1: %\usepackage{feynmf}

2: %\usepackage{amssymbol}

3: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}\normalsize

4: %\input{tcilatex}

5: %\input{tcilatex}

6: 

7: 

8: \documentclass[10pt,preprint]{article}

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

10: \usepackage{amssymb}

11: \usepackage{amsmath}

12: \usepackage{graphics}

13: \usepackage{graphicx}

14: \usepackage{epsfig}

15: %\usepackage{pdffig}

16: %\usepackage{psfig}

17: 

18: \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{10}

19: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}

20: %TCIDATA{Version=5.00.0.2606}

21: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="SaveForMode" CONTENT="1">}

22: %TCIDATA{BibliographyScheme=Manual}

23: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Saturday, September 09, 2006 22:24:09}

24: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}

25: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}

26: 

27: \renewcommand{\vec}[1]{{\bf #1}}

28: \setlength{\baselineskip}{20mm}

29: \textwidth 15.0 true cm

30: \textheight 22.0 true cm

31: \headheight 0 cm

32: \headsep 0 cm

33: \topmargin 0.4 true in

34: \oddsidemargin 0.25 true in

35: \def\bra{\langle}

36: \def\ket{\rangle}

37: \newcommand{\eqb}{\begin{equation}}

38: \newcommand{\eqe}{\end{equation}}

39: \newcommand{\dmb}{\begin{displaymath}}

40: \newcommand{\dme}{\end{displaymath}}

41: \newcommand{\pd}{\partial}

42: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}

43: \newcommand{\eab}{\begin{eqnarray}}

44: \newcommand{\eae}{\end{eqnarray}}

45: \newcommand{\ra}{\right\rangle}

46: \newcommand{\la}{\left\langle}

47: \newcommand{\e}{\mbox{e}}

48: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

49: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

50: \newcommand{\sgn}{\text{sgn}\,}

51: \newcommand{\munu}{{\mu\nu}}

52: \newcommand{\ad}{{\dot{\alpha}}}

53: \newcommand{\bd}{{\dot{\beta}}}

54: \newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}

55: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}

56: 

57: %\input{tcilatex}

58: 

59: \begin{document}

60: 

61: 

62: \begin{titlepage}

63: \begin{flushright} 

64: .

65: \end{flushright}

66: \vspace{0.2cm}

67: \begin{center}

68: \Large{Spatial Wilson loop in continuum, deconfining SU(2) Yang-Mills thermodynamics}

69: \vspace{0.5cm}\\ 

70: \large{Josef Ludescher$^*$, Jochen Keller$^*$, 

71: Francesco Giacosa$^\dagger$, and\\ 

72: Ralf Hofmann$^{*}$}

73: \end{center}

74: \vspace{0.5cm} 

75: \begin{center}

76: {\em $\mbox{}^*$ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik\\ 

77: Universit\"at Heidelberg\\ 

78: Philosophenweg 16\\ 

79: 69120 Heidelberg, Germany}

80: \end{center}

81: \vspace{0.1cm}

82: \begin{center}

83: {\em $\mbox{}^\dagger$ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik\\ 

84: Universit\"at Frankfurt\\ 

85: Johann Wolfgang Goethe - Universit\"at\\ 

86: Max von Laue--Str. 1\\ 

87: 60438 Frankfurt, Germany}

88: \end{center}

89: \vspace{2.8cm}

90: \begin{abstract}

91: 

92: The uniquess of the effective actions describing 4D SU(2) and

93: SU(3) continuum, infinite-volume Yang-Mills thermodynamics in their deconfining 

94: and preconfining phases is made explicit. Subsequently, 

95: the spatial string tension 

96: is computed in the approach proposed by

97: Korthals-Altes. This SU(2) calculation is 

98: based on a particular, effective two-loop correction to 

99: the pressure needed for the extraction of the hypothetic number density

100: of isolated and screened magnetic monopoles or antimonopoles in the

101: deconfining phase. 

102: By exponentiating the exchange of the tree-level massless but one-loop

103: dressed mode within a quadratic

104: spatial contour of side-length $L$ in the effective theory we demonstrate that for $L\to\infty$

105: the Wilson loop exhibits {\sl perimeter} law. This is in contrast to a rigorous 

106: {\sl lattice} result subject to the Wilson action and for this action 

107: valid at sufficiently high temperature. In the framework of the effective theory 

108: there is, however, a regime for small

109: (spatially unresolved) $L$ were the exponent of the spatial Wilson loop 

110: possesses curvature as a function of $L$. 

111: 

112: \end{abstract} 

113: 

114: \end{titlepage}

115: 

116: \section{Introduction\label{intro}}

117: 

118: In the past the pursuit of a nonperturbative 

119: understanding of 4D Yang-Mills theory at high 

120: temperature was limited to lattice formulations. A prominent

121: target of lattice investigations is the spatial Wilson loop evaluated on a

122: rectangular and planar contour $C$. Based on an analogy to the 

123: strong-coupling expansion, whose validity is suggested at sufficiently

124: high temperature by the part of the Wilson action containing 

125: purely spacelike plaquettes, it was shown in \cite{Borgs1985} 

126: that at a given, finite, spatial lattice spacing the spatial Wilson loop always

127: exhibits area law implying the existence of a spatial string tension

128: $\sigma_s$. For the gauge group SU(2), which we will mainly be concerned

129: with here, this 

130: result was verified subsequently by direct 

131: simulation \cite{Polonyi1987,Bali1993,spatialWL}. 

132: 

133: As already pointed out in \cite{Polonyi1987} the argument made 

134: in \cite{Borgs1985} neither has much to say about the cutoff dependence of 

135: $\sigma_s$ in the ultraviolet nor about the behavior of $\sigma_s$ 

136: in the infinite-volume limit since it

137: inherently relies on a finite spatial discretization allowing, at 

138: leading order in the strong-`coupling'-expansion, to 

139: tile the minimal area spanned by $C$ in terms of spacelike 

140: plaquettes. This then implies the area law in the lattice 

141: formulation.

142: 

143: In contrast to lattice formulations, 

144: the nonperturbative approach to SU(2) and SU(3) Yang-Mills 

145: thermodynamics developed in 

146: \cite{Hofmann2005,HofmannGiacosa2006,HofmannLE2006,Hofmann2007} uniquely derives an

147: effective theory for the deconfining phase starting from a genuine

148: spacetime continuum, space being infinitely extended, and from the

149: fundamental (euclidean) Yang-Mills action $S_{\tiny\mbox{YM}}$. The effective theory 

150: emerges as a consequence of pursuing the following chain of steps: 

151: 1) Consider the BPS saturated (topologically nontrivial) sector of (periodic) euclidean field 

152: configurations (time variable imaginary). Independent of their topological charge 

153: these (anti)selfdual configurations possess vanishing energy-stress. 

154: This implies that 2) whatever effective field is obtained as a consequence 

155: of performing a spatial coarse graining over them it is {\sl nonpropagating}. 

156: But a nonpropagating effective field acts as a static background. 3) Such a background configuration would break the spatial isotropy and/or homogeneity of the thermal system (one-point functions) unless it is a scalar 

157: field. That is, no Lorentz tensor of rank greater than zero may emerge as an effective field from the sector 

158: of fundamental BPS saturated field configurations. If this effective scalar would be neutral 

159: under the gauge group then it would not participate in the thermodynamics due 

160: to its decoupling from the $Q=0$ sector of propagating field configurations and its vanishing effective energy-stress. 4) Since this scalar field does 

161: not propagate its classical equation of motion is, in a given gauge, 

162: solely determined by the euclidean time dependence of its phase. 5) It turns out \cite{HerbstHofmann2004,Hofmann2007} that only a single nonlocal 

163: definition of this time dependence, involving an adjointly transforming two-point function of the fundamental field strength, is possible. 6) This definition only admits the contribution of configurations with topological charge modulus $|Q|=1$ (Harrington-Shepard (anti)calorons, trivial holonomy) because of too many dimensionful parameters spanning the moduli spaces\footnote{Due to the temperature independence 

164: of the weight $\e^{8\pi^2|Q|/g^2}$ ($g$ the fundamental, classical and thus temperature independent coupling {\sl constant} the definition of the time dependence of the 

165: field's phase must not invoke any explicit temperature dependence. This only leaves 

166: room for the spatial coarse-graining over a two-point function of the fundamental field strength.} of higher-charge calorons and the 

167: instability of (anti)calorons of nontrivial holonomy \cite{Diakonov,GPY1981}. 

168: 7) Consistency of the thus derived second-order equation and the effective BPS saturation (first-order equation) of the adjoint scalar field uniquely fixes its gauge invariant 

169: potential with the Yang-Mills scale $\Lambda$ entering as a (nonperturbative) integration 

170: constant \cite{HofmannGiacosa2006, Hofmann2007}. 8) Since no field other than the inert 

171: adjoint scalar may emerge from the sector(s) of BPS saturated fundamental 

172: field configurations the coupling to the sector of propagating gauge fields 

173: ($Q=0$), which by perturbative renormalizability \cite{tHooftVeltman} 

174: by itself cannot generate higher dimensional operators upon the invoked 

175: spatial coarse-graining, occurs minimally via the square of the adjoint 

176: covariant derivative, see also Sec.\,\ref{Uni}. 9) The thus derived effective 

177: action yields an accurate a priori estimate for the thermal ground state 

178: by solving the Yang-Mills equation of the effective $Q=0$ sector 

179: in the background of the adjoint scalar field. 10) Radiative corrections to the free quasiparticle situation described by the effective action can be integrated out in a rapidly converging loop expansion subject to constraints imposed by the existence of an effective thermal ground state \cite{HofmannLE2006}. Interestingly, only planar bubble 

180: diagrams contribute. As we will see, the maximal resolution of the 

181: effective theory, which is given by the scalar field's modulus, almost 

182: everywhere in temperature is too small to allow for the existence and dynamics of single magnetic monopoles and antimonopoles, generated by (anti)caloron deformation away from trivial holonomy and away from BPS saturation, to be resolved.  

183: 

184: We consider it useful to repeat the above steps including physical interpretations. 

185: A sufficiently local spatial coarse-graining \cite{HerbstHofmann2004} 

186: over stable and absolute minima of the 

187: action in the sector with topological charge modulus $|Q|=1$

188: (Harrington-Shepard (anti)calorons \cite{HS1977}, nonpropagating

189: configurations) generates a spatially homogeneous and inert adjoint

190: scalar field $\phi$ whose modulus sets the maximally available 

191: resolution in the effective theory\footnote{A nontrivial-holonomy

192:   (anti)caloron \cite{NahmVanBaalLeeLu} is not

193:   stable. Moreover, it is suggested to consider a slow dependence in real time of 

194: the holonomy parameter $u$ since a constancy of $u$ in space and time would completely

195: suppress the weight of the nontrivial-holonomy caloron in the thermodynamic limit

196: \cite{GPY1981}. This time dependence, however, necessarily lifts the associated field 

197: configuration above the BPS bound. On the level of the effective theory,

198: where the thermal ground state is described by the field $\phi$ together

199: with a pure-gauge configuration of the coarse-grained $Q=0$ sector, this

200: microscopic lift above the BPS bound is seen in terms a positive ground-state

201: energy density which is the negative of its pressure

202: \cite{Hofmann2005,Hofmann2007}.}. Recall, that only this

203: sector is allowed to contribute to the kernel containing $\phi$'s

204: phase \cite{Hofmann2005,Hofmann2007,HerbstHofmann2004}. 

