text:
# Anyon spin and the exotic central extension of the planar Galilei group1footnote 11footnote 1This work is supported in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under contract #DE-FC02-94ER40818 and by NSF grant PHY-9605216. MIT-CTP-2960, hep-th/0003130, March 2000

## Abstract

We show that the second central extension of the Galilei group in $`(2+1)`$ dimensions corresponds to spin, which can be any real number.

It has been known for a long time that the Galilei group in $`(2+1)`$ dimensions admits a two-parameter central extension . One of these, which is present in all dimensions, is well known to be the mass $`m`$. The second extension has remained somewhat more exotic. The classical dynamics of one-particle representations of the group can be discussed via the symplectic form on the corresponding coadjoint orbit. With the extension parameters $`m,\kappa `$ the Cartan-Poincaré form is

$$\omega =\mathrm{d}p^i\mathrm{d}x^i+\frac{\kappa }{2m^2}ϵ^{ij}\mathrm{d}p^i\mathrm{d}p^j\frac{p^i\mathrm{d}p^i\mathrm{d}t}{m}$$
(1)
The first two terms on the right give the symplectic two-form. We include the last term $`dH\mathrm{d}t`$ so that classical evolution is given by the kernel of $`\omega `$. Recently there have been some discussions of the second extension and of the symplectic form (1) .

It has also been known for some time that the Poincaré group in $`(2+1)`$ dimensions admits unitary representations of arbitrary spin . Spin is a free parameter which does not have to be quantized. The symplectic structure for a free relativistic particle can be taken to be

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{d}p_a\mathrm{d}x^a+\frac{sc^2}{2}\frac{ϵ^{abc}p_a\mathrm{d}p_b\mathrm{d}p_c}{(p^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}$$
(2)
Here $`s`$ is the spin of the particle. The constraint $`p^2m^2c^2=0`$ can be imposed consistently to generate the dynamics. (Our metric tensor is $`g_{ab}=diag(1,1,1)`$.)

The present comment is to the effect that the nonrelativistic limit of (2) gives (1), thereby identifying the second extension parameter $`\kappa `$ as the spin of the particle.

This reduction is completely straightforward. We solve $`p^2m^2c^2=0`$ to write $`p_0=\sqrt{p^ip^i+m^2c^2}`$ and do a nonrelativistic $`\frac{1}{c}`$-expansion to get $`p_0mc+\frac{p^ip^i}{2mc}`$. The leading term in (2) then becomes

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{p^i\mathrm{d}p^i\mathrm{d}t}{m}+\mathrm{d}p^i\mathrm{d}x^i+\frac{s}{2}\frac{ϵ^{ij}\mathrm{d}p^i\mathrm{d}p^j}{m^2}+\mathrm{}$$
(3)
which agrees with (1), with the identification $`s=\kappa `$. The nonrelativisitic limit of (2) thus gives the extended Galilei group and the second extension parameter corresponds to spin. The second extension of the Galilei group may also be characterized by the modified commutation rule for the Galilean boosts $`K_i`$, viz.,

$$[K_i,K_j]=i\kappa ϵ_{ij}$$
(4)
In the relativistic case, the generator of $`SO(2,1)`$ rotations is identified as

$$J_a=ϵ_{abc}x^bp^c+\frac{sc^2p_a}{\sqrt{p^2}}$$
(5)
These obey the $`SO(2,1)`$ algebra

$$[J^a,J^b]=iϵ^{abc}J_c$$
(6)
The boost generators are defined by $`J^i=cϵ^{ij}K_j`$ and obey $`[K_i,K_j]=iϵ_{ij}(J_0/c^2).`$ This simplifies to (4) when we use $`p_0mc+\frac{p^ip^i}{2mc}`$, to leading order in $`\frac{1}{c}`$. (The last term in (5) dominates $`J_0`$.) The expressions (5) can also be similarly reduced and agree with the moment maps (or generators of symmetry transformations) for (1), as evaluated for instance in , up to additive constants. The canonical commutation rules which follow from (2) are the standard ones except for

$$[x^a,x^b]=isc^2\frac{ϵ^{abc}p_c}{(p^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}$$
(7)
In the nonrelativistic limit,

$$[x_i,x_j]\frac{isϵ_{ij}}{m^2},$$
(8)
a peculiarity which has been noticed in the case of (1) . The noncommutativity of the coordinates may seem strange, but from the point of view of a spinning particle, it is not so exotic. It is well known that in relativistic theories the true position operator is not the naive one and one has to make a Foldy-Wouthuysen type transformation to obtain it. The transformation of (7) to a canonical set of variables involves the use of the Dirac monopole potential in $`p`$-space . For the nonrelativistic case of (8) the corresponding redefinition is

$$x^i=q^i\frac{s}{2m^2}ϵ^{ij}p^j$$
(9)
where $`q^i,p^i`$ are canonically conjugate.

The coupling of the relativistic particle to electromagnetic fields has been done via the addition of $`eF=\frac{1}{2}eF_{ab}\mathrm{d}x^a\mathrm{d}x^b`$ to (2) . Among other results, this showed that the gyromagnetic ratio is 2 for particles in $`(2+1)`$ dimensions for any value of spin. Recently, the coupling of the Galilean particle to electromagnetism has been analyzed by adding $`eF`$ to (1) . Needless to say, the results agree with the corresponding nonrelativistic limit of reference .

Finally, note that in the ultrarelativistic limit $`c0`$, the anomalous spin contribution to (2) vanishes. Since this limit also describes massless particles, we regain the result that planar massless particles carry no spin .


format: text

text:
# Thermodynamics of the Complex 𝑠𝑢(3) Toda Theory

## Abstract

We present the first computation of the thermodynamic properties of the complex $`su(3)`$ Toda theory. This is possible thanks to a new string hypothesis, which involves bound states that are non self-conjugate solutions of the Bethe equations. Our method provides equivalently the solution of the $`su(3)`$ generalization of the XXZ chain. In the repulsive regime, we confirm that the scattering theory proposed over the past few years - made only of solitons with non diagonal $`S`$ matrices - is complete. But we show that unitarity does not follow, contrary to early claims, eigenvalues of the monodromy matrix not being pure phases. In the attractive regime, we find that the proposed minimal solution of the bootstrap equations is actually far from being complete. We discuss some simple values of the couplings, where, instead of the few conjectured breathers, a very complex structure (involving $`E_6`$, or two $`E_8`$) of bound states is necessary to close the bootstrap.

Integrable quantum field theories (QFTs) based on $`su(2)`$ have been the subject of intensive studies over the past many years. New theoretical tools like the quantum Q-operators , the Destri De Vega and Klümper and Pearce equations , the connections with spectral determinant theory , or the relations with elliptic curves and duality  have revealed mathematical structures of remarkable depth; they have also made possible the computation of quantities of experimental interest - and typical of strong interactions - in various low dimensional condensed matter systems .

Formal developments, as well as practical applications, would largely benefit from an extension of these results to the case of other Lie algebras, in particular $`su(n)`$. The situation here is somewhat embarrassing, however. Although the pillars of the $`su(2)`$ case - the $`XXZ`$ chain and the associated sine-Gordon model - have been under control for a long time, even the simplest $`su(3)`$ case is only very partially understood.

One of the difficulties here - and, from the field theory point of view, one of the most interesting issues at stake - has to do with unitarity. Indeed, the simplest integrable generalizations of the sine-Gordon model are the complex ***Real Toda theories involve entirely different issues. For a recent review see . affine $`su(n)`$ Toda theories defined by the Lagrangian:

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \varphi ^a\right)\left(^\mu \varphi ^a\right)\lambda \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}e^{i\beta \alpha _j.\varphi }$$
(1)
where $`\lambda >0`$, $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{n1}`$ form the root system of the classical lie algebra $`a_{n1}`$, $`\alpha _0=_{j=1}^{n1}\alpha _j`$ is the negative of the longest root. The conformal weights of the perturbing operator in (1) are $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\frac{\beta ^2}{4\pi }`$. In the following, we shall parameterize $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{t1}{t}`$. The theory described by (1) is obviously non unitary at the classical level. The fascinating possibility was raised  that it could nevertheless describe a unitary field theory in a sufficiently strong quantum regime. This possibility was ruled out in the interesting paper , and we confirm and extend their observations here.

