NRCPS-HE-52-2024

Landscape of QCD Vacuum

George Savvidy

Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics

Demokritos National Research Center, Ag. Paraskevi, Athens, Greece

Abstract

The moduli space of covariantly constant gauge fields is infinite-dimensional and describes non-perturbative solutions of the Yang-Mills equation of superposed chromomagnetic flux tubes (vortices) of opposite magnetic charges. These gauge field configurations are stretched along the potential valleys of a constant energy density and are separated by potential barriers between classically degenerate vacua that are forming a complicated potential landscape of the QCD vacuum. It is suggested that the solutions describe the condensate of dense chromomagnetic vortices representing a dual analog of the Cooper pairs condensate in a superconductor. The solutions represent exact non-perturbative solutions of the YM equation in the background chromomagnetic field.

1 Introduction

Covariantly constant gauge fields are solutions of the sourceless Yang-Mills equation and represent classical vacuum fields [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. We found that the moduli space of covariantly constant gauge fields is infinite-dimensional. The solutions represent non-perturbative chromomagnetic flux tubes (vortices) similar in their form to superposed Nielsen-Olesen chromomagnetic vortices [6] uniformly distributed over the whole space [7, 8]. These gauge field configurations are stretched along the potential valleys of a constant energy density and are separated by potential barriers between classically degenerate vacua that are forming a complicated potential landscape of the QCD vacuum. It is suggested that the solutions describe the condensate of chromomagnetic vortices of opposite magnetic charges and represent a dual analog of the Cooper pairs condensate in a superconductor. This consideration leads to a description of the vacuum state of a Yang-Mills theory as having richer topological structure than previously thought.

It is known that the vacuum state of the Yang Mills theory has a reach topological structure and as a result the quantised gauge theory is specified by a gauge group and a $\theta$-angle [9, 10, 11, 12]. The additional Chern-Pontryagin $\theta$-angle term is Lorentz invariant, but breaks the CP invariants so that the distinct $\theta$ vacuum states correspond to distinct theories [9, 10, 12]. This topological effect appeared due to the presence of gauge field configurations that cannot be continuously joined with the identity transformation [11]. These field configurations $\vec{A}_{n}(\vec{x})$ (2.64) have zero potential energies and are separated by potential barriers (2.65) shown in Fig.4. Due to the instanton tunnelling transitions between degenerate zero energy vacua the corresponding states $\psi_{n}(\vec{A})$ and $\psi_{n+1}(\vec{A})$ are in a quantum-mechanical superposition $\Psi_{\theta}(\vec{A})=\sum_{n}e^{in\theta}\psi_{n}(\vec{A})$ representing the $\theta$ vacuum state [9, 10, 12].

The other aspect of topological phenomenon inherent to Yang Mills theory is the existence of ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole solution in $SU(2)$ gauge field theory which is spontaneously broken by the adjoint scalar field $\phi_{a},a=1,2,3$ that has nonzero vacuum expectation value $v$ [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. The charged bosons $W^{\pm}_{\mu}$ get nonzero masses, while the neutral field $A^{3}_{\mu}$ remains massless. The electromagnetic field strength is defined by ’t Hooft as [13]

$$G_{\mu\nu}=n^{a}G^{a}_{\mu\nu}+{1\over g}\epsilon^{abc}n^{a}\nabla_{\mu}n^{b}\nabla_{\nu}n^{c}\equiv\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}+{1\over g}\epsilon^{abc}n^{a}\partial_{\mu}n^{b}\partial_{\nu}n^{c},~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}n^{a}={\phi^{a}\over|\phi|},$$ (1.1)

where $\nabla_{\mu}n^{a}=\partial_{\mu}n^{a}-g\epsilon^{abc}A^{b}_{\mu}n^{c}$, $A_{\mu}=A^{a}_{\mu}n^{a}$ and $n^{a}$ is a unit colour vector. It reduces to $G_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}A^{3}_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A^{3}_{\mu}$ in the space regions where the scalar field is in the third direction $n_{a}=(0,0,1)$ and the Abelian field $A_{\mu}$ does not have Dirac string singularities. The definition (1.1) satisfies the Maxwell equations, except for the spacetime points where $\phi_{a}(x)=0$. A location of zero value of the scalar field is a solution of the equations $\phi_{1}(x)=\phi_{2}(x)=\phi_{3}(x)=0$ that are defining a point in three dimensional space. The appearance of zero value of the scalar field indicates the existence and the location of a monopole in this theory. This conclusion follows from the expression of the topologically conserved current

$$K_{\mu}={1\over 2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}\partial_{\nu}G_{\lambda\rho}={1\over 2g}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}\epsilon^{abc}\partial_{\nu}n^{a}\partial_{\lambda}n^{b}\partial_{\rho}n^{c}~{},~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\partial_{\mu}K_{\mu}=0.$$ (1.2)

The ’t Hooft-Polyakov solution $\phi^{a}=x^{a}u(r)$ of the scalar field equation has the following asymptotics:

$$u(r)\underset{r\rightarrow 0}{\rightarrow}c_{1},~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}u(r)\underset{r\rightarrow\infty}{\rightarrow}{c_{2}\over r},~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}n^{a}(x)={x^{a}\over r},$$

so that the scalar field $\phi^{a}$ vanishes at $x^{a}=0$. As a result the corresponding topological density $K_{0}(x)$ (1.2) vanishes everywhere expect for $x^{a}=0$ where it has singularity $K_{0}={4\pi\over g}\delta^{3}(\vec{x})$, which contributes to the topological charge and is equal to the winding number of the map $n^{a}(x)$:

$$g_{m}=\int_{R^{3}}d^{3}xK_{0}={1\over 2g}\int_{S^{2}}d^{2}\sigma_{i}\epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon^{abc}n^{a}\partial_{j}n^{b}\partial_{k}n^{c}={4\pi\over g}.$$ (1.3)

The corresponding ’t Hooft-Polyakov regular solution of the gauge field

$$A^{a}_{0}=0,~{}~{}~{}A^{a}_{i}\underset{r\rightarrow\infty}{\rightarrow}-\epsilon_{aij}x_{j}/gr^{2}$$ (1.4)

induces a magnetic flux of a single monopole:

$$H_{i}={x_{i}\over gr^{3}},~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}g_{m}=\int H_{i}dS_{i}={4\pi\over g}.$$ (1.5)

Thus a monopole charge $g_{m}$ is characterised by a topological degree (1.3), the number of times a mapping $n^{a}(x)$ of the space boundary covers the unit sphere $S^{2}_{space~{}boundary}\rightarrow S^{2}_{iso-sphere}$ and by a total magnetic flux through the closed surface (1.5). A magnetic monopole emerges as a physical particle exposing itself through the singularity that is induced by the zeros of the scalar field.

