arxiv:hep-th/ v1 15 May 1996

Transcription

1 DAMTP 96 4 KCL TH 96 7 May arxiv:hep-th/96514v1 15 May 1996 On the relation between Φ (1) and Φ (15) perturbed minimal models Horst Kausch 1 Gábor Takács Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics Cambridge University Silver Street Cambridge CB3 9EW U.K. and Gérard Watts 3 Department of Mathematics King s College London Strand London WCR LS U.K. ABSTRACT We consider the Φ (15) perturbations of Virasoro minimal models; they are described by the same ZMS Lagrangian theory as related Φ (1) perturbations. This relation falls into one of three classes according to the relative magnitudes of the effective central charges of the two theories. We show how the different restrictions of the free field Hilbert space in the two conformal field theories lead to two different RSOS restrictions of the ZMS S matrix. The RSOS S matrices of the Φ (1) perturbed minimal models are well known and those of the Φ (15) perturbed minimal models have recently been found in the companion paper [1]. We test these latter S matrices by the standard Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz and Truncated Conformal Space methods showing how for one of the three classes the two related models have the same TBA system. We make some comments on identities between characters in the two related models following from the fact that the two perturbed theories share the same breather sector. 1 h.g.kausch@amtp.cam.ac.uk g.takacs@amtp.cam.ac.uk 3 gmtw@maths.mth.kcl.ac.uk

2 1 Introduction The description of perturbed conformal field theories (PCFTs) as affine Toda theories [] has provided much insight into their structure the construction of the S matrices for the particles in PCFTs relies upon the existence of an affine quantum symmetry of the Toda action [3] but there are still some interesting aspects to investigate. In this paper we consider the a () affine Toda theory which can provide a model for both Φ (1) and Φ (15) perturbations of minimal models. In the simplest case the Φ (1) perturbation of the unitary Ising model (which has a minimal e 8 S matrix) is described by the same Toda Lagrangian as the Φ (15) perturbation of the non-unitary M 316 model. How can it be that the same Lagrangian describes two such different models? The answer lies in the fact that the S matrices of a PCFT are obtained by RSOS restriction of the Toda S matrices which relies upon a U q (sl()) subalgebra of the quantum symmetry algebra and that one may be able to choose more than one such subalgebra leading to different S matrices for the PCFTs. In this way it turns out that the same Lagrangian theory may indeed describe both a unitary and a non-unitary theory and that even the particle spectra and thermodynamics of these two theories may be the same yet the theories possess different S matrices both being consistent solutions of the S matrix bootstrap equations for the particle masses. In the specific case of the a () Toda theory the RSOS restriction leading to the Φ (1) PCFTs has been performed in [4 5 6] and that leading to the Φ (15) perturbation in [1]. The way that the two perturbations which arise from them are related falls into one of three classes; the example considered by Martins in [7] is in the first class and we give the first examples of the other two classes in this paper together with a unified description. The outline of the paper is as follows: in section we describe briefly the minimal models of conformal field theory and their perturbations and the way in which two different perturbed conformal minimal models one perturbed by the Φ (1) field and one by the Φ (15) field may be related to the same affine Toda Lagrangian field theory. In section 3 we resolve the problem of having two theories associated with one Lagrangian and show how the BRS reduction of the two different underlying Liouville theories naturally leads to two different S matrices for the two perturbed minimal models: they may both be given by suitable reductions of the ZMS S matrix found by Smirnov [4] one of the reductions given by Smirnov and the other in [1]. We then pass to tests of the predicted S matrices in the case of the Φ (15) perturbations. In section 4 we recall the predictions of the Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz for the ground state energy of the particle system on a circle which leads to predictions for the effective central charge the mass-gaps and of the coefficient in the linear term in the asymptotic behaviour of the ground-state itself. We also show how in many cases the two perturbed minimal models which can be derived from Smirnov s S matrix give the same TBA system while in other cases this is not so. We also recall how the higher multi-particle energy levels can be predicted using the ordinary Bethe ansatz. The first prediction can be checked analytically while the other three can be checked using the Truncated Conformal Space Approach (TCSA) of Yurov and Al. Zamolodchikov [8]. 1

3 In section 5 we use this method to show that our predictions of the particle spectra and S matrices are correct in three models the minimal models M 31 M 314 and M 316 perturbed by the field Φ (15). In section 6 we give some comments on the possible ways in which the S matrix may be realised and the connection with the different partition functions and periodicity conditions which may occur for the perturbed models and in section 7 we list some relations between the Virasoro characters of related minimal models. Finally we give our conclusions in section 8. We give some details of the structure constants in the conformal field theories we use in appendix A. Minimal models and their perturbations A conformal field theory is characterised by the central charge c of the Virasoro algebra the sets of conformal weights {h h} of the primary fields Φ a (z z) φ h (z)φ h( z) and the three point couplings of these fields Φ a Φ b (1) Φ c. The minimal models of conformal field theory were first described in [9] and we denote them by M rs where rs are coprime integers greater than 1. The Virasoro central charge in these models take the values c = 1 6(r s) rs (.1) and in M rs there are (r 1)(s 1)/ possible values of h and h given by h mn = (ms nr) (r s) 4rs < m < r < n < s (.) although which actual pairs {h h} are the conformal weights of fields is not determined a priori. For r s = 1 M rs is unitary and the lowest value of h is h 11 = ; in all other cases there is some allowed value of h < but there is a unified formula for the effective central charge c 4h min c eff c 4h min = 1 6 rs. (.3) One can consider perturbations of these conformally invariant field theories by the addition to the action of some term λ d x Φ (mn) (x) (.4) where Φ (mn) is the conformal primary field corresponding to h = h = h mn. First-order perturbation theory calculations backed up by arguments based on counting of states suggest that the perturbed field theory is integrable for (mn) one of (1) (13) (15) (1) (31) and (51). For the unitary minimal models M rr+1 only (1)(13) and (1) are relevant perturbations and consequently these have attracted the most attention to date. Much insight can be gained into minimal models and perturbed minimal models by considering particular realisations as Lagrangian field theories. The Liouville action for a scalar field φ ( 1 S = d x ( µφ) + exp(β ) φ) (.5)