From a practical point of view, unitarity is not such a key issue. In fact, the most interesting applications of complex Toda theories are potentially found in disordered systems of statistical mechanics, where Toda theories based on superalgebras naturally seem to appear , leading most likely to even stronger violations of unitarity. More crucial then are the questions of completeness of the bootstrap, the physical meaning of the bound states, and the calculation of physical quantities.

The main progress in the study of complex Toda theories have been based on non perturbative S matrix analysis, following the pioneering work of . One of the difficulties in this approach for $`su(n)`$ is the appearance of a large number of poles in the S matrix elements, whose signification is not entirely clear: it was argued, after careful analysis of several cases, that most of these poles were not physical, and occurred rather by mechanisms generalizing Coleman Thun’s .

The issue of the completeness of the bootstrap in  could be settled by a study of the thermodynamics, and a computation of the central charge in the UV, using the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz (TBA)  The approach developed in  bypasses some difficulties in the study of the thermodynamics, but does not give much information on the spectrum itself .. However, for the imaginary affine Toda theories (or, equivalently, the corresponding anisotropic quantum spin chains), the TBA has never been written so far, because of the complexity of the set of solutions: no natural “string hypothesis” had been proposed, up to now.

In this letter, we present the first solution of this vexing problem in the case of $`su(3)`$. This allows us, in particular, to show that the quantum theory defined in (1) for $`n=3`$ is never unitary, even in the strong quantum regime, and that it presents considerably more bound states than expected.

Our main technical progress is an understanding of the solutions of the Bethe equations for systems based on $`su(3)`$. Except in the exactly symmetric case, these solutions (the equivalent of the string hypothesis for the XXZ chain) had never been found. We hope that their understanding will spur new development in the area: generalizations of the works mentioned in the introduction, as well a calculations of physical properties in the super Toda case, seem particularly timely.

The problem we want to tackle is largely equivalent to the $`su(3)`$ generalization of the XXZ spin chain. This integrable chain has been known for a long time ,and reads

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[{\displaystyle \underset{r,s=1,rs}{\overset{3}{}}}e_j^{rs}e_{j+1}^{sr}+\mathrm{cos}\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}e_j^{rr}e_{j+1}^{rr}+`$ (2)
$`i\mathrm{sin}\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\text{sign}(rs)e_j^{rr}e_{j+1}^{ss}]`$ (3)
Relations of this system with the quantum field theory are two-fold. At the physical level, there is a simple integrable perturbation - obtained, in the quantum inverse scattering framework, by introducing heterogeneities of the spectral parameter, which amount to a staggered interaction - giving rise to (1) in the continuum limit, as can easily been shown using bosonization, or other arguments . In that correspondence, $`\gamma =\frac{\pi }{t}`$. At a more formal level, observe first that the scattering matrices proposed in  are non diagonal. To study the thermodynamics of the gas of excitations in the S matrix approach, one needs to write wave functions, and impose their periodicity. This condition involves “passing” a particle through a set of other particles with which it scatters non diagonally: the phases obtained in this way are, in the inverse quantum scattering framework, eigenvalues of a monodromy matrix . This monodromy matrix is nothing but the transfer matrix associated with the hamiltonian (3) (actually, it involves a slight generalization of this hamiltonian with a mixture of the fundamental representation and its conjugate), with however a renormalization of the anisotropy parameter, which becomes $`\gamma =\frac{\pi }{t1}`$. The case $`\gamma =\frac{\pi }{2}`$, for instance (the equivalent of the XX chain, which is not a free problem here however), is a lattice regularization of the Toda theory for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2}`$; it also turns out in the monodromy problem for the Toda theory at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{2}{3}`$.

This double correspondence is very useful. If one is able to solve say the field theory problem for a particular value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{t1}{t}`$, one should also be able to diagonalize the lattice model for $`\gamma =\frac{\pi }{t}`$, since it is just a discretization of this quantum field theory. But knowing the spectrum of (3) for $`\gamma =\frac{\pi }{t}`$ in turn means knowing the spectrum of the monodromy matrix for this value of $`\gamma `$. This is nothing but being able to solve the Toda theory for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{t}{t+1}`$!

Rather than dwell into the lengthy technical details, we would like to discuss first the solution of the lattice model for $`\gamma =\frac{\pi }{2}`$. We consider the slightly more general hamiltonian, where there is an arbitrary mixture of the fundamental representation and its conjugate. The lattice Bethe equations are

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{1}{2}(y_j+i\pi /2)}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{1}{2}(y_ji\pi /2)}}\right)^{N_{\overline{3}}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{z}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{1}{2}(y_jz_ri\pi /2)}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{1}{2}(y_jz_r+i\pi /2)}}`$ (4)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{1}{2}(z_r+i\pi /2)}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{1}{2}(z_ri\pi /2)}}\right)^{N_3}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{y}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{1}{2}(z_ry_ji\pi /2)}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{1}{2}(z_ry_j+i\pi /2)}},`$ (5)
where we have not written a crucial but complicated sign on the right hand sides, and the energy reads $`E=2\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}z}2\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}y}`$. A combination of numerical studies and analytical arguments led to the identification of the following sets of roots in the thermodynamic limit. The $`y`$ and $`z`$ can both be real, or both have an imaginary part equal to $`\pi `$ (antistring). In addition, it is possible to have complexes, with a two string $`z`$ centered on an antistring $`y`$, that is: $`y=r+i\pi ,z=r\pm i\frac{\pi }{2}`$ (here $`r`$ is a real number, and we identified $`r+3i\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and $`ri\frac{\pi }{2}`$), and the same thing with $`y`$ and $`z`$ reversed. The existence of these complexes is easy to understand. Suppose for instance that $`z`$ has a positive imaginary part, so the lhs of the second equation in (5) blows up as $`N_3\mathrm{}`$. It is then necessary to have the rhs also blow up, which can be accomplished if there exists a $`y`$ such that $`y=z+i\frac{\pi }{2}`$. The same goes if $`z`$ has a negative imaginary part, so the complexes proposed are the minimal possible structures leading to real Bethe equations. Together with the real and antistring solutions, they reproduce the 3+3 degeneracy expected for the fundamental solitons. In addition however, another type of complex (which we call $`yz`$ in the following) is possible, of the form $`z=r+i\frac{3\pi }{4}`$, $`y=r+i\frac{5\pi }{4}`$, together with the conjugate. Usually, one would expect that these two complexes actually come glued together to ensure reality of the Bethe equations and the eigenvalues, resulting in a sort of “quartet” . This does not seem to be the case here. Rather, to reproduce the correct entropy or central charge, one needs to treat their densities as independent.

These complexes are the ones which dominate the thermodynamics. As usual, there are many other solutions to the Bethe equations. The existence of solutions which are not invariant under complex conjugation being rather unusual, we illustrate it briefly. Figure 1 shows the $`yz`$ complex obtained by a numerical solution of (3) for $`N_{\overline{3}}=0`$ and for different values of $`N_3`$. In this example - which seems the simplest possible - the half sum of the imaginary parts of $`y`$ and $`z`$ goes to $`\pi `$ in the thermodynamic limit, but their difference does not go to $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$. We conjecture that this would however be the case for the overwhelming majority of such complexes: we checked that only in this case, are the correct scattering theory and thermodynamics recovered.

The lattice model without heterogeneities has a continuum limit which is a conformal field theory, made of two bosons compactified on a triangular lattice. The latter is unitary, and we have checked numerically that the imaginary parts of the eigenenergies of (3) scale to zero faster than their real parts, ensuring reality of the conformal weights, and, actually, unitarity of the conformal field theory, despite the non-hermicity of the hamiltonian. Meanwhile, the lattice model with heterogeneities does have a continuum limit described by a complex Toda theory, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2}`$. In this case, the complexes correspond to physical particles, the bound states discussed in . The fact that they are described by solutions of the Bethe ansatz which are not self conjugate corresponds to the shocking fact that, in the quantum field theory, their S matrix is not a pure phase (and “naive” unitarity, in the sense of the scattering theory, is broken).

