1: \documentstyle[sprocl,twoside,epsfig]{article}
2:
3:
4: % Macroses below are optional, you can introduce your own ones.
5:
6: % A useful Journal macro
7: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
8:
9: % Some useful journal names
10: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}
11: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
12: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
13: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
14: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
15: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
16: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
17: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
18:
19: % Some other macros used in the sample text
20: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
21: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
22: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
23: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
24: \def\bq{\begin{quote}}
25: \def\eq{\end{quote}}
26: \def\ve{\vert}
27: \def\als{\alpha_s}
28: \def\eps{\epsilon}
29: \def\nnb{\nonumber}
30: \def\ga{\left(}
31: \def\dr{\right)}
32:
33: \def\aga{\left\{}
34: \def\adr{\right\}}
35: \def\lb{\lbrack}
36: \def\rb{\rbrack}
37:
38: \def\rar{\rightarrow}
39: \def\nnb{\nonumber}
40: \def\la{\langle}
41: \def\ra{\rangle}
42: \def\nin{\noindent}
43: \def\ba{\begin{array}}
44: \def\ea{\end{array}}
45: \def\bm{\overline{m}}
46: \newcommand{\dual}[1]{{}^{*}{#1}}
47: \newcommand{\diff}{\partial}
48: \newcommand{\aaa}{a}
49: \newcommand{\dd}{{\mathrm{d}}}
50: \newcommand{\cZ}{{\cal Z}}
51:
52:
53:
54: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
55: % We ask you to use pagestyle defined below.
56: % Substitute the authors' names and the title
57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
58: \pagestyle{myheadings} %%{Authors}{Title}
59: \markboth{\small \em V.I. Zakharov}{\small \em
60: Hidden Mass Hierarchy in QCD?}
61: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
62: %%BEGINNING OF TEXT
63: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
64: \begin{document}
65: \sloppy
66:
67: \title{Hidden Mass Hierarchy in QCD}
68:
69: \author{ V.I. ZAKHAROV }
70:
71: \address{
72: Max-Planck Institut f\"ur Physik, F\"ohringer Ring 6, 80805 M\"unchen, Germany}
73:
74: \maketitle\abstracts{We discuss implications of the recent measurements
75: of the non-Abelian action density associated with the monopoles condensed
76: in the confining phase of gluodynamics. The radius of the monopole
77: determined in terms of the action was found to be small
78: numerically.
79: As far as the condensation of the monopoles is described in terms
80: of a scalar field, a fine tuning is then implied.
81: In other words,
82: a hierarchy exists between the self energy of the monopole and the temperature of the
83: confinement-deconfinement phase transition.
84: The ratio of the two scales is no less than a factor of 10.
85: Moreover, we argue that the hierarchy scale can well
86: eventually extend to a few hundred GeV on the ultraviolet side.
87: The corresponding phenomenology is discussed, mostly
88: within the polymer picture of the monopole condensation.
89: }
90:
91: \vspace{0.4cm}
92:
93: %\tableofcontents
94:
95: %\newpage
96: \section{Introduction}
97:
98: The monopole condensation is one of the most favored mechanisms
99: \cite{classic} of
100: the confinement, for review see, e.g., \cite{review1}.
101: In the field theoretical language, one usually thinks in terms
102: of a Higgs-type model:
103: \beq\label{effective}
104: S_{eff}~=~\int d^4x\big(|D_{\mu}\phi|^2+{1\over 4}F_{\mu\nu}^2+~V(|\phi|^2)\big)
105: \eeq
106: where $\phi$ is a scalar field with a non-zero magnetic charge,
107: $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the field strength tensor constructed on the dual-gluon
108: field $B_{\mu}$, $D_{\mu}$ is the covariant derivative
109: with respect to the dual gluon. Finally,
110: $V(|\phi|^2)$ is the potential energy ensuring that
111: $<\phi>\neq 0$ in the vacuum. Relation of the ``effective''
112: fields $\phi,B_{\mu}$ to the fundamental QCD fields is one of the basic
113: problems of the approach considered but here we would
114: simply refer the reader to Ref. \cite{main} for further discussion of
115: this problem.
116: At this moment, it suffices to say that the ``dual-superconductor''
117: mechanism of confinement assumes formation of an Abrikosov-type tube between
118: the heavy quarks introduced into the vacuum via the Wilson loop
119: while the tube itself is a classical solution of the equations of motion
120: corresponding to the effective Lagrangian (\ref{effective}).
121:
122: By introducing scalar fields, one opens a door to the standard questions on
123: the consistency, on the quantum level, of a $\lambda\phi^4$ theory.
124: Here, we mean primarily the problem of
125: the quadratic divergence in the scalar mass. At first sight, these
126: problems are not serious in our case since
127: (\ref{effective}) apparently represents
128: an effective theory presumably valid for a limited range of mass scales.
129:
130: However, if we ask ourselves, what are the actual limitations
131: on the use of the effective theory (\ref{effective}) we should
132: admit that there is no way at the moment to
133: answer this question on pure theoretical grounds and we should
134: turn instead to the experimental data, that is lattice measurements.
135: This lack of understanding concerns first of all the
136: nature of the non-perturbative field configurations that
137: are defined as monopoles.
138: First, it is not clear apriori which $U(1)$ subgroup of
139: the $SU(2)$ \footnote{for simplicity we will confine ourselves
140: to the case of $SU(2)$ as the color group.} is to be picked up
141: for the classification of the monopoles. Even if we make this
142: choice on pure pragmatic basis and concentrate on the
143: most successful scheme of the monopoles in the maximal
144: Abelian projection \cite{review1} we still get very
145: little understanding of the field configurations underlying
146: the objects defined as monopoles in this projection,
147: for discussion see, e.g., \cite{alive}.
148: In particular, nothing can be said on the size of the monopole
149: which presumably limits application of (\ref{effective}) on the
150: ultraviolet side.
151:
152: Direct measurements of the monopole size were reported recently \cite{anatomy}
153: and brought an unexpectedly small value of the monopole radius:
154: \beq\label{size}
155: R_{mon}~\approx~0.06~ \mathrm{fm},
156: \eeq
157: where the monopole radius is defined here in terms of the
158: full non-Abelian action associated with the monopole
159: and not in terms of the projected action.
160: If we compare the radius (\ref{size}) with the temperature of
161: the confinement-deconfinement transition:
162: \beq\label{temperature}
163: T_{deconf}~\approx~300~ \mathrm{MeV}
164: \eeq
165: then we would come to the conclusion that there are different mass scales coexisting within
166: the effective scalar-field theory (\ref{effective}). And the question,
167: how this mass hierarchy is maintained is becoming legitimate.