205: The inertness of the field

206: $\phi$ and the spatial homogeneity of its (gauge-invariant) modulus 

207: derives from the fact that it is obtained as a spatial average over 

208: nonpropagating, stable BPS saturated (zero energy-stress) field

209: configurations\footnote{Inertness of $\phi$ follows from the fact that a spatial 

210: average over nonpropagating fields can not generate propagating modes in

211: the effective field $\phi$. Thus an inhomogeneity of $|\phi|$ would

212: explicitely break the homogeneity of one-point functions which is in

213: contradiction to infinite-volume continuum thermodynamics.}. This can 

214: be checked explicitely by computing the curvature of $\phi$'s potential and by

215: comparing it with the squares of maximal resolution $|\phi|$ in the effective

216: theory and $T$ \cite{Hofmann2005}. So the effect of performing the spatial

217: coarse graining over Harrington-Shepard (anti)calorons is to make explicit the

218: spatial homogeneity and isotropy of the thermal system as contributed to 

219: by the only topologically nontrivial gauge-field

220: configurations which are admissible in computing a useful a priori estimate of the thermal ground state. The average effect of domainizations of 

221: the field $\phi$, which necessarily would lead to the

222: emergence\footnote{Microscopically, the emergence of these charges is

223:   understood by the dissociation of large-holonomy, that is,

224:   strongly-deformed-away-from-the-Harrington-Shepard-situation 

225: (anti)calorons.} of spatially localized and isolated magnetic charges \cite{Kibble}, is accounted for by the quantum field theoretic method of loop

226: expansion \cite{HofmannLE2006,SHG2006,KH2007,KHG2007}. 

227: Again, to each order of this expansion, spatial isotropy

228: and homogeneity are granted features. The sector with $Q=0$ and its

229: coupling to the inert field $\phi$ after spatial coarse-graining 

230: is uniquely determined by perturbative 

231: renormalizability \cite{tHooftVeltman}, gauge invariance, and the

232: spacetime symmetries of the underlying theory, for an explicit

233: presentation see Sec.\,\ref{Uni}. 

234: 

235: Apart from 1-PI reducible diagrams for the polarization tensor, 

236: which as compared to the tree-level situation can be resummed into mildly modified

237: dispersion laws, the expansion

238: into irreducible loop diagrams is expected to terminate at a finite loop order \cite{HofmannLE2006}. Numerically, there is a large hierarchy

239: between leading, next-to-leading, and next-to-next-to-leading 

240: corrections to the pressure \cite{SHG2006,KH2007}. As far as propagating,

241: effective gauge modes are concerned, this is the reason

242: why essentially all physics is contained in the 

243: tree-level quasi-particle spectrum and the resummed, 

244: one-loop polarization \cite{SHG2006,KH2007,LH2008}. 

245: 

246: Interactions between 

247: two topologically distinct 

248: sectors are hard to grasp when working with fundamental fields. As it 

249: turns out, in a situation determined by a global temperature scale $T$

250: (infinite-volume thermodynamics) the explicit 

251: consideration of fundamental fields and their interactions 

252: would necessitate external probes whose resolution needed to exceed the 

253: value $|\phi|$ emerging in terms of the Yang-Mills scale $\Lambda$ and $T$

254: when (sufficiently locally) integrating out the sector with $|Q|=1$.

255: That is, an attempt to saturate the partition function in terms of

256: fundamental field 

257: configurations, resolved with a higher momentum transfer than $|\phi|$,

258: necessarily introduces unsurmountable complications in assuring 

259: that the according approximations sustain 

260: homogeneous and isotropic thermalization.  

261: 

262: The main purpose of the present work is to 

263: investigate the physics of screened magnetic 

264: charges, being held responsible for the emergence of an area 

265: law for the spatial Wilson loop at high temperatures in lattice gauge

266: theory. We perform the analysis both in a hypothetic microscopic fashion and by directly appealing to 

267: the effective theory. As a warm-up to the effective theory for the deconfining 

268: phase we start by showing the uniqueness of the effective action in

269: Sec.\,\ref{Uni}. In Sec.\,\ref{KA} we review the argument given by 

270: Korthals-Altes for the existence of a spatial string tension as

271: orginated by isolated, screened and statistically independent 

272: magnetic charges. This argument assumes (anti)monopoles to behave like 

273: classical (resolvable) particles which, due to sufficiently strong

274: screening, separately 

275: contribute their magnetic flux through the minimal surface spanned by

276: the spatial contour. In Sec.\,\ref{MP} we use a two-loop correction

277: to the pressure, calculated in the effective theory and surviving the

278: high-temperature limit, to extract the average mass of the

279: screened and stable monopole-antimonopole system. Subsequently, their

280: hypothetic\footnote{By hypothetic we mean a physical number 

281: density seen by applying a sufficiently large spatial 

282: resolution $a^{-1}$ to typical configurations thermalized 

283: according to an associated perfect lattice action. The latter is

284: constructed such that 

285: the full partition function of the theory is invariant under a change

286: $a\to a^\prime$. Due to an efficient magnetic-charge neutralization 

287: it will turn out that this number density appears to be 

288: zero when applying the low resolution $|\phi|$ 

289: of our effective theory. The practical advantage of the 

290: low resolution $|\phi|$ is that it renders the perfect action to be

291: extremely simple and thus useful: The assumptions of \ref{KH} about screened 

292: magnetic monopoles and antimonopoles contributing their magnetic flux essentially uncancelled 

293: through the minimal contour spanning the spatial loop can be quantitatively 

294: checked by comparing screening length with mean spatial separation.} number density

295: $n$ is determined. As an aside, 

296: we demonstrate that, despite the hypothetic screening length being about three times

297: larger than the intermonopole distance in an {\sl ensemble} of, isolated, stable and screened

298: (anti)monopoles there is no large effect on their mass when comparing

299: with the BPS 

300: mass of an {\sl isolated} monopole-antimonopole pair immersed into a sea of

301: instable dipoles. The hypothetic number density $n$ in turn would imply a spatial string tension if the potentials of these 

302: stable magnetic (anti)monopoles would not overlap such as to cancel their

303: magnetic flux. Recall that the 

304: derivation of an area law, as performed 

305: in \cite{Korthals-Altes}, relies on a counting argument for

306: Poisson distributed (anti)monopoles. This argument assumes 

307: the independence of individual (anti)monopoles contributing to the total 

308: magnetic flux through a given spatial surface.  This independence, however, turns out to be strongly violated 

309: because stable magnetic objects essentially cancel their fluxes locally through their 

310: overlaping magnetic potentials. The immediate implication then is

311: that the spatial Wilson 

312: loop cannot exhibit area-law behavior at high temperatures. We confirm this result 

313: in Sec.\,\ref{SWLE} where 

314: the spatial Wilson loop is computed involving the lowest

315: nontrivial radiative corrections for the dispersion law of the massless mode 

316: in the effective theory: A

317: resummation of the one-loop polarization of the massless mode both

318: on- and off-shell. In

319: computing the spatial Wilson loop in real time 

320: we take into account the quantum and the thermal parts of 

321: the modified propagator for the massless mode, and we discuss the

322: potential contribution of the massive modes. We also 

323: consider the magnetic screening mass, defined as the zero-momentum 

324: limit of the square root of the screening function when setting the

325: temporal component of the momentum equal to zero

326: (Secs.\,\ref{screeningmass} and \ref{vacuumpart}). In Sec.\,\ref{sum} we summarize our

327: work and conclude.  

328: 

329: \section{Only minimal coupling of $Q=0$ with $|Q|=1$ sector in the effective action for the deconfining phase\label{Uni}}

330: 

331: Here we would like to argue that the effective action of the deconfining phase  

332: %*************

333: \eqb

334: \label{effdec}

335: S_{\tiny\mbox{dec}}=\mbox{tr}\,\int d^4x\,\left\{\frac12\,

336:   G_{\mu\nu}G_{\mu\nu}+D_\mu\phi D_\mu\phi+\frac{\Lambda^6}{\phi^2}\right\}\,.

337: \eqe

338: %************* 

339: is complete. Namely, no operators representing local vertices of the field $a_\mu$ with three or 

340: more external legs together with (powers of) the field $\phi$ are possible while the nonexistence of operators of mass 

341: dimension larger than four {\sl solely} involving the gauge field $a_\mu$ is excluded 

342: by perturbative renormalizability \cite{tHooftVeltman}. Notice that nonlocal contributions 

343: to the effective action always can be expanded in powers of covariant derivatives. 

344: 

345: Examples for excluded operators, still allowed by the spacetime symmetries and gauge invariance, would be 

346: %*******

347: \eqb

348: \label{excops}

349: \mbox{tr}\,\frac{1}{M^{2(3n-2)}}\left(G_{\mu\nu}[D_\mu\phi,D_\nu\phi]\right)^n\,,\ \ (n\ge 1)\,,

350: \eqe

351: %********

352: $M$ representing some mass scale, while the operator $\mbox{tr}\,D_\mu\phi D_\mu\phi$ appearing in the action of 

353: Eq.\,(\ref{effdec}) is allowed. Fig.\,\ref{Fig-0A} depicts the situation of the allowed operator 

354: $\mbox{tr}\,D_\mu\phi D_\mu\phi$ and the $n=1$ operator of (\ref{excops}), which suffices to state our argument 

355: diagrammatically. 

356: %***********************

357: \begin{figure}

358: \begin{center}

359: \leavevmode

360: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

361: \leavevmode

362: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

363: \vspace{4.9cm}

364: \special{psfile=Fig-0A.ps angle=0 voffset=-140

365:          hoffset=-210 hscale=65 vscale=60}

366: \end{center}

367: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-0A}} Allowed vertex (a) and examples of lowest mass dimension for excluded 

368: vertices in the effective theory (b). Solid lines represent the topologically trivial gauge field $a_\mu$ while a dashed 

369: line terminating in a cross corresponds to a local insertion of the operator $\phi$. }      

370: \end{figure}

371: %************************ 

372: Field $\phi$ is energy and

373: pressure free. (Its existence is owed to $|Q|=1$ (anti)selfdual fundamental

374: configurations of trivial holonomy.) Assuming a local vertex of $\phi$ 

375: with more than three external legs (in consistency with gauge

376: invariance and spacetime symmetries) coming from the gauge fields of the

377: coarse-grained trivial-topology sector $a_\mu$ necessarily would imply momentum

378: transfer to the field $\phi$, see (b) of Fig.\,\ref{Fig-0A} for a lowest-dimension example. That is, the probability 

379: of not transferring momentum to $\phi$ for nonvanishing momenta associated with the external legs 

380: of field $a_\mu$ is zero since this situation would correspond to a hypersurface in the space of all possible momentum transfers.  But a transfer of energy-momentum to $\phi$ would change its own

381: energy-momentum to nonvanishing values. This, however,

382: contradicts $\phi$'s BPS property. For the vertex of $\phi$ with

383: two external legs of the field $a_\mu$ (mass term in unitary gauge), as it is represented by

384: the term tr\,$(D_\mu\phi)^2$ in the effective

385: action of Eq.\,(\ref{effdec}) and depicted in (a) of Fig.\,\ref{Fig-0A}, no momentum is transferred. (Massiveness of the

386: off-Cartan topologically trivial gauge field $a_\mu$  emerges only after an

387: infinite resummation of such a vertex.) The fact that the ground state as

388: such has a finite energy density in the effective theory is owed to a pure

389: gauge configuration. This configuration on the effective level sums up interactions

390: (energy-momentum transfers {\sl larger} than $|\phi|$, that is at distances smaller than $|\phi|^{-1}$) of topologically

391: trivial fundamental gauge fields with (anti)calorons which are not visible

392: at resolution lower than $|\phi|$ but lift the ground-state energy density from zero to a finite

393: value (temporary shift of holonomy plus radiative corrections).