Accordingly, a crucial feature related with the $`yz`$ complexes is that they give rise to non real kernels in the continuum Bethe ansatz. For instance, the kernel for the scattering of a real $`z`$ through a $`yz`$ complex $`z=r+i\frac{3\pi }{4}`$, $`y=r+i\frac{5\pi }{4}`$ is $`\frac{1}{i}\frac{d}{dz}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Phi }=1/\mathrm{cosh}\left(zr+\frac{i\pi }{4}\right)`$. Although at equilibrium the densities of the two types of conjugate complexes are equal, it is necessary to let them vary independently to get the correct entropy. The physical results will be the same as the ones that would be obtained with a different theory, where the scattering kernels would be real, and given by the real part of the true kernels. This is what we will consider in the following, to make the notations simpler.

The lattice model whose equations are (5) occurs also in the problem of diagonalizing the monodromy matrix for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{2}{3}`$. The complexes just discussed have no physical meaning then: they just correspond to pseudo particles of zero mass. However, the fact that they are not self conjugate means that eigenvalues of the monodromy matrix will not, in general, have modulus one. Contrary to early claims , unitarity is strongly violated in the theory, even in the absence of bound states. The physical implications of having “monodromies” which are not pure phases are not clear to us: presumably $`S`$ matrix elements have to be considered as formal objects used to build wave functions, and cannot be given a reasonably meaning in terms of scattering processes A somewhat related problem occurs for instance in the massless description of conformal field theories..

This basic structure generalizes easily to the case $`t`$ integer. For $`\gamma =\frac{\pi }{t}`$, the Bethe equations contain in addition a term of interaction between $`y`$ roots, and between $`z`$ roots. The solutions are the usual $`y`$ or $`z`$ real, antistrings, or $`2,\mathrm{},t1`$ strings, plus $`y`$-$`t`$ strings centered on $`z`$ antistrings, and the same thing with $`y`$ and $`z`$ reversed. In addition, the $`yz`$ complexes now are of the form $`z=r+i\pi i\frac{\pi }{2t}`$, $`y=r+i\pi +i\frac{\pi }{2t}`$, and the same with $`y`$ and $`z`$ exchanged.

To proceed, one has to use these results to solve the monodromy problem. At $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{t1}{t}`$, passing a soliton through a set of $`N_3,N_{\overline{3}}`$ solitons at various rapidities gives rise to a“‘phase” which is an eigenvalue of the monodromy matrix. The latter is essentially the transfer matrix associated with (3), but for $`\gamma =\frac{\pi }{t1}`$. Its eigenvalues are obtained by generalizing slightly the Bethe ansatz equations, so the arguments in the lhs of (5) are shifted by the corresponding rapidities, and using the generalized string hypothesis described previously.

A few technical details are involved, which are completely equivalent to what happens in the $`su(2)`$ case . We will only describe the end result, which is quite simple. For the case $`t\mathrm{}`$, the TBA has been known for a long time , and has a structure that mimics the known one for $`su(2)`$, with an infinity of massless nodes corresponding to the usual strings of the Bethe equations. Like for the $`su(2)`$ case, the introduction of anisotropy truncates this to a finite number of strings: the truncation has to be completed by the proper “end structure” of the diagram. Like in the $`su(2)`$ case, this structure, for $`su(3)`$, is given by the Bethe roots for $`\gamma =\frac{\pi }{2}`$. After some manipulations, the results are the following. We call $`\sigma ,\sigma ^h`$ the densities of the solitons at rapidity $`\theta `$, and $`m`$ the mass of the fundamental soliton. Then

$`\sigma ^3+\sigma ^{3h}=`$ $`m\mathrm{cosh}\theta +\varphi \left(\rho _1^{3h}+\sigma ^{\overline{3}h}\right)`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (7)
$`\rho _n^3+\rho _n^{3h}=`$ $`\varphi \left(\rho _{n1}^{3h}+\rho _{n+1}^{3h}+\rho _n^{\overline{3}}\right)\mathrm{}`$ (8)
and similarly for $`\overline{3}`$, with $`\rho _0\sigma `$. We recognize here the standard equations for the minimal model . In addition, in this untruncated case, we need the “closure” relations, which are the key to the whole problem. They read here

$`\rho _{t3}^3+\rho _{t3}^{3h}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi \left(\rho _{t4}^{3h}+\rho _{t2}^{3h}+\rho _{t3}^{\overline{3}}+\rho _{a_1}^3+\rho _{a_2}^3\right)`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`\psi \left(\rho _b^3+\rho _b^{\overline{3}}\right)`$ (10)
$`\rho _{t2}^3+\rho _{t2}^{3h}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi \left(\rho _{t3}^{3h}+\rho _{t2}^{\overline{3}}\rho _{a_1}^{\overline{3}}\rho _{a_2}^{\overline{3}}\right)`$ (11)
$``$ $`\psi \left(\rho _b^3+\rho _b^{\overline{3}}\right)`$ (12)
$`\rho _{a_i}^3+\rho _{a_i}^{3h}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{t2}^3+\rho _{t2}^{3h}`$ (13)
and similarly for $`\overline{3}`$; finally

$`\rho _b^3+\rho _b^{3h}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi \left(\rho _{t3}^{3h}+\rho _{t2}^3\rho _{a_1}^3\rho _{a_2}^3+3\overline{3}\right)`$ (14)
$``$ $`\varphi \left(\rho _b^3+\rho _b^{\overline{3}}\right)`$ (15)
In these equations, the kernels are defined by their fourier transforms §§§ We define $`\widehat{f}(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }f(\theta )e^{inx\theta /\pi }𝑑\theta `$. $`\widehat{\varphi }=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cosh}x}`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }=\frac{\mathrm{cosh}x/2}{2\mathrm{cosh}x}`$. The subscripts $`a_i`$, $`i=1,2`$ stand for antistrings or $`t`$ strings centered on antistrings; $`b`$ stands for $`yz`$ complexes.

We set $`e^{ϵ_0/T}=\sigma /\sigma ^h`$, $`e^{ϵ_n/T}=\rho _i^h/\rho _i`$, $`n=1,\mathrm{},t2`$, $`e^{ϵ_a/T}=\rho _{a_i}/\rho _{a_i}^h`$, $`e^{ϵ_b/T}=\rho _b/\rho _b^h`$ (color labels are kept implicit here). Introducing the usual variables $`x_\alpha =e^{ϵ_\alpha /T}`$, the TBA in the UV limit reduces to the system ($`x_{t2}=1/x_a`$):

$`x_0=`$ $`(1+x_1)^{1/2}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_0}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (17)
$`x_n=`$ $`(1+x_{n1})^{1/2}(1+x_{n+1})^{1/2}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_n}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (19)
$`x_{t3}=`$ $`(1+x_{t4})^{1/2}(1+x_a)^{3/2}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_{t3}}}\right)^{1/2}(1+x_b)`$ (20)
$`x_a=`$ $`(1+x_{t3})^{1/2}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_a}}\right)^{1/2}(1+x_a)^1(1+x_b)^1`$ (21)
$`x_b=`$ $`(1+x_{t3})\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_a}}\right)^1(1+x_a)^2(1+x_b)^1`$ (22)
The solution of this system is

$`x_j=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(j+1)(j+4)}{2}}`$ $`,j=0,\mathrm{},t3`$ (23)
$`x_a=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t1}{t+1}}`$ (24)
$`x_b=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(t1)^2}{4t}}`$ (25)
In the IR limit, we get an identical TBA, but with the replacement $`tt1`$ exactly as in the $`SU(2)`$ case , because the first two nodes become infinitely massive, $`ϵ_0=\mathrm{}`$. The whole TBA system is actually quite similar to the one for the sine-Gordon model: the “left part” can be conveniently encoded in a ladder diagram with base the Dynkin diagram of $`a_2`$, and in the isotropic limit $`t\mathrm{}`$, this is all that matters. For finite $`t`$ however, the diagram has to be closed to the right, and the closing terms are more complicated than for sine-Gordon: in addition to 3+3 nodes standing algebraically for the representations $`3`$ and $`\overline{3}`$ (in the sine-Gordon case, there are two such nodes corresponding to the self-conjugate fundamental representation), the closure requires the nodes associated with the non real solutions of the Bethe ansatz, whose algebraic meaning has eluded us up to now. The TBA diagrams for SU(2) and SU(3) are shown in Fig. 2.