168:
169: Although comparison of (\ref{size}) and (\ref{temperature})
170: is instructive by itself, we will argue that
171: the actual hierarchy mass scale can be much higher on the ultraviolet side.
172: Namely, we will emphasize later
173: that even at the size (\ref{size}) the monopoles are very ``hot'', i.e. have
174: action comparable to the action of the zero-point fluctuations.
175: For physical interpretation, it is natural to understand by the radius such distances
176: where the non-perturbative fields die away on the scale of
177: pure perturbative fluctuations. And this radius is to be
178: considerably smaller than (\ref{size}).
179:
180:
181: Also, estimate (\ref{size}) means that the asymptotic freedom is not
182: yet reached at quite small distances and the question arises as to
183: how reconcile this observation with such phenomena as
184: the precocious scaling.
185:
186: We cannot claim at all understanding answers to these
187: questions but feel that it is important to start discussing them.
188: Our approach is mostly phenomenological and we are trying to formulate
189: which measurements could help to find answers to the puzzles
190: outlined above. The theoretical framework which we are using is mainly the
191: polymer approach to the scalar field theory, see, e.g.,
192: Refs.~\cite{symanzik,stone,caracciolo}.
193:
194:
195:
196: \section{Monopole condensation: overview of the theory}
197:
198: \subsection{Compact $U(1)$}
199:
200: The show case of the monopole condensation is the compact $U(1)$ \cite{polyakov}.
201: The crucial role of the compactness is to ensure that
202: the Dirac string does not cost energy (for a review see, e.g.,
203: \cite{alive}).
204: The monopole self energy reduces then to the energy
205: associated with the radial magnetic field
206: ${\bf B}$.
207: The self energy is readily seen to diverge linearly in the ultraviolet:
208: \beq
209: \label{linear}
210: M_{mon}(a)~=~{1\over 8\pi}\int{\bf B}^2d^3r~\sim~{c\over 8e^2}{1\over
211: \aaa}\,,
212: \eeq
213: where $c$ is a constant,
214: $\aaa$ is the lattice spacing, $e$ is the electric charge and the
215: magnetic charge is \footnote {The notation $g$ is
216: reserved for the non-Abelian coupling, the magnetic coupling is
217: denoted as $g_m$.} $g_{m}=1/2e$. Thus, the monopoles are
218: infinitely heavy
219: and, at first sight, this precludes any condensation since the
220: probability to find a monopole trajectory of the length $L$ is
221: suppressed as
222: \beq
223: \label{action}
224: \exp(-S)~=~\exp\left(-{c\over e^2}\cdot {L\over \aaa}\right)\,.
225: \eeq
226: Note that the constant $c$ depends on the details of the lattice
227: regularization but can be found explicitly in any particular case.
228:
229: However, there is an exponentially large enhancement factor due to
230: the entropy. Namely, trajectory of the length $L$ can be
231: realized on a cubic lattice in $N_L=7^{L/\aaa}$ various ways.
232: Indeed, the monopole occupies center of a cube and the trajectory
233: consists of $L/a$ steps. At each step the trajectory can be continued
234: to an adjacent cube. In four dimensions there are 8 such cubes. However,
235: one of them has to be excluded since the monopole trajectory is
236: non-backtracking. Thus the entropy factor,
237: \beq\label{entropy}
238: N_L~=~\exp\left(\ln 7 \cdot {L\over \aaa}\right)\,,
239: \eeq
240: cancels the suppression due to the action
241: (\ref{action}) if the coupling $e^2$ satisfies the condition
242: \beq
243: \label{critical}
244: e^2_{crit}~=~c/\ln7~\approx~1\,,
245: \eeq
246: where we quote the numerical value of $e^2_{crit}$ for the Wilson action
247: and cubic lattice. At $e^2_{crit}$ any monopole trajectory length
248: $L$ is allowed and the monopoles condense.
249:
250:
251: This simple theory works within about one percent
252: accuracy in terms of $e^2_{crit}$
253: \cite{suzuki1}. Note that the energy-entropy balance above does not
254: account for interaction with the neighboring monopoles.
255:
256: \subsection{Monopole cluster in the field-theoretical language}
257:
258: The derivation of the previous subsection implies that the monopole condensation
259: occurs when the monopole action is ultraviolet divergent.
260: On the other hand, the onset of the condensation in
261: the standard field theoretical language corresponds to
262: the zero mass of the magnetically charged field $\phi$.
263: It is important to emphasize that this apparent
264: mismatch between the two languages
265: is not specific for the monopoles at all. Actually, there is
266: a general kinematic relation between
267: the physical mass of a scalar field $m^2_{phys}$ and the mass
268: $M$ defined in terms of the (Euclidean) action, $M\equiv S/L$ where
269: $L$ is the length of the trajectory and $S$ is the corresponding action
270: \footnote{It is worth emphasizing that the results of the lattice measurements
271: are commonly expressed in terms of Higgs masses and interaction
272: constants, see \cite{action}. However, these masses are obtained
273: without subtracting the ln7 term (compare Eq (\ref{massrenormalization}))
274: and, to our belief, are not the physical mass for this reason.
275: Where by the physical masses we understand the masses in the
276: continuum limit. In particular, the physical masses determine
277: the shape of the Abrikosov-like string confining the heavy quarks.}:
278: \beq\label{massrenormalization}
279: m^2_{phys}\cdot a~\approx~M-{\ln 7\over a},
280: \eeq
281: where terms of higher order in $ma$ are omitted.
282: Here by $m^2_{phys}$ we understand the mass entering the propagator
283: of a free particle,
284: $$D(p^2,m^2_{phys})~\sim~
285: (p^2+m^2_{phys})^{-1}~,$$
286: where
287: $p^2$ is either Euclidean or Minkowskian momentum squared.
288:
289: In view of the crucial role of the Eq. (\ref{massrenormalization})
290: for our discussion, let us reiterate the statement.
291: We consider propagator of a free scalar particle in terms of the
292: path integral:
293: \beq\label{pathintegral}
294: D(x_i,x_f)~\sim~\Sigma_{paths}exp(~-S_{cl}(path)),
295: \eeq
296: where for the classical action associated with the path we would like
297: to substitute simply the action of a point-like classical particle,
298: $S_{cl}=M\cdot L$ where $M$ is the mass of the particle and $L$ is
299: the length of the path. Then we learn that there is no such representation
300: (with replacement of $S_{cl}$ by $iS_{cl}$))
301: for the propagator of a relativistic particle in the Minkowski space
302: because of the backward-in-time motions \footnote{I am indebted to
303: L. Stodolsky for an illuminating discussions on this topic.}.