394: 

395: To conclude, the existence of vertices involving $\phi$ and more than

396: two legs of the coarse-grained topologically trivial gauge field $a_\mu$ in the effective theory for the deconfining phase 

397: is excluded by the BPS property of $\phi$: The very existence of $\phi$,

398: which is guaranteed to emerge from the $|Q|=1$ sector of the theory upon

399: spatial coarse-graining \cite{HerbstHofmann2004,Hofmann2005,Hofmann2007}, 

400: would be contradicted by it absorbing energy-momentum {\sl after} coarse-graining.

401: 

402: As for the preconfining phase, renormalizability is trivial since we

403: coarse-grain over the noninteracting $Q=0$ sector of a U(1) (or U(1)$^2$

404: in the case SU(3)) gauge 

405: theory. Thus the same arguments as for the deconfining phase when 

406: adjusted to this simpler, abelian situation do fix the action of the

407: associated Higgs model \cite{Hofmann2005} uniquely in the preconfining phase.

408: 

409: 

410: \section{Korthals-Altes' derivation of fundamental spatial string

411:   tension\label{KA}}

412: 

413: We only consider the case of deconfining SU(2) Yang-Mills thermodynamics

414: with Yang-Mills scale $\Lambda$. In

415: the effective theory for this phase the tree-level situation is described by an

416: inert adjoint and spatially homogeneous scalar field of modulus

417: $|\phi|=\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda^3}{2\pi T^3}}$, 

418: a pure-gauge configuration of the coarse-grained $Q=0$ sector, 

419: and propagating gauge modes (one direction of the

420: SU(2) algebra massless, two directions of mass $2e|\phi|$). This

421: effective theory neatly decomposes physics into 

422: a thermal ground state (equation of state equal to that of a cosmological constant

423: but with a temperature dependent energy density) and thermally fluctuating

424: (quasi)particles \footnote{Due to the existence of the maximal resolution

425:   scale $|\phi|$ the effect of having coarse-grained gauge modes propagate off

426:   their mass shell without explicit interaction is, on the one-loop level, completely negligible for

427:   thermodynamical quantities such as the pressure \cite{Hofmann2005}.}. 

428: Notice that on tree-level this `a-priori-estimate' for the thermal ground state only

429: captures the physics of small-holonomy (anti)calorons which are associated

430: with short-lived monopole-antimonopole pairs. This leads to an 

431: explicit manifestation of spatial homogeneity and isotropy in terms of $\phi$

432: and a pure gauge $a^{gs}_\mu$ as it is demanded

433: by thermodynamics. The effects attributed to the 

434: rare occurrence of isolated, long-lived, and screened

435: magnetic charges in the plasma are captured by certain radiative corrections. This

436: can be pictured as an implicit average over domainized $\phi$-field 

437: configurations \cite{Kibble} of typical domain size smaller than $|\phi|^{-1}$

438: facilitated by the quantum field theoretic 

439: method of loop expansion in effective variables. Notice that spatial

440: homogeneity and isotropy are explicitely honored at each loop order.   

441: 

442: Before we actually establish the connection between radiative corrections to

443: the pressure as computed in the effective theory and the hypothetic 

444: physics of screened magnetic 

445: monopoles we would like to review the arguments given by Korthals-Altes

446: \cite{KH} 

447: on how a spatial string tension emerges once the existence and

448: independence of

449: isolated and screened (magnetic screening length $l_s$) magnetic charges is assumed in the

450: plasma. Korthals-Altes considers a quadratic, spatial contour of 

451: side-length $L$ and a number density of monopoles $n_M$. Since monopoles are

452: created pairwise by the dissociation of large-holonomy calorons

453: \footnote{Notice that the occurrence of a nontrivial caloron holonomy in the sense

454: of a spacetime independent parameter, as it occurs in (anti)selfdual Yang-Mills 

455: fields, is unphysical because of the vanishing impact of these configurations

456: onto the partition function \cite{GPY1981}. In case of small

457: holonomy it is still

458: useful though to think of the holonomy parameter as possessing a

459: finite-support real-time dependence of width that is comparable to the

460: life-time of the monopole-antimonopole pair. Upon a continuation of this real-time

461: dependence back to the euclidean a departure from

462: (anti)selfduality takes place.} one has $n_M=n_A\equiv n$ where $n_A$ is the

463: number density of antimonopoles. Furthermore, he assumes (and justifies this

464: assumption by lattice data obtained with the Wilson action) 

465: that monopoles and

466: antimonopoles fluctuate in an independent way and that they are rare. This is

467: certainly true if the screening length $l_s$ is much smaller than the mean

468: interparticle distance $d=\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^{1/3}$. We will show

469: in Sec.\,\ref{dens}, however, that this situation is actually {\sl not}

470: realized. Still, the mass of the screened

471: monopole-antimonopole system 

472: is close to its BPS bound. 

473: 

474: By virtue of the length scale $l_s$ Korthals-Altes considers 

475: a slab of thickness $2l_s$ containing magnetic quasiparticles. These quasiparticles contribute a mean 

476: magnetic flux through the minimal surface spanned by the afore-mentioned 

477: contour. Only

478: those quasiparticle that are contained within the slab are held responsible

479: for the flux. A more refined treatment introducing no such

480: constraint but taking into account

481: a Yukawa-like potential for the static magnetic field sourced by each of these

482: objects 

483: yields similar results. 

484: 

485: As a brief interlude, we name an important property of these 

486: monopole-antimonopole pairs. Since we know now that pairs of magnetic monopoles and

487: antimonopoles are liberated through the dissociation of large-holonomy

488: (anti)calorons we also know -- by studying the BPS (anti)monopole constituents in

489: such (anti)calorons \cite{NahmVanBaalLeeLu} -- 

490: that the combined mass $m\equiv m_M+m_A$ of the monopole and its

491: antimonopole (a holonomy-independent quantity) is roughly given as 

492: \cite{NahmVanBaalLeeLu}

493: %***********

494: \eqb

495: \label{monAmonMass}   

496: m\sim\frac{8\pi^2 T}{e}=\sqrt{8}\pi\,T\sim 8.89\,T\,.

497: \eqe

498: %***********

499: Here the high-temperature plateau-value $e=\sqrt{8}\,\pi$ 

500: for the {\sl effective} gauge coupling $e$ was used 

501: \cite{Hofmann2005,Hofmann2007,GiacosaHofmann2007}. 

502: Eq.\,(\ref{monAmonMass}) is valid for an isolated, noninteracting (test)

503: monopole-antimonopole system with their magnetic charges being 

504: screened by the surrounding, short-lived magnetic dipoles belonging to

505: small-holonomy (anti)calorons. This is the situation described by the

506: one-loop expressions for thermodynamical quantities in the effective theory. 

507: By virtue of Eq.\,(\ref{monAmonMass}) magnetic monopoles and

508: antimonopoles appear as nonrelativistic objects in the plasma. 

509: They are Boltzmann suppressed as

510: %************

511: \eqb

512: \label{Boltzmann}

513: P_{M+A}\sim \exp(-\sqrt{8}\pi)\sim 1.4\times 10^{-4}\,,

514: \eqe

515: %************

516: and thus occur rarely as compared to the instable pairs 

517: that are associated with small (anti)caloron holonomies.   

518: 

519: Now Korthals-Altes exponentiates the 

520: normalized flux $\Phi_{l=1}$ of a single (anti)monopole through the minimal

521: surface spanned by the contour in the limit $L\to\infty$ as

522: %***********

523: \eqb

524: \label{V(L)}

525: \left.V(L)\right|_{l=1}\equiv \exp\left(2\pi i \frac{\Phi_{l=1}}{Q}\right)\,,

526: \eqe

527: %***********

528: where $Q$ is the magnetic charge. 

529: Depending on the sign of $Q$ and on the location w.r.t. the minimal 

530: surface one has $\Phi_{l=1}=\pm \frac12$ and thus

531: %***********

532: \eqb

533: \label{V(L)aus}

534: \left.V(L)\right|_{l=1}\equiv -1\,.

535: \eqe

536: %***********

537: Korthals-Altes now assumes 

538: the probability $P(l)$ for the occurrence of $l$

539: charges within the slab to be given by the Poisson distribution 

540: %**********

541: \eqb

542: \label{Poisson}

543: P(l)=\frac{\bar{l}^l}{l!}\,\exp(-\bar{l})\,,

544: \eqe

545: %***********

546: where $\bar{l}$ is the mean value of the number of magnetic charges 

547: contained inside the slab. One then obtains 

548: %**********

549: \eqb

550: \label{meanflux}

551: \bar{V}(L)=\sum_{l=0}^\infty P(l) (-1)^l=\exp(-2\bar{l})\,.

552: \eqe

553: %***********

554: Since $\bar{l}=4\,A(L)l_s n(T)$, where $A(L)$ is the minimal surface and

555: $n(T)$ is the (temperature-dependent) density of monopoles (or antimonopoles

556: or monopole-antimonopole pairs), we observe that the Wilson loop shows area

557: law with tension $\sigma_s$ given as 

558: %**********

559: \eqb

560: \label{sigma_s}

561: \sigma_s=8\,l_s n(T)\,.

562: \eqe

563: %***********

564: Notice that 

565: the hypothetic magnetic screening length $l_s$ is given in terms of $n$

566: and $T$ as \cite{KH}

567: %**********

568: \eqb

569: \label{magscl}

570: l_s=\frac{1}{g}\sqrt{\frac{T}{n}}\,,

571: \eqe

572: %***********

573: where $g$ is the magnetic coupling: $g\equiv\frac{4\pi}{e}$. 

574: 

575: 

576: \section{Monopole physics from two-loop correction to the pressure \label{MP}}

577: 

578: In this section we would like to investigate the high-temperature

579: implications of the radiative corrections to the pressure, calculated in

580: the effective theory, for the physics of unresolved, stable and screened

581: magnetic monopoles and antimonopoles as they emerge from the

582: dissociation of large-holonomy (anti)calorons. Notice 

583: that the density of these objects is inferred purely 

584: energetically without making reference to the existence or nonexistence 

585: of their net magnetic fluxes.    