$`t2`$ $`a`$ $`/`$ $`\backslash `$ $`012`$ $``$——$``$——$``$– – – –$`t3\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{t1}{t}`$

Using the basic identity : $`L(x)+L(y)=L(xy)+L\left[\frac{x(1y)}{1xy}\right]+L\left[\frac{y(1x)}{1xy}\right]`$, one finds

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{t3}{}}}2L\left[{\displaystyle \frac{j^2+5j+4}{j^2+5j+6}}\right]+6L\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t1}{2t}}\right]`$ (26)
$`+2L\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{t1}{t+1}}\right)^2\right]=(t1){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}},`$ (27)
and therefore, $`c=2(t1)2(t2)=2`$, as required. Note that for the sine-Gordon case, the sum of dilogarithms for the UV (IR) diagram was $`(t1)\frac{\pi ^2}{6}`$ (resp. $`t2`$) instead, generalizing nicely the combinatorics to the case of rank two.

Still like in the sine-Gordon case, the same TBA diagram supports the scattering theory for generalized supersymmetric extensions: by putting the mass term on the $`k^{th}`$ node, the central charge now becomes $`c=\frac{8k}{k+3}`$, in agreement with the central charge for $`SU(3)_k`$ theories.

The Toda theory can be twisted by coupling a charge to the total diagonal $`U(1)`$ current. The kinks come in the form of $`3`$ and $`\overline{3}`$, and the total charge can be recast in terms of the solutions of the associated, non diagonal scattering problem, as $`Q(t1)\rho _{t2}^3\rho _{a_1}^3+(3\overline{3})`$. The thermodynamics is more complicated to carry out than in the sine-Gordon case however, densities of holes and particles mixing up in a complex fashion in the right hand side of the universal Bethe equations. It can still be shown that, with a fugacity $`1`$ for the solitons, the diagram truncates, leaving only the nodes $`j=0,\mathrm{},t5`$, for $`t5`$, the well known result for the minimal model $`SU(3)_1\times SU(3)_{t4}/SU(3)_{t3}`$. Note that more nodes disappear than in the sine-Gordon case: the case where the minimal theory has $`c=0`$ now corresponds to a dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{3}{4}`$ in the Toda theory.

The study of the points $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{t1}{t}`$, $`t`$ integer, therefore presents few surprises, except maybe the non unitarity, due to the complex solutions of the Bethe equations. We do not expect a qualitatively different behaviour when $`t`$ is not an integer, provided $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ lies in the repulsive regime, $`\mathrm{\Delta }3/5`$, where no bound states are expected. In contrast, the attractive regime turns out to be considerably more complicated.

From a technical point of view, the points $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{t}`$, could be studied as the continuum limit of the chain with $`\gamma =\frac{\pi }{t}`$ still, but with the opposite sign of the hamiltonian. This observation is crucial in the case of the XXZ chain, and allows one to essentially use the same type of solutions of the Bethe equations to study both the attractive and the repulsive regime: it is well known that the TBAs for these two cases are very closely related. In the $`su(3)`$ case, the situation is more involved: depending on the sign of the hamiltonian, it is not the same type of solutions of the Bethe equations that determines the thermodynamics. This can be illustrated in the case $`\gamma =\frac{\pi }{2}`$. Taking say a chain made only of $`3`$’s, the ground state is $`y`$ and $`z`$ real for one sign, $`y`$ antistring and $`z`$ real for the other. This still is like for the XX chain. However, the other solutions of the Bethe equations are different: for instance, instead of having two string $`z`$ centered on antistrings $`y`$’s, one has now two string $`z`$ centered on real $`y`$’s. Things get worse as $`t`$ increases, and solutions that were possible but did not contribute to the thermodynamics for one sign of the coupling, start being important for the other.

The net result is that we have not been able to reproduce the simple $`c=2`$ result for any point in the attractive regime except the $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2}`$ case. To illustrate the nature of the difficulties, let us concentrate for a while on the theories for which $`\lambda =\frac{4\pi }{\beta ^2}1`$ is of the form $`\lambda =\frac{2n+1}{3}`$, or $`\lambda =\frac{2n+2}{3}`$. In that case, the deformation parameter for the quantum group symmetry of the scattering theory, $`q=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \lambda )`$ is a cubic root of unity, and the q-dimension of the $`3`$ or the $`\overline{3}`$ vanish exactly, $`(3)_q=0`$. This means that the RSOS truncation  of the theory is very simple: the kink part entirely disappears from the scattering, and one is left with a diagonal scattering for the scalar bound states. This scattering leads to straightforward TBA calculations, which one can compare against the predictions of conformal field theory. The disagreement with the scattering theory proposed in  is considerable. Let us give two examples. For $`\lambda =\frac{4}{3}`$, the analysis of  predicts only a pair of bound states: to reproduce the effective central charge $`c_{\text{eff}}=6/7`$ together with its apparent conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{eff}}=1/7`$, one needs in fact 6 bound states, essentially reproducing the well known $`E_6`$ scattering theory . Note that in this theory, there are pairs of conjugate particles, but also self-conjugate ones: the issue of whether bound states in $`su(3)`$ should always appear in pairs is not clear, and this counter example demonstrates it is not always the case.

If the appearance of $`E_6`$ is somewhat surprising, an even bigger surprise is encountered for $`\lambda =\frac{5}{3}`$. In this case, the effective central charge is $`c_{\text{eff}}=1`$, and the apparent weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{eff}}=1/16`$. The scattering theory in  predicts two pairs of bound states, i. e. $`4`$ scalar particles. To close the bootstrap, it turns out that one needs in fact $`16`$ particles, with a scattering theory that is a sort of double $`E_8`$: if one labels the $`E_8`$ particles by $`j`$, the $`su(3)`$ particles by $`B_j`$, then one has the identity $`S_{B_j\overline{B}_j}S_{B_k\overline{B}_k}=S_{jk}`$: this guarantees that the central charge in the UV is $`2\times \frac{1}{2}=1`$This doubling is similar to what happens in the scattering theory for the 3 state Potts model, with $`c=4/5`$, compared with the scattering theory for the Yang Lee model, with $`c_{\text{eff}}=2/5`$., as required.

The ratio of the actual number of bound states and the minimal one is actually growing very quickly, and it is not clear what to do to close the bootstrap even for the simplest non trivial reflectionless point, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{3}`$, where the conjectured scattering theory , involving the fundamental solitons $`A_0,\overline{A_0}`$, excited solitons $`A_1,\overline{A}_1`$, and breathers $`B_1,\overline{B}_1`$, $`B_2,\overline{B}_2`$, gives only $`c=1.90821`$. Note that this point is quite special, since the particles can be gathered into 2 eightuplets of particles of mass $`M`$ and $`\sqrt{3}M`$, indicating the presence of a hidden $`D_4^{(3)}`$ symmetry . Introducing more particles increases $`c`$, but we haven’t found a closure of the bootstrap, even after introducing large numbers of bound states Let us stress here that the possibility of having missed some CDD factors in the original scatterings should be considered as excluded, since our lattice calculations (see also ) do fully reproduce the accepted kernels. .

The repulsive regime for $`su(n)`$, $`n4`$, presents similar difficulties: the scattering theory of  is incomplete even at the point $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2}`$, and there again, more bound states have to be introduced.

In conclusion, except for the simplest case of $`su(3)`$ in the repulsive regime, the scattering theory of the complex Toda theories is not under control, in our opinion. The large body of literature on the subject (see e. g.  for some recent developments) has identified a minimal structure for it, but reality is more complicated (a fact well known to some experts). How complicated is not clear to us: without an algebraic understanding of the bound states, tackling the general case is a very laborious task, and it is not even clear that the bootstrap will close with a finite number of bound states, except for some special values: clearly, more work is needed in this direction.

