A Vortex loop stabilization in SU(N) gauge theory - DBI term approach

vorker
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Can a DBI-type term stabilize vortons in SU(N) gauge theory? The curvature-dependent energy appears to balance line tension at a specific radius. Looking for feedback on whether this mechanism is physically sound.
I've been studying vortex solutions in SU(N) gauge theories with adjoint scalars. The standard problem is that vortons (closed vortex loops) are unstable and collapse due to line tension. However, I've found that including a DBI-type term (similar to those in string theory effective actions) might provide a stabilization mechanism.


The key point: the DBI term contributes an energy that depends on the extrinsic curvature K of the loop. For a circular vorton of radius R, the total energy becomes:


##E(R) = 2\pi R \mu + \frac{2\pi R}{\Lambda^4}\left[\sqrt{1 + \frac{\Lambda^4}{R^2}} - 1\right]##


where μ is the vortex tension and Λ is the DBI scale. The first term wants to shrink the loop, while the second term diverges as R→0.


Minimizing this gives an equilibrium radius:


##R_{eq} = \frac{\Lambda}{\sqrt{\mu \Lambda^4 - 1}}##


This exists when μ > Λ^(-4), suggesting a parameter regime where vortons are stable.

Has anyone encountered similar stabilization mechanisms for topological defects? Are there known issues with applying DBI terms in this context? Any relevant references would be helpful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
vorker said:
vortex solutions in SU(N) gauge theories with adjoint scalars
Can you give a reference that discusses such theories?
 
PeterDonis said:
Can you give a reference that discusses such theories?
I can share a more detailed overview of the study with proper references. I just need a bit of time to tidy it up and make it presentable for the forum.
 
vorker said:
I can share a more detailed overview of the study with proper references. I just need a bit of time to tidy it up and make it presentable for the forum.
I'm not asking for your personal research. That's off limits for discussion here anyway. I'm asking for references that discuss the kinds of theories you mention and the "standard problem" you describe.
 
PeterDonis said:
I'm not asking for your personal research. That's off limits for discussion here anyway. I'm asking for references that discuss the kinds of theories you mention and the "standard problem" you describe.
vortex solutions in SU(N) gauge theories:
vorton stability problem:
  • Martins & Shellard (1998) - https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9804378 - See page 2: "If a superconducting string loop has an angular momentum, it is semi-classically conserved, and it tries to resist the loop's tension... otherwise it is possible that dynamically stable loops form. These are called vortons—they are stationary rings that do not radiate classically"
The "standard problem" I mentioned is that vortex loops normally collapse due to their line tension. The established solution in the literature involves currents on the string creating angular momentum that balances this tension - as the Martins & Shellard paper states, this angular momentum "resists the loop's tension" and can lead to stable configurations. this approach has limitations.

The DBI-type approach I'm exploring would provide stabilization through a different mechanism - using curvature-dependent energy rather than angular momentum from currents. The reason I'm interested in this alternative is that it could provide geometric stabilization without requiring the strings to be superconducting. The DBI mechanism depends only on the loop's curvature, not on conserved charges that could potentially leak away.
Instead of relying on angular momentum from currents, I'm using the geometry itself. The DBI term makes the vortex energy depend on its curvature - essentially, the vortex becomes "stiffer" when you try to bend it too much. It's like the difference between a rubber band and a garden hose: the hose resists tight bending not because it's spinning, but because bending costs energy.
 
Last edited:
I came across the following paper by Mir Faizal, Lawrence M Krauss, Arshid Shabir, and Francesco Marino from BC. Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything Abstract General relativity treats spacetime as dynamical and exhibits its breakdown at singularities‎. ‎This failure is interpreted as evidence that quantum gravity is not a theory formulated {within} spacetime; instead‎, ‎it must explain the very {emergence} of spacetime from deeper quantum degrees of...
How would one build mathematically an infinite number of spatial dimensions theory? I can concieve mathematically an n-th vector or ##\mathbb{R}^{\infty}##, I had done so in my Topology course back then. But obviously it's not empirically possible to test. But is a theory of everything ought to be "finite" and empirical? I mean obviously if there are only 4 interactions (currently known); but then again there could be more interactions around the corner. So to encompass it all seems to me...