eq. (25) does not vanish in these cases and higher order loop corrections to $`v0`$ are of comparable magnitude. \[As noted before, the extreme limit $`\alpha 0`$ in which the non-trivial solution Eq. (23) becomes degenerate with the trivial one, in particular corresponds to a strong coupling problem.\] In the critical gauge $`\alpha =\beta _0/2`$, the perturbative 1-loop calculation of $`v0`$ is self-consistent in the sense that all higher order corrections to the expectation value are of order $`g^2`$ because the anomalous dimension Eq. (25) is of order $`g^4`$ at this point. I wish to emphasize that this does not imply that physical effects associated with ghost condensation in this gauge are themselves gauge dependent. It only implies that a non-trivial solution to the gap equation is perturbatively consistent at $`\alpha =\beta _0/2`$. \[That some gauges are better suited than others for a non-perturbative evaluation of gauge invariant quantities is well known from QED: the gauge invariant hydrogen spectrum is qualitatively best obtained in Coulomb gauge. Below we relate $`\alpha v^2`$ to the vacuum expectation value of the trace of the energy-momentum tensor.\]

## 4 The Vector Boson Mass

Recent lattice simulations indicate that the $`W`$-bosons are massive in maximal Abelian gauges. At least qualitatively, this may be explained by the mechanism discussed here. Although the tree level contribution to $`m_W^2`$ vanishes by Bose symmetry, ghost condensation induces a finite mass $`m_W^2=g^2\sqrt{\alpha v^2}/(16\pi )`$ at one loop as shown in Fig. 1.

$$=\frac{g^2\sqrt{v^2\alpha }}{16\pi }\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta ^{ab}.$$
(27)
Fig. 1. The finite one-loop contribution to the $`W`$ mass.

Technically, the one-loop contribution is finite because the integral in Eq. (27) involves only the $`\delta ^{ab}`$-part of the ghost propagator Eq. (20). Since $`p^2/(p^4+\alpha v^2)=\alpha v^2/(p^2(p^4+\alpha v^2))+1/p^2`$, the $`v`$-dependence of the loop integral is IR- and UV-finite. The quadratic UV-divergence of the $`1/p^2`$ subtraction at $`v=0`$ is canceled by the other, $`v`$-independent, quadratically divergent one-loop contributions – (in dimensional regularization this scale-invariant integral vanishes by itself). $`m_W^2`$ furthermore is positive due to the overall minus sign of the ghost loop. The sign of $`m_W^2`$ is crucial. It is a further indication that the model is stable and (as far as the loop expansion is concerned) does not develop tachyonic poles at Euclidean $`p^2`$ for $`v0`$. Conceptually, the local mass term proportional to $`\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta ^{ab}`$ is finite due to the BRST symmetry Eq. (9), which excludes a mass counter-term. The latter argument implies that contributions to $`m_W^2`$ are finite to all orders of the loop expansion.

Although this “mass”-term regulates the IR-behavior of the $`W`$-propagator perturbatively, the 1-loop calculation above should quantitatively describe the behavior of the $`W`$-propagator at high momenta, where $`g^2(p^2)`$ is a small parameter and this calculation is consistent. Ghost condensation thus should lead to a leading power correction $`v/p^2`$ to the $`W`$-propagator at high momenta. The consistency of this behavior with the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) is examined below.

## 5 Discussion of Physical Consequences

We have seen that ghost condensation in covariant Abelian gauges is associated with the spontaneous breaking of a global SL(2,R) symmetry whose diagonal generator is the ghost number. The currents of the broken symmetries are (anti-)BRST exact and the Goldstone states form a BRST-quartet that decouples from physical observables. What are observable consequences? We gain some insight by computing the contribution to the expectation value of the trace of the energy momentum tensor. From the effective potential Eq. (24) one obtains:

$$\theta _\mu ^\mu =\frac{\alpha v^2}{8\pi ^2}=\frac{e^2}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^4,$$
(28)
At the minimum of the effective potential. $`v0`$ thus lowers the vacuum energy density and ghost condensation may be interpreted as a low-energy manifestation of the trace anomaly.

Let me also comment on the consistency of the approach from the point of view of the Operator Product Expansion (OPE). In generic covariant gauges, the OPE implies that power corrections to physical correlators (but also to Green functions) are at least suppressed by an order $`M^4/p^4`$ relative to the perturbative behavior at high momenta (in the absence of quarks). This is simply because the operator of lowest dimension in the BRST-cohomology of these gauges has canonical dimension four. Consistency of the present approach requires that one explain

* why the ground state in the present case can support a vacuum expectation value $`v\overline{c}^a\epsilon ^{ab}c^b0`$ of canonical dimension two and simultaneously,
* why power corrections of order $`v/p^2`$ are absent in physical correlation functions

To address the first question, we construct a $`U(1)`$-invariant local operator of dimension two whose vacuum expectation value manifestly is invariant under the BRST-algebra of Eq. (9). Note that

$`s[\alpha \overline{c}^ac^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_\mu ^aW_\mu ^a]`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu (W_\mu ^ac^a)`$
$`\overline{s}[\alpha \overline{c}^ac^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_\mu ^aW_\mu ^a]`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu (W_\mu ^a\overline{c}^a).`$ (29)
$`O_2:=[\overline{c}^ac^a+\frac{1}{2\alpha }W_\mu ^aW_\mu ^a]`$ is not in the equivariant cohomology of the on-shell BRST-algebra Eq. (9), because $`s^20`$ only on U(1)-invariant operators that do not depend on $`\overline{c}`$ whereas $`O_2`$ does. Nevertheless, the zero-momentum component of $`O_2`$ is invariant under $`s`$, $`\overline{s}`$ and $`\delta `$. $`O_20`$ therefore is an invariant statement as far as the algebra of symmetries is concerned. We have seen that $`O_2=\frac{\sqrt{\alpha v^2}}{16\pi }0`$ in fact appears to be the dynamically favored possibility. The existence of an operator of dimension two whose zero-momentum component is invariant explains the leading power corrections we find for the $`W`$\- $`A`$\- and ghost- propagators from the point of view of the OPE.