304: However, in the Euclidean
305: space the representation (\ref{pathintegral}) works. The physical mass
306: is, however, gets renormalized compared to $M$ according to (\ref{massrenormalization}).
307:
308: Derivation of the Eq (\ref{massrenormalization}) is in textbooks \footnote{
309: Actually, one finds mostly $\ln2D\equiv\ln8$ instead of $\ln7$.
310: We do think that $\ln7$ is the correct number but in fact this difference
311: is not important for further discussion.} ,
312: see, e.g.,~\cite{qg}.
313: The central point is that the action for a point-like particle
314: in the Euclidean space looks exactly the same as that
315: of a non-interacting polymer with a non-vanishing chemical potential
316: for the constituent atoms.
317: The transition from the polymer to the field theoretical language
318: is common in the statistical physics (see, e.g., \cite{parisi}).
319: The first applications to the monopole physics are due to the
320: authors in Ref.~\cite{stone}. For the sake of completeness
321: we reproduce here the main points crucial for our discussion later.
322: Mostly, we follow the second paper in Ref. \cite{stone}.
323:
324:
325: The scalar particle trajectory represented as a random walk and the
326: corresponding partition function is:
327: \bea\label{randomwalk}
328: Z = \int \dd^4 \, x \, \sum^\infty_{N=1} \frac{1}{N} \, e^{ - \mu N}
329: \, Z_N(x,x)\,,
330: \label{Z}
331: \eea
332: where $\mu$ is the chemical
333: potential and $Z_N(x_0,x_f)$ is the partition function of a polymer
334: broken into $N$ segments:
335: \beq
336: Z_N(x_0,x_f) = \Bigl[\prod\limits^{N-1}_{i=1} \int \dd^4 x_i\Bigr] \,
337: \prod^{N}_{i=1} \Biggl[\frac{\delta(|x_i - x_{i-1}|-a)}{2\pi^2
338: a^3}\Biggr]\, \exp\Bigl\{ - \sum\limits^N_{i=1} g
339: V(x_i)\Bigr\}\,.
340: \label{ZN}
341: \eeq
342: This partition function represents a summation over all atoms of
343: the polymer weighted by the Boltzmann factors.
344: The $\delta$--functions in (\ref{ZN}) ensure that each bond in
345: the polymer has length $a$. The starting point of the polymer
346: (\ref{ZN}) is $x_0$ and the ending point is $x_f \equiv x_N$.
347:
348: In the limit $a \to 0$ the partition function (\ref{ZN})
349: can be treated analogously to a Feynman integral.
350: The crucial step is the coarse--graining: the $N$--sized polymer
351: is divided into $m$ units by $n$ atoms ($N = mn$), and the limit is considered
352: when both $m$ and $n$ are large while $a$ and $\sqrt{n} a$ are
353: small. We get,
354: \beq
355: \label{constraint}
356: \prod\limits^{(\nu+1)n-1}_{i=\nu n} {1\over
357: 2\pi^2\aaa^3}\delta(|x_i-x_{i+1}|-\aaa) \to
358: {\Bigl(\frac{2}{\pi n a^2}\Bigr)}^2
359: \,\exp\Bigl\{ - \frac{2}{n \, a^2} {(x_{(\nu + 1) n} - x_{\nu n
360: })}^2 \Bigr\} \,,
361: \eeq
362: where the index $i$, $i=\nu n \cdots (\nu+1)n-1$, labels the atoms in
363: $\nu^{\mathrm{th}}$ unit. The polymer partition function
364: becomes \cite{stone}:
365: \bea
366: \label{polymer}
367: Z_N(x_0,x_f) & = & {\mathrm{const}} \cdot
368: \Bigl[
369: %\sum^\infty_{N=1}
370: \prod^{m-1}_{\nu =1} \dd^4 x\Bigr] \Biggl[
371: {\Bigl(\frac{2}{\pi n a^2}\Bigr)}^{2 m} \exp\Bigl\{
372: \sum_{\nu=1}^m{(x_{\nu}-x_{\nu-1})^2\over n\aaa^2}\Bigr\}\Biggr]
373: \nonumber \\
374: & & \cdot \exp\Bigl\{ - \sum_{\nu=1}^m n (\mu + V(x_\nu)) \Bigr\}\,.
375: \eea
376: The $x_i$'s have been re-labeled so that $x_{\nu}$ is the average
377: value of $x$ in at the coarser cell. Using the variables:
378: \beq
379: \label{related}
380: s~=~{1\over 8}n\aaa^2\nu,~~~\tau~=~{1\over 8}\aaa^2\,N\,, ~~m_0^2~=~
381: {8\mu \over \aaa^2}\,,
382: \eeq
383: one can rewrite the partition function (\ref{Z}) as
384: \beq
385: \label{m0}
386: Z = {\mathrm{const}}\cdot \int\limits_0^{\infty}
387: \frac{\dd\tau}{\tau} \, \int\limits_{x(0) = x(\tau)=x}
388: D x~\exp\Biggl\{-\int\limits_0^\tau \Bigr[{1\over 4}\dot{x}^2_\mu(s)
389: + m_0^2 + g_0 V(x(s))
390: \Bigr] \, \dd s \Biggr\}\,.
391: \eeq
392: The next step is to rewrite the integral over trajectories $x(\tau)$ as
393: the standard path integral representation for a free scalar field.
394: For us it is important only that the $m_0^2$
395: term in the Eq. (\ref{m0}) is becoming the standard mass term
396: in the field theoretical language:
397: \bea
398: \cZ & = & \sum\limits_{M=0}^\infty \frac{1}{M!} Z^M \nonumber\\
399: & = & {\mathrm{const}}\cdot \int D \phi \, \exp\Bigl\{
400: - \int \dd^4 x \, \Bigl[ (\partial_\mu \phi)^2 + m^2_0 \, \phi^2
401: + g_0 V(x) \phi^2 \Bigr] \Bigr\}\,.
402: \label{Zphi}
403: \eea
404: The whole machinery can be easily generalized to the case of charged
405: particles (monopoles) with Coulomb-like interactions.
406:
407:
408:
409:
410: \subsection{Monopole condensation in non-Abelian case: expectations}
411:
412: If we try to adjust the lessons from the compact $U(1)$
413: to the non-Abelian case then the good news is that,
414: indeed, all the $U(1)$ subgroups of the color $SU(2)$
415: are compact.
416: Moreover, dynamics of any subgroup of the $SU(2)$
417: is governed by the same running coupling $g^2(r)$.
