the commonly accepted paradigm for gamma - ray bursts ( grbs ) is that they are formed in ultrarelativistic , collimated jets .
typical terminal lorentz factors for these jets , such that the photons can freely escape , are @xmath1 a few hundreds , even above on thousand ( e.g. @xcite ) .
opening angles @xmath2 are inferred from achromatic breaks in the afterglow light curves , although these are not clearly detected in several bursts ( e.g. , @xcite ) .
since the lorentz factor decreases during the afterglow phase , and the break in the light curves occurs when the beaming angle equals @xmath2 , the product @xmath3 should be larger than one at the start of this phase , typically of the order of a few tens .    the long / soft class of grbs are thought to be connected with the death of massive stars , since some of them are associated with type ic supernovae and are observed in star - forming regions of the host galaxies ( see e.g. , @xcite and references therein ) . during this process a compact central object and accretion disk
are formed , and the jet is powered by either the neutrino annihilation , or by magnetic fields , tapping the rotational energy of the central object or disk .
it is not clear which of the two mechanisms ( or both ) operates , with the detection or not of the thermal photospheric emission being a key factor @xcite .
thermal ( fireball ) acceleration is in general a fast and efficient process , with the lorentz factor increasing linearly with the cylindrical distance from the symmetry axis
. magnetic acceleration also works provided that the jet is supported externally by an environment whose pressure does not drop faster than the inverse square of the distance from the origin , as was analytically shown in @xcite . the interior of the progenitor star could very well play this role .
relativistic magnetohydrodynamic ( mhd ) simulations by @xcite show that the efficiency of the magnetic acceleration is @xmath4 or more .
the model faces two problems though : ( 1 ) the jet looses its external support when it exits the progenitor star , its motion becomes ballistic and its acceleration is practically halted .
( 2 ) the magnetic acceleration requires that the flow is expanded in a way such that the separation between neighboring streamlines increases faster than the cylindrical radius .
this is achieved through stronger collimation of the inner part of the outflow relative to the outer part , and for this reason the mechanism was dubbed _
collimation - acceleration _ by @xcite .
the resulting jets are very narrow with @xmath5 , and the product @xmath6 is close to unity before the start of the afterglow phase , making the breaks unlikely to happen .    a solution to both problems can be given by carefully studying the dynamics at the regime where the jet comes out from the star , and its external pressure drops to practically zero .
@xcite simulated this transition and found that it is accompanied by a spurt of acceleration .
@xcite confirmed their finding numerically and interpreted it as _ rarefaction acceleration_. the loss of external support induces a sideways expansion of the jet , and a strong rarefaction wave that is driven into the flow and accelerates it .
in fact this is a powerful mechanism seen in other numerical simulations of both , hydrodynamic and mhd flows with contact discontinuity and flow along it , see @xcite .
+ a similar mechanism was studied in @xcite , for the problem of an initially static magnetized plasma allowing to move into an environment .
here we are interested for non - static cases and their sideways expansion .
however , the analysis in all these works were based on time dependent simple waves , while for the grb problem under consideration it is more appropriate to use steady - state simple waves . in the present paper
we develop a model for the steady - state , relativistic , magnetized , rarefaction wave .
the work is a generalization of the classical steady - state , hydrodynamic rarefaction analyzed in @xcite , and its relativistic ( but again unmagnetized ) counterpart by @xcite .    in section  [ seceq ]
we review the steady - state , special relativistic , mhd equations in planar geometry . in section  [ secrss ]
we develop the model , in section  [ results ] we present and discuss the results and their application to grbs .
finally , in section  [ discuss ] we give a summary .
the system of equations of special relativistic , ideal mhd , consist of the ohm s law @xmath7 the maxwell equations @xmath8 the mass @xmath9 momentum @xmath10 and entropy @xmath11 conservation equations ( e.g. , @xcite ) .
+ here @xmath12 is the velocity of the outflow , @xmath13 is the associated lorentz factor satisfying @xmath14 @xmath15 the electromagnetic field as measured in the central object s frame , @xmath16 the rest mass density , @xmath17 the gas pressure , and @xmath18 the specific enthalpy ( over @xmath19 ) , whose expression is , for an ideal gas with polytropic index @xmath20 , @xmath21 the polytropic index takes the values @xmath22 or @xmath23 in the limit of ultrarelativistic or nonrelativistic temperatures , respectively .
( any other value would imply a nonadiabatic evolution and hence requires the incorporation of heating / cooling terms into the entropy and momentum equations . see also @xcite for intermediate temperatures . )    by assuming steady state ( @xmath24 ) and a planar symmetric flow , i.e. , @xmath25 in a system of cartesian spatial coordinates @xmath26 , we can carry out a partial integration of the above equations  ( [ ohm][enthalpy ] ) .
it is also sufficient to simplify the analysis by assuming that the flow lies on the poloidal plane @xmath27 , @xmath28 , and the magnetic field in the transverse direction , @xmath29 . as discussed in section  [ results ] , these are reasonable assumptions when the model is applied to grb outflows .
it is possible to generalize the analysis to planar symmetric magnetized flows with nonzero @xmath30 and poloidal magnetic field ; this will be presented in a future paper .
the continuity equation  ( [ continuity ] ) for steady flows on the @xmath27 plane yields @xmath31 $ ] , and thus the flow velocity can be expressed as @xmath32 the stream function @xmath33 is constant along each streamline ( since @xmath34 ) , and can be used as its `` label '' .    using ohm s equation  ( [ ohm ] ) we express the electric field as @xmath35 . substituting in faraday s equation  ( [ maxwell ] )
we find @xmath36 , which means that the quantity @xmath37 is a streamline constant , @xmath38 thus , the electric field can be written as @xmath39 .
this expression shows the relation of the function @xmath40 with the scalar electric potential , and also that the streamlines are equipotentials .
the component of the momentum equation  ( [ momentum ] ) along the flow gives after some manipulation for @xmath41 in the left - hand side of the momentum equation ( [ momentum ] ) and then , by dotting with @xmath12 , we get @xmath42 /4\pi $ ] .
the left - hand side , by replacing @xmath43 and using equation  ( [ entropy ] ) , becomes @xmath44 .
the right - hand side , using @xmath45 and equation  ( [ phipsi ] ) , can be written as @xmath46 . since @xmath47
, this is equal to @xmath48 , and the equation of the two sides gives @xmath49=0 $ ] .
thus , the quantity inside the brackets is a streamline constant . ]
@xmath50 this integral represents the total energy - to - mass flux ratio ( over @xmath19 ) , since the mass flux ( times @xmath19 ) is @xmath51 , the poynting flux @xmath52 , and the matter energy flux ( including thermal , bulk kinetic and rest energy ) is @xmath53 .    the entropy conservation equation  ( [ entropy ] )
, for an ideal gas whose enthalpy is given by equation  ( [ enthalpy ] ) , simplifies to @xmath54 , meaning that the quantity @xmath55  which is related to the specific entropy  is a streamline constant @xmath56    the previous partial integrations greatly simplify the original system of equations  ( [ ohm])([enthalpy ] ) , yielding several streamline constants , which can be determined at the boundary of the flow .
three equations remain to be integrated : the component of the momentum equation  ( [ momentum ] ) normal to the flow velocity , and equations  ( [ lorentz ] ) , ( [ enthalpy ] ) .
there are correspondingly three unknown functions , which we choose to be the stream function @xmath33 , the specific enthalpy @xmath57 , and the ratio of poynting - to - matter energy flux @xmath58    we may write the physical quantities in terms of these variables : @xmath59 @xmath60 @xmath61    knowing the streamline constants ( @xmath40 , @xmath62 , @xmath63 ) we can find the remaining unknowns @xmath64 by solving the following system of equations , with the first coming from equation  ( [ enthalpy ] ) , the second from equation  ( [ lorentz ] ) , and the third from the component of the momentum equation  ( [ momentum ] ) normal to the flow velocity : @xmath65 @xmath66 @xmath67 \nonumber   \\ -\frac{1}{2 } \nabla \left ( \frac{4\pi\mu c}{{\phi_\psi}}\frac{\sigma}{1+\sigma } \right)^2 \cdot \frac{\nabla { \psi } } { \mid \nabla { \psi}\mid^2 } + \frac{\mid \nabla { \psi}\mid^2}{2 } \frac{d{\phi_\psi}^2}{d{\psi } } \nonumber   \\ -\frac{{\gamma}-1}{{\gamma } } \nabla \left [ 16 \pi^2 c^2 \frac{{h}({h}-1 ) \sigma } { { \phi_\psi}^2 } \right ] \cdot \frac{\nabla { \psi } } { \mid \nabla { \psi}\mid^2 } = 0\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ]
the problem under consideration is basically a prandtl - meyer flow around a corner , and thus the appropriate coordinates are polar on the plane @xmath27 with the corner at the origin , defined through @xmath68 and @xmath69 , see fig .
[ sketch ] .
a self - similar flow is described with a stream function of the form @xmath70 , with constant @xmath71 .
it is more convenient to replace the function @xmath72 in terms of the function @xmath73 , defined through @xmath74 , with constant @xmath75 , @xmath76 , in which case the definition of @xmath33 yields @xmath77 the function @xmath73 gives the radial distance from the corner , modulo a scale factor which is different in each streamline .
this clearly shows that all streamlines are similar to each - other , hence the term `` self - similarity '' .
the derivative of @xmath73 controls @xmath78 , and is thus related to the flow direction . rewriting equation  ( [ a22-v ] ) as @xmath79 , where @xmath80 and @xmath81 the unit vectors of the polar coordinates , and defining the angle @xmath82 between the flow velocity and the @xmath83 axis ( see fig .
