Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: the idea behind the sp was put forward by efetov in 1979 in the context of layered superconductor with parallel magnetic field @xcite . it was suggested that the field can suppress the inter - layer josephson coupling so that the low energy properties of this 3d system can be described as being essentially of 2d character . later , in ref . @xcite it was shown that the frustration due to the magnetic field is not sufficient to fully suppress the coupling .    in the context of quantum 1d chains ( equivalent to 2d classical layers by the virtue of the quantum to classical mapping ) the possibility of the decoupling between chains has also been explored @xcite . the main argument for such a decoupling is based on the scaling dimensions of the josephson coupling determined with respect to the luttinger liquid parameter in each chain : if it is larger than 2 , the coupling should become irrelevant @xcite . these proposals have been criticized in refs.@xcite where it was shown that the inter - chain tunneling is always relevant .    further argumentation in favor of the sp and , actually , the name _ sliding phases _ have been proposed in refs.@xcite where the inter - layer gradient couplings between classical xy variables in each layer have been considered in addition to the josephson one . such gradient terms can independently control the scaling dimensions of the josephson coupling and of the vortex fugacity in each layer so that the first one can become irrelevant above some temperature @xmath0 ( of the _ dimensional reduction _ @xcite ) which is below the temperature of the berizinskii - kosterlitz - thouless ( bkt ) transition in the layers . thus , there is a range of temperatures where the sp are supposed to exist . this approach was also developed for the case of quantum 1d luttinger liquids coupled by both the josephson and the gradient terms @xcite which are the analog of the andreev - bashkin drag effect @xcite . it is important to note that the proposal of sp is based on applying the rg logic to compact variables characterized by global u(1 ) symmetry . while these early suggestions were more of a purely academic interest , expanding capabilities of ultra - cold - atoms techniques in recent years emphasize the importance of these suggestions especially in the context of possible new phases in composite lattices @xcite and in the presence of disorder @xcite . in more general terms , the question is if it is possible to realize a phase transition from a low- to higher- dimensional behavior .    here we will analyze a simplest classical xy system characterized by the gradient interactions and the josephson coupling @xmath1 . the gradient terms are chosen in such a way that the sp is supposed to exist in some range where the renormalized value @xmath2 of @xmath1 scales to zero as layers size @xmath3 grows . we will present the results of the large scale monte carlo simulations of this system . our analysis is based on the dual formulation of the model  in terms of the closed loops . the main result is that no sp state exists in such a system . instead , the value of @xmath2 is always finite . this behavior will be compared with the standard asymmetric xy layered model where no sp are expected to occur . we will also derive the analytical result for @xmath2 in the asymptotic limit when the intra - layer stiffness is much larger than @xmath1 . the numerical results have been found to be consistent with the analytical solutions for both models . our paper is organized as follows . in sec.[sec : i ] we introduce the bilayer model and provide the rg solution for sp . then , we construct the dual representation in sec . [ sec : dual ] . using the duality we have found the asymptotic analytical solution for the renormalized josephson coupling @xmath2 in sec . [ sec : as ] . the monte carlo simulations of the bilayer model are presented in sec.[sec : num ] . then , in sec.[sec : nz ] we present the results on a stack of bilayers along the same lines as for the bilayer . finally , in sec . [ sec : dis ] we discuss the implications of our analytical and numerical results and also provide an alternative model for the sp . here we introduce a model of two asymmetric parallel layers , each being a square lattice of linear size @xmath4 ( in terms of the inter - site shortest distance ) characterized by two fields @xmath5 and @xmath6 on the layers @xmath7 , respectively.the action can be written as h&= & - _ ij [ t_1 ( _ ij _ 1 - a_ij ) + t_2 ( _ ij _ 2 -g_2 a_ij ) + & + & a^2_ij ] - _ i u(_2(i)-_1(i ) ) [ 2n ] where @xmath8 and @xmath9 are parameters ; @xmath10 denotes summation over nearest neighbor sites within each layer ; @xmath11 ; @xmath12 is a bond vector field ( that is , @xmath13 ) oriented along the bond @xmath10 . it is introduced in order to generate the `` current - current '' interaction ( cf . @xcite ) consistent with the compact nature of the fields @xmath14 . this action is to be used in the partition function z = da d_1 d_2 ( - h ) [ zz2 ] where the temperature is absorbed into the the parameters @xmath15 . our focus is on verifying the applicability of the rg analysis to the renormalization of the josephson coupling @xmath1 . hence , we will not discuss physical origins of the variables and the parameters .      in the approximation ignoring compact nature of the variables , the terms @xmath16 and @xmath17 are replaced by @xmath18 and @xmath19 , respectively . then , the gaussian integration over @xmath12 can be carried out explicitly in eq.