418: Thus, we could hope that the following simple picture
419: might work:
420: if the lattice spacing $a$ is small
421: we would not see monopoles because $g^2(\aaa)$
422: falls below $e^2_{crit}$. However, going to a
423: coarser lattice a la Wilson we come to the point
424: where $g^2(\aaa^2)\approx e^2_{crit}$. Then we
425: apply the entropy-energy balance which works so well in case
426: of the compact $U(1)$ and conclude that the monopoles
427: of a critical size $a_{crit}$ such that $g^2(a_{crit})\sim 1$
428: condense in the QCD vacuum.
429:
430: This simple picture is open, however, to painful questions.
431: First, monopoles are defined topologically within a $U(1)$
432: subgroup \footnote{Note that a $SU(2)$-invariant definition
433: of the monopoles is also possible \cite{fedor}. However, their dynamical
434: characteristics have not beeen measured yet and
435: such monopoles are not considered here.}. However, it is only the $U(1)$
436: invariant action which has a non-vanishing minimum for
437: a $U(1)$ topologically non-trivial object. There is no relation,
438: generally speaking, between the full non-Abelian action and a $U(1)$-subgroup
439: topology. As an illustration of this general rule, consider \cite{main}
440: the field configuration generated
441: from the vacuum
442: by the following gauge rotation matrix:
443: \beq
444: \label{example}
445: \Omega~=~\left(\matrix{
446: e^{i\varphi}\sqrt{A_D} & \sqrt{1-A_D}\cr
447: -\sqrt{1-A_D} & e^{-i\varphi}\sqrt{A_D}\cr
448: }\right)\,,
449: \eeq
450: where $\varphi$ is the angle of rotation around the axis connecting the
451: monopoles and $A_D$ is the $U(1)$ potential representing pure Abelian
452: monopole -- antimonopole pair:
453: \beq
454: A_{\mu}dx_{\mu}~=~
455: {1\over 2}\left({z_+\over r_+}-{z_-\over r_-}\right)d\varphi
456: ~\equiv~ A_D(z,\rho)d\varphi\,,
457: \eeq
458: where $z_{\pm}=z\pm R/2$, $\rho^2=x^2+y^2$, $r_{\pm}^2=z_{\pm}^2+\rho^2$.
459: The action associated with the $A_{\mu}^a$ generated in
460: this way is vanishing since it is a pure gauge.
461: In its Abelian part, however, the configuration looks as a
462: Dirac string with open ends and monopoles at the end points.
463: It is the ``charged'' vector fields which cancel the contribution
464: to the non-Abelian field strength tensor
465: $F_{\mu\nu}^a$ coming from the ``neutral'' field (for details see \cite{main}).
466:
467:
468: Therefore, there is no reason, at least at first sight,
469: for the saturation of the functional
470: integral at the classical solution with infinite action, see
471: (\ref{linear}).
472: This observation brings serious doubts on the validity
473: of our simple dynamical picture.
474:
475:
476: \section{Monopoles, as they are seen}
477:
478:
479:
480: \subsection{Monopole dominance}
481:
482: On the background of the theoretical turmoil, the data
483: on the monopoles indicate a very simple and solid picture.
484: We will constrain ourselves to the monopoles in the so
485: called Maximal Abelian gauge and the related projection
486: (MAP). We just mention some facts, a review and further
487: references can be found, e.g., in Ref.~\cite{review1}.
488:
489: Since the monopoles of the non-Abelian theory are expected
490: to actually be $U(1)$ objects one first uses the gauge freedom
491: to bring the non-Abelian fields as close to the Abelian
492: ones as possible. The gauge is defined by maximization of a
493: functional which in the continuum limit corresponds to $R(\hat{A})$ where
494: \beq
495: R(\hat{A})~=~-\int d^4x\big[(A_{\mu}^1)^2+ (A_{\mu}^2)^2\big]
496: \eeq
497: where $1,2$ are color indices.
498:
499: As the next step, one projects the non-Abelian fields generated on the lattice
500: into their Abelian part, essentially, by putting $A^{1,2}\equiv 0$.
501: In this Abelian projection one defines the monopole currents
502: $k_{\mu}$ for each field configuration. Note that the original configurations
503: which are used for a search of the monopoles are generated within the
504: full non-Abelian theory. Upon performing the projection one can
505: introduce also the corresponding Abelian, or projected action.
506:
507: The relation of the monopoles to the confinement is revealed
508: through evaluation of the Wilson loop for the quarks in the
509: fundamental representation. Namely it turns out, first, that the
510: string tension in the Abelian projection is close to the string
511: tension in the original $SU(2)$ theory \cite{mondom}:
512: \beq
513: \sigma_{U(1)}~\approx~ \sigma_{SU(2)}\,.
514: \eeq
515: Moreover, one can
516: define also the string tension which arises due to the monopoles
517: alone. To this end, one calculates the field created by a monopole
518: current:
519: \beq
520: \label{laplasian}
521: A_{\mu}^{mon}(x) = \frac{1}{2} \varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}
522: \sum\limits_y \Delta^{-1}(x-y) \, \partial_\nu m_{\alpha\beta}[y;k]\,,
523: \eeq
524: where $\Delta^{-1}$ is the inverse Laplacian, and sums up (numerically)
525: over the Dirac surface, $m[k]$, spanned on the monopole
526: currents $k$. The resulting string tension is again close to
527: that of the un-projected theory:
528: \beq
529: \sigma_{mon}~\approx~ \sigma_{SU(2)}\,.
530: \eeq
531:
532: It might worth mentioning that these basic features remain also true
533: upon inclusion of the dynamical fermions in $SU(3)$ case (full lattice
534: QCD) \cite{latest}.
535:
536: \subsection{Gauge-invariant properties of the monopoles.}
537:
538: Despite of the apparent gauge-dependence of the monopoles
539: introduced within the MAP, they encode gauge-invariant information.
540: In particular, we would mention two points: scaling of the monopole
541: density and full non-Abelian action associated with the monopoles.
542:
543: According to the measurements (see \cite{bornyakov2} and references therein)
544: the mo\-no\-po\-le density $\rho_{mon}$ in three-dimensional volume (that is, at
545: any given time) is given in the physical units.
546: In other words, the density scales according to the
547: renormgroup as a quantity of dimension 3. Numerically:
548: \beq
549: \label{scaling}
550: \rho_{mon}~=~ 0.65(2) ~(\sigma_{SU(2)})^{3/2}\,.
551: \eeq
552: One important remark is in order here. While discussing the
553: monopole density one should
554: distinguish between what is sometimes called ultraviolet (UV) and
555: infrared (IR) clusters \cite{teper}. The infrared,
556: or percolating cluster fills in the whole lattice while the UV clusters
557: are short. There is a spectrum of the UV clusters, as a function of
558: their length, while the percolating cluster is in a single copy.
559: The statement on the scaling (\ref{scaling})
560: applies only to the IR cluster. We do not consider the UV clusters
561: in this note.