586: 

587: 

588: \subsection{Mass of interacting monopole-antimonopole system}   

589: 

590: On distances larger than the minimal spatial length \cite{Hofmann2005}

591: %************

592: \eqb

593: \label{phiinTc}

594: |\phi|^{-1}=\frac{(13.87)^{3/2}}{2\pi T_c}\,\sqrt{\frac{T}{T_c}}

595: \eqe

596: %***********

597: and not taking into account radiatively liberated stable and isolated

598: monopole-antimonopole pairs, the depletion of a single magnetic test charge is

599: described by the effective, electric coupling $e=\sqrt{8}\pi$ for $T\gg

600: T_c$. Notice that the (constant) value of $e$ signals that for $T\gg T_c$ the

601: system forgets about the presence of the Yang-Mills scale 

602: $\Lambda$ as far as its propagating degrees of freedom are concerned: The 

603: thermodynamics of these modes then solely is determined by 

604: topology and temperature. This fact may be conceived as a

605: nonperturbative manifestation of asymptotic freedom.

606: 

607: It is important to stress that the effective, electric coupling rapidly 

608: approaching the constant $e=\sqrt{8}\pi$ at increasing temperature is a 

609: consequence of an evolution equation assuring that the interaction of the thermal ground state with propagating quasiparticle excitations honours Legendre transformations 

610: \cite{Hofmann2005, Hofmann2007}. The constancy $e=\sqrt{8}\pi$ is approached 

611: power-like fast in $T$. So the error of using the constant 

612: $e=\sqrt{8}\pi$, which is a lower bound on the behavior close to the phase transition, at moderate temperatures dies off in a power-like way. In \cite{SHG2006} 

613: we have used the exact evolution of $e$ and, indeed, have observed, within a few percent variation, the asymptotic constancy of the two-loop correction to the pressure divided by $T^4$ starting from $T=3\,T_c$. Asymptotic constancy of $e$ is not to be confused with the behavior of the {\sl fundamental} gauge coupling which can be defined via the trace anomaly of the energy-momentum tensor \cite{GiacosaHofmann2007}. The latter approaches zero logarithmically 

614: slowly with increasing $T$.

615: 

616: The holonomy-independent sum $m$ of the masses of the BPS monopole and 

617: BPS antimonopole (BPS mass), being the constituents of a nontrivial-holonomy (anti)caloron, is given

618: as \cite{Hofmann2005,NahmVanBaalLeeLu}

619: %************

620: \eqb

621: \label{sumofmasses}

622: m_{>|\phi|^{-1}}=\frac{8\pi^2 T}{e}=\sqrt{8}\pi\,T\,.

623: \eqe

624: %***********

625: Notice that Eq.\,(\ref{sumofmasses}) describes the situation of a pair of BPS 

626: saturated monopole and antimonopole placed as test charges into a surrounding where

627: small-holonomy (anti)calorons generate short-lived magnetic 

628: dipoles effectively leading to a finite renormalization of the 

629: magnetic charge of the test particles. Here no departure from the BPS 

630: limit is implied, and the U(1) gauge 

631: field of the test (anti)monopole still is infinite-range. A linear

632: superposition of these potentials then leads to a dipole form which for

633: large distances $R$ decays like $1/R^3$. This

634: corresponds to the approximation of a massless and 

635: two massive {\sl free} thermal quasiparticles in the

636: effective theory (tree-level).    

637:  

638: On the level of radiative corrections, however, we are 

639: concerned with the physics of isolated, stable magnetic charges whose average 

640: distance $n^{-1/3}$ at high temperature will be given by $n^{-1/3}=c/T$

641: where $c$ is a positive, real constant (determined in

642: Sec.\,\ref{dens}). Thus 

643: %************

644: \eqb

645: \label{ratiolength}

646: |\phi|\,n^{-1/3}=2\pi c\,\left(\frac{T_c}{13.87\, T}\right)^{3/2}\,,

647: \eqe

648: %************

649: which is smaller than unity for sufficiently high $T$. In fact, an 

650: estimate implies that for $T\ge 1.91\,T_c$ isolated and screened

651: (anti)monopoles are not resolved in the effective theory. 

652: This estimate uses the high-temperature value

653: $e=\sqrt{8}\,\pi$ for the effective gauge coupling. A more careful 

654: investigation for $T$ shortly above $T_c$ shows that isolated and screened

655: (anti)monopoles actually are never fully resolved in the effective theory for the 

656: deconfining phase. However, their effect on the propagation of the tree-level

657: massless gauge mode is sizable at temperatures a few times $T_c$ \cite{SHG2006,LH2008}.  

658: 

659: To make contact with degrees of freedom, whose

660: collective long-distance effects are detectable (antiscreening and screening of effective 

661: gauge-field propagation) but which never appear 

662: explicitely in the effective theory, we may consider the situation of thermally fluctuating,  

663: free quasiparticles (one-loop truncation of loop expansion of the

664: pressure) 

665: as the asymptotic starting 

666: point. Small interactions between the quasiparticles, as they are described by

667: radiative corrections (for $T\gg T_c$ only the two-loop diagram 

668: involving a four-vertex connecting on shell a massless with

669: either of the two massive modes survives) introduce interesting

670: physics but do not change the energy density of the 

671: one-loop situation. The important implication then is that radiative

672: corrections to the one-loop situation, calculable in the effective theory,

673: must be {\sl cancelled} by the physics of unresolved degrees of freedom on the

674: level of thermodynamic quantities. By

675: the result of \cite{Diakonov}, which shows that (anti)calorons dissociate upon

676: strong quantum deformation into isolated magnetic monopole--antimonopole pairs, we are led

677: to conclude that these degrees of freedom are indeed isolated, stable, and screened magnetic

678: monopoles and antimonopoles.   

679: 

680: Thus we need to compute the mass $m$ of monopole-antimonopole systems for distances of the order of 

681: $n^{-1/3}$. Since the spatial coarse-graining, which determines the field

682: $\phi$, saturates exponentially fast on distances of a few $\beta\equiv 1/T$

683: \cite{Hofmann2007,HerbstHofmann2004} we expect that 

684: %************

685: \eqb

686: \label{ratiomasses}

687: \frac{m}{m_{>|\phi|^{-1}}}=O(1)  

688: \eqe

689: %************

690: which, indeed, is the case. Let us show this. 

691: 

692: As mentioned above, at large temperatures the two-loop diagram for the pressure 

693: involving a four-vertex connecting a massless with

694: either of the two massive modes is the only surviving 

695: radiative correction \cite{SHG2006,HerbstHofmannRohrer2004}. For $T\gg T_c$

696: one has \cite{SHG2006}

697: %************

698: \eqb

699: \label{Prescorr} 

700: \frac{\Delta P_{\tiny\mbox{2-loop}}}{P_{\tiny\mbox{1-loop}}}=-4.39\times

701: 10^{-4}\,,

702: \eqe

703: %************

704: where $\Delta P_{\tiny\mbox{2-loop}}\equiv

705: P_{\tiny\mbox{2-loop}}-P_{\tiny\mbox{1-loop}}$. 

706: Since for $T\gg T_c$ we have \cite{Hofmann2005}

707: %************

708: \eqb

709: \label{Pres1loop}

710: P_{\tiny\mbox{1-loop}}=\frac{4}{45}\pi^2\,T^4

711: \eqe

712: %************

713: the correction $\Delta P_{\tiny\mbox{2-loop}}$ is also proportional to

714: $T^4$. Now $\Delta P_{\tiny\mbox{2-loop}}$ and the associated energy density

715: $\Delta\rho_{\tiny\mbox{2-loop}}$, which both are negative, must obey

716: the following relation\footnote{Legendre transformations are linear and thus 

717: hold for each order in the loop expansion separately when integrating out

718: residual quantum fluctuations.}   

719: %************

720: \eqb

721: \label{enecorr}

722: \Delta\rho_{\tiny\mbox{2-loop}}=T\frac{d\Delta

723:   P_{\tiny\mbox{2-loop}}}{dT}-\Delta P_{\tiny\mbox{2-loop}}\,.

724: \eqe

725: %************

726: Eq.\,(\ref{enecorr}) and the fact that $\Delta

727: P_{\tiny\mbox{2-loop}}\propto T^4$ imply an equation of state 

728: %************

729: \eqb

730: \label{eos}

731: \Delta\rho_{\tiny\mbox{2-loop}}=3\,\Delta P_{\tiny\mbox{2-loop}}\,,

732: \eqe

733: %************

734: and Eq.\,(\ref{Prescorr}) tells us that the thermal 

735: energy density $\Delta\rho_{M+A}$, attributed to the

736: presence of unresolved, screened, isolated pairs of (no

737: longer BPS saturated) magnetic monopoles and 

738: antimonopoles is given as\footnote{Since the process of (anti)caloron dissociation, creating pairs of isolated and screened magnetic 

739: (anti)monopoles subject to an exact, overall charge neutrality, is irreversible the density of these objects is sharply fixed 

740: at a given temperature. Thus there is no chemical potential associated with monopole-antimonopole pairs.}

741: %**********

742: \eab

743: \label{monpairdensenrg}

744:  \frac{\Delta\rho_{M+A}}{T^4}&\equiv&\frac{1}{2\pi^2} \int_{\mu}^\infty

745:  dy\,\sqrt{y^2-\mu^2}\,y^2\,n_B(y)\stackrel{!}=-\frac{\Delta\rho_{\tiny\mbox{2-loop}}}{T^4}\nonumber\\

746:  &=&4.39\times 10^{-4}\times \frac{4}{15}\pi^2\,,

747: \eae

748: %*********

749: where $\mu\equiv m/T$ and $n_B(y)\equiv 1/(\exp(y)-1)$. The only

750: positive solution $\mu$ of Eq.\,(\ref{monpairdensenrg}) is

751: numerically given as $\mu=10.1224$. Thus we have 

752: %************

753: \eqb

754: \label{ratiomassesnum}

755: \frac{m}{m_{>|\phi|^{-1}}}=1.139\,.  

756: \eqe

757: %************

758: The effect of all other, screened, isolated, and stable

759: (anti)monopoles, generated by the dissociation of large-holonomy

760: (anti)calorons, hence is a lift of the mass of the system by about 

761: 14\% above the BPS bound even though the hypothetic magnetic

762: screening length $l_s$ at high $T$ is larger than the mean 

763: interparticle distance $\bar{d}$, see Sec.\,\ref{dens}. 

764: 

765: \subsection{Monopole density, (anti)monopole distance, and screening length\label{dens}}

766: 

767: Knowing that $\mu=10.1224$ we now can 

768: compute the hypothetic monopole density $n$ as

769: %******

770: \eqb

771: \label{density}

772: n=\frac{T^3}{2\pi^2}\int_\mu^\infty

773: dy\,y\sqrt{y^2-\mu^2}\,n_B(y)=9.799\times 10^{-5}\,T^3\,.

774: \eqe

775: %********

776: For reasons of symmetry there is a {\sl universal} mean monopole-antimonopole

777: distance $\bar{d}$. That is, the distance between a monopole and its

778: antimonopole, both stemming from the dissociation of the same

779: (anti)caloron, is, on average, the same as the distance between a monopole

780: adjacent to an antimonopole who did not originate from the same (anti)caloron. 