A pure Yang Mills theory does not have adjoint scalar fields and therefore does not admit explicit ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole solutions. The lesson that follows from the above consideration is that one can trace the existence of magnetic charges in the pure Yang-Mills theory by investigating the field singularities [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. Our intention is to investigate nontrivial topological field configurations of the gauge field and their singularities by considering the solutions of the covariantly constant field equation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8].

2 Covariantly constant vacuum gauge fields

The covariantly constant gauge fields are defined by the equation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

$$\nabla^{ab}_{\rho}G^{b}_{\mu\nu}=0,$$ (2.6)

where $G^{a}_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}A^{a}_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A^{a}_{\mu}-g\varepsilon^{abc}A^{b}_{\mu}A^{c}_{\nu},$ $\nabla^{ab}_{\mu}(A)=\delta^{ab}\partial_{\mu}-g\varepsilon^{acb}A^{c}_{\mu}$ and are the solutions of the sourceless Yang-Mills equation $\nabla^{ab}_{\mu}G^{b}_{\mu\nu}=0$ as well. By taking the covariant derivative $\nabla^{ca}_{\lambda}$ of the l.h.s (2.6) and interchanging the derivatives one can get $[G_{\lambda\rho},G_{\mu\nu}]=0,$ which means that the field strength tensor factorises into the product of Lorentz tensor and colour unit vector in the direction of the Cartan’s sub-algebra:

$$G^{a}_{\mu\nu}(x)=G_{\mu\nu}(x)n^{a}(x).$$ (2.7)

Both fields can depend on the space-time coordinates. The well known solution of (2.6) has the following form [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]:

$$A^{a}_{\mu}=-{1\over 2}F_{\mu\nu}x_{\nu}n^{a},$$ (2.8)

where $F_{\mu\nu}$ and $n^{a}$ are space-time independent parameters, $n^{a}n^{a}=1$. It is convenient to call these solution ”flat chromomagnetic fields” because $n^{a}$ is a constant colour vector. The general solutions of the equation (2.6) have been found recently in [7, 8]. It appears that the moduli space of covariantly constant gauge fields is infinite-dimensional and is much larger than the flat chromomagnetic fields defined by the equation (2.8). The new solutions can be obtained through the nontrivial space-time dependence of the unit vector $n^{a}(x)$ [7, 8]. Considering the Cho Ansatz [27, 28, 29, 13, 30, 31, 7, 8]

$$A^{a}_{\mu}=B_{\mu}n^{a}+{1\over g}\varepsilon^{abc}n^{b}\partial_{\mu}n^{c},$$ (2.9)

where $B_{\mu}(x)$ is the Abelian Lorentz vector and $n^{a}(x)$ is a space-time dependent colour unit vector $n^{a}n^{a}=1,$ $n^{a}\partial_{\mu}n^{a}=0,$ one can observe that the field strength tensor factorises [27, 28]:

$$G^{a}_{\mu\nu}=(F_{\mu\nu}+{1\over g}S_{\mu\nu})~{}n^{a}\equiv G_{\mu\nu}~{}n^{a},$$ (2.10)

where

$$F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}B_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}B_{\mu},~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}S_{\mu\nu}=\varepsilon^{abc}n^{a}\partial_{\mu}n^{b}\partial_{\nu}n^{c}.$$ (2.11)

This factorisation is identical to the factorisation (2.7) of covariantly constant gauge fields, and it is therefore natural to search solutions of (2.6) in the form (2.9). In that case (2.6) reduces to the following equation:

$$n^{a}\partial_{\rho}(F_{\mu\nu}+{1\over g}S_{\mu\nu})=0,$$ (2.12)

meaning that the sum of terms in the brackets should be a constant tensor: $G_{\mu\nu}=F_{\mu\nu}+{1\over g}S_{\mu\nu}.$ It is useful to parametrise the unit vector in terms of spherical angles [27, 28]:

$$n^{a}=(\sin\theta\cos\phi,\sin\theta\sin\phi,\cos\theta),$$ (2.13)

and express $S_{\mu\nu}$ in terms of spherical angles as well $S_{\mu\nu}=\sin\theta(\partial_{\mu}\theta\partial_{\nu}\phi-\partial_{\nu}\theta\partial_{\mu}\phi).$ In this article we are considering the solutions that have constant space components $S_{ij}$ and the time components $S_{0i}$ and $F_{\mu\nu}$ equal to zero. These solutions represent pure chromomagnetic vacuum fields, and the equation (2.6) reduces to the following system of partial differential equations:

$$S_{12}=\sin\theta(\partial_{1}\theta\partial_{2}\phi-\partial_{2}\theta\partial_{1}\phi)$$

$$S_{23}=\sin\theta(\partial_{2}\theta\partial_{3}\phi-\partial_{3}\theta\partial_{2}\phi)$$

$$S_{13}=\sin\theta(\partial_{1}\theta\partial_{3}\phi-\partial_{3}\theta\partial_{1}\phi).$$ (2.14)