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of leading contributions that give rise to power corrections at large momenta in the gauge invariant correlators Eq. (30). For reasons given in the main text, the power leading correction $`g^2v`$ of the propagators cancels in this gauge invariant combination.

On the other hand, since $`O_2`$ is not invariant under global $`SU(2)`$ transformations, we do not expect $`O_2`$ to appear in the OPE of gauge invariant correlators. The leading power correction $`v`$ in the propagators therefore should cancel in gauge invariant correlation functions such as

$$(G_{\mu \nu }G_{\rho \sigma }+G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\rho \sigma }^a)(G_{\alpha \beta }G_{\gamma \delta }+G_{\alpha \beta }^bG_{\gamma \delta }^b)_p\mathrm{}$$
(30)
To leading order in the loop expansion this can be verified explicitly. To this order, the three diagrams of Fig. 2 with two (transverse) photons and two (transverse) vector bosons as intermediate states lead to power corrections. In the limit $`p^2\mathrm{}`$ at least one of the photons, respectively vector bosons in the loop integrals has momentum much larger than $`v`$. The leading power correction $`v`$ in Eq. (30) from the vector bosons and the photon thus cancel if and only if the photon polarization,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{AA}(p,v)=(\delta _{\mu \nu }p^2p_\mu p_\nu )\mathrm{\Pi }^{AA}(p^2,v)$$
(31)
for $`p^2v`$ has the asymptotic power expansion

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{AA}(p^2v,v)12\frac{m_W^2}{p^2}+O(g^2\mathrm{ln}p^2,v^2/p^4).$$
(32)
Here $`m_W^2=g^2\frac{\sqrt{\alpha v^2}}{16\pi }`$ is the $`W`$-boson mass Eq. (27). Evaluating the one ghost loop contributions to the photon polarization at high external momentum one indeed verifies Eq. (32). Note that the factor $`2`$ in Eq. (32) is essential for the cancellation of the leading power correction in Eq. (30), since twice as many $`W`$’s as photons contribute. Power corrections of order $`\alpha v^2/p^4`$ in the asymptotic expansion of Eq. (30) do not cancel and are related to $`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$ by Eq. (28).

We have here proposed a mechanism by which the $`W`$-bosons of an SU(2) gauge theory in Abelian gauges essentially become massive while the leading power corrections to gauge-invariant correlation functions nevertheless are of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^4/p^4`$ only. Although numerical lattice simulations show similar effects for the off-diagonal gluons, the numerical gauge fixing to MAG is not described by a local effective action and the results therefore cannot be directly compared with the ones presented here. One unfortunately cannot even extract the anomalous dimension of $`m_W^2`$ from the present numerical studies due to their rather narrow range of couplings. Although lattice simulations presently do not unambiguously confirm the mechanism of mass generation by ghost condensation I discussed, the simplicity and inherent consistency of this approach may warrant further study.

## References


format: text

text:
# Strict Holism in a Quantum Superposition of Macroscopic States

## I Introduction

In his famous elementary textbook, Richard Feynman claims that the only mystery of quantum mechanics is exemplified by the electron self-interference in the two-slit experiment Feynmann . Interference is a consequence of the superposition principle, and indeed most of the puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics are related to the superposition of two or more states, as is the case in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox EPR  or the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) theorem GHZ . Both EPR and GHZ show a striking characteristic of quantum mechanics: the nonseparability of systems situated far apart from each other. In quantum mechanics, systems that interacted with each other in the past may become entangled, and, even if they are separated by a great distance later on, their properties can be correlated in a way that would evade any attempt to give a classical explanation Bell . This nonseparability has as a consequence the nonexistence of a joint probability distribution, and hence of a local hidden-variable theory, that explains the outcome of the experiments suppeszannoti . More recently, Mermin Mermin  showed that if we allow states with a large number $`N`$ of particles to be superposed in a way similar to the superposition of particles in the GHZ theorem, then quantum mechanics deviates exponentially with $`N`$ from the classical case (i.e., one that could be understood by a local hidden-variable).

The nonexistence of local-hidden variables that can account for all the experimental outcomes suggests that quantum mechanics has some holistic characteristic. Holism is the idea that the whole cannot be considered as the sum of its individual parts. The fact that systems far apart are nonseparable has led some authors to suggest that quantum mechanics has in its core a holistic characteristic Ghirardi ; Primas . Nonseparability, in the sense used in EPR or GHZ, means that a local hidden-variable theory that predicts the outcome of the experiments is impossible. Of course, nonseparability implies holism, but that the converse is not true is what we show in this paper. To do this, we will first show that a GHZ $`N`$-particle quantum mechanical system behaves in a deterministic way, when considered as a whole, but that every proper subsystem of this system behaves in a completely random way. This is done by first showing that any subsystem has maximal entropy, whereas the whole system has entropy zero. Then, we analyze, from a probabilistic point of view, the $`N`$-particle GHZ example. We show that quantum mechanics is more restrictive on the subsystems than pure probability considerations, even though, for the particular observables in question, a joint probability distribution exists. Then, we propose a definition of holism that is distinct from the concept of separability, and discuss this definition by means of simple examples. Our definition of holism is satisfied by the GHZ quantum mechanical system presented earlier.