781: From Eq.\,(\ref{density}) we have

782: %******

783: \eqb

784: \label{distance}

785: \bar{d}=n^{-1/3}=21.691\,\beta\,.

786: \eqe

787: %******

788: Thus the constant $c$ in Eq.\,(\ref{ratiolength}) is given as

789: $c=21.691$, and the right-hand side of (\ref{ratiolength}) is smaller

790: than unity for $T>2\,T_c$. That is, isolated and screened

791: (anti)monopoles are {\sl not resolved} at high temperatures in the

792: effective theory. Because the magnetic flux of a given pair essentially

793: cancels due to the large overlap of magnetic potentials no area law is 

794: to take place for the spatial Wilson

795: loop, see Eq.\,(\ref{ratioscdis}). 

796: This is in accord with our investigation performed in Sec.\,\ref{SWLE}. 

797: 

798: By virtue of Eqs.\,(\ref{magscl}) and (\ref{density}) the hypothetic magnetic 

799: screening length $l_s$ is given as

800: %**********

801: \eqb

802: \label{magscl}

803: l_s=\frac{1}{g}\sqrt{\frac{T}{n}}=\frac{e}{4\pi}\,(21.691)^{3/2}\,\beta=71.43\,\beta\,.

804: \eqe

805: %***********

806: Thus we have 

807: %**********

808: \eqb

809: \label{ratioscdis}

810: \frac{l_s}{\bar{d}}=3.293\,.

811: \eqe

812: %*********

813: Eq.\,(\ref{ratioscdis}) tells us that monopoles and 

814: antimonopoles are not far separated on the scale of their screening 

815: length. Notice that both of these length scales are much 

816: smaller than $|\phi|^{-1}$. However, the impact of all other stable and screened 

817: monopoles and antimonopoles on a given stable 

818: pair is small due to efficient cancellations of mutual 

819: attraction or repulsion. This is expressed by the small lift of the BPS

820: mass $m_{>|\phi|^{-1}}$, compare with Eq.\,(\ref{ratiomassesnum}).    

821:  

822: 

823: \section{Spatial Wilson loop in effective variables\label{SWLE}}

824: 

825: The effective theory for deconfining SU(2) Yang-Mills theory and the

826: computation of radiative corrections to the pressure 

827: is described at length in \cite{Hofmann2005,Hofmann2007,SHG2006}. We only

828: name those results explicitely that are directly needed and for the

829: remainder refer the reader to these 

830: papers.    

831: 

832: \subsection{Magnetic screening mass\label{screeningmass}}

833: 

834: The SU(2) gauge symmetry of the fundamental action is 

835: dynamically broken to U(1) by coarse-grained (anti)calorons. Notice that the order parameter 

836: $\phi$ of this gauge-symmetry breaking is determined in a highly 

837: nonlocal way \cite{Hofmann2007,HerbstHofmann2004} thus appealing to the strong magnetic-magnetic 

838: correlations mediated by the $|Q|=1$ (anti)caloron configuration of trivial 

839: holonomy \cite{HS1977}.

840: 

841: In unitary-Coulomb gauge there are in the effective theory on 

842: tree-level one massless vector excitation (hencefore referred to as $\gamma$)

843: and two thermal vector quasiparticle excitations (hencefore referred to as

844: $V^\pm$). The transversal $\gamma$ polarization

845: tensor $\Pi^{\mu\nu}$ is decomposed as 

846: %*********

847: \eqb

848: \label{Pidec}

849: \Pi^{\mu\nu}=G(p_0,\vec{p})\,P^{\mu\nu}_T+F(p_0,\vec{p})\,P^{\mu\nu}_L

850: \eqe

851: %*********

852: where 

853: %*********

854: \eqb

855: \label{PL}

856: P^{\mu\nu}_L\equiv \frac{p^\mu p^\nu}{p^2}-g^{\mu\nu}-P^{\mu\nu}_T\,,

857: \eqe

858: %*********

859: and

860: %*********

861: \eab

862: \label{transproj}

863: P^{00}_T&=&P^{0i}_T=P^{i0}_T=0\,,\nonumber\\ 

864: P^{00}_T&=&\delta^{ij}-p^ip^j/\vec{p}^2\,.

865: \eae

866: %*********

867: The functions $G(p_0,\vec{p})$ and $F(p_0,\vec{p})$ determine the propagation of 

868: the interacting $\gamma$ mode. For $\mu=\nu=0$ Eq.\,(\ref{Pidec}) yields upon rotation 

869: to real-time 

870: %********

871: \eqb

872: \label{P00F}

873: F(p_0,\vec{p})=\left(1+\frac{p_0^2}{p^2}\right)^{-1}\,\Pi^{00}\,.

874: \eqe

875: %********

876: The function $F(p_0,\vec{p})$ measures the screening of electric 

877: fields which we are not interested in when discussing the {\sl spatial} Wilson

878: loop. For propagation of the $\gamma$ mode into the 3-direction we have

879: %********

880: \eqb

881: \label{gxxgyy}

882: \Pi_{11}=\Pi_{22}=G(p_0,\vec{p})\,.

883: \eqe

884: %******** 

885: From the magnetic screening function $G(p_0,\vec{p})$ we obtain a definition for the magnetic screening $m_s$ as

886: %********

887: \eqb

888: \label{ms}

889: m_s\equiv \lim_{\vec{p}\to 0}\sqrt{\mbox{Re}\,G(p_0=0,\vec{p})}\,.

890: \eqe

891: %********

892: In Eqs.\,(\ref{gxxgyy}) and (\ref{ms}) we have suppressed the dependence on temperature

893: of the magnetic screening function $G$. The radiatively generated mass scale $m_s$ measures the exponential

894: decay rate of an externally applied, homogeneous magnetic field

895: $B_i=\epsilon_{ijk} G^3_{jk}$ penetrating the

896: Yang-Mills plasma. In the effective theory, 

897: the screening function $G$ only has support 

898: for the four-momentum $p$ satisfying the constraint 

899: %****

900: \eqb

901: \label{constr}

902: |p^2-G(p^0,\vec{p})|\le |\phi|^2\,,

903: \eqe

904: %****

905: where $|\phi|$ is the (temperature-dependent) modulus of the 

906: inert, adjoint scalar field $\phi$ emerging as a consequence of

907: spatial coarse-graining over the stable BPS sector with topological

908: charge modulus $|Q|=1$. Eq.\,(\ref{constr}) is the condition that a propagating effective tree-level massless gauge mode in physical Coulomb-unitary gauge must not be further off its radiatively induced mass shell 

909: then the scale $|\phi|$ of maximal resolution.

910: 

911: In Fig.\,\ref{Fig-1} the two diagrams a priori 

912: contributing to $\Pi^{\mu\nu}$ are depicted. 

913: %***********************

914: \begin{figure}

915: \begin{center}

916: \leavevmode

917: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

918: \leavevmode

919: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

920: \vspace{4.9cm}

921: \special{psfile=Fig-1.ps angle=0 voffset=-160

922:          hoffset=-195 hscale=90 vscale=60}

923: \end{center}

924: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-1}} The diagrams for $\gamma$'s 

925: polarization tensor $\Pi_{\mu\nu}$.}      

926: \end{figure}

927: %************************ 

928: Using standard Feynamn rules, we have for diagram A 

929: \begin{equation}

930: \label{Anproc}

931: \begin{split}

932: \Pi^{\mu\nu}_{A}(p)\,=\,& 

933: \frac{1}{2i}\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} e^2 

934: 	\epsilon_{ace}[g^{\mu\rho}(-p-k)^\lambda+g^{\rho\lambda}(k-p+k)^\mu+g^{\lambda\mu}(p-k+p)^\rho]\times\\

935: & \epsilon_{dbf}[g^{\sigma\nu}(-k-p)^\kappa+g^{\nu\kappa}(p+p-k)^\sigma+g^{\kappa\sigma}(-p+k+k)^\nu]\times\\

936: &(-\delta_{cd})\left(g_{\rho\sigma}-\frac{k_\rho k_\sigma}{m^2}\right) 

937: \left[\frac{i}{k^2-m^2}+2\pi\delta(k^2-m^2)\,n_B(|k_0|/T) \right]\times\\

938: &(-\delta_{ef})\left(g_{\lambda\kappa}-\frac{(p-k)_\lambda(p-k)_\kappa}{(p-k)^2}\right)\times\\

939: &\left[\frac{i}{(p-k)^2-m^2}+2\pi\delta((p-k)^2-m^2)\,n_B(|p_0-k_0|/T) \right]\,.

940: \end{split}

941: \end{equation}

942: From the one-loop evolution \cite{Hofmann2005} we know that $e\ge

943: \sqrt{8\pi}$ \cite{Hofmann2007}. Due to constraint $|k^2-m^2|\le

944: |\phi|^2$ \cite{Hofmann2005}, where $m=2e\,|\phi|$, the vacuum part in the $V^\pm$ propagator is 

945: forbidden. For an explicit presentation of the $\gamma$ and $V^\pm$ 

946: real-time propagators see Eqs.\,(\ref{Vpm}) and (\ref{gamma}).

947: 

948: Diagram B 

949: reads

950: \begin{equation}

951: \label{vactad}

952: \begin{split}

953: \Pi^{\mu\nu}_{B}(p)\,=\,&\frac{1}{i} \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} 

954: (-\delta_{ab}) \left( g_{\rho\sigma}-\frac{k_\rho k_\sigma}{m^2} \right)  

955: \left[\frac{i}{k^2-m^2}+2\pi\delta(k^2-m^2)n_B(|k_0|/T) \right]\times\\

956:  & \quad (-ie^2)[

957:  \epsilon_{abe}\epsilon_{cde}(g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma}-g^{\mu\sigma}g^{\nu\rho})

958:  +\epsilon_{ace}\epsilon_{bde}(g^{\mu\nu}g^{\rho\sigma}-g^{\mu\sigma}g^{\nu\rho})+\\

959:  &\quad\epsilon_{ade}\epsilon_{bce}(g^{\mu\nu}g^{\rho\sigma}-g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma})]\,.

960: \end{split}

961: \end{equation}

962: Again, the part in Eq.\,(\ref{vactad}) arising from the vacuum contribution in 

963: Eq.\,(\ref{Vpm}) vanishes. For the four-vertex in diagram B the

964: following constraint holds \cite{Hofmann2005}: $|(p+k)^2|\le

965: |\phi|^2$. 

966: 

967: It is easily seen that only diagram B contributes to 

968: $m_s$. Generalizing $m_s\to m_s(p_0=0,|\vec{p}|)$ within the finite

969: support in $\vec{p}$ given by the condition (\ref{constr}) now

970: specializing to $|\vec{p}^2+G(p^0=0,\vec{p})|\le |\phi|^2$, we obtain a behavior as

971: depicted in Fig.\,\ref{G} in dependence of

972:   $X=|\vec{p}|/T$. 

