text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a series of recent papers a Hamiltonian analysis of Yang-Mills theories in (2+1) dimensions was developed . This was mainly motivated by the fact that, while it is true that gauge theories of direct physical interest are in (3+1) dimensions, the study of Yang-Mills gauge theories in two spatial dimensions can be useful for two reasons. It can be a guide to the more realistic case of three dimensions, and secondly, gauge theories in two spatial dimensions can be interpreted as an approximation to the high-temperature phase of QCD with the mass gap playing the role of the magnetic mass. (It should be pointed out that, precisely for these reasons, there have been many analyses of (2+1)-dimensional gauge theories starting from the early days .) In this paper, we shall start a similar Hamiltonian analysis of Yang-Mills theories in (3+1) dimensions, carrying over some of the lessons from the lower dimensional analysis.

In the (2+1) dimensional theory, the $`A_0=0`$ gauge was chosen and the complex components of the spatial gauge field, viz., $`A_z,A_{\overline{z}}`$ were parametrized as $`A_z=_zMM^1`$, $`A_{\overline{z}}=M^1_{\overline{z}}M^{}`$, where $`M,M^{}`$ are $`SL(N,𝐂)`$-matrices for an $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory. The basic gauge-invariant variable for the theory is then the hermitian matrix field $`H=M^{}M`$. This particular parametrization of the potentials proved to be very useful since the Jacobian for the transformation of variables and the volume element on space of gauge-invariant configurations could be exactly calculated. This invariant volume measure on the physical configuration space, which also determines the inner products for wavefunctions, is given in terms of the Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) action for the field $`H`$ . Considerations of integrable representations of the WZW model then showed that normalizable wavefunctions are functions of the current $`J=(N/\pi )_zHH^1`$. In other words, the wavefunctions have to be more restricted than being just functions of $`H`$; they can only depend on $`H`$ via the specific combination in $`J`$. The regularized kinetic energy operator, which is the Laplacian on this infinite-dimensional configuration space, is given in terms of functional derivatives with respect to $`J`$; the potential energy can also be written in terms of $`J`$ . The vacuum wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ of the theory was obtained by solving the (functional) Schrödinger equation in the approximation of keeping all terms in $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ which are quadratic in $`J`$, with a systematic expansion for the higher order terms. The vacuum wavefunction agrees with perturbation theory for the high momentum modes. The expectation value of the Wilson loop operator and hence the string tension were calculated . The values for the string tension agree within $`3\%`$ of recent Monte Carlo evaluations . Finally, the propagating particles in the perturbative regime can be shown to have a mass $`m=e^2N/2\pi `$. This may be taken as a prediction for the magnetic mass of gluons in high temperature QCD . This result compares favorably with resummation calculations of this quantity  and with lattice estimates, keeping in mind that this is a difficult lattice calculation as well . Finally, these techniques can also be extended to the Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons theory .

While this Hamiltonian analysis still leaves many open questions, it is fair to claim that some progress in understanding the (2+1)-dimensional case has indeed been achieved. It is worth noting that the vacuum wavefunction which was obtained, irrespective of the calculations preceding it, has the desirable features of agreeing with the perturbative vacuum wavefunction in the high momentum limit and giving an area law for the Wilson loop with a string tension which agrees closely with the lattice calculations. Therefore, further study along these lines, in particular exploring a similar strategy in (3+1) dimensions, is warranted.

In section 2, we will introduce the parametrization of the gauge potentials in terms of the matrix variables. The calculation of the volume measure of the configuration space (and hence the inner product for wavefunctions) is taken up in section 3. Section 4 gives some remarks on this result and, by comparison with $`(2+1)`$-dimensional Yang-Mills theory, makes a rough estimate of the ratio of $`M_{0^{++}}/\sqrt{\sigma }`$ where $`M_{0^{++}}`$ is the mass of the $`0^{++}`$ glueball and $`\sigma `$ is the string tension.

## 2 The parametrization of the gauge potentials

We shall discuss an $`SU(N)`$-gauge theory and also choose the gauge $`A_0=0`$, as is convenient for a Hamiltonian formulation. The remaining gauge potentials can be written as $`A_i=it^aA_i^a`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, where $`t^a`$ are hermitian $`(N\times N)`$-matrices which form a basis of the Lie algebra of $`SU(N)`$ with $`[t^a,t^b]=if^{abc}t^c,\mathrm{Tr}(t^at^b)=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}`$.

We start by recalling that the key ingredients of the (2+1) dimensional analysis were the following:

1. the parametrization of the potentials in terms of the matrix $`M`$ which allowed the realization of gauge transformations in a homogeneous way, $`M^g=gM`$.
2. the calculation of the gauge-invariant measure on the configuration space.
3. evaluation of the Hamiltonian in terms of these gauge-invariant variables.
4. solving the functional Schrödinger equation for the vacuum wave function.
5. calculating the string tension and other quantities of interest.

The study of the first two steps in (3+1) dimensions will be taken up in this paper. Let $`𝒜`$ denote the set of all gauge potentials $`A_i^a`$. Gauge transformations act on $`A_i`$ in the standard way, $`A_iA_i^g`$, where

$$A_i^{(g)}=gA_ig^1_igg^1$$
(1)
and $`g(\stackrel{}{x})SU(N)`$. The gauge group $`𝒢_{}`$ is defined by

$$𝒢_{}=\{\mathrm{set}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{all}g(\stackrel{}{x}):𝐑^3SU(N),g1\mathrm{as}|\stackrel{}{x}|\mathrm{}\}$$
(2)
The space of gauge-invariant field configurations is $`𝒞=𝒜/𝒢_{}`$. A parametrization of the gauge potentials is equivalent to choosing coordinates on the configurations space. Since the space $`𝒞`$ has nontrivial topology, any parametrization is restricted to some open region. We use a parametrization in a region which includes $`A=0`$ and calculate (approximately) the volume measure of $`𝒞`$ for this region. (Not surprisingly, the geometry and topology of the Yang-Mills configuration space in three spatial dimensions have also been studied by a number of authors, see references . For a recent summary and new results on the metric, see .)

Going back to $`YM_{2+1}`$, we start by asking why it is possible to parametrize $`A_z`$ as $`_zMM^1`$. Notice that this parametrization may be written as $`(_z+A_z)M=0`$ and one can convert it to an integral equation

$`M(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle _x^{}}S(x,x^{})A_z(x^{})M(x^{})`$
$`_zS(x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{(2)}(xx^{})`$ (3)
With this equation, we see that, at least iteratively, we can find an $`M`$ for each given $`A_z`$. This establishes a mapping $`A_zM`$. (There are much more elegant and more general ways to justify the parametrization $`A_z=_zMM^1`$, but this simple argument is most suitable for what follows .) Notice that the key ingredient is the invertibility of $`_z`$. The first term involving $`A`$ in a series expansion for $`M`$, namely, $`(_z)^1A_z`$, is a complex matrix which is traceless since $`A_z`$ has no trace. It is thus an element of the Lie algebra of $`SL(N,𝐂)`$, showing that $`M`$ can be taken to be in $`SL(N,𝐂)`$. Conversely, $`M`$ contains $`\mathrm{dim}[SL(N,𝐂)]=2\times \mathrm{dim}[SU(N)]`$ independent functions corresponding exactly to the number of independent functions needed for the potential, $`A_i,i=1,2`$, therefore one has the map $`MA_z`$ as well.

Since $`_z`$ is the chiral Dirac operator in two dimensions, the invertibility of $`_z`$ is equivalent to the existence of the propagator for the chiral Dirac theory. In three Euclidean dimensions, which is appropriate for the (3+1)-dimensional theory, there is no chirality, but we can use the Dirac operator $`\sigma `$ where $`\sigma _i,i=1,2,3,`$ are the Pauli matrices. We then define a matrix $`M`$ by

$$\left(\sigma +\sigma A\right)M=0$$
(4)
On such a matrix $`M`$, gauge transformations act by $`MM^g=gM`$, where $`g`$ is an element of $`SU(N)`$. Equation (4) has the formal inversion

$$M(x)=1_y\left(\frac{1}{\sigma }\right)_{xy}\sigma A(y)M(y)$$
(5)
where

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma }}\right)_{xy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{i\sigma p}{p^2}e^{ip(xy)}}`$
$`=`$ $`\sigma _xG(x,y)`$
$`G(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{p^2}e^{ip(xy)}}`$ (6)
To first order in the $`A`$’s, the solution for $`M`$ is then

$`M`$ $``$ $`1it^a\theta ^a+\sigma _it^a{\displaystyle _y}G(x,y)ϵ_{ijk}_jA_k^a(y)`$
$`\theta ^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _y}G(x,y)A^a(y)`$ (7)
The term $`it^a\theta ^a`$ on the right hand side of expression (7) for $`M`$ can be removed by a gauge transformation of the form $`M\mathrm{exp}(it^a\theta ^a)M`$, consistent with the fact that $`A`$ represents the gauge degree of freedom, to linear order in $`A`$. The last term shows that the infinitesimal generators, for whatever group $`M`$ belongs to, must include $`\sigma _it^a`$, which are a subset of generators of $`SU(2N,𝐂)`$. Completion of the algebra under commutation rules shows that we need all of $`SU(2N,𝐂)`$. Thus generally we must take $`M`$ to be an element of $`SU(2N,𝐂)`$. Equation (4) thus gives a map $`AMSU(2N,𝐂)`$.