[ sketch ] ) , the @xmath84 yields @xmath85    our goal is to separate the variables @xmath0 and @xmath86 in the system of equations  ( [ x - m - v])([transfield - v ] ) , and reduce them to equations with respect to the polar angle @xmath86 alone .    from inspection of equations  ( [ x - m - v ] ) , ( [ bernoulli - v ] )
we require @xmath87 the last term of equation  ( [ bernoulli - v ] ) should be a function of @xmath86 alone , and this gives the form of the streamline constant @xmath88 the so - called bernoulli equation  ( [ bernoulli - v ] ) can then be written as @xmath89 or in differential form @xmath90 } { \sigma \left(1+\sigma\right ) \left[\mu^2 - { h}^2 \left(1+\sigma\right)^2\right ] } \frac{d\sigma}{d\theta } \
, , \label{odevartheta } \end{aligned}\ ] ] where we used the differential form of equation  ( [ x - m - v ] ) @xmath91 @xmath92 is the square of the proper sound speed ( over @xmath19 ) @xmath93    the transfield equation  ( [ transfield - v ] ) , after some manipulation using the previous two equations , gives @xmath94    after solving the system of equations  ( [ x - m - v ] ) , ( [ ode10 ] ) , ( [ odethe0 ] ) , ( [ ode2 ] ) for the functions @xmath73 , @xmath95 , @xmath96 , @xmath97 , the physical quantities can be recovered using @xmath98    note that , using the previous expressions , the numerator and denominator of the differential equation  ( [ ode2 ] ) can be written as @xmath99 @xmath100 is always positive , while @xmath101 can be written as @xmath102 ( using expression  [ omegacoproper ] of appendix  [ appendixa ] ) .      near the corner
the flow properties are expected to depend mostly on the polar angle @xmath86 ; their dependence on the coordinate @xmath0 is only weak .
this requires the parameter @xmath71 to be @xmath104 , see equations  ( [ densss])([ess ] ) ( the density is proportional to @xmath105 and the other quantities depend on @xmath0 through the density ) .
the case @xmath106 corresponds to the classical rarefaction wave , a steady - state simple wave .
it is the relativistic mhd generalization of the hydrodynamic steady - state rarefaction wave analyzed by @xcite in the nonrelativistic regime , and @xcite in the relativistic case . as in these studies ,
the assumption that the flow depends only on the polar angle @xmath86 leads to two possibilities : the first corresponds to a uniform flow , and the second to a rarefaction wave . by inspection of equation  ( [ ode2 ] ) for @xmath106
one directly concludes that @xmath107 .
the case with constant @xmath108 is the trivial one of a uniform flow , equation  ( [ x - m - v ] ) implies that @xmath109 is also constant , equation  ( [ odethe0 ] ) yields that @xmath110 , and the combination of the latter with equation  ( [ ode10 ] ) gives that @xmath82 is also constant .
] while @xmath111 corresponds to the rarefaction wave .    . the @xmath112 component of the flow proper velocity equals @xmath113 ( radius of cycle ) .
]    a more robust perspective is to notice that @xmath111 implies that the @xmath81 component of the flow proper velocity ( @xmath114 ) is equal to the comoving proper phase velocity of a magnetosonic wave @xmath113 .
equivalently , the lines @xmath115 constant intersect the streamlines at every point at the mach angle @xmath116 , i.e. , @xmath117 , see fig .  [ sketch2 ] .
this can be seen by noting that @xmath118 and @xmath119 ( see equation  [ mach_opening ] of appendix  [ appendixa ] ) .
+ the two sides of the mach cone are the two characteristics , with equations @xmath120 for @xmath117 we again conclude that the minus characteristics are the cones @xmath115 constant .
suppose we are interested to model an outflow approaching a corner , see fig .
[ sketch ] .
the flow is initially uniform , in pressure equilibrium with its environment ( the @xmath121 regime in fig .
[ sketch ] ) , and superfast - magnetosonic ( the bulk velocity is higher than the fast - magnetosonic wave speed ) .
in such a flow the information is propagating in a mach cone around the flow speed , formed by the plus and minus characteristics .
the effect of the corner is propagated only downstream of the minus characteristic that leaves the corner , and corresponds to the head of the rarefaction shown in fig .
[ sketch ] .
each fluid parcel keeps moving with constant speed till it crosses this line . from this point on
the streamlines start to bent , the flow expands and its density , thermal / magnetic energy flux decline . as a result of the energy conservation
the flow is accelerated .
this mechanism of converting thermal / magnetic energy into kinetic energy of bulk motion is dubbed rarefaction acceleration by @xcite .
the bending of streamlines and the acceleration of the flow continues till the angle @xmath122 , the tail of the rarefaction , where the flow becomes ballistic and pressureless ( in equilibrium with the vacuum ) .
mathematically , in the initial uniform superfast - magnetosonic part of the outflow @xmath123 , @xmath101 is positive . the same is true in the first portion of the @xmath124 regime .
however , as the flow moves in that part ( see fig .  [ sketch ] ) the @xmath125 component of the flow velocity decreases leading to a decreasing @xmath101 ( see equation  [ expd ] ) . eventually @xmath101 becomes zero at an angle @xmath126 corresponding to the head of the rarefaction , and remains zero in the whole rarefaction phase ( for @xmath127 ) .
the system of equations  ( [ x - m - v ] ) , ( [ ode10 ] ) , ( [ odethe0 ] ) , ( [ ode2 ] ) gives @xmath128 , @xmath82 , @xmath109 , @xmath108 at each @xmath129 $ ] .
these expressions , together with their simplified versions in the limits of cold and unmagnetized flows , are given in appendix  [ appendixb ] .
the @xmath106 is the most important case ( and the only one with finite density at the corner ) , but we kept the analysis more general including @xmath130 cases ( for @xmath131 the density becomes infinity at the origin ) . in these cases
the flow is nonuniform initially , with the density increasing with the distance from the corner . as a result ,
denser parts tend to move towards the less dense regions , and the resulting flow expansion provides an additional acceleration mechanism on top of the rarefaction acceleration which is still present .
+            the numerical procedure is to give the model parameters @xmath71 , @xmath20 , the initial quantities @xmath132 , @xmath133 , @xmath134 , and @xmath135 at some initial angle @xmath136 , and find @xmath62 and @xmath137 using equations  ( [ a22-v ] ) , ( [ odethe0 ] ) . then solve the system of the two algebraic equations  ( [ x - m - v ] ) , ( [ odethe0 ] ) together with the two differential equations ( [ ode10 ] ) , ( [ ode2 ] ) for the functions @xmath73 , @xmath95 , @xmath96 , @xmath97 .    since we are interested to apply the model to grb outflows we set the energy - to - mass flux ratio ( @xmath62 ) , which equals the maximum possible bulk lorentz factor if all the energy is transferred to kinetic , a few hundreds .
in particular , we choose a value @xmath138 in the numerical results .    a jet associated with a long / soft grb is thought to be formed inside the progenitor star , and its first acceleration phase takes place before it crosses the stellar surface .
we take as a reference value for the resulting bulk lorentz factor , which is the initial value for the rarefaction acceleration phase that we examine , @xmath139 . for a cold flow ( @xmath140 )
the magnetization is @xmath141 such that equation  ( [ a22-v ] ) is satisfied . since the details of the acceleration phase inside the star are not known in general , where @xmath142 the distance from the origin and @xmath143 is related to the flow shape , see @xcite .
for example , for @xmath144 we get @xmath145 , where @xmath146 is the stellar radius , while for @xmath147 we get @xmath148 . ]
we also examine a model with @xmath149 ( and @xmath150 ) .    if the jet is magnetically driven , it is superfast - magnetosonic when it crosses the stellar surface .
it is well known from the mhd theory that in this regime the magnetic field is predominantly azimuthal , justifying our choice for ignoring the @xmath151 and @xmath152 components in the model . in @xcite ) . for typical values of a cylindrical distance @xmath153 and @xmath154
cm this ratio is @xmath155 . ] by adopting a planar geometry we ignore the tension of the azimuthal magnetic field .
this is reasonable , since the fast variations induced by the rarefaction wave give a much larger magnetic pressure gradient in the radial ( @xmath156 ) direction .
we also include a purely hydrodynamic model with @xmath157 and @xmath158 ( from equation  [ [ a22-v ] ] ) , and an intermediate case with @xmath159 and @xmath160 .    in all cases we started the integration from @xmath161 , with a flow parallel to the @xmath83 axis , @xmath162 .
the results of the numerical integration for the rarefaction case @xmath163 are shown in fig .
[ raref_gammacont ] for various sets of the initial quantities @xmath132 , @xmath133 and @xmath164 . the first column corresponds to the cold / magnetized case , the third to the hydrodynamic / unmagnetized , and the middle to the intermediate case . in each column
the top panels show the variation of the three parts of the energy - to - mass flux ratio ( whose sum is the constant @xmath62 ) : the bulk kinetic ( including the rest mass energy ) which is the lorentz factor , the poynting which is written through the magnetization as @xmath165 , and the enthalpy @xmath166 . during the rarefaction
phase the bulk acceleration to its full completion ( @xmath167 ) is clearly seen .
the bottom panels show the geometry of the flow ( the solid lines are streamlines ) , together with the lorentz factor ( color ) . in agreement with the discussion in section  [ sec_raref ] , three distinct regimes can be observed .
the first is the unperturbed flow region ( @xmath168 ) where @xmath169 .
the second is the rarefied region ( @xmath170 ) where @xmath13 increases .
the perturbed region does not fill the whole space ; there is a maximum angle @xmath171  the so - called prandtl - meyer angle , or the tail of the rarefaction  leaving the rest of the area ( @xmath172 ) void .
the pressure equilibrium at the contact discontinuity between the flow and the void space ( @xmath122 ) implies that the thermal and magnetic pressures vanish .
consequently the flow is ballistic along the streamline that pass through the corner , and the whole energy flux has been already transferred to kinetic energy flux ( @xmath167 ) .
all other streamlines are starting to bent when they cross the head of the rarefaction and asymptotically they become parallel to the tail . during this phase the flow is accelerating , reaching @xmath167 asymptotically .
the spatial scale in which this acceleration takes place strongly depends on the magnetization of the flow , something that has important consequences for the applications of the model .
the bottom panels of fig .