973: %******************

974: \begin{figure}

975: \begin{center}

976: %\leavevmode

977: %%\epsfxsize=9.cm

978: %\leavevmode

979: %%\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

980: \vspace{5.8cm}

981: \special{psfile=Fig-G.ps angle=0 voffset=-5

982:          hoffset=40 hscale=50  vscale=44}

983: \end{center}

984: \caption{\protect{\label{G}}The function $\mbox{Re}\,G/T^2$ in dependence of

985:   $X=|\vec{p}|/T$ setting $p_0=0$ for $T=2\,T_c$ (black) and $T=3\,T_c$ (gray).}

986: \end{figure}

987: %******************

988: From Fig.\,\ref{G} and comparing with Eq.\,(\ref{ms}) one sees 

989: that $m_s=0$ which is in agreement with our

990: microscopic analysis of Sec.\,\ref{MP}. Recall that due to the

991: unresolvability of stable and screened monopole-antimopole 

992: pairs no net monopole or antimonopole density\footnote{In contrast to

993:   Sec.\,\ref{dens} we are here concerned with the monopole density 

994: as seen in our {\sl effective} theory at 

995: resolution $|\phi|$ and not with the 

996: hypothetic monopole density detected by a higher resolution.} 

997: is detected and thus, according 

998: to Eq.\,(\ref{magscl}), $l_s\equiv 1/m_s=\infty$. 

999: 

1000: 

1001: \subsection{Generalities on spatial Wilson loop in effective theory\label{GSWE}}

1002: 

1003: To compute a Wilson loop in effective 

1004: variables associated with a given, finite resolution $\mu$ is in general something different than the definition in fundamental variables at infinite resolution demands. 

1005: However, at finite temperature in the deconfining phase of a 

1006: Yang-Mills theory there is only one resolution scale where the effective action minimally differs from the fundamental action: at $\mu=|\phi|$ technically topologically trivial and nontrivial field configurations 

1007: are separated modulo mass generation and constraints on the hardness of quantum fluctuations of the former imposed by the latter. Since an ensemble average over 

1008: isolated and screened magnetic monopoles is generated by the radiative corrections 

1009: in the effective theory it is suggestive that the spatial Wilson loop evaluated on propagating gauge mode conveying the magnetic flux of the effective theory, with a resummation of the lowest-order radiative effects (polarization tensor) indeed, measures the flux sourced by the ensemble of 

1010: magnetic monopoles determining the polarization tensor. This argument is purely intuitive, 

1011: and no proof of this suggested property is yet available.      

1012: 

1013: Here we quote some general results on the calculation 

1014: of exponentiated one-effective-gauge-boson exchanges within the spatial

1015: quadratic contour $C$ of side-length $L$. 

1016: 

1017: In order to calculate the spatial string tension, we use an expansion

1018: into loops for the $N$-point functions in the effective theory \cite{Bassetto}. Because of the rapid

1019: numerical convergence of the effective loop expansion

1020: \cite{SHG2006,HofmannLE2006,KH2007} we are content here 

1021: with a resummation of the one-loop polarization tensor for the $\gamma$ 

1022: mode into its effective propagator and the tree-level propagator for the

1023: $V^\pm$ modes (2-point functions). The exchange of these 

1024: modes is subsequently exponentiated in order to take into 

1025: account higher $N$-point functions in a trivial way, see Fig.\,\ref{Wilson}.   

1026: 

1027: Thus we can write for the logarithm of $W[C]$

1028: \begin{equation}

1029: \ln W[C]=-\frac{1}{2}C_F \oint\!dx_\mu dy_\nu\,D_{\mu\nu}(x-y)\,,

1030: \end{equation}

1031: where $C_F$ denotes the Dynkin index in the fundamental representation, 

1032: defined as the normalization factor of the generators of the algebra (i.e. $C_F\equiv\frac{1}{2}$), and

1033: \begin{equation}

1034: D_{\mu\nu}=\sum\limits_{a=1}^3 D_{\mu\nu}^{(a)}

1035: \end{equation}

1036: is the sum of the tree-level propagators ($V^\pm$ corresponds to $a=1,2$) and the one-loop 

1037: resummed propagator ($\gamma$ corresponds to $a=3$). 

1038: 

1039: The tree-level propagators for $a=1,2$ in 

1040: position space are given as the Fourier transformations of their momentum space counterparts

1041: \begin{equation}

1042: \label{Vpm}

1043: D_{\mu\nu}^{1,2}(\beta,x-y)

1044: =-\int\!\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\,\e^{-ip(x-y)}\left(g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{m^2}

1045: \right)\left[\frac{i}{p^2-m^2+i\varepsilon}

1046: +2\pi\delta(p^2-m^2)n_B(\beta|p_0|)\right]\,.

1047: \end{equation}

1048: The one-loop resummation of the magnetic part\footnote{We are not

1049:   interested in electric screening effects since we study the {\sl

1050:     spatial} Wilson loop.} of the polarization

1051: tensor (screening function $G$) into the dressed 

1052: $\gamma$ propagator, see

1053: Eq.\,\ref{Pidec}, yields the following result 

1054: \begin{equation}

1055: \label{gamma}

1056: D_{\mu\nu}^{3}(\beta,x-y)

1057: =\int\!\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\,\e^{-ip(x-y)}

1058: \left[P^T_{\mu\nu}\left(\frac{i}{p^2-G(p^0,\vec{p})+i\varepsilon}

1059: +2\pi\delta(p^2-G(p^0,\vec{p}))n_B(\beta|p_0|)\right)-i\frac{u_\mu u_\nu}{\vec{p}^2}\right]\,,

1060: \end{equation}

1061: where the transversal projection operator is given as

1062: \begin{eqnarray}

1063: P^T_{00}(p)&=&P^T_{0i}(p)=P^T_{i0}(p)=0\nonumber\\

1064: P^T_{ij}(p)&=&\delta_{ij}-\frac{p_i p_j}{\vec{p}^2}.

1065: \end{eqnarray}

1066: We calculate the contour integral in the 1-2-plane, that is $x_0=y_0=x_3=y_3=0$,

1067: and consider at first an arbitrary propagator $D_{\mu\nu}(p)$. 

1068: Later we will insert the explicit expressions for $D_{\mu\nu}^{1,2}$

1069: ($V^\pm$ gauge modes) and for $D_{\mu\nu}^{3}$ ($\gamma$ mode).

1070: We obtain \cite{KellerDA}

1071: \begin{eqnarray}

1072: \label{konturintegral}

1073: \ln W[C]&=&-\frac{1}{4}\int \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\oint\oint dx_\mu dy_\nu

1074:   D_{\mu\nu}(p)\,\e^{-ip(x-y)}\left.\right|_{x_0=y_0=x_3=y_3=0}\nonumber\\

1075: &=&-4\int \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\,\sin^2\left(\frac{p_1L}{2}\right)\sin^2\left(\frac{p_2L}{2}\right)

1076:   \left(\frac{D_{11}}{p_1^2}-\frac{D_{12}}{p_1p_2}

1077:   -\frac{D_{21}}{p_1p_2}+\frac{D_{22}}{p_2^2}\right)\,.

1078: \end{eqnarray}

1079: %******************

1080: \begin{figure}

1081: \begin{center}

1082: %\leavevmode

1083: %%\epsfxsize=9.cm

1084: %\leavevmode

1085: %%\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

1086: \vspace{5.3cm}

1087: \special{psfile=Fig-Wilson.ps angle=0 voffset=-5

1088:          hoffset=55 hscale=50  vscale=40}

1089: \end{center}

1090: \caption{\protect{\label{Wilson}Illustration of the diagrammatic

1091:     approach. 

1092: Every summand in this formula represents a whole 

1093: class of $N$-gauge-boson exchange diagrams, which is encoded in terms of a

1094: (suppressed) 

1095: combinatoric factor.}}

1096: \end{figure}

1097: %******************

1098:  

1099: \subsection{Thermal part due to massive modes\label{massive}}

1100: 

1101: Here we present the result for the contribution of the (thermal part of)

1102: the $V^\pm$ propagators to the logarithm of the spatial Wilson

1103: loop. Inserting the thermal part of the $V^\pm$ propagator in

1104: Eq.\,(\ref{Vpm}) into Eq.\,(\ref{konturintegral}, we have

1105: %*********

1106: \eqb

1107: \label{VpmWL}

1108: \ln W[C]_{V^\pm}=\frac{1}{\pi^3}\int\!d^3p\,

1109: \frac{\sin^2\left(\frac{p_1L}{2}\right)\sin^2\left(\frac{p_2L}{2}\right)}

1110: {\sqrt{p_1^2+p_2^2+p_3^2+m^2}}

1111: n_B(\beta\sqrt{p_1^2+p_2^2+p_3^2+m^2})\left(\frac{1}{p_1^2}+\frac{1}{p_2^2}\right)\,.

1112: \eqe

1113: %********

1114: Let us now rescale the momenta $p_i$ 

1115: and the squared $V^\pm$ mass $m^2$ in Eq.\,(\ref{VpmWL}) 

1116: to dimensionless variables as follows

1117: \begin{equation}

1118: \hat{p_i}=p_i\cdot L\,,

1119: \end{equation}

1120: and using $e=\sqrt{8}\pi$,

1121: \begin{equation}

1122: \hat{m}^2=\frac{m^2}{T^2}=\frac{(2e)^2}{T^2}\frac{\Lambda}{2\pi T}=\frac{128\pi^4}{\lambda^3}\,,

1123: \end{equation}

1124: where $L$ is the side-length of the spatial quadratic contour $C$. 

1125: To eventually perform the limit $L\rightarrow\infty$, we introduce the 

1126: dimensionless parameter $\tau$ as 

1127: \begin{equation}

1128: \label{tau}

1129: \tau=T\cdot L\,.

1130: \end{equation}

1131: Eq.\,(\ref{VpmWL}) is then recast as

1132: %*********

1133: \eqb

1134: \label{VpmWLdl}

1135: \ln W[C]_{V^\pm}=\frac{1}{\pi^3}\int\!d\hat{p}_1 d\hat{p}_2 d\hat{p}_3\,

1136: \frac{\sin^2\left(\frac{\hat{p}_1}{2}\right)\sin^2\left(\frac{\hat{p}_2}{2}\right)}

1137: {\sqrt{\hat{p}_1^2+\hat{p}_2^2+\hat{p}_3^2+\frac{128\pi^4}{\lambda^3}\tau^2}}\,

1138: n_B\left(\frac{\sqrt{\hat{p}_1^2+\hat{p}_2^2+\hat{p}_3^2

1139: +\frac{128\pi^4}{\lambda^3}\tau^2}}{\tau}\right)

1140: \left(\frac{1}{\hat{p}_1^2}+\frac{1}{\hat{p}_2^2}\right)\,.

1141: \eqe

1142: %*********

1143: From Eq.\,(\ref{VpmWLdl}) it is obvious that in the limit

1144: $\tau\to\infty$ the contribution to $\frac{\ln W[C]}{\tau^2}$ of the $V^\pm$ modes is

1145: nil, and we no longer need to discuss their potential impact on the spatial string tension.