An arbitrary element of $`SU(2N,𝐂)`$ will contain $`2\times (4N^21)`$ parameter functions. Thus arbitrary $`SU(2N,𝐂)`$-matrix functions $`M`$ contain too many parameters to give a faithful coordinatization of a region of $`𝒜`$, we will need to use constraints on $`M`$. We will now work out the required constraints. For most of what follows, it is convenient to use $`U(2N)`$ rather than $`SU(2N)`$. We define the set of hermitian matrices $`\{t^A\},A=1,2,\mathrm{},4N^2`$ as the set $`\{1t^a,\sigma _it^a\}`$, $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},N^2`$. $`t^a`$ are taken as $`(N\times N)`$ hermitian matrices normalized by $`\mathrm{Tr}t^at^b=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}`$. $`\{it^a\}`$ form an antihermitian basis for $`U(N)`$ embedded in $`U(2N)`$. The set of matrices $`\{it^A,t^A\}`$ form a basis for the Lie lagebra of $`U(2N,𝐂)`$. The normalization condition for the $`t^A`$ is $`\mathrm{Tr}t^At^B=\delta ^{AB}`$; they further obey the completeness relation $`t_{mn}^At_{pq}^A=\delta _{np}\delta _{mq}`$.

Now let $`M`$ be an arbitrary $`U(2N,𝐂)`$ matrix. We can then expand

$$\sigma MM^1=i\varphi ^at^a+i\sigma A^at^a$$
(8)
where $`\varphi ^a,A_i^a`$ are in general complex functions. If we were to start from real $`A_i^a`$ and use equation (4), then $`\varphi ^a`$ in (8) would be zero. Thus, to eliminate unwanted degrees of freedom starting from an arbitrary $`M`$, we must impose the conditions $`A_i^a\overline{A}_i^a=0,\varphi ^a=0`$. These are equivalent to

$`\mathrm{Tr}(t^a\sigma MM^1)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (9)
$`_i(M^{}\sigma _iM)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (10)
The only remaining degree of freedom in $`M`$ then corresponds to the real part of $`A_i^a`$ which is the $`U(N)`$-gauge potential.

It is instructive to work out these conditions for $`M`$ close to the identity. Writing $`M1+it^a\phi ^a+i\sigma _it^a\mathrm{\Theta }_i^a`$, we find

$$\sigma MM^1=it^a_i\mathrm{\Theta }_i^a+i\sigma _kt^a\left(_k\phi ^a+iϵ_{ijk}_i\mathrm{\Theta }_j^a\right)$$
(11)
Imposing the constraint (10) on this, and separating out the real and imaginary parts of the functions, we get

$`_i(\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Theta }_i^a)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`_i(\mathrm{Im}\phi ^a)+ϵ_{ijk}_j\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Theta }_k^a`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (12)
The second of these equations gives the Laplace equation for $`\mathrm{Im}\phi ^a`$, namely, $`^2\mathrm{Im}\phi ^a=0`$, so that with proper boundary conditions, we can take $`\mathrm{Im}\phi ^a=0`$. Further, we find $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Theta }_i^a=_i\xi ^a`$ for some scalar functions $`\xi ^a`$. Putting this back into (11) and comparing with (8) we find

$`A_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`_i\phi ^aϵ_{ijk}_j\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Theta }_k^a`$
$`\varphi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`^2\xi ^a`$ (13)
The constraint (9) eliminates $`\varphi ^a`$ (or $`\xi ^a`$). The functions $`\phi ^a`$ (which are now real) represent the gauge degrees of freedom. The gauge invariant degrees of freedom are given by $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Theta }_i^a`$, which are only two polarizations ($`2\times N^2`$ functions) because of the condition $`_i(\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Theta }_i^a)=0`$ in (12). It is rather well known that an Abelian gauge potential can be parametrized in the form given in (13), $`A_i=_i\phi ϵ_{ijk}_j\mathrm{\Theta }_k`$ with $`_i\mathrm{\Theta }_i=0`$. Near the zero potential, a similar parametrization will apply to the $`U(N)`$ potentials as well; equation (13) is just this, with the required $`N^2`$ replication of the functions.

Since $`M=1`$ corresponds to the zero potential, the above analysis shows that an arbitrary $`U(2N,𝐂)`$-matrix $`M`$, subject to the conditions (9, 10), does give a faithful coordinatization of $`𝒜`$ for a region containing the zero potential. For, given any $`A`$, we can generate a corresponding $`M`$ by solving (4) and conversely, given any $`M`$ subject to (9, 10), we get a general gauge potential with the correct number of degrees of freedom. How much of $`𝒜`$ or $`𝒞`$ can be covered by this parametrization is a very valid and interesting question; at this stage there is no clear answer to this. This is also evidently related to the question of Gribov ambiguities and other topological issues for $`𝒞`$ . In the (2+1)-dimensional case, a similar question arises for the parametrization $`A_z=_zMM^1`$. In that case, there is an ambiguity in $`M`$ for a given $`A`$, namely, $`M`$ and $`MV(\overline{z})`$ give the same $`A`$; by ensuring invariance under this holomorphic symmetry for all physical quantities, at least some of the difficulties of transitions from one coordinate patch to another could be circumvented .

## 3 The volume measure

We now turn to the calculation of the volume measure on the configuration space. In terms of the fields $`\varphi ^a`$, $`A_i^a`$ given in (8), introduce the Euclidean metric

$$ds^2=d^3x\left(\delta \overline{A}_i^a\delta A_i^a+\delta \overline{\varphi }^a\delta \varphi ^a\right)$$
(14)
For the gauge potential of interest which is the real part of $`A_i^a`$, this is the Euclidean metric which is precisely the metric of interest for the gauge theory. The Euclidean volume measure for the real part of $`A_i^a`$ can be written as

$$[d\mathrm{Re}A_i^a]=[dA]\delta (A_i^a\overline{A}_i^a)\delta (\varphi ^a)\delta (\overline{\varphi }^a)$$
(15)
$`[dA]`$ involves all components, $`A_i^a`$, $`\overline{A}_i^a`$ $`\varphi ^a`$ and $`\overline{\varphi }^a`$. The functional Dirac delta functions eliminate all except the real part of $`A_i^a`$. The volume $`[dA]`$ corresponds to the metric (14). From the definition (8), we have

$`\delta A_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{Tr}[\sigma _it^a\sigma _j𝒟_j(\delta MM^1)]`$
$`\delta \varphi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{Tr}[t^a\sigma _j𝒟_j(\delta MM^1)]`$ (16)
where $`𝒟_j`$ is defined by

$$𝒟_j\chi =_j\chi +[𝒜_j,\chi ],𝒜_j=_jMM^1$$
(17)
The equations in (16) may be combined as $`\delta A^A=i\mathrm{Tr}[t^A\sigma _j𝒟_j\theta ]`$, $`\theta =\delta MM^1`$. Using the completeness of the $`t^A`$, the metric (14) can then be simplified as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{𝒟_i\theta }\sigma _i\sigma _j𝒟_j\theta \right)}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{Tr}\left(t^A\sigma _i\sigma _jt^B\right)(\overline{𝒟_i\theta })^A(𝒟_j\theta )^B}`$
where we use the fact that, in terms of components in the Lie algebra, $`𝒟_j\theta =it^A(𝒟_j\theta )^A`$, $`(𝒟_j\theta )^A=_i\theta ^A+f^{ABC}𝒜_i^B\theta ^C`$. $`(T^A)_{BC}=if^{ABC}`$ are the Lie algebra generators in the adjoint representation of $`U(2N,𝐂)`$. We now define the $`(4N^2\times 4N^2)`$\- matrices

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i)^{AB}=\mathrm{Tr}(t^A\sigma _it^B)$$
(19)
By the completeness relation for the $`t^A`$, these are seen to obey the relation