([zz2 ] ) , so that ( [ 2n ] ) in terms of the remaining variables becomes h_0= _ ij k_ab _ ij _ b - _ i u(_2-_1 ) , [ 2n0 ] where the matrix @xmath20 is related to the original parameters as k_11&= & , k_22= , + k_12 & = & - . the stability of @xmath21 is guaranteed by k_11k_22 - k_12 ^ 2= > 0 . [ stab ] the condition for sp can be obtained along the lines of the logic @xcite which ignores the compactness of @xmath14 . specifically , introducing the variables @xmath22 and @xmath23 and , then , integrating out @xmath24 , the resulting partition function becomes z_0=d^-h _ , h _ = d^2 x , [ z_0 ] where the notation k= [ k ] is introduced and the long wave limit is considered  so that the summation along the layers is replaced by the integration @xmath25 . as long as the compactness of @xmath26 is ignored , eqs . ( [ z_0 ] ) represent the standard sine - gordon model in 2d . the rg analysis predicts ( see in , e.g. , @xcite ) that at @xmath27 the renormalization renders the josephson coupling @xmath1 irrelevant in the thermo - limit @xmath28 . more specifically , the renormalized @xmath1 should flow to zero as @xmath29 . such a behavior is supposed to occur together with the persistence of the algebraic order along the planes . this requirement imposes further restrictions on the values of @xmath30 .    without loss of generality let s assume @xmath31 and introduce the notations : @xmath32 as a measure of temperature , and @xmath33 . then , the condition @xmath34 for sp becomes t > t_d=. [ ssp ]    in order to guarantee the algebraic order in each layer no bkt transition should occur in the layers . in order to determine possible types of vortices responsible for the transition , we examine the form ( [ 2n0 ] ) by `` reinstating '' the compactness of the variables in the limit @xmath35 ( which is supposed to renormalize to zero ) . in the presence of the gradient coupling a vortex may have a composite structure @xcite : @xmath36 circulations in the component 1 may be bound to @xmath37 circulations in the component 2 . finding the condition for the proliferation of such composite vortices can be achieved along the line of kosterlitz - thouless argument developed for simple xy - model in 2d . the free energy of such a complex is f_v= l -2 l. [ vort ] then , @xmath38   - 2 t $ ] , and the stability against the bkt transition is guaranteed by the positivity of @xmath39 or t < t_(q_1,q_2)= [ ( q_1 + xq_2)^2 + ( y - x^2)q^2_2 ] , [ tbkt ] where the minimization with respect to @xmath40 must be performed . proliferation of simple vortices @xmath41 corresponds to @xmath42 . it is , however , not always a minimal value as long as @xmath43 . let s also note that , since @xmath44 by definition , there are no solutions for @xmath45 if @xmath46 . let s look for a solution when @xmath47 is integer , that is , @xmath48 . then , keeping in mind the stability requirement ( [ stab ] ) , that is , @xmath49 , the minimal vortex corresponding to @xmath50 has free energy lower than that of the simple vortex if @xmath51 . in this case , the solution for @xmath52 exists if @xmath53 . proliferation of the composite vortex pairs corresponds to disordering of the original fields @xmath54 , while the composite field @xmath55 remains ( algebraically ) ordered . this mechanism constitutes the formation of thermally induced bound phases ( or using the language of superfluidity  _ thermally paired superfluid _ , tps , @xcite ) . in other words , the system behaves in a such a way that the algebraic order persists only in the composite field @xmath56.[since @xmath57 we call such a composite phase as thermally bound superfluid ( tbs ) by analogy with the tps ] . this effect does not require that @xmath47 is necessarily integer . if @xmath47 is non - integer , its closest integer part will determine the power of @xmath58 . if @xmath59 , the lowest energy vortex is the simple one , and the solution for the inequality @xmath45 also requires @xmath53 . for @xmath60 , @xmath61 while @xmath62 as long as @xmath63 is kept constant . such a limit corresponds to the largest range of @xmath64 where sp are to be anticipated for the two - layer model . however , for practical purposes of simulations using too large @xmath47 leads to slower convergence . thus , we choose @xmath65 corresponding to a reasonably wide range where sp is anticipated to exist . taking into account eq.([k ] ) , the condition for the sp can be written as < t < . [ spt ] keeping in mind the chosen values @xmath66 , this becomes @xmath67 or @xmath68 . the results of the simulations will be conducted at the `` temperature '' @xmath64 in the middle of the interval @xmath69 , that is , @xmath70 . more specifically , @xmath71 . in terms of the original parameters @xmath72 , the relations @xmath73 , @xmath74 , @xmath75 and @xmath76 must be satisfied . [ such a fine tuning is of no concern , since the focus is on the consistency of the paradigm of sp rather than on physical origin of the values ] .    concluding this section , the presented analysis based on the rg finds that it is possible to find a range of temperatures where the sequence of phases is as presented in fig . [ pd ] in the panel ( a ) : at @xmath77 the josephson coupling is relevant . we call this range as josephson phase in fig . [ pd ] . at @xmath78 there is the sp where the symmetry @xmath79 is promoted to u(1)@xmath80 u(1 ) . in the range @xmath81 the tbs phase is characterized by the composite field @xmath82 . thus , the broken symmetry is partially restored through the subgroup @xmath83 , where @xmath84 $ ] . at higher temperatures @xmath85 the composite field @xmath82 becomes disordered . -8 mm    -5 mm      the partition function @xmath86 can be evaluated by the high - temperature expansion method ( see e.g. in @xcite ) in terms of @xmath87 and the explicit integration over the variables . this approach allows obtaining @xmath86 in terms of the integer bond variables  powers of the corresponding taylor series . since the resulting configurational space consists of closed loops of the bond currents , further simulations can be effectively performed by the worm algorithm @xcite . as will be also shown , the language of loops also allows obtaining analytic expressions for the renormalized josephson coupling @xmath2 which are exact in the asymptotic limit . we will be utilizing the villain approximation @xcite for the cosines to obtain the so called j - current version @xcite of eqs.