Meanwhile, the solution of the $`su(3)`$ theory in the repulsive regime opens the way to several problems of physical interest, in particular study of $`su(3)`$ anisotropic Kondo problems, and $`su(3)`$ tunneling problems, on which we hope to report soon.

Acknowledgments: we thank P. Fendley for very useful discussions and G. Takacs for comments on the manuscript. The work was supported by the DOE and the NSF (under the NYI program). B. W.-K. acknowledges support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under the contract KA 1574/1-1.


text:
# 1 Plot of the effective action Γ̄(𝐻;𝑚).

SNUTP 00-007

On mass dependences of the one-loop effective action

in simple backgrounds

O-Kab Kwon111Electronic address; kok@phya.snu.ac.kr and Choonkyu Lee222Electronic address; cklee@phya.snu.ac.kr

Physics Department and Center for Theoretical Physics, Seoul National University
Seoul 151-742, Korea

Hyunsoo Min333Electronic address; hsmin@dirac.uos.ac.kr

Physics Department, University of Seoul, Seoul 130-743, Korea

## Abstract

If background fields are soft on the scale set by mass of the particle involved, a reliable approximation to the field-theoretic one-loop effective action is obtained by a systematic large mass expansion involving higher-order Seeley-DeWitt coefficients. Moreover, if the small mass limit of the effective action in a particular background has been found by some other means, the two informations may be used to infer the corresponding result for arbitrary mass values. This method is used to estimate the one-loop contribution to the QCD vacuum tunneling amplitude by quarks of arbitrary mass.

Quantum or loop corrections to the effective action, in general or specific background fields, are of fundamental importance in field-theoretic studies of many physical processes. The most well-known example is the exact one-loop QED effective action for electrons in a uniform electromagnetic field background, computed first by Euler and Heisenberg and many others since : this provides us with valuable information on the vacuum polarization phenomenon and on the electron-positron pair production from the vacuum. Also interesting physical effects have been demonstrated by studying the one-loop correction to the effective action in a soliton or instanton background .

In four-dimensional field theory contexts, however, the exact computation of the one-loop effective action in any non-trivial background field generally corresponds to a formidable mathematical problem. A well-known approximation scheme in this regard is the so-called derivative expansion of the effective action, which may be used for a sufficiently smooth background field. In this paper, we discuss the possibility of utilizing a large mass expansion (for which simple computer algorithms have been developed recently) and mass interpolation to find the one-loop effective action for an arbitrary mass parameter. Euclidean four-dimensional space-time is assumed below.

To explain our approach, consider the one-loop effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ for a complex spin-0 field of mass $`m`$ in some Yang-Mills background fields $`A_\mu ^a(x)`$. The quadratic differential operator appropriate to the scalar field is

$$G^1+m^2=D_\mu D_\mu +m^2(D^2+m^2)$$
(1)
(with $`D_\mu =_\mu iA_\mu ^aT^a_\mu iA_\mu `$), and the corresponding background-free one is $`G_0^1+m^2=^2+m^2`$. The Pauli-Villars regularized form of the effective action can then be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Det}(G^1+m^2)}{\mathrm{Det}(G_0^1+m^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Det}(G_0^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{Det}(G^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}}\right]`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}(e^{m^2s}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2s}){\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{tr}\left[<xs|x><xs|x>|_{A_\mu =0}\right]}.`$
Here the second expression is the Schwinger proper-time representation which involves the coincidence limit of the proper-time Green function, $`<xs|y><x|e^{sG^1}|y>`$. The latter admits the small-$`s`$ asymptotic expansion of the form

$$s0+:<xs|y>=\frac{1}{(4\pi s)^2}e^{\frac{(xy)^2}{4s}}\left\{\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}s^na_n(x,y)\right\},$$
(3)
with $`a_0(x,x)=1`$.

Using the expansion (3) in (2), one finds that the divergent terms of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ are related to the first and second Seeley-DeWitt coefficients, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_1(x)\mathrm{tr}a_1(x,x)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_2(x)\mathrm{tr}a_2(x,x)`$. Simple calculations yield

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_1(x)=0,\stackrel{~}{a}_2(x)=\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{tr}(F_{\mu \nu }(x)F_{\mu \nu }(x)),$$
(4)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^aT^a=i[D_\mu ,D_\nu ]`$. Hence the above effective action can be cast as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)=\frac{1}{12}\frac{C}{(4\pi )^2}(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2})d^4xF_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(A),$$
(5)
($`C`$ is defined by $`\mathrm{tr}(T^aT^b)=\delta _{ab}C`$), where the amplitude

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(A)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s^3}e^{m^2s}d^4x\left[1\left(1+s\frac{}{s}+\frac{1}{2}s^2\frac{^2}{s^2}\right)|_{s=0}\right]\mathrm{tr}\left(s^2<xs|x>\right)$$
(6)
is well-defined as long as $`m^20`$. \[In (6), $`(1+s\frac{}{s}+\frac{1}{2}s^2\frac{^2}{s^2})|_{s=0}f(s)f(0)+sf^{}(0)+\frac{1}{2}s^2f^{\prime \prime }(0)`$\]. The logarithmic divergence in (5) is canceled by the renormalization counterterm associated with the coupling constant renormalization of the classical action $`\frac{1}{4g_0^2}d^4xF_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a`$. But the result is renormalization-prescription dependent. In fact, our amplitude $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(A)`$ in (6) can be viewed as a renormalized one-loop effective action for $`m^20`$. If one instead adds to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ the counterterm $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)=\frac{1}{12}\frac{C}{(4\pi )^2}(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2})d^4xF_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a`$ ($`\mu `$ is an arbitrarily introduced renormalization mass), the resulting renormalized one-loop effective action reads

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(A)=\frac{1}{12}\frac{C}{(4\pi )^2}(\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2})d^4xF_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(A),$$
(7)
which has now a well-defined limit even for $`m^20`$. For the expression in the minimal subtraction in the dimensional regularization scheme, a further finite renormalization counterterm should be introduced. These differences in the renormalized expressions reflect different ways of defining the renormalized coupling.

The next task will be to find the full finite amplitude for the one-loop effective action; for any non-trivial background field, this is very difficult. If the mass $`m`$ is relatively large, however, a large-mass expansion obtained by inserting the asymptotic series (3) into (6) can be useful:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(A)=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}\underset{n=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(n3)!}{(m^2)^{n2}}d^4x\stackrel{~}{a}_n(x),(\stackrel{~}{a}_n(x)\mathrm{tr}a_n(x,x)).$$
(8)
For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(A)`$, one may use the formula (7) together with this expansion. Thus, for relatively large mass, the one-loop effective action can be approximated by a series involving higher-order Seeley-DeWitt coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{a}_n(x)`$ ($`n3`$), for which computer algorithms are now available. The useful range of this expansion, as regards the magnitude of $`m`$, will depend much on the nature of the background field and on the characteristic scale entering the background.

In this work we are interested in the one-loop effective action in some physically important background as a function of mass parameter $`m`$. Even for a simple background field, it will not be possible to infer the complete $`m`$-dependence on the basis of the series(8) alone; the series loses the predictive power for ‘small’ values of $`m`$. Actually, as we shall see below, this large mass expansion (truncated at certain order) appears to provide a surprisingly good approximation even for only moderately large values of $`m`$. Then, if the effective action in the small mass limit became known by independent methods (possibly exploiting certain symmetry present in the zero mass case), one may hope that a reliable interpolation between the small-mass and relatively large-mass expressions could be made to obtain a reasonable fit over the entire mass values. Below, we shall first test this idea with the constant Yang-Mills field strength background case for which the exact one-loop effective action is known. The same method will then be applied to the case of significant interest—we estimate the one-loop instanton contribution to the QCD vacuum tunneling  by quarks of arbitrary mass. The QCD vacuum tunneling amplitude due to quarks of vanishingly small mass was calculated analytically by ’tHooft; this result may be relevant to $`u`$\- and $`d`$-quarks, but not for others.