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{AB}\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{BC}=\mathrm{Tr}(t^A\sigma _i\sigma _jt^C)=\delta _{ij}\delta ^{AC}+iϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{AC}$$
(20)
The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ are a $`(4N^2\times 4N^2)`$ representation of the algebra of $`\sigma _i`$. The metric (18) can thus be written as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x(\overline{𝒟_i\theta })^A\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{AC}\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{CB}(𝒟_j\theta )^B}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒟\theta })^A(\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒟\theta )^A}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\overline{\theta }^A\left[(\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒟)^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒟)\right]^{AB}\theta ^B}`$
A metric of the form

$$ds^2=d^3x\overline{\theta }^A\theta ^A=d^3x\mathrm{Tr}(M^1\delta M^{}\delta MM^1)$$
(22)
is the Cartan-Killing metric for $`U(2N,𝐂)`$ (for each spatial point) and leads to the Haar measure $`d\mu (M,M^{})`$ for $`U(2N,𝐂)`$. By comparison with this we see that the volume measure for the metric (21) can be written as

$`[dA]`$ $`=`$ $`det\left[(\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒟)^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒟)\right]d\mu (M,M^{})`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`d\mu (M,M^{})\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ $`=`$ $`[det(\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒟)]_{reg}`$ (24)
In equation (24), we have explicitly indicated that the determinant is to be evaluated with proper regularization. The regularization should be such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is gauge-invariant. The volume element for the real part of $`A_i^a`$ is then given as

$$[d\mathrm{Re}A_i^a]=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}d\mu (M,M^{})\delta [\sigma MM^1+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]\delta [\mathrm{Tr}(t^a\sigma MM^1)\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]$$
(25)
The calculation of the volume thus involves several distinct steps. The first is the calculation of the determinant $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$; the second is the reduction of the Haar measure $`d\mu (M,M^{})`$ by the elimination of the set of gauge transformations and finally we have to address the question of the constraints given by the $`\delta `$-functions.

The full determinant can be calculated by computing the determinants of the Dirac-like operators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒟`$ and its adjoint and putting the results together in a gauge-invariant way. The regulated form of the determinant of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒟`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{reg}=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒟\frac{M_2}{M_2M_1}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒟+M_1)+\frac{M_1}{M_2M_1}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒟+M_2)$$
(26)
where $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are regulator masses. We will need to use two regulators of the Pauli-Villars type, with coefficients as given, to eliminate all the divergences.

We can calculate the determinant by a series expansion in powers of the gauge potential. The only unusual point is that the simplification of the traces are more involved because the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-matrices do not commute with the Lie algebra of the $`𝒜`$’s. Indeed if this were not so, the determinat would be trivial, apart from possible anomalies, since $`𝒜`$ has the form $`MM^1`$.

The term quadratic in the potentials is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{x,y}}\mathrm{Tr}(t^A_iMM^1)(x)\mathrm{Tr}(t^B_jMM^1)(y){\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}e^{ik(xy)}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{AB}(k)}`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{AB}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{M_2M_1}}(\mathrm{sgn}M_1){\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M_2M_1}}(\mathrm{sgn}M_2)\right]k_r\mathrm{Tr}([\mathrm{\Sigma }_r,\mathrm{\Sigma }_iT^A]\mathrm{\Sigma }_jT^B)`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{64}}\left(\delta _{rs}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_rk_s}{k^2}}\right)\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_r\mathrm{\Sigma }_iT^A\mathrm{\Sigma }_s\mathrm{\Sigma }_jT^B)`$
where $`\mathrm{sgn}M=\frac{M}{|M|}`$. The first term in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{AB}`$ corresponds to a Chern-Simons term. The second term will be seen to be similar to the one-loop vacuum polarization result in three dimensions; the factor $`\delta _{rs}+k_rk_s/k^2`$ is correct with the connecting plus sign, the usual projection operator will emerge once the traces are evaluated. The following two observations help to simplify these expressions. First, notice that $`𝒜_i`$ obeys the identity

$$_i𝒜_j_j𝒜_i+[𝒜_i,𝒜_j]=0$$
(28)
so that, to the quadratic order in the potentials we have $`_i𝒜_j_j𝒜_i0`$. Secondly, the traces are in the adjoint representation of $`U(2N)`$, but these can be converted to the fundamental representation. For example, using the completeness of the $`t^A`$’s, we can write

$`[T^A,\mathrm{\Sigma }_r]^{BC}`$ $`=`$ $`if^{ABD}\mathrm{\Sigma }_r^{DC}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{BD}if^{ADC}`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}([t^A,t^B]\sigma _rt^C)\mathrm{Tr}(t^B\sigma _r[t^A,t^C])`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}(t^B[t^A,\sigma _r]t^C)`$
Using the algebra of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s, we then get

$`\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_r,\mathrm{\Sigma }_iT^A]\mathrm{\Sigma }_jT^B`$ $`=`$ $`2iϵ_{rik}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_kT^A\mathrm{\Sigma }_jT^B)\mathrm{Tr}(\sigma _i[t^A,\sigma _r]\sigma _j\frac{1}{2}if^{CMN}t^C)(if^{BMN})`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`2iϵ_{rik}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_kT^A\mathrm{\Sigma }_jT^B){\displaystyle \frac{C_2}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\sigma _i[t^A,\sigma _r]\sigma _jt^B\right)`$
where $`C_2`$ is the quadratic Casimir for the adjoint representation of $`U(2N)`$, $`f^{AMN}f^{BMN}=C_2\delta ^{AB}`$. With $`ϵ_{rik}k_r𝒜_i0`$, the first term gives zero for the Chern-Simons contribution, reducing the trace to the trace in the fundamental. Similar simplification can be done for all the other terms and the final result is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}C_2[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{M_2M_1}}(\mathrm{sgn}M_1){\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M_2M_1}}(\mathrm{sgn}M_2)){\displaystyle }ϵ^{ijk}_iA_j^aA_k^a`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{128}}{\displaystyle }F_{ij}^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{^2}}}F_{ij}^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}{\displaystyle }\varphi ^a\sqrt{^2}\varphi ^a]`$
Here $`F_{ij}^a_iA_j^a_jA_i^a`$ to the order we have calculated. The terms involving $`\varphi `$’s are eventually set to zero by the constraints (9, 10). The form of the $`\varphi `$-terms could also change depending on the regulators, but the final answer is unambiguous since we can set them to zero anyway. The Chern-Simons term will cancel out when we take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, as it should, since there is no parity violation in pure (3+1)-dimensional gauge theory. Using these simplifications, we get for the volume measure

$`[d\mathrm{Re}A]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\mu (M,M^{})\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }})\delta [\sigma MM^1+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$
$`\times \delta [\mathrm{Tr}(t^a\sigma MM^1)\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_2}{128}}{\displaystyle F_{ij}^a\frac{1}{\sqrt{^2}}F_{ij}^a}+𝒪(A^3)`$ (32)
Based on gauge invariance, we can say that part of the higher order terms will render the first term fully invariant, so that the result is of the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\frac{C_2}{128}F_{ij}^a\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{(+A)^2}}\right]^{ab}F_{ij}^b+𝒪(A^3)$$
(33)
with $`F_{ij}^a=_iA_j^a_jA_i^a+f^{abc}A_i^bA_j^c`$.

We now turn to the Haar measure $`d\mu (M,M^{})`$. We are interested in factoring out the gauge transformations which act as $`M^g=gM`$, $`gU(N)`$. Out of $`M`$ we can construct the gauge-invariant quantities $`H=M^{}M`$ and $`W_i=M^{}\sigma _iM`$. We write a generic $`M`$ as

$$M=\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right]$$
(34)
where $`a,b,c,d`$ are $`(N\times N)`$-matrices. We can take $`a`$ and $`d`$ to be invertible in general . Elements of the combinations $`H`$ and $`W_i`$ give $`a^{}a`$, $`d^{}d`$, $`a^{}d`$, $`c^{}d`$, $`b^{}d`$, etc. They can thus be regarded as functions of $`H,W_i`$. The square roots of $`a^{}a`$ and $`d^{}d`$ can be defined by diagonalizing them. We then see that we can write

$`a=U\sqrt{a^{}a},`$ $`b=U\beta `$
$`c=U\gamma ,`$ $`d=UV\sqrt{d^{}d}`$ (35)
where $`U`$ and $`V`$ are unitary matrices; $`V`$ is determined from $`a^{}d`$ as a function of $`H,W_i`$. Likewise $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are given by $`c^{}d`$ and $`b^{}d`$. Thus the matrix $`M`$ can generally be parametrized as

$$M=\left[\begin{array}{cc}U& 0\\ 0& U\end{array}\right]N$$
(36)
where $`N`$ is a function of $`H,W_i`$. The Haar measure is given by the top rank differential form $`dMM^1dMM^1\mathrm{}M^1dM^{}M^1dM^{}\mathrm{}`$ where we substitute (36) for $`M`$. This brings out a factor $`d\mu (U)=dUU^1dUU^1\mathrm{}`$ which is the volume of the gauge part, $`U(N)`$. The remainder is given entirely in terms of the gauge-invariant combinations $`H,W_i`$. In other words, we have $`d\mu (M,M^{})=d\mu (U)d\mu (H,W)`$; $`d\mu (H,W)`$ is the volume on the coset space $`U(2N,𝐂)/U(N)`$. By taking the product of this formally over all spatial points, we have

$$d\mu (M,M^{})=\underset{x}{}d\mu (U)\underset{x}{}d\mu (H,W)$$
(37)
The elimination of the gauge part of the measure is now trivial, we just get $`_xd\mu (H,W)`$.