[ raref_gammacont ] show that the cold / magnetized case ( first column ) is accelerated much faster compared to the hydrodynamic case ( third column ) , with the intermediate case ( second column ) lying between these two limiting cases as expected .
for example , when the streamline starting from @xmath173 reaches @xmath174 it has already @xmath175 in the former case , while in the later @xmath176 .
axis ( @xmath177 ) , for various @xmath83 , and for two models : a cold / magnetized case ( left ) and a hydrodynamic case ( right ) . the scale of the distances is arbitrary.,title="fig:",width=154 ]   axis ( @xmath177 ) , for various @xmath83 , and for two models : a cold / magnetized case ( left ) and a hydrodynamic case ( right ) .
the scale of the distances is arbitrary.,title="fig:",width=154 ]    , but for two solutions with @xmath178.,title="fig:",width=154 ] , but for two solutions with @xmath178.,title="fig:",width=154 ] + , but for two solutions with @xmath178.,title="fig:",width=154 ] , but for two solutions with @xmath178.,title="fig:",width=154 ]    the numerical results are in a perfect agreement with the analytical relations given in appendix  [ appendixb ] and summarized below . for the cold / magnetized case which is the most important and most efficient ,
the head of the rarefaction wave is located at @xmath179 ( corresponding to the half - opening angle of the mach cone for the fast - magnetosonic waves , see appendix  [ appendixa ] ) .
the tail is located at @xmath180 .
note that this angle is always smaller than @xmath181 .
if the flow inside the progenitor star is magnetically accelerated then its half - opening angle is expected to be @xmath181 @xcite . since @xmath182 , the rarefaction increases the lorentz factor without affecting much the opening angle , meaning that the product of the lorentz factor with the half - opening angle increases up to the value @xmath183 when the lorentz factor attains its maximum value @xmath62 . + as shown in the appendix  [ appendixb ] during the acceleration the magnetization decreases as @xmath184 , where @xmath185 is proportional to the distance from the corner .
a streamline starting at @xmath177 on the @xmath156 axis crosses the head of the rarefaction at @xmath186 .
thus , @xmath187 and we get an analytical approximate expression for the lorentz factor @xmath188 the distance @xmath189 spans a range from zero  corresponding to the corner  up to a maximum value corresponding to the distance between the corner and the rotation axis of the jet , i.e. , the jet radius , which can be approximated as @xmath190 . at distance @xmath191 from the corner along
each streamline ( i.e. , for each @xmath177 ) , the lorentz factor reaches half of its maximum value .
as expected , fluid parcels on streamlines that are closer to the corner accelerate faster .
+ in terms of the streamline shape , equation  ( [ b10 ] ) gives the analytical approximate relation between the lorentz factor and the angle @xmath82 between the flow speed and its initial orientation , @xmath192    in the hydrodynamic case the angle @xmath193 is smaller because the sound speed is smaller compared to the fast - magnetosonic speed . as a result
the acceleration phase starts later and needs larger distances to reach completion . during the acceleration a combination of equations  ( [ b11 ] ) and ( [ b13 ] ) gives the lorentz factor as a function of @xmath0 . for @xmath194 and @xmath195
we get the approximate result @xmath196 and thus @xmath197 , with constant @xmath198 . from this expression
it is evident that the acceleration is much slower compared to the magnetized case .
[ lraref_energy ] shows the result of the acceleration across the jet , for two models .
clearly the cold / magnetized case ( left panel ) is much faster accelerated compared to the hydrodynamic case ( right panel ) . choosing the radius of the jet @xmath199 as the unit of distances we can find the lorentz factors in dimensional @xmath83 , and also estimate the efficiency of the acceleration in the whole jet ( which equals to the mean value of @xmath200 over @xmath138 ) . for example , at @xmath201  @xmath202  cm the mean
@xmath13 is @xmath203 in the cold / magnetized case , and the total efficiency @xmath204 .
the last column of fig .
[ raref_gammacont ] corresponds to a cold / magnetized case with smaller @xmath132 and higher @xmath133 ( such that @xmath205 remains the same as in the other cases ) .
it is interesting to note that , since @xmath206 is approximately the same as before , the dependence of @xmath13 on @xmath0 remains the same , see equation  ( [ gamma - r ] ) .
[ lraref_gammacont ] shows two solutions with @xmath207 , one cold / magnetized ( first column ) and one hydrodynamic ( second column ) .
the initial flow in not uniform now , with the density increasing as we move away from the corner along constant @xmath86 .
this allows for redistribution of the streamlines and acceleration even before the head of the rarefaction is crossed .
this is indeed seen in the figures , in both the initial increase of the lorentz factor as well as in the bending of the flow . however , besides the initial phase the flows are very similar to the corresponding rarefaction cases @xmath106 .
in the present paper we develop a model for the steady - state , relativistic , magnetohydrodynamic rarefaction wave .
we use the method of self - similarity to reduce the system of partial differential equations to ordinary ones , which we then solve numerically .
the model is a generalization of existing works for unmagnetized and nonrelativistic gas and can be applied in cases where plasma flows around a corner ( equivalently it loses its external support at some position ) .
we apply the model to long / soft grb jets , which are formed inside the progenitor star and lose their external support when they cross the stellar surface . in particular
, we used the model and successfully interpret the results of recent numerical simulations that show a spurt of acceleration in these jets , and more generally , whenever a contact discontinuity with a relativistic flow along its plane is present .    between models with the same energy - to - mass flux ratio we find that the _ rarefaction acceleration _ is much faster in magnetized than in hydrodynamic flows .
analytical scalings derived in appendix  [ appendixb ] helped to quantify this behavior .
for the cold / magnetized case we find that the flow reaches @xmath208 ( half of its maximum value , i.e. , 50% efficiency of acceleration ) at distance @xmath209 the above rough estimation corresponds to @xmath210 being the distance of the corner from the rotation axis , and @xmath211 for the stellar radius .
( for the hydrodynamic case this distance is a few orders of magnitude larger . )
our model assumes planar geometry and symmetry , which only locally hold near the points where the surface of the jet intersects the stellar surface .
improvements include axisymmetric studies , and also to take into account the reflection of the wave on the rotation axis , which will possibly cause the lorentz factor to saturate at a value smaller than the maximum ( a crude approximation of the time needed for the information to start from a fluid parcel passing the corner , hit the axis and come back at the same parcel is @xmath212 ) .
axisymmetric studies are inherently nonuniform ( one of the reasons being that the magnetization vanishes on the rotation axis where the azimuthal magnetic field should be zero ) . for this reason comparison of numerical simulations of axisymmetric jets with our model that assumes a uniform jet
initially should be done with caution at distances far away from the corner .
another limitation is the assumption of a zero external pressure outside the progenitor star .
a finite external pressure will create a standing shock and a contact discontinuity between the jet and its environment , and also limit the terminal lorentz factor to some value smaller than its maximum .
our model can not capture this inherently non - self - similar geometry .
nevertheless it describes the basic physics of the mechanism and gives quantitatively correct results for most of the rarefaction acceleration phase , till the point where the shock is crossed . since the pressure contrast inside and outside the progenitor star is expected to be high , only the small shocked outflow part can not be described by our model .
all our findings are very similar to the ones discussed in @xcite .
this is surprising at first , since their study is time dependent and one dimensional in space , while ours is steady - state and two dimensional in space .
the reason for this similarity is the so - called frozen pulse approximation , first introduced by @xcite for a relativistic hydrodynamic flow and extended by @xcite for the full relativistic mhd case . according to this approximation , when
a time dependent flow is ultrarelativistic and superfast - magnetosonic , it can be described using steady - state equations .
the full mathematical proof can be found in appendix  [ appendixc ] .
the physical reason is that each part of the flow moves practically with @xmath213 and can not communicate with neighboring parts through fast - magnetosonic waves ( which also move at most with @xmath213 ) .
thus , a possible time dependence of the flow quantities at some point of space is carried with the flow as a frozen pulse , and the motion of each part is effectively time independent .
we thank the referee for many helpful comments . this research has been co - financed by the european union ( european social fund  esf ) and greek national funds through the operational program `` education and lifelong learning '' of the national strategic reference framework ( nsrf ) - research funding program : heracleitus ii . investing in knowledge society through the european social fund .
nv acknowledges partial support by the special account for research grants of the national and kapodistrian university of athens ( `` kapodistrias '' grant no 70/4/8829 ) .
m.  a. , rezzolla l. , 2006 , apj , 640 , l115    s.  b. , frail d.  a. , harrison f.  a. , kulkarni s.  r. , nakar e. , chandra p.  c. , butler n.  r. , et al .
2010 , apj , 711 , 641    h.  h. , 1973 , physics of fluids , 16 , 825    a. , 1982 , physics of fluids , 25 , 1165    j. , komissarov s.  s. , spitkovsky a. , 2011 , mnras , 411 , 1323    kolosnitsyn n. , stanyukovich k. , 1984 , journal of applied mathematics and mechanics , 48 , 96    s.  s. , vlahakis n. , knigl a. , 2010 , mnras , 407 , 17    s.  s. , vlahakis n. , knigl a. , barkov m.  v. , 2009 , mnras , 394 , 1182    a. , 1980 , phys .
fluids , 23 , 1083    landau l.  d. , lifschitz e.  m. , 1987 , _ fluid mechanics_. pergamon press , oxford ,  109    e .- w .
, racusin j.  l. , zhang b. , zhang b .- b . , burrows d.  n. , 2008 , apj , 675 , 528    y. , sari r. , 2001 , apj , 555 , 540    m. , 2011 , mnras , 411 , 422    j. , masada y. , shibata k. , 2012 , apj , 751 , 140    y. , hardee p. , hartmann d.  h. , nishikawa k .- i . , zhang b. , 2008 , apj , 672 , 72    a. , zhang b .- b . , ryde f. , mcglynn s. , zhang b. , preece r.  d. , kouveliotou c. , 2012 , mnras , 420 , 468    t. , shemi a. , narayan r. , 1993 , mnras , 263 , 861    j.  l. , liang e.  w. , burrows d.  n. , falcone a. , sakamoto t. , zhang b.  b. , zhang b. , evans p. , osborne j. , 2009 , apj , 698 , 43    a. , narayan r. , mckinney j.  c. , 2010 , newa , 15 , 749    n. , knigl a. , 2003 , apj , 596 , 1080    s. , hesse m. , klimas a. , 2010 , apj , 712 , 951    b. , 2011 , comptes rendus physique , 12 , 206    b. , peer a. , 2009 , apj , 700 , l65    x .- h . , li z. , bai j .-
, 2011 , apj , 726 , 89
suppose that we study a magnetosonic disturbance on the poloidal plane .
its phase speed in the comoving is @xmath214 with @xmath215 ( e.g. , using the expressions given in appendix c of @xcite for propagation normal to the magnetic field , @xmath216 ) . here
@xmath217 and @xmath218 . the corresponding proper speed ( over @xmath213 )
is @xmath219 since the propagation is isotropic , the group velocity is equal to the phase velocity , @xmath220 .
transforming the dispersion relation to the central object s frame , we get @xmath221 or equivalently @xmath222 the group velocity in the central object s frame can be found from the transformation of the lorentz factors @xmath223 , or , @xmath224 where @xmath225 is the angle between @xmath226 and the flow direction .
the above equation can be solved for @xmath227 : @xmath228 all directions @xmath225 which give real values for the group velocity form a mach cone around the flow direction , with half - opening @xmath116 ( the maximum allowed @xmath225 ) given by @xmath229 note that the result is a direct generalization of the nonrelativistic @xmath230 , with the proper speeds replacing their newtonian counterparts @xcite .    an alternative way to find @xmath116 follows :
+ assume a system of coordinates on the poloidal plane such that @xmath231 is along the flow velocity and @xmath232 normal to it .