The linear combination of these equations defines the angle $\phi$ as an arbitrary function of the variable $Y=b_{1}x+b_{2}y+b_{3}z$, thus $\phi=\phi(Y)=\phi(b_{1}x+b_{2}y+b_{3}z)=\phi(b\cdot x),$ where $b_{i},i=1,2,3$ are arbitrary real numbers. After substituting the above function into the equations (2) one can observe that the angle $\theta$ is a function of the alternative variable $X=a_{1}x+a_{2}y+a_{3}z$, thus $\theta=\theta(Y)=\theta(a_{1}x+a_{2}y+a_{3}z)=\theta(a\cdot x),$ where $a_{i},i=1,2,3$ are arbitrary real numbers as well. It follows that the equations (2) reduce to the following differential equations:

$$S_{ij}=a_{i}\wedge b_{j}\sin\theta(X)~{}\theta(X)^{{}^{\prime}}_{X}~{}\phi(Y)^{{}^{\prime}}_{Y},$$ (2.15)

where the derivatives are over the respective arguments. The solutions with a constant tensor $S_{ij}$ should fulfil the following equation:

$$\sin\theta(X)~{}\theta(X)^{{}^{\prime}}_{X}~{}\phi(Y)^{{}^{\prime}}_{Y}=1,$$ (2.16)

so that $S_{ij}=a_{i}\wedge b_{j}.$ The variables in (2.15) are independent, therefore we can choose an arbitrary function $\theta$ and define the function $\phi$ by integration. Let the $\theta(X)$ be an arbitrary function of $X$, then $\phi=Y/\sin\theta(X)\theta(X)^{{}^{\prime}}_{X}$, and we have the following solution for the colour unit vector (2.13):

$$n^{a}(\vec{x})=\{\sin\theta(X)\cos\Big{(}{Y\over\theta(X)^{{}^{\prime}}\sin(\theta(X)}\Big{)},~{}\sin(\theta(X))\sin\Big{(}{Y\over\theta(X)^{{}^{\prime}}\sin(\theta(X))}\Big{)},~{}\cos(\theta(X))\}.$$ (2.17)

The explicit form of the vector potential $A^{a}_{\mu}$ can be obtained by substituting the unit colour vector (2.17) into the (2.9), and the result is given in (2.33). The equation (2.17) defines an infinite-dimensional space of solutions, because they depend on an arbitrary function $\theta(X)$. We conclude that the moduli space of covariantly constant gauge fields is infinite-dimensional and is much larger than the moduli space of flat chromomagnetic fields (2.8). In comparison, the moduli space ${\cal I}_{k,N}$ of the YM self-duality equation in the Euclidean space [11] has the dimension $dim{\cal I}_{k,N}=4kN$ in a given winding sector k for the $SU(N)$ group [32, 33]. Our aim is to describe the infinite-dimensional moduli space of the covariantly constant gauge fields defined by the equations (2.6), (2.9) and (2.17) and investigate their physical properties.

Figure 1: The figure demonstrates a finite part of an infinite sheet of finite thickness ${2\over a}$ in the direction of the $x$ axis of the solution (2.23). It is filled by parallel chromomagnetic flux tubes. Each tube of the square area ${2\over a}{\pi\over b}$ carries the magnetic flux ${2\pi\over g}$. The circuits show the flow of the conserved current $J^{a}_{\mu}=g\epsilon^{abc}A^{b}_{\nu}G^{c}_{\nu\mu}$.

Let us consider first the particular solutions through which one can expose the essential properties of the general solution. To obtain a particular solution in an explicit form we have to choose the function $\theta(X)$. Considering $\theta(X)=\arcsin(\sqrt{1-(a\cdot x)^{2}})$ we are obtaining a ”chromomagnetic flux sheet” solution [7, 8]

$$n^{a}(x)=\{\sqrt{1-(a\cdot x)^{2}}\cos(b\cdot x),~{}\sqrt{1-(a\cdot x)^{2}}\sin(b\cdot x),~{}(a\cdot x)\},$$ (2.18)

which represents a non-perturbative magnetic sheet of a finite thickness $2/|a|$, and the corresponding gauge field (2.9) has the following form:

$$A^{a}_{\mu} = {1\over g}\left\{\begin{array}[]{cccc}(0,0,0)&\\ a\Big{(}{\sin by\over\sqrt{1-(ax)^{2}}},-{\cos by\over\sqrt{1-(ax)^{2}}},0\Big{)}&(ax)^{2}<1\\ b\sqrt{1-(ax)^{2}}\Big{(}-ax\cos by,-ax\sin by,\sqrt{1-(ax)^{2}}&\\ (0,0,0)&\end{array}\right.$$ (2.23)

$$A^{a}_{\mu} = 0,~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}(ax)^{2}\geq 1,$$

where $\vec{a}=(a,0,0)$, $\vec{b}=(0,b,0)$. There is no energy flow from the magnetic sheet in the direction transversal to the sheet because the Poynting vector vanishes, $\vec{E^{a}}\times\vec{H^{a}}=0$. This solution is similar to the superposition of the Nielsen-Olesen magnetic flux tubes and is supported without presence of any Higgs field (see Fig.1). This is because the magnetic flux that is defined by the equation [15, 16]

$$A(L)={1\over 2}TrP\exp{(i\oint_{L}A_{k}dx^{k})}\equiv\exp{(i\Phi_{B})}$$ (2.24)

is equal to ${2\pi\over g}$ when a closed loop $L$ is surrounding any oriented magnetic flux tube of the square area ${2\over a}{\pi\over b}$ in the $(x,y)$ plane of the solution (2.23) (see Fig.1). It will be convenient to call the solutions (2.23 ) and (2.17) ”superfluxons” as an abbreviation of ”superposition of fluxes”. When $\theta(X)=\arcsin({1\over\cosh(a\cdot x)})$ we will obtain ”hyperbolic” solution, which has infinite width in the $x$ direction compared with the finite width solution (2.18)

$$n^{a}(x)=\{\sqrt{1-\tanh(a\cdot x)^{2}}\cos((b\cdot x)\cosh^{2}(a\cdot x)),\sqrt{1-\tanh(a\cdot x)^{2}}\sin((b\cdot x)\cosh^{2}(a\cdot x)),\tanh(a\cdot x)\}.$$ (2.25)