Finally, it is easy to see that the $`U`$-dependence of the constraints drops out from the $`\delta `$-functions in (25) or (32); they can be written in terms of $`N`$ or $`H,W_i`$. Combining results (32) and (37) and the arguments given above, we can write the gauge-invariant measure as

$`d\mu (𝒞)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}d\mu (H,W)\delta [\sigma NN^1+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]\delta [\mathrm{Tr}(t^a\sigma NN^1)\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$ (38)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)`$
$``$ $`d\mu \mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ has the expansion (33).

We can now write the inner product for states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, with the gauge-invariant wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, as

$$1|2=𝑑\mu \mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2$$
(39)
The key result of this paper is this formula for the inner product, along with (33, 38), which summarize our results on the gauge-invariant volume element for the configuration space $`𝒞`$. Notice that, as in the (2+1)-dimensional case, the term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is proportional to the quadratic Casimir $`C_2`$, which vanishes for the Abelian theory, once again indicating a significant difference between the Abelian and nonabelian cases.

## 4 Discussion

Equation (39) for the inner product shows that the matrix elements of the (3+1)-dimensional theory can be reduced to the correlators of a three-dimensional Euclidean gauge theory with the action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and functional measure $`d\mu `$. We have obtained the quadratic terms in this action, but not yet calculated the terms which will involve gauge-invariant combinations which are cubic and higher order in the fields, although some of these higher terms can be inferred from gauge invariance. Nevertheless, it is still interesting to look ahead and see what implications our results may have for the physics of the gauge theory.

We can establish some properties of the $`(3+1)`$-dimensional theory by comparison with the $`(2+1)`$-dimensional theory. The vacuum wave function for the $`(2+1)`$-dimensional theory was of the form $`\mathrm{exp}\left[(\pi /2e^4N)B^2\right]`$ for long wavelength modes. With such a wave function, for the Wilson loop $`W_F(C)`$ in the fundamental representation of $`SU(N)`$ we find

$`W_F(C)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{constant}\mathrm{exp}\left[\sigma 𝒜_C\right]`$
$`\sqrt{\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`e^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{8\pi }}}`$ (40)
This result was obtained in the Hamiltonian description; nevertheless, based on the full Euclidean invariance of the Wick rotated theory, this may be expressed as

$$𝑑\mu (𝒞)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{F^2}{4e^2}\right)W_F(C)=W_F(C)=\mathrm{constant}\mathrm{exp}\left[\sigma 𝒜_C\right]$$
(41)
This version may in turn be interpreted as the equal time correlator in the $`(3+1)`$-dimensional theory with a vacuum wave function of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(F^2/8e^2)`$. Thus if the $`(3+1)`$-dimensional theory has a vacuum wave function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{F^2}{8\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)$$
(42)
then we get confinement and a string tension

$$\sqrt{\sigma }=\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{\frac{N^21}{8\pi }}$$
(43)
We therefore assume that the wave function has the form (42) and ask what other implications it may have. The mass of a $`0^{++}`$ glueball in the lower dimensional theory is given by

$$B^2(x)B^2(0)=𝑑\mu (𝒞)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{F^2}{4e^2}\right)\mathrm{exp}(M_{0^{++}}|x|)$$
(44)
for large separations $`|x|`$. The mass $`M_{0^{++}}=\alpha e^2N`$, where $`\alpha `$ is, in principle, calculable in the Hamiltonian formulation of the $`(2+1)`$-dimensional theory. An explicit calculation is difficult; lattice data show that $`\alpha 0.808`$  as $`N\mathrm{}`$. We can also think of the result (44) as an equal time correlator in the $`(3+1)`$-dimensional theory, for the wave function (42) (with $`e^2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), in which case the glueball mass is given by $`M_{0^{++}}=\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }N`$. This means that, if the wave function (42) is a good description in the $`(3+1)`$-dimensional case, the ratio $`M_{0^{++}}/\sqrt{\sigma }`$ is the same in the $`(3+1)`$\- and $`(2+1)`$-dimensional theories. Collecting results

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{0^{++}}}{\sqrt{\sigma }}}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \sqrt{8\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{N}{\sqrt{N^21}}}`$ (45)
$``$ $`4.05{\displaystyle \frac{N}{\sqrt{N^21}}}`$
where we have used the lattice value for the $`(2+1)`$-dimensional theory. This is then a prediction, based on the premise of (42), for the $`(3+1)`$-dimensional theory. The lattice estimate of this quantity for the $`(3+1)`$-dimensional theory is approximately $`3.37`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$ ; the discrepancy is about $`20\%`$. Thus equation (42) may be considered to be a reasonable ansatz for a first approximation to the wave function. The important question is whether we can we derive it by solving the Schrödinger equation; this is under study.

The approximate dimension-independence of the glueball masses has been noted before in the context of lattice values. In the context of using wave functions, an argument which has some similarity to ours has been given in . In the context of a parton mass for gluons, a similar observation has been made by Philipsen .

There is another lesson from the (2+1)-dimensional case that we can use. In three Euclidean dimensions an action of the form $`F^2/4\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can generate a mass gap. This is not yet the gap for the (3+1)-dimensional theory, but a cutoff on modes of low momenta when integrations are actually carried out using a wave function of the form (42). In turn this can generate a mass gap for the (3+1)-dimensional theory in much the same way as the cut-off on low momentum modes due to the measure factors in the (2+1)-dimensional analysis can lead to a gap .

## Acknowledgements

VPN thanks Dimitra Karabali and Peter Orland for a critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported in part by NSF grant number PHY-0070883 and by a PSC-CUNY grant.


format: text

text:
# References

From last astronomical observations (see for example ) it follows that not more than $`5\%`$ of the Universe matter has the baryon nature. Thereof it is convenient to divide the Universe matter on rapid and slow subsystems. We shall consider that all known particles (it is possible excluding only neutrinos) belong to the rapid subsystem. Thus we ought to consider fundamental particles as coherent frames in open systems characterized by quasi–group structure. It results in necessity of usage inhomogeneous (quasi–homogeneous) space-time endowed by a nontrivial geometrical structure.

Let’s consider the Boltzmann hypothesis of the Universe birth owing to a gigantic fluctuation not in an empty space but in a medium which consists of weakly interacting particles characterized by zero temperature and forming the Bose condensate. Certainly, if the particles are fermions they should be in the coupled state. For the description of such state of the Universe matter (this state we shall consider pure one) it is necessary to introduce an amplitude of probability $``$ with components $`_a^b(\omega )`$ ($`a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h=1,2\mathrm{},r`$) dependent from points $`\omega `$ of a manifold $`M_r`$ (not excepting a limiting case $`r\mathrm{}`$). In this case we can not define the metric but for its definition we need a density matrix $`\rho ()`$ (the rank of which equals to $`1`$ for a pure state), determining its standard mode $`^+=\rho tr(^+)`$ ($`tr\rho =1`$, $`\rho ^+=\rho `$, the top index $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}+^{\prime \prime }`$ is the symbol of the Hermitian conjugation).

Let as a result of a fluctuation the disintegration of the Bose condensate will begin with formation of fermions (for their description we shall introduce an amplitude of probability $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$) and with an increase of pressure in some local area of Universe (in addition some time the temperature of the Universe particles could remain equal or close to zero point — so–called the inflation period). As a result the rank of the density matrix $`\rho `$ will begin to grow that characterizes the appearance of mixed states. An inverse process of relaxation (characterized by the formation of the Bose condensate and by the pressure decline) should go with an energy release which will go on heating of the Fermi liquid with formation of excited states — of known charged fermions (quarks and leptons). From this moment it is possible to introduce the metric and use the results obtained for the hot model of Universe (with those by inflationary modifications which have appeared recently ) interpreting the Universe evolution as the process characterized by the increase of the entropy $`S=tr(\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho )`$. Now Universe is at that stage of an evolution when the dominating number of particles has returned to the Bose condensate state. They are also displaed only at a weak interaction with particles of a visible matter.