1146: 

1147: \subsection{Thermal part due to massless mode\label{thermalpart}} 

1148: 

1149: Let us now discuss the contribution of the thermal part 

1150: of the $\gamma$ mode to $\ln W[C]$. In \cite{LH2008} we have computed the

1151: screening function $G$ selfconsistently on the radiatively induced mass

1152: shell $p^2-G(p^0,\vec{p})=0$. On this mass-shell, only diagram $B$ in 

1153: Fig.\,\ref{Fig-1} contributes. In Fig.\,\ref{Fig-3} the dependence 

1154: of $\log\left|\frac{G}{T^2}\right|$ on the dimensionless spatial

1155: momentum modulus $X\equiv\frac{|\vec{p}|}{T}$ (left-panel) and on 

1156: dimensionless frequency $Y=\sqrt{X^2+\frac{G}{T^2}}$ (right-panel) 

1157: is depicted for various

1158: temperatures. 

1159: %***********************

1160: \begin{figure}

1161: \begin{center}

1162: \leavevmode

1163: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

1164: \leavevmode

1165: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

1166: \vspace{7.2cm}

1167: \special{psfile=Fig-3bi.ps angle=0 voffset=-350

1168:          hoffset=-170 hscale=50 vscale=65}

1169: \end{center}

1170: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-3}} Plots of $\log\left|\frac{G}{T^2}\right|$ in the full calculation 

1171: (solid grey curves) and for the approximation $p^2=0$ (dashed grey

1172: curves). The cusps in $\log\left|\frac{G}{T^2}\right|$ correspond to

1173: zeros separating the regime of screening ($G>0$) from the regime of

1174: antiscreening ($G<0$). The left panel depicts 

1175: $\log\left|\frac{G}{T^2}\right|$ as a function of $X$. 

1176: The right panel shows $\log\left|\frac{G}{T^2}\right|$ as a function of $Y\equiv\sqrt{X^2+\frac{G}{T^2}}$. 

1177: Here the dashed black curve is the function $2\log Y$. In order of 

1178: increasing lightness the curves correspond to $T=2\,T_c$, $T=3\,T_c$, and $T=4\,T_c$.}

1179: \end{figure}

1180: %***********************  

1181: Inserting the thermal part of the magnetically dressed $\gamma$ 

1182: propagator of Eq.\,(\ref{gamma}) into  Eq.\,(\ref{konturintegral}), we obtain

1183: %*********************** 

1184: \eqb

1185: \label{Wilsongamma}

1186: \ln W[C]_\gamma^{\tiny\mbox{th}}=-\frac{1}{2\pi^3}\int\!d\hat{p}_1 d\hat{p}_2 d\hat{p}_3\,

1187: \frac{\sin^2\left(\frac{\hat{p}_1}{2}\right)\sin^2\left(\frac{\hat{p}_2}{2}\right)}

1188: {\sqrt{\hat{p}_1^2+\hat{p}_2^2+\hat{p}_3^2+\hat{G}\tau^2}}\,n_B\left(\frac{\sqrt{\hat{p}_1^2+\hat{p}_2^2+\hat{p}_3^2+\hat{G}\tau^2}}{\tau}\right)

1189: \left(\frac{1}{\hat{p}_1^2}+\frac{1}{\hat{p}_2^2}\right)\,,

1190: \eqe

1191: %************

1192: where $\hat{G}\equiv\frac{G}{T^2}$. In Fig.\,\ref{Fig-4} plots of 

1193: $-\ln W[C]_\gamma^{\tiny\mbox{th}}$ for $T=2\,T_c, 3\,T_c,$ and $4\,T_c$

1194: are shown as functions of $\tau$.  

1195: %***********************

1196: \begin{figure}

1197: \begin{center}

1198: \leavevmode

1199: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

1200: \leavevmode

1201: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

1202: \vspace{6.8cm}

1203: \special{psfile=Fig-4i.ps angle=0 voffset=-200

1204:          hoffset=-230 hscale=60 vscale=50}

1205: \end{center}

1206: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-4}} Plots of 

1207: $-\ln W[C]_\gamma^{\tiny\mbox{th}}$ as a function of $\tau=T\cdot L$. The dotted

1208: lines correspond to the value of $L$ coinciding with the minimal length

1209: scale $|\phi|^{-1}$ in the effective theory at a given temperature. 

1210: The left line is for $T=2\,T_c$, the right line for $T=3\,T_c$, and the

1211: line for $T=4\,T_c$ would be at $\tau^*[4\,T_c]=65.77$ and thus is not

1212: contained in the figure.}

1213: \end{figure}

1214: %*********************** 

1215: Clearly, for each temperature and for large $\tau$ we observe a {\sl perimeter} 

1216: law in the approximation used\footnote{Again, we believe that this

1217:   approximation captures all the essential physics due to the rapid

1218:   convergence in the number of external legs in $N$-point

1219:   functions. Notice that in a one-loop diagram making up a radiative correction to $\gamma$'s

1220: $N$-point function there are $N-1$ independent external four momenta

1221: $p_i$ all of which are subject to the constraint 

1222: $|p_i^2|\le|\phi|^2$. With increasing $N$ this should rapidly suppress the contribution of 

1223: one-loop corrections to $\gamma$'s $N$-point function. Moreover, the

1224: expansion into the number $M$ of loops at a given $N$ does converge

1225: rapidly \cite{HofmannLE2006,SHG2006,KH2007}.}. For $\tau$ considerably

1226: below $\tau^*$, which is associated with the maximal resolution

1227: $|\phi|$ (we set $L=|\phi|^{-1}$ in Eq.\,(\ref{tau})), we do, however, observe curvature in $-\ln W[C]_\gamma^{\tiny\mbox{th}}$. 

1228: 

1229: \subsection{Quantum part due to massless mode\label{vacuumpart}}

1230: 

1231: We now turn to the contribution to $\ln W[C]_\gamma$ of the quantum part of $\gamma$'s

1232: dressed propagator. Inserting the quantum part of the magnetically dressed $\gamma$ 

1233: propagator of Eq.\,(\ref{gamma}) into Eq.\,(\ref{konturintegral}), we obtain

1234: %*********************** 

1235: \eqb

1236: \label{Wilsongamma}

1237: \ln W[C]_\gamma^{\tiny\mbox{vac}}=-\frac{i}{4\pi^4}\int\!d^4\hat{p}\,

1238: \sin^2\left(\frac{\hat{p}_1}{2}\right)\sin^2\left(\frac{\hat{p}_2}{2}\right)

1239: \frac{1}{\hat{p}^2-\hat{G}\tau^2+i\epsilon}

1240: \left(\frac{1}{\hat{p}_1^2}+\frac{1}{\hat{p}_2^2}\right)\,,

1241: \eqe

1242: %************

1243: where $\hat{G}\equiv\frac{G}{T^2}$ and $\hat{p}_0\equiv p_0\,L$. 

1244: Notice that in this case the screening function $G$ receives

1245: contributions from both diagrams A and B in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-1} 

1246: because the only constraint on $\gamma$'s momentum is 

1247: $|p^2-\mbox{Re}\,G(p^0,\vec{p})|\le|\phi|^2$. 

1248: In Fig.\,\ref{Fig-5} the imaginary part of $G$ (due to diagram A) is

1249: plotted as a function of $X_0\equiv\frac{p_0}{T}$ and of 

1250: $X\equiv\frac{\vec{p}}{T}$ at $T=2\,T_c$. Clearly, $\mbox{Im}\,G$ is nonvanishing only

1251: within a small region centered at the origin of the $X_0-X$ plane. 

1252: %***********************

1253: \begin{figure}

1254: \begin{center}

1255: \leavevmode

1256: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

1257: \leavevmode

1258: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

1259: \vspace{6.8cm}

1260: \special{psfile=Fig-5P.ps angle=0 voffset=-200

1261:          hoffset=-220 hscale=55 vscale=45}

1262: \end{center}

1263: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-5}}$\mbox{Im}\,G/T^2$, as orginating from

1264:   diagram A in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-1}, as a function of

1265:   $X_0\equiv\frac{p_0}{T}$ and of 

1266: $X\equiv\frac{\vec{p}}{T}$ at $T=2\,T_c$}

1267: \end{figure}

1268: %*********************** 

1269: Fig.\,\ref{Fig-5} suggests that the modulus of the factor 

1270: $\frac{1}{\hat{p}^2-\hat{G}\tau^2+i\epsilon}$ in

1271: Eq.\,(\ref{Wilsongamma}) can be estimated by the situation of 

1272: unadulterated $\gamma$ propagation. That is, we approximately may evaluate the

1273: integral in Eq.\,(\ref{Wilsongamma}) by setting $G=0$. To do this, one

1274: may imagine the condition $|p^2|\le|\phi|^2$ to be implemented in such a

1275: way that a strongly-decaying analytic factor (for $|p^2|>|\phi|^2$), 

1276: is introduced to make the use of the theorem of residues 

1277: applicable. One then obtains

1278: %*********************** 

1279: \eqb

1280: \label{Wilsongammafree}

1281: \ln W[C]_\gamma^{\tiny\mbox{vac}}=\frac{1}{2\pi^3}\int\!d^3\hat{p}\,

1282: \sin^2\left(\frac{\hat{p}_1}{2}\right)\sin^2\left(\frac{\hat{p}_2}{2}\right)

1283: \frac{1}{\sqrt{\hat{p}_1^2+\hat{p}_2^2+\hat{p}_3^2}}

1284: \left(\frac{1}{\hat{p}_1^2}+\frac{1}{\hat{p}_2^2}\right)\,.

1285: \eqe

1286: %************

1287: The integral in Eq.\,(\ref{Wilsongammafree}) is UV divergent. 

1288: Introducing a UV cutoff, one sees that the part of the spectrum, where $G>0$, 

1289: contributes a real monotonic-decreasing-in-$\tau$ function whereas for $G<0$ and sufficiently 

1290: large $\tau$ the contribution is imaginary with modulus that is also a 

1291: monotonic-decreasing-in-$\tau$ function. Furthemore the UV 

1292: divergence itself does not depend on $\tau$. Thus we may refrain from considering this quantum contribution 

1293: any further. 

1294: 

1295: \subsection{Summary of results obtained in effective

1296:   variables\label{sev}}  

1297: 

1298: To summarize, the only nontrivial contribution to $\ln W[C]_\gamma$

1299: arises from the thermal part of the resummed $\gamma$-propagator as

1300: investigated in Sec.\,\ref{thermalpart}. There we observe that 

1301: for hypothetic values of $L$ smaller than the minimal length

1302: $|\phi|^{-1}$ in the effective theory an area law emerges. This is

1303: qualitatively in line with lattice investigations using the Wilson

1304: action at finite lattice spacing, see Sec.\,\ref{sum}, in the sense that

1305: an artificial resolution 

1306: scale is introduced to probe the system at small spatial 

1307: distances.   

1308: 

1309:   

1310: \section{Conclusions\label{sum}}

1311: 

1312: For the deconfining phase of SU(2) Yang-Mills thermodynamics we have argued 

1313: that there is a unique effective action emerging when applying a combination of 

1314: spatial-coarse graining and separation of BPS saturated field configurations from trivial-toplogy 

1315: fluctuations. This programme essentially appeals to spatial homogeneity and isotropy of thermodynamical systems, the perturbative renormalizability of the theory \cite{tHooftVeltman}, and the fact that fundamental as well as effective 

1316: BPS configurations possess no energy-stress and thus do not propagate.  

