# Spatial Compactification and Decay-Rate Behaviour

## Abstract

The transition from instanton-dominated quantum tunneling regime to sphaleron-dominated classical crossover regime is explored in (1+1)-dimensional scalar field theory when spatial coordinate is compactified. It is shown that the type of sphaleron transition is critically dependent on the circumference of the spatial coordinate.

preprint: KNTP-99-03   

Recently, much attention is paid to the winding number transition from instanton-dominated quantum tunneling regime to the sphaleron-dominated classical crossover regime in $`SU(2)`$-Higgs model, which is believed to describe electroweak phase transition in early universe. The active research in this field is mainly for the hope to understand baryon number violating process, which is very important consequence of electroweak chiral anomaly.

Since, unfortunately, the sphaleron transition in $`SU(2)`$-Higgs model or real electroweak theories is too complicated to treat and it needs lot a numerical calculation, it is very hard to understand the real mechanism of the electroweak phase transition by investigating these models directly. Hence a decade ago Mottola and Wipf(MW) adopted a non-linear $`O(3)`$ model with a soft symmetry breaking term as a toy model for the study of baryon number violating process. This model has an advantage that analytical expression of the sphaleron solution can be derived by paralleling Manton’s original argument. Recently, the sphaleron transition in this model with and without Skyrme term is examined.

Comparing, however, the result of Ref. with that of Ref., one can obviously conclude that MW model in itself cannot play a key role of toy model for electroweak theory when $`M_H>6.665M_W`$, where $`M_H`$ and $`M_W`$ are masses of Higgs and $`W`$ particles, respectively. In this region $`SU(2)`$-Higgs theory exhibits a smooth second-order sphaleron transition, while MW model exhibits a first-order sphaleron transition in the full range of its parameter space. Hence it may be helpful in understanding the real nature of the electroweak phase transition if one can find a simple toy model which exhibits both first-order and second-order sphaleron transitions. We argue in the present letter that this can be achieved by giving a nontrivial topology to the spatial coordinate.

If we impose a compactified spatial coordinate $`x`$, it naturally generates a periodic boundary condition $`\varphi (x=0)=\varphi (x=L)`$, where $`\varphi `$ is arbitrary scalar field and $`L`$ is a circumference of a compactified spatial coordinate. On the other hand, the decay transition of a metastable state at finite temperature is governed by classical configuration which satisfies another periodic boundary condition at temporal coordinate: $`\varphi (\tau =\tau _0)=\varphi (\tau =\tau _0+1/T)`$, where $`\tau `$ and $`T`$ are Euclidean time and temperature. This means we have two distinct periodic boundary conditions in this case, which makes the mechanism of the sphaleron transition to be very complicate. In this letter we will explore this issue by introducing a simple (1+1)-dimensional scalar field model and show the type of sphaleron transition is dependent on the circumference of the spatial coordinate.

Now, let us start with Euclidean action

$$S_E=𝑑\tau 𝑑x\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\varphi }{\tau }\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\varphi }{x}\right)^2+U(\varphi )\right],$$
(1)   
where $`U(\varphi )`$ is usual inverted double well potential

$$U(\varphi )=\frac{\mu ^2}{2a^2}(\varphi ^2a^2)^2+\frac{\mu ^2}{2a^2}a^4.$$
(2)   
It is very easy to show that sphaleron transition for the model (1) with usual non-compactified spatial coordinate is smooth second order if non-linear perturbation or number of negative modes approach are employed. Both approaches yield an identical sufficient condition for the first-order sphaleron transition and are very useful for the discussion of the effect of the arbitrary wall thickness in the bubble nucleation. Fig. 1 describes action-vs-temperature diagram in this simple model, which shows the type of the sphaleron transition to be second order.

Now, let us consider action (1) with a compactified spatial coordinate. In this case as mentioned before sphaleron solution $`\varphi _s(x)`$ must satisfy a periodic boundary condition $`\varphi _s(x)=\varphi _s(x+L)`$. The explicit expression of $`\varphi _s(x)`$ is

$$\varphi _s(x)=\frac{a}{\mu }\beta (k)\text{dn}[\beta (k)x,\kappa ],$$
(3)   
where $`k`$ is modulus of elliptic function and

$`\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{k}}{1+k}},`$ (4)   
$`\beta (k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1+k}{\sqrt{1+k^2}}}.`$ (5)   
Since Jacobian Elliptic function $`\text{dn}[y,\kappa ]`$ has period $`2K(\kappa )`$, where $`K`$ is complete elliptic function, the circumference $`L`$ is defined

$$L_n=\frac{2n}{\beta (k)}K(\kappa ),$$
(6)   
where $`n`$ is some integer. Using $`\varphi _s(x)`$ the classical action for sphaleron solution is straightforwardly computed:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_n}{P}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{L_n/2}^{L_n/2}}𝑑x\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _s}{x}}\right)+U(\varphi _s)\right]=n{\displaystyle \frac{S_1}{P}},`$ (7)   
$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_1}{P}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2\mu ^2}{3\beta (k)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+k)^2}{1+k^2}}\left[4E(\kappa ){\displaystyle \frac{(1k)^2}{1+k^2}}K(\kappa )\right],`$ (8)   
where $`P`$ is period of sphaleron solution, i.e., $`1/T`$ and $`E`$ is another complete elliptic function. Since $`S/P`$ is interpreted as a barrier height of energy, the barrier height with $`L=L_n`$ is n-times higher than that with $`L=L_1`$, and hence decay-rate is negligible for large $`n`$. In this letter, therefore, we will confine ourselves to only $`L=L_1`$ case.

Now we apply the result of non-linear perturbation presented in Ref. in this model. For this we expand $`\varphi (x,\tau )`$ around sphaleron $`\varphi _s(x)`$;

$$\varphi (x,\tau )=\varphi _s(x)+\eta (x,\tau ),$$
(9)   
where $`\eta (x,\tau )`$ is small fluctuation field. Inserting it into the equation of motion

$$\frac{^2\varphi }{\tau ^2}+\frac{^2\varphi }{x^2}=U^{}(\varphi ),$$
(10)   
one can get

$$\widehat{l}\eta =\widehat{h}\eta +G_2[\eta ]+G_3[\eta ],$$
(11)   
where

$`\widehat{l}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\tau ^2}},`$ (12)   
$`\widehat{h}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}+U^{\prime \prime }(\varphi _s),`$ (13)   
$`G_2[\eta ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U^{\prime \prime \prime }(\varphi _s)\eta ^2,`$ (14)   
$`G_3[\eta ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}U^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }(\varphi _s)\eta ^3.`$ (15)   
It is well-known that the eigenvalue equation of $`\widehat{h}`$ is standard Lamé equation:

$$\frac{d^2\psi }{dz^2}+\left[\lambda N(N+1)\kappa ^2\text{sn}^2[z,\kappa ]\right]\psi =0.$$
(16)   
Although the solutions of Lamé equation with period $`4K(\kappa )`$ and $`2K(\kappa )`$ are well-known, solutions with other periods have not been known yet. Since $`\varphi _s(x)`$ has period $`2K(\kappa )/\beta (k)`$, the physically meaningful solutions of Lamé equation in this model are those whose periods are $`2K(\kappa )/\beta (k)n`$, where $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. The eigenfunctions with period $`2K(\kappa )/\beta (k)`$ and their corresponding eigenvalues are summarized at Table I.

The $`\kappa `$-dependence of eigenvalues $`h_0`$, $`h_1`$, and $`h_2`$ are shown at Fig. 2. As shown in Fig. 2 $`u_0(x)`$, $`u_1(x)`$, and $`u_2(x)`$ given at Table I are the lowest three eigenstates of $`\widehat{h}`$. Although the existence of higher states is obvious, it is impossible to derive the eigenfunctions and their eigenvalues analytically until now. However, the knowledge of the lowest three eigenstates is sufficient for the discussion of the effect of compactified spatial coordinate in the sphaleron transition. Note that $`h_2`$ is very close to zero compared to $`h_0`$ in the small $`\kappa `$ region. We will show in the following that this effect guarantees the different types of sphaleron transition in the small $`\kappa `$ region from that in large $`\kappa `$ region.

The nomalization constants $`C_0`$, $`C_1`$, and $`C_2`$ defined at Table I are easily derived by direct calculation. Since $`C_1`$ is not needed for further discussion, we give only the explicit form of $`C_0`$ and $`C_2`$:

$`C_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (\kappa )\kappa ^4}{\frac{1}{3}K(\kappa )\left[(2\kappa ^2)\sqrt{1\kappa ^2\kappa ^2}+1\kappa ^2+\kappa ^4\right]+E(\kappa )\sqrt{1\kappa ^2\kappa ^2}}},`$ (17)   
$`C_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (\kappa )\kappa ^4}{\frac{1}{3}K(\kappa )\left[(2\kappa ^2)\sqrt{1\kappa ^2\kappa ^2}+1\kappa ^2+\kappa ^4\right]E(\kappa )\sqrt{1\kappa ^2\kappa ^2}}},`$ (18)   
where $`\kappa ^21\kappa ^2`$. Here, $`\beta (\kappa )`$ is $`\kappa `$-dependence of $`\beta (k)`$ whose explicit form can be obtained by using Eq.(4):

$$\beta (\kappa )=\mu \sqrt{\frac{2}{2\kappa ^2}}\frac{1\sqrt{1\kappa ^2}}{\sqrt{(2\kappa ^2)2\sqrt{1\kappa ^2}}}.$$
(19)   
Ref. has shown that the perturbation near sphaleron solution yields a sufficient condition for the sharp sphaleron transition. The explicit form of this sufficient criterion is

$$\frac{1}{b^2}\left[l(\omega )l(\omega _s)\right]<u_0f[u_0]><0.$$
(20)   
where $`b`$ is a small parameter, which is associated with small amplitude of periodic solution whose center is $`\varphi _s`$ at quantum mechanical model, and $`\omega _s`$ is sphaleron frequency

$$\omega _s\sqrt{h_0}=\sqrt{2}\mu \left[1+2\frac{\sqrt{1\kappa ^2\kappa ^2}}{2\kappa ^2}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(21)   
$`f[u_0]`$ in Eq.(20) is defined as follows:

$$f[u_0]=\frac{1}{2}\frac{G_2}{\eta }|_{\eta =u_0}\left[\widehat{h}^1+\frac{1}{2}[\widehat{h}l(2\omega _s)]^1\right]G_2[u_0]+\frac{3}{4}G_3[u_0]$$
(22)   
where $`l(\omega )\omega ^2`$.

If one uses a completeness condition for $`\widehat{h}`$, it is easy to show that the condition (20) reduces to

$$I_0(\kappa )+I_2(\kappa )+I_4(\kappa )+J(\kappa )<0,$$
(23)   
where

$`I_0(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_0l(2\omega _s)}}\right]<u_0G_2[u_0]>^2,`$ (24)   
$`I_2(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_2l(2\omega _s)}}\right]<u_2G_2[u_0]>^2,`$ (25)   
$`I_4(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=4}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_nl(2\omega _s)}}\right]<u_nG_2[u_0]>^2,`$ (26)   
$`J(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}<u_0G_3[u_0]>.`$ (27)   
It is worthwhile noting that the only positive one in Eq.(23) is $`I_0(\kappa )`$. Now, it is clear why small $`h_2`$ in small $`\kappa `$ region changes the type of sphaleron transition to be sharp first-order. Since $`1/h_2`$ is involved in $`I_2(\kappa )`$ and it becomes large value in small $`\kappa `$ region, the dominant contribution of the left-hand side of Eq. (23) can be $`I_2(\kappa )`$, and hence first-order transition may take place.

Now let us compute $`I_0(\kappa )`$, $`I_2(\kappa )`$, and $`J(\kappa )`$ explicitly. Using a recurrence relation of $`G_n𝑑u\text{sn}^n[u,\kappa ]`$

$$G_{2m+2}=\frac{\text{sn}^{2m1}[u,\kappa ]\text{cn}[u,\kappa ]\text{dn}[u,\kappa ]+2m(1+\kappa ^2)G_{2m}+(12m)G_{2m2}}{(2m+1)\kappa ^2},$$
(28)   
it is straightforward to show

$$J(\kappa )=\frac{3\mu ^2C_0^4}{a^2\beta (\kappa )}\left[A^4K(\kappa )4A^3j_2(\kappa )+6A^2j_4(\kappa )4Aj_6(\kappa )+j_8(\kappa )\right],$$
(29)   
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\kappa ^2+\sqrt{1\kappa ^2\kappa ^2}}{3\kappa ^2}},`$ (30)   
$`j_2(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}\left[K(\kappa )E(\kappa )\right],`$ (31)   
$`j_4(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\kappa ^4}}\left[(2+\kappa ^2)K(\kappa )2(1+\kappa ^2)E(\kappa )\right],`$ (32)   
$`j_6(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15\kappa ^6}}\left[(8+3\kappa ^2+4\kappa ^4)K(\kappa )(8+7\kappa ^2+8\kappa ^4)E(\kappa )\right],`$ (33)   
$`j_8(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{105\kappa ^8}}\left[(48+16\kappa ^2+17\kappa ^4+24\kappa ^6)K(\kappa )(48+40\kappa ^2+40\kappa ^4+48\kappa ^6)E(\kappa )\right].`$ (34)   
The $`\kappa `$-dependence of $`J(\kappa )`$ is shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3 shows that $`J(\kappa )`$ in Eq. (29) correctly recovers the $`\kappa =1`$ limit of $`J(\kappa )`$, $`108\mu ^3/70\sqrt{2}a^2`$, which can be obtained easily by calculating same quantity in the same model with non-compactified spatial coordinate.

Now, let us compute $`I_0(\kappa )`$. Using a recurrence relation of $`D_n𝑑u\text{dn}^n[u,\kappa ]`$

$$D_{2m+3}=\frac{\kappa ^2\text{dn}^{2m}[u,\kappa ]\text{sn}[u,\kappa ]\text{cn}[u,\kappa ]2m\kappa ^2D_{2m1}+(2m+1)(2\kappa ^2)D_{2m+1}}{2(m+1)},$$
(35)   
and identity $`\kappa ^2\text{sn}^2[u,\kappa ]+\text{dn}^2[u,\kappa ]=1`$, one can show straightforwardly

$$I_0(\kappa )=\frac{15\pi ^2\mu ^2C_0^6}{128a^2h_0}\left[518A+24A^216A^3\right]^2.$$
(36)   
Once again one can see the correct $`\kappa =1`$ limit of $`I_0(\kappa )`$, $`3375\pi ^2\mu ^3/4096\sqrt{2}a^2`$ in Fig. 3.

Finally, direct computation of $`I_2(\kappa )`$ yields

$`I_2(\kappa )=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3h_28h_0}{2h_2(h_24h_0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{9\pi ^2\mu ^2}{64a^2}}C_0^4C_2^2`$ (37)   
$`\times `$ $`\left[56(2A+B)+8(A^2+2AB)16A^2B\right]^2,`$ (38)   
where

$$B=\frac{1+\kappa ^2\sqrt{1\kappa ^2\kappa ^2}}{3\kappa ^2}.$$
(39)   
The fact $`I_2(\kappa =1)=0`$ as shown in Fig. 3 means that there is no correspondent discrete mode at $`\kappa =1`$. In fact, if one derives $`\widehat{h}`$ in the same model with non-compactified space, it is easy to show that $`\widehat{h}`$ becomes usual Pöschl-Teller type operator which has only two discrete modes.

Although it is impossible to calculate $`I_4(\kappa )`$ analytically, we know that it is small negative value, which results in the following inequality

$$\frac{1}{b^2}[l(\omega )l(\omega _s)]<I_0(\kappa )+I_2(\kappa )+J(\kappa ).$$
(40)   
Fig. 4 shows $`\kappa `$-dependence of $`\frac{a^2\beta (\kappa )}{\mu ^2C_0^4}\left(I_0(\kappa )+I_2(\kappa )+J(\kappa )\right)`$. Eq.(40) and Fig. 4 guarantee the existence of $`\kappa _c>\kappa ^{}=0.820621`$, which distinguishes the types of transition. As expected this simple model exhibits a first-order sphaleron transition in small $`\kappa `$ region and a second-order sphaleron transition in large $`\kappa `$ region which can be expected from the result of $`\kappa =1`$ case. Fig. 5 shows the numerical result of actions for the vacuum bounce and sphaleron solutions in the compactified model. It is worthwhile noting that the difference between two action values becomes smaller and smaller when the circumference of the compactified spatial coordinate decreases. This means the possibility for the occurrence of sharp transition is enhanced in small $`\kappa `$ region, which is consistent with our main result.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was partially supported by the Kyungnam University Research Fund in 1999.