( note that this is not the same with the @xmath27 system of coordinates adopted in the main body of the paper , in which the velocity makes an angle @xmath82 with the @xmath83 axis . )
consider a disturbance starting at @xmath233 from the line @xmath234 ( for all @xmath235 ) . in the comoving frame
the disturbance starts at @xmath236 from the line @xmath237 , and after some time @xmath238 affects a cylindrical regime @xmath239 , since its group velocity is @xmath220 ( given by [ omegaco ] ) . in the central object s frame
that regime is lorentz transformed to @xmath240 , or equivalently to the elliptic cylinder @xmath241 an equation of the form @xmath242 .
the area to which the disturbance is propagating is limited by the envelope of these elliptic cylinders . solving the system @xmath243 we find the two characteristic planes @xmath244 , and thus the angle @xmath116 between the envelope and the flow velocity is given by @xmath245 an expression equivalent to [ mach_opening ] .
+ ( the substitution of @xmath246 and @xmath247 in equation [ front ] is an alternative way to find equation  [ vglab ] for the group velocity in each direction . )
here we give the equations that characterize the rarefaction regime @xmath248 ( for the case @xmath106 ) .
the head of the rarefaction corresponds to @xmath126 . since @xmath249 , @xmath250 ( using expression  [ mach_opening ] of appendix  [ appendixa ] ) .
here subscripts `` j '' refer to the uniform initial phase .
using the normalized density @xmath251 as the independent variable , equation  ( [ x - m - v ] ) gives @xmath252 equation  ( [ ode2 ] ) ( which simplifies to @xmath253 ) gives @xmath254 with @xmath255 , + equation  ( [ odethe0 ] ) gives @xmath82 through @xmath256 with @xmath257 , + and the differential equation  ( [ ode10 ] ) implies @xmath258 at the tail of the rarefaction wave @xmath259 the thermal and magnetic energy fluxes vanish ( @xmath260 and @xmath261 ) while @xmath262 and @xmath263 .
the position of the tail is @xmath122 with @xmath264 the @xmath156 component of the velocity is @xmath265 with @xmath266 and @xmath267 .    for a highly superfast - magnetosonic and ultrarelativistic flow @xmath268 the relation @xmath269
simplifies to @xmath270 where @xmath271 @xmath272 \left[1+(2-{\gamma})({h}-1)\right ] } \frac{d\varrho}{\varrho } } { { h}_j { \gamma}_j ( 1+\sigma_j ) } \,.\end{aligned}\ ] ]      in that limit @xmath273 the previous expressions can be greatly simplified .
we find @xmath274 , @xmath275 , @xmath276 , @xmath277 , and if the flow is highly superfast - magnetosonic and ultrarelativistic @xmath278 , @xmath279 for the head @xmath280 we get @xmath281 , and for the tail @xmath282 we find @xmath283 .
+ the direction of the flow is given by @xmath284 +
the streamlines in the rarefaction regime @xmath285 are ( in polar coordinates ) @xmath286 , or , @xmath287 different values of @xmath288 give different streamlines .
for a streamline that crosses the angle @xmath289 at @xmath290 we get @xmath186 and @xmath291 .      for the unmagnetized case ( @xmath261 ) similar approximations yield @xmath292 and if the flow is highly superfast - magnetosonic and ultrarelativistic @xmath293 @xmath294 } \frac{d\varrho}{\varrho } } { { h}_j { \gamma}_j } \quad
\\ = \frac { { \cal i } \left[\left(2-{\gamma}\right)\left({h}_j-1\right)\right ] -{\cal i } \left[\left(2-{\gamma}\right)\left({h}_j-1\right ) \varrho^{{\gamma}-1}\right ] } { { h}_j { \gamma}_j \left({\gamma}-1\right)^{1/2}\left(2-{\gamma}\right)^{1/2 } } -\frac{{h}u_s}{{h}_j { \gamma}_j } \ , , \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath295 \equiv \zeta^{1/2 } \left(1+\zeta\right)^{1/2 } + \ln \left[\zeta^{1/2}+\left(1+\zeta\right)^{1/2}\right ] $ ] . + for the head @xmath296 we get @xmath297 and for the tail @xmath298 we find @xmath299 } { { h}_j { \gamma}_j \left({\gamma}-1\right)^{1/2}\left(2-{\gamma}\right)^{1/2 } } \,.$ ] + for the distance form the corner we get @xmath300 + note that for @xmath301 , @xmath302 , and @xmath303 we recover the relations of section  [ coldapp ] for the cold magnetized limit .
this is because , for a transverse magnetic field , the magnetic pressure @xmath304 is proportional to the square of the rest mass density ( see equation  [ [ phipsi ] ] ) , and thus it is analogous to a polytropic relation with index @xmath305 .
for @xmath28 , @xmath306 , and @xmath307 , the electric field is @xmath308 and equations  ( [ maxwell][entropy ] ) become , after some manipulation , @xmath309 @xmath310 @xmath311 @xmath312 @xmath313 ( the last two equations correspond to the components of the momentum equation along and normal to the flow . ) + for ultrarelativistic flows with @xmath314 we can simplify the above system , by ( i ) using @xmath315 , ( ii ) dropping the right - hand side of equation  [ momentumappv ] ( since the left - hand side includes much larger terms  note that @xmath316 ) , and ( iii ) noting that @xmath317 reveals that the assumption @xmath318 holds only in the superfast - magnetosonic regime of that equation we kept the term @xmath319 but not the @xmath320 , something that is correct if @xmath321 , or , @xmath322 . ] .
the resulting system gives three integrals of motion @xmath323 ( which in principle are different for different parts of the flow ) , and the equations @xmath324 @xmath325 by inspection of the previous equations we see that the derivatives @xmath326 and @xmath327 always come as a combination @xmath328 , and thus the variables @xmath83 and @xmath329 can be interchanged .
the steady state problem where @xmath330 and the flow depends on @xmath83 and @xmath156 is mathematically equivalent to the time - dependent one - dimensional problem where @xmath331 and the flow depends on @xmath332 and @xmath156 .
the above is a manifestation of the `` frozen pulse '' behavior of an ultrarelativistic flow , first introduced by @xcite for hydrodynamic flows and extended by @xcite in the mhd case . due to
the ultrarelativistic and superfast - magnetosonic velocity of the flow , any possible disturbance is traveling with it and can not affect the neighboring parts . as a result
the evolution of each fluid parcel is essentially steady - state .
in fact , changing variables from @xmath333 to @xmath334 where @xmath335 , we transform equations  [ frozen1 ] , [ frozen2 ] to @xmath336 @xmath337 which are the same with the steady - state equations in the same ( ultrarelativistic ) limit .
note however that the partial derivatives @xmath327 , @xmath338 are now taken keeping @xmath339 ( and not @xmath340 ) constant .
since the motion is relativistic in the @xmath83 direction the variable @xmath339 is practically constant for each fluid parcel and corresponds to the time in which it passed a certain position @xmath341 . without loss of generality we can set @xmath342 ; in that case @xmath343 .
the absence of @xmath339 and @xmath344 in equations  [ frozen1s],[frozen2s ] means that they do not constrain the @xmath339 dependence on any flow quantity @xmath345 .
this dependence is determined by the initial / boundary conditions only , i.e. , by the values of the flow quantities for each fluid parcel at time @xmath346 when it passes @xmath347 . in other words
, we can find the evolution of a time - dependent flow by applying steady - state solutions to each part of the flow passing from @xmath347 at time @xmath343 , by changing only the boundary conditions ( see an example in section  4.1.1 of @xcite ) .    in the particular case of the relativistic rarefaction wave
, the frozen pulse approximation obviously holds indeed holds in the @xmath348 case in which the flow depends only on @xmath349 . ] . as a result
, the steady - state solutions considered in this work can be used for the description of a time - dependent flow , and this can be achieved by simply writing the similarity variable as @xmath350 .
thus , we only need to make the substitution @xmath351 ( with constant @xmath346 for each part of the flow ) in order to recover the equations of the time - dependent rarefaction wave with ultrarelativistic velocity in the @xmath83 direction , considered in @xcite .
the worldlines of all fluid parcels passing at time @xmath352 from the plane @xmath347 ( at various @xmath353 ) are equivalent to the streamlines of the steady - state model .
this is indeed the case in the numerical results .
choosing initial conditions as the ones in fig .  4 of @xcite we get practically identical results , by just substituting @xmath354 .