562:
563: Also, upon identification of the monopoles in the Abelian
564: projection, one can measure the non-Abelian action associated with
565: these monopoles. For practical reasons, the measurements refer to
566: the plaquettes closest to the center of the cube containing the
567: monopole. Since the self energy is UV divergent, it might be a
568: reasonable approximation. The importance of such measurements is
569: that we expect that it is the non-Abelian action which enters the
570: energy-entropy balance for the monopoles.
571:
572: The results of one of the latest measurements of this type
573: are reproduced in Figure~1 (see \cite{anatomy}).
574: \begin{figure}
575: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
576: \centerline{\epsfbox{nabel1.eps}}
577: \caption{The average excess of the
578: full non-Abelian action on
579: the plaquettes closest to the monopole, as a function of a half of
580: the lattice spacing $a/2$. The data are reproduced from
581: the first paper in Ref. 5}
582: \label{nonabeact}
583: \end{figure}
584: What is plotted here is the average excess of the action on
585: the plaquettes closest to the monopole (monopoles
586: are positioned at centers of cubes).
587: The action is the lattice units. In other words, the
588: corresponding mass of the
589: monopole $M_{mon}(a)$ of order $1/\aaa$ if the action of order unit.
590:
591: As is emphasized in Ref. \cite{anatomy},
592: the IR and UV monopoles are distinguishable through their
593: non-Abelian actions. For the UV monopoles the action is larger, in
594: accordance with the fact that they do not percolate (condense).
595: This is quite a dramatic confirmation that the condensation
596: of the monopoles in the Maximal Abelian projection is driven
597: by the full non-Abelian action, not by its projected counterpart.
598:
599: \section{Fine tuning}
600:
601: Let us pause here to reiterate our strategy.
602: We are assuming that the monopole
603: condensation can be described within an effective Higgs-type theory
604: like (\ref{effective}).
605: In fact, even this broad assumption
606: can be wrong but at this time it is difficult to
607: suggest a framework alternative to the field theory.
608: Next, we would like to fix the effective theory
609: using results of the lattice measurements. Moreover
610: we are interested first of all in interpreting data
611: which can be expressed in gauge independent way.
612: As the first step, we will argue in this section
613: that the data on the monopole action \cite{anatomy} imply
614: a fine tuning. By which we understand that
615: \beq\label{finetuning}
616: |M_{mon}(a)-{ln7\over a}|~\ll~M_{mon}(a)
617: \eeq
618: where $M_{mon}(a)$ is the monopole self energy \footnote{
619: We hope that the notations are not confusing: there are two monopole masses
620: being discussed. One is the standard magnetic field energy
621: (see (\ref{linear})) and the other is what we call physical mass, $m^2_{phys}$
622: and this mass determines propagation
623: of a free monopole.} and $\ln7$ is of pure geometrical origin
624: (see (\ref{entropy})). Note that (\ref{finetuning})
625: looks similar to the fine tuning condition in
626: the Standard Model.
627:
628: \subsection{Evidence}
629:
630: There are a few pieces of evidence in favor of the fine tuning (\ref{finetuning}):
631:
632: a) Direct measurements indicate that the excess of the action is indeed
633: related to the $\ln7$, as is obvious from Fig. 1. Let us also
634: emphasize that it is only the full non-Abelian action which ``knows''
635: about the $\ln7$. The Abelian projected action is not related at all
636: to the $\ln7$ \cite{anatomy}. This illustrates once again that the
637: dynamics of the monopoles in MAP is driven by the total $SU(2)$
638: action.
639:
640: b) It is difficult to be more quantitative about the excess
641: of the action basing on the direct data quoted above. In particular,
642: we should have in mind that for finite $a$ there are
643: geometrical corrections to the equation (\ref{entropy}).
644: Indirect evidence could be more precise. In particular,
645: it is rather obvious that the scaling of the monopole density
646: (see Eq. (\ref{scaling})) implies:
647: \beq\label{assumption}
648: |M_{mon}(a)- {\ln7\over a}|~\sim ~\Lambda_{QCD}
649: \eeq
650: so that the action per unit length of the
651: monopole trajectory does not depend on the lattice spacing $a$.
652:
653: c) Also, independence on the lattice spacing of the temperature (\ref{temperature})
654: of the phase transition suggests strongly validity of the Eq. (\ref{assumption}).
655: Indeed, the measurements at the smallest $a$ available, $a\sim 0.06 fm$,
656: see Fig. 1, suggest
657: \beq
658: M_{mon}~>~4~GeV, ~~M_{mon}~\gg~T_{deconf},
659: \eeq
660: Moreover, it is well known that at the point of the phase transition the
661: monopole trajectories change drastically.
662: Such a
663: sensitivity of the monopoles to the temperature
664: is possible only if the effect of the self energy of the monopole is mainly
665: canceled by the entropy factor, see (\ref{assumption}).
666:
667: Also, an analysis of the data in Ref. \cite{temperature}
668: suggests that
669: \beq
670: T_{deconf} ~\sim~d_{mon}^{-1},
671: \eeq
672: where $d_{mon}$ is the distance between the monopoles in the infrared cluster,
673: $d_{mon}~\sim~0.5fm$ \cite{anatomy}. Thus the temperature is not sensitive
674: to our ultraviolet parameter which is the size of the monopole.
675:
676: d) Phenomenological fits suggest \cite{action}:
677: \beq\label{plus}
678: \label{mass}
679: M_{mon}~\approx~M_{mon}^{Coul}(a)+ const, \quad const > 0\,,
680: \eeq
681: where
682: by $M_{mon}$ we understand the action associated with the monopole.
683: Note also that the
684: Coulombic part of the mass, $M_{mon}^{Coul}(a)$ is of order $1/g^2\aaa$.
685:
686: Let us recall the reader that on the theoretical side our main concern
687: was that there is no reason why $M_{mon}(a)$ cannot drop to zero.
688: Now we see that our fears are not justified: the monopole self energy
689: is even higher than it would be in the pure Coulomb-like case!
690: As far as we concentrate on a single monopole there is no way to understand
691: (\ref{plus}). But this is indeed numerically necessary for the fine tuning.
692:
693: Thus, the fine tuning (\ref{finetuning}) seems to be granted by the data.
694:
695: \subsection{The origin of the huge mass scale}
696:
697: We are talking actually about small distances, by all the
698: standards of QCD. The numerical value \cite{anatomy}
699: of the size of the monopole (\ref{size})
700: is much smaller than the inverse temperature of the
701: phase transition.