4 provides a realisation of the minimal models with c = β + 6β. The minimal models correspond to the purely imaginary values of β = i r/s. Although this means that care must be taken with the interpretation of the action Felder has provided a construction [1] which shows that the correlation functions defined in this theory are indeed those of the minimal models as found by Dotsenko and Fateev [11]: for the vacuum sector one must not consider the full Hilbert space of a scalar field but instead the reduced space Ker Q/Im : Q r 1 : where Q is the screening charge Q = dz exp( φ/β) (.6) and : Q r 1 : is an appropriately defined normal-ordered multiple integral. The vertex operators exp( α mn φ/ ) α mn = (n 1)β (m 1)/β (.7) transform as primary fields with conformal weight h mn. Consequently one can construct a formal perturbed conformal field theory action as S = S + λ d x exp( α mn φ/ ). (.8) For (mn) = (13) this gives the standard sine-gordon action whereas for (mn) = (1) or (1 5) we obtain the Bullough-Dodd or Zhiber-Mikhailov-Shabat (ZMS) model which is the affine Toda theory related to a (). It is this latter model in which we are most interested and to fix on a normalisation of the coupling constant we shall say that the ZMS model with coupling constant γ has the action ( 1 S ZMS (γ) = d x ( µφ) + m ( exp(i γφ) + exp( i 8γφ)) ) (.9) γ where m is a coupling constant with dimension of mass. It is immediately apparent that the ZMS action may be viewed as a perturbed conformal field theory in two different ways: each of the two exponentials may be thought of as the perturbation and the remainder as the Liouville action: { Mrs + Φ S ZMS (γ) = (1) 4γ = r/s M r s + Φ (15) γ = r /s. (.1) The actual values of r s depend on the arithmetic properties of r and s since we require r s coprime. Hence the three distinct cases of table 1 can arise. r mod 4 r s I r/4 s II r/ s III 1 3 r 4s Table 1: Relation between (rs) and (r s ) These three cases differ in the way the effective central charges of M rs and M r s related. There are interesting examples of each of these cases as follows: are 3

5 I Here c eff = 1 6/rs c eff = 1 4/(rs) so that c eff < c eff. Since the effective central charge is a measure of the number of degrees of freedom in the UV theory we expect that there will be fewer particles in M r s + Φ (15) than in M rs + Φ (1). The only (1 5) perturbation that has been investigated before falls into this class being M 9 + Φ (15) which is related to M 89 + Φ (1) and which was discussed by Martins et al in [7 6]. II Here c eff = c eff and we expect the greatest similarity between the two models. We will discuss two models M 65 +Φ (1) which is related to M 31 +Φ (15) and M 67 + Φ (1) which is related to M Φ (15). Our discussion of the first of these two models is made easy by the fact that that there is a different way of thinking about M 31 namely as the tensor product M 5 M 5. The model M 5 has central charge c = /5 and contains two conformal families: one of them is given by the identity the other one is generated by the operator φ (1) with dimension /5. The fields in M 31 can be classified into Z -even and Z -odd fields with respect to the Z map provided by flipping the tensor product. The fields with Kac label (1n) in the M 31 model give Z -even fields when n is odd and Z -odd fields when n is even. The perturbing operator Φ (15) is in the Z -even sector and is nothing other than (1 φ (1) + φ (1) 1)/. As a result M 31 + Φ (15) = is identically true in the Z even sector. ( M 5 + Φ (1) ) (.11) III In this case c eff > c eff and we expect there to be more particles in M r s + Φ (15) than in M rs + Φ (1). Here we consider the case of the thermal perturbation of the Ising model i.e. M 34 + Φ (1) for which the corresponding model is M Φ (15). The S matrices of the example of type I are already known the case M 89 + Φ (1) is among those considered in [4] and the S matrices of the related model M 9 + Φ (15) are found and checked against perturbation theory in [7]. However in [6] the S matrices of M 9 + Φ (15) were found by an ad hoc method whereas they can be found easily from the general scheme given in [1] in which the three examples of types II and III can also be found. Firstly we recall the expressions for the S matrices as found there. 3 The RSOS S matrices Since the standard minimal models of conformal field theory correspond to an action S ZMS which is not real it is rather uncertain whether the standard methods of perturbation theory work. One solution is to discuss the models non-perturbatively: the observation of Bernard and LeClair [3] that the affine Toda theory based on the affine algebra g possesses a formal U q (g ) symmetry generated by non-local charges enables one to conjecture an S matrix for solitonic particles for generic values of β. 4

6 With S ZMS as in (.9) the model is invariant under the action of the quantum affine symmetry algebra U q (a () ) which contains the subalgebras U q(sl()) and U q (sl()). The parameters q and q are given by ( q = exp i π ) q = q 4. (3.1) γ The fundamental particle in the spectrum of the ZMS model is a triplet of massive kinks transforming in the 3 dimensional representation of U q (a () ). The other particles come in two types: triplets of kinks with higher mass also transforming in the 3 dimensional representation and breathers which transform as singlets. The precise number of these further excitations is determined by the value of γ [4 5]. The particles which transform in the 3 dimensional representations of U q (a () ) transform under the isospin-1 representation of U q (sl()) and decompose into an isospin- singlet and an isospin-1/ doublet with respect to U q (sl()). The particles which are U q (a () ) singlets are clearly singlets under both subalgebras. However the particular models we wish to describe have rational values of γ and are not described correctly by the generic S matrix. The key to understanding how one can consistently restrict the generic S matrix is held in the observation [1] that just as the presence of the screening charge in Liouville theory leads to a reduction in the Hilbert space in the conformal theory so it does in the massive theory. With the screening charge (.6) for the Liouville action (.5) we can find the corresponding screening charges for the two interpretations of the ZMS action { Mrs + Φ S ZMS (γ) = (1) Q = dz exp(iφ/ γ) M r s + Φ (15) Q = dz exp( iφ /γ). (3.) From the work of Bernard and LeClair [3] we recognise these screening charges as the two raising operators of U q (a () ); these raising operators are also the raising operators J + of the subalgebras U q (sl()) and U q (sl()) respectively and so Felder s construction of Ker Q/Im (Q r 1 ) gives the correct RSOS restriction Ker J + /Im (J + ) r 1 to the space of highest weights of allowed representations as described in [13]. This RSOS restriction was used to find the S matrices of the sine-gordon model in [14 15] for the Φ (1) perturbations of minimal models in [4 5 6] and for the Φ (15) perturbations in [1]. We now proceed to a brief description of the S matrices of the models we have chosen as examples using the results in [1] 1. The amplitudes will be given in terms of the variable y = exp(πθ/ξ) with θ being the rapidity difference of the scattering particles and it is also useful to define the parameter ξ = ( ) γ (3.3) 3 γ and we introduce the following convenient notation: ) ( (p) = sinh θ + p iπ ( ) sinh θ p. (3.4) iπ 1 N.B. the definition of γ in this paper differs from that in [1] by a factor of π. 5

7 3.1 The RSOS amplitudes for M 9 These S matrices are found in [7] and related to the S matrices of M 89 + Φ (1) in [6] by an ad hoc procedure. However as explained in [1] they can be derived directly from the correct RSOS restriction of the ZMS model. Since q = exp(9πi/) we have q = 1 and only the spin RSOS vacua are allowed so that the only allowed S matrix of the fundamental 3-dimensional representation left after RSOS restriction is = S(θ) S (θ) ( = 6 )( )( )( )( )( )( 1 15 )( )( )( ) 1 (3.5) 15 where we use the notation of [1]. As explained in [6] closing the S matrix bootstrap for this S matrix leads to a spectrum of four real particles; two are scalar breathers and two are the -isospin components of 3-dimensional kinks of the ZMS model. 3. The RSOS amplitudes for M 31 On the basis of the identification (.11) we expect that M 31 + Φ (15) will contain two identical copies of the particle content of M 5 + Φ (1). The parameters of this model are ( q = exp iπ 5 ) 6 ( q = q 4 = exp iπ 1 ) 3 ( ) π ξ = π y = exp ξ θ = exp (θ). (3.6) Since q 3 = 1 the maximum allowed spin of the RSOS vacua is 1/. Direct computation shows that there are only two independent RSOS amplitudes. The amplitudes in the set 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ are equal to while the other eight possibilities i(y 1) y S (θ) (3.7) 6

8 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ are given by 3(y 1) y S (θ). (3.8) These amplitudes are given in a kink picture for which only sequences of kinks which share the same vacua are allowed; however since the amplitudes remain unchanged under the interchange of the vacua 1/ we can choose to identify the RSOS sequences in the following way {j 1 j... j n } {1/ j 1 1/ j...1/ j n } (3.9) which leads to a much more natural interpretation in terms of particles any one of which may scatter off any other. If we label the kink which interpolates the vacua a and b by K ab then the result of the identification of RSOS states is to give two independent self-conjugate particles K = K K 1/1/ and K = K 1/ K 1/ with S matrix SKK KK S K K KK (θ) = S K K K (θ) = SKK K K (θ) = SK K K KK (θ) = S KK K K (θ) = 4isinh (θ)s (θ) ( ) (θ) = S KK KK (θ) = SK K K K (θ) = 4sinh(θ)sin π 3 S (θ). (3.1) If one introduces the following basis of one-particle states A = ( K + K )/ B = ( K K )/ (3.11) then the S matrix is completely diagonalised. A and B are self-conjugate particles under charge conjugation with S matrix ( )( ) 1 S AA = S BB = S AB = 1. (3.1) 3 3 S AA and S BB are just two copies of the S matrix of the model M 5 + Φ (1) in which the spectrum consists of a self-conjugate scalar particle exactly as predicted. 3.3 The model M Φ (15) In [1] the spectrum of the model M Φ (15) is shown to consist of six particles after dividing out by the Z symmetry of the vacua. The particles have the following masses: m A = m = m Ā m C = m cos ( π 4 m B = m B = m cos ( π 1) ) = m (3.13) = m. ) = m md = 4m cos ( π 1) cos ( π 4 The particles A and Ā are conjugate to each other and so are B and B. The closed system of S matrices is the following: 7

9 ( ( ( S AA = S = 1 5 ĀĀ 3) ) 6 ( ( ) ( S AB = S Ā B = ) 4 1 S A B = S ĀB = ( 1 4) ( 3 4 ) ( ( ( S A Ā = ) ) 6 ) ( ) ( ) ) ( ) 11 1 ) ( 7 1) ( 5 1 ) S BB = S B B = ( 1 6) ( 5 6) ( 1 ) 3 ( 1 3) ( 3) 3 ( ( ( 3 ( 3 ( S B B = ) 6) ) 3) 3) ( ( ) ( ) ( ) S AC = S = ĀC 4) S BC = S BC = ( 1 6) ( 5 6) ( 1 ) ( 1 3) ( 3) (3.14) S CC = ( 1 3) ( 3) ( 1 6) ( 5 6) ( 1 ) ( ( ( ( ( S AD = S = ĀD 6) 6) 3) 3) ) ( ) ( ( 3 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( 4 S BD = S BD = ) 4) 4 1 1) ( ) ( ( ( ) ( ) 3 ( 3 S CD = ) 4) 4 1 1) S DD = ( 1 6) 3 ( 5 6) 3 ( 1 3) 5 ( 3) 5 ( 1 ) 6. These amplitudes reflect a Z invariance which exchanges A with Ā and B with B while it leaves C and D invariant. This is to be expected from the fact that the minimal model M 314 (similarly to M 31 ) has a Z invariance and the perturbing operator is Z -even. 3.4 The model M Φ (15) The related model in this case is M 34 +Φ (1) the magnetic perturbation of the Ising model. In this case q = exp(4iπ/3) hence the maximal allowed spin is 1/. In the Ising picture since the kinks are in the triplet representation all the kink degrees of freedom are frozen and only breathers remain in the spectrum. There are 8 breathers and the scattering is described by the so-called minimal e 8 S matrix [4]. However in the restriction leading to M Φ (15) the kinks have singlet components so they can never be frozen. In addition since q = exp(16iπ/3) gives j max = 1/ the charged kinks are allowed to remain in the spectrum as well. Therefore one can expect to see the masses of the kinks and the higher kinks in the spectrum. Taking the mass of the lowest lying kink to be m K1 = m we expect to see the next kink at the mass [4] m K = m cos π 15 while the first breather should have the mass = m (3.15) m B1 = m sin π 15 = m. (3.16) 8

10 The higher breathers have the usual e 8 ratios with respect to the scale m B1 and the breatherbreather S matrices form the minimal e 8 set since they do not change the under the RSOS restriction. After dividing out by the Z acting on the vacua again the S matrix of the fundamental kinks is given by [1]: SKK KK = y4 i 3y 1 y S (θ) S S KK KK = SK K K K K K = +i 3y 1 y4 y S (θ) K K = i 3 y +1 y S (θ) S KK = S K K K K KK = 3 y 1 y S (θ) S K K KK = S KK K K = y4 1 y S (θ) (3.17) where since ξ = π/5 S (θ) = 1 ( sinh 5 4i (θ iπ) sinh 5 ( θ iπ )) 1 F(θ) (3.18) 3 ( ) 5θ sin kθ sinh y = exp F(θ) = exp i πk 3 cosh π 3 k dk. (3.19) k cosh πk sinh πk 5 The integral in (3.18) unfortunately cannot be carried out in closed form. In addition there are no one-particle states on which the scattering is diagonal. The eigenvalues of the S matrix however can still be used for the TCSA check. The S matrix splits into two blocks with the eigenvalues of the S matrix on the states KK K K being ) ( ( S 1 (θ) = sinh 5 4 θ iπ 6 ( )F(θ) sinh 5 4 θ + S (θ) = sinh 5 4 θ + iπ 3 ( )F(θ) iπ 6 sinh 5 4 θ (3.) iπ 3 and the eigenvalues on the states KK K K being ) S 3 (θ) = 1 i ( ) 3 + sinh 5 cosh θ (5θ) + 5 ( ) 4 cosh 5 θ sinh 5 θ F(θ) πi 3 S 4 (θ) = 1 i ( ) 3 sinh 5 cosh θ (5θ) + 5 ( ) 4 cosh 5 θ sinh 5 θ F(θ). πi 3 (3.1) The S matrix of the first breather is ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 1 3 S B1 B 1 = ) ( 1 15 These are the amplitudes that will be checked using TCSA. ) ( ) (3.) 9

11 4 TBA predictions from the S matrices. As is well-known the method of Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz (TBA) is a powerful method for extracting the finite-size behaviour of a massive theory on a circle. One can also calculate this behaviour for the perturbed conformal field theory both in perturbation theory about the conformal field theory and also numerically and together these two methods provide a stringent test of the conjectured S matrices. We first formulate the conformal field theory on a cylinder of size R and consider the Hamiltonian which propagates along the cylinder: H = H CFT + λ dx Φ(z z) (4.1) where H CFT = π R ( L + L c ) 1 (4.) is the Hamiltonian of the ultraviolet CFT Φ(z z) is some relevant operator corresponding to the perturbation and λ is a dimensionful coupling. If the conformal dimension of the perturbing field Φ(z z) is d Φ = y then λ has mass dimension y. In terms of a specific mass unit m (which will be taken to be the mass of the lowest lying excitation of the model) we have λ = αm y (4.3) where α is a dimensionless constant. The perturbing Hamiltonian is given by the second term: V = λ dx Φ(z z) (4.4) Perturbation theory in λ gives the following expansion for the ground state energy E (R) = πc eff 6R B(λ)R π R C n (R y λ) n. (4.5) n=1 The second term is the bulk energy contribution while the series is the result of the perturbative corrections with coefficients C n = ( 1)n R ny n! n 1 Φ() j=1 Φ(ξ j ) d ξ j c (4.6) where the integration is taken over the cylinder and the indices c refer to the connected contribution to the Green function in the original conformal field theory on the cylinder. For unitary theories the coefficients with n odd are zero while they are generically non-zero in the non-unitary case. In [16] in the case of non-unitary models the following formula is obtained: C 1 = (π) 1 y C Φ ΦΦ (4.7) where C Φ ΦΦ is the operator product coefficient for the perturbing operator Φ and the operator with the lowest (negative) conformal weight Φ. 1

12 From the TBA the same expansion can be computed using the conjectured scattering amplitudes. If we introduce the scaling length r = mr where m is taken to be the mass of the lightest particle in the model then the TBA yields E (R) as the series E (R) m = π c 6r Ar π r a n r yn. (4.8) n=1 The first two terms c and A can be calculated analytically from the TBA whereas the a n have to be calculated numerically. The agreement of the two series expansions (4.5) and (4.8) leads to the following relations: c eff = c B(λ) = Am a n = C n (m y λ) n. (4.9) The third relation yields a mass gap formula in the special case n = 1 λ = a 1 C 1 m y. (4.1) The first nontrivial check is provided by the reproduction of the correct effective central charge while the bulk energy constant and the mass-gap can be measured using TCSA. The n > 1 equalities could be used to perform further consistency checks but we shall not do this. Now we give the TBA results for the models M 31 and M 314 by relating them to known results. 4.1 TBA for M 31 + Φ (15) It was pointed out in [17] that the TBA calculation for the scaling Yang-Lee model (which is M 5 + Φ (1) ) is identical to the TBA calculation for the scaling Potts model M 56 + Φ (1) for the following reason: The scaling Yang-Lee model contains one scalar particle B with the S matrix ( ) ( 1 S BB = (4.11) 3 3) while the spectrum of the scaling Potts model consists of a conjugate particle pair A and Ā with the S matrix ( ( ) 1 S AA = S 3) A Ā =. (4.1) 3 The two S matrices satisfy S AA S A Ā = S BB. (4.13) As shown in [17] this means that the TBA equation in the charge symmetric Gibbs state for the scaling Potts model is equivalent to two copies of the scaling Yang-Lee model. However the model M 31 + Φ (15) is explicitly equal to two copies of the Yang-Lee model and therefore the ground state energy computed from the TBA of the model M 56 + Φ (1) is identical to that of the model M 31 + Φ (15). 11