## II Quantum Mechanical Holism

Let us start with the entangled GHZ-like $`N`$-particle state

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}|+_k+\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}|_k\right],$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{\sigma }_{iz}|+_i=|+_i`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }_{iz}|_i=|_i`$, with $`\widehat{\sigma }_{iz}`$ being the spin operator in the $`z`$ direction acting on the $`i`$-th particle. It is easy to show that this state is an eigenstate, with eigenvalue $`1`$, of the observable operator

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\widehat{\sigma }_{1x}\widehat{\sigma }_{2x}\mathrm{}\widehat{\sigma }_{Nx}.$$
(2)
In other words, the observable $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, made out of the product of all $`N`$ spin observables, is deterministic, as a measurement of it always results in the value $`1.`$ In a similar way, this determinism is also true for the observables

$$\underset{i}{}\widehat{\sigma }_{iy}\underset{j}{}\widehat{\sigma }_{jx},$$
(3)
where the index $`i`$ is any subset with even cardinality of $`2^{\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}}`$, and $`j`$ is the complement of $`i.`$

The state (1) has been the focus of several interesting papers, all of them related to the deterministic aspects of the above observables GHZ ; Mermin ; GHZ1 ; GHZ2 ; GHZ3 ; GHZ4 ; GHZ5 ; GHZ6 . However, in this paper we will be interested in observables acting only on a subset of the set of all particles in (1). We start with the following.

Given the ket

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|++\mathrm{}++|\mathrm{}),$$
(4)
and the spin operators $`\widehat{\sigma }_{id}`$, where $`i=1\mathrm{}N`$ and $`d=x,y,z,`$ then any product of $`n<N`$ distinct spin operators has expectation zero.

*Proof.* Let us start with a hermitian operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{^{}}`$ that is the product of $`n<N`$ distinct spin operators, such that we can write $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{^{}}`$ as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{^{}}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{a}{}}\widehat{\sigma }_{k,x}\underset{k=a+1}{\overset{b}{}}\widehat{\sigma }_{k,y}\underset{k=b+1}{\overset{c}{}}\widehat{\sigma }_{k,z}\underset{k=c+1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{1}_k,$$
(5)
with $`0<a<b<c<n`$, and $`a+b+c=n`$. We want to compute $`\psi |\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{^{}}|\psi ,`$ the expected value of this operator, so

$`\psi |\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{^{}}|\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i^{ba1}[{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}+|_k+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|_k]\times `$ (6)
$`[{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{b}{}}}|_k{\displaystyle \underset{k=b+1}{\overset{N}{}}}|+_k`$
$`(1)^{c+a}i^a{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{b}{}}}|+_k{\displaystyle \underset{k=b+1}{\overset{N}{}}}|_k].`$
From the equation above, it is immediate that the inner product is zero if $`b<N,`$ as we wanted to prove.

Proposition 1 shows that the correlations for the $`N`$-particle system are quite strange. We have a set of $`N`$ particles that has always the same observable associated to its totality, but when we look at any of its parts, then the parts are completely uncorrelated. In this system the presence of a nonzero correlation appears only when we look at the system as a whole, and not at its parts. In the next section we will analyze in details the probabilistic properties of the probability distribution associated to, say, the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$.

## III Probabilistic Properties

It is interesting to note the consequences of the previous result. Say we are measuring the spin in the $`x`$ direction for $`n<N`$ particles. In this case all the particles are independent, and also behave in a completely random way, as the probability of measuring $`1`$ is the same as the probability of measuring $`1`$. However, if we measure the spin of *all* $`N`$ particles, the whole system is deterministic in a sense that will be made clear later. First, let us start with the following Proposition.

Let

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|++\mathrm{}++|\mathrm{}),$$
(7)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=_{k=1}^N\widehat{\sigma }_{k,x},`$ and to each particle $`i`$, $`1iN`$, we associate the random variable $`𝐒_i`$, representing the value of its spin measurements, taking values $`\pm 1`$. If $`t=n\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and we measure $`|\psi `$ using $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ at each $`t`$. We define the random variables $`𝐗_t^{\{k\}}=_{\{k\}}𝐒_k`$, where $`\{k\}`$ is any proper subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ and $`𝐗_t=_{k=1}^N𝐒_k`$. Then each $`𝐗_t^{\{k\}}`$, and $`𝐗_t`$ define Bernouilli processes.

*Proof.* First we should note that $`|\psi `$ is an eigenstate of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, such that we can measure $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ as many times as we want without affecting $`|\psi `$. If we keep measuring spin in the $`x`$ direction for all particles in equal intervals of time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, we can make a data table for the experimental result that would look like Table 1, where we associate to each of the spin measurements for particle $`i`$ the random variable $`𝐒_i`$ taking values $`\pm 1`$.

Each column of this table would be completely uncorrelated to the any other column or combinations of columns with less than $`N`$ columns involved. Similar independence and randomness hold for any row of length at most $`N1`$, i.e., at least one entry is deleted. However, if we multiply $`𝐒_1`$, $`𝐒_2`$,*$`\mathrm{}`$*, $`𝐒_N`$, we always obtain the same value $`_{i=1}^N𝐒_i=1`$. Furthermore, since the wave function $`|\psi `$ is unchanged, the equal probabilities of obtaining a $`1`$ or $`1`$ for each of the columns or shortened rows are also unchanged. As a consequence, the temporal sequence of product random variables $`𝐗_t^{\{k\}}=_{\{k\}}𝐒_k`$, where $`\{k\}`$ is any proper subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$, form a Bernouilli process, i.e. at each time $`t`$ the random variables $`𝐗_t^{\{k\}}`$ are independently and identically distributed, as we wanted to show. It is straightfoward to extend the same argument to $`𝐗_t.`$

We are now in a position to make explicit the statement that the system as a whole is deterministic and its subsystems are random.

The random variables $`𝐗_t^{\{k\}}=_{\{k\}}𝐒_k`$, where $`\{k\}`$ is any proper subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$, defined in a way similar to Proposition 2, have maximal entropy for such process, whereas the random variable $`𝐗_t=_{k=1}^N𝐒_k`$ has zero entropy.