Finally, when $\theta(X)=(a\cdot x)$, we will obtain a ”trigonometric” solution [7, 8]

$$n^{a}(\vec{x})=\{\sin(a\cdot x)\cos\Big{(}{(b\cdot x)\over\sin(a\cdot x)}\Big{)},~{}\sin(a\cdot x)\sin\Big{(}{(b\cdot x)\over\sin(a\cdot x)}\Big{)},~{}\cos(a\cdot x)\}.$$ (2.26)

The general solution (2.17) for the vector potential $A^{a}_{\mu}$ (2.9) depends on two coordinates $X$ and $Y$. For the sake of transparency and compactness of the subsequent formulas we will identify this plane with the plane $(x,y)$. Thus we are considering the vectors $a_{\mu}=(0,a,0,0)$ and $b_{\nu}=(0,0,b,0)$, so that $\theta(x)=f(ax)$, $\phi(x,y)=by/f^{{}^{\prime}}(ax)\sin f(ax)$. The gauge field (2.9) will take the following form (see Appendix):

$$A^{a}_{\mu}(x,y) = {1\over g}\left\{\begin{array}[]{cccccc}(0,0,0)\\ a\Big{(}by{\cos^{2}f\over\sin f}\cos({by\over f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin f})-f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin({by\over f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin f})+by{f^{{}^{\prime\prime}}\over f^{{}^{\prime}2}}\cos(f)\cos({by\over f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin f}),\\ by{\cos^{2}\over\sin f}\sin({by\over f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin f})+f^{{}^{\prime}}\cos({by\over f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin f})+by{f^{{}^{\prime\prime}}\over f^{{}^{\prime}2}}\cos(f)\sin({by\over f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin f}),\\ -by(\cos(f)+{f^{{}^{\prime\prime}}\over f^{{}^{\prime}2}}\sin(f))\Big{)}\\ {b\over f^{{}^{\prime}}}\Big{(}-\cos(f)\cos({by\over f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin f}),-\cos(f)\sin({by\over f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin f}),~{}\sin f\Big{)},\\ (0,0,0)\end{array}\right.,$$ (2.33)

where the derivatives are over the whole argument $ax$. One can verify explicitly that it is a solution of the Yang Mills equation (see Appendix). The nonzero component of the field strength tensor $G^{a}_{\mu\nu}$ is of the following form:

$$G^{a}_{13}(x)={ab\over g}~{}n^{a}(x,y),$$ (2.34)

and the energy density of the chromomagnetic field is a space time constant

$$\epsilon={1\over 4}G^{a}_{ij}G^{a}_{ij}={a^{2}b^{2}\over 2g^{2}}.$$ (2.35)

The non-vanishing components of the conserved current $J^{a}_{\mu}=g\epsilon^{abc}A^{b}_{\nu}G^{c}_{\nu\mu}$ are

$$J^{a}_{1} = {ab^{2}\over gf^{{}^{\prime}}}\Big{(}\sin({by\over\sin f}),-\cos({by\over\sin f}),0\Big{)};~{}$$ (2.36)

$$J^{1}_{2} = {a^{2}b\over g}\Big{(}f^{{}^{\prime}}\cos f\cos({by\over\sin f})+by\cot f\sin({by\over\sin f})+by{f^{{}^{\prime\prime}}\over f^{{}^{\prime}2}}\sin({bz\over\sin f})\Big{)},$$

$$J^{2}_{2} = {a^{2}b\over g}\Big{(}f^{{}^{\prime}}\cos f\sin({by\over\sin f})-by\cot f\cos({by\over\sin f})-by{f^{{}^{\prime\prime}}\over f^{{}^{\prime}2}}\cos({by\over\sin f})\Big{)},~{}$$

$$J^{3}_{2} = -{a^{2}b\over g}f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin f.$$ (2.37)

One can check that $\partial_{\mu}J^{a}_{\mu}=\partial_{x}J^{a}_{1}+\partial_{y}J^{a}_{2}=0$. Let us consider the topological properties of the solution (2.17), (2.33). The conserved topological current and the corresponding magnetic charge can be defined in terms of the Abelian field strength $G_{\mu\nu}$ (2.10) in analogy with the definition (1.2)

$$K_{\mu}={1\over 2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}\partial_{\nu}G_{\lambda\rho}={1\over 2g}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}\partial_{\nu}S_{\lambda\rho},~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\partial_{\mu}K_{\mu}=0,~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}Q_{m}=\int_{V}K_{0}d^{3}x,$$ (2.38)

where $F_{\mu\nu}=0$. In terms of the tensor $S_{\mu\nu}$ (2.11) and of the colour unit vector $n^{a}(x,y)$ (2.17), (2.33) the topological charge will take the following equivalent forms:

$$K_{0}={1\over 2g}\epsilon_{ijk}\partial_{i}S_{jk}={1\over 2g}\epsilon_{ijk}\partial_{i}(\epsilon^{abc}n^{a}\partial_{j}n^{b}\partial_{k}n^{c}),$$ (2.39)

$$Q_{m}={1\over 2g}\int_{V}\epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon^{abc}\partial_{i}n^{a}\partial_{j}n^{b}\partial_{k}n^{c}d^{3}x={1\over 2g}\int_{\partial V}\epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon^{abc}n^{a}\partial_{j}n^{b}\partial_{k}n^{c}d\sigma_{i}={1\over 2g}\int_{\partial V}d\sigma_{i}~{}\epsilon_{ijk}S_{jk}.$$

Figure 2: The figure shows mapping (2.18) $n^{a}(x,y)=\{\sqrt{1-x^{2}}\cos(y),~{}\sqrt{1-x^{2}}\sin(y),~{}x\}$ of a cylinder sell $C^{2}_{0}$ on the plane $(x,y)$ to the sphere $S^{2}_{0}$. The mapping of the cylinder boundaries $x=\pm 1$ to the north and south poles is given by the formula $n^{a}(\pm 1,y)=(0,0,\pm 1)$, where $y\in[0,2\pi]$. The lines $L_{1,2}$ are identified on a sphere due to the formula $n^{a}(x,0)=n^{a}(x,2\pi)=(\sqrt{1-x^{2}},0,x)$, where $x\in[-1,1]$. Each sell $C^{2}_{k}$ defines a magnetic vortex of a positive magnetic charge (2.42).