702:
703: The radius (\ref{size}) is defined in terms of
704: the derivative from the monopole action with respect to $a$,
705: see \cite{anatomy}. What we would like to emphasize here is that
706: the actual ``physical size'' of the monopole can be much smaller
707: than (\ref{size}). By the physical size $R_{phys}$
708: we understand now the
709: distances where the excess of the monopole action is parametrically
710: smaller than the action associated with the zero-point fluctuations.
711: It is the $R_{phys}$ where the asymptotic freedom actually reigns,
712: not $R_{mon}$ quoted in (\ref{size}).
713:
714: No evidence exists at the moment that reaching $R_{phys}$ is in sight,
715: see Fig. 1.
716: Indeed, in the lattice units used in Fig. 1
717: the excess of the action density of order $\Lambda_{QCD}^4$
718: would look like having zero at $a=0$
719: and approaching this zero as $a^4$.
720: Having in mind the data showed in Fig 1
721: it is tempting to speculate that the onset of such a behavior is still
722: far off from the presently available lattice spacings.
723:
724: Moreover, as we will argue now it looks plausible that
725: the $R_{phys}$ is shifted to the scale
726: \beq\label{rphys}
727: R_{phys}~\sim ~(100~ GeV)^{-1}~.
728: \eeq
729: Before giving arguments in favor of (\ref{rphys}) let us ask
730: ourselves, why the estimate (\ref{rphys}) is difficult to accept,
731: at least at first sight so. The reason is obvious: one thinks usually about
732: non-perturbative effects in quasi-classical terms, which
733: work in the instanton case. Thus, one assumes that the probability to find
734: non-perturbative effects is exponentially small at small $g^2(a)$,
735: $exp(~-c/g^2(a))$.
736:
737: But the failure of such a logic in the monopole case is
738: evident from the case of the compact $U(1)$, see above.
739: Even the monopoles with infinite (Euclidean) action condense.
740: Moreover, $R_{phys}$ is naturally determined by the running
741: of the coupling which is logarithmic and can result
742: in huge factors in the linear scale.
743:
744:
745: Let us make simple estimates. Namely, the $U(1)$
746: critical coupling is well known, $e^2_{crit}\sim 1$. In the QCD case we can
747: rewrite the condition (\ref{critical}) as a condition on the $R_{phys}$.
748: In the realistic case
749: we have at the LEP energies $E^2 \sim (100~\mbox{GeV})^2$, $\alpha \approx
750: 0.1$. Then
751: \beq\label{huge}
752: M_{phys}~\sim~\mbox{TeV}
753: \eeq
754: and, remarkably enough,
755: we are getting rather the weak interactions scale than $\sim\Lambda_{QCD}$.
756:
757:
758: Also, the $SU(2)$ lattice measurements typically refer to $\beta\sim 2.6$ while
759: our guess about $R_{phys}$ asks for measurements at $\beta\sim 4$
760: which are absolutely unrealistic at the moment.
761:
762: Thus, we come to a paradoxical conclusion that
763: the presently available $\beta$ are too low to see
764: dissolution of the monopoles at small distances.
765: Moreover, because the running of the coupling
766: is only logarithmic the scale of of the onset
767: asymptotic freedom -- which is defined now as the vanishing of
768: the excess of the monopole action compared to the zero-point-fluctuations
769: action-- can be very far off.
770:
771: It is amusing to notice \footnote{The observation is due to M.I. Polikarpov.}
772: that in case of the $SU(3)$ gluodynamics on the lattice
773: $g^2=1$, or $\beta=6$ corresponds to the lattice
774: spacing $a\approx 0.1\,\,\,fm$ and the scale is:$$
775: R^{SU(3)}_{phys}~\sim~(2\mbox{GeV})^{-1}\,.$$
776: Thus, through dedicated studies of the monopoles in the $SU(3)$ case it is possible
777: to clarify whether there is a crucial change
778: in the monopole structure at the point $g^2(a)\approx 1$.
779:
780: \subsection{Supersymmetry}
781:
782: We are pursuing a pure phenomenological approach
783: and are not in position now to discuss possible
784: mechanisms ensuring the mass hierarchy within the
785: effective scalar filed theory. Obviously, it is
786: not a simple question. The same obvious, the supersymmetry could be
787: an answer
788: \cite{seiberg,espriu}.
789:
790: Generically, the supersymmetry would imply
791: that there are magnetically charged fields with spin $1/2$ as well.
792: Spin of the magnetically charged
793: particles can be determined from the character of their trajectories.
794: The random-walk representation (\ref{randomwalk}) is true only
795: for the scalar particles. For spinors, there is an intrinsic rigidity
796: \cite{qg}. To detect the rigidity, one can measure the correlation function
797: between the vectors tangent to the trajectory.
798:
799: Note that we expect that the particles in the IR cluster are
800: scalars for sure. On the other hand, UV , or relatively short trajectories
801: could correspond both to scalar and spinor particles. Detecting spinor particle
802: propagating on the lattice would be a spectacular indication to the
803: supersymmetry. And vice versa.
804:
805:
806: \section{Naive limit $\aaa\to 0$}
807:
808: If we get convinced that there might exist mass hierarchy
809: then we come to the next question which seems even more difficult.
810: Namely, why there is no independent phenomenological evidence for
811: the existence of large ``ultraviolet'' mass scale, like (\ref{rphys}).
812: Indeed, only at this scale we are guaranteed that zero-point fluctuations
813: dominate over the non-perturbative (monopole) fluctuations.
814: In an attempt to answer this question let us consider limit $a\to 0$
815: assuming that in this limit we are still having the same behavior
816: of the monopole action as at the presently available lattices.
817: If, indeed, $R_{phys}$ is as small as indicated by, say, (\ref{rphys})
818: then the validity of the approximation $a\to 0$ seems granted.
819:
820: \subsection{Power-like dependences on the lattice spacing $a$}
821:
822: Coming back to the partition function (\ref{m0}),
823: the monopole condensation corresponds to a negative $m^2_0$.
824: The physical excitations should be redefined in terms
825: of the new vacuum. The standard strategy to study these excitations
826: is to measure various vacuum correlators of the field $\phi$.
827: At present time, however, there is a lot of data on the vacuum
828: fields, also in terms of the monopole trajectories,
829: but not on the correlators.
830: There is no rigorous way to interpret these data.
831: Still, at least naively, one can relate some of the vacuum characteristics
832: to derivatives from the partition function with respect
833: to the parameters, such as $\mu$, $m_0^2$. The idea goes back to
834: the first paper in Ref. \cite{stone}. We supplement this idea by
835: the knowledge of the properties of the infrared monopole cluster,
836: which represents the non-perturbative vacuum in our
837: picture.