1317: 

1318: Subsequently, we have investigated the physics of screened magnetic (anti)monopoles,

1319: as they emerge by the dissociation of large-holonomy (anti)calorons,

1320: both in a hypothetic setting assuming a larger resolution than the maximal resolution of the effective theory for the deconfining phase $|\phi|$ \cite{Hofmann2007} and in terms of the spatial Wilson loop

1321: computed in effective variables. While the former investigation is safe since radiative corrections \cite{HofmannLE2006,SHG2006} are under accurate control\footnote{There are kinematic constraints on the propagation of effective fields as imposed by the thermal ground state: Maximal offshellness and maximal momentum transfer in a local vertex. Using the Euler-L'Huillier characteristics 

1322: for spherical polyhedra (including a nontrivial genus) one shows that increasing the number of vertices in irreducible loop diagrams the number of constraints on a priori noncompact integration variables rapidly exceeds 

1323: the number of variables. This suggests a termination of the expansion in irreducible 

1324: loop diagrams at a finite loop order. Example calculation for the pressure up to three 

1325: loops \cite{SHG2006,KH2007} provide ample evidence for this conjecture.} in the effective theory, the latter approach assumes that the physical content of the definition of the Wilson loop in fundamental field variables, which is modulo certain approximations (see below) 

1326: employed in direct lattice computations, is the same as the definition in terms of thermal-ground-state influenced propagating, effective field variables. Although it is suggestive that this is true, we so far have no proof for this correspondence. So this question remains open. At the same time, however, the computation of the mean density of screened and stable monopole-antimonopole pairs from an energy-density deficit introduced by a certain effective 

1327: two-loop correction to the pressure \cite{SHG2006} as compared to the free quasiparticle situation and the subsequent calculation of the magnetic screening length implies that according to the interpretation of 

1328: Ref.\,\cite{KH} no area law can arise as a consequence of the magnetic flux of a given pair decaying too rapidly. 

1329: This is also what the computation of the effective Wilson loop indicates.

1330: 

1331: Therefore, our results using these two alternative methods match in the sense that there is

1332: no area-law for the effective spatial Wilson loop at a fixed temperature and in

1333: the limit of large contour size although an area law emerges in the direct calculation of the Wilson loop in the effective theory when the contour size falls below the resolution $|\phi|$ which, of course, is an unphysical situation. 

1334: 

1335: In lattice simulations the typical spatial resolution -- the inverse

1336: spatial lattice spacing -- even at temperatures a few times $T_c$ 

1337: is considerably larger then the natural\footnote{By `natural' we mean

1338:   that at maximal resolution $|\phi|$ the effective action for

1339:   deconfining Yang-Mills thermodynamics is of the simple 

1340: form of Eq.\,(\ref{effdec}).} resolution $|\phi|$ of continuum and

1341: infinite-volume Yang-Mills thermodynamics

1342: \cite{Polonyi1987,Bali1993}. Lattice simulations are usually

1343: performed with the Wilson action at {\sl finite} values of the lattice

1344: spacing $a$. However, due to the contribution of topologically nontrivial field

1345: configurations to the partition function a renormalization-group

1346: evolved perfect lattice action certainly is more

1347: complicated than the Wilson action obtained from the continuum Yang-Mills 

1348: action by naive discretization. Using the Wilson action, the scaling 

1349: regime for the fundamental coupling hardly makes any reference to bulk

1350: properties of the highly nonperturbative ground-state physics 

1351: (trace anomaly \cite{GiacosaHofmann2007}). So what we have indirectly argued for in

1352: this work is that the physics of screened and isolated 

1353: magnetic (anti)monopoles is very sensitive to a mild resolution

1354: dependence of the {\sl partition function} as it is artificially introduced by 

1355: the Wilson action. In

1356: principle, this action should be modified by nonperturbative effects

1357: yielding the perfect lattice action. The latter, however, is 

1358: extremely hard to generate at finite temperatures.  

1359: 

1360: Given this observation and the principle problem of comparison between fundamental Wilson loop 

1361: and its effective counterpart it is not surprising that an area law for the

1362: spatial Wilson loop is measured in lattice simulations (in accord with

1363: a 3D strong-`coupling'-expansion argument \cite{Borgs1985}) subject to the

1364: Wilson action. Notice that the introduction of a finite spatial 

1365: lattice spacing still working with the Wilson action actually acts 

1366: physically (which it should not) in separating monopoles 

1367: from antimonopoles. As a result, a net magnetic flux is measured through

1368: the spatial contour in lattice simulations although it is not clear in what sense the 

1369: nonabelian flux through the Wilson loop defined in fundamental variables is related to the abelian flux that we investigate by the $\gamma$ mode's contribution to the effective Wilson loop. We stress that lattice 

1370: simulations using the Wilson action are interesting and important because they strongly point to certain

1371: aspects of the highly nonperturbative ground-state physics. However, we suspect that they are not sufficiently adapted to describe the subtle effects attributed to large-holonomy

1372: (anti)caloron dissociation as they take place in infinite-volume 

1373: continuum Yang-Mills thermodynamics. To turn this into a completely

1374: rigorous statement for the Wilson loop in effective variables the above-mentioned correspondence 

1375: would have to be proved, and a precise estimate for the contribution to the integration over the

1376: spatial contour of $N$-point functions with 

1377: higher internal loop number would have to be obtained. We leave this to future

1378: investigation.   

1379: 

1380: 

1381: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1382: We would like to thank Markus Schwarz for very useful conversations and helpful comments on the 

1383: manuscript. A Referee's helpful queries are gratefully acknowledged.

1384: 

1385: 

1386: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

1387: 

1388: \bibitem{Borgs1985}

1389: C. Borgs, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 261}, 455 (1985). 

1390: 

1391: \bibitem{Polonyi1987}

1392: E. Manousakis and J. Polonyi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 58}, 847 (1987). 

1393: 

1394: \bibitem{Bali1993}

1395: G. S. Bali et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 3059 (1993). 

1396: 

1397: \bibitem{spatialWL}

1398: M. Laine and Y. Schr\"oder, JHEP {\bf 0503} 067 (2005) and references

1399: therein. 

1400: 

1401: \bibitem{Hofmann2005}

1402: R.~Hofmann, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  A{\bf 20} (2005) 4123, Erratum-ibid.\  A {\bf 21} (2006) 6515.\\ 

1403: R.~Hofmann, Mod. Phys. Lett. A{\bf 21}, 999 (2006), Erratum-ibid. A {\bf

1404:   21}, 3049 (2006).

1405: 

1406: \bibitem{HofmannGiacosa2006}

1407: F. Giacosa and R. Hofmann, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 118}, 759 (2007)

1408: [hep-th/0609172].

1409: 

1410: \bibitem{HofmannLE2006}

1411: R. Hofmann, hep-th/0609033.

1412: 

1413: \bibitem{Hofmann2007}

1414: R. Hofmann, arXiv:0710.0962 [hep-th].

1415: 

1416: \bibitem{HerbstHofmann2004} 

1417: U. Herbst and R. Hofmann, hep-th/0411214.

1418: 

1419: \bibitem{HS1977}

1420: B. J. Harrington and H. K. Shepard, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, 2122 (1978).

1421: 

1422: \bibitem{NahmVanBaalLeeLu}

1423: W. Nahm, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 90}, 413 (1980).\\ 

1424: W. Nahm, {\sl Selfdual Monopoloes and Calorons.} Lect. Notes in Physics. 201, eds. G. Denaro, e.a. (1984)

1425: p. 189, Springer Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.\\ 

1426: K.-M. Lee and C.-H. Lu, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 025011 (1998).\\ 

1427: T. C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 428}, 268 (1998).\\ 

1428: T. C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 435}, 389 (1998). 

1429: 

1430: \bibitem{GPY1981}

1431: D. J. Gross, R. D. Pisarski, and L. G. Yaffe, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 53},

1432: 43 (1981). 

1433: 

1434: \bibitem{Kibble}

1435: T. W. B. Kibble, {\it J. Phys. A}, {\bf 9} 1387 (1976).

1436: 

1437: \bibitem{SHG2006}

1438: M.~Schwarz, R.~Hofmann and F.~Giacosa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 22},

1439: 1213 (2007). 

1440: 

1441: \bibitem{KH2007}

1442: D. Kaviani and R. Hofmann, Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 22}, 2343 (2007). 

1443: 

1444: \bibitem{KHG2007}

1445: J. Keller, R. Hofmann, and F. Giacosa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 23 }, 5181 (2008).

1446: 

1447: \bibitem{tHooftVeltman}

1448: G. 't Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 44}, 189 (1972).\\  

1449: G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 33}, 173 (1971).\\ 

1450: G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 62}, 444 (1973).\\  

1451: G. 't Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 50}, 318 (1972).\\ 

1452: B. W. Lee and Jean Zinn-Justin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 5}, 3121 (1972).\\ 

1453: B. W. Lee and Jean Zinn-Justin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 5}, 3137 (1972).\\ 

1454: B. W. Lee and Jean Zinn-Justin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 5}, 3155 (1972).

1455: 

1456: \bibitem{LH2008}

1457: J. Ludescher and R. Hofmann, Ann. Phys.{\bf 18}, 271 (2009) [arXiv:0806.0972 [hep-th]]. 

1458: 

1459: \bibitem{Korthals-Altes}

1460: A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 59}, 82 (1975).\\ 

1461: C. P. Korthals Altes, hep-ph/0408301.\\ 

1462: C. P. Korthals Altes, Acta Phys. Polon. B {\bf 34}, 5825 (2003).\\ 

1463: P. Giovannangeli and C. P. Korthals Altes, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 608}, 203 (2001).\\  

1464: C. Korthals-Altes, A. Kovner, and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf

1465:   469}, 205 (1999). 

1466: 

1467: \bibitem{KH}

1468: C. Korthals-Altes, hep-ph/0406138v2.

1469: 

1470: \bibitem{GiacosaHofmann2007}

1471: F. Giacosa and R. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 76}, 085022 (2007). 

1472: [hep-th/0703127]

1473: 

1474: \bibitem{Diakonov}

1475: D. Diakonov, N. Gromov, V. Petrov, S. Slizovskiy, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70},

1476: 036003 (2004). [hep-th/0404042] 

1477: 

1478: \bibitem{HerbstHofmannRohrer2004}

1479: U. Herbst, R. Hofmann, J. Rohrer, Acta Phys. Pol. B{\bf 36}, 881 (2005).

1480: 

1481: \bibitem{Bassetto}

1482: A. Bassetto, G. Nardelli, and R. Soldati, {\sl Yang-Mills Theories in

1483:   Algebraic Non-Covariant Gauges: Canonical Quantization and

1484:   Renormalization}, World Scientific Publishing Company (1991), Singapore.

1485: 

1486: \bibitem{KellerDA}

1487: J. Keller, Diploma thesis Universit\"at Heidelberg, arXiv:0801.3961.

1488: 

1489: \end{thebibliography}

1490: 

1491: \end{document}

1492: