text:
# Dirac Strings and Monopoles in the Continuum Limit of SU(2) Lattice Gauge Theory. ITEP-TH-7/00 MPI-PhT/2000-12

## Introduction

While perturbative Yang-Mills theories appear to be understood beyond any doubt, non-perturbative physics is much more challenging at the moment. Moreover, the main source of knowledge in the non-perturbative domain is the lattice gauge theories. In particular, there exist rich data supporting the idea of the quark confinement through the magnetic monopole condensation (for review, see, e.g. ).

Any analytical treatment of magnetic monopoles in the continuum limit represents apparent difficulties because of singularities in the gauge potential $`A_\mu `$. Indeed, such singularities are displayed already by the original Dirac monopole:

$$A_\mu dx_\mu =\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\phi ,$$
(1)
or in the component form in the spherical coordinates:

$$A_\theta =A_r=0,A_\phi =\frac{1}{2}\frac{(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$
(2)
The singularity along the line $`\theta =0`$ represents the Dirac string, while the singularity at $`r0`$ corresponds to a singular magnetic filed, $`𝐇𝐫/r^3`$. In non-Abelian theories with Higgs mechanism the singularities are resolved and there exists the famous ’t Hooft-Polyakov solution  with finite energy. In a particular gauge, the corresponding potential is given by

$$A_i^a=f(r)\frac{\epsilon _{aik}r_k}{r^2}$$
(3)
where $`a`$ is the color index, $`a=1,2,3`$ and $`f(r)0`$ as $`r0`$ while $`f(r)1`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

In pure gauge theories, there are no monopole solutions with finite energy. To reconcile this with observation of monopoles on the lattice, one considers dual gauge theories which serve as infrared limit of QCD . In its simplest version, the theory is build on an octet of dual gluons and three octets of scalar (Higgs) fields. In this paper, we would stick to consideration of monopoles within the fundamental QCD. The reason is that the monopoles on the lattice are defined beginning from elementary cubes, i.e. at smallest distances available. Our guiding principle is to reexamine the continuum limit by confronting the treatment of the monopole-associated singularities on the lattice and in the continuum.

In the lattice formulation, the singularities due to the Dirac string and at $`r0`$ are treated differently. As was emphasized first by Polyakov , the Dirac strings are allowed, i.e. cost no action in the lattice compact U(1) theory. As for the $`r0`$ singularity, it introduces in this case a physical divergence in the action. The suppression due to this divergence is overcome, however, by the entropy factor when the coupling constant $`g`$, included into the definition of $`A_\mu `$ above, is of order of unity.

In the non-Abelian gauge models the relation of monopoles to the action is much more obscure, as far as analytical results are concerned. Moreover, one of the most important steps in introducing monopoles is a pure topological definition which makes no reference to the associated non-Abelian action . In this formulation, monopoles are related to topology of gauge fixing. Namely, if the gauge is fixed (up to U(1) rotations) by directing a color vector $`h^a`$ in, say, the third direction, then the fixation fails at the points where all the components $`h^a`$ vanish. Moreover, one can prove that such points belong to monopole trajectories. The function of $`h^a`$ can be played by any vector, for example, by a particular Lorenz component of the gluonic field-strength tensor, say, $`F_{12}^a`$. Vanishing of $`h^a`$ has no direct effect on the action. Other Abelian projections revealing monopoles are also known, the most famous one seems to be the Maximal Abelian gauge (for review and references see ).

Monopoles which condense in the confining phase have magnetic charges $`|Q_M|=2`$, the same as the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole (3). In the corresponding U(1) projection the associated Dirac string does not introduce infinities because of the compactness of the U(1) subgroups of SU(2), see the discussion above. On the other hand the Dirac strings associated with $`|Q_M|=1`$ monopoles are not allowed in the QCD vacuum since in the continuum limit they have infinite energy. However, one can introduce $`|Q_M|=1`$ monopoles as external objects via the ’t