*Proof.* Since both $`𝐗_t^{\{k\}}`$ and $`𝐗_t`$ define a Bernouilli process, their entropy is $`H=p_i\mathrm{log}p_i`$, where $`p_i`$ is the probability of each possible outcome, in this case $`\pm 1`$. $`𝐗_t=_{i=1}^N𝐒_i`$, representing the system as a whole, has entropy zero, since for all $`t`$ $`P(𝐗_t=1)=1`$ and $`P(𝐗_t=1)=0`$. Yet, any proper subset $`\{k\}`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ will define a random variable $`𝐗_t^{\{k\}}=_{\{k\}}𝐒_k`$ whose entropy is maximal for such a process, as $`P(𝐗^{\{k\}}=1)=1/2`$ and $`P(𝐗^{\{k\}}=1)=1/2`$, i.e. the entropy $`H=p_i\mathrm{log}p_i=1`$, where $`\mathrm{log}`$ is to base 2, as we wanted to prove.

The results just obtained show that the system in question is strongly holistic, in the sense that a measurement of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ containing *all* particles in the system yields a deterministic result, whereas any spin measurement made on a subsystem has a perfectly random outcome. However, since we can measure all the $`N`$ spin values simultaneously, we can also write a data table for the experimental outcomes, and a joint probability distribution exists. In this sense, the system is holistic but is separable, as we can factor the joint probability distribution.

Even though a joint probability distribution exists, we stress that such a strange distribution, where only when we consider all particles is the system deterministic, is rarely if ever found in any empirical domain. In fact, quantum mechanics provides, as far as we know, the only example in nature of a case where we have perfect correlation for a triple and zero correlation for pairs. This is the case if we take a three-particle GHZ system, as it yields $`𝐗_i`$ $`\pm 1`$ random variables, with $`E(𝐗_1𝐗_2𝐗_3)=1`$, $`E(𝐗_i)=0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},3`$. It is also interesting to stress that, in the three-particle GHZ case, the pair correlations are zero as a consequence of the triple correlation and the individual expectations. This can be verified by direct computation. Say we have $`E(𝐗_1𝐗_2𝐗_3)=1`$. Then, all terms with 0 or 2 negative components sum to 1, i.e.,

$$x_1x_2x_3+\overline{x}_1\overline{x}_2x_3+\overline{x}_1x_2\overline{x}_3+x_1\overline{x}_2\overline{x}_3=1,$$
(8)
where we use the notation $`x_1`$to represent $`P(𝐗_1=1)`$, $`\overline{x}_1`$to represent $`P(𝐗_1=1)`$, $`\overline{x}_1x_2`$ to represent $`P(𝐗_1=1,𝐗_2=1)`$, and so on. We also have that

$`x_1x_2=x_1x_2x_3=x_1x_3=x_2x_3`$ $`=`$ $`a,`$ (9)
$`\overline{x}_1\overline{x}_2=\overline{x}_1\overline{x}_2x_3=\overline{x}_1x_3=\overline{x}_2x_3`$ $`=`$ $`b,`$ (10)
$`\overline{x}_1x_2=\overline{x}_1x_2\overline{x}_3=\overline{x}_1\overline{x}_3=x_2\overline{x}_3`$ $`=`$ $`c,`$ (11)
$`x_1\overline{x}_2=x_1\overline{x}_2\overline{x}_3=x_1\overline{x}_3=\overline{x}_2\overline{x}_3`$ $`=`$ $`d,`$ (12)
with $`a+b+c+d=1.`$ Next, from (9)–(12), $`x_1=a+d,`$ $`\overline{x}_1=b+c,`$ $`x_2=a+c,`$ $`\overline{x}_2=b+d,`$ $`x_3=a+b,`$ $`\overline{x}_3=c+d`$, and from $`E(𝐗_i)=0`$, $`x_1=x_2=\overline{x}_1=\overline{x}_2=\frac{1}{2}`$. From (9)–(12) and the following equations, we obtain at once $`a=b=c=d`$ and

$$E(𝐗_1𝐗_2)=E(𝐗_2𝐗_3)=E(𝐗_1𝐗_3)=0.$$
(13)
However, contrary to the three-particle case, if we increase the number of particles to four, the correlations are not dictated by $`E(𝐗_1𝐗_2𝐗_3𝐗_4)=1`$, $`E(𝐗_i)=0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$ anymore. For the four-particle case, we can compute, in a manner similar to the three-particle one, that $`E(𝐗_i𝐗_j𝐗_k)=0`$, $`i<j<k.`$ However, the correlations $`E(𝐗_i𝐗_j)`$ can individually, but not independently, take any value in the closed interval $`[1,1]`$. On the other hand, if all the correlations are zero, then the positive atoms have a uniform distribution, by an argument similar to the one given above. In fact, we can show the following.

Given $`E(𝐗_1\mathrm{}𝐗_n)=0`$ and the product of any nonempty subset of the random variables $`𝐗_1\mathrm{}𝐗_n`$ also has expectation zero, including $`E(𝐗_i)=0`$, $`1in`$. Then the $`2^n`$ atoms of the probability space supporting $`𝐗_1\mathrm{}𝐗_n`$ has a uniform probability distribution, i.e., each atom has probability $`1/2^n.`$

*Proof.* We show this by induction. For $`n=1`$, we have by hypothesis that $`E(𝐗_i)=0`$, so, as required, $`P(𝐗_i=1)=x_1=1/2.`$ Next, our inductive hypothesis is that for every subsystem having $`m<n`$, the $`2^m`$ atoms have a uniform distribution, and we need to show this holds for $`n`$. Using the induction hypothesis for $`n1`$, we have at once the following pair of equations:

$`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}x_n+x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}\overline{x}_n=2^{1n},`$
$`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n2}x_n`$ $`=`$ $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}x_n+x_1x_2\mathrm{}\overline{x}_{n1}x_n=2^{1n}.`$
Subtracting one equation from the other we have at once $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}\overline{x}_{n1}x_n=x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}\overline{x}_n.`$ By similar arguments, we show that all atoms that have exactly one negative value of $`\overline{x}_i`$ for the $`n`$-particle case are equal in probability. Moreover, without any new complication this argument extends to equal probability for any atom having exactly $`k`$ negative values, $`2kn`$.

Next, we can easily show that those atoms differing by 2, and therefore by an even number of, negative values have equal probability. We give the argument for $`k=0`$ and $`k=2`$:

$`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}x_n+x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}\overline{x}_n=2^{1n},`$
$`\overline{x}_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n2}x_n`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{x}_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}x_n+\overline{x}_1x_2\mathrm{}\overline{x}_{n1}x_n=2^{1n}.`$
Using the previous result and subtracting we get $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}x_n=\overline{x}_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}\overline{x}_n.`$ Finally, we use the hypothesis that $`E(𝐗_1\mathrm{}𝐗_n)=0`$. This zero expectation requires that the sum of all the terms with 0 or an even number of negative values have the same sum as all the terms with an odd number of negative values. This implies at once that all atoms have equal probability, and so each has probability $`1/2^n`$, proving Proposition 4.

We also prove a more restricted result, but a sifnificant one, by purely probabilistic means, i.e., no quantum mechanical concepts or assumptions are needed in the proof.

Given $`E(𝐗_1\mathrm{}𝐗_N)=\pm 1`$ and $`E(𝐗_i)=0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, then any correlation of $`N1`$ particles is zero, e.g., $`E(𝐗_1\mathrm{}𝐗_{N1})=0`$, $`E(𝐗_1\mathrm{}𝐗_{N2}𝐗_N)=0`$, etc.

*Proof.* We give the proof for $`E(𝐗_1\mathrm{}𝐗_N)=1`$. Then there are $`2^N`$ atoms in the probability space. Given the expectation equal to 1, half ot the atoms must have probability 0, namely all those representing negative spin products. Now, we consider all the terms expressing $`E(𝐗_1\mathrm{}𝐗_{N1})`$. On the positive side, we have all those with even or zero negative values:

$$x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{N1}+\overline{x}_1\overline{x}_2\mathrm{}x_{N1}+\mathrm{}+\overline{x}_1\overline{x}_2\mathrm{}\overline{x}_{N1}$$
(14)
if $`N1`$ is even and as the last term if $`N1`$ is odd $`x_1\overline{x}_2\mathrm{}\overline{x}_{N1}`$. To be extended to atoms, a positive $`x_N`$ must be added. So, in probability

$$x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{N1}=x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{N1}x_N,$$

because, given $`E(𝐗_1\mathrm{}𝐗_N)=1`$

$$x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{N1}\overline{x}_N=0,$$

and similar for the other terms in (14).

The same thing applies in similar fashion to the negative side, e.g.,

$$\overline{x}_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{N1}=\overline{x}_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{N1}\overline{x}_N,$$

since the atom on the right must have zero or an even number of negative values.

But we observe that, by hypothesis, $`E(𝐗_1\mathrm{}𝐗_{N2}𝐗_N)=0`$, but the probability $`x_N`$ is just equal to the sum of the probabilities of the positive terms of $`E(𝐗_1\mathrm{}𝐗_{N2}𝐗_N)`$ and $`\overline{x}_N`$ is just equal to the sum of the probabilities of the negative terms above. Since, $`x_N\overline{x}_N=0`$, we conclude $`E(𝐗_1\mathrm{}𝐗_{N1})=0`$. The same argument can be extended to the other $`N1`$ combinations of $`𝐗_i`$, and this completes the proof.

## IV $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-Holism

The remarkable property that a quantum system has a perfect correlation for its whole but a totally random behavior for *any* of its part seems to us to represent a holistic characteristic of quantum mechanics. This holism is, however, quite distinct from what is known in the literature as separability. For that reason, we propose the following definition for strict holism.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(\mathrm{\Omega },,𝒫)`$ be a finite probability space and let $`𝐅=\left\{𝐗_i,1iN\right\}`$ be a family of $`\pm 1`$ random variables defined on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be a property defined for finite families of random variables. Then $`𝐅`$ is strictly $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-holistic iff
(i) $`𝐅`$ has $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$;
(ii) No subfamily of $`𝐅`$ has $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$.
Moreover, if $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is a numerical property,
(iii) No subfamily of $`𝐅`$ approximates $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

To understand this definition, let us give some examples from classical mechanics. It is well know in classical gravitation theory that a two-particle system has a well defined solution. However, if we add to this system an extra particle, no closed solutions to this system exist in some cases, and in fact its behavior can be completely random Alekseev . One may be tempted to think that this chaotic behavior is a holistic property, but according to the definition above, it is not. For instance, let us take the restricted three-body problem analyzed by Alekseev, where two particles with large mass orbit around their Center of Mass (CM), while a third small particle oscillates in a line passing through the CM and perpendicular to the plane of orbit of the two large masses. The whole system behaves randomly, as well at least one subsystem, the one defined by the small particle. Hence, this system is not $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-holistic, if we choose $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ to be the property of being random.

As yet another example, let us consider a glass of water. The water is a large system that does not behave like a water molecule, but in a coordinated way dictated by hydrodynamics. Is then this system holistic? If we take, say, half the glass of water, the properties of this half of water are the same as the whole glass, except its mass, hence the system is not $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-holistic for the other macroscopic properties of the water. What about properties like, say, mass? Say we take the full glass and remove only a water molecule from it. The new subsystem approximates the mass of the original one, violating hypothesis (iii) from the Definition, and so if we choose $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ to be the property mass, the system is not $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-holistic.

Let $`𝐅=\{𝐒_i,i=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ be the set of random variables of all the spin measurements of the state

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|++\mathrm{}++|\mathrm{}),$$

and let $`𝐗_t`$ be the product random variable of Proposition 3, and let $`𝐗_t^{\{k\}}`$ be the product random variable of any subfamily $`\{k\}`$ as defined earlier. Let the entropy be the $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ property of these product random variables. Then $`𝐅`$ is $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-holistic.

*Proof.* Immediate, from Proposition 3, since the entropy of $`𝐗_𝐭`$ is $`0`$ and, for any *$`\{k\}`$,* the entropy of $`𝐗_𝐭^{\{k\}}`$ is $`1`$.