([zz2]),([2n ] ) : z=_\{m_a , ij , m_i } dda e^-h_v , [ vill ] h_v&= & _ ij [ ( _ ij _ 1 - a_ij + 2m_1,ij)^2 + & + & ( _ ij _ 2 -g_2 a_ij + 2m_1,ij ) ^2 + a^2_ij ] + & + & _ i ( _ 2(i)-_1(i ) + 2m_i)^2 , [ 2nv ] where @xmath88 ( @xmath89 ) are integer numbers defined along bonds between two nearest sites @xmath90 and @xmath91 along the planes and @xmath92 is an integer assigned to a site @xmath90 and oriented from the layer 1 to the layer 2 . the villain approximation proves to be very accurate for establishing the transition points as well as in general if the effective constants @xmath93 are properly expressed in terms of the corresponding bare values @xmath87 ( see in ref.@xcite ) . the `` renormalization '' can be essentially ignored for @xmath94 , so that in what follows we will be using @xmath95 . similarly , for the josephson coupling @xmath96 one should take @xmath97 and , if @xmath98 , the corresponding relation is @xmath99 @xcite . after using the poisson identity for each integer and performing the integrations over @xmath100 and @xmath101 , the resulting expression becomes z=_\{j_1,ij},\{j_2,ij } , \{j_z , i } e^-h_j , [ z2 ] h_j= _ ij ; a , b ( k^-1)_ab j_a , ij j_b , ij + _ i j_i^2 , [ h_j ] where @xmath102 labels layers and @xmath103 is the matrix inverse to @xmath30 introduced in eqs.([2n0]),([ktg ] ) ; the summation runs over the integer bond currents @xmath104 ( oriented from site @xmath90 to site @xmath91 so that @xmath105 ) within each corresponding layer 1,2 as well as over the integer currents @xmath106 oriented along the bond connecting the site @xmath90 in the layer 1 to the site @xmath90 in the layer 2 . all the configurations are restricted by the kirchhoff s current conservation rule  the total of all j - currents incoming to any site must be equal to the total of all outcoming currents from the same site . it is useful to note that eqs.([z2],[h_j ] ) can also be obtained directly from eq.([2n0 ] ) by reinstating the compact nature of the variables : @xmath107 and @xmath108 so that the matrix @xmath109 is viewed as being independent from the parameters in the action ( [ 2n ] ) . the system ( [ z2],[h_j ] ) features statistics of closed loops . if @xmath35 , there are two sorts of loops  one in each layer . thus , each configuration is characterized by definite values of the windings @xmath110 in the @xmath111th layer along the @xmath112 directions of the planes . it is straightforward to show that statistics of these windings determine the renormalized values @xmath113 of the matrix @xmath30 along the line of the approach @xcite . more specifically _ ab = _ = , w_a , w_b , . [ kr ] this expressions are valid for periodic boundary conditions ( pbc ) . it is important to note that @xmath113 represents an exact linear response ( at zero momentum ) with respect to thouless phase twists . in other words , if there are externally imposed infinitesimal constant gradients @xmath114 ( violating the pbc ) of the phases @xmath14 , the free energy acquires the contribution @xmath115 . on the other hand , in the presence of the gradient the integrand of the partition function gets the factor @xmath116 . comparing both expressions leads to the relation ( [ kr ] ) .    as a test of consistency , we have checked numerically that in the regime where the sp state is supposed to exist ( that is , @xmath117 ) , the deviations of @xmath113 from the bare values @xmath30 are within the statistical error less than 1% for all tested sizes of the layers @xmath118 . significant deviations are observed only as the system approaches fully disordered state  that is , where the fields @xmath119 as well as the composite one @xmath82 become disordered . in this case , @xmath113 flow to zero as @xmath3 increases . the deviations remain small ( about 2 - 3% ) even in the regime where @xmath82 is the only ordered field . the emergence of the tbs is detected by observing that windings @xmath120 in the layers 1 and 2 are changing exactly by the increment @xmath121 , @xmath122 ( plus or minus ) , respectively .    at finite values of @xmath1 the loops belong to both layers so that no separate windings can be introduced . however , the sums @xmath123 remain well defined and can be used to evaluate the rigidity @xmath124 of the fields along the layers . in a general case of @xmath125 symmetric ( with respect to the @xmath126 directions ) layers @xmath127 : & = & _ w^2 _ [ stif22 ] + w _ & = & _ ij , a=1,2, ... n_z j_a , ij , [ ww ] where for a given @xmath112 in ( [ ww ] ) the bond @xmath128 ( as well as @xmath129 ) is oriented along the direction @xmath130 .    our focus here on the renormalized value @xmath2 of the josephson coupling @xmath1 in the sp regime . if the periodic boundary conditions are also imposed perpendicular to the layers ( along @xmath131-direction ) , the inter - layer response @xmath2 is given by windings @xmath132 along @xmath131-direction : u_r = w^2_z , w_z = _ i j_i , [ wu ] where the summation @xmath133 of the currents @xmath134 ( oriented along @xmath131-direction ) is performed over all sites of all layers . similarly to the cases ( [ kr ] ) and ( [ stif22 ] ) , eq.