Skip to content

Center selection on a finite SU(2) cycle

The supplied finite-cycle SU(2) potential has an exact global threshold for center-symmetric selection. Its proof excludes competing interior minima and tracks the continuum limit while retaining the stabilizing deformation as an input.

In this article
  1. A finite cycle with a definite question
  2. The holonomy coordinate and center symmetry
  3. The specified effective potential
  4. The exact crossing and a numerical example
  5. The continuum limit is controlled
  6. What a source mechanism would have to explain
Key ideasSources & reading

01A finite cycle with a definite question

The draft studies SU(2) transport around a circle divided into M≥2 sites. Multiplying the links in order gives a holonomy Ω, defined up to conjugation by a gauge change. The question is not whether a cycle can be drawn, but which holonomy minimizes a specified effective potential. The potential combines the established one-loop gauge contribution with a supplied double-trace deformation. This is a well-posed finite-cycle minimization problem. In the SMM/DTT interpretation the ordered transports can model an internal operation sequence, while the physical compactification, action and couplings remain separate inputs.

02The holonomy coordinate and center symmetry

Write Ω=diag(e^(iφ/2),e^(−iφ/2)) with 0≤φ≤2π. Its trace is 2cos(φ/2). The center-symmetric conjugacy class is φ=π, where the trace vanishes and the eigenvalues are evenly spaced. This is different from a holonomy that lies in the group center, Ω=±I, occurring at the endpoints. Confusing these meanings reverses the spectral interpretation: central holonomies leave a larger neutral sector, whereas the center-symmetric class maximizes the smallest charged cycle frequency in the stated comparison.

Two example potentials have two wells. In one, the left well is lower; in the other, the right well is lower. A local minimum persists even when it is not the global minimum.
Figure 1. Local stability and global selection need separate tests. Illustrative order-parameter potentials distinguish a stable local well from the absolute minimum. The actual finite SU(2) threshold is obtained from the specified one-loop and deformation potential, not from this sketch. View full size ↗

03The specified effective potential

Normalize the gauge potential WM so that WM(0)=0 and add 4hcos²(φ/2), with h≥0. At the endpoints the total potential is 4h, while at the center it is WM(π). Comparing those values suggests a crossing, but a valid global proof must also exclude lower interior competitors. The draft establishes strict concavity when the potential is expressed in y=cosφ. The deformation is linear in y, so concavity remains. Every interior y lies above the chord between the endpoints and therefore cannot be a global minimum.

UM,h(φ)=WM(φ)+4hcos²(φ/2).

04The exact crossing and a numerical example

The global crossing is hc(M)=WM(π)/4. The finite sum evaluates to the displayed trigonometric expression. Below hc the two chamber endpoints minimize; above it the center minimizes; at equality all three are minima. At M=2 the threshold is approximately 0.497231, while at M=8 it is approximately 0.213836. These are dimensionless values for the supplied leading potential, not measurements of a fundamental interaction strength.

hc(M) = [M³/(6π)]{tan[3π/(4M)]−3tan[π/(4M)]}.
h<hc: φ=0,2π; h=hc: φ=0,π,2π; h>hc: φ=π.

05The continuum limit is controlled

As M grows at fixed circle length, the threshold approaches π²/48, with first correction π⁴/(192M²) and a controlled order-M⁻⁴ remainder in the draft. The potential and its first two derivatives also converge uniformly under stated bounds. This matters because a pointwise limit alone need not preserve stability information. If M is a regulator, these corrections are discretization effects. Treating M as a physical number of inner operations is a different interpretation and requires independent matching of M, spacing, physical length and the effective couplings.

hc(M)=π²/48+π⁴/(192M²)+O(M⁻⁴).

06What a source mechanism would have to explain

The undeformed one-loop determinant favors the chamber endpoints; it does not generate the stabilizing h. A SMM/DTT source theory should therefore calculate why the relevant completion dynamics produces a deformation of the required sign and magnitude, with a margin large enough to survive omitted corrections. It must also relate the operational cycle to the physical gauge compactification. The six nested inner levels are not automatically the M lattice sites of this regulator. The finite-cycle result provides a concrete selection threshold against which such a source proposal can be tested, without claiming that the threshold itself derives gauge dynamics.

KEEP THE CONNECTION

Key ideas

  • The global minimum is determined after interior competitors are excluded.
  • Finite-cycle center selection has an exact threshold and controlled continuum limit.
  • The stabilizing deformation is supplied, not generated by the one-loop calculation.

Scope of the argument. Exact minimization of the specified one-loop potential with deformation; not an all-order phase diagram or a derived SMM/DTT gauge action.

Sources & further reading

  1. Exact SU(2) Center-Selection Thresholds for a Finite-Cycle One-Loop Potential, seventh revisionyang_mills_holonomy_monopoles_v7(1).pdf, §§3–10, pp.8–32; gap and matching audit, pp.76–81
Source editions and catalogue entries
Working manuscript

Exact SU(2) Center-Selection Thresholds for a Finite-Cycle One-Loop Potential

Working manuscript. Article-level references identify the consulted sections and the scope of the interpretation. No public URL was supplied for this exact manuscript version.

Source register →

SMONAD

Share and cite

Share this page, or keep a clear reference to the work you are reading.

More platforms
Cite this page

Cite the website explanation

Use this reference for the explanation on this page. “n.d.” means its first publication date is not specified; the update date is recorded separately.