## V Final Remarks

To summarize, we found that an $`N`$-particle GHZ state has a strong holistic property. However, it may be difficult to detect experimentally a quantum mechanical holistic characteristic with a large number of particles, as decoherence may play an important role, given that the decoherence time decreases rapidly if we increase the number of particles decoherence1 ; decoherence2 ; decoherence3 . A promising setup where this holism could be verified for a reasonably large number of particles is the one proposed by Cirac and Zoller Garg ; Garg2 . We found that for $`N4`$, the measurements of $`E(𝐗_1𝐗_2𝐗_3\mathrm{}𝐗_N)`$ and of $`E(𝐗_i)`$ do not fix a probability distribution, and extra measurements are necessary for the pairs, triples, and so on, for the probability distribution to be fixed. We believe that these measurements, which should yield many zero correlations, could be used to put additional constraints on some local-hidden variable models that exploit the detection loophole detectionloophole ; loophole2 ; loophole3 ; loophole4 .


text:
# Defect-unbinding and the Bose-glass transition in layered superconductors

\[

## Abstract

The low-field Bose–glass transition temperature in heavy-ion irradiated Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ increases progressively with increasing density of irradiation–induced columnar defects, but saturates for densities in excess of $`1.5\times 10^9`$ cm-2. The maximum Bose-glass temperature corresponds to that above which diffusion of two–dimensional pancake vortices between different vortex lines becomes possible, and above which the “line–like” character of vortices is lost. We develop a description of the Bose–glass line that is in excellent quantitative agreement with the experimental line obtained for widely different values of track density and material parameters.

\]

Heavy-ion irradiated (HII) layered superconductors have recently been at the focus of attention, because the irradiation–induced amorphous columnar tracks help overcome the detrimental effects of the high material anisotropy , and partially re-establish long-range superconducting phase order . In the layered superconductor Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ, heavy–ion irradiation increases the irreversibility field $`B_{irr}(T)`$ below which the $`I(V)`$-curve is nonlinear due to vortex pinning on the tracks to values well above the field $`B_{FOT}(T)`$ at which the first order vortex lattice–to liquid transition field takes place in the pristine material . At inductions $`B_{FOT}(T)BB_{irr}(T)`$, the irradiated superconductor displays the phenomenology of the Bose–glass phase of localized vortices; moreover, the transport properties show a distinct anisotropy related to the presence of the tracks  that is absent in the pristine material , and which suggests that the vortices behave as well-defined separate lines, i.e. vortex lines in the Bose-glass phase are disentangled .

The position of $`B_{irr}(T)`$ and the occurence of flux–line entanglement were shown to be intimately related in moderately anisotropic HII superconductors such as YBa2Cu3O7-δ . There, $`B_{irr}(T)B_{BG}(T)`$ corresponds to the second order phase transition line between the Bose-glass and the vortex liquid ; $`B_{BG}(T)`$ progressively increases with increasing columnar defect density $`n_d`$, to an upper limit attained when $`n_d1\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (corresponding to an ion dose-equivalent “matching” field $`B_\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }_0n_d=2`$ T). Departing from the correspondence of vortex lines with the world lines of interacting bosons in two dimensions (2D) , it was argued  that the upper limit of $`B_{BG}(T,n_d)`$ corresponds to the field beyond which the (entangled) vortex liquid becomes stable with respect to the introduction of linear defects. In this temperature and field regime, these produce a rather weak pinning due to intervortex repulsion and the averaging effect of vortex thermal excursions . The situation in layered superconductors such as Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ is apriori different. First, the weak coupling between adjacent CuO2 bilayers (with separation $`s`$ 1.5 nm) implies that vortex lines are extremely soft. Over the larger part of the first Brillouin zone of the vortex lattice, the contribution of the dipole interaction between “pancake” vortices in adjacent bilayers to the tilt modulus $`c_{44}`$ is expected to exceed that of the line tension $`\epsilon _1`$, which is determined by the interlayer Josephson effect . Flux lines are then better described as stacks of pancakes and the analogy with the 2D boson system is no longer valid . Another consequence is that pinning near $`B_{irr}(T)`$ in HII Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ is not weak: at fields $`B\frac{1}{6}B_\varphi `$ pancake vortices gain maximum free energy by remaining localized on the columnar defects, even in the vortex liquid phase . Nevertheless, a well–defined transition from very slow nonlinear vortex dynamics in the Bose–glass , to Ohmic response in the vortex liquid  does exist near the irreversibility line in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ.

In order to cast light on the mechanism of this transition, we have measured $`B_{irr}(T)`$ in HII Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ for widely varying track density and oxygen content. The latter determines the values of the anisotropy parameter $`\gamma `$ and the penetration depth $`\lambda _{ab}(T)`$ : both increase as one decreases the oxygen content towards optimal doping. It turns out that the phenomenological behavior of $`B_{irr}(T)`$ at low fields is rather similar to that found in YBa2Cu3O7-δ. $`B_{irr}(T)`$ increases progressively towards higher values with increasing defect density, but saturates for $`n_d1.5\times 10^9`$ cm-2, or $`B_\varphi 30`$ mT. For higher matching fields, the low–field portion ($`B\frac{1}{6}B_\varphi `$) of $`B_{irr}(T)`$ adopts a strictly exponential temperature dependence; although $`T_{irr}(B)/T_c`$ strongly increases when the value of $`\lambda _{ab}`$ decreases, we will see that this increase is not due to the increase of the pinning energy.

Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 crystals were grown at the University of Tokyo using the travelling-solvent floating-zone method, and then postannealed at either 800C or 500 C. This produces $`T_c`$’s of 89 K (optimal doping) and 82 K (overdoped) respectively . The crystals were cut to rectangles of size 500 (l) $`\times `$ 400 (w) $`\times `$ 20 (t) $`\mu `$m3, and irradiated with varying fluences of 5.8 GeV Pb ions at the Grand Accélérateur National d’Ions Lourds (GANIL) at Caen, France. The ion beam was directed parallel to the sample $`c`$-axis. Each ion impact created an amorphous columnar track of radius 3.5 nm traversing the sample along its entire thickness. Samples were prepared with track densities $`1\times 10^9`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}<n_d<2\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2, corresponding to 20 mT $`B_\varphi `$ 4 T. The irradiation caused $`T_c`$ to decrease: $`T_c/n_d=3.6\times 10^{11}`$ Kcm2 or $`T_c/B_\varphi =1.8`$ KT-1.

Subsequent measurements were performed using the Local Hall Probe Magnetometer in AC mode . A small ac field of amplitude $`h_{ac}=1`$ G and frequency $`f=7.75`$ Hz is applied parallel to the sample $`c`$–axis, colinearly with the DC field used to create the vortices. The ac field leads to a periodic electric field gradient of magnitude $`2\pi \mu _0h_{ac}f`$ across the sample. Using a miniature Hall probe one measures the RMS induction $`B_{ac}(f,T)`$ at the center of the sample top surface, which is simply related to the sample screening current .

Figure 1 shows the fundamental and third harmonic transmittivities, defined as $`T_H[B_{ac}(f,T)B_{ac}(f,TT_c)]/B`$ and $`T_{H3}B_{ac}(3f,T)/B`$ respectively, with

$`BB_{ac}(f,TT_c)B_{ac}(f,TT_c)`$ , measured for the optimally doped crystal with $`B_\varphi =2`$ T. The presence of a third harmonic response $`|T_{H3}|`$ implies the non–linearity of the sample’s $`I(V)`$–characteristic. The fields $`B_{irr}(T)`$, or temperatures $`T_{irr}(B)`$, below which the third harmonic signal can be first observed upon cooling are plotted in Fig. 2. At $`B_{irr}`$, the working point enters the nonlinear part of the sample $`I(V)`$ curve at an electric field of the order of $`10^7`$ Vm-1; this corresponds to a voltage drop of $``$ 50 pV across the sample. At such low voltages, the measurement of the ac screening current may be sensitivity–limited . In practice, the use of $`h_{ac}=1`$ Oe means that the minimum measurable current density $`j_{min}5\times 10^2`$ Am-2, comparable to a transport current of 0.1 mA. The coincidence of our $`B_{irr}(T)`$ with the $`B_{BG}`$–data determined by Seow et al.  indicates that for all practical purposes $`B_{irr}`$ is a good approximation of the Bose-glass transition field (Fig. 2).

The evolution of $`B_{irr}(T)`$ with $`B_\varphi `$ is plotted in Fig. 3. For $`B_\varphi B_\varphi ^{min}=30`$ mT, $`B_{irr}(T)`$ increases monotonically with increasing $`B_\varphi `$ . As long as $`B_{irr}(T)<B_\varphi `$, it depends exponentially on temperature, while for $`B_{irr}>B_\varphi `$, $`B_{irr}(1T/T_c)`$. For large $`B_\varphi B_\varphi ^{min}`$, one can distinguish three distinct sections of $`B_{irr}(T)`$. At all but the very lowest fields, $`B_{irr}`$ again depends exponentially on $`T`$, but with the specificity that it is independent of $`B_\varphi `$. In this regime \[(I) in Fig. 2\], there thus exists a an upper limit of $`B_{BG}(T)`$ in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8, as is the case in YBa2Cu3O7-δ . At $`B_{irr}B_{int}\frac{1}{6}B_\varphi `$, the exponential increase abruptly changes into a nearly vertical rise (regime II); $`B_{int}`$ is the field at which intervortex repulsion start to determine the pinned vortex configuration. This transition is also manifest in the vortex liquid phase as that at which a “recoupling” transition was measured using Josephson Plasma Resonance (JPR) . As $`B_{irr}`$ increases to a sizeable (but not constant) fraction of $`B_\varphi `$, a weak temperature dependence is once

again adopted, $`B_{irr}(1T/T_c)^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 1`$ (regime III). The behavior of the irreversibility line for different oxygen content is shown in Fig. 4. The exponential decrease at high $`T`$ is steeper for the overdoped crystal, which has the smaller $`\lambda _{ab}`$ and $`\gamma `$, and therefore the larger condensation energy $`\epsilon _0/4\pi \xi ^2`$, and the stronger intervortex– and vortex-defect interaction (both are proportional to the typical vortex energy scale $`\epsilon _0=\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2/4\pi \mu _0\lambda _{ab}^2`$; $`\xi `$ is the coherence length).

In order to describe the low–field exponential temperature dependence of $`B_{irr}(T)`$, we exploit the fact that in this regime (I) vortex interactions are irrelevant to the column occupation . In other words, each vortex line can become localized on an appropriate defect site. If a sufficient number of columns is available to every line (i.e. at large $`B_\varphi `$), extra free energy can be gained by the redistribution of pancakes constituting a given line over different columns. At low $`B_\varphi 0.5`$ T this entropy gain is insufficient to balance the loss in vortex interaction energy, and pancakes belonging to the same line remain aligned on the same columnar defect. In either case, all pancakes are localized on a column. The superposition of the exponential portions of $`B_{irr}(T)`$ for all matching fields 30 mT $`<B_\varphi <4`$ T implies that at $`B_{irr}`$ the redistribution over different column sites is irrelevant for the pancake delocalization mechanism — i.e. at and below $`B_{irr}(T)`$, pancakes belonging to the same vortex line are well aligned on the same site, belonging to a set of allowed “columnar-defect” sites. Then, we no longer need to consider other positions in the “intercolumn space” in our model description, which becomes that of a “discrete” superconductor. Since the allowed sites are more or less equivalent, the circumstance that they are in fact columnar defect sites becomes immaterial: namely, the free energy of all vortices is lowered by approximately the same amount. The low–field vortex state therefore does not differ fundamentally from that in the unirradiated crystal. Only, the vortex confinement in the defect potential, which plays the role of the “substrate potential” of Ref. , inhibits thermal line wandering and the elastic relaxation of the vortex lattice.