([wu ] ) represents the full linear response at zero momentum  that is , the renormalized value @xmath2 of the josephson coupling @xmath1 .    at this point , we should comment on how to interpret the pbc for two layers , @xmath135 . while in the case @xmath136 it is a natural procedure to link the @xmath137th layer to the first one , @xmath138 , by the josephson term , the case @xmath135 needs an auxiliary construction because the layers 1 and 2 are coupled already directly . the formal procedure , then , consists of adding a third layer , @xmath139 , with no rigidity along @xmath126 directions and coupled by the josephson term to both layers , @xmath7 . if the coupling @xmath140 between the layers 1 and 3 and the coupling @xmath141 between the layers 2 and 3 add up as @xmath142 , in the dual action ( [ h_j ] ) the sum in the last term can be extended to the layers @xmath143 , while the first term is still confined to the layers @xmath7 . the key to this procedure is the kirchhoff s rule : the j - current from a site @xmath144 along @xmath131-direction from the layer 2 to the layer 3 must be exactly the same as the current from the site @xmath144 in the layer 3 to the layer 1 . then , in the form ( [ h_j ] ) the same value @xmath145 can be used for the currents from the layer 1 to the layer 2 directly or through the layer 3 . as mentioned above , the dual representation allows obtaining analytically the asymptotic values for @xmath2 . let s begin with the trivial case of zero stiffnesses @xmath30 and arbitrary number of layers , @xmath146 . in this case , the action ( [ h_j ] ) trivially becomes h_a= _ i j^2_i , j_i=0,1 , 2 , ... [ a ] where the summation runs over all sites @xmath90 of only _ one _ layer , say , @xmath138 . in this expression the kirchhoff rule dictates that the current @xmath134 at a given site along @xmath131-direction must be the same for all values of @xmath131 . thus , such a current with @xmath147 constitutes one closed loop characterized by the winding @xmath148 . this allows constructing the partition function exactly as z_a=^l^2 [ za ] where @xmath149 is the number of sites in one layer . the stiffness ( [ wu ] ) can be found by taking into account that the total winding along z - direction is @xmath150 , where the summation runs over @xmath149 sites of only one layer . then , using statistical independence of different sites we find u_r=. [ ur1 ] this expression shows that , as long as @xmath125 is finite , the josephson coupling remains relevant even if there is no in - plane order .    in the limit @xmath151 only the term @xmath152 is important , so that eq.([ur1 ] ) becomes u_r= . [ urr ]    eq.([urr ] ) can be used even in the case when there is finite stiffness along the layers , with @xmath125 substituted by some effective value @xmath153 , that is , u_r= . [ genm ] this is easily justified in the `` ideal gas '' approximation of rare fluctuations of the j - currents in z - direction . in the case of @xmath154 the asymptotic asymmetric limit corresponds to @xmath155 ( so that the system is well above the disordering transition ) and @xmath156 . the loop proliferation can be viewed from the perspective of the worm algorithm @xcite where one open end of a string of j - currents walks randomly until it meets another open end so that the loop is formed . then , the most of the path is residing in a layer with only occasional jumps between neighboring layers . these jumps are controlled by the exponential smallness of @xmath157 . thus , the full action can be well approximated by @xmath158 , eq.([a ] ) , with @xmath159 . this leads to eq.([genm ] ) with @xmath160 : u_r= . [ urxy ] later we will present the numerical evidence that the stiffness perpendicular to the layers of a simple xy layered model in the asymptotic limit can well be described by the above equation . below we will show that for the case of the two asymmetric layers , the effective value of @xmath153 is @xmath161 in eq.([genm ] ) .      here we present the results of monte carlo simulations of the bilayer in the regime of sp in the limit @xmath156 . the action ( [ h_j ] ) can be represented in the notations @xmath162 as h_j= _ ij+ _ i , [ h12 ] where @xmath163 and @xmath164 refer to the inplane bond currents in the layers 1 and 2 , respectively ; the actual values of the parameters used in the simulations have been discussed at the end of sec.[sec : rg ] : @xmath165 . the structure of the loops is determined by the energy of creating a j - current element along a given direction . a typical energy to create an additional j - current element in the plane 2 can be estimated as @xmath166 . thus , large loops with a typical values @xmath167 can exist in the plane 2 . in contrast , the energy to create an isolated element in the plane 1 ( with no @xmath168 currents along the same bond in the layer 2 ) costs much larger energy : @xmath169 . thus , the probability to create such an element is exponentially suppressed as @xmath170 , and no entropy contribution ( due to 4 optional directions along the plane ) can compensate for such a low value . this implies that no large isolated loops can exist in the layer 1 . the only option to create a large loop in the layer 1 is if each element @xmath163 is coupled to currents @xmath171 along the same bonds in the layer 2 . a typical energy of this combined element is @xmath172 . this strong asymmetry between the layers has immediate implication for the windings along @xmath131-direction  the minimal length @xmath153 of the element @xmath134 must be @xmath161 in eq.