As far as the solution is homogeneous in $z$ direction, we have to consider a topological charge within the space volume $V$ that is a rectangular box with its two boundaries being parallel to the $(x,y)$ plane at the distance $L$ from each other and the other four boundaries will be defined for each particular solution individually.

Let us first consider the magnetic sheet solution (2.18), (2.23). The rectangular boxes in this case will have four boundaries given by the equations $x=\pm{1\over a}$ and $y=[{2\pi\over b}k,{2\pi\over b}(k+1)]$, $k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...$ Because the tensor $S_{ij}$ is a space constant, the total charge $Q_{m}=0$ (2.39). For the solution (2.18) a nonzero component of the tensor $S_{ij}$ is $S_{12}=-ab$ and $Q_{m}$ gets contributions only from two boundaries parallel to the $(x,y)$ plane:

$$Q_{m}={1\over g}\int_{\partial V}S_{12}d\sigma_{3}={1\over g}\int_{(x,y,0)}ab~{}dxdy-{1\over g}\int_{(x,y,L)}ab~{}dxdy=q_{m}(0)-q_{m}(L)=0.$$ (2.40)

Thus $q_{m}=q_{m}(0)=q_{m}(L)$, and we can define the invariant magnetic flux in terms of the surface integral:

$$q_{m}={1\over g}\int_{(x,y,0)}ab~{}dxdy.$$ (2.41)

The vector $n^{a}(x,y)$ in (2.18) defines a mapping of the cylinders $C^{2}_{k}:(x\times y)\in[-{1\over a},{1\over a}]\times[{2\pi\over b}k,{2\pi\over b}(k+1)]$, $k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...$ into the spheres $S^{2}_{k}$, as it is shown in Fig.2. After integrating over a given cylinder $C^{2}_{k}$ of the area $\triangle x\triangle y=(4\pi/ab)$ one can see that the mapping $n^{a}(x,y)$ covers each sphere $S^{2}_{k}$ only once, and the associated magnetic charge of this vortex in $z$ direction is

$$g_{m}(k)={1\over g}\int^{{1\over a}}_{-{1\over a}}~{}dax\int^{{2\pi\over b}(k+1)}_{{2\pi\over b}k}dby={4\pi\over g}.$$ (2.42)

All magnetic charges $g_{m}(k)$ have the same sign. Considering the alternative solution

$$n^{a}(x)=\{\sqrt{1-(a\cdot x)^{2}}\cos(b\cdot x),~{}-\sqrt{1-(a\cdot x)^{2}}\sin(b\cdot x),~{}(a\cdot x)\},$$ (2.43)

one can get convinced that this solution has the opposite magnetic charges:

$$g_{m}(k)=-{4\pi\over g}.$$ (2.44)

Figure 3: The l.h.s figure shows the mapping defined by the vector $n^{a}(x,y)=\{\sin x\cos(y/\sin x),~{}\sin x\sin(y/\sin x),~{}\cos x\}$ from the cylinder cells $C^{2}_{k}$ to the spheres $S^{2}_{k}$. The boundaries of the cylinders are defined by the equation $y=0,\pm\alpha\sin x$. The positive topological charges have the mapping of the cylinders $y=0,\alpha\sin x$ , $\alpha\in[0,2\pi k]$: ($n(0,\alpha)=(0,0,1)$, $n(\pi,\alpha)=(0,0,-1)$, $n(\pi/2,\alpha)=(\cos\alpha,\sin\alpha,0)$, $n(3\pi/2,\alpha)=(-\cos\alpha,-\sin\alpha,0)$, $n(2\pi,\alpha)=(0,0,1)$). The negative topological charges have the mapping of the cylinders $y=0,-\alpha\sin x$, $\alpha\in[0,2\pi k]$). The part of the full structure is shown on the r.h.s of the figure and reminds the Abrikosov lattice of parallel Nielsen-Olesen magnetic vortices that are normal to the plane $(x,y)$ and have alternating magnetic charges.

Turning to the trigonometric solution (2.26) one can find that here the cylinders have more complicated transversal structure $C^{2}_{k}:(x\times y)\in[{2\pi\over a}k,{2\pi\over a}(k+1)]\times[0,\pm\alpha\sin(ax)/b]$, where $k=0,\pm 1,...$, $\alpha\in[0,2\pi l]$, $l=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...$, as it is shown in Fig. 3. The important new property of this solution is that the magnetic fluxes have alternating magnetic charges. A similar pattern takes place for the general solution (2.17), where the corresponding cylinders are defined by the equations $f(ax)=(0,2\pi k)$ and $y=(0,2\pi lf^{{}^{\prime}}(ax)\sin f(ax)/b)$. The magnetic flux tubes (vortices) are parallel to each other, and the chromomagnetic fields inside the neighbouring tubes (vortices) are oriented in the opposite directions. In a sense the solution describes a condensate of superposed Nielsen-Olesen vortices [6] of opposite magnetic fluxes Fig. 2,3 and is a dual analog of the Cooper pairs condensate in a superconductor.