the qcd phase diagram is a topic which currently sees a lot of attention in experimental and theoretical work .
a particularly interesting ( and rather unexplored ) part is the region at low temperatures and medium to high densities ( medium to high values of the chemical potential @xmath1 ) .
while for large chemical potential exotic states of matter are conjectured , for small chemical potential and vanishing temperature one expects physics to be independent of @xmath1 : as long as the chemical potential is smaller than the mass of the state it couples to no excitations can be generated and physics must be independent of @xmath1 .
this is an interesting non - perturbative effect which has come to be known as silver blaze problem @xcite .    in principle lattice qcd
would be an adequate method to study such non - perturbative phenomena .
however , when coupling a chemical potential the fermion determinant becomes complex and can not be used as a probability weight in a monte carlo simulation .
this so called complex action problem is a common feature in many field theories at non - zero @xmath1 and has considerably held up the study of qcd and other systems at finite density . using new ideas such as worm algorithms @xcite , designed for updating systems with local constraints ,
several interesting models at finite density were rewritten in terms of a flux representation where the complex action problem is avoided and worm - based monte carlo simulations are possible ( see , e.g. , @xcite for examples ) .
this opens the possibility to explore the silver blaze phenomenon in an ab - initio lattice study .    in this article
we analyze the silver blaze problem for a charged scalar @xmath0 field . for scalar fields a suitable flux representation @xcite
can be found which avoids the complex action problem at finite @xmath1 and monte carlo simulations at high densities become possible .
the model has been analyzed previously using the complex langevin approach and mean field techniques @xcite . in this paper
we systematically study the transition at the end of the silver blaze region at zero temperature and attempt to follow the transition line for non - zero temperatures .
this work sheds light on silver blaze type of phenomena and explores new strategies for overcoming the complex action problem in lattice calculations at finite density .
the article is organized as follows : in the next section we present the flux representation and our observables . in section 3
the worm algorithm is described ( see also the appendix for a pseudo - code listing ) and tested .
the numerical analysis at vanishing temperature is discussed in section 4 , followed by the results for non - zero temperature in section 5 .
a summary and discussion section completes the paper .
in the conventional representation the lattice action of the charged scalar field with a @xmath0-interaction is given by @xmath10   \right ) .\ ] ] the first sum is over the sites @xmath11 of a @xmath12 lattice with periodic boundary conditions , the second sum is over the four euclidean directions @xmath13 , and @xmath14 denotes the unit vector in @xmath15-direction .
the degrees of freedom are the complex valued field variables @xmath16 attached to the sites @xmath11 of the lattice .
@xmath17 denotes the combination @xmath18 , where @xmath4 is the bare mass parameter .
the @xmath0 coupling is denoted by @xmath19 and the chemical potential by @xmath1 .
all parameters are in units of the lattice spacing @xmath20 , in other words the lattice spacing is set to @xmath21 throughout this paper , except for some places where we display @xmath20 explicitly for clarity .
the partition sum @xmath22 is obtained by integrating the boltzmann factor @xmath23 over all field configurations , @xmath24 e^{-s}$ ] .
the measure is a product over all lattice sites @xmath11 , with @xmath16 being integrated over the complex plane , i.e. , @xmath25 = \prod_x \int_\mathds{c } d \phi_x / 2\pi$ ] .
the normalization with @xmath26 will be useful later .
note that in its present form the model has a complex action problem : for @xmath27 the sum of the temporal nearest neighbor terms is complex .
thus the boltzmann factor can not be used as a probability weight in a monte carlo simulation
. the problem can be overcome by using alternative degrees of freedom , i.e. , a flux representation .
the first step to obtain the flux representation of the partition sum is an expansion of the boltzmann factors for the nearest neighbor terms @xmath28 } \right ) \ !
\left ( \prod_{x,\nu}\ ! \big(\phi_x^\star \phi_{x+\widehat{\nu}}\big)^{n_{x,\nu } } \ ,   \big(\phi_x \phi_{x+\widehat{\nu}}^\star\big)^{\overline{n}_{x,\nu } } \ !
\right ) \!=   \nonumber \\ \hspace*{-6 mm } & &   \sum_{\ { n , \overline{n}\ } } \!\ !
\left ( \prod_{x,\nu}\ ! \frac{1}{n_{x,\nu } ! \ , \overline{n}_{x,\nu } ! } \right )   \left(\
! \prod_x e^{\,\mu [ n_{x,4 } - \overline{n}_{x,4 } ] } \ , { \phi_x^{\,\star}}^{\sum_\nu [ n_{x,\nu } + \overline{n}_{x-\widehat{\nu},\nu } ] }   \ , { \phi_x}^{\sum_\nu   [ \overline{n}_{x,\nu } + n_{x-\widehat{\nu},\nu } ] }   \right ) , \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] where by @xmath29 we denote the sum over all configurations of the expansion variables @xmath30 , i.e. , the multiple sum @xmath31 the complex field variables are now written in polar form , @xmath32 . rewriting also the integration measure in polar coordinates one finds for the partition sum @xmath33 } \ !
\right )   \nonumber \\ & \!\!\!\times\!\!\!&\hspace{-2 mm } \left(\
! \prod_x e^{\,\mu [ n_{x,4 } - \overline{n}_{x,4 } ] } \int_{0}^\infty\!\!\ !
dr_x \ ; r_x^{1 + \sum_\nu [ n_{x,\nu } + n_{x-\widehat{\nu},\nu }   + \overline{n}_{x,\nu } + \overline{n}_{x-\widehat{\nu},\nu } ] }   \ ; e^{-\eta r_x^2 - \lambda r_x^4 } \right)\ ! .
\end{aligned}\ ] ] the integrals over the phase give rise to kronecker deltas , which for notational convenience we will write as @xmath34 .
the integrals over the modulus we abbreviate as @xmath35 they can easily be computed numerically .
the partition sum now reads : @xmath36 \ !
\right ) \right ) \nonumber \\ & \!\ ! \times \!\ ! & \!\ !
\prod_x e^{\,\mu [ n_{x,4 } - \overline{n}_{x,4 } ] } \ ; w\!\left ( \sum_\nu \big [ n_{x,\nu }   + \overline{n}_{x,\nu } + n_{x-\widehat{\nu},\nu } +   \overline{n}_{x-\widehat{\nu},\nu } \big ]   \right ) \right)\ !
. \end{aligned}\ ] ] in this form the complex phase problem is gone .
all weight factors for configurations of the @xmath37 and @xmath38 variables are real and non - negative .
however , configurations of the @xmath37 and @xmath38 can still have weight 0 .
this is always the case if at a site @xmath11 the constraint enforced by the kronecker deltas is violated , i.e. , when at least for one @xmath11 one has @xmath39   \neq 0 $ ] .    in the current representation the constraints mix both , the @xmath37 and the @xmath38 variables .
the structure of the constraints can be simplified by introducing new variables @xmath40 and @xmath41 .
they are related to the old variables by @xmath42 the partition sum turns into @xmath43 \ !
\right ) \right ) \nonumber \\ & \!\ ! \times \!\ ! & \!\ !
\left(\ ! \prod_x e^{\,\mu k_{x,4 } } \ ;   w\!\left ( \sum_\nu \big [ |k_{x,\nu}| +   |k_{x-\widehat{\nu},\nu}| + 2 ( l_{x,\nu } + l_{x-\widehat{\nu},\nu } ) \big ]   \right ) \right)\ ! .   \label{zfinal}\end{aligned}\ ] ] in the final form ( [ zfinal ] ) , which we now refer to as flux representation , the constraints no longer mix the two types of flux variables .
obviously only the @xmath44-fluxes are subject to conservation of flux at each site @xmath11 , i.e. , only they must obey @xmath45 = 0 $ ] for all @xmath11 .    also observables need to be mapped to the flux representation . for thermodynamic observables which are obtained as derivatives of @xmath46 with respect to the various couplings this is particularly simple .
we will need the following observables which we refer to as particle number density @xmath37 , the particle number susceptibility @xmath47 , the derivative @xmath48 of @xmath47 with respect to @xmath1 , the field expectation value @xmath49 , the corresponding susceptibility @xmath50 and its derivative @xmath51 with respect to @xmath1 .
they are defined as @xmath52 all observables are normalized by the spatial volume @xmath53 in order to make them intensive quantities .
we remark , that the observables ( [ obslist ] ) are dimensionful ( except @xmath54 ) .
since we here use a fixed scale approach ( the lattice spacing @xmath20 is set by @xmath17 and @xmath19 and kept fixed ) and drive the temperature @xmath55 by changing @xmath56 , we will often show results in lattice units . where a comparison of results at different scales is necessary we make quantities dimensionless using suitable powers of @xmath2 , the critical value of the chemical potential at zero temperature ( see the discussion below ) .
it is straightforward to work out the derivatives that define the observables ( [ obslist ] ) also for the flux representation of @xmath22 and we only discuss two examples to illustrate the general structure .
particularly simple is the particle number density .
one immediately sees that the flux representation of @xmath37 is given by @xmath57 i.e. , the particle number is simply the net flux of @xmath44 around compactified time (= the 4-direction ) .
the expectation value @xmath58 is now of course understood as a vacuum expectation value in the flux representation .
not much more difficult is the flux representation for @xmath59 .
note that @xmath17 enters only through the weight factors @xmath60 defined in ( [ ww ] ) which have the obvious property @xmath61 .
application of the product rule to the product of the factors @xmath62 in ( [ zfinal ] ) and subsequent completion of the remaining products to the full boltzmann factor gives rise to @xmath63 where we use the abbreviation @xmath64 $ ] . in a similar way the other observables listed in ( [ obslist ] )
can be obtained as higher moments of the fluxes and the sum of ratios of @xmath62 .
having discussed the flux representation of the partition sum and the observables , we now address the task of finding a suitable algorithm . in the final representation ( [ zfinal ] ) of the partition sum we use two different sets of variables .
one of them , the variables @xmath65 , are not subject to a constraint .
for these we simply apply sweeps of local metropolis updates : each link @xmath66 is visited and we generate a trial configuration by increasing or decreasing @xmath65 by @xmath67 with equal probability .
the change is accepted with the usual metropolis probability given by the ratio of the weights of new and old configuration .
a negative trial link is always rejected .
considerably more interesting is the update of the flux variables @xmath68 where a suitable update needs to take into account the local constraints @xmath45 = 0 $ ] . for that purpose
we use a generalization of the prokofev - svistunov worm algorithm @xcite .
the worm starts at a randomly chosen site of the lattice and then grows by adding links to form a chain of links . at each position
@xmath11 the worm chooses randomly the next link from the 8 links attached to @xmath11 . for that link
it proposes to change the corresponding variable @xmath44 by @xmath67 and accepts that change with a local metropolis step . at the starting point and the head of the worm the constraint
is violated , and the worm must continue until its head reaches the starting point such that along the closed contour of changed links all constraints are intact again .
a possible initial configuration for the @xmath69 is to set @xmath70 at all links , a configuration that clearly obeys the constraints .
the situation for a worm update of the variables @xmath68 is a little bit tricky : the local weight for a variable @xmath68 not only has factors that live on the link ( the factorials in @xmath71 and the contribution from the chemical potential ) , but also two factors at the two endpoints of the link , the terms @xmath72 and @xmath73 ( where again @xmath74 $ ] ) . the contributions from the factors @xmath62 at the endpoints need to be suitably distributed among subsequent steps of the worm . in the appendix we provide pseudo - code for the initialization of the worm and the subsequent steps , illustrating how we solved the weight assignment for the @xmath62 contributions .
worms for the variables @xmath68 are alternated with the local metropolis sweeps for the unconstrained variables @xmath65 .    in our simulations
we use @xmath12 lattices with @xmath75 ranging from 4 to 24 , and @xmath56 from 2 to 100 .
a full update sweep is the combination of one sweep for the @xmath65 variables and one worm for the @xmath68 fluxes .
we typically use between 500.000 and 1.000.000 measurements separated by 5 full update sweeps .
the number of equilibration sweeps is typically 25.000 .
all errors we quote are statistical errors determined with the jackknife method .
the weights @xmath62 defined in ( [ ww ] ) were evaluated numerically using mathematica and pre - stored for the monte carlo simulation .     from the flux simulation at @xmath76 ( symbols ) to the exact result obtained from fourier transformation ( curves ) .
we plot @xmath37 as a function of @xmath17 for different values of @xmath1 using lattices of size @xmath77 .
plot : results for the expectation value @xmath78 as a function of @xmath17 for different values of @xmath19 , again on lattices of size @xmath77 .
the chemical potential is set to @xmath79 and we compare the results from the flux simulation ( triangles , circles , squares ) to the outcome of a conventional @xmath79 simulation ( crosses).,scaledwidth=100.0% ]    the algorithm was thoroughly tested by comparing it to the free case ( @xmath76 ) where exact results can be obtained using fourier transformation , and to a conventional simulation at @xmath79 . in fig .
[ checks ] we show examples for the comparison using @xmath77 lattices . the lhs .
plot shows the particle number density @xmath37 as a function of @xmath17 for different values of the chemical potential @xmath1 for the case of @xmath76 .
the symbols are the data from our flux simulation and the full curves the results from fourier transformation .
the rhs .
plot compares the @xmath79 results for the expectation value @xmath78 from the flux simulation ( triangles ) to those of a conventional simulation ( crosses ) .
we plot @xmath78 as a function of @xmath17 for different values of @xmath80 .
the two plots show that the results from the flux simulation very nicely match the exact curves for the free case and the data from a conventional simulation at @xmath79 .
further comparisons were done for other observables and more values of the parameters  all with very good agreement .
finally we performed a comparison with the complex langevin results at finite @xmath1 by aarts @xcite , and we found excellent agreement of our data with the complex langevin results that are available on lattices of sizes @xmath81 to @xmath82 .
it is interesting to note that these results are very well described also by mean - field theory @xcite . in that study
the quartic coupling was fixed to @xmath83 , and the boson mass @xmath84 satisfied @xmath85 . as a result of this heavy mass ,
the temperatures reached on lattices @xmath86 to @xmath82 are in the range @xmath87 . at the same time
, the system is large , since @xmath88 .
so the observed mean - field behavior should come as no surprise .
our comparison with @xcite confirms the findings by aarts .    to summarize : our tests establish that the flux representation is correct , that the algorithm works , and that the observables were correctly mapped to the corresponding expressions in terms of the fluxes .
we begin our study of the phase diagram with an analysis of the situation at zero temperature . for this analysis we set the temporal extent of the lattice to @xmath89 , such that in lattice units the temperature is @xmath90 .
although not exactly 0 , this is much smaller than all other involved scales . to study the approach of our observables to the thermodynamic limit
we analyze different spatial volumes @xmath91 using @xmath92 and 24 .
we consider two different combinations of the couplings @xmath17 and @xmath19 .
the two points in parameter space are @xmath93 and @xmath94 .     for @xmath95 and @xmath96 .
in the lhs .
column of plots we show @xmath37 , @xmath47 and @xmath97 as a function of @xmath1 ( top to bottom ) . in the rhs .
column we show @xmath78 , @xmath50 and @xmath51 .
we compare the results for @xmath98 and @xmath99 .
, scaledwidth=110.0% ]    in fig .
[ all_k450_t001 ] we show the @xmath95 , @xmath96 results for @xmath37 , @xmath47 and @xmath97 as a function of @xmath1 in the lhs .   column of plots , and for @xmath78 , @xmath50 and @xmath51 on the rhs .
the particle number density @xmath37 vanishes up to a critical value of @xmath100 which marks the end of the silver blaze region where observables are independent of @xmath1 . for values
@xmath101 the particle number density rises essentially linearly .
consequently the particle number susceptibility @xmath47 is discontinuous at @xmath2 , jumping from @xmath102 to a finite value at @xmath2 .
the comparison of the different spatial volumes illustrates how the discontinuity emerges in the thermodynamic limit .
finally , when looking at the third @xmath1-derivative @xmath48 of the free energy we observe that for increasing volume a strongly peaked maximum emerges that very precisely marks the value of @xmath100 .
furthermore , the height of the peak grows with increasing volume @xmath53 ( for a quantitative assessment see below ) , indicating the emergence of a true singularity in the thermodynamic limit .
the observables @xmath78 , @xmath50 and @xmath51 behave similarly to the derivatives with respect to @xmath1 : the expectation value @xmath78 is constant below @xmath2 and for @xmath101 increases with constant slope .
the corresponding susceptibility @xmath50 thus also develops a step in the thermodynamic limit .
finally , another derivative with respect to @xmath1 , i.e. , @xmath51 , shows the corresponding peaks , which again grow with the volume .     for @xmath103 and @xmath96 .
in the lhs .
column of plots we show @xmath37 , @xmath47 and @xmath97 as a function of @xmath1 ( top to bottom ) . in the rhs .
column we show @xmath78 , @xmath50 and @xmath51 .
we compare the results for @xmath104 and @xmath99 .
, scaledwidth=111.0% ]    the results for the second parameter set , @xmath103 , @xmath96 are shown in fig .  [ all_k372_t001 ] .
again we display @xmath37 , @xmath47 , @xmath97 , @xmath78 , @xmath50 and @xmath51 as a function of @xmath1 . in the plots we omit the data at @xmath105 since for these the transition point in @xmath1
is shifted out of the @xmath1-range of our plots due to finite volume effects . for the larger volumes
the behavior of the observables is the same as for the @xmath95 runs , but now the critical value @xmath2 that marks the end of the silver blaze region is lower at @xmath106 in lattice units .
again we observe scaling of the maxima of the third derivatives with the volume and conclude that also at @xmath103 , @xmath96 we find a second order transition at @xmath106 .
we remark that the drop of @xmath100 in lattice units at @xmath95 to @xmath106 at @xmath103 is due to a considerable decrease of the lattice constant @xmath20 .
this implies that at @xmath103 we work with a smaller lattice spacing @xmath20 and thus with a smaller physical spatial extent @xmath107 .
thus we expect to see more severe finite volume effects at @xmath103 than at @xmath95 . on the other hand with the finer lattice spacing we will be able to go to higher temperatures ( see the next section ) .    to further confirm the finding of a singularity at @xmath2 we analyzed log - log plots of the height of the maxima of @xmath48 and @xmath51 versus the 3-volume @xmath53 .
for @xmath95 the corresponding figure is fig .
[ log_log_k450 ] with the @xmath89 data we discuss in this section labeled by @xmath108 , while the @xmath103 results are shown in fig .
[ log_log_k372 ] with the @xmath89 data labeled by @xmath109 .
the numerical results are represented by the symbols and we fit them with straight lines .
the numbers next to the lines give their slope determined from the fits . at @xmath95
we find that the maxima of @xmath48 and @xmath51 nicely follow a straight line with slopes that are close to 0.5 , both for @xmath48 and @xmath51 . for @xmath103 the finite volume effects are more severe , as discussed above , and we only show the data for our larger volumes , i.e , for @xmath110 and @xmath111 .
some of the data show an upward curving trend and if one uses @xmath112 and 24 for the fit , one finds slopes of 0.39(4 ) for the maxima of @xmath48 and 0.43(11 ) for @xmath51 .
although for @xmath103 the data are not as clean due to finite volume effects ( and also the temperature in units of @xmath2 is not as low as for @xmath95 ) the data indicate that also at @xmath103 for the lowest temperature the maxima of @xmath48 and @xmath51 diverge as @xmath113 .
the analysis implies that at zero temperature the third derivatives diverge in the continuum limit and the susceptibilities develop a jump , indicating a second order transition at the end of the silver blaze region . in the first derivatives of the free energy the transition is characterized by the onset of a non - vanishing particle number density @xmath37 at @xmath2 and a linear response of the expectation value @xmath78 to changing @xmath1 for @xmath101 .
we conclude the discussion of the @xmath114 phenomenology with an important cross - check .
the silver blaze regions ends at the point where the chemical potential becomes equal to the mass @xmath4 of the excitation it couples to , in other words one expects @xmath115 . in order to check this
we performed a small spectroscopy calculation on @xmath116 lattices using the conventional representation at @xmath79 .
the mass was extracted from the correlator of the zero momentum fourier transform of @xmath117 , i.e. , the 2-point function @xmath118 in fig .
[ effmass ] we show our results for the effective masses @xmath119 of that correlator for both , @xmath95 and @xmath103 .
the effective masses are represented by the symbols and the horizontal lines are the respective values of @xmath3 .
it is obvious that the effective masses agree very well with the values of @xmath3 data are more difficult to analyze , since the large mass @xmath120 leads to a very rapid exponential decay of the correlator ( [ corr ] ) and the relative statistical error quickly overlays the signal .
thus for @xmath95 the effective mass plateau is rather short and the errors are large . ] .
an exponential fit of the correlator for @xmath103 gives a mass of @xmath121 which is in excellent agreement with @xmath122 .
for @xmath95 we find @xmath123 which agrees with @xmath124 within error bars .
we conclude that we properly understand the silver blaze behavior at @xmath114 .
( top set of data ) and @xmath103 ( bottom ) .
the effective masses are compared to the values of the critical chemical potential @xmath3 ( horizontal lines ) and we annotate the values for @xmath3 as well as for the mass @xmath125 obtained from an exponential fit of the 2-point function ( [ corr ] ) .
, scaledwidth=75.0% ]
having studied the transition at zero temperature we now explore how the transition line extends in the temperature direction of the phase diagram . as discussed , we work at fixed values of the couplings ( again using our two values @xmath95 and @xmath103 at @xmath96 ) , and drive the temperature by changing @xmath56 .
this has the advantage that we always work at a fixed scale and do not mix temperature and discretization effects , but on the other hand restricts the accessible temperatures to a discrete set . for our finite temperature studies we use the values @xmath89 , 20 , 10 , 9 , 8 , 7 , 6 , 5 , 4 , 3 and 2 . in lattice units the temperatures @xmath126 thus range between @xmath127 and @xmath128 .
more interesting is the range of temperatures in units of the critical chemical potential at @xmath114 , i.e. , the value @xmath2 which we determined in lattice units in the previous section this refers to the critical chemical potential at zero temperature . ] . for @xmath95 , where @xmath129 , the largest temperature we can reach with @xmath130 is @xmath131 .
for the finer @xmath103 lattices ( @xmath106 ) we can go considerably higher , up to @xmath132 , although at the price of more severe finite volume effects .    as the temperature is increased above zero
, physics can not be completely independent of @xmath1 below some critical value of the chemical potential .
still , at least for not too large temperatures , one should observe only very weak @xmath1-dependence of physical observables at sufficiently small chemical potential ( `` pseudo silver blaze behavior '' ) . in order to define the curves in the phase diagram that separate the pseudo silver blaze behavior from a condensed phase characterized by strong @xmath1-dependence , we determined the position of the maxima of the third derivatives of the free energy as a function of @xmath1 for different temperatures , using our @xmath133 lattices for @xmath95 and @xmath134 for @xmath103 . for the @xmath95 data we find that the positions of the maxima of @xmath48 and @xmath51 always agree exactly , while for the @xmath103 data , where the finite size effects are more severe
, we find agreement only within error bars .     and @xmath51 in the @xmath1-@xmath135 plane .
we combine data from @xmath95 runs for @xmath133 ( circles connected with dashed lines ) and @xmath103 runs at @xmath134 ( triangles ) .
@xmath135 and @xmath1 are expressed in units of @xmath3.,width=491 ]    in fig .
[ phasediagram ] we show the positions of the maxima of @xmath48 and @xmath51 in the @xmath1-@xmath135 plane . for the @xmath95 data we use filled circles connected with dashed lines (
the plot also contains points from @xmath103 ( triangles ) which we will discuss below ) .
we express both the temperature @xmath135 and the chemical potential @xmath136 in units of the critical value @xmath100 determined in the zero temperature runs using @xmath89 . in these units
the largest temperature we can reach with @xmath95 is @xmath137 . when turning on the temperature , the phase boundary curves slightly to the right reaching @xmath138 at @xmath137 , the highest temperature accessible for @xmath95 .
this phase boundary separates pseudo silver blaze behavior from strong @xmath1-dependence .    , @xmath47 , @xmath78 and @xmath50 for @xmath95 and @xmath133 as a function of @xmath1 for several temperatures corresponding to @xmath139 and 2 .
for @xmath135 and @xmath1 we use units of @xmath2 , while @xmath37 , @xmath47 , @xmath78 and @xmath50 are given in lattice units at a fixed scale ( set by @xmath140 ) .
, scaledwidth=110.0% ]    in order to assess the behavior across the phase boundary , in fig .
[ all_k450_allt ] we show the observables @xmath37 , @xmath47 , @xmath78 and @xmath50 from the @xmath95 runs at @xmath141 as a function of @xmath1 for several temperatures ( again using for @xmath135 and @xmath1 units of @xmath2 ) .
in other words we show the observables along horizontal slices through the phase boundary in fig .
[ phasediagram ] .    while the first derivatives @xmath37 and @xmath78 were almost perfectly constant up to @xmath100 for our zero temperature runs ( compare fig .  [ all_k450_t001 ] ) , in fig .
[ all_k450_allt ] we now observe a deviation from constant behavior which becomes more prominent as the temperature is increased . however , the transition at the critical value of @xmath1 is still rather pronounced , and the corresponding susceptibilities @xmath47 and @xmath50 still seem to develop a discontinuity . the position of the discontinuity shifts towards larger values of @xmath1 in agreement with the curvature of the phase boundary in fig .
[ phasediagram ] .    in order to analyze the order of the transition
also at @xmath142 we repeat the analysis of the volume dependence of the maxima of the third derivatives @xmath48 and @xmath51 as function of the 3-volume @xmath143 . the results of this analysis ( done on @xmath144 lattices ) for different temperatures
are shown in fig .
[ log_log_k450 ] .
the symbols represent the numerical results and we fit them to straight lines , with the numbers next to the lines giving the corresponding slopes .
it is obvious that the data are well described by a linear behavior with slopes near 0.45 for @xmath48 and slopes slightly above 0.5 for @xmath51 .
the plots show that also for our finite temperature values the third derivatives keep developing singularities in the thermodynamic limit .
we conclude that for the temperature range we cover with our @xmath95 runs , i.e. , for temperatures up to @xmath145 a second order transition separates the pseudo silver blaze region from the condensed phase with strong @xmath1 dependence .     for @xmath95 and @xmath146 and 20 .
we compare different temperatures corresponding to @xmath147 and 2 .
the straight lines are linear fits to the data and the numbers near the lines are the respective slopes.,width=415 ]    we remark that the scaling behavior of the transition is expected to be different for the @xmath114 and @xmath142 cases . for @xmath114
one expects that the transition is of mean field type , which was indeed confirmed by aarts in @xcite and our dual simulation perfectly reproduces this finding ( as already discussed in section 3 ) .
due to dimensional reduction for @xmath142 one expects a behavior in the universality class of the 3-d xy model .
however , it seems that it is difficult to explicitly extract this behavior from a lattice simulation with the resources available to us .
this is reflected in the finding by aarts @xcite that the results on lattices ranging from @xmath81 to @xmath82 are equally well described by mean field behavior which illustrates that the change in the critical behavior must be very subtle .
also an analysis in the continuum @xcite shows that the non - linear contribution to @xmath37 versus @xmath148 that is predicted for finite @xmath135 is very small in the range of parameters we can access . the finite volume analysis in fig .
[ log_log_k450 ] is not accurate enough to extract such a small effect .
an interesting question is of course where the phase boundary continues for larger temperatures . with the data taken at @xmath95 we reach a maximal temperature of @xmath137 and found the second order line to persist up to that value . for temperatures above that number
we need to use the @xmath103 configurations where @xmath149 in lattice units and temperatures of @xmath150 can be reached .
however , as we have already discussed , the @xmath103 data suffer from more severe finite volume effects which spoil the accuracy of the analysis ( e.g. , the peaks of the third derivatives of the free energy become wider and it is more difficult to exactly determine the phase boundary and the order of the transition ) .
nevertheless we try to explore the trend for the behavior along the phase boundary towards larger @xmath135 .    the phase diagram in fig .
[ phasediagram ] also contains a few points from @xmath103 runs on @xmath151 lattices ( triangles ) . as for @xmath152
we use the positions of the maxima of the third derivatives @xmath48 and @xmath51 to determine the phase boundary . however
, while for @xmath95 the positions of the maxima of @xmath48 and @xmath51 always match perfectly , for @xmath103 this is the case only for temperatures up to @xmath153 .
consequently , at @xmath103 we use different symbols for the maxima of @xmath48 ( upward pointing triangles ) and @xmath51 ( triangles pointing downward ) .
the two @xmath103 points with @xmath154 show matching maxima for @xmath48 and @xmath51 and fall on the curve set by the @xmath95 data .
those points confirm ( although with larger error bars ) the picture of a second order line up to at least @xmath137 from the @xmath95 runs .
for the larger temperatures @xmath155 the third derivatives @xmath48 and @xmath51 peak at slightly different values . however , the positions of the maxima agree within error bars and we attribute the small discrepancy to the more severe finite volume effects for the @xmath103 ensembles .
the corresponding observables are shown in fig .
[ all_k372_allt ] where we plot @xmath37 , @xmath47 , @xmath78 and @xmath50 for @xmath103 as a function of @xmath1 for several temperatures .    in fig .
[ log_log_k372 ] we repeat the finite volume study of fig .  [ log_log_k450 ] now for @xmath103 .
we show the log - log plot of the maxima of @xmath48 and @xmath51 versus the spatial volume @xmath53 .
it is obvious that here the data do not as nicely fall on a straight line as in the corresponding plots for @xmath95 shown in fig .
[ log_log_k450 ] .
we fit only the data points for the three largest volumes and as in fig .
[ log_log_k450 ] denote the slopes next to the lines .
it is quite interesting to observe that the slope for the maxima of @xmath51 remains at values close to 0.5 up to the largest temperatures , indicating that the susceptibility @xmath50 manages to develop a discontinuity in the thermodynamic limit also for our highest temperatures .
the stronger finite volume effects at @xmath103 make the analysis more difficult for @xmath48 : the slopes for @xmath48 are smaller for the smaller volumes but show a tendency towards pointing upwards for larger @xmath143 , indicating second order behavior for the @xmath1-derivatives also up to the highest temperatures we can access .
one expects that the second order line persists for large @xmath135 due to the breaking of the u(1 ) symmetry at the transition to the condensed phase . in fig .
