4.4 Article

Observables in inhomogeneous ground states at large global charge

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP08(2021)079

关键词

Conformal Field Theory; Effective Field Theories; Renormalization Group

资金

  1. JSPS
  2. World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan
  3. JSPS KAKENHI [JP22740153, JP26400242]
  4. JSPS Program for Advancing Strategic International Networks to Accelerate the Circulation of Talented Researchers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we extend previous work on the ground state configuration of the D = 3, Wilson-Fisher conformal O(4) model, showing that for generic ratios of charge densities, the ground-state configuration is inhomogeneous. The ground state energy scales with (rho(1) + rho(2))(3/2) and violates cluster decomposition in the large-volume, fixed-density limit, with a negative definite two-point function at antipodal points of the torus at large charge.
As a sequel to previous work, we extend the study of the ground state configuration of the D = 3, Wilson-Fisher conformal O(4) model. In this work, we prove that for generic ratios of two charge densities, rho(1)/rho(2), the ground-state configuration is inhomogeneous and that the inhomogeneity expresses itself towards longer spatial periods. This is the direct extension of the similar statements we previously made for rho(1)/rho(2) << 1. We also compute, at fixed set of charges, rho(1), rho(2), the ground state energy and the two-point function(s) associated with this inhomogeneous configuration on the torus. The ground state energy was found to scale (rho(1) + rho(2))(3/2), as dictated by dimensional analysis and similarly to the case of the O(2) model. Unlike the case of the O(2) model, the ground also strongly violates cluster decomposition in the large-volume, fixed-density limit, with a two-point function that is negative definite at antipodal points of the torus at leading order at large charge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据