These gauge field configurations are ”stretched” along the potential valleys of a constant energy density (2.35) and are separated by potential barriers forming a complicated landscape of the QCD vacuum. In order to investigate this potential landscape we will perform a gauge transformation $U(\vec{x})$ that transforms the unit colour vector $n^{a}(x)$ (2.17) into the constant vector in the third direction $n^{{}^{\prime}a}=(0,0,1)$:

$$\hat{n}^{{}^{\prime}}=U^{-}\hat{n}U,~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\hat{n}=n^{a}\sigma^{a}.$$ (2.45)

The $SU(2)$ matrix of the corresponding singular gauge transformation has the following form:

$$U=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}\alpha&\beta\\ \gamma&\delta\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}\cos({f\over 2})e^{{i\over 2}({\pi\over 2}-{by\over f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin f})}&i\sin({f\over 2})e^{{i\over 2}({\pi\over 2}-{by\over f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin f})}\\ i\sin({f\over 2})e^{-{i\over 2}({\pi\over 2}-{by\over f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin f})}&\cos({f\over 2})e^{-{i\over 2}({\pi\over 2}-{by\over f^{{}^{\prime}}\sin f})}\end{array}\right).$$ (2.50)

Under this gauge transformation $A^{{}^{\prime}}_{\mu}=U^{-}A_{\mu}U-{i\over g}U^{-}\partial_{\mu}U$ the superfluxon gauge potential (2.33) will transform into the following form (see Appendix):

$$A^{{}^{\prime}a}_{\mu} = {1\over g}\left\{\begin{array}[]{cccccc}&(0&0&0&)\\ &(0&0&aby\cot(f)(\cot(f)+{f^{{}^{\prime\prime}}\over f^{{}^{\prime}2}})&)\\ &(0&0&-b{\cot(f)\over f^{{}^{\prime}}}&)\\ &(0&0&0&).\end{array}\right.~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}G^{{}^{\prime}3}_{12}={ab\over g}.$$ (2.55)

All components of the gauge field are now in the third colour direction $A^{{}^{\prime}3}_{\mu}$. The Abelian gauge transformation $A^{{}^{\prime\prime}3}_{\mu}\rightarrow A^{{}^{\prime}3}_{\mu}-\partial_{\mu}\Lambda^{3}$, where $\Lambda^{3}=-by{\cot f\over f^{{}^{\prime}}}$, brings the gauge potential (2.55) into the flat chromomagnetic field of the form (2.8)

$$A^{{}^{\prime\prime}3}_{1}=-{ab\over g}y,~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}G^{{}^{\prime\prime}3}_{12}={ab\over g},~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\epsilon={a^{2}b^{2}\over 2g^{2}}.$$ (2.56)

Thus we obtained the gauge configurations (2.33) and (2.55),(2.56) that are connected by a singular gauge transformations and have the identical constant chromomagnetic energy density (2.35). The question is: Should these field configurations be counted as physically identical or distinguishable in the functional integral over gauge field configurations? The gauge-fixing procedure removes from the functional integral the gauge field configurations which can be joined by a continuous gauge transformation. But if the gauge fields cannot be obtained from each other by gauge transformations which can be continuously joined by the identity transformation, then these gauge fields configurations, although gauge equivalent, should not be removed from the integrations over the field configurations by the gauge fixing procedure [9, 10]. In particular, the topologically distinguishable Chern-Pontryagin configurations are divided into several topologically inequivalent sectors separated by periodic potential barriers [9, 10, 12].

In our case as well the covariantly constant vacuum field configurations have different topological structure and cannot be transformed into each other by nonsingular continuous gauge transformations, and we will demonstrate that they are separated by the potential barriers as well. Let us consider an arbitrary path $w(\alpha)$ that joins the field configurations (2.33) and (2.55) and calculate the corresponding magnetic energy density. To exemplify this, let us multiply the potential of (2.33) by the factor $w({1\over 2}-\alpha)$ and the potential (2.55) by the factor $w({1\over 2}+\alpha)$ requiring that the $w(0)=0$ and $w(1)=1$, when $\alpha$ increases from $-{1\over 2}$ to $+{1\over 2}$:

$$\ \begin{array}[]{cccc}&\hat{A}^{a}_{0}=&w({1\over 2}-\alpha)A^{a}_{0}&\\ &\hat{A}^{a}_{1}=&w({1\over 2}-\alpha)A^{a}_{1}&+w({1\over 2}+\alpha)A^{{}^{\prime}a}_{1}\\ &\hat{A}^{a}_{2}=&w({1\over 2}-\alpha)A^{a}_{2}&\\ &\hat{A}^{a}_{3}=&w({1\over 2}-\alpha)A^{a}_{3}&+w({1\over 2}+\alpha)A^{{}^{\prime}a}_{3}.\end{array}$$ (2.61)

These factors define a path $w(\alpha)$ that connects two vacuum field configurations (2.33) and (2.55) and allows to investigate the energy landscape of covariantly constant gauge fields configurations by calculating the magnetic energy along this path, when $\alpha=-{1\over 2}$ the $\hat{A}^{a}_{\mu}$ coincides with $A^{a}_{\mu}$ and when $\alpha={1\over 2}$ it coincides with $A^{{}^{\prime}a}_{\mu}$. After substituting the field $(\ref{pathdeformation})$ into the energy density functional $\epsilon={1\over 4}G^{a}_{ij}G^{a}_{ij}$ we will get the following shape of the potential barrier (see Appendix):

$$\epsilon(x,\alpha) = {a^{2}b^{2}\over 2g^{2}}\Big{(}(2-w_{-})^{2}w^{2}_{-}+w^{2}_{+}+2(2-w_{-})w_{-}(1+w_{-})w_{+}\cos f(ax)+{w^{2}_{-}w^{2}_{+}\over\sin^{2}f(ax)}~{}\Big{)},~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}$$ (2.62)