For the description of a matter it is convenient to use differentiable fields given in a differentiable manifold $`M_n`$ which one we shall call as a space-time and the points $`x`$ of which one will have coordinates $`x^i`$ ($`i,j,k,l\mathrm{}=1,2\mathrm{},n`$). Probably the rank of the density matrix $`\rho `$ equals $`n`$, but it is impossible to eliminate that the generally given equality is satisfied only approximately when some components of a density matrix can be neglected. In any case we shall consider that among fields $``$ the mixtures $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a^i`$ were formed with non-zero vacuum means $`h_a^i`$ which determine differentiable vector fields $`\xi _a^i(x)`$ as:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_a^i=_a^b\xi _b^i$$
(1)
for considered area $`\mathrm{\Omega }_nM_n`$ (field $`\xi _a^i(x)`$ determine a differential of a projection $`d\pi `$ from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_rM_r`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$). It allows to define a space–time $`M_n`$ as a Riemannian manifold, the basic tensor $`g_{ij}(x)`$ of which we shall introduce through a reduced density matrix $`\rho ^{}(x)`$.

So let components $`\rho _i^j`$ of a reduced density matrix $`\rho ^{}(x)`$ are determined by the way:

$$\rho _i^j=\xi ^+{}_{i}{}^{a}\rho _{a}^{b}\xi _b^j/(\xi ^+{}_{k}{}^{c}\rho _{c}^{d}\xi _d^k).$$
(2)
and let fields

$$g^{ij}=\eta ^{k(i}\rho _k^{j)}(g^{lm}\eta _{lm})$$
(3)
are components of a tensor of a converse to the basic tensor of the space–time $`M_n`$. By this components $`g_{ij}(x)`$ of the basic tensor must be the solutions of following equations: $`g^{ij}g_{ik}=\delta _k^j`$. (Hereinafter $`\eta _{ij}`$ are metric tensor components of a tangent space to $`M_n`$ and $`\eta ^{ik}`$ are determined as the solution of equations: $`\eta ^{ij}\eta _{ik}=\delta _k^j`$.)

The influencing of the macroscopic observer will display in an approximation of the transition operator $`T`$ by the differential operators $`_i`$. First of all we shall require that for fermion fields deviations $`X_a(\mathrm{\Psi })=T_a(\mathrm{\Psi })\xi _a^i_i\mathrm{\Psi }`$ were minimum in the “mean” . For this purpose we shall consider a following integral

$$𝒜=\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{}(\mathrm{\Psi })d_nV=\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{}\kappa \overline{X}^a(\mathrm{\Psi })\rho _a^b(x)X_b(\mathrm{\Psi })d_nV$$
(4)
($`\kappa `$ is a constant, $`(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is a Lagrangian; the bar means the Dirac conjugation that is to be the superposition of Hermitian conjugation and the spatial inversion) which is the action. Let the action $`𝒜`$ is quasi-invariant at infinitesimal substitutions $`x^ix^i+\delta x^i=x^i+\delta \omega ^a\xi _a^i(x),\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }+\delta \mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }+\delta \omega ^aT_a(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ of Lie local loop $`G_r`$, the structural tensor components $`C_{ab}^c`$ of which satisfy to Jacobi generalized identity . The given requirement causes to introduce the full Lagrangian (instead of a Lagrangian $`(\mathrm{\Psi })`$) recording it as

$$_t=(\mathrm{\Psi })+\kappa _o^{}_{ab}^c_{de}^f[t^{ad}(s_c^es_f^b\upsilon s_c^bs_f^e)+t^{be}(s_f^as_c^d\upsilon s_c^as_f^d)+u_{cf}(t^{ad}t^{be}\upsilon t^{ab}t^{de})]/4$$
(5)
($`\kappa _o^{},\upsilon `$ are constants). In addition intensities $`_{ab}^c(B)`$ of the boson (gauge) fields $`_a^c(x)`$ will look like

$$_{ab}^c=\mathrm{\Theta }_d^c(\mathrm{\Pi }_a^i_i_b^d\mathrm{\Pi }_b^i_i_a^d+\mathrm{\Xi }_{ab}^d),$$
(6)
where

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_b^c=\delta _b^c\xi _b^i\mathrm{\Pi }_i^d(_d^c\beta _d^c),\mathrm{\Xi }_{ad}^b=(_a^cT_c{}_{d}{}^{e}_d^cT_c{}_{a}{}^{e})_e^b_a^c_d^eC_{ce}^b.$$
(7)
Hereinafter a selection of fields $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i^a()`$ and $`\beta _c^a`$ are limited by the relations:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_j^a\mathrm{\Pi }_a^i=\delta _j^i,\beta _c^a\xi _a^i=h_c^i$$
(8)
($`\delta _j^i`$ are Kronecker deltas). If

$$s_a^b=\delta _a^b,t^{ab}=\eta ^{ab},u_{ab}=\eta _{ab}$$
(9)
($`\eta _{ab}`$ are metric tensor components of the flat space and $`\eta ^{ab}`$ are tensor components of a converse to basic one) then the given Lagrangian is most suitable one at the description of the hot stage of the Universe evolution because it is most symmetrical one concerning intensities of the gauge fields $`_{ab}^c`$. What is more we shall require the realization of the correlations: $`T_a{}_{^b}{}^{}\eta _{}^{cd}+T_a{}_{c}{}^{d}\eta _{}^{cb}=0`$, that the transition operators $`T_a_^b`$ generate the symmetry, which follows from the made assumptions. In absence of fields $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a^i(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ at earlier stage of the Universe evolution the Lagrangian (5) becomes even more symmetrical ($`_t^4`$), so that the formation of fermions (the appearance of fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in a full Lagrangian $`_t`$) from primary bosons is a necessary condition (though not a sufficient one) of the transition of Universe to the modern stage of its development with a spontaneous symmetry breaking. Only the formation of the Bose condensate from pairs of some class of fermions (the neutrinos of different flavors) has resulted in a noticeable growth of rest–masses of those vector bosons ($`W^+,W^{},Z^o`$), which interact with this class of fermions. In parallel there could be a growth of rest–masses and other fundamental particles, though and not all (photon, directly with a neutrino not interacting, has not a rest-mass).

Let’s connect non-zero vacuum means $`\beta _a^b`$ of gauge fields $`B_a^b`$ with a spontaneous violation of a symmetry, which has taken place in the early Universe and which is a phase transition with a formation of Bose condensate from fermion pairs. The transition to the modern stage of the Universe evolution for which it is possible to suspect the presence of cluster states of weakly interacting particles will be expressed in following formula for tensors $`s_a^b`$, $`t^{ab}`$, $`u_{ab}`$ and $`h_i^a`$:

$$s_a^b=s\xi _a^ih_i^b+\xi _a^{\underset{¯}{c}}ϵ_{\underset{¯}{c}}^b,t^{ab}=tϵ_{(i)}^aϵ_{(j)}^b\eta ^{(i)(j)}+ϵ_{\underset{¯}{c}}^aϵ_{\underset{¯}{d}}^b\eta ^{\underset{¯}{cd}},$$

$$u_{ab}=u\xi _a^i\xi _b^jh_i^ch_j^d\eta _{cd}+\xi _a^{\underset{¯}{c}}\xi _b^{\underset{¯}{d}}\eta _{\underset{¯}{cd}},h_i^a=h_i^{(j)}ϵ_{(j)}^a$$
(10)
($`(i),(j),(k),(l),\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},n;\underset{¯}{a},\underset{¯}{b},\underset{¯}{c},\underset{¯}{d},\underset{¯}{e}=n+1,n+2,\mathrm{},n+\underset{¯}{r};\underset{¯}{r}/r1`$), where fields $`h_i^{(j)}(x)`$, taking into account the relations (10), are uniquely determinated from equations: $`h_k^ah_a^i=\delta _k^i`$. Similarly tensors $`\eta ^{(i)(j)},\eta ^{\underset{¯}{ab}}`$ are determined from equations: $`\eta ^{(i)(k)}\eta _{(j)(k)}=\delta _{(j)}^{(i)},\eta ^{\underset{¯}{ab}}\eta _{\underset{¯}{cb}}=\delta _{\underset{¯}{c}}^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$, while tensors $`\eta _{(i)(j)},\eta _{\underset{¯}{ab}}`$ are determined as follows $`\eta _{(i)(k)}=\eta _{ab}ϵ_{(i)}^aϵ_{(k)}^b,\eta _{\underset{¯}{ab}}=\eta _{cd}ϵ_{\underset{¯}{a}}^cϵ_{\underset{¯}{b}}^d`$. We shall connect constants $`ϵ_{(i)}^a`$, $`ϵ_{\underset{¯}{b}}^a`$ with a selection of the gauge fields $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i^a(x)`$ recording them by in the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_i^a=\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{(j)}ϵ_{(j)}^a+\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{\underset{¯}{b}}ϵ_{\underset{¯}{b}}^a$$
(11)
and let $`ϵ_{\underset{¯}{b}}^a=0`$. Besides we shall apply the decomposition of fields $`B_b^a(x)`$ in the form

