This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

\preprintnumber

CHIBA-EP-249

Center group dominance in quark confinement

Ryu Ikeda cdna0955@chiba-u.jp Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522, Japan    Kei-Ichi Kondo kondok@faculty.chiba-u.jp Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522, Japan
Abstract

We show that the color NN dependent area law falloffs of the double-winding Wilson loop averages for the SU(N)SU(N) lattice gauge theory obtained in the preceding works are reproduced from the corresponding lattice Abelian gauge theory with the center gauge group ZNZ_{N}. This result indicates the center group dominance in quark confinement.

\subjectindex

B64 Lattice QCD

1. Introduction.  The area law falloff of the Wilson loop average is the most well-known criterion for quark confinement, which implies the existence of a linear potential between a static quark-antiquark pair in the gauge-independent way Wilson74 . For recent developments on quark confinement, see e.g., Greensite03 ; KKSS15 for reviews. Quite recently, the double-winding Wilson loop has been introduced in the lattice gauge theory by Greensite and Höllwieser GH15 to examine the possible mechanisms for quark confinement. In the SU(2)SU(2) lattice gauge theory, in particular, a double-winding Wilson loop was used as a probe to compare two promising pictures for quark confinement and thereby single out the true confinement mechanism according to the area law falloff of its average: the sum-of-areas law expected in the Abelian magnetic monopole picture and the difference-of-areas law expected in the center vortex picture.

The double-winding Wilson loop operator W(C1C2)W(C_{1}\cup C_{2}) is a trace of the path-ordered product of gauge link variables UU_{\ell} along a closed loop CC composed of two loops C1C_{1} and C2C_{2}:

W(C1C2)tr[C1C2U].\displaystyle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\equiv{\rm tr}\left[\prod_{\ell\in C_{1}\cup C_{2}}U_{\ell}\right]. (1)

The double-winding Wilson loop is called coplanar if the two loops C1C_{1} and C2C_{2} lie in the same plane, while it is called shifted if the two loops C1C_{1} and C2C_{2} lie in planes parallel to the xtx-t plane, but are displaced from one another in the transverse direction, e.g., zz by distance RR, and are connected by lines running parallel to the zz-axis to keep the gauge invariance. The coplanar case is regarded as a non-shifted R=0R=0 limit of the shifted one. Note that the double-winding Wilson loop operators are defined in a gauge invariant manner, irrespective of shifted R0R\not=0 or coplanar R=0R=0. See Fig.1. From the physical viewpoint, a double-winding Wilson loop operator represents the correlation between the two interacting quarkonia, namely, two interacting mesons which consist of a heavy quark and its antiquark. It can be used as a probe to study the interactions between two flux tubes connecting quark-antiquark pairs.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Figure 1: (a) a “coplanar” double-winding Wilson loop, (b) a “shifted” double-winding Wilson loop composed of the two loops C1C_{1} and C2C_{2} which lie in planes parallel to the xtx-t plane, but are displaced from one another in the zz-direction by distance RR.

The preceding works GH15 ; MK17 ; KSK20 investigated the area (S1S_{1} and S2S_{2}) dependence of the expectation value W(C1C2)\left<W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\right> of a double-winding Wilson loop operator W(C1C2)W(C_{1}\cup C_{2}) where S1S_{1} and S2S_{2} are respectively the minimal areas bounded by loops C1C_{1} and C2C_{2}. In the lattice SU(2)SU(2) Yang-Mills theory, it has been first shown in GH15 that the coplanar double-winding Wilson loop average obeys the “difference-of-areas law” by using the strong coupling expansion and the numerical simulations on the lattice.

In the continuum SU(N)SU(N) Yang-Mills theory, subsequently, a double-winding, a triple-winding, and general multiple-winding Wilson loops are investigated in MK17 to show that a coplanar double-winding SU(3)SU(3) Wilson loop average follows a novel area law which is neither difference-of-areas law nor sum-of-areas law, and that “sum-of-areas law” is allowed for SU(N)SU(N) (N4N\geqslant 4), provided that the string tension obeys the Casimir scaling for quarks in the higher representations.

In the lattice SU(N)SU(N) Yang-Mills theory, moreover, it has been shown in KSK20 by using the strong coupling expansion and the numerical simulations on the lattice that the coplanar double-winding Wilson loop average has the NN dependent area law falloff: “max-of-areas law” for N=3N=3 and “sum-of-areas law” for N4N\geqslant 4. Moreover, a shifted double-winding Wilson loop average as a function of the distance in a transverse direction has the long distance behavior which does not depend on the number of color NN, while the short distance behavior depends on NN.

In order to give better understanding on these results, in this paper, we investigate the area law falloff of the double-winding Wilson loops using the lattice gauge theory with the gauge group ZNZ_{N}, which is the center group of the original color gauge group SU(N)SU(N). We show that the NN dependent area law falloffs of the double-winding SU(N)SU(N) Wilson loop averages can be reproduced by using the Abelian gauge theory with the corresponding center group ZNZ_{N}. These results show that the center group as a subgroup of the original non-Abelian gauge group has the essential contribution for quark confinement. For obtaining the explicit expression of the double-winding Wilson loop average, we make use of the character expansion Creutz83 ; MM94 to rewrite the weight coming from the action and perform the ZNZ_{N} group integration.

Indeed, such dominance of the center group in quark confinement was shown long ago by Fröhlich in Frohlich79 which states that confinement in ZNZ_{N} lattice gauge theories implies confinement in SU(N)SU(N) lattice Higgs theories. According to Fröhlich’s original argument, we can extend the center group dominance to an arbitrary closed loop composed of any number of loops. Therefore, Fröhlich’s original result holds not only for the case of the single-winding Wilson loop average but also for the case of the double-winding and more general multiple-winding Wilson loop averages, beyond the ordinary single-winding Wilson loop average. Our calculations of the double-winding Wilson loop average to be performed in the approximation up to the leading order are consistent with this rigorous result, which reinforces the validity of our result of approximate calculations. In the SU(N)SU(N) theory, it is an involved task to evaluate the double-winding Wilson loop average, due to the non-Abelian nature of the gauge group SU(N)SU(N). Applying the Fröhlich’s argument, we can avoid this complexity to obtain the qualitative properties of the double-winding Wilson loop operator in the SU(N)SU(N) theory owing to the simplicity of the ZNZ_{N} theory.

2. The lattice ZNZ_{N} pure gauge model.  First, we introduce the lattice ZNZ_{N} pure gauge model with the coupling constant defined by β:=1/g2\beta:=1/g^{2}. The action of this model on a DD-dimensional hypercubic lattice Λ\Lambda with unit lattice spacing is given by

SG[U]=βpΛReUp,Up:=pU,S_{G}[U]=\beta\sum_{p\in\Lambda}\mathrm{Re}\ U_{p},\quad U_{p}:=\prod_{\ell\in\partial p}{U}_{\ell}, (2)

where \ell labels a link, pp labels an elementary plaquette and UpU_{p} is a plaquette variable defined by the path-ordered product of the link variables U{U}_{\ell} along the loop p\partial p, where U{U}_{\ell} is a ZNZ_{N} link variable on link \ell. To examine this ZNZ_{N} model analytically, we introduce the character expansion. We apply the character expansion to the weight eSG[U]{e}^{S_{G}[U]} to obtain

eSG[U]=pΛeβReUp=pΛn=0N1bn(β)Upn,{e}^{S_{G}[U]}=\prod_{p\in\Lambda}{e}^{\beta\mathrm{Re}\ U_{p}}=\prod_{p\in\Lambda}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}b_{n}(\beta)U_{p}^{n}, (3)

where bn(β)b_{n}(\beta) is defined by

bn(β):=1NζZNζneβReζ.b_{n}(\beta):=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{N}}{\zeta}^{-n}{e}^{\beta\mathrm{Re}\ \zeta}. (4)

Then the expectation value of an operator \mathscr{F} is given by

Λ\displaystyle{\langle\mathscr{F}\rangle}_{\Lambda} =ZΛ1ΛdUeSG[U]=ZΛ1ΛdUpΛn=0N1bn(β)Upn,\displaystyle={Z}_{\Lambda}^{-1}\int\prod_{\ell\in\Lambda}d{U}_{\ell}\ {e}^{S_{G}[U]}\mathscr{F}={Z}_{\Lambda}^{-1}\int\prod_{\ell\in\Lambda}d{U}_{\ell}\ \prod_{p\in\Lambda}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}b_{n}(\beta)U_{p}^{n}\mathscr{F}, (5)
ZΛ\displaystyle{Z}_{\Lambda} :=ΛdUeSG[U].\displaystyle:=\int\prod_{\ell\in\Lambda}d{U}_{\ell}\ {e}^{S_{G}[U]}. (6)

The ZNZ_{N} link variable U=exp(i2πk/N)(k=0,1,,N1){U}_{\ell}=\exp\left(i2\pi{k}_{\ell}/N\right)\ ({k}_{\ell}=0,1,\cdots,N-1) in the continuous group limit NN\to\infty reduces to U(1)U(1) link variable U=exp(iθ)(π<θπ){U}_{\ell}=\exp\left(i{\theta}_{\ell}\right)\ (-\pi<{\theta}_{\ell}\leqslant\pi).
For the action of the lattice U(1)U(1) pure gauge model given by

SG[U]=βpΛReUp=βpΛcosθp,θp:=pθ,S_{G}[U]=\beta\sum_{p\in\Lambda}\mathrm{Re}\ U_{p}=\beta\sum_{p\in\Lambda}\cos{\theta}_{p},\quad{\theta}_{p}:=\sum_{\ell\in\partial p}{\theta}_{\ell}, (7)

and the character expansion of the weight eSG[U]{e}^{S_{G}[U]} is given by

eSG[U]=pΛeβcosθp=pΛn=0bn(β)einθp.{e}^{S_{G}[U]}=\prod_{p\in\Lambda}{e}^{\beta\cos{\theta}_{p}}=\prod_{p\in\Lambda}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}b_{n}(\beta){e}^{in{\theta}_{p}}. (8)

Notice that bn(β)b_{n}(\beta) for the continuous group U(1)U(1) agrees with the integral representation of the first-kind modified Bessel function In(β)I_{n}(\beta):

bn(β):=12πππdθeinθeβcosθ=1π0πdθcos(nθ)eβcosθ=:In(β).\displaystyle b_{n}(\beta):=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}d\theta\ {e}^{-in\theta}{e}^{\beta\cos\theta}=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\pi}d\theta\ \cos(n\theta){e}^{\beta\cos\theta}=:I_{n}(\beta). (9)

We define cn(β)c_{n}(\beta) by cn(β)=bn(β)/b0(β)c_{n}(\beta)=b_{n}(\beta)/b_{0}(\beta). For N=2,3,4N=2,3,4 and \infty, c1(β)c_{1}(\beta) and c2(β)c_{2}(\beta) are written in the form

c1(β)\displaystyle c_{1}(\beta) =eβeβeβ+eβ(N=2),c1(β)=eβeβ/2eβ+2eβ/2=c2(β)(N=3),\displaystyle=\frac{{e}^{\beta}-{e}^{-\beta}}{{e}^{\beta}+{e}^{-\beta}}\quad(N=2)\ ,\qquad c_{1}(\beta)=\frac{{e}^{\beta}-{e}^{-\beta/2}}{{e}^{\beta}+2{e}^{-\beta/2}}=c_{2}(\beta)\quad(N=3)\ ,
c1(β)\displaystyle c_{1}(\beta) =eβeβeβ+2+eβ,c2(β)=eβ2+eβeβ+2+eβ(N=4),\displaystyle=\frac{{e}^{\beta}-{e}^{-\beta}}{{e}^{\beta}+2+{e}^{-\beta}},\quad c_{2}(\beta)=\frac{{e}^{\beta}-2+{e}^{-\beta}}{{e}^{\beta}+2+{e}^{-\beta}}\quad(N=4)\ ,
c1(β)\displaystyle c_{1}(\beta) =I1(β)I0(β),c2(β)=I2(β)I0(β)(N=).\displaystyle=\frac{I_{1}(\beta)}{I_{0}(\beta)},\quad c_{2}(\beta)=\frac{I_{2}(\beta)}{I_{0}(\beta)}\quad(N=\infty). (10)

Note that bNn(β)=bn(β){b}_{N-n}(\beta)=b_{n}(\beta) and 0cn(β)<10\leqslant c_{n}(\beta)<1 for 0β<0\leqslant\beta<\infty. For N=2,3,4N=2,3,4 and \infty , the behavior of c1(β)c_{1}(\beta) and c2(β)c_{2}(\beta) as functions of β\beta are indicated in Fig.2. We find that c1(β)𝒪(β)c_{1}(\beta)\sim\mathcal{O}(\beta) and c2(β)𝒪(β2)c_{2}(\beta)\sim\mathcal{O}({\beta}^{2}) for β1\beta\ll 1, while c1(β)c2(β)c_{1}(\beta)\sim c_{2}(\beta) for β1\beta\gg 1, and c1(β),c2(β)1c_{1}(\beta),c_{2}(\beta)\to 1 as β\beta\to\infty, irrespective of NN.

Refer to caption
(a) c1(β)(N=2,3,4,)c_{1}(\beta)\ (N=2,3,4,\infty)
Refer to caption
(b) c2(β)(N=3,4,)c_{2}(\beta)\ (N=3,4,\infty)
Figure 2: The character expansion coefficient as a function of β\beta, (a) c1(β)c_{1}(\beta),  (b) c2(β)c_{2}(\beta)

3. The evaluation of Wilson loop averages in the lattice ZNZ_{N} pure gauge model.  Next, we evaluate the expectation values of an ordinary single-winding Wilson loop, a coplanar double-winding Wilson loop, and a shifted double-winding Wilson loop in the lattice ZNZ_{N} pure gauge model.

3.1. The Wilson loop average in the ZNZ_{N} pure gauge model.  For a link variable UZN{U}_{\ell}\in Z_{N}, U{U}_{\ell} is written as U=exp(i2πk/N)(k=0,1,,N1){U}_{\ell}=\exp\left(i2\pi{k}_{\ell}/N\right)\ ({k}_{\ell}=0,1,\cdots,N-1), which is a complex number of unit modulus, U,|U|=1{U}_{\ell}\in\mathbb{C},\ |{U}_{\ell}|=1. Therefore, (U)N=1{({U}_{\ell})}^{N}=1 and (U)n=(U)Nn{({U}_{\ell}^{*})}^{n}={({U}_{\ell})}^{N-n}. The integration formulae for the ZNZ_{N} group is very simple:

dU(U)m(U)n=δmn(m,n,modN).\displaystyle\int dU\ {(U)}^{m}{(U^{*})}^{n}={\delta}_{mn}\qquad(m,n\in\mathbb{Z},\mod N). (11)

In a Wilson loop operator W(C):=CUW(C):=\prod_{\ell\in C}{U}_{\ell}, there is a single link variable U{U}_{\ell} on a link C\ell\in C. For obtaining non-vanishing contributions after integration, there must be another link variable U=UN1{U}_{\ell}^{*}={U}_{\ell}^{N-1} for U(C){U}_{\ell}\ (\ell\in C) which is supplied from the character expansion of the weight eSG[U]{e}^{S_{G}[U]}. It should be remarked that for an Abelian group has a special property:

CU=pSS=CUp,\prod_{\ell\in C}{U}_{\ell}=\prod_{\begin{subarray}{c}p\in S\\ \partial S=C\end{subarray}}{U}_{p}, (12)

where SS is an arbitrary surface composed of a connected set of plaquettes and bounded by a loop CC. From this special property of the Abelian group, a Wilson loop operator is converted to the product of UpU_{p}. Therefore, the leading contribution is given by the diagram in Fig.3 where the minimal area SS bounded by the loop CC is tiled by a planar set of plaquettes. For N=2N=2, given in the left panel of Fig.3, especially, the link variable U{U}_{\ell} is real (U=±1{U}_{\ell}=\pm 1) and hence no orientation.

Refer to caption
(a) N=2N=2
Refer to caption
(b) N3N\geqslant 3
Figure 3: A single-winding Wilson loop, (a) N=2N=2 ,  (b) N3N\geqslant 3

We take a lattice Λ\Lambda sufficiently large so as to include these gauge-invariant operators and calculate the leading contribution. Therefore the leading contribution for the Wilson loop average W(C)\langle W(C)\rangle is calculated as

W(C)\displaystyle\langle W(C)\rangle ZS1SdUpS[bN1UpN1+bN2UpN2++b1Up+b0]CU\displaystyle\simeq{Z}_{S}^{-1}\int\prod_{\ell\in S}d{U}_{\ell}\prod_{p\in S}\left[{b}_{N-1}{U}_{p}^{N-1}+{b}_{N-2}{U}_{p}^{N-2}+\cdots+b_{1}U_{p}+b_{0}\right]\prod_{\ell^{\prime}\in C}{U}_{\ell^{\prime}}
=ZS1SdUpS[bN1UpN1+bN2UpN2++b1Up+b0]pSUp\displaystyle={Z}_{S}^{-1}\int\prod_{\ell\in S}d{U}_{\ell}\prod_{p\in S}\left[{b}_{N-1}{U}_{p}^{N-1}+{b}_{N-2}{U}_{p}^{N-2}+\cdots+b_{1}U_{p}+b_{0}\right]\prod_{p^{\prime}\in S}{U}_{p^{\prime}}
=ZS1SdUpS[bN1+bN2UpN1++b1Up2+b0Up],\displaystyle={Z}_{S}^{-1}\int\prod_{\ell\in S}d{U}_{\ell}\prod_{p\in S}\left[{b}_{N-1}+{b}_{N-2}{U}_{p}^{N-1}+\cdots+b_{1}U_{p}^{2}+b_{0}U_{p}\right], (13)

where the partition function ZSZ_{S} for Λ=S\Lambda=S reads

ZSSdUpS[b0+bN1UpN1++b2Up2+b1Up].Z_{S}\simeq\int\prod_{\ell\in S}d{U}_{\ell}\prod_{p\in S}\left[b_{0}+{b}_{N-1}{U}_{p}^{N-1}+\cdots+b_{2}U_{p}^{2}+b_{1}U_{p}\right]. (14)

Here we have used CU=pSUp\prod_{\ell^{\prime}\in C}{U}_{\ell^{\prime}}=\prod_{p^{\prime}\in S}{U}_{p^{\prime}} following from (12) in the second equality of (Center group dominance in quark confinement) and the integration formula obtained from (11):

ppdU(Up)m(Up)n={pdU(Up)m+n(p=p)0(pp)(n0modN).\int\prod_{\ell\in p\cup p^{\prime}}d{U}_{\ell}\ {(U_{p})}^{m}{(U_{p}^{\prime})}^{n}=\begin{cases}\int\prod_{\ell\in p}d{U}_{\ell}\ {(U_{p})}^{m+n}&(p=p^{\prime})\\ 0&(p\neq p^{\prime})\end{cases}\qquad(n\not\equiv 0\mod N). (15)

Furthermore, we use the integration formula following from (11): for the integration on a link SC\ell\in S\setminus C,

dU(U)m(U)n=δmn(m,n,modN),\int d{U}_{\ell}\ {({U}_{\ell})}^{{m}_{\ell}}{({U}_{\ell}^{*})}^{{n}_{\ell}}={\delta}_{{m}_{\ell}{n}_{\ell}}\qquad({m}_{\ell},{n}_{\ell}\in\mathbb{Z}\ ,\mod N), (16)

and for the integration on a link C\ell\in C,

dU(U)m=δm0,dU(U)n=δ0n(m,n,modN).\int d{U}_{\ell}\ {({U}_{\ell})}^{{m}_{\ell}}={\delta}_{{m}_{\ell}0}\ ,\quad\int d{U}_{\ell}\ {({U}_{\ell}^{*})}^{{n}_{\ell}}={\delta}_{0{n}_{\ell}}\qquad({m}_{\ell},{n}_{\ell}\in\mathbb{Z}\ ,\mod N). (17)

Therefore, the non-zero contribution in the integration is given by terms with m=n=0{m}_{\ell}={n}_{\ell}=0, namely terms without UpU_{p}:

W(C)bN1(β)|S|SdUb0(β)|S|SdU=cN1(β)|S|=c1(β)|S|(N2),\langle W(C)\rangle\simeq\frac{{{b}_{N-1}(\beta)}^{|S|}\int\prod_{\ell\in S}d{U}_{\ell}}{{b_{0}(\beta)}^{|S|}\int\prod_{\ell\in S}d{U}_{\ell}}={{c}_{N-1}(\beta)}^{|S|}={c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S|}\qquad(N\geqslant 2), (18)

where |S||S| is the total number of plaquettes on SS. This leading result does not have the dependence on the dimensionality DD and gives the exact result for D=2D=2.

3.2. A coplanar double winding Wilson loop average in the ZNZ_{N} pure gauge theory.  From now on, we proceed to study a coplanar double-winding Wilson loop W(C1C2):=C1C2UW(C_{1}\cup C_{2}):=\prod_{\ell\in C_{1}\cup C_{2}}{U}_{\ell}, where there is a single link variable U{U}_{\ell} for C1(C1C2)\ell\in C_{1}\setminus(C_{1}\cap C_{2}) and a double link variable U2{U}_{\ell}^{2} for C1C2\ell\in C_{1}\cap C_{2}. See Fig.4. For obtaining non-vanishing contribution after integration, there must be more link variables U=UN1{U}_{\ell}^{*}={U}_{\ell}^{N-1} for C1(C1C2)\ell\in C_{1}\setminus(C_{1}\cap C_{2}), and (U)2=UN2{({U}_{\ell}^{*})}^{2}={U}_{\ell}^{N-2} for C1C2\ell\in C_{1}\cap C_{2}, which come from the character expansion of the weight eSG[U]{e}^{S_{G}[U]}.

Refer to caption
(a) N=2N=2
Refer to caption
(b) N3N\geqslant 3
Figure 4: A coplanar double-winding Wilson loop, (a) N=2N=2 ,  (b) N3N\geqslant 3

For N=2N=2, U{U}_{\ell} is a real number taking the value U=±1{U}_{\ell}=\pm 1. Therefore, the double link variables (U)2(C1C2){({U}_{\ell})}^{2}\ (\ell\in C_{1}\cap C_{2}) have no contribution due to (U)2=1{({U}_{\ell})}^{2}=1. Consequently, a double-winding Wilson loop operator W(C1C2)W(C_{1}\cup C_{2}) reduces to a single-winding Wilson loop operator on the loop C:=(C1C2)(C1C2)C:=(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\setminus(C_{1}\cap C_{2}). The leading contribution is given by the diagram in the left panel of Fig.4(a) where the area S1S2S_{1}\setminus S_{2} is tiled by a planar set of plaquettes. Thus, the leading contribution for the W(C1C2)\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle is calculated as the difference-of-area law:

W(C1C2)=W(C)c1(β)|S1||S2|,C:=(C1C2)(C1C2).\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle=\langle W(C)\rangle\simeq{c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|-|S_{2}|},\quad C:=(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\setminus(C_{1}\cap C_{2}). (19)

For N3N\geqslant 3, the leading contribution is given by the diagram in the right panel of Fig.4 where the area S1S2S_{1}\setminus S_{2} is tiled once and S2S_{2} is tiled twice by a set of plaquettes which are supplied from the character expansion of the weight eSG[U]{e}^{S_{G}[U]}. Therefore, the leading contribution for W(C1C2)\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle is calculated as

W\displaystyle\langle W (C1C2)ZS11S1dUpS1[bN1UpN1+bN2UpN2++b1Up+b0]C1C2U\displaystyle(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle\simeq{Z}_{S_{1}}^{-1}\int\prod_{\ell\in S_{1}}d{U}_{\ell}\prod_{p\in S_{1}}\left[{b}_{N-1}{U}_{p}^{N-1}+{b}_{N-2}{U}_{p}^{N-2}+\cdots+b_{1}U_{p}+b_{0}\right]\prod_{\ell^{\prime}\in C_{1}\cup C_{2}}{U}_{\ell^{\prime}}
=ZS11S1dUpS1[bN1UpN1+bN2UpN2++b1Up+b0]pS2Up2pS1S2Up\displaystyle={Z}_{S_{1}}^{-1}\int\prod_{\ell\in S_{1}}d{U}_{\ell}\prod_{p\in S_{1}}\left[{b}_{N-1}{U}_{p}^{N-1}+{b}_{N-2}{U}_{p}^{N-2}+\cdots+b_{1}U_{p}+b_{0}\right]\prod_{p^{\prime}\in S_{2}}{U}_{p^{\prime}}^{2}\prod_{p^{\prime}\in S_{1}\setminus S_{2}}{U}_{p^{\prime}}
=ZS11S1dUpS2[bN2+bN3UpN1++b0Up2+bN1Up]\displaystyle={Z}_{S_{1}}^{-1}\int\prod_{\ell\in S_{1}}d{U}_{\ell}\prod_{p\in S_{2}}\left[{b}_{N-2}+{b}_{N-3}{U}_{p}^{N-1}+\cdots+b_{0}U_{p}^{2}+{b}_{N-1}U_{p}\right]
×pS1S2[bN1+bN2UpN1++b1Up2+b0Up].\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\times\prod_{p\in S_{1}\setminus S_{2}}\left[{b}_{N-1}+{b}_{N-2}{U}_{p}^{N-1}+\cdots+b_{1}U_{p}^{2}+b_{0}U_{p}\right]. (20)

Here we have used C1C2U=pS2Up2pS1S2Up\prod_{\ell^{\prime}\in C_{1}\cup C_{2}}{U}_{\ell^{\prime}}=\prod_{p^{\prime}\in S_{2}}{U}_{p^{\prime}}^{2}\prod_{p^{\prime}\in S_{1}\setminus S_{2}}{U}_{p^{\prime}} following from (12) in the second equality, and (15) in the last equality. In a similar way, we obtain

ZS1S1dUpS1[b0+bN1UpN1++b2Up2+b1Up].{Z}_{S_{1}}\simeq\int\prod_{\ell\in S_{1}}d{U}_{\ell}\prod_{p\in S_{1}}\left[b_{0}+{b}_{N-1}{U}_{p}^{N-1}+\cdots+b_{2}U_{p}^{2}+b_{1}U_{p}\right]. (21)

In the similar way to the single-winding Wilson loop, the result of integration is given by

W(C1C2)\displaystyle\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle bN2(β)|S2|bN1(β)|S1||S2|S1dUb0(β)|S1|S1dU\displaystyle\simeq\frac{{{b}_{N-2}(\beta)}^{|S_{2}|}{{b}_{N-1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|-|S_{2}|}\int\prod_{\ell\in S_{1}}d{U}_{\ell}}{{b_{0}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|}\int\prod_{\ell\in S_{1}}d{U}_{\ell}}
=cN2(β)|S2|cN1(β)|S1||S2|=c2(β)|S2|c1(β)|S1||S2|(N3).\displaystyle={{c}_{N-2}(\beta)}^{|S_{2}|}{{c}_{N-1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|-|S_{2}|}={c_{2}(\beta)}^{|S_{2}|}{c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|-|S_{2}|}\qquad(N\geqslant 3). (22)

Especially, in the case of N=3N=3, due to c1(β)=c2(β)c_{1}(\beta)=c_{2}(\beta), we find W(C1C2)c1(β)|S1|\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle\simeq{c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|}.

Summarizing the results,

W(\displaystyle\langle W( C1C2)={c1(β)|S1||S2|(N=2)c1(β)|S1|(N=3)c2(β)|S2|c1(β)|S1||S2|(N4).\displaystyle C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle=\begin{cases}{c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|-|S_{2}|}&(N=2)\\ {c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|}&(N=3)\\ {c_{2}(\beta)}^{|S_{2}|}{c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|-|S_{2}|}&(N\geqslant 4)\end{cases}. (23)

For N=2N=2, W(C1C2)\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle obeys the difference-of-areas law.

For N=3N=3, W(C1C2)\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle obeys the max-of-areas law. This special result in the N=3N=3 case is derived from the relation c1(β)=c2(β)c_{1}(\beta)=c_{2}(\beta), which holds only in the N=3N=3 case and follows from the intrinsic property of the Z3Z_{3} group in the ZNZ_{N} theory: U2=U{U}^{2}={U}^{*} for UZ3U\in Z_{3}.

For N4N\geqslant 4, the area law depends on β\beta. In the strong coupling region β1\beta\ll 1, due to c1(β)𝒪(β)c_{1}(\beta)\sim\mathcal{O}(\beta) and c2(β)𝒪(β2)c_{2}(\beta)\sim\mathcal{O}({\beta}^{2}), W(C1C2)\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle obeys the sum-of-areas law. While in the weak coupling region β1\beta\gg 1, due to c1(β)c2(β)c_{1}(\beta)\sim c_{2}(\beta), W(C1C2)\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle obeys the max-of-areas law.
This result reproduces the areas law falloff obtained by Kato, Shibata, and Kondo in KSK20 for the double-winding Wilson loop average in the lattice SU(N)SU(N) pure gauge model, except for the NN-dependent coefficients reflecting the non-Abelian structure of the group SU(N)SU(N). The max-of-areas law for N4N\geqslant 4 in the weak coupling region is a new result, beyond the region β1\beta\ll 1 where the strong coupling expansion is effective. For the spacetime dimension D>2D>2, it should be remarked that the higher order contributions become the same order as the leading contribution in the weak coupling region due to the asymptotic property cn(β)1c_{n}(\beta)\sim 1. Hence, the evaluation of the double-winding Wilson loop average only from the leading contribution is valid only in the strong coupling region β1\beta\ll 1 for D>2D>2.

For the original SU(N)SU(N) theory, in the strong coupling expansion, the candidates of the leading contribution to the coplanar double-winding Wilson loop average are given by the two types of tiling patterns according to the SU(N)SU(N) group integration formula. Although the area S1S2S_{1}\setminus S_{2} is tiled by the set of the single plaquettes, in one type of the tiling patterns the area S2S_{2} is tiled by the set of (N2)(N-2)-fold plaquettes, while in another type the area S2S_{2} is tiled by the set of the double plaquettes. See Fig.7 of KSK20 . For N=2,3N=2,3, the former gives the leading contribution (The difference-of-areas law holds for N=2N=2 and the max-of-areas law holds for N=3N=3), while for N4N\geqslant 4, the latter gives the leading contribution (The sum-of-areas law holds for N4N\geqslant 4). This switching giving the leading contribution reproduces the difference between the cases N=2,3N=2,3 and N4N\geqslant 4. Therefore, the specialness of the N=3N=3 case comes from this switching between the two types of contributions. Note that the right figure in Fig.4 for the leading contribution in the case of N3N\geqslant 3 is NN-independent in ZNZ_{N} gauge theory, in contrast to the SU(N)SU(N) gauge theory.

Additionally, taking the continuous group limit NN\to\infty, bn(β)b_{n}(\beta) converges to the first-kind modified Bessel function In(β)I_{n}(\beta). From the asymptotic form of the In(β)I_{n}(\beta), bn(β)b_{n}(\beta) behaves as

bn(β)1n!(β2)n(β1),eβ2πβ(β1),b_{n}(\beta)\sim\frac{1}{n!}{\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)}^{n}\quad(\beta\ll 1),\qquad\frac{{e}^{\beta}}{\sqrt{2\pi\beta}}\quad(\beta\gg 1), (24)

and cn(β)c_{n}(\beta) have the NN\to\infty limit

limNcn(β)=In(β)I0(β)1n!(β2)n(β1),𝒪(1)(β1).\lim_{N\to\infty}c_{n}(\beta)=\frac{I_{n}(\beta)}{I_{0}(\beta)}\sim\frac{1}{n!}{\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)}^{n}\quad(\beta\ll 1),\qquad\mathcal{O}(1)\quad(\beta\gg 1). (25)

Therefore, the areas law for N4N\geqslant 4 persists in the limit NN\to\infty i.e. the continuous group U(1)U(1). This result suggests the double-winding Wilson loop average in the U(N)U(N) lattice gauge model obeys the same area law as that in the N4N\geqslant 4 case of the SU(N)SU(N) lattice gauge model up to the leading contribution in accord with the center group dominance for the U(N)U(N) gauge model, since the center group of U(N)U(N) is U(1)U(1).

3.3. A shifted double-winding Wilson loop average in the ZNZ_{N} pure gauge theory.  A shifted double-winding Wilson loop is composed of loops C1C_{1}, C2C_{2}, and CRC_{R}. One of the leading contributions is given by the diagram (I) in the left panel of Fig.5 where the areas S1S_{1} and S2S_{2} bounded respectively by C1C_{1} and C2C_{2} are tiled by a minimal set of plaquettes. Note that there is no contribution from CRC_{R}, because the link variable U{U}_{\ell} is Abelian and can be moved to anywhere on the loop C1C_{1} and C2C_{2} so that it can be arranged to give a trivial result due to UU=1{U}_{\ell}{U}_{\ell}^{*}=1 before the integration of the link variables on C1C_{1} and C2C_{2}. Therefore, this diagram gives the RR-independent contribution

W(C1C2)R0I\displaystyle{\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle}_{R\neq 0}^{I} =W(C1)W(C2)c1(β)|S1|+|S2|(N2).\displaystyle=\langle W(C_{1})\rangle\langle W(C_{2})\rangle\simeq{c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|+|S_{2}|}\qquad(N\geqslant 2). (26)

Another leading contribution is given by the diagram (II) in the right panel of Fig.5.

First, the four sides of a cuboid with the area 2R(L2+T)2R(L_{2}+T), whose height is RR and top is S2S_{2}, are tiled by plaquettes. After this tiling, the integration is reduced to the case of the coplanar (non-shifted) version. Thus, this diagram gives the RR-dependent result

W(C1C2)R0II\displaystyle{\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle}_{R\neq 0}^{II} c1(β)2R(L2+T)W(C1C2)\displaystyle\simeq{c_{1}(\beta)}^{2R(L_{2}+T)}\langle W(C_{1}\cup C^{\prime}_{2})\rangle
{c1(β)2R(L2+T)c1(β)|S1||S2|(N=2)c1(β)2R(L2+T)c1(β)|S1|(N=3)c1(β)2R(L2+T)c2(β)|S2|c1(β)|S1||S2|(N4),\displaystyle\simeq\begin{cases}{c_{1}(\beta)}^{2R(L_{2}+T)}\cdot{c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|-|S_{2}|}&(N=2)\\ {c_{1}(\beta)}^{2R(L_{2}+T)}\cdot{c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|}&(N=3)\\ {c_{1}(\beta)}^{2R(L_{2}+T)}\cdot{c_{2}(\beta)}^{|S_{2}|}{c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|-|S_{2}|}&(N\geqslant 4)\end{cases}, (27)

where C2C^{\prime}_{2} denotes a loop C2C_{2} after taking the R0R\to 0 limit. Therefore, the total leading contribution for W(C1C2)R0{\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle}_{R\neq 0} is composed of the RR-independent contribution W(C1C2)R0I{\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle}_{R\neq 0}^{I} and RR-dependent contribution W(C1C2)R0II{\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle}_{R\neq 0}^{II} :

W(C1C2)R0{c1(β)|S1|+|S2|+c1(β)2R(L2+T)c1(β)|S1||S2|(N=2)c1(β)|S1|+|S2|+c1(β)2R(L2+T)c1(β)|S1|(N=3)c1(β)|S1|+|S2|+c1(β)2R(L2+T)c2(β)|S2|c1(β)|S1||S2|(N4).\displaystyle{\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle}_{R\neq 0}\simeq\begin{cases}{c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|+|S_{2}|}+{c_{1}(\beta)}^{2R(L_{2}+T)}\cdot{c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|-|S_{2}|}&(N=2)\\ {c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|+|S_{2}|}+{c_{1}(\beta)}^{2R(L_{2}+T)}\cdot{c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|}&(N=3)\\ {c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|+|S_{2}|}+{c_{1}(\beta)}^{2R(L_{2}+T)}\cdot{c_{2}(\beta)}^{|S_{2}|}{c_{1}(\beta)}^{|S_{1}|-|S_{2}|}&(N\geqslant 4)\end{cases}. (28)

This result reproduces the RR-dependence of the shifted double-winding Wilson loop average obtained in KSK20 .

Refer to caption
(a) diagram(I)diagram(I)
Refer to caption
(b) diagram(II)diagram(II)
Figure 5: A shifted double-winding Wilson loop, (a) diagram (I), (b)diagram (II)

Moreover, we can evaluate the mass gap Δ(β){\Delta}(\beta) from a shifted double-winding Wilson loop average by considering the case of S1=S2=1S_{1}=S_{2}=1 and R1R\gg 1:

W(C1C2)R0II{c1(β)4R=e4Rlnc1(β)(N=2)c1(β)c1(β)4R=c1(β)e4Rlnc1(β)(N=3)c2(β)c1(β)4R=c2(β)e4Rlnc1(β)(N4),{\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle}_{R\neq 0}^{II}\simeq\begin{cases}{c_{1}(\beta)}^{4R}={e}^{4R\ln c_{1}(\beta)}&(N=2)\\ c_{1}(\beta){c_{1}(\beta)}^{4R}=c_{1}(\beta){e}^{4R\ln c_{1}(\beta)}&(N=3)\\ c_{2}(\beta){c_{1}(\beta)}^{4R}=c_{2}(\beta){e}^{4R\ln c_{1}(\beta)}&(N\geqslant 4)\end{cases}, (29)

according to the relation

W(C1C2)R0conn.\displaystyle{\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle}_{R\neq 0}^{\textit{conn.}} :=W(C1C2)R0W(C1)W(C2)\displaystyle:={\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle}_{R\neq 0}-\langle W(C_{1})\rangle\langle W(C_{2})\rangle
W(C1C2)R0IIC(β)eRΔ(β)(R1),\displaystyle\simeq{\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle}_{R\neq 0}^{II}\sim C(\beta){e}^{-R{\Delta}(\beta)}\qquad(R\gg 1), (30)

where C(β)C(\beta) is a β\beta-dependent constant. Therefore, the non-zero mass gap Δ(β){\Delta}(\beta) is obtained from the result for a shifted double-winding Wilson loop average:

Δ(β)=4ln1c1(β)>0(0β<).{\Delta}(\beta)=4\ln\frac{1}{c_{1}(\beta)}>0\qquad(0\leqslant\beta<\infty). (31)

4. A rigorous result on the center group dominance.  Finally, we want to mention the works which have focused the role of the center group in quark confinement in the lattice gauge theory from our viewpoint. Fröhlich has shown Frohlich79 that the Wilson loop average at the coupling constant β\beta in the lattice non-Abelian gauge theory with the gauge group GG is bounded from above by the same Wilson loop average at the coupling constant 2dim(G)β2{\rm dim}(G)\beta in the lattice Abelian gauge theory which is obtained by restricting the variables to the center group Z(G)Z(G) in the same spacetime dimension. The inequality is explicitly written by using our notations as

|WR(G)(C)G(β)|2tr(𝟏)WR(Z(G))(C)Z(G)(2dim(G)β),\displaystyle|\langle W_{R(G)}(C)\rangle_{G}(\beta)|\leq 2{\rm tr}({\bf 1})\langle W_{R(Z(G))}(C)\rangle_{Z(G)}(2{\rm dim}(G)\beta), (32)

where trR(𝟏){\rm tr}_{R}({\bf 1}) is the trace of the unit element in the representation RR of GG and dim(G){\rm dim}(G) denotes the dimension of GG. Actually, this inequality was obtained for the gauge-Higgs model where the Higgs scalar field is in the representation that is trivial on Z(G)Z(G), which is in particular satisfied in the case of the pure gauge theory without the Higgs scalar field. Using this inequality, it has been shown that every Abelian and non-Abelian lattice Higgs theory in the two-dimensional spacetime permanently confines fractionally charged static quarks and that every U(N)U(N) (N=1,2,3,)(N=1,2,3,...) lattice Yang-Mills theory in the three-dimensional spacetime permanently confines static quarks. Similar results are also obtained by Mack and Petkova MP79 for the SU(2)SU(2) lattice Yang-Mills theory in the three-dimensional spacetime.

We use the inequality within the pure gauge theory, since we discuss only the pure gauge theory in this paper and the gauge-scalar model is the subject to be tackled in a subsequent paper. By examining the proof given in Frohlich79 , we find that the similar inequality holds also for the double-winding Wilson loop as

|WR(G)(C1C2)G(β)|2tr(𝟏)WR(Z(G))(C1C2)Z(G)(2dim(G)β).\displaystyle|\langle W_{R(G)}(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle_{G}(\beta)|\leq 2{\rm tr}({\bf 1})\langle W_{R(Z(G))}(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle_{Z(G)}(2{\rm dim}(G)\beta). (33)

This inequality implies that the area law falloff of the double-winding Wilson loop average in the lattice non-Abelian gauge theory with the gauge group GG follows from that in the lattice Abelian gauge theory with the center gauge group Z(G)Z(G). In two and three dimensional spacetime, the area law falloff holds for any gauge coupling constant for the Abelian gauge theory, while in the four-dimensional spacetime the area law falloff must hold only in the strong coupling phase because the weak coupling region must be the deconfinement phase (free charge phase for the ZNZ_{N} group and the Coulomb phase for the U(1)U(1) group). For the non-Abelian gauge theory in the four-dimensional spacetime, therefore, this equality can be used to study the area law falloff only in the strong gauge coupling region. Anyway, the results obtained by explicit calculations in this paper are consistent with this rigorous result.

5. Conclusion and discussion.  We studied the area law falloff of the double-winding Wilson loops in the lattice ZNZ_{N} pure gauge model, where the gauge group is the center group of the original gauge group SU(N)SU(N). First, we introduced the lattice ZNZ_{N} pure gauge model, and applied the character expansion to the weight eSG[U]{e}^{S_{G}[U]} to investigate the area law beyond the region where the strong coupling expansion works. Next, we confirmed that the ordinary single-winding Wilson loop average W(C)\langle W(C)\rangle obeys the ordinary area law up to the leading contribution, which does not depend on the dimensionality DD.

Moreover, we evaluated the NN-dependence of the area law falloff for the coplanar double-winding Wilson loop average W(C1C2)R=0{\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle}_{R=0} up to the leading contribution. We obtained the difference-of-areas law for N=2N=2, the max-of-areas law for N=3N=3, and discovered a new β\beta-dependent result for N4N\geqslant 4 that the sum-of-areas law in the strong coupling region β1\beta\ll 1, and the max-of-areas law in the weak coupling region β1\beta\gg 1. This result reproduces the area law falloff in the lattice SU(N)SU(N) gauge model obtained in KSK20 . We also checked the continuous group limit NN\to\infty, the area law of the double-winding Wilson loops for N4N\geqslant 4 persists in the lattice U(1)U(1) gauge model. This result suggests that the coplanar double-winding Wilson loop average in the lattice U(N)U(N) gauge model and the lattice SU(N)(N4)SU(N)\ (N\geqslant 4) gauge model obeys the same area law up to the leading contribution, since U(1)U(1) is the center group of U(N)U(N).

In addition, we investigated the shifted double-winding Wilson loop average W(C1C2)R0{\langle W(C_{1}\cup C_{2})\rangle}_{R\neq 0}. The total leading contribution is composed of a RR-independent contribution and a RR-dependent one. Our result reproduces the RR-dependent behavior of the shifted double-winding Wilson loop average in the lattice SU(N)SU(N) gauge model obtained in KSK20 . We also evaluated the mass gap from this leading result, and obtained the β\beta-dependent non-zero mass gap Δ(β)\Delta(\beta) for any finite value of β\beta.

From the above results, we confirmed the center group dominance in reproducing the NN-dependent area law falloffs of the double-winding Wilson loop averages in the lattice SU(N)SU(N) gauge theory, as suggested from the rigorous result of Fröhlich Frohlich79 . The result for the double-winding Wilson loop average for the pure gauge model presented in this paper is exact in the whole gauge coupling region only for D=2D=2, while it is exact only in the strong gauge coupling region for D>2D>2 which excludes the weak gauge coupling region for D=4D=4.

In order to obtain the result valid even in the weak gauge coupling region for D=4D=4, we investigate the lattice gauge-scalar model in a subsequent paper. This model allows the analytically connected region OS78 ; FS79 between the confinement region (0β1,K10\leqslant\beta\ll 1,K\ll 1) and the Higgs region (β1,KcK<\beta\gg 1,K_{c}\leqslant K<\infty) which includes the weak gauge coupling region (off the pure gauge region) even if the deconfinement phase exists in the weak gauge coupling region in the pure gauge theory for D=4D=4. Therefore, the Abelian gauge dynamics can be relevant in understanding the confinement in the non-Abelian gauge theory for D=4D=4. We will discuss the double-winding Wilson loop averages in the lattice SU(N)SU(N) gauge scalar theory from this viewpoint in a subsequent paper IK21b , by performing the cluster expansion adopted in OS78 ; FS79 to estimate the expectation value of the Wilson loop operator which is valid in a specific parameter region of analyticity.

Finally, it should be remarked that the center group dominance derived by Fröhlich and the Abelian dominance proposed by ’t Hooft tHooft81 is totally different from each other from the physical and mathematical points of view. The center group dominance follows from an inequality between the two expectation values of the Wilson loop operator in the SU(N)SU(N) and the ZNZ_{N} gauge theories, which is derived without any gauge fixing procedure in the ordinary framework of lattice gauge theory. Therefore, this result holds irrespective of the choice of gauge fixing condition. Although the area law of the non-Abelian Wilson loop average follows from that of the Abelian Wilson loop average, this is free from the mechanism for the area law in the Abelian gauge theory with the center gauge group. Therefore we can (and must) investigate the gauge-invariant mechanism for confinement without any assumptions afterwards. On the other hand, the Abelian dominance of ’t Hooft comes after the Abelian projection, which is nothing but the partial gauge fixing for extracting the Abelian gauge theory from the non-Abelian gauge theory. Moreover, confinement follows from the hypothetical dual superconductor vacuum generated by the condensation of magnetic monopoles as the specific topological defects associated with this partial gauge fixing.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number (C) No.19K03840.

References

  • (1) G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D10, 2445 (1974),
  • (2) J. Greensite, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 1 (2003) [arXiv:hep-lat/0301023]]
  • (3) K.-I. Kondo, S. Kato, A. Shibata and T. Shinohara, Phys. Rept. 579, 1(2015) [arXiv:1409.1599 [hep-th]].
  • (4) J. Greensite and R. Höllwieser, Phys. Rev. D91, 054509 (2015) [arXiv:1411.5091 [hep-lat]]
  • (5) R. Matsudo and K.-I. Kondo, Phys. Rev. D96, 105011 (2017) [arXiv:1706.05665 [hep-th]]
  • (6) S. Kato, A. Shibata and K.-I. Kondo, Phys.Rev. D102, 094521 (2020) [arXiv:2008.03684 [hep-lat]]
  • (7) J. Fröhlich, Phys. Lett. 83B, 195 (1979).
  • (8) M. Creutz, Quarks, gluons and lattice (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983).
  • (9) I. Montvay and G. Münster, Quantum Fields on a Lattice (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994).
  • (10) K. Osterwalder and E. Seiler, Annals Phys. 110, 440 (1978).
  • (11) E.H. Fradkin and S.H. Shenker, Phys.Rev. D19, 3682–3697 (1979).
  • (12) G. Mack and V.B. Petkova, Annals Phys. 123, 442 (1979).
  • (13) R. Ikeda and K.-I. Kondo, a paper in preparation.
  • (14) G. ‘t Hooft, Nucl.Phys. B190 [FS3], 455 (1981).