where $w_{-}\equiv w({1\over 2}-\alpha)$ and $w_{+}\equiv w({1\over 2}+\alpha)$. The barrier is homogeneous in $y$ and $z$ directions. The $\alpha$-dependent coefficients are positive definite, and the profile of the barrier between superfluson (2.33) and the flat configuration (2.55) depend on the behaviour of $\cos f(ax)$ and ${1\over\sin^{2}f(ax)}$. It follows that $\epsilon={a^{2}b^{2}\over 2g^{2}}$ at $\alpha=\pm 1/2$ in accordance with the energy density (2.35), (2.56) for both vacuum field configurations. The trigonometric expressions are the function of the moduli parameter $f(ax)$ of the superfluson solution (2.33), and we have a potential barrier between superfluson configuration (2.33) and a flat chromomagnetic configuration (2.56). If $w(\alpha)$ is a linear functional of its argument $w={1\over 2}-\alpha$, then we will get

$$\epsilon(x,\alpha)={a^{2}b^{2}\over 32g^{2}}\Big{(}13-8\alpha+8\alpha^{2}+36\alpha^{3}+16\alpha^{4}+(18-80\alpha^{2}+32\alpha^{4})\cos f(ax)+{(1-4\alpha^{2})^{2}\over\sin^{2}f(ax)}~{}\Big{)}.$$ (2.63)

For a particular solution the potential barrier is shown in Fig.4.

Figure 4: The l.h.s. graph shows the shape of the barrier $\epsilon(x,\alpha)$ (2.63) when $\alpha$ parameter changes in the interval $[-{1\over 2},0]$. At $\alpha=-{1\over 2}$ the energy density (2.35) is equal to $\epsilon=1/2$ ($a=b=g=1$). As $\alpha$ increases, the hight of the barrier increases and reaches its maximum at $\alpha=0$, then it symmetrically decreases until $\alpha={1\over 2}$, where it again is equal to $\epsilon=1/2$. The r.h.s graph shows the shape of the potential barrier (2.65) between the Chern-Pontryagin vacua (2.64).

In order to compare the above consideration with a topological effect that appeared due to the presence of gauge field configurations that have non-vanishing Chern-Pontryagin index one can consider the flat connections defined in [9, 10]:

$$\vec{A}_{n}(\vec{x})={i\over g}U^{-}_{n}(\vec{x})\nabla U_{n}(\vec{x}),~{}~{}~{}~{}U_{1}(\vec{x})={\vec{x}^{2}-\lambda^{2}-2i\lambda\vec{\sigma}\vec{x}\over\vec{x}^{2}+\lambda^{2}},~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}U_{n}=U^{n}_{1}.$$ (2.64)

The values of the gauge field (2.64), although gauge equivalent to $\vec{A}(x)=0$, are not removed from the integration over the field configurations by gauge fixing procedure because they belong to different topological classes and are separated by potential barriers [9, 10, 12]. The appearance of potential barriers between these zero energy troughs can be observed by calculating the magnetic energy of the field configuration $\vec{A}^{~{}^{\prime}}_{1}(\vec{x})=({1\over 2}-\alpha)\vec{A}_{1}(\vec{x})$ when $\alpha$ is continuously varying from $-{1\over 2}$ to ${1\over 2}$. This path connects two minima $\vec{A}(x)=0$ and $\vec{A}_{1}(x)$ of the magnetic energy density through the potential barrier of the shape

$$\epsilon(r,\alpha)={1\over 4}G^{a}_{ij}G^{a}_{ij}={6\lambda^{4}(1-4\alpha^{2})\over g^{2}(r^{2}+\lambda^{2})^{4}}$$ (2.65)

shown in Fig.4. In the quantum theory tunneling will occur across this barrier. The physical implication of the instanton induced tunnelling transition is that the quantal description of the vacuum state cannot be limited to fluctuations around any definite classical configuration of zero energy (2.64) and the quantum-mechanical superposition $\Psi_{\theta}(\vec{A})=\sum_{n}e^{in\theta}\psi_{n}(\vec{A})$ represents the Yang Mills $\theta$ vacuum state [9, 10].

The existence of an even larger class of covariantly constant gauge fields described above pointed out to the fact that the Yang-Mills vacuum has even higher degeneracy of vacuum field configutations. Each covariantly constant gauge field configuration on its own contains a rich diversity of emergent nonperturbative structures, and it is a challenging problem to investigate possible tunneling transitions between these highly degenerate states and to calculate the vacuum polarisation induced by the new class of covariantly constant gauge fields. The early investigation of the Yang-Mills vacuum polarisation induced by covariantly constant gauge field [1, 2, 3] revealed that the effective Lagrangian of the SU(N) Yang-Mills theory has the following gauge and Lorentz invariant form:

$${\cal L}=-{\cal F}-{11N\over 96\pi^{2}}g^{2}{\cal F}\Big{(}\ln{2g^{2}{\cal F}\over\mu^{4}}-1\Big{)},$$ (2.66)

where ${\cal F}={1\over 4}G^{a}_{\mu\nu}G^{a}_{\mu\nu}={\vec{{\cal H}}^{2}_{a}-\vec{{\cal E}}^{2}_{a}\over 2}\geq 0$ and ${\cal G}={1\over 4}G^{a}_{\mu\nu}\tilde{G}^{a}_{\mu\nu}=\vec{{\cal H}}_{a}\vec{{\cal E}}_{a}=0$, and that the vacuum energy density has its new minimum at a nonzero value of the field strength [2]:

$$\langle 2g^{2}{\cal F}\rangle_{vac}=\mu^{4}\exp{(-{96\pi^{2}\over 11Ng^{2}(\mu)})}=\Lambda^{4}_{S},~{}~{}~{}~{}\epsilon_{vac}=-{11N\over 192\pi^{2}}\Lambda^{4}_{S}.$$ (2.67)

We conjecture that the effective Lagrangian for the general covariantly constant gauge fields has a universal form (2.66) and that the tunneling process between degenerate vacuum field configurations (2.68) restores the Lorentz invariance of the vacuum state. A quasiclassical description of the tunneling transitions can be understood in terms of averaging over the superfluson field orientations. The general solution (2.17) includes two moduli vectors $\vec{a}$ and $\vec{b}$ which are defining the orientation of the field configuration in 3d-space. This orientation is defined by the two angles $(\beta,\gamma)$

$$\theta(X)=\theta(\vec{a}\cdot\vec{x})=\theta(|\vec{a}||\vec{x}|\cos\beta),~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\phi(Y)=\phi(\vec{b}\cdot\vec{x})=\phi(|\vec{b}||\vec{x}|\cos\gamma).$$ (2.68)

and the path integral over the vacuum gauge fields configurations should include the integration over these angles providing the Lorentz invariant description of the vacuum state.