$$B_c^a=\zeta _i^a\mathrm{\Pi }_c^i+\zeta _{\underset{¯}{b}}^aA_c^{\underset{¯}{b}},$$
(12)
where $`A_b^{\underset{¯}{a}}=B_b^c\xi _c^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$. In addition components of intermediate tensor fields $`\xi _a^i(x)`$, $`\xi _a^{\underset{¯}{b}}(x)`$, $`\zeta _i^a(x)`$, $`\zeta _{\underset{¯}{b}}^a(x)`$ should be connected by the relations: $`\zeta _i^a\xi _a^j=\delta _i^j,\zeta _i^a\xi _a^{\underset{¯}{b}}=0,\zeta _{\underset{¯}{b}}^a\xi _a^j=0,\xi _a^{\underset{¯}{c}}\zeta _{\underset{¯}{b}}^a=\delta _{\underset{¯}{b}}^{\underset{¯}{c}}`$.

Let $`n=4`$, $`\upsilon =2`$, $`tu=s^2`$, $`T_c{}_{(k)}{}^{a}=T_c{}_{b}{}^{a}ϵ_{(k)}^{b}=T_c{}_{(k)}{}^{(i)}ϵ_{(i)}^{a}`$, $`T_i{}_{(j)}{}^{(k)}=\zeta _i^aT_a_{(j)}^{(k)}`$, $`T_{\underset{¯}{b}}{}_{(j)}{}^{(k)}=\zeta _{\underset{¯}{b}}^aT_a_{(j)}^{(k)}`$ and

$$T_a{}_{(k)}{}^{(i)}\eta _{}^{(k)(j)}+T_a{}_{(k)}{}^{(j)}\eta _{}^{(k)(i)}=0,$$
(13)
so that the full Lagrangian (5) will be rewritten as follows

$$_t=(\mathrm{\Psi },D\mathrm{\Psi })+\eta ^{(j)(m)}[\kappa _oE_{(i)(j)}^{\underset{¯}{a}}E_{(k)(m)}^{\underset{¯}{b}}\eta ^{(i)(k)}\eta _{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}+$$

$$\kappa _1(F_{(i)(j)}^{(k)}F_{(l)(m)}^{(n)}\eta ^{(i)(l)}\eta _{(k)(n)}+2F_{(i)(j)}^{(k)}F_{(k)(m)}^{(i)}4F_{(i)(j)}^{(i)}F_{(k)(m)}^{(k)})]/4,$$
(14)
where

$$\kappa _o=\kappa _o^{}t^2,\kappa _1=\kappa _o^{}ts^2.$$
(15)
$$F_{(i)(j)}^{(k)}=F_{ab}^{}ϵ_{(i)}^aϵ_{(j)}^bh_c^lh_l^{(k)}=\mathrm{\Phi }_l^{(k)}F_{mn}^l\mathrm{\Phi }_{(i)}^m\mathrm{\Phi }_{(j)}^n=$$

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }(i)^l_l\mathrm{\Phi }_{(j)}^m\mathrm{\Phi }_{(j)}^l_l\mathrm{\Phi }_{(i)}^m)\mathrm{\Phi }_m^{(k)}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{(i)}^lT_l{}_{(j)}{}^{(k)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{(j)}^lT_l{}_{(i)}{}^{(k)}+A_{(i)}^{\underset{¯}{a}}T_{\underset{¯}{a}}{}_{(j)}{}^{(k)}A_{(j)}^{\underset{¯}{a}}T_{\underset{¯}{a}}{}_{(i)}{}^{(k)},$$
(16)
$$E_{ij}^{\underset{¯}{a}}=E_{(k)(l)}^{\underset{¯}{a}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{(k)}\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{(l)}=F_{bc}^d\xi _d^{\underset{¯}{a}}ϵ_{(k)}^bϵ_{(l)}^c\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{(k)}\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{(l)}=$$

$$_iA_j^{\underset{¯}{a}}_jA_i^{\underset{¯}{a}}+A_i^{\underset{¯}{b}}A_j^{\underset{¯}{c}}C_{\underset{¯}{b}\underset{¯}{c}}^{\underset{¯}{a}}+C_{i\underset{¯}{b}}^{\underset{¯}{a}}A_j^{\underset{¯}{b}}C_{j\underset{¯}{b}}^{\underset{¯}{a}}A_i^{\underset{¯}{b}}+C_{ij}^{\underset{¯}{a}},$$
(17)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{(k)}^i=\mathrm{\Pi }_a^iϵ_{(k)}^a,A_i^{\underset{¯}{b}}=A_{(j)}^{\underset{¯}{b}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{(j)},$$
(18)
$$C_{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}^{\underset{¯}{c}}=\zeta _{\underset{¯}{a}}^e\zeta _{\underset{¯}{b}}^dC_{ed}^g\xi _e^{\underset{¯}{c}},C_{i\underset{¯}{a}}^{\underset{¯}{c}}=(\zeta _i^b\zeta _{\underset{¯}{a}}^dC_{bd}^e+_i\zeta _{\underset{¯}{a}}^e)\xi _e^{\underset{¯}{c}},C_{ij}^{\underset{¯}{c}}=(\zeta _i^a\zeta _j^bC_{ab}^d+_i\zeta _j^d_j\zeta _i^d)\xi _d^{\underset{¯}{c}}.$$
(19)
As a result of an equation of fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(j)}^i(x)`$ may be received in a standard manner  as the Einstein gravitational equations

$$D_i\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{}{D_j\mathrm{\Psi }}g_{jk}g_{ik}(\mathrm{\Psi },D_m\mathrm{\Psi })+\kappa _o\eta _{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}g^{jl}(E_{ij}^{\underset{¯}{a}}E_{kl}^{\underset{¯}{b}}\frac{1}{4}g_{ik}g^{mn}E_{jm}^{\underset{¯}{a}}E_{ln}^{\underset{¯}{b}})$$

$$=\kappa _1(2R_{jik}{}_{}{}^{j}g_{ik}g^{lm}R_{jlm}{}_{}{}^{j})$$
(20)
($`R_{ijk}^l`$ is the curvature tensor of the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k`$ of Riemannian space–time $`M_n`$; $`\kappa _o=1/(4\pi )`$, $`\kappa _1=1/(4\pi G_N)`$, $`G_N`$ is the gravitational constant; hereinafter the system of units are used $`h/(2\pi )=c=1`$, where $`h`$ is the Planck constant, $`c`$ is the speed of light). Naturally, that the Einstein equations express the modern physical state of the Universe matter. All this confirms a capability for interpretations of fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(j)}^i(x)`$ or fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{(j)}(x)`$ as gravity potentials, but taking into account their dependence from properties of medium (vacuum), and also the opinion to consider components $`g_{ij}(x)`$ of a metric tensor of the space–time by potentials of a gravitational field, it is meaningful to call $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(j)}^i(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{(j)}(x)`$ by polarization fields. It is necessary to note that the condensed description of a medium, consisting of weakly interacting particles, by polarization (gravitational) fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{(k)}(x)`$ allows to “hide” the Bose condensate with the help of a nontrivial geometrical structure, in particular, using a Riemannian space–time of General Relativity.