In the case of non-Abelian gauge theories, a constant field strength can be realized either by an Abelian vector potential which varies linearly with $`x^\mu `$ or by a constant vector potential whose components do not commute. In this paper we only consider the case of the Abelian vector potential. Assuming SU(2) gauge group, an Abelian vector potential can then be written as $`A_\mu =\frac{1}{4}f_{\mu \nu }x_\nu \tau _3`$ (with the field strength tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }=f_{\mu \nu }\tau _3/2`$), where $`\tau ^3`$ is the third Pauli matrix. If we further restrict our attention to the self-dual case, we can set $`f_{23}=f_{41}=H`$ with the constant ‘magnetic’ field $`H`$.

In this Abelian constant self-dual field, let us consider the one-loop effective action induced by isospin-1/2, spin-0 matter fields, taking the mass $`m`$ of our spin-0 fields to be relatively large so that the large mass expansion (8) may be used. From the result of , some leading Seeley-DeWitt coefficients are easily evaluated for this case:

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_4(x)=\frac{2}{15}(H/2)^4,\stackrel{~}{a}_6(x)=\frac{4}{189}(H/2)^6,\stackrel{~}{a}_8(x)=\frac{2}{675}(H/2)^8$$
(9)
\[Note that we get zero for all odd coefficients here\]. Using these values, we then find for relatively large $`m`$ the expression

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(H;m)=\frac{VH^2}{8\pi ^2}\left(\frac{1}{240}(\frac{H}{m^2})^2\frac{1}{1008}(\frac{H}{m^2})^4+\frac{1}{1440}(\frac{H}{m^2})^6+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(10)
where $`V`$ denotes the four-dimensional Euclidean volume. For this case, it is actually not difficult to find the exact expression for the one-loop effective action, following rather closely Schwinger’s original analysis in QED: the result for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ (see (6)) turns out to be

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(H;m)=2V_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s}e^{m^2s}\frac{1}{(4\pi s)^2}\left[\frac{(Hs/2)^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(Hs/2)}1+\frac{1}{3}(Hs/2)^2\right].$$
(11)
Comparing the result of large mass expansion in (10) against this exact expression, we can investigate the validity range of the former. From the plots in Fig.1, it should be evident that for mass value in the range $`m/\sqrt{H}1`$, summing only a few leading terms in the series (10) already produces values which are very close to the exact ones.

Now suppose that the exact expression (11) were not available to us. For mass value which is not so large (i.e., if $`m/\sqrt{H}<1`$), large mass expansion (10) fails to give useful information. Nevertheless, if one happens to know the one-loop effective action for small mass, this additional information and the large mass expansion may well be used to infer the behavior of the effective action for general, small or large, mass. In exhibiting this, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(H;m)`$ will not be convenient since it becomes ill-defined as $`m0`$. So, based on the relation (7), we may consider the renormalized action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(H;m,\mu )`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(H;m,\mu )=\frac{VH^2}{(4\pi )^26}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2})+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(H;m).$$
(12)
which is well-behaved for small $`m`$. Large mass expansion for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(H;m,\mu )`$ results once if the expansion (10) is substituted in the right hand side of (12). On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(H;m,\mu )`$ has the small-$`m`$ expansion (which is extracted using (11)),

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(H;m=0,\mu )=VH^2(\frac{1}{(4\pi )6}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{H}+0.002090.00633(\frac{m^2}{H})+\mathrm{}).$$
(13)
In combining these two informations from different mass ranges, it is convenient to consider the $`\mu `$-independent quantity (especially for mass interpolation purpose)

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(H;m)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(H;m,\mu )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(H;m=0,\mu ).$$
(14)
In Fig.2, the graph for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(H;m)`$ has been given as a function of $`m/\sqrt{H}`$. The exact result, represented by a solid line, exhibits a monotonically decreasing behavior starting from the maximum at $`m/\sqrt{H}=0`$. As we mentioned already, the large mass expansion can be trusted in the range $`m/\sqrt{H}1`$. This curve may then be smoothly connected to that given from the small-$`m`$ expansion (13), assuming a monotonic behavior (as should be reasonable for a simple background field). Evidently, with this interpolation, one could have acquired a nice overall fit over the entire mass range if the exact curve were not known.

Now turn to the case of a BPST instanton background, i.e., a self-dual solution of Yang-Mills field equations given by

$$A_\mu (x)A_\mu ^a(x)\frac{\tau ^a}{2}=\frac{\eta _{\mu \nu a}^{(+)}\tau _ax_\nu }{x^2+\rho ^2},$$
(15)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu a}^{(+)}(a=1,2,3)`$ are the so-called ’tHooft symbols. With QCD in mind, the effective action due to a spin-1/2 quark field (in the fundamental representation) with unspecified mass $`m`$ will be of special interest. Here we define the proper-time Green function by $`<xs|y>=<x|e^{s(\gamma _\mu D_\mu )^2}|y>`$ (our antihermitian $`\gamma `$-matrices satisfy the relations $`\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }`$), so that we may have the spin-1/2 one-loop effective action expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1/2)}(A)=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s}(e^{m^2s}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2s})d^4x\mathrm{tr}\left[<xs|x><xs|x>|_{A_\mu =0}\right].$$
(16)
For the corresponding $`\stackrel{~}{a}_2`$-coefficient, we have $`\stackrel{~}{a}_2=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{tr}(F_{\mu \nu }(x)F_{\mu \nu }(x))`$. So the renormalized one-loop effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}^{(1/2)}(A)`$—the direct spin-1/2 analogue of (7)—can be obtained if the counterterm $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)=\frac{1}{3}\frac{C}{(4\pi )^2}(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2})d^4xF_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is added to the unrenormalized expression (16). Note that if the Dirac operator $`\gamma _\mu D_\mu `$ possesses normalizable zero modes , the renormalized quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}^{(1/2)}(A)`$ is still infrared divergent at $`m^2=0`$. Actually, based on the hidden supresymmetry present in a self-dual Yang-Mills background, it is possible to derive a following simple relationship existing between the spin-1/2 and spin-0 one-loop effective actions:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}^{(1/2)}(A)=\frac{1}{2}n_F\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\right)2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(A),$$
(17)
or, for the respective contributions to the tunneling amplitude,

$$e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}^{(1/2)}(A)}=\left(\frac{m}{\mu }\right)^{n_F}e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(A)}.$$
(18)
Here, $`n_F`$ is the number of normalizable spinor zero modes in the given self-dual Yang-Mills background, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(A)`$ the corresponding one-loop effective action(defined in accordance with (7) above) for a ‘spin-0 quark’ of the same mass $`m`$. Due to this relationship, our problem is again reduced to that of a spin-0 field.(To obtain the spin-1/2 one-loop effective action in the minimal subtraction in the dimensional regularization scheme, the finite renormalization counterterm $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)^{}=\frac{C}{(4\pi )^23}(\mathrm{ln}4\pi \gamma )d^4xF_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a`$ ($`\gamma =0.5772\mathrm{}`$ is the Euler’s constant) must be added further to that of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}^{(1/2)}(A)`$.)

For relatively large mass $`m`$, the renormalized effective action for a spin-0 matter field in the instanton background (15) can be studied with the help of large-mass asymptotic series (8) for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. Note that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is a function of $`m\rho `$ only. The coefficient $`a_3(x,x)`$ is

$$a_3(x,x)=\frac{1}{120}D_\mu F_{\nu \lambda }D_\mu F_{\nu \lambda }\frac{i}{45}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\nu \lambda }F_{\lambda \mu },$$
(19)
and so, for the instanton background (15), we obtain the result $`d^4x\stackrel{~}{a}_3(x)=\frac{16}{75}\frac{\pi ^2}{\rho ^2}`$. Calculations of higher-order Seeley-DeWitt coefficients with the instanton background can be very laborious.(For $`a_6(x,x)`$ for instance, the full expression occupies more than a page). Together with the formulas given in ref., we have thus used the ”Mathematica” program to do the necessary trace calculations and also tensor algebra. The results are as follows:

$`{\displaystyle d^4x\stackrel{~}{a}_4(x)}={\displaystyle \frac{272}{735}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{\rho ^4}},{\displaystyle d^4x\stackrel{~}{a}_5(x)}={\displaystyle \frac{1856}{2835}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{\rho ^6}},{\displaystyle d^4x\stackrel{~}{a}_6(x)}={\displaystyle \frac{63328}{444675}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{\rho ^8}}.`$ (20)
From these we obtain the following expression for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(m\rho )`$:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(m\rho )=\frac{1}{75}\frac{1}{m^2\rho ^2}\frac{17}{735}\frac{1}{m^4\rho ^4}+\frac{232}{2835}\frac{1}{m^6\rho ^6}\frac{7916}{148225}\frac{1}{m^8\rho ^8}+\mathrm{}$$
(21)
Plotting this expression (first keeping only the $`a_3`$-term, then including the $`a_4`$-term also, etc), we find that the curve is quite stable if $`m\rho 1.5`$. (See Fig.3). The result of large mass expansion may thus be trusted in the mass range given by $`m\rho 1.5`$.

To compare the above findings with the small-mass expression, we again consider the renormalized effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(A)`$, which is denoted in the instanton background (15) by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(m,\rho ,\mu )`$. From (7), we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(m,\rho ,\mu )=\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m}{\mu }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(m\rho ).$$
(22)
Then, from the computations of ’tHooft and of ref., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(m,\rho ,\mu )`$ for sufficiently small values of $`m\rho `$ is approximated by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(m,\rho ,\mu )=\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{ln}\mu \rho +\alpha (\frac{1}{2})+\frac{1}{2}(m\rho )^2\mathrm{ln}m\rho +\mathrm{}$$
(23)
with $`\alpha (\frac{1}{2})=\frac{1}{6}\gamma +\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{ln}\pi \frac{1}{\pi ^2}\zeta ^{}(2)\frac{17}{72}`$, where $`\zeta ^{}(s)`$ is the first derivative of Riemann zeta function. We also define the $`\mu `$-independent quantity

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(m\rho )`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(m,\rho ,\mu )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(0,\rho ,\mu )`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{ln}m\rho \alpha ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(m\rho ).`$
For sufficiently small $`m\rho `$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(m\rho )\frac{1}{2}(m\rho )^2\mathrm{ln}m\rho `$ ; but, for $`m\rho 1.5`$, a good approximation to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(m\rho )`$ results if (21) is used in the second form of (24). These small-mass and relatively large-mass expressions for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(m\rho )`$ are plotted in Fig.4.

Also included is the smooth interpolating curve connecting the two regions, assuming the monotonousness in the range $`0<m\rho 1.5`$. In view of a simple character of the background field (15) and the fact that $`m\rho `$ is the sole relevant variable for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, we believe that the latter assumption is very plausible. For further support on this, we need an improved approximation(i.e., beyond (23)) for small mass; this is left for future investigation. Besed on this interpolation, one might also go on to devise a simple functional form for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ren}}(m,\rho ,\mu )`$(approximately valid for any mass value) for phenomenological studies concerning instanton effects.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the BK 21 project of the Ministry of Education, Korea(O.K. and C.L.) and by KOSEF Grant 97-07-02-02-01-3(C.L.).


text:
# Theory for two-photon photoemission: transport and temperature effects

\[

## Abstract

Using a theory which treats on equal footing transport of excited electrons and electron-phonon scattering, we are able to explain the temperature dependence of the relaxation time in Cu as recently observed by Petek, Nagano, and Ogawa. We show that the unexpected increase of the relaxation time with temperature results from the drastic change of the electron motion due to the efficiency of electron-phonon scattering: the transport is ballistic at low temperature and gets diffusive at room temperature. Finally, our theory also reproduces the experimental measurements of the two-photon photoemission (2PPE) intensity as a function of the pump-probe delay.

\]

Due to advances in the ultrashort laser techniques, very efficient tools to study the dynamics of excited electrons in semiconductors and metals are available. One of the key methods is the time-resolved two-photon photoemission (TR 2PPE) which has the crucial advantage to allow a direct measurement of the variation of the electron distribution. Recent measurements on Cu have shown an unusual non-monotonic behavior of the relaxation time as a function of energy. Furthermore, an unexpected increase of the relaxation time with temperature was reported. We have recently developed a theory for the dynamics of excited electrons in metals, which explicitly includes the effect of secondary electrons, in contrast to ab-initio calculations of the electronic lifetime. It consists in solving a Boltzmann-type equation in the random-k approximation. Within our approach, we were able to reproduce the peak in the relaxation time at the right energy and a linear shift with photon frequency, in agreement with experiments. We have also analyzed in detail the structure and height of the peak and the role of secondary electrons, especially focussing on the Auger contribution and the $`d`$-hole lifetime.

To explain the observed temperature dependence, in this paper we extend our model by including effects of transport of excited electrons out of the detection region and electron-phonon scattering. Note that the temperature dependence of the relaxation time is striking, since on the basis of Fermi-liquid theory (FLT) one would expect only a very small decrease of $`\tau (E,T)=a_0/[(EE_F)^2+b(k_BT)^2]`$. Since $`b`$ is of oder 1 and $`k_BT`$ is much smaller than $`EE_F`$, the reduction is insignificant for excited electrons of energy of order 1 eV. But if one assumes that electron-phonon collisions are efficient enough to change the nature of the transport from a regime almost ballistic at low temperature to a diffusive regime at room temperature, then one should expect a longer relaxation time at higher temperature. This is supported by the observation that ballistic transport strongly reduces the relaxation time.

Let us now describe the theoretical approach we use. The temporal variation of the occupation of a level of energy $`E`$ and momentum k at distance $`z`$ from the surface is described by a Boltzmann-type equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f(E,𝐤,z)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f}{t}}\right]_{opt}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f}{t}}\right]_{ee}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f}{t}}\right]_{transp}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f}{t}}\right]_{eph},`$ (2)
where respectively the first term corresponds to the optical excitation, the second one describes the electron-electron scattering, the third is the ballistic transport and the fourth is the electron-phonon scattering. The transport term is given by

$$\left[\frac{f}{t}\right]_{transp}=v_z\frac{f}{z}.$$
(3)
Here, $`v_z`$ is the $`z`$-component of the electron velocity. We only consider transport in the $`z`$-direction, because the diameter of the laser spot is much larger than the optical penetration depth. Detailed expressions for $`\left[\frac{f}{t}\right]_{ee}`$ in the random-k approximation (including secondary-electron generation) and for the optical excitation term $`\left[\frac{f}{t}\right]_{opt}`$ are given in Ref. . To derive the electron-phonon scattering term, we first consider the general expression, neglecting the transfer of energy to the lattice. The exchange of energy between the lattice and the hot electrons starts to get really effective only after $`0.5`$ ps, which is not the regime we consider here. Also, in noble metals there is only one acoustic branch (1 atom/unit cell), and an upper bound for the phonon-energy average is $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ph}k_BT_D`$, where $`T_D`$ is the Debye temperature. For Cu $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ph}20`$ meV, which can be neglected since it is small enough compared to the excited-electron energy ($`1`$ eV). On the other hand, large transfer of momentum is allowed, since the Debye cut-off is of order $`k_Da\pi `$ ($`a`$ is the lattice spacing). This is a crucial point in our theory, because only large momentum transfer will efficiently change the direction of propagation of the electrons. Let us then express within these simplifications, the electron-phonon scattering contribution in the random-k approximation:

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f(E,𝐤)}{t}}\right]_{eph}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐤^{}}{4\pi }[1f(E,𝐤^{})]f(E,𝐤)}`$ (5)
$`+\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐤^{}}{4\pi }f(E,𝐤^{})[1f(E,𝐤)]},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}|g|^2(2n+1)\rho (E_F)`$ is the electron-phonon scattering rate. $`\rho (E_F)`$ is the density of states at the Fermi surface, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐤^{}`$ denotes the solid angle, and $`n=\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{}\omega _{ph}/(k_BT)\right]1\right\}^1`$ denotes the thermal average of the phonon occupation. Additionally we assume that the coupling function $`g`$ is constant. Noticing that $`k_BT\mathrm{}\omega _{ph}`$, we get the well-known formula

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}\lambda k_BT,$$
(6)
where $`\lambda =2|g|^2\rho (E_f)/(\mathrm{}\omega _{ph})`$ is the so-called electron-phonon mass enhancement factor. The last step in evaluating Eq. (5) is to make the substitutions $`f(E,𝐤)f(E,v)`$, where $`v`$ is the $`z`$-component of the velocity, and $`\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐤^{}}{4\pi }[1f(E,𝐤^{})]\frac{1}{N}_j[1f(E,v_j)]`$.