3 Conclusion

An early attempt to find a larger class of space-homogeneous vacuum Yang-Mills fields was made in [34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39]. It was shown that space-homogeneous vacuum fields exhibit deterministic chaos [40]. The vacuum fields were also considered in [41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55]. The approximate solutions in the background field (2.8) was investigated in [56, 57, 58, 59] and has a ”spaghetti”-type structure of magnetic flux tubes.

Figure 5: For the field configuration with $\vec{H}=(0,0,H)$, $\vec{a}=(a\cos\beta,a\sin\beta,0)$, $\vec{b}=(0,b\sin\gamma,b\cos\gamma)$ we will get the magnetic energy landscape $\epsilon(\beta,\gamma)={H^{2}\over 2}-{1\over g}Hab\sin\gamma\cos\beta+{a^{2}b^{2}\over 2g^{2}}(\cos\gamma^{2}+\sin\gamma^{2}\cos\beta^{2})$ as a function of two angles shown in the figure with minimum value (3.71) and maximum (3.72).

The identification of the moduli space of covariantly constant gauge fields remained unsolved for a long time. We found that the moduli space defined by the equation (2.6) is infinite-dimensional. The space-time structure of this solution is similar to the ”spaghetti”-type configurations found as an approximate solution of the Yang Mills equation in a background field (2.8) [56, 57, 58, 59]. The equations (2.9), (2.8), (2.17) and (2.33) represent an exact non-perturbative solution of YM equation in the background chromomagnetic field [7, 8]. Indeed, suppose that a constant chromomagnetic background Abelian field $F_{ij}$ (2.11) is imposed on the vacuum:

$$B_{i}=-{1\over 2}F_{ij}x_{j},$$ (3.69)

and we would like to find the exact solution of the Yang Mills equation in this background. The answer was given above in this article and is defined by the equation (2.17) and (2.33). There are infinity many solutions parametrised by $\theta$ function and two vectors $\vec{a}$ and $\vec{b}$. The classical magnetic energy density has the following form [7, 8]:

$$\epsilon = {\vec{H}^{2}\over 2}-{1\over g}\vec{H}\cdot(\vec{a}\times\vec{b})+{1\over 2g^{2}}(\vec{a}\times\vec{b})^{2}.$$ (3.70)

The minimum of $\epsilon$ is realised when the term $\vec{H}\cdot(\vec{a}\times\vec{b})$ gets its maximum positive value. This takes place when three vectors $(\vec{H},\vec{a},\vec{b})$ are forming the orthogonal right oriented frame, so that

$$\epsilon_{min}={H^{2}\over 2}-{1\over g}Hab+{1\over 2g^{2}}a^{2}b^{2}={1\over 2}(H-{ab\over g})^{2}.$$ (3.71)

This means that the energy ${1\over 2}H^{2}$ of the imposed magnetic field is lowered by the vacuum ”response”. At the same time if three vectors $(\vec{H},\vec{a},\vec{b})$ are forming the orthogonal left oriented frame the energy density increases

$$\epsilon_{max}={H^{2}\over 2}+{1\over g}Hab+{1\over 2g^{2}}a^{2}b^{2}={1\over 2}(H+{ab\over g})^{2}.$$ (3.72)

The chromomagnetic flux tubes form a periodic lattice structure in 3D-space with fluxes oriented in the opposite directions. The structure of the lattice landscape is defined by the $\theta(X)$ function (2.17). The classical energy landscape of general field configuration it is shown in Fig.5.

The phenomenon of high vacuum degeneracy is not new in the Yang Mills theory [9, 10]. The Yang Mills theory in the classical approximation has an infinite degeneracy of the vacuum state, which is labelled by the topological winding number, the Pontryagin index, which defines several topologically inequivalent sectors separated by potential barriers [9, 10]. Here as well the covariantly constant vacuum field configurations cannot be transformed into each other by nonsingular continuous gauge transformations and are separated by potential barriers. It is a challenging problem to investigate the tunneling transitions between these states and to calculate the effective Lagrangian. We conjectured that the effective Lagrangian will be identical to (2.66).

Turning to the statistical spin systems, one can observe that the classical 3D Ising spin system has a double degeneracy of the vacuum state $|\Uparrow\rangle,|\Downarrow\rangle$ and allows to construct a dual gauge invariant representation of the 3D Ising model [60]. The spin system that has an exponential degeneracy of the vacuum state was constructed in [61] and is an extension of the 3D Ising model. Here the parallel planes of spins represent a vacuum configuration $(|\Uparrow\rangle,|\Downarrow\rangle,...|\Uparrow\rangle,....|\Downarrow\rangle,|\Uparrow\rangle)$. The total number of such vacuum configurations is $3\times 2^{N}$ or $2^{3N}$ if the intersection coupling constant is equal to zero ($k=0)$ [62, 63, 64, 65, 66]. There is an intriguing similarity between the geometry of magnetic sheets of spins and the solutions representing magnetic sheet configurations (2.18), (2.23). In recent publications this symmetry was referred to as the subsystem symmetry [67]. The high symmetry allows to construct dual representations of these systems in various dimensions [63, 64, 68]. They have rich physical properties, including the glass behaviour [69, 70] and exotic fracton excitations [67].

In conclusion I would like to thank Konstantin Savvidy for stimulating discussions.

4 Appendix

This appendix present a Mathematica code for calculation of the covariantly constant gauge filed configurations and of the potential barriers.

See pages - of Covariantly.pdf