([genm ] ) . thus , the stiffness @xmath2 in the limit @xmath98 becomes u_r = 4e^-1/u_v= u^2 , [ ur3 ] where the asymptotic expression @xmath173 @xcite has been used . the results of the simulations is shown in fig.[fign2 ] . -8 mm    -5 mm    the first striking feature to notice is that @xmath2 does not depend on the layers size @xmath3 over 2 orders of magnitude of @xmath3 and over 7 orders of @xmath145 ( which is actually @xmath174 of the bare coupling ) . second , the numerically found value @xmath2 follows the analytical result ( [ ur3 ] ) with high accuracy  even for values @xmath175 . both features are in the striking conflict with the rg prediction stating that @xmath2 should decay as @xmath176 in the sp regime ( @xmath177 ) . it should be also noted that the stiffness along the layers ( [ stif22 ] ) remains finite and much larger than @xmath2 , that is , @xmath178 for all simulated sizes from @xmath179 to @xmath180 . this justifies the validity of eq.([ur3 ] ) even in the case @xmath175 . as it became evident from the previous analysis , no sp can occur in the double layer . referring to the sketch of the possibilities , fig . [ pd ] , the option ( b ) is realized . here we will address a possibility of sp in a @xmath125-layers setup . in other words , we will be looking for a behavior where the renormalized stiffness ( the inter - layer josephson coupling ) @xmath2 decays as a function of @xmath125 in the limit @xmath182 , while the stiffness along planes remains finite.[this would be a `` weaker '' version of the sp ] . we consider the pbc setup : the odd @xmath183 and the even @xmath184 layers are characterized by the inplane stiffnesses @xmath185 and @xmath186 , respectively , with the nearest layers coupled by the current - current term @xmath187 ( the same for all pairs of layers ) as well as by the josephson coupling @xmath188 , where @xmath189 is the xy variable defined on a site @xmath144 belonging to the layer @xmath131 .    in the linearized with respect to @xmath190 approximation analogous to eq.([2n0 ] ) the model becomes h_0&= & _ z=1,3,5, ... \ { _ ij h_z;ij + & - & u _ x , y [ ( _ z+1-_z ) + ( _ z-1-_z ) ) ] } [ nnz ] where the summation runs over odd values of @xmath131 and the notation h_z;ij = ( _ ij _ z)^2 + ( _ ij _ z+1)^2 + + k_12_ij _ z(_ij _ z+1+_ij _ z-1 ) [ hnnz ] is used . if the compact nature of @xmath191 is ignored , the one - loop rg flow equation for @xmath2 reads = ( 2- ( _ z+1 - _ z)^2 _ s ) u_r [ rgn ] where @xmath192 refers to the rg shell integration over the inplane momenta @xmath193 , with @xmath194 being the cutoff and @xmath195 . we note that , due to the pbc along @xmath131-direction , the mean @xmath196 does not depend on @xmath131 .    using discrete fourier representation along @xmath131 direction with doubled unit cell containing two layers ( the odd and the even ) with two sorts of phases @xmath197 and @xmath198 along odd and even layers , respectively , the part @xmath199 can be diagonalized and the correlator in eq.([rgn ] ) found . this gives eq.([rgn ] ) rewritten as = 2(1- ) u_r , [ rgn2 ] where t^-1_d=^(nz/2)-1_m=0 , [ tdnz ] and the wavevectors along @xmath131 take values dictated by the periodic boundary conditions @xmath200 . here we use the same notations @xmath201 introduced in sec.[sec : rg ] . thus , at @xmath177 rg predicts irrelevance of @xmath2 .    the upper limit on @xmath64 can be obtained from the requirement of no free 2d vortices in the limit @xmath35 . there are , actually , two options : i ) looking for a composite vortex characterized by phase windings @xmath36 and @xmath37 in odd and even layers , respectively , forming a string of length @xmath125 perpendicular to the layers ; ii ) considering independent vortices @xmath202 only in odd layers ( characterized by smallest stiffness @xmath185 ) and characterized by the temperature @xmath203 . as the analysis shows , the option when composite vortices form finite strings ( say , @xmath204 in layers @xmath205 and @xmath206 in the layer @xmath207 by analogy with the @xmath135 case ) costs larger energy than in the case ii ) . the option i ) is characterized by the vortex energy @xmath208\propto n_z$ ] . the minimum for a @xmath209 integer is achieved at @xmath210 . thus , in order to compensate for the factor @xmath211 , the system must be very close to the instability @xmath212 . simulations in this region turn out to be problematic . thus , we will conduct simulations in the range @xmath213 , provided the condition @xmath214 holds in the limit where @xmath215 remains finite for @xmath216 . specifically , the condition @xmath217 reads ^nz/2 -1_m=0 > 8 . [ tdt ] it can surely be achieved for large enough @xmath47 in the limit @xmath218 . replacing the summation by integration in this limit and considering @xmath219 , eq.([tdt ] ) gives @xmath220 . for the simulations we have chosen @xmath221 and @xmath222 , which gives @xmath223 with @xmath224 chosen in the middle of the interval between @xmath225 and @xmath0 . the chosen value of @xmath0 corresponds to the limit @xmath226 , and for any finite @xmath125 , the actual @xmath0 from eq.([tdnz ] ) is below this value . at this point we note that for any finite @xmath1 the system is 3d and , strictly , speaking the notion of the bkt transition becomes inadequate for large enough @xmath125 : even at @xmath227 the odd layers would still have xy order due to the proximity to even layers . here , however , we presume that sp scenario holds and @xmath2 vanishes at large @xmath3 . practically , simulations are performed at finite @xmath1 and we always control that the xy stiffness ( helicity modulus ) along the layers remains finite and independent of @xmath3 . the dual formulation in terms of the closed loops of integer j - currents ( along bonds in and between the layers ) can be achieved similarly to the case @xmath135 by reinstating the compactness of @xmath191 in eqs.([nnz],[hnnz ] ) through the villain approach : @xmath228 along the planes and @xmath229 for josephson coupling , where @xmath230 refers to an arbitrary ( oriented ) integer defined on the bond @xmath231 belonging to the plane @xmath131 and @xmath232 stands for an integer on a bond connecting site @xmath90 in the plane @xmath131 to the same site in the plane @xmath233 . the partition function is obtained as a result of integration over all @xmath234 and summations over all bond integers . the j - currents enter through the poisson identity @xmath235 applied to each bond integer . this allows explicit integration over all phases @xmath191 as well as over the bond integers @xmath236 . there are two types of j - currents : inplane @xmath237 within each `` elementary cell '' ( along @xmath131 ) and between the planes @xmath238 . the label @xmath239 refers to j - current defined on the bond @xmath231 belonging to a plane with odd @xmath131 . accordingly , @xmath240 stands for the inplane current on the layer with even @xmath131 . then , @xmath238 denotes the current from the site @xmath90 from the plane @xmath131 to the plane @xmath233 . the integration over phases @xmath241 generates the kirchhoff constraint  similarly to the bilayer case . finally the ensemble can be represented as z&= & _ \ { } ( - h_j ) , + h_j&= & _ ij ; z , zv_ab(z - z ) j^(a)_z , ijj^(b)_z,ij + & + & _ i , z j^2_z , i , [ hdual ] where the matrix @xmath242 is defined in terms of the matrix @xmath30 . it reflects the asymmetry between odd and even layers . explicitly , @xmath243 , for @xmath244 being even , describes the interaction between odd layers , and @xmath245 is defined between even layers ; @xmath246 $ ] refers to the interaction between odd and even layers ( that is , @xmath131 is odd ) , and v_22(z)= _ q_m , [ vzz22 ] with @xmath247 and the summation running over @xmath248 . the dual formulation for @xmath125 layers allows obtaining the asymptotic expression for @xmath2 within the same logic used for deriving eq.([ur3 ] ) . we will repeat it here . the loop formation can be viewed as a process of random walks of two ends of a broken loop  exactly along the line of the worm algorithm @xcite . such a walk of each end is controlled by energetics of creating one bond element @xmath249 in a randomly chosen direction  either along a given plane or perpendicular to it . very similar to the case of the two layers , the energy to create such an element alone along the odd layer costs energy @xmath250 , while the same element along an even layer costs energy @xmath251 . the only option for creating a loop in an odd layer is if its energy is compensated by parallel elements in the even plane . this feature is caused by the strong current - current interaction @xmath252 . thus , if the walk occurs along @xmath131-direction from some even layer @xmath131 toward the neighboring odd layer @xmath233 , the subsequent move along the odd layer will be too energetically costly so that the walker would either move further toward @xmath253 layer or will go back to the original layer @xmath131 . thus , the inter - layer elements are characterized by either @xmath254 or @xmath255 . the weight of such a process is either @xmath256 or @xmath257 , respectively . even if the walker makes a step or two along the layer @xmath233 ( which is a highly improbable event ) and then chooses to go toward the layer @xmath253 , the contribution to the partition function will be further reduced exponentially by the energy of the element @xmath258 along the odd plane . thus , such processes can be ignored , and we arrive at the conclusion that @xmath2 given by eq.([ur3 ] ) must be valid for arbitrary @xmath125 in the asymptotic limit . the model ( [ hdual ] ) has been simulated by the worm algorithm @xcite . the renormalized inter - layer stiffness @xmath2 was found for a wide range of layer sizes , @xmath259 and @xmath260 . the resulting data is presented in figs . [ fig3],[fig4 ] . as can be seen in fig . [ fig3 ] , the solution ( [ ur3 ] ) plays the role of the envelop for the family of the curves @xmath2 vs @xmath261 for various @xmath3 and @xmath262 . we note that the stiffness @xmath263 along the layers ( as determined by eq.([stif22 ] ) ) remains independent of the sizes and much larger ( @xmath264 ) than @xmath2 . this justifies the applicability of the asymptotic limit for eq.([ur3 ] ) . we have also controlled that the system is far enough from any possible composite phases @xcite state by measuring the lowest order correlator @xmath265 and observing that it exhibits long - range order for values @xmath266 in the limit @xmath267.[in the composite phase state such a correlator is short ranged ] . thus , the system is well in the putative sp state . its behavior , however , is drastically different from the rg prediction . -8 mm    -5 mm    -8 mm    -5 mm    -8 mm    -5 mm    -8 mm    -5 mm    at this point we should discuss the deviations of the numerical curves from the analytical result seen in fig.[fig3 ] . to some extent this behavior could have been interpreted as the evidence of sp . there is , however , one important observation : the value of @xmath268 below which such suppression begins _ decreases _ as ( u^*)^-1 = ( l^2/n_z ) , = 1.000.02 [ ugm2 ] for @xmath269 in the main logarithmic approximation . this behavior is demonstrated in fig.[fig4 ] , where the value @xmath270 corresponds the offset for @xmath2 being taken at 1/10 of the value given by the analytical expression ( [ ur3 ] ) . the suppression of @xmath271 in the limit @xmath28 indicates that it is a finite size effect . in other words , starting from small @xmath3 at some @xmath272 , the renormalized stiffness @xmath2 can be well below the asymptotic limit ( [ ur3 ] ) . as @xmath3 increases while @xmath145 is kept fixed , @xmath2 eventually approaches the limit ( [ ur3 ] ) . this feature is clearly in a stark contrast with the rg prediction of sp where @xmath2 is supposed to flow to zero for fixed @xmath145 as a power of @xmath182 . the deviation from the limit ( [ ur3 ] ) has a very simple explanation : it is essentially a consequence of the generic exponential suppression of any order in a quasi-1d limit @xmath226 . [ there is no such suppression in the case of @xmath135 because the loops along z - direction are independent from the inplane ones ] . in the context of our system it can be interpreted as the effect of zero modes ( in each layer ) fluctuations . indeed , excitations along the planes renormalize @xmath145 to @xmath2 at short distances . then , as long as @xmath273 the only remaining lowest energy degrees of freedoms are zero modes , that is , excitations with @xmath274 being independent from the @xmath126 positions along the planes ( and dependent on @xmath131 ) . then , the effective action becomes s_0= -u_rl^2 _ z[(^(0)_z+1 - ^(0)_z ) ] . [ zero ] it should be used in the partition function @xmath275 . its analytical evaluation gives u^(0)_r ~ ( -n_z/(u_rl^2 ) ) [ zero ] for the value of the stiffness along @xmath131-direction  that is , the renormalised @xmath2 on large scale . keeping in mind that at short scales @xmath276 for @xmath156 , one arrives at the relation ( [ ugm2 ] ) with @xmath277 . it corresponds to the requirement @xmath278 for some @xmath268 so that eq.([zero ] ) describes the exponential suppression at @xmath279 . clearly , such a quasi-1d suppression is also present in the standard xy model ( where no sp are anticipated to exist ) . in order to demonstrate this explicitly we have also simulated a simple xy model given by the system z_xy&=&d _ z ( -h_xy ) , [ hxy ] + h_xy&=&- _ ij , z [ ( _ ij _ z ) + u ( _ z _ z ) ] , with some @xmath280 ( guaranteeing that no bkt transition occurs in each layer for @xmath35 ) , and @xmath281 . in the dual representation this system is described by h_xy _ xy = _ ij , z j_z , ij^2 + _ i , z j_i , z^2 , [ hxy2 ] where @xmath282 and @xmath238 are the same j - currents introduced above for the model ( [ hdual ] ) . the results of the simulations of this model are presented in fig.[fig1],[fig2 ] . in the asymptotic limit the inter - layer stiffness is described by eq.([urxy ] ) . then , according to the above discussion the value @xmath270 determining the start of the deviations is given by @xmath283 , that is , with the slope @xmath284 which should be compared with the numerical value @xmath285 in fig.[fig2 ] . thus , both models demonstrate essentially the same 3d behavior . the only difference is the slope of the renormalized josephson coupling @xmath286 vs its bare value @xmath145 . it is determined by the minimal length of the elementary j - current in the direction perpendicular to the layers . the rg approach to 2d systems proves to be every effective in many cases including 2d xy model when it can be mapped on the sine - gordon ( sg ) one @xcite . a successful implementation of the rg analysis to the josephson coupling was demonstrated in ref.@xcite where a single weak link can make one channel luttinger liquid insulating . the merit of rg , however , should be taken with caution when applied to the dimensional reduction situations in layered systems . in this case there is no exact mapping between xy and sg representations at finite inter - layer josephson coupling , and the approximation ignoring the compact nature of the variables becomes uncontrolled . as our analysis of one particular layered system shows , no sp exists in such a system despite the rg prediction : the system shows essentially the 3d behavior of the asymmetric xy model . while it is not obvious to us what is wrong with treating josephson coupling between 2d layers by rg in the original representation of fields , the dual formulation in terms of the closed loops gives a very important insight . specifically , the sp means that as layer size @xmath28 , a suppression of the josephson coupling between layers would require that the number of times elements of closed loops fluctuate between layers must scale slower than @xmath149 so that the density of such events is zero in the limit @xmath287 . the loops statistics , however , is controlled by local energies of creating finite elements and the entropy due to 6 directions in 3d vs 4 along layers . thus , as long as there is a finite energy to cross between neighboring layers , the entropy will lead to a finite density of crossings for large enough @xmath3 . similar argument can be applied to quantum wires in terms of the quantum to classical mapping where imaginary time is treated as an extra dimension . the dual approach and the argumentation along the line of the numerical algorithm @xcite , treating closed loops formation as a process of the worm head wondering around and eventually finding its tail , allowed us to expose the actual stages of the renormalization of the josephson coupling : i ) at small scales josephson coupling is controlled by exponentially suppressed random and independent ( in the asymptotic limit ) events of crossings between layers . it can be viewed as an ideal gas of j - currents between the layers . this stage leads to the renormalized coupling , in general , represented by eq.