13 4. TBA for M Φ (15) The model M 314 +Φ (15) is related to M 67 +Φ (1). The S matrix of the latter is the so-called minimal e 6 S matrix derived in [18]. The mass spectra of the two models are identical and so we shall use the same labels for the particles in the two theories. If we denote the S matrix of the i and j particles in the non-unitary model by S (314) ij then we have the following interesting relation: S (67) ij while that in the unitary case by S (314) ij S (314) i j = S (67) ij S (67) i j. (4.14) This implies that the ground state energy calculated using the charge symmetric Gibbs state for TBA is the same in the two models. The TBA for M 67 + Φ (1) has been analysed in [16] where they find c = 6/7 A TBA = a 1 = (4.15) For M 314 c = 114/7 and the operator Φ with the minimal dimension is Φ (15) with h min = 5/7 so that c eff = 6/7 as predicted. Using C ΦΦ Φ = the mass-gap m is given by λ = α m 4/7 α = (4.16) 4.3 TBA for M Φ (15) The arguments used in the two previous subsections to show that the TBA analysis of the two related models are equal are not valid here since the non-unitary model contains more particles in its spectrum than the corresponding unitary one. Therefore one does not expect the TBA prediction derived from the Ising model results to hold in this case. For example consider the effective central charge: In the M Φ (15) model we have c = 161/8 h min = 7/8 (corresponding to the operator Φ (15) ) and so c eff = 7/8. The related model is M 34 + Φ (1) with c eff = 1/ and which has 8 particles with the minimal e 8 S matrix for which c = 1/ as required. In the e 8 TBA [16] the mass gap is expressed in terms of the lowest lying breather. If we try to use the e 8 TBA expansion for M 316 given in [16] we get and therefore the predicted mass gap is a 1 = C ΦΦ Φ = (4.17) λ = αm 15/4 B 1 α = (4.18) The bulk energy constant can be obtained from [16] as follows: A TBA 1 = ( 4 sin π 15 + sin π 3 + sin π 5 + sin 3π 5 + sin π 3 ) = (4.19) 14π + sin 15 We give these simply to show that they do not agree with the numerical results of the TCSA in section 5 as indeed they should not. 1

14 4.4 BA predictions from the S matrix The TBA system is a set of complicated non-linear integral equations for the ground-state energy E (R). There is a much simpler set of equations which give the dominant behaviour of two-particle excitations which comes simply from the usual Bethe Ansatz for a two-particle wave function as follows. On a circle the momenta of two-particle states are quantised. If we consider the zero momentum sector with particles i and j of masses m i m j momenta p p and total energy E(R) then we have p = m i sinh(θ 1 ) = m j sinh(θ ) E(R) E (R) = p + m i + p + m j (4.) where E (R) is the ground state energy. If the particles have purely elastic scattering with S matrix S ij (θ) then the quantisation condition is exp (ipr) S ij (θ 1 θ ) = ±1 (4.1) with a 1 for i and j both fermions and 1 otherwise. Consequently it is possible to extract the S matrix or more properly the phase shift δ(θ) = i log(s(θ)) from the function E(R) E (R). If there are two or more particles of the same mass with non-diagonal scattering then the quantisation condition is (4.1) with S ij (θ) replaced by the eigenvalues of the two-particle S matrix. We are able to identify several such two-particle lines in our numerical results and we can compare our conjectured S matrices with those of the related models. However there is an ambiguity in our measurements of S(θ) which we should mention. The particle statistics are determined by the sign ±1 in equation (4.1); there is also the notion of type which enters the TBA and which is given by (±1)S(). The folklore is that all particles in theories such as ours are of fermionic type that is (±1)S() = 1 and this is the convention we have used in our TBA and BA calculations. However the TBA and BA predictions are unaltered by S(θ) S(θ) and fermion boson and this ambiguity can only be fixed by requiring the correct signs in the S matrix bootstrap. 5 Numerical analysis in the Truncated Conformal Space Approach The Truncated Conformal Space Approach (TCSA) consists of calculating the matrix elements of (5.1) exactly for a finite dimensional subspace H of the full Hilbert space and then numerically diagonalising the resulting matrix as explained in [19]. Following the discussion in [19] the spectrum of the truncated Hamiltonian h TCSA exhibits three distinct scaling regimes; r small in which the UV conformal field theory dominates r large in which the truncation effects dominate and an intermediate region in which one hopes that the spectrum will approximate that of the massive theory on a circle. The TCSA method is fully described in e.g. [19] but we recall the main elements here. The full Hamiltonian is: h(r) = π r ( r y ) H + α (π) y 1 H 1 (5.1) 13

15 in units in which m = 1 and where H = L + L c 1. (5.) The matrix elements of the perturbing Hamiltonian can be evaluated using the formula Ψ f V Ψ i = π R λ R y (π) y 1 Ψ f Φ() Ψ i plane (5.3) where the matrix element of the perturbing field is taken on the conformal plane and evaluated using standard conformal field theory techniques. From this the operator H 1 can be identified with the perturbing field Φ() itself. There are some symmetries which make the calculation of h TCSA simpler: firstly since the Hamiltonian is Lorentz invariant we can restrict attention to the spin-zero sector of the full Hilbert space. Secondly in our models the perturbing operator Φ() = Φ (15) () preserves distinct sectors of the full Hilbert space and as a result we may diagonalise h TCSA on these sectors separately. We can also choose to normalise the highest weight states as Φ j Φ i = ±δ ij (5.4) where the signs are chosen to ensure the reality of the three-point couplings which are themselves given in appendix A. As discussed in section 4 the following numerical results can be extracted from the TCSA: (1) The ground-state energy: in the scaling regime the ground state energy should be approximately E (r) AR and one can measure A. () The mass-gap can be found and compared with the TBA predictions. In practice we adopt the value of α from the TBA and then we expect that the lightest particle has mass 1. (3) Some of the two-particle lines can be identified and for those the two-particle energies can be compared with the Bethe Ansatz results derived from the S matrix. We now present the results of the Truncated Conformal Space calculations for the two models M Φ (15) and M Φ (15). 5.1 The TCSA results for M Φ (15) The allowed values of h are h 1i < i < 14. It is possible to consider several different sectors in which Φ (15) acts locally but which are not themselves necessarily mutually local. In particular we can consider the three sectors even odd and twisted for which the fields all have integer spin with the following sets of {h 1i h 1j } [ij] Sector Field content even [11] [33] [55] [77] [99] [1111] [1313] odd [] [44] [66] [88] [11] [11] twisted [113] [311] [59] [77] [95] [113] [131] (5.5) The coupling constants for first two sectors are those of the A type modular invariant which we give in appendix A the even and twisted sectors correspond to the D type modular invariant. 14

16 To establish that this model has the spectrum we have predicted it is only necessary to consider the even sector. We truncated the space by requiring L + L 1 which leaves 85 states. In figure 1 we give the real eigenvalues of h(r) and pick out the first 13 lines; it is clear that scaling has set in for the first three eigenvalues by r = 1. E[r] 8 r E[r] r r - - (a) Plot of E(r) versus r. (b) Plot of re(r) versus r. -3 Figure 1: The first 13 eigenvalues of h(r) in M Φ (15). Some of the lines appear to terminate in fact two real eigenvalues collide and become a complex conjugate pair of eigenvalues; this is due to truncation effects as explained in [8]. From figure 1a it is possible to estimate the slope of the ground-state energy and the first three excitation energies in the scaling region (which we take to be 13 < r < 17) and we give these in table for truncation levels and 1 to show systematic errors together with estimates of the error of the measurements together with the values predicted by the TBA and perturbation theory. Level dim H A m 1 m m ± ± ± ± ±. 1.1 ± ± ± ± ± ± ±.3 Exact Table : Results for M Φ (15) However as we discuss further in section 6 the particles A and Ā and B B we used to diagonalise the S matrix in section 3 are not invariant under Z and consequently there is no direct connection between these particles and the excitations in the even sector; rather the 15

17 particle of lowest mass in the even sector is a symmetric combination of A and Ā; similarly the zero-momentum two-particle states of A and Ā in the even sector are K(θ)K( θ) and K(θ) K( θ). However it is still true that the eigenvalues of the S matrix on these two particle states are the matrix elements S AA (θ) and S A Ā (θ) and we have indicated the first two lines corresponding to the eigenvalues by dotted and dashed lines respectively. From figure 1b we can extract the S matrix element S AA (θ) which we compare with the conjectured results in figure a; The data from the second energy level which corresponds to these particles i.e. the 1th eigenvalues of h(r) for small r. As is usual there is a small discrepancy for small r between the Bethe-Ansatz predictions for E(r) and the actual values due to finite-size effects but otherwise the agreement is very good. In figure b we give the same data for S CC (θ) which corresponds to the 13th eigenvalue of h(r) for small r. The results for S BB and S B B are equally convincing. I Log[S] I Log[S] Theta Theta (a) The AA S matrices. (b) The CC S matrix. Figure : The S matrices as extracted from the TCSA compared with theory in M 314 +Φ (15). The interpretation of the lowest energy solution of equation (4.1) for S = S AĀ (the 5th eigenvalue for small r) is extremely interesting. Since S AA () = 1 the particles A and Ā are bosons and so the Bethe Ansatz for the nth AĀ excitation is r sinh(θ) + δ AĀ (θ) = nπ. (5.6) Since δ A Ā (θ) θ(3 + ) for small θ we see that equation (5.6) with n = only has solutions for real θ for r = However for r large we have identified this 5th line as the single particle Z even component of the higher kink doublet B B and hence obtained the estimate of the mass m 3 = We can reconcile these two interpretations when we notice that for r > the solution to equation (5.6) corresponds to θ imaginary. As r we see that θ iπ/6 and there is 16

18 a pole in S A Ā (θ) at θ = iπ/6 which corresponds to the particles B and B. Thus we see direct evidence that the first excited kink (corresponding to the particles B and B) appears as the direct channel pole of KK at θ = iπ/6. As a consequence the TCSA gives the value of the S matrix S A Ā (θ) for all real θ and also for the imaginary values between and iπ/6. In figure 3 we plot the theoretical and numerical values of both δ AĀ (θ) versus θ and log(s(θ)) versus iθ. There is excellent agreement for all real values of θ and also for imaginary values of θ up to r 17 where scaling starts to break down and truncation effects take over. I Log[S] 7 Log[S] Theta -I Theta (a) S for real θ. (b) S AĀ AĀ for imaginary θ. Figure 3: The S matrices as extracted from the TCSA compared with theory in M 314 +Φ (15). 5. The TCSA results for M Φ (15) The allowed values of h are h 1i < i < 16. It is again possible to consider several different sectors in which Φ (15) acts locally but which are not themselves necessarily mutually local. In particular we can again define three sectors even odd and twisted for which the fields all have integer spin with the following sets of {h 1i h 1j } [ij] Sector Field content even [11] [33] [55] [77] [99] [1111] [1313] [1515] odd [] [44] [66] [88] [11] [11] [1414] twisted [14] [41] [61] [88] [88] [16] [14] [14]. (5.7) The coupling constants for first two sectors are those of the A type modular invariant which we give in appendix A the twisted sector corresponds to the D type modular invariant. 17

19 To establish that this model has the spectrum we have predicted it is again only necessary to consider the even sector. We truncated the space by requiring L + L 1 which leaves 87 states. In figure 4 we give the real eigenvalues of h(r) with the first 14 lines picked out. It is less clear that scaling has set in for the first five eigenvalues and both the masses of the single particles and the S matrices as extracted from the excited two-particle lines are in good agreement with theory. However to achieve a reliable scaling regime it has been necessary to use a much larger truncated space for this model than the previous one; indeed when the space is truncated to 85 states the lines corresponding to the third particle are no longer present and for that reason we leave the measurement of its mass blank in table 3. The severity of the truncation effects which still remain can also be seen in the large gaps in the nd 3rd 4th and 5th lines (when the eigenvalues become complex) and which would presumably disappear when the truncation level is increased. E[r] r E[r] r r - (a) Plot of E(r) versus r. (b) Plot of re(r) versus r. -1 Figure 4: The first 14 eigenvalues of h(r) in M Φ (15). From figure 4a it is possible to estimate the slope of the ground-state energy and the first three excitation energies in the scaling region (which we take to be 1 < r < 1) and we give these in table 3 for the truncation levels and 1 to show systematic errors together with estimates of the error of the measurements. It is clear from the measurement of A that this is not given by the standard minimal e 8 TBA as should be the case and that the mass ratios are consistent with those of the S matrices of [1]. From figure 4b we can extract the eigenvalues of the S matrices of the fundamental kinks which we compare with the conjectured results in figure 5. The data points come from the 9th11th and 3rd eigenvalues of h(r) (for r small) with the continuous lines being S 1 (θ) S (θ) and the dashed lines S 3 (θ) and S 4 (θ). 18

20 Level dim H A m 1 m /m 1 m 3 /m ±. 1.1 ± ± ±.5.96 ± ± ± ± ± ± ±. Exact Table 3: Results for M Φ (15) We can also identify the first two-breather line which is the 14th eigenvalue of h(r) for small R and we compare the S matrix extracted from these numerical results with the theoretical result of 3.16 in 5. In this case we have S B1 B 1 () = 1 so that we take B 1 fermionic for the Bethe Ansatz in accord with the folklore that bosonic and fermionic particles have S() = 1 and 1 respectively; in any case there is agreement between theory and experiment for this choice. I Log[S] I Log[S] Theta Theta (a) The Kink-Kink S matrix eigenvalues. (b) The B 1 B 1 S matrix. Figure 5: The S matrices as extracted from the TCSA compared with theory in M 316 +Φ (15) 19

21 6 Z symmetry and sectors Minimal models of CFT are known to exhibit Z symmetry which has been used above to classify the sectors of the Hilbert-space. These sectors are preserved under Φ (15) perturbation and therefore it is natural to expect a corresponding symmetry of the massive field theory. There is a natural Z action on the particles in the unrestricted ZMS model completely analogous to the classification of the irreducible representations of the classical group SU() by its centre Z with integer spin representations corresponding to the trivial (even) class and half-integer spin representations to the nontrivial (odd) class. Although the U q (sl()) action does not survive RSOS restriction the Z action does and as a consequence the kinks K are even and K odd. Since the Z symmetry is a remnant of the full quantum group symmetry it commutes with the S matrix and it is possible to simultaneously diagonalise both the S matrix and Z on the two-particle states. However it is not possible to do this on oneparticle states. As a result the one-particle states which diagonalise the S matrix (denoted A Ā in case of M 314 and M 316 and A B and the case of M 31 ) are not Z eigenstates; rather they are exchanged with each other under Z. Therefore the natural description of the content of each sector is in terms of the states K and K which are self-conjugate and Z -even or odd respectively. We now examine the content of the three different sectors (even odd and twisted) of the simplest model M 31 + Φ (15) as an example. Exactly as for the models M 314 and M 316 the values of {h 1i h 1j } [ij] of M 31 fall into even odd and twisted as follows: Sector Field content even [11] [33] [55] [77] [99] odd [] [44] [66] [88] twisted [19] [37] [55] [73] [91]. (6.1) The direct sum of the odd and twisted sectors correspond to the product (M 5 + Φ (1) ) and give the D type modular invariant in the conformal limit The direct sum of the even and odd sectors gives the A-type modular invariant partition function. Direct TCSA investigation of the odd sector gives very similar pictures to those of the even sector in the scaling regime: both sectors have a ground state a one-particle line and a very similar structure of twoparticle lines. The degeneracy of the ground state energies is broken by an amount which is exponentially small for large r. The picture is very similar for M Φ (15). For the model M (316) the four eigenvalues of the kink kink S matrix are different so that we now expect that the two-particle lines in the even and odd sectors are given by different Bethe Ansatz results. In the even sector we expect the two-particle lines to be linear combinations of the states K(θ)K( θ) and K(θ) K( θ) whereas those in the even sector to be linear combinations of K(θ) K( θ) and K(θ)K( θ). The identification above is consistent with the fact that the eigenvalues on the Z even sector (S 3 and S 4 the dashed lines) give a better approximation to the phase-shift extracted from the even sector than those on the Z odd sector (S 1 and S the solid lines). This picture can be formulated generically as follows: states corresponding to RSOS sequences {j n... j j 1 } which start and end with an even vacuum state (i.e. j 1 and j n are

22 integer-spin representations which in our three cases means the state ) originate from the even sector of the underlying CFT and the ones starting with an odd vacuum and ending with an odd vacuum derive from the odd sector. 7 Character Identities As has been shown extensively there are interesting sum forms for Virasoro characters which may be related to the particle structure of perturbed minimal models (see e.g. [] for the cases related to the minimal e 8 S matrix.). Since the breather sectors of our related models are the same and the characters of the Virasoro representations in these models may be given in terms of sum formulae we might expect to find relations between the Virasoro characters in the two models. This is indeed the case as we show now. The character of the irreducible representation L ch of the Virasoro algebra of central charge c with highest weight h is defined as χ ch (q) = Tr Lch (q L c/4 ). For pairs M rs and M r s of type II (r = r/s = s) we find that χ crsh r/ mn χ crsh r/ ms n = χ cr s h ms / n χ cr s h r ms / n χ crsh mn = χ cr s h mn. (7.1) Note that these identities do not involve all the characters of either model. For the pair M 31 and M 56 these relations give χ c31 h 11 χ c31 h 19 = χ c56 h 1 χ c56 h 31 χ c31 h 13 χ c31 h 17 = χ c56 h 11 χ c56 h 41 χ c31 h 1 = χ c56 h 1 χ c31 h 14 = χ c56 h χ c31 h 16 = χ c56 h 3 χ c31 h 18 = χ c56 h 4. (7.) For the pairs M rs and M r4s of type III we find that { χcr4s h χ crsh mn = (r m)/(s n) χ cr4s h (r m)/(s+n) m odd χ cr4s h m/n χ cr4s h m/4s n m even. (7.3) In the case of M 316 and M 34 this yields χ c34 h 11 = χ c316 h 16 χ c316 h 11 χ c34 h 1 = χ c316 h 14 χ c316 h 11 χ c34 h 13 = χ c316 h 1 χ c316 h 114. (7.4) Analogous relations for type I pairs are obtained by swapping r s s r and m n. All these relations may be proven easily using the formulae in [1]. Whether the identities in equations (7.1) (7.3) have any real interpretation in terms of the particle structures of PCFTs is an interesting question to which we hope to have an answer shortly although it is interesting to note that in each case we have investigated when the difference of two characters appears it still has an expansion in q with positive coefficients. 1

23 8 Conclusions The above results make it possible to clarify the connection between Φ (1) and Φ (15) perturbations of minimal models. We have shown that they can be related through the ZMS Lagrangian and that the relation falls into one of the three possible classes of type I II or III according to the relative magnitude of the effective central charges. Using the S-matrices obtained via RSOS restriction in [1] we tested them against the predictions of the TCSA and TBA method. We have confirmed the picture of Φ (15) perturbations based on the RSOS restriction and have shown that the two related theories are different reductions of the same underlying affine Toda field theory. The existence of such different restrictions relies upon the existence of non-equivalent sl() subalgebras of the affine Kac-Moody algebra a () underlying the ZMS model. It appears reasonable to expect that such relations should exist between perturbations of W-minimal models corresponding to other imaginary coupling affine Toda field theories. The results show that in the type II case (models M (31) and M (314) ) we end up with the same mass spectra although different scattering theories whereas in the cases of type I (of which the example of M 9 was treated in [6 7]) and type III (of which M 316 is an example) even the mass spectra are different just as expected. In the two type II cases the TBA equations turned out to be the same as those of the corresponding Φ (1) -perturbed conformal field theories. Unfortunately due to our lack of knowledge about the conformal field theory three-point coupling constants for D-type modular invariants of non-unitary models we have not been able to extract precise TCSA predictions for the twisted sector although preliminary results (using some guesses for the structure constants) have turned out to be in good agreement with our expectations based on the Z picture. It seems worthwhile to tackle the problem of the coupling constants in the non-unitary minimal models and in this way to facilitate the further investigation of their structure as well. Since the RSOS restriction does not modify the breather sector of the affine Toda field theory one can expect that this sector is identical in corresponding Φ (1) and Φ (15) perturbations irrespective of the type I II or III nature of the pair. This leads to the existence of strange character identities between characters of different minimal models. In addition to that in the type II case we expect relations between the states corresponding to the solitonic sectors as well. Some character identities of this type have been described although it is not clear whether they originate from some connections between different PCFTs in the case of general minimal model pairs. Acknowledgements We would like to thank W. Eholzer J.M. Evans A. Honecker A. Koubek and R.A. Weston for useful discussions and comments at various stages. HGK is supported by a research fellowship from Sidney Sussex College Cambridge GT by the Cambridge Overseas Trust and GMTW by an EPSRC advanced fellowship. We also acknowledge partial support from PPARC. The numerical work was performed in MATHE- MATICA and MAPLE on equipment supplied under SERC grant GR/J733.

24 A Coupling constants in non-unitary conformal field theories The coupling constants for fields of type Φ (1a) are given in [11] in an asymmetric fashion: they have two sets of fields ϕ a ϕ a which for our purposes are just (different) multiples of Φ (1a) Using the results of [11] we arrive at where the coupling constants are where ϕ a ϕ b (1) ϕ c = C abc ϕ a ϕ b = C ab1 C abc = ξ(b+c a 1 ξ(a 1) ) ξ( a+c b 1 ) ξ(b 1) ξ( a+b c 1 ) ξ(c 1) η( a+b+c 1 ) η(1) (A.1) a a ξ(a) = γ(ρj) η(a) = γ(ρj 1) γ(x) = Γ(x)/Γ(1 x) ρ = r/s. j=1 j=1 From the unnormalised coupling constants C abc it is then easy to choose normalised fields Φ (1a) = 1 α a ϕ a such that Φ (1a) Φ(1b) (1) Φ (1c) is real and Φ (1a) Φ(1a) = ±1. We do not give the coupling constants for the D type modular invariant involving the fields in the twisted sector as these are not to be found in [11]. Petkova and Zuber [] give these for the unitary minimal models and it would be interesting to extend their results to all minimal models but we do not do that here. References [1] G. Takács A new RSOS restriction of the Zhiber-Mikhailov-Shabat Model and Φ (15) perturbations of nonunitary minimal model preprint DAMTP-96-7 hep-th/ [] T. Hollowood and P. Mansfield Rational Conformal Field Theory at and away from criticality as Toda Field Theories Phys. Lett. B6 (1989) 73. [3] D. Bernard and A. LeClair Quantum Group Symmetries and non-local Currents in D QFT Commun. Math. Phys. 14 (1991) [4] F. A. Smirnov Exact S matrices for φ 1 perturbed minimal models of conformal field theory Int. J. Mod. Phys. A6 No. 8. (1991) [5] A. Koubek S matrices of φ 1 perturbed minimal models IRF formulation and bootstrap program Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9 No. 11 (1994) hep-th/ [6] A. Koubek M. J. Martins and G. Mussardo Scattering matrices for φ 1 perturbed conformal minimal models in absence of kink states Nucl. Phys. B368 (199) [7] M. J. Martins Constructing an S matrix from the truncated conformal approach data Phys. Lett. B6 (1991) [8] V. P. Yurov and Al. B. Zamolodchikov Truncated conformal space approach to scaling Lee Yang model Int. J. Mod. Phys. A5 No. 16 (199)