Let’s study an approaching, in which the space–time is possible to consider as a Minkowski space, the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{(k)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(k)}^i`$ are constants and let $`\underset{¯}{r}=1`$, that assumes $`C_{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}^{\underset{¯}{c}}=0`$. For obtaining equations of fields $`A_i^{\underset{¯}{b}}(x)`$ in Feynman perturbation theory the calibration should be fixed. For this we shall add the following addend:

$$_q=\kappa _oq_{\underset{¯}{b}\underset{¯}{b}}g^{ij}g^{kl}(_iA_j^{\underset{¯}{b}}q_oC_iA_j^{\underset{¯}{b}})(_kA_l^{\underset{¯}{b}}q_oC_kA_l^{\underset{¯}{b}})/2$$
(21)
to a Lagrangian (14), where $`q_o=\eta _{\underset{¯}{b}\underset{¯}{b}}/q_{\underset{¯}{b}\underset{¯}{b}},C_i=C_i{}_{\underset{¯}{b}}{}^{\underset{¯}{b}}.`$ Besides let

$$T_a{}_{(k)}{}^{(i)}\eta _{}^{(j)(k)}+T_a{}_{(k)}{}^{(j)}\eta _{}^{(i)(k)}=ϵ_a^{\underset{¯}{b}}t_{\underset{¯}{b}}\eta ^{(i)(j)}.$$
(22)
As a result of this equations of a vector field $`A_i^{\underset{¯}{b}}(x)`$ will be written as:

$$g^{jk}[_j_kA_i^{\underset{¯}{a}}(11/q_o)_i_jA_k^{\underset{¯}{a}}+(1q_o)C_iC_jA_k^{\underset{¯}{a}}]+m^2A_i^{\underset{¯}{a}}=I_i^{\underset{¯}{a}}/\kappa _o,$$
(23)
where $`I_i^{\underset{¯}{a}}=\frac{g_{ij}}{\eta _{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{a}}}\frac{(\mathrm{\Psi })}{A_j^{\underset{¯}{a}}}`$ and

$$m^2=(n1)(n2)\kappa _1t_{\underset{¯}{a}}^2/(2\kappa _o\eta _{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{a}})g^{jk}C_jC_k.$$
(24)
Notice that owing to the vacuum polarization ($`C_i0`$) the propagator of a vector boson has the rather cumbersome view

$$D_{ij}(p)=[(1q_o)\frac{(p_ip_jC_iC_j)(p^kp_kq_om^2)+(1q_o)p^kC_k(p_iC_j+C_ip_j)}{(p^lp_lq_om^2)^2+(1q_o)^2(p^lC_l)^2}$$

$$g_{ij}]/(p^mp_mm^2),$$
(25)
which is simplified and receives the familiar form ($`g_{ij}/(p_kp^km^2)`$, $`p^k`$ is the 4-momentum, and $`m`$ is the mass of the vector boson) only in the Feynman calibration ($`q_o=1`$).

So, the transition to the hot state of Universe was connected with the destruction of the Bose condensate and the increase of the Fermi gas pressure accordingly. In addition some time a temperature of background particles of Universe could remain equal or close to zero (the stage of the inflation). As a result the rest–mass of $`W^+,W^{},Z^o`$ bosons have decreased so, that the weak interaction has stopped to be weak and all (or nearly so all) particles from a ground (vacuum) state started to participate in an installation of a thermodynamic equilibrium. The given phenomenon also has become the cause of an apparent increase of a density of particles in the early Universe. Suggesting, that mean density $`n_o`$ of particles in the Universe did not vary at the same time and the script of the hot model in general is correct, we come to its following estimation $`n_om_\pi ^310^3GeV^3`$ ($`m_\pi `$ is a mass of a $`\pi `$ meson). This result allows to give explanation to a known ratio  $`H_o/G_Nm_\pi ^3`$, if to consider, that the Hubble constant $`H_o`$ gives an estimation $`1/H_o`$ to the length $`l1/(n_o\sigma _\nu )`$ of a free run of particle in “vacuum” on the modern stages of the Universe evolution ($`\sigma _\nu `$ is a scattering cross–section of neutrinos on a charged particle) and to take into account the estimation given earlier  for the gravitational constant $`G_N`$ ($`G_N\sigma _\nu `$). Thus the gravitational constant $`G_N`$ is inversely proportional to the time of a free run of a charged particle in the neutrinos medium characterizing a kinetic phase of a relaxation process in the Universe.


text:
# Magnon and phonon assisted tunneling in a high-magnetoresistance tunnel junction using Co75Fe25 ferromagnetic electrodes

thanks: Author to whom correspondence should be addressed

## Abstract

Magnetoelectric properties of the spin-valve-type tunnel junction of Ta(5 nm)/Ni79Fe21 (25 nm)/Ir22Mn78 (10 nm)/Co75Fe25 (4 nm)/Al (0.8 nm)-oxide/Co75Fe25 (4 nm)/Ni79Fe21 (20 nm)/Ta (5 nm) are investigated both experimentally and theoretically. It is shown that both magnon and phonon excitations contribute to the tunneling process. Moreover, we show that there are two branches of magnon with spin $`S=1/2`$ and 3/2 respectively. The theoretical results are in good agreement with the experimental data.

Tremendous interest has been devoted to the tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) effectjull ; miya ; mood ; zhang ; chui ; brat ; daug ; han1 ; han2 ; han3  due to the high application potential in magnetic random access memory (MRAM) and magnetic-read-head technology.sato ; daug ; ago ; tehrani ; machida  Spin-electron transport and nanoscale magnetism in ferromagnet/insulator/ferromagnet (FM/I/FM) junction structure play a very important role in this effect. Up to present, although considerable progress on both experimental and theoretical studies of TMR effect in FM/I/FM junctions has been achieved, intrinsic magnetoelectric properties of magnetic tunnel junctions (MTJs) as well as spin-electron transport theory have not yet been generally reported. Therefore, a close study of these subjects are important both for the sake of fundamental studies and for the development of high-quality TMR devices.

Recently Han et al. performed a systematic experimental investigation of a spin-valve-type tunnel junction of Ta(5 nm)/Ni79Fe21 (3 nm)/Cu (20 nm)/Ni79Fe21 (3 nm)/Ir22Mn78 (10 nm)/Co75Fe25 (4 nm)/Al (0.8 nm)-oxide/Co75Fe25 (4 nm)/Ni79Fe21 (20 nm)/Ta (5 nm) by measuring the tunnel current $`I`$, dynamic conductance $`dI/dV`$ and inelastic electron tunneling (IET) spectrum $`dG/dV`$ ($`G=I/V`$) as functions of dc bias voltage $`V`$ for both parallel (P) and antiparallel (AP) alignments of the magnetization of the two FM electrodes.han3  By applying the magnon-assisted tunneling theory developed by Zhang et al.zhang  they fit their $`I`$-$`V`$, TMR-$`V`$, and TMR-$`T`$ curves with a $`S=3/2`$ magnon excitation $`\omega _𝐪=E_m(q/q_m)^2`$ for cut-off energy $`E_m=121`$ meV and $`q_m=\sqrt{4\pi n}`$ where $`n`$ is the density of atoms at an interface. However, there is more interesting information in their IET spectrum data which has not been fully discussed. In particular, the contribution of phonon-assisted tunneling to the tunneling current has not been accounted in their model and calculations.zhang ; han3  As shown in Fig. 1 there are three peaks in the IET spectrum from a new sample obtained in this work for $`V>0`$ (or $`<0`$): a strong peak around 20 meV and two small peaks around 90 and 115 meV. The small peak around 121 meV correspond to $`E_m`$ of the magnon excitation. Another small peak around 90 meV is identified to be the phonon excitation in Al2O3 by Han et al. but has not been analyzed theoretically. The strong peak around 20 meV has not been clearly specified.

In this letter we combine both magnon-assisted tunneling theory developed by Zhang et al.zhang  and the phonon-assisted tunneling theory developed by Bratkovskybrat ; brat1  into one theory to analyze the experimental data obtained in this work. This is because that the intrinsic magnetoelectric properties of an MTJ at nonzero bias voltages are closely related with the inelastic scattering in the tunneling progress for the conduction electrons. Experimental results show that the coexisting magnon and phonon excitations are the main sources of the inelastic scattering in an MTJ,han2  especially when the defects in the Al-O barrier and at the interfaces between FM/I/FM layers can be neglected for a good quality MTJ with very high-magnetoresistance and low resistance.han1  Therefore, using a magnon- and phonon-assisted tunneling theory to evaluate the properties of an MTJ at elevated temperature or/and at nonzero bias voltages can achieve the desired and novel results.