The main thermal excitations in this situation are expected to be small defects in the vortex lattice. In a Josephson–coupled layered superconductor, these amount to bound pancake vacancy–interstitial pairs within the same layer, i.e. the “quartets” of Ref. . In the HII layered superconductor, such a pair corresponds to the “exchange” of one or more pancakes between two sites. The energy of the quartets is

$$\epsilon _q4c_{66}a_0^2s\left(R/\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^2\epsilon _0s\left(R/\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^2,(R\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(1)
with $`c_{66}`$ the vortex lattice shear modulus, $`a_0=(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/B)^{1/2}`$ the vortex spacing, $`R`$ the distance between a bound vacancy and interstitial, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=[\lambda _{ab}^1+(\gamma s)^1]^1`$ the generalized penetration depth taking into account both magnetic and Josephson coupling, and $`\gamma s`$ the Josephson length . It was shown in Ref.  that the glass transition in a layered superconductor corresponds to the pair–unbinding transition. Correspondingly, the Bose glass transition is the unbinding temperature of the dislocation pairs in the “discrete” superconductor, i.e.the temperature above which pancakes can diffuse from line to line; it can be estimated as $`k_BT_{BG}=\epsilon _q(R_l)`$, where $`R_ln_l^{1/2}`$ and $`n_l`$ is the equilibrium density of free dislocation pairs in the vortex liquid. Taking into account that only small pairs of size $`a_0`$ ( i.e. vacancies / interstitials) matter, one has $`na_0^2\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon _0s/k_BT)`$; the activation energy $`\epsilon _0s`$ is larger than that in the unirradiated superconductor because of the lack of lattice relaxation around the pair. Gathering terms, $`k_BT_{BG}=\epsilon _0s(a_0/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon _0s/k_BT_{BG})`$ or

$$B_{BG}=B_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{\epsilon _0s}{k_BT}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\epsilon _0s}{k_BT}\right),(B_\mathrm{\Lambda }BB_\varphi )$$
(2)
with $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, $`\epsilon _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be evaluated at $`T_{BG}`$. The Bose–glass transition line does not depend on the details of the columnar defect potential such as pinning energy, column radius, or matching field. In Fig.4, we compare Eq. (2) to the experimental results for Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 with different oxygen content. We obtain excellent quantitative agreement using $`\lambda _{ab}`$–values from the literature  and the single free parameter $`\gamma `$ (contained only in $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). The values $`\gamma =360`$ and 550 found for the overdoped and the optimally doped material respectively are well within accepted experimental limits. Thus, Eq. (2) reproduces the correct field, temperature, $`B_\varphi `$, and doping–dependence of the Bose-glass delocalization line.

The Bose-glass transition separates the low–$`T`$ phase in which pancake vortices can wander between columnar defects, but always remain bound to the same site, or vortex line, from the high $`T`$–phase in which diffusion of pancakes between sites (lines) is possible. Below $`T_{BG}`$, individual pancakes (“defect pairs”) cannot provide flux transport at low currents; vortex lines can only move as a whole, leading to the line–like behavior observed in Ref. . Oppositely, the pancake diffusion above $`T_{BG}`$ not only implies an Ohmic resistivity , but also that the linear nature of the vortex lines should no longer be apparent in the angular dependence of the transport properties. The intersite diffusion of pancakes (or “pancake–exchange”) means that at $`T>T_{BG}`$ vortex lines are effectively entangled, on a scale $`l=s\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon _0s/k_BT)`$. The upper limit of the Bose-glass transition in layered superconductors is thus analogous to that in moderately anisotropic compounds in that it represents the boundary at which vortices become delocalized into an entangled flux liquid and where the angular dependence of the columnar defects’ contribution to the resistivity vanishes.

The meaning of $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ becomes apparent from Eq. (1), where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ appears as the typical interaction distance between small dislocation pairs. For separations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, i.e. for matching fields $`B_\varphi B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the formation of quartets demands a (shear) energy cost that is much greater than either $`\epsilon _0s`$ or $`k_BT`$. The excitation of a pancake onto another site is then unlikely even in the vortex liquid. Delocalization will occur as it does in a moderately anisotropic superconductor: thermal wandering of the vortices into the intercolumn space lowers their binding energy until they can be liberated from the columns by thermal activation . Similarly, in regime II ($`B>\frac{1}{6}B_\varphi `$), where the number of available tracks is insufficient not because of the intercolumn distance but because of track occupation by other vortices, delocalization is initiated by pancake wandering into the intercolumn space. Then, $`B_{irr}(T)`$ increases with decreasing $`B_\varphi `$ because the number of available sites decreases. The experimentally found condition $`B<\frac{1}{6}B_\varphi `$ on the validity of Eq. (2) also describes its validity range at low $`B_\varphi `$: $`B_{irr}`$ becomes ion–dose dependent when $`B_\varphi <B_\varphi ^{min}=6B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, in excellent agreement with the experimental values $`B_\varphi ^{min}30`$ mT and $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }=7.0`$ mT (4.5 mT) found for overdoped (optimally doped) Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 respectively.

Summarizing, in the regime of individual vortex line pinning by columnar defects in a layered superconductor, the upper limit of the Bose–glass transition corresponds to the onset of pancake vortex diffusion between different lines and flux-line entanglement. However, in both the glass and the vortex liquid phases, only columnar defect sites are available to the pancakes; hence, a modelisation in terms of a “discrete superconductor” is appropriate. The onset of diffusion in this “discrete superconductor” presents a realization of the glass transition by unbinding of small defect pairs proposed in Ref. ; in the original continuous problem of an unirradiated layered superconductor, the defect–unbinding mechanism is masked by strong Gaussian thermal fluctuations .

We thank V.B. Geshkenbein, P.H. Kes, A.E. Koshelev, P. LeDoussal, and V.M. Vinokur for stimulating discussions. The work of M.V.F. was supported by DGA grant No. 94-1189.