[ step ] we attempt a plausibility test for this scenario : we plot the height of the maxima of the third derivatives @xmath156 and @xmath157 ( both made dimensionless with suitable powers of @xmath3 ) as a function of the inverse temperature in units of @xmath3 .
we find that the maxima are non - zero at finite @xmath135 and only for @xmath158 the curves reach 0 .
furthermore the maxima for the @xmath95 runs are larger than those at @xmath103 as expected from the larger volume at @xmath159 .
although this analysis is only an exploratory test at a fixed volume , it supports the existence of a phase transition throughout the phase diagram .    , @xmath47 , @xmath78 and @xmath50 for @xmath103 and @xmath134 as a function of @xmath1 for several temperatures corresponding to @xmath160 and 6 .
for @xmath135 and @xmath1 we use units of @xmath2 , while @xmath37 , @xmath47 , @xmath78 and @xmath50 are given in lattice units at a fixed scale ( set by @xmath161).,scaledwidth=109.0% ]     for @xmath103 and @xmath110 and 24 .
we compare different temperatures corresponding to @xmath162 and 3 . the straight lines are linear fits to the data ( using only @xmath163 ) and the numbers near the lines are the respective slopes.,width=415 ]     and @xmath157 ( both made dimensionless with suitable powers of @xmath3 ) as a function of the inverse temperature in units of @xmath3 . we compare the results for @xmath95 on @xmath144 lattices and @xmath103 on @xmath151 . , scaledwidth=75.0% ]    , @xmath47 , @xmath78 and @xmath50 for @xmath95 and @xmath133 as a function of @xmath164 for two different values of @xmath165 .
, scaledwidth=110.0% ]    we conclude our presentation of the finite temperature results with the discussion of observables along two vertical cuts in the phase diagram fig .
[ phasediagram ] . using the @xmath95 data at @xmath133 , in fig .
[ condensation ] we show the observables @xmath37 , @xmath47 , @xmath78 and @xmath50 as a function of @xmath164 and compare two different values of the chemical potential .
the vertical cut at @xmath166 hits the phase boundary at @xmath167 , while the cut at @xmath168 continues all the way to @xmath169 without entering the condensed phase ( compare fig .
[ phasediagram ] ) .
this behavior is clearly reflected in the observables : for the @xmath168 data the particle number density @xmath37 and the susceptibility @xmath47 both drop to zero as the temperature is decreased to @xmath169 , as expected for a value of the chemical potential in the silver blaze domain , i.e. , @xmath170 .
the vacuum expectation value @xmath50 drops towards 0.237 , while the corresponding susceptibility @xmath50 vanishes as @xmath171 . for the cut at @xmath166
the behavior is quite different : when decreasing the temperature down to @xmath167 , where the cut hits the phase boundary of the condensed phase , the susceptibilities show a drastic increase an then remain essentially constant for @xmath172 .
the particle number density @xmath37 has a non - vanishing value at @xmath169 and @xmath78 settles at a value of 0.285 .
the plots nicely demonstrate the temperature driven condensation of the system for @xmath166 and its absence at @xmath168 .
in this work we have studied a charged scalar @xmath0 field at finite density using the lattice formulation .
the complex action problem of the standard form was overcome by mapping the partition sum to a flux representation where only real and non - negative terms appear .
the system was updated with a generalized worm algorithm and we studied thermodynamical observables as a function of temperature and chemical potential .    for zero temperature
the system undergoes a second order phase transition at some critical value @xmath2 that marks the end of the silver blaze region . for @xmath173
the observables are independent of @xmath1 , while above a strong @xmath1-dependence sets in .
the critical value @xmath2 could very cleanly be identified from the narrow peaks of two 3rd derivatives of the free energy and in a small spectroscopy calculation we showed that @xmath3 coincides with the mass of the scalar field .
a finite volume analysis established the second order nature of the transition .
increasing the temperature we found that the critical line bends towards larger values of @xmath1 . for temperatures up to @xmath174 we could reliably establish the continuation of second order behavior for finite @xmath135 . at small but non - zero temperatures
we found only a very weak dependence of observables on the chemical potential for values of @xmath1 below the critical value ( pseudo silver blaze behavior ) . at the critical line we saw an abrupt change of physical observables marking the transition into the condensed phase characterized by strong @xmath1-dependence .
when studying our observables as a function of the temperature we could nicely illustrate the temperature driven condensation for @xmath175 and the absence of condensation at @xmath168 .    for the analysis of temperatures
@xmath176 we had to rely on finer lattices ( @xmath103 ) which , however , show considerably more severe finite size effects .
for small temperatures the results match the results from our coarser ( @xmath95 ) lattices very well , but for @xmath176 some of the observables  the ones related to the particle number density  were seriously affected by finite volume effects and thus gave inconclusive results about the nature of the transition between pseudo silver blaze behavior and the condensed phase with strong @xmath1-dependence .
the observables related to derivatives of the free energy with respect to the mass parameter , i.e. , @xmath177 and @xmath51 , on the other hand indicate that a second order line could persist to temperatures considerably higher than @xmath174 .
lattice studies on large and fine lattices will be necessary to settle this issue .
* acknowledgments : * we thank gert aarts , shailesh chandrasekharan , ydalia delgado mercado , hans gert evertz , david kaplan , anyi li and dam thanh son for discussions . c.
gattringer thanks the int at the university of washington in seattle , where part of this work was done , for their hospitality and the dr .
heinrich jrg foundation of the karl - franzens - university graz for financial support .
this work was partly supported by the dfg sfb trr 55 , `` hadron physics from lattice qcd ''
.    12    t.d .
cohen , phys .
* 91 * ( 2003 ) 222001 .
n.  prokofev , b.  svistunov , phys .
* 87 * ( 2001 ) 160601 .
s.  chandrasekharan , arxiv:1205.0084 .
s.  chandrasekharan , a.  li , arxiv:1202.6572 ; phys .
* 108 * ( 2012 ) 140404 ; arxiv:1111.5276 ; jhep * 1012 * ( 2010 ) 021 ; jhep * 1101 * ( 2011 ) 018 .
d.  banerjee , s.  chandrasekharan , phys .
d * 81 * ( 2010 ) 125007 .
s.  chandrasekharan , phys .
d * 82 * ( 2010 ) 025007 .
cecile , s.  chandrasekharan , phys .
d * 77 * ( 2008 ) 014506 .
s.  chandrasekharan , a.c .
mehta , phys .
* 99 * ( 2007 ) 142004 .
s.  chandrasekharan , f .- j .
jiang , phys .
d * 74 * ( 2006 ) 014506 ; phys .
d * 68 * ( 2003 ) 091501 .
y.  delgado mercado , h.g .
evertz , c.  gattringer , phys .
lett .  * 106 * ( 2011 ) 222001 ; acta phys .
* 4 * ( 2011 ) 703 ; comput .
* 183 * ( 2012)1920 .
y.  delgado mercado , h.g .
evertz , c.  gattringer , d.  gschl , pos lattice2011 ( arxiv:1111.0916 ) . c.  gattringer , nucl .
b * 850 * ( 2011 ) 242 .
y.  delgado mercado , c.  gattringer , nucl .
b * 862 * ( 2012 ) 737 .
w.  unger , p.  de forcrand , j.  phys .
g g * 38 * ( 2011 ) 124190 .
de forcrand , m.  fromm , phys .
* 104 * ( 2010 ) 112005 ; pos lattice * 2008 * ( 2008 ) 191 .
m.  fromm , j.  langelage , s.  lottini , o.  philipsen , jhep * 1201 * ( 2012 ) 042 . t.  sterling , j.  greensite , nucl .  phys .
b * 220 * ( 1983 ) 327 .
m.  panero , jhep * 0505 * ( 2005 ) 066 .
v.  azcoiti , e.  follana , a.  vaquero , g.  di carlo , jhep * 0908 * ( 2009 ) 008 .
t.  korzec , u.  wolff , pos lattice * 2010 * ( 2010 ) 029 .
u.  wolff , nucl .
b * 832 * ( 2010 ) 520 ; nucl .
b * 824 * ( 2010 ) 254 [ erratum - ibid .
* 834 * ( 2010 ) 395 ] ; nucl .
b * 814 * ( 2009 ) 549 ; nucl .
b * 810 * ( 2009 ) 491 .
o.  b " ar , w.  rath , u.  wolff , nucl .
b * 822 * ( 2009 ) 408 .
u.  wolff , nucl .
b * 789 * ( 2008 ) 258 .
endres , phys .  rev .
d * 75 * ( 2007 ) 065012 ; pos lat06 ( 2006 ) 133 .
m.  cristoforetti _ et al .
_ , phys .
d * 86 * ( 2012 ) 074506 .
s.  chandrasekharan , pos lattice * 2008 * ( 2008 ) 003 .
m.  hogervorst , u.  wolff , nucl .
phys .  b  * 855 * ( 2012 ) 885 .
t.  korzec , i.  vierhaus , u.  wolff , comput .
commun .
* 182 * ( 2011 ) 1477 .
p.  weisz , u.  wolff , nucl .
b  * 846 * ( 2011 ) 316 .
g.  aarts , phys .
* 102 * ( 2009 ) 131601 .
g.  aarts , jhep * 0905 * ( 2009 ) 052 .
j.  bernstein and s.  dodelson , phys .  rev .
lett .   * 66 * ( 1991 ) 683 .
k.  m.  benson , j.  bernstein and s.  dodelson , phys .
d * 44 * ( 1991 ) 2480 .
in this appendix we provide pseudo - code for the initialization of the worm and its subsequent steps . the worm algorithm that updates the variables @xmath178
is set up in a fixed background of the variables @xmath65 generated with local metropolis sweeps ( see section [ sec_worm ] ) .
the starting point of a worm will be denoted by @xmath179 , the position of its head by @xmath11 , and @xmath180 will be used for the set of all lattice sites .
@xmath181 is an equally distributed random variable with @xmath182 that determines whether the worm tries to increase or decrease the flux along its path . by @xmath183
we denote the direction of the next attempted step of the worm , and in case @xmath15 is negative ( @xmath184 ) we use the convention @xmath185 for the assignment of the corresponding link variables . as in the main text
we use the abbreviation @xmath64 $ ] , and by @xmath186 we denote the same expression but evaluated with the variable @xmath187 from the trial offer .
finally , rand ( ) denotes a random generator for uniformly distributed random numbers in the interval @xmath188 . while worm has not started +   + @xmath189 randomly + @xmath190 randomly + @xmath191 randomly + @xmath192 +   + @xmath193 then + @xmath194 +   + @xmath195 +   +   + @xmath196 then + @xmath197 + @xmath198 +   +   +   + end while    while @xmath199 +   + @xmath200 randomly + @xmath201 + @xmath202 +   + @xmath203 then + @xmath204 +   + @xmath205 +   +   + @xmath206 then @xmath207 +   + @xmath196 then + @xmath208 + @xmath209 +   +   + end while