In order to keep the same value of the intrinsic parameters mentioned below for calculating self-consistently the magnetoelectric properties of an MTJ using following formulas deduced in this work, it is necessary to use the same MTJ for all the experimental data measurement. Therefore, a series of experimental data was measured for a spin-valve-type MTJ of Ta (5 nm)/Ni79Fe21(25 nm)/Ir22Mn78(12 nm)/Co75Fe25(4 nm)/Al(0.8 nm)-oxide/Co75Fe25(4 nm)/Ni79Fe21(20 nm)/Ta(5 nm). Such MTJs were fabricated using sputter deposition and patterned using lithographic microfabrication technique followed by optimum heat treatment. Detailed description was reported in previous works by Han et al..han1  We specify excitations for each corresponding peaks in the IET spectrum. Moreover, we propose a second magnon excitation with $`S=1/2`$ and $`E_m=27`$ meV which corresponds to the large peak around 20 meV. This excitation corresponds to the Fe spin of the Co75Fe25 electrodes.

We obtain for the tunneling current $`I^\gamma =I_0^\gamma +I_p^\gamma +I_{m,i}^\gamma `$ where $`I_0^\gamma `$ is the elastic tunneling current, $`I_p^\gamma `$ denotes the inelastic phonon-assisted tunneling current, and $`I_{m,i}^\gamma `$ represents the inelastic magnon-assisted tunneling current with $`i=1`$, 2 standing for the index of the branch of magnon. $`\gamma `$ here represents P and AP. These currents are given respectively by $`I_0^\gamma =\frac{4\pi e^2V}{\mathrm{}}[|T^d|^2+2(S_1+S_2)|T^J|^2]A^\gamma ,`$ with $`T^d`$ and $`T^J`$ representing direct and spin-dependent charge transfer matrix elements between electrodes.

$$I_p^\gamma =\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{e^2CV}{\mathrm{}}\frac{A^\gamma }{v^4}[(k_BT)^4\frac{4\pi ^4}{15}+\frac{e^4V^4}{10}],\hfill & eV<\omega _D\hfill \\ \frac{e^2CV}{\mathrm{}}\frac{A^\gamma }{v^4}[(k_BT)^4\frac{4\pi ^4}{15}+\omega _D^4(\frac{1}{2}\frac{2\omega _D}{5eV})],\hfill & eV\omega _D\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
Here $`C`$ is a constant from the matrix element of electron-phonon interaction. $`\omega _D`$ is the Debye frequency.

$$I_{m,i}^\gamma =\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{8\pi eS_i}{\mathrm{}E_{m,i}}|T^J|^2B^\gamma \left\{[\frac{1}{2}e^2V^2eVE_c^\gamma +\frac{1}{2}(E_c^\gamma )^2]+2eVk_BT\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1e^{E_{im}/k_BT}}{1e^{E_c^\gamma /k_BT}}\right)\right\},\hfill & eV<E_{m,i}\hfill \\ \frac{8\pi eS_i}{\mathrm{}E_{m,i}}|T^J|^2B^\gamma \{[\frac{1}{2}(E_c^\gamma )^2+eV(E_{m,i}E_c^\gamma )\frac{1}{2}E_{m,i}^2)]+2eVk_BT\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1e^{E_{im}/k_BT}}{1e^{E_c^\gamma /k_BT}}\right)\},\hfill & eVE_{m,i}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
$`E_c^\gamma `$ was first introduced by Zhang et al.zhang  to represent the wavelength cut-off energy of the spin wave and was later generalized to the anisotropic one by Han et al..han3  In Eqs. (1) and (2), $`A^\text{P}=B^{\text{AP}}=\rho _M^2+\rho _m^2`$ and $`A^{\text{AP}}=B^\text{P}=2\rho _M\rho _m`$ with $`\rho _M`$ ($`\rho _m`$) being the density of states in the electrodes for itinerant majority (minority) electrons.

The main results of our numerical calculation are plotted in Figs. 1 to 6. The parameters used in the calculation are as follows: $`R^{\text{AP}}(V=0)=171.5`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`R^\text{P}(V=0)=108.1`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\rho _M/\rho _m=2.83`$ and $`|T^d|^2/|T^J|^2=13.0`$. $`E_c^{\text{AP}}=0.104`$ meV. $`E_c^\text{P}=0.009`$ meV. The Debye frequency of Al2O3 is taken to be $`\omega _D=84.5`$ meV. $`e^2C\rho _m^2/(\mathrm{}v^4)=0.575`$. In Fig. 1 IET spectrum via the $`S=3/2`$-magnon-assisted tunneling (dash-dotted curve), $`S=3/2`$-magnon and phonon-assisted tunneling (dashed curve) and double-magnon and single-phonon-assisted tunneling (solid curve) are plotted as functions of voltage $`V`$. The experimental data are plotted as crosses in the same figure. From the figure, one clearly sees that the small peak around 115 meV corresponds to the magnon excitation with $`S=3/2`$. If one adds phonon excitation on it, one gets the second small peak around 90 meV, which is close to the Debye frequency $`\omega _D`$. The third strong peak is clearly related to the $`S=1/2`$-magnon excitation. We point out here that as $`I_{m,i}^\gamma `$ is proportional to $`S_i`$, therefore, the height of the magnon peaks is closely related to the relative magnitude of spin $`S_i`$. For the strong peak, as $`E_{m,i}`$ is very small, only $`S_i=1/2`$ gives the right relative height corresponding to the one of $`S=3/2`$-magnon.

In order to check if the introduction of the second magnon excitation is still consistent with all the measurements, we plot in Figs. 2 and 3 the tunnel current $`I`$, the dynamic conductance $`dI/dV`$ and TMR as functions of voltage $`V`$ at $`T=4.2`$ K for case (i) with all excitations and case (ii) with only $`S=3/2`$-magnon and phonon excitations. It is interesting to seen from the figures that the inclusion of the second magnon excitation well represents the experimental results. It is noted that for high voltage, the theoretical results deviate from the experimental data. This is understood that for high voltages, the multi-magnon process becomes important which nevertheless does not included in the present theory.

From $`E_{m,i}^\gamma =3k_BT_c^i/(S_i+1)`$, one has $`T_c^1=156`$ K for $`S_1=1/2`$ magnon. This is reasonable as the concentration of Fe in the electrode is very small and hence the exchange interaction between electron spins of iron is much weaker than the bulk value. Therefore, $`T_c^1`$ becomes much smaller than the bulk value. Consequently, we predict that the strong magnon excitation can only be seen at low temperature.

In Fig. 4 we compare our theoretical results of TMR and resistance $`R`$ versus bias voltage for high temperature $`T=300`$ K. As $`T>T_c^1`$, one only need to consider the single magnon excitation of $`S_2=3/2`$ and the phonon excitation. From the figure one finds the theory fits pretty well with the experimental data.

Finally we discuss the temperature dependence of the TMR. As an example, Fig.5 shows the TMR curves measured at 4.2 K for the same junction after annealing at 548 K for one hour. The junction area is 8$`\times `$8 $`\mu `$m2. A high TMR ratio of 58.7% was observed at 4.2 K, which was much higher than the 41%-room temperature TMR ratio mainly due to the decrease of magnon excitations as well as the absence of phonon excitations. In Fig. 6, TMR is measured from $``$0 K to 300 K as dots. We plot our theoretical results in the same figure for the cases of double magnon excitation (solid curve) and single magnon excitation (dashed curve). Phonon excitation is included in both curves. As now the temperature crosses the Curie temperature $`T_c^1`$ for $`S_1=1/2`$-magnon excitation, for $`T>T_c^1`$, only the branch of $`S=3/2`$-magnon participates in the TMR. Moreover, it is understood that the spin-wave theory is good only for temperature far away from the transition temperature. It is seen from the figure that the solid curve fits the experimental data only at low temperatures. For high temperatures, the dashed curve fits batter with the experimental results.

In conclusion, we performed a joint experimental and theoretical investigation of the magnetoelectric properties of the spin-valve-type tunnel junction of Ta(5 nm)/Ni79Fe21 (25 nm)/Ir22Mn78 (10 nm)/Co75Fe25 (4 nm)/Al (0.8 nm)-oxide/Co75Fe25 (4 nm)/Ni79Fe21 (20 nm)/Ta (5 nm). We show that both magnon and phonon excitations contribute to the tunneling process. We further point out that there are two branches of magnon with spin $`S=1/2`$ and 3/2 respectively for the MTJ using Co1-xFex electrodes or using Co/Al-oxide/Fe three key layers. The theory well interpretes the experimental data.

MWW and XFH gratefully acknowledge financial support by the “100 Person Project” of Chinese Academy of Sciences. MWW is also partially supported by Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 10247002. He would also like to thank S. T. Chui at Bartol Research Institute, University of Delaware for hospitality. XFH thanks support from Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 10274103 and the partial support of the State Key Project of Fundamental Research with Grant No. 2001CB610601 of Ministry of Science and technology. CL would like to thank M. Q. Weng for valuable discussion.