The 2PPE intensity is calculated as the convolution of the probe laser intensity $`P(t)`$ with the distribution of excited electrons in the vicinity of the surface:

$`I^{2\mathrm{P}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{E}}(E,\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tP(t\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ (8)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dze^{z/\lambda _{\mathrm{esc}}}f(E,z,t),`$
where $`\lambda _{\mathrm{esc}}=1.6`$ nm is the escape depth taken from overlayer experiments. The effective relaxation time $`\tau `$ is extracted from the 2PPE intensity as a function of pump-probe delay, as in experiments.

In order to allow a direct comparison between our calculations and the available experimental data we also use in the calculations a laser pulse of duration $`12`$ fs and energy $`3.1`$ eV. For Cu, we use 15 nm for the optical penetration depth and $`v_t=1.8\mathrm{nm}/\mathrm{fs}`$ for the transport velocity. We chose $`\tau _h=35`$ fs for the $`d`$-hole lifetime, since it was shown in a previous study that this provides a good order of magnitude for the height of the peak in the relaxation time in Cu. This is also in agreement with two independent experimental measurements which have suggested a lower bound of order $`25`$ fs. We have no other free parameter, since the parameter $`\lambda `$ which enters in the electron-phonon scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ was measured to be $`\lambda 0.15`$. Note, by using Eq. (6) one can already get an insight of the effect of the electron-phonon collisions on the transport: at $`T=300`$ K the average time between two elastic collisions is $`\tau _{eph}=1/\mathrm{\Gamma }30`$ fs, in agreement with the value extracted from resistivity measurements ($`\tau _{eph}=27`$ fs). However, at $`T=50`$ K, we get $`\tau _{eph}170`$ fs. Thus, since an excited electron at $`1`$ eV has a relaxation time of order $`\tau _e=50`$ fs, one expects almost no effect on transport due to electron-phonon scattering at $`T=50`$ K, because $`\tau _{eph}\tau _e`$. In contrast, at $`T=300`$ K, one has $`\tau _{eph}\tau _e`$, and thus the phonons will be very effective in changing the nature of the transport.

In Fig. 1 we have plotted both the 2PPE intensity $`I^{2\mathrm{P}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{E}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t=0)`$ and the relaxation time $`\tau `$ at $`T=300`$ K and $`T=50`$ K as a function of energy. We compare our results with the experimental data of Ref. . First, the 2PPE intensity in both theoretical and experimental data compare quite well. A pronounced peak due to transitions from the $`d`$ band appears at $`EE_F=0.9`$ eV and is followed by a sharp threshold at around 1.1 eV. At low energy, we again observe an increase of the 2PPE signal. Second, the data for the relaxation time show a surprisingly good agreement: i) the positions of the peak and the dip in the relaxation time are identical; ii) the structure is similar, although the height of the peak is larger in our calculation, which could indicate that the $`d`$-hole lifetime $`\tau _h`$ could be smaller than the value of 35 fs considered here; iii) the magnitude of the change due to the temperature is the same. For example, at $`E=0.6\mathrm{eV}`$ and $`300\mathrm{K}`$ we get for both the experimental and calculated relaxation time $`\tau _{exp}=175\mathrm{fs}`$ and $`\tau _{th}=170\mathrm{fs}`$, while at $`50\mathrm{K}`$ we find $`\tau _{exp}=105\mathrm{fs}`$ and $`\tau _{th}=110\mathrm{fs}`$. This agreement is surprisingly good. As expected at sufficiently high energy $`EE_F>1.5\mathrm{eV}`$ the relaxation time is almost unaffected, since the excited-electron lifetime is smaller in both cases than $`\tau _{eph}`$.

In Fig. 2 we compare the 2PPE intensity as a function of the pump-probe delay with the data from Ref. . One can observe a strong temperature dependence, especially at low energy. Again we get very good agreement for both the quantitative and qualitative aspects. Note that the experimental results include a peak at $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0`$, which is absent in the calculations because our theory does not include coherent effects. So one should compare the data for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t<20`$ fs. First, at low energy up to 0.7 eV, in both cases a clear delayed rise is observed at $`T=300`$ K. Second, the magnitude of the temperature effect agrees surprisingly well with the experimental data. It is more pronounced at low energy and decreases with increasing energy. In a very small window of energy around 1.1 eV (just above the $`d`$-band threshold), we observe a reappearance of the delayed peak accompanied by a slight new increase of the temperature dependence. The increase at 1.1 eV was also noted in Ref. , although the delayed rise seems to be absent. It is also interesting to remark that such a rise could be observed for the first time, since a sufficiently short laser pulse was used. This rise is in fact a signature of the presence of secondary electrons.

To illustrate the reason why the effect of temperature is so strong, let us analyze the motion of the excited-electron distribution as a function of time. As a measure for the penetration of electrons into the bulk, we define the average distance from the surface, $`z(t)`$:

$$z(t)=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zzN(z,t)}{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zN(z,t)},$$
(9)
where $`N(z,t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E\rho (E)f(E,z,t)`$ is the average number of excited electrons at distance $`z`$ and time $`t`$. In Fig. 3, we have plotted $`z(t)`$ at different temperatures, $`T=0`$, 50, and 300 K. Clearly we observe that at $`T=0`$ and 50 K, the motion of the excited electrons is ballistic. At $`T=50`$ K, a small deviation from the linear behavior appears around $`t200`$ fs, which is of the order of magnitude of $`\tau _{eph}=170`$ fs. We get for the average velocity $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/\mathrm{\Delta }tv_t/2`$, where the factor 1/2 can be understood easily by considering the average of the velocity in $`z`$ direction. However, the nature of the motion has drastically changed at $`T=300`$ K: the motion is now diffusive. We illustrate this by fitting the data with $`z=\sqrt{D(tt_0)}`$, which is expected in the case of diffusive motion. An offset $`t_0`$ is introduced in order to take into account the finite duration of the laser pulse generating excited electrons. We get $`D=32\mathrm{nm}^2/\mathrm{fs}`$, which agrees very well with the expression for the electronic diffusion coefficient $`D=v_tl_e/3=29\mathrm{nm}^2/\mathrm{fs}`$, where $`l_e=v_t\tau _{eph}`$ is the electronic mean free path. It is interesting to note that at $`t=0.5`$ ps the excited electrons have already reached an average distance of 120 nm, about ten times larger than the optical penetration depth. This is in agreement with a value of 100 nm used to describe the initial spatial distribution of excited electrons in the two-temperature model. Such a model does not describe the thermalization of the electron gas and starts to be valid only after $`t0.5`$ ps. Thus, one has to add $`z(t=0.5\mathrm{ps})`$ to the optical penetration depth.

To conclude, we have presented a theoretical model including both transport and electron-phonon scattering which is able to reproduce the temperature dependence of the relaxation time. It is shown that this variation is due to a drastic change of the excited-electron motion, which is ballistic at low temperature and gets diffusive at room temperature. Note that the correct order of magnitude of the temperature effect is obtained without using free parameters: the electron-phonon scattering rate was directly taken from experimental data. Furthermore, we also observe at low energy a delayed rise in the 2PPE intensity and an increase due to temperature in agreement with the experimental results. As a final remark, we have provided a very efficient method to describe the excited-electron dynamics in the short-time regime, where electron-phonon energy transfer is negligible (below $`0.5`$ ps). The results obtained here indicate that it is promising to use our extended model to study other problems, in particular the dynamics of excited electrons involving transport effects in the regime where electron-lattice energy transfer becomes relevant. So far, the only method available for this purpose is the two-temperature model, which is not always reliable. The present theory is also suitable for the study of thin films, which offer the possibility to probe the effect of transport. Our paper shows how new information about the dynamics of excited electrons in solids can be extracted from 2PPE.

We would like to thank H. Petek, M. Aeschlimann, E. Matthias, and H. C. Siegmann for interesting discussions and helpful comments. Financial support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Sfb 290 and 450, is gratefully acknowledged.