Lost in Normalization
Extracted source text · arXiv 1803.05497
\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}
\pdfoutput=1
\topmargin -5 mm \oddsidemargin +5 mm \evensidemargin 0 mm
\textwidth 150 mm \textheight 220 mm
%\input{amssym}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{bm}% bold math
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb,xfrac,comment}
\usepackage[bbgreekl]{mathbbol}
\usepackage{cite,color,float}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}
\def\be{\begin{equation}}
\def\ee{\end{equation}}
\def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
\def\ie{{\it i.e.}, }
\def\rd{\mathrm{d}}
\def\ri{\mathrm{i}}
\def\I{\mathrm{I}}
\begin{document}
\pagestyle{plain}
\begin{center}
\textbf{\large On Significance of Transfer-Matrix
Normalization\\ in Lattice Gauge Theories
}
\vskip .5cm
Amir H. Fatollahi$\,^1$ ~~~and ~~~~ Narges Vadood
\vskip 3mm
$^1\,$\texttt{fath@alzahra.ac.ir}
\vskip .4cm
\textit{Department of Physics, Alzahra University, Tehran 1993891167, Iran}
\end{center}
\begin{abstract}
\noindent
It is argued that at the small coupling limit ($g\ll 1$)
of pure U(1) lattice gauge theories the lowest energy behaves as
$E_0\!\propto\!\! - g^2$ while the higher ones as $E_{k\neq 0}\!\propto\!\! g^2$.
The behavior is based on the Ostrogradsky construction for Hamiltonian
formulation of theories with higher-order time-derivatives, applied
to the continuum limit of lattice theories.
Among the normalizations of the form $1/g^\alpha$ in the definition of the transfer-matrix
of 1+1 dimensional theory only the choice $\alpha=1$ is compatible with
the expected behaviors.
\end{abstract}
\noindent\textbf{Keywords:} Lattice gauge theories; Transfer-matrix method; Energy spectrum
\vskip.5cm
%\textbf{pacs numbers}: ??
The numerical and theoretical studies of gauge theories at strong coupling limit
are largely grounded on lattice formulation of gauge theories \cite{wilson,kogut,rothe,detar}.
By now there are both numerical \cite{langfeld,arnold,creutz,nauen,bha,moria,degran,wiese}
and theoretical \cite{banks,savit,guth,spencer,jaffe}
indications that U(1) gauge theory can exhibit two phases,
known as the Coulomb and the confined ones.
The studies suggest that the transition between
two phases occurs at a critical coupling around unity \cite{langfeld,arnold,creutz,nauen,bha,moria,degran,wiese,banks,savit,guth,spencer,jaffe}.
The main concern of the present work is the significance of the
normalization factor in the definition of the transfer-matrix of
lattice gauge theories. It is known that although the energy differences
are unaffected by changing the transfer-matrix normalization,
each energy level is quite dependent on it.
As the standing point we consider the energy spectrum by
the continuum limit of lattice theory at leading and next-to-leading
orders of the lattice spacing parameter.
In the mentioned orders the action contains 2nd order derivative of \textit{time},
and the Hamiltonian formulation is
known to be due to Ostrogradsky \cite{ost1,ost2}.
In particular, we consider the 1+1 dimensional
lattice theory by which, as the exact eigen-functions
are available \cite{wipf}, the comparison between the energy levels
at the continuum limit and those by tuned normalization is possible.
Interestingly, it is found that at the small coupling limit $g\ll 1$ the lowest energy
has the decreasing behavior $E_0\propto -g^2$
while the higher energies are increasing as $E_{k\neq 0}\propto g^2$.
Based on the mentioned behaviors it is immediately understood that
the constant normalization is not compatible. In fact among the normalizations
of the form $1/g^\alpha$ we will see that only the one with $\alpha=1$
is acceptable.
As the present analysis is based on the Ostrogradsky theorem
for theories with higher-order times-derivatives, it is expected that similar tunings of
the normalization factor for lattice theories in higher dimensions are to be
considered.
The 1+1 dimensional pure U(1) lattice gauge theory is defined in the temporal
gauge $A_0\equiv 0$ by the action \cite{wilson,wipf}
\begin{align}\label{1}
S_E= -\frac{1}{g^2} \sum_{n_0}\sum_n
\Big\{1-\cos\big[a\big(A^{n_0+1}_n-A^{n_0}_n\big)\big]\Big\},~~~~~~
-\frac{\pi}{a}\leq A \leq \frac{\pi}{a}
\end{align}
in which $n_0$ and $n$ are labeling lattice links in time and spatial directions, respectively.
In above``$\,a\,$" is the lattice spacing parameter and $g$ is the
dimensionless gauge coupling.
By the expression (\ref{1}) it is obvious that the model is fully separable
to the contributions from each spatial link \cite{wipf},
by the Euclidean action:
\begin{align}\label{2}
S_E^{\,\mathrm{link}}= -\frac{1}{g^2} \sum_{n_0}
\Big\{1-\cos\!\big[a\big(A^{n_0+1}-A^{n_0}\big)\big]\Big\},~~~~~~
-\frac{\pi}{a}\leq A \leq \frac{\pi}{a}
\end{align}
The continuum limit is obtained by $a\to 0$,
leading to the following replacements
\begin{align}\label{3}
a\,\Delta A =a( A^{n_0+1}-A^{n_0})& \to a^2\, \dot{A}(t)+\cdots \\
\label{4}
\cos (a\,\Delta A) &\simeq 1-\frac{1}{2!}a^2\Delta A^2+\cdots\\
\label{5}
\sum_{n_0} &\to a^{-1}\int dt
\end{align}
by which the action (\ref{2}) comes to the form, as expected
\begin{align}\label{6}
S_E^{\,\mathrm{link}}=-\frac{a^3}{2\,g^2} \int \!\! dt ~ \dot{A}^2(t)+\mathrm{O}(a^2)
\end{align}
Back from imaginary time to the real one, the canonical momentum
is defined
\begin{align}\label{7}
\Pi:=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{A}} =\frac{a^3}{g^2} \dot{A}
\end{align}
The Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{align}\label{8}
H^\mathrm{link}=\frac{g^2}{2a^3}\,\Pi^2+ \cdots
\end{align}
by which the lowest energy obviously is zero. By the fact
$-\pi/a\leq A \leq \pi/a$, in the quantum theory the momentum
takes the discrete values
\begin{align}\label{9}
\Pi_k=\frac{k\,\pi}{\pi/a}=a\,k,~~~~~k\in\mathbb{Z}
\end{align}
leading to the energy spectrum for the spatial link
\begin{align}\label{10}
E^\mathrm{link}_k =\frac{g^2}{2\,a}\,k^2
\end{align}
It is crucial to demand for the following finite ratio
\begin{align}\label{11}
\frac{g}{a}=\mathrm{finite~~as~~~} a\to 0
\end{align}
by which $g^2/a\to 0$, as required for a finite continuous spectrum in the limit $a\to 0$.
Also the approximations (\ref{3}) and (\ref{4}) suggest
\begin{align}\label{12}
a^2\dot{A} \ll \eta
\end{align}
in which $\eta$ is a dimensionless number of order one.
Now let us go beyond the leading order in the continuum limit.
It is convenient to define the dimensionless angle variables as follow \cite{wilson}:
\begin{align}\label{13}
\theta&=a\,A^{n_0} \\
\label{14}
\theta'&=a\,A^{n_0+1}
\end{align}
with $-\pi\leq \theta \leq \pi$. By keeping the next-leading
term in the continuum limit, we have
\begin{align}\label{15}
\Delta \theta = \theta'- \theta &\to a\,\dot{\theta} +\frac{1}{2!}a^2\,\ddot{\theta}
+\cdots\\
\label{16}
\cos\Delta \theta&\simeq 1- \frac{1}{2!}\,\Delta \theta^2
+\frac{1}{4!}\,\Delta \theta^4+\cdots
\end{align}
by which, after dropping the surface terms and coming back from imaginary time to
the real one, we find
\begin{align}\label{17}
S^{\,\mathrm{link}}
=\frac{a}{g^2} \int \!\! dt ~\left[\frac{1}{2}\, \dot{\theta}^2+\frac{1}{24} a^2
(\ddot{\theta}^2 +\dot{\theta}^4)+\mathrm{O}(a^4)
\right]
\end{align}
The above action consists the 2nd order time-derivative. The Hamiltonian formulation of
theories with higher order derivatives is due to Ostrogradsky \cite{ost1,ost2}. Accordingly the
phase space variables are defined as \cite{ost1,ost2}:
\begin{align}\label{18}
q_1:=&\theta,~~~~~~p_1:=\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{\theta}}
-\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial\ddot{\theta}},\\
\label{19}
q_2:=&\dot{\theta},~~~~~~p_2:=\frac{\partial L}{\partial\ddot{\theta}}
\end{align}
by which the following canonical relations hold
\begin{align}\label{20}
\{q_i,p_j\}&=\delta_{i\,j},\\
\label{21}
\{q_i,q_j\}&=\{p_i,p_j\}=0
\end{align}
Provided the Hamiltonian is defined as follows
\begin{align}\label{22}
H=\dot{q}_1\,p_1+\dot{q}_2\,p_2 - L
\end{align}
the 4th-order equation of motion is recovered
\begin{align}\label{23}
\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\frac{\partial L}{\partial\ddot{\theta}}-
\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{\theta}}
+\frac{\partial L}{\partial{\theta}}=0
\end{align}
in which the last term vanishes as the Lagrangian does not depend
explicitly on $\theta$, leading to conserved $p_1$ of (\ref{18}). Also
as the Lagrangian does not explicitly depend on time, the energy $E$
is represented by the Hamiltonian, and is conserved \cite{ost1,ost2}.
For the present case we find explicitly
\begin{align}\label{24}
E&=\frac{a}{g^2}\left( \frac{1}{2}\dot{\theta}^2 +\frac{1}{8}a^2 \dot{\theta}^4+
\frac{1}{24}a^2\ddot{\theta}^2 - \frac{1}{12}a^2 \dot{\theta}\,\dddot{\theta}
+\mathrm{O}(a^3)
\right)\\
\label{25}
p_1&=\frac{a}{g^2}\left(\dot{\theta} +\frac{1}{6}a^2\dot{\theta}^3
-\frac{1}{12}a^2 \dddot{\theta}+\mathrm{O}(a^3)\right).
\end{align}
As both $p_1$ and $E$ are conserved, they are determined by the initial conditions:
\begin{align}\label{26}
\dot{\theta}(0),~~~\ddot{\theta}(0),~~~\dddot{\theta}(0)
\end{align}
In the quantum theory due to $-\pi\leq\theta\leq\pi$, the conjugate momentum
is to be integer-valued, $p_1=k$ with $k\in\mathbb{Z}$.
By the square of $p_1$ one can replace the combination of
$ \dot{\theta}\,\dddot{\theta}$ in the energy expression, leading to
\begin{align}\label{27}
E_k=\frac{g^2}{2\,a}\,k^2 - \frac{a^3}{24\,g^2}(\dot{\theta}^4
-\ddot{\theta}^2)+\mathrm{O}(a^4)
\end{align}
in which the first term matches to the leading order result (\ref{10}).
It is apparent by $\dot{\theta}^4$ term in (\ref{27}) that
the lowest possible energy is negative.
The well known fact about theories with higher order time-derivatives,
known as Ostrogradsky theorem, is that the energy is unbounded
from below \cite{ost1,ost2}. In fact by (\ref{27}) the main question is not about the
appearance of negative lowest energy, but is about whether the theory
with higher derivatives might be safe against infinite negative energies.
In the present case, however, there is no place to worry about the infinite negative energies, as by now there are rigorous theorems \cite{luscher,seiler}
as well as a large number of numerical results by which it is a matter of certain that the lattice gauge theories are well-defined. The key point against the
Ostrogradsky theorem in the present case is the domain of validity of approximation
in the continuum limit, by which we already have the upper limit (\ref{12}), by means
of $\dot{\theta}$ it is
\begin{align}\label{28}
\dot{\theta} \ll \frac{\eta}{a},
\end{align}
in which $\eta$ is dimensionless number of order one.
By (\ref{27}) and for the fixed $k$ the lowest possible energy is obtained by
the initial condition
\begin{align}\label{29}
\ddot{\theta}(0)= 0
\end{align}
by which the positive term $\ddot{\theta}^2$ is absent.
By the limit (\ref{28}) the minimum energy
at fixed $p_1=k$ is then given by
\begin{align}\label{30}
E_k^\mathrm{min} = \frac{g^2}{2\,a}\left(k^2 - \frac{\eta^4}{12}\right),~~~
g\ll 1
\end{align}
in which the second term is recognized as the
first correction to (\ref{10}).
By above we are safe against the Ostrogradsky theorem by
the bounded from below lowest energy by $k=0$
\begin{align}\label{31}
E_0^\mathrm{min} \simeq -\frac{\eta^4}{24\,a} g^2<0,~~~g\ll 1
\end{align}
The remarkable fact by (\ref{30}) is about the slopes at the limit $g\ll 1$
\begin{align}\label{32}
&\frac{\partial E_0^\mathrm{min}}{\partial g^2} = -\frac{\eta^4}{24\,a} <0\\
\label{33}
&\frac{\partial E_{k\neq 0}^\mathrm{min}}{\partial g^2} =
\frac{1}{2\,a} \left(k^2-\frac{\eta^4}{12}\right) >0
\end{align}
The most important point by the above behaviors is that, as by (\ref{31})
a spectrum bounded from below requires that at sufficiently larger $g$'s the slope of
$E_0$ would stay positive. Provided that $E_0$ is a smooth function,
there should be a minimum at which the sign of derivative changes.
\begin{align}\label{34}
\left.\frac{\partial E_0}{\partial\, g}\right|_{g=g_*}\!\!\!\!\!\! = 0
\end{align}
We will see later that in fact the existence of such
minimum is the case once the proper normalization is used.
Apart from the opposite signs of the derivatives, the ratio of slopes
by (\ref{32}) and (\ref{33}) is expected to be small:
\begin{align}\label{35}
\left| \frac{\partial E_0^\mathrm{min}}{\partial g^2}
\Big/ \frac{\partial E_{k\neq 0}^\mathrm{min}}{\partial g^2} \right| \simeq
\frac{\eta^4}{12\,k^2} < 1
\end{align}
which is confirmed by the proper normalization to be chosen later.
Now back to the original lattice theory, the spectrum is given by means of the
transfer-matrix. The transfer-matrix $\widehat{V}$
is defined by its matrix elements between two adjacent times $n_0$ and $n_0+1$ by means of the full Euclidean action (\ref{1}) \cite{wilson,wipf}
\begin{align}\label{36}
\langle \bm{\theta'} |\widehat{V} | \bm{\theta}\rangle =~ \mathcal{A}^{N_\mathrm{s}}~
\prod_{n=1}^{N_\mathrm{s}} \exp\!\left\{\frac{-1}{g^2}\Big[1-\cos\big(\theta'_n-\theta_n\big)\Big]\right\}
\end{align}
in which $N_\mathrm{s}$ is the number of spatial links. In above $\mathcal{A}$ is the normalization
pre-factor whose significance is the main concern of the present work. According to the recipe, by $\widehat{V}=\exp(-a\widehat{H})$,
the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian and the transfer-matrix are
related:
\begin{align} \label{37}
E=-a^{-1}\ln v
\end{align}
Again it is sufficient to consider only
the spectrum by a spatial link, given by
\begin{align}\label{38}
\langle {\theta'} |\widehat{V}^\mathrm{link} | {\theta}\rangle = \mathcal{A}~
\exp\!\left\{\frac{-1}{g^2}\Big[1-\cos\big(\theta'-\theta\big)\Big]\right\}
\end{align}
The above transfer-matrix is proposed in \cite{spchfath} as a spin-chain model for the worldline of magnetic monopoles with the effective $\mathrm{mass}\!\propto\! 1/(a\,g^2)$.
It is known that the transfer-matrix and the Hamiltonian are diagonal in
the plane-wave Fourier basis \cite{wipf,spchfath}:
\begin{align}\label{39}
\langle\theta|k \rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\,\pi}}
\,\exp(\ri\,k\,\theta)
,~~~~~
k=0,\pm1,\pm2,\cdots
\end{align}
Using the identity for $\I_n(x)$ as the modified Bessel function of the first kind
\begin{align}\label{40}
\exp(x\,\cos\theta)=\sum_k\I_k(x)\,\exp(\ri\,k\,\theta)
\end{align}
and the relation
\begin{align}\label{41}
\int_{-\pi}^\pi\rd\theta\,\exp(\ri\,k\,\theta)=2\pi\,\delta_k
\end{align}
one directly finds the matrix elements of $\widehat{V}^\mathrm{link}$ in the
Fourier basis \cite{mattis}
\begin{align}\label{42}
\langle{k}'|\widehat{V}^\mathrm{link}|{k}\rangle=2\pi\,\mathcal{A}\, \,
e^{-1/g^2}\, \,
\I_{k}\!\left(\frac{1}{g^2}\right)\, \delta(k'-k)
\end{align}
by which and (\ref{37}) the energy of a link is given by:
\begin{align}\label{43}
E_k^\mathrm{link}= -\frac{1}{a}\left[\ln (2\pi\,\mathcal{A}) -\frac{1}{g^2}
+ \ln \I_{k}\!\left(\frac{1}{g^2}\right)\right]
\end{align}
By the relation between Bessel functions $\I_0> \I_{k\neq 0}$,
the ground-state is by ${k}={0}$ \cite{wipf}. As
mentioned earlier, (\ref{43}) shows that the energy difference $E_{k'}-E_k$ is
not affected by changing $\mathcal{A}$.
By the energy spectrum (\ref{10}) and (\ref{30}) based on the continuum limit
one may try to fix the normalization.
To compare the spectrum by the transfer-matrix method with the continuum limit result
one needs the $g\to 0$ limit of (\ref{43}). By the asymptotic
behavior for large arguments of Bessel functions \cite{spchfath}, we have
\begin{align}\label{44}
\I_k (\gamma) \simeq \frac{e^\gamma}{\sqrt{2\pi\gamma}}
e^{-k^2/2\gamma},~~~~~
\frac{1}{g^2}=\gamma\gg k
\end{align}
One choice for the normalization is the constant
$g$-independent one \cite{wipf}, by which it is easy to see:
\begin{equation}\label{45}
\mathcal{A}=\text{const.:}~~\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{g\to 0}E_k \to \infty, ~~~\mathrm{all}~k \\
&\frac{\partial E_k}{\partial g} < 0, ~~~~~~~~ \mathrm{all}~k~\mathrm{and}~g
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Both of above behaviors do not match by the results (\ref{10}), (\ref{30}), (\ref{32}) and
(\ref{33}) in the continuum limit.
In fact the mismatch in values can simply be removed by a global infinite-shift
of all energy levels. However the inconsistencies with the derivatives of the
continuum limit results (\ref{32}) and (\ref{33}) are fundamental and can
not be removed simply by a global shift. As an alternative choice one may consider
the following
\begin{equation}\label{46}
\mathcal{A}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} \,g}: ~\left\{\begin{aligned}
& \lim_{g\to 0}E_k \to 0,~~~~\mathrm{all}~k \\
&\frac{\partial E_0}{\partial g} < 0, ~~~~~~~~ g< g_* \\
&\frac{\partial E_0}{\partial g} > 0, ~~~~~~~~ g> g_* \\
&\frac{\partial E_k}{\partial g} > 0,~~~~~~~~ k\neq 0,~\mathrm{all}~g
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
in which $g_*=1.125$. We see
that the above choice is consistent both in values and in
derivatives with the expectations from continuum limit by
(\ref{10}), (\ref{32}) and (\ref{33}).
It is a matter of exercise to check the consequences by the choice
\begin{align}\label{47}
\mathcal{A}\propto \frac{1}{g^\alpha}
\end{align}
by which we have
\begin{equation}\label{48}
\alpha<1:\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{g\to 0}E_k\to +\infty, \\
&\frac{\partial E_k}{\partial g} <0,~~\text{all}~k,~ g\ll 1
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{49}
\alpha>1:\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{g\to 0}E_k\to -\infty, \\
&\frac{\partial E_k}{\partial g} >0,~~\text{all}~k,~ g\ll 1
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
The above behaviors show that the choice $\alpha=1$ by (\ref{46})
is the only one by which the signs of slopes by $E_0$ and $E_{k\neq 0}$
are different, consistent with the continuum limit results (\ref{32}) and (\ref{33}).
The few energy levels by (\ref{46}) are plotted in
Fig.~1. Besides the sign of derivatives, we
see that the expected minimum in $E_0$ and the
relatively larger slopes of excited states with respect
to $E_0$ for $g\ll 1$ are consistent with (\ref{34}) and (\ref{35}), respectively.
As the present analysis is based on the Ostrogradsky theorem
for theories with higher-order times-derivatives, it is expected that similar tunings of
the normalization factor for lattice theories in higher dimensions are to be
considered. By the consistent normalization
(\ref{46}) we find for the famous $\eta$ in (\ref{30})-(\ref{33}) and (\ref{35})
the value $\eta=6^{1/4} \simeq 1.57$.
%
\begin{figure}[t]%[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.8]{fig_1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\small The plots of three first energy levels by the
$g$-dependent $\mathcal{A}$ (\ref{46}). The dashed curve represents the
typical behavior of energies by constant $\mathcal{A}$ (\ref{45}).}
\end{figure}
%
\vskip .5cm
\textbf{Acknowledgment}
The authors are grateful to M. Khorrami for useful discussions.
This work is supported by the Research Council of Alzahra University.
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{wilson} K.G. Wilson,
``Confinement of Quarks",
Phys. Rev. D \textbf{10} (1974) 2445.
\bibitem{kogut} J.B. Kogut,
``An Introduction to Lattice Gauge Theory and Spin Systems",
Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{51} (1979) 659.
\bibitem{rothe} H.J. Rothe, ``Lattice Gauge Theories: An Introduction",
World Scientific 2012.
\bibitem{detar} T. DeGrand and C. DeTar, ``Lattice Methods for Quantum Chromodynamics",
World Scientific 2006.
\bibitem{langfeld} K. Langfeld, B. Lucini, and A. Rago,
``The density of states in gauge theories",
Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{109} (2012) 111601, 1204.3243[hep-lat]
\bibitem{arnold} G. Arnold, B. Bunk, Th. Lippert, K. Schilling,
``Compact QED under scrutiny: it’s first order",
Nucl. Phys. B: Proc. Supp. \textbf{119} (2003) 864,
0210010[hep-lat].
\bibitem{creutz} M. Creutz, L. Jacobs, and C. Rebbi,
``Monte Carlo Computations in Lattice Gauge Theories",
Phys. Rept. \textbf{95} (1983) 201.
\bibitem{nauen} B. Lautrup and M. Nauenberg,
``Phase transition in Four-Dimensional Compact QED",
Phys. Lett. B \textbf{95} (1980) 63–66.
\bibitem{bha} G. Bhanot,
``Nature of the Phase Transition in Compact QED",
Phys. Rev. D \textbf{24} (1981) 461.
\bibitem{moria} K.J.M. Moriarty,
``Monte Carlo Study of Compact U(1) Four-Dimensional Lattice Gauge Theory",
Phys. Rev. D \textbf{25} (1982) 2185.
\bibitem{degran} T.A. DeGrand and D. Toussaint,
``Topological Excitations and Monte Carlo Simulation of Abelian Gauge Theory",
Phys. Rev. D \textbf{22} (1980) 2478.
\bibitem{wiese} A.S. Kronfeld, M.L. Laursen, G. Schierholz, and U-J. Wiese,
``Monopole Condensation and Color Confinement",
Phys. Lett. B \textbf{198} (1987) 516.
\bibitem{banks} T. Banks, R. Myerson, and J.B. Kogut,
``Phase Transitions in Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories",
Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{129} (1977) 493.
\bibitem{savit} R. Savit,
``Topological Excitations in U(1)-Invariant Theories",
Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{39} (1977) 55.
\bibitem{guth} A.H. Guth,
``Existence Proof of a Nonconfining Phase in Four-dimensional U(1) Lattice Gauge Theory",
Phys. Rev. D \textbf{21} (1980) 2291.
\bibitem{spencer} J. Frohlich and T. Spencer,
``Massless Phases and Symmetry Restoration in Abelian Gauge Theories and Spin Systems",
Comm. Math. Phys. \textbf{83} (1982), 411-454.
\bibitem{jaffe} J. Glimm and A. Jaffe,
``Instantons in a U(1) Lattice Gauge Theory: a Coulomb Dipole Gas",
Comm. Math. Phys. \textbf{56} (1977) 195.
\bibitem{ost1} R.P. Woodard, ``The Theorem of Ostrogradsky",
1506.02210[hep-th].
\bibitem{ost2} J. Govaerts and M.S. Rashid, ``The Hamiltonian Formulation of Higher Order Dynamical Systems", hep-th/9403009.
\bibitem{wipf} A. Wipf, ``Statistical Approach to Quantum Field Theory",
Springer 2013, Chaps. 13 \& 14.
\bibitem{luscher} M. Luscher,
``Construction of a Selfadjoint, Strictly Positive Transfer Matrix for Euclidean Lattice Gauge Theories",
Commun. Math. Phys. \textbf{54} (1977) 283-292.
\bibitem{seiler} K. Osterwalder and E. Seiler,
``Gauge Field Theories on a Lattice",
Annals of Physics \textbf{110} (1978) 440-471.
\bibitem{spchfath} A.H. Fatollahi,
``Worldline as a Spin Chain",
Eur. Phys. J. C \textbf{77} (2017) 159,
1611.08009[hep-th].
%\bibitem{sakurai} J.J. Sakurai, ``Modern Quantum Mechanics", Addison-Wesley 1985, Chap. 2.
\bibitem{mattis} D.C. Mattis,
``Transfer Matrix in Plane-Rotator Model",
Phys. Lett. A \textbf{104} (1984) 357.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}