([genm ] ) with @xmath288 . ii ) if the number of layers @xmath125 increases , with @xmath3 being fixed , quasi 1d fluctuations further suppress the coupling exponentially as demonstrated in eq.([zero ] ) . here we have discussed a local model characterized by short range interactions between the inter - layer j - current elements . this feature in combination with the low density of such elements justifies the `` ideal gas '' approximation for them , which in its turn leads to finite values of the renormalized inter - layer josephson coupling . the question may be raised if a presence of long - range forces between the inter - plane j - currents @xmath134 can change the situation and lead to the sp or its weaker version  where @xmath289 with the growing number of layers @xmath125 in the limit @xmath287 . in this respect we note that in order to realize this , fluctuations of the difference of the j - currents with positive and negative orientations must be macroscopically suppressed . in this case the fluctuation of the winding numbers in @xmath131-direction @xmath290 will scale slower than @xmath149 so that @xmath291 . this may be caused by interactions between the inter - layer j - currents decaying not faster than the second power of their separation . more specifically , the following additional repulsive term h_sp=_i , j u(_i -_j ) j_i j_j [ spx ] in the simple xy j - current model ( [ hxy2 ] ) with @xmath292 having the long range tail @xmath293 with @xmath294 will generate the energy contribution @xmath295 in terms of the windings in z - direction . consequently , the renormalized josephson coupling ( [ wu ] ) would scale as @xmath296 . in one particular example long - range forces are introduced into the inter - layer josephson in the standard xy model ( [ hxy ] ) by some effective gauge - type term @xmath297 , where @xmath298 refers to the derivatives along the layers of some soft mode @xmath299 , with @xmath300 being a parameter . the resulting interaction in the dual form ( [ spx ] ) becomes @xmath301 and , thus , it suppresses the inter - layer josephson as @xmath302 in the limit @xmath28 for fixed @xmath125 . one of us ( abk ) acknowledges helpful discussions of the sliding phases with charles kane and boris svistunov . he thanks kitpc ( the program `` precision many - body physics of strongly correlated quantum matter '' , may - june 2014 ) and aspen center for physics ( the program `` beyond quasiparticles : new paradigms for quantum fluids '' , august 2015 ) for hospitality when this work was in progress . this work was supported by the national science foundation under the grant phy1314469 , and by a grant for computer time from the cuny hpcc under nsf grants cns-0855217 and cns - 0958379 . 99 k. b. efetov , sov . jetp * 49 * , 905 ( 1979 ) . s. e. korshunov and a. i. larkin , phys . b * 46 * , 6395 ( 1992 ) . p. w. anderson , phys . lett . * 64 * , 1839 ( 1990 ) . x. g. wen , phys.rev . * b 42 * , 6623 ( 1990 ) . c. castellani , c. di castro , and w. metzner , phys . lett . * 69 * , 1703(1992 ) . m. fabrizio , and a. parola , phys.rev.lett . * 70*,226(1993 ) . c. s. ohern and t. c. lubensky , phys.rev.lett . * 80 * , 4345(1998 ) . c. s. ohern , t. c. lubensky , and j. toner , phys.rev.lett . * 83 * , 2745 ( 1999 ) ; s. l. sondhi , kun yang , phys . rev . * b63*,054430(2001 ) . r. mukhopadhyay , c. l. kane , and t. c. lubensky , phys . * b 63 * , 081103(r ) ( 2001 ) ; a. vishwanath and d. carpentier , phys . * 86 * , 676 ( 2001 ) ; a. f. andreev and e. p. bashkin , sov . jetp * 42 * , 164(1976 ) . m. a. cazalilla , a. f. ho , and t. giamarchi , new j. phys . * 8 * , 158 ( 2006 ) d. pekker , g. refael , and e. demler , phys . 105 * , 085302 ( 2010 ) ; t. c. lubensky , p. m. chaikin , principles of condensed matter physics , cambridge university press ( 2000 ) . e. babaev , nucl.phys . * b 686*,397 ( 2004 ) . v. m. kaurov , a. b. kuklov , and a. e. meyerovich phys . lett . * 95 * , 090403 ( 2005 ) . e. k. dahl , e. babaev , a. sudbo , phys . rev . * b78 * , 144510 ( 2008 ) . g. parisi , in _ statistical field theory , frontiers in physics _ , addison - wesley , reading , ma , 1988 . prokofev , b.v . svistunov , and i.s . tupitsyn , phys . a * 238 * , 253 ( 1998 ) ; jetp * 87 * , 310 ( 1998 ) ; n.v . prokofev and b.v . svistunov , phys . rev . lett . * 87 * , 160601(2001 ) . j. villain , j. phys . ( paris ) * 36 * , 581(1975 ) . m. wallin , e.s . sorensen , s.m . girvin , and a. p. young , phys . rev . * b 49 * , 12115 ( 1994 ) . w. janke and h. kleinert , nucl . phys . * b270 * , 135(1986 ) . e. i. pollock and d. m. ceperley , phys . rev . * b 36 * , 8343 ( 1987 ) . a.m. polyakov , _ gauge fields and strings _ , in contemporary concepts in physics , vol.3 , harwood academic publishers , chur - melbourne , ch.4 ( 1987 ) . c.l.kane , m.p.a . fisher , phys . . lett . * 68*,1220 ( 1992 ) .
Abstract:

Answer: we analyse the proposal of sliding phases ( sp ) in layers hosting global u(1 ) symmetric variables with finite inter - layer josephson coupling . based on the kosterlitz - thouless renormalization group ( rg ) approach , such phases were predicted to exist in various layered ( or 1d quantum coupled ) systems . the key in the rg argument is treating the coupling as though the variables are non - compact . large scale monte carlo simulations of a layered model , where the sp is supposed to exist , finds no indication of such a phase . instead , 3d behavior is observed . this result is consistent with the asymptotically exact analytical solution . a generic argument against sp in translationally invariant systems with short range interactions is provided . we have also suggested an alternative model for the sp  adding long - range interactions to the inter - layer josephson term .