838:
839: To get a relation for $\rho_{mon}$
840: let us differentiate first
841: the partition function in the polymer
842: representation with respect to the chemical potential $\mu$:
843: \beq
844: \label{l}
845: \langle L \rangle = \frac{\partial}{\partial \mu} \ln \cZ\,
846: \eeq
847: where $L$ is the length of the monopole trajectory.
848: Since the density $\rho_{mon}$ scales:
849: \beq
850: \langle L \rangle = \rho_{mon}\cdot V_4\,,
851: \eeq
852: where $V_4$ is the 4-volume occupied by the lattice.
853: On the other hand, differentiating the same partition function but
854: in the field theoretical representation (\ref{m0}) with respect to
855: $m_0^2$ we get the vacuum condensate:
856: \beq\label{phi}
857: \langle \phi^2\rangle = \frac{\partial}{\partial m^2_0} \ln \cZ\,.
858: \eeq
859: It is worth emphasizing that in the both cases (\ref{l}) and (\ref{phi})
860: we keep only the contribution of the IR monopole cluster corresponding
861: to the condensing Higgs field in the field-theoretic language.
862:
863: Finally, since the parameters $\mu$ and $m_0^2$ are directly related, see
864: Eq. (\ref{related}), we get:
865: \beq\label{mainn}
866: \langle \phi^2\rangle~=~{1\over 8}\rho_{mon}\cdot \aaa~,
867: \eeq
868: which is one of our main results.
869: Note that,
870: up to an overall numerical factor,
871: Eq. (\ref{mainn}) is quite obvious on the dimensional grounds.
872:
873: Thus, let us assume that the scaling of the monopole density
874: in the IR cluster $\rho_{mon}$
875: continues to be true for smaller lattice spacings as well,
876: at least until we reach the mass scale sensitive to
877: the non-local structure of the monopoles,
878: see discussion above. Then we have the following simple picture:
879: \beq\label{a.f.}
880: \lim\limits_{\aaa\to 0}{m_0^2}~\sim~{\mu\over \aaa}~\rar~\infty,~~
881: \lim\limits_{\aaa\to 0}{\langle \phi^2\rangle}~\sim~\rho_{mon}\aaa~\rar~0,~~
882: \lim\limits_{\aaa\to 0}{m_V^2}~\sim~g^{-2}\rho_{mon}\aaa~\rar~0.
883: \eeq
884: It is worth emphasizing that the masses we are discussing here are
885: gauge invariant since we started from the
886: non-Abelian action per unit length. And we see
887: that existence of the huge mass scale (\ref{huge}) might in fact be in
888: no contradiction with the asymptotic freedom. Indeed, only the
889: chemical potential has physical meaning
890: and the scaling of the $\rho_{mon}$ indicates that
891: it is of order $\Lambda_{QCD}$. Moreover,
892: the effect of the condensate on the gluon mass goes away as a power of $\aaa$.
893:
894: It is worth emphasizing that Eq. (\ref{a.f.}) implies that
895: \beq
896: \lim\limits_{\aaa\to 0}{m_0^2\cdot \langle \phi^2\rangle}~\sim~\mbox{const}\,.
897: \eeq
898: In other words, the potential energy behaves smoothly as $\aaa\to 0$.
899: And this is, in fact, the most adequate formulation of the
900: emerging picture. It was possible to find the $\aaa$-dependence for $m_0^2$
901: and $\langle \phi^2\rangle$ separately only because of normalizing
902: the kinetic energy to unit.
903:
904: Note that the scaling laws (\ref{a.f.}) are still consistent with
905: $\rho_{mon}=~const$. Moreover, this seems to be sufficient
906: to ensure the monopole dominance and
907: \beq
908: \lim\limits_{\aaa\to 0}{\sigma_{mon}}~\sim ~\mbox{const}\,,
909: \eeq
910: where the monopole string tension is calculated with the use
911: of Eq. (\ref{laplasian}). Which means in turn that the parameters
912: used to describe the structure of the string within the Abelian
913: projection can be stable in the limit $\aaa~\to ~0$.
914: Moreover, say,
915: \beq
916: \lim_{\aaa\to 0} {(m_V^2)_{Ab. proj.}}~\sim~ \mbox{const}\,,
917: \eeq
918: is in no direct contradiction with (\ref{a.f.}) since the masses
919: determined in terms of the Abelian-projected action are not directly
920: related to the masses (\ref{a.f.}) determined
921: in terms of the non-Abelian action.
922:
923: Thus, the picture which emerges if we start with assumption (\ref{assumption})
924: has some attractive features. In particular, it removes the ultraviolet
925: scale from observables in an amusingly simple way. However, our estimates
926: are indeed naive and the discussion is preliminary.
927:
928: \subsection{Phenomenology}
929:
930: Studying characteristics of the monopole trajectories on
931: the lattice provides with a unique possibility
932: to visualize field theory in the polymer representation.
933: We have already seen that the measurements of the
934: $SU(2)$ invariant action allowed for far reaching conclusions
935: on the underlying Higgs-type models.
936:
937: Let us list some predictions which could be checked directly on the lattice:
938:
939: a) The monopole trajectories are random walk for any $\aaa$
940: in the sense that there is no correlation between the vectors
941: tangent to the monopole trajectory. This is true for scalar particles.
942: As we mentioned above, it is important to check this prediction
943: both for IR and UV monopole clusters.
944:
945: b) monopole density scales, $\rho_{mon}=const$ and is independent
946: of $a$ at least as far as the monopole action exceeds the average
947: in the lattice units (and not in $\Lambda_{QCD}^4$).
948:
949: c) as is known (see, e.g., \cite{intersect})
950: the monopole trajectories intersect.
951: It is natural to speculate that the distance between the self-intersections
952: also scales, reflecting the scaling of the potential energy.
953:
954: d) The intersections correspond in the field theoretical language to the
955: $\lambda\phi^4$ interaction:
956: \beq
957: V(\phi)~=~-m_0^2\phi^2 ~+~\lambda \phi^4
958: \eeq
959: As we argued, one expects that the potential
960: energy is $\aaa$-independent. This would imply that the effective scalar mass
961: defined in terms of the second derivative of the potential at
962: the minimum is also $\aaa$-independent. Which could be checked through
963: measurements.
964:
965: e) It would be most interesting to try
966: to generate the monopole trajectories within the polymer approach and compare the
967: results with the simulations within the full QCD.
968: In the simplest version,
969: there are essentially two entries in the action in the polymer approach,
970: that is the chemical potential and the interaction which
971: is presumably Coulomb-like:
972: \beq\label{nou1}
973: S~=~L\mu + g^2_{m}\, {\sum_{a,b}}' {\aaa^2\over(r_a-r_b)^2}\,,
974: \eeq
975: where the primed sum, $\Sigma^{'}_{a,b}$, does not include the self-energy.
976:
977:
978: \section{Conclusions}
979:
980: We have argued that data are emerging which indicate that QCD, when
981: projected onto the scalar-field theory via monopoles corresponds to a
982: fine tuned theory. Which is if course extremely interesting, if true,
983: in view of the mystery of the fine tuning in the Standard Model.
984: The monopoles which we considered are defined (``detected'')
985: through the Maximal Abelian projection. However, the mass scales which
986: exhibit mass hierarchy are gauge independent. The scales are provided by
987: the $SU(2)$ invariant action per unit length of the monopole trajectory,
988: on one hand, and by the temperature of the phase transition, on the other.
989: More generally, we have found that the polymer approach allows to get a
990: new insight into the mechanism of the monopole condensation.
991:
992: \section*{Acknowledgements}
993:
994: I am grateful to S. Caracciolo,
995: M.N. Chernodub, F.V. Gubarev, R. Hofmann, K. Konishi, K. Langfeld, S. Narison,
996: M.I. Polikarpov and L. Stodolsky
997: for discussions. Special thanks are due to M.N. Chernodub for numerous
998: communications and thorough discussions of the results.
999:
1000: The paper was worked out mostly during the author's stay at
1001: the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa.
1002: The hospitality extended to the author by
1003: the members of the Theory group and especially by Prof. R. Barbieri
1004: is gratefully acknowledged.
1005:
1006:
1007: \section*{References}
1008: \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{\numberline{}References}
1009: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1010:
1011: \bibitem{classic}
1012: Y. Nambu, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D10} (1974) 4262;\\
1013: G. 't Hooft, {\it in} ``High Energy Physics'', Editorici Compositori, Bologna, (1975);\\
1014: S. Mandelstam, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf C23} (1976) 516.
1015:
1016: \bibitem{review1}
1017: M.N. Chernodub, M.I. Polikarpov,
1018: {in "Cambridge 1997, Confinement, duality, and nonperturbative aspects of QCD"}, p.
1019: 387; hep-th/9710205;\\
1020: T. Suzuki, {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.} {\bf 131} (1998) 633;\\
1021: A. Di Giacomo, {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.} {\bf 131} (1998) 161.
1022:
1023: \bibitem{main}
1024: M.N.~Chernodub, F.V.~Gubarev, M.I.~Polikarpov, V.I.~Zakharov,
1025: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 592}, 107 (2000);
1026: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 600}, 163 (2001).
1027:
1028: \bibitem{alive}
1029: M.N. Chernodub, F.V. Gubarev,
1030: M.I. Polikarpov, V.I. Zakharov,
1031: {\it Phys. Atom. Nucl.} {\bf 64}, 561 (2001) (hep-th/0007135).
1032:
1033: \bibitem{anatomy}
1034: V.G. Bornyakov {\it et al}, hep-lat/0103032;\\
1035: V.A. Belavin, M.I. Polikarpov, A.I. Veselov, hep-lat/0110011.
1036:
1037: \bibitem{symanzik}
1038: K. Symanzik, {\it in} ``Local Quantum Theory'', (1969) Varenna International
1039: School of Physics, Course XLV, p. 152.
1040:
1041: \bibitem{stone}
1042: M. Stone, P.R. Thomas, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 41}, 351 (1978);\\
1043: S. Samuel, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 154}, 62 (1979).
1044:
1045: \bibitem{caracciolo}
1046: C. A. De Carvalhom, S. Caracciolo, J. Frohlich, {\it Nucl. Phys.}
1047: {\bf B 215}, 209 (1983).
1048:
1049: \bibitem{polyakov} A.M. Polyakov, \Journal{\PLB}{59}{82}{1975}.
1050:
1051: \bibitem{suzuki1}
1052: H. Shiba, T. Suzuki, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 343} (1995) 315.
1053:
1054: \bibitem{action}
1055: T. Suzuki, H. Shiba, {\it Phys. Lett.}, {\bf B 351}, 519 (1995);\\
1056: S. Kato {\it et al}, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 520}, 323 (1998);\\
1057: M.N. Chernodub {\it et al}, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 62}, 094506 (2000).
1058:
1059: \bibitem{qg}
1060: J. Ambjorn, B. Durhuus, Th. Johnsson, ``Quantum Geometry '',
1061: Cambridge University Press (1997), Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics.
1062:
1063: \bibitem{parisi}
1064: G. Parisi, ``Statistical Field Theory'', Addison-Wesley, (1988).
1065:
1066:
1067: \bibitem{fedor}
1068: F.V. Gubarev, V. I. Zakharov,
1069: {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 106} (2002) 622 (hep-lat/0110078);.
1070: {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.} {\bf A17} (2002) 157.
1071:
1072:
1073: \bibitem{mondom}
1074: T.~Suzuki, I.~Yotsuyanagi, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 42}, 4257 (1990);\\
1075: G.S.~Bali, V.~Bornyakov, M.~Mueller-Preussker, K.~Schilling,
1076: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D54}, 2863 (1996).
1077:
1078: \bibitem{latest}
1079: V. Bornyakov {\it et al}, hep-lat/0111042.
1080:
1081: \bibitem{bornyakov2}
1082: V. Bornyakov, M. Muller-Preussker, hep-lat/0110209.
1083:
1084: \bibitem{teper}
1085: T.L. Ivanenko, A.V. Pochinsky, M.I. Polikarpov,
1086: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 252}, 631 (1990);\\
1087: S. Kitahara, Y. Matsubara, T. Suzuki, {\it Progr. Theor. Phys.}
1088: {\bf 93}, 1 (1995);\\
1089: A. Hart, M. Teper, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 58}, 014504 (1998).
1090:
1091: \bibitem{temperature}
1092: K. Ishiguro, Y. Nakatani, T. Suzuki, {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.}
1093: {\bf 138} (2000) 35.
1094:
1095: \bibitem{seiberg}
1096: N. Seiberg, E. Witten, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B431} (1994) 484, {\bf B426} (1994) 19.
1097:
1098: \bibitem{espriu}
1099: J. Ambjorn, D. Espriu, N. Sasakura,
1100: {\it Mod. Phys. Lett.} {\bf A12} (1997) 2665.
1101:
1102: \bibitem{intersect} S. Kitahara, Y. Matsubara, T. Suzuki,
1103: {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 93}, 1 (1995).
1104:
1105:
1106:
1107: \end{thebibliography}
1108:
1109: \end{document}
1110:
1111:
1112: %K. Ishiguro, T. Suzuki, T. Yazawa, hep-lat/0112022.
1113:
1114: \bibitem{loop} G.~'t~Hooft, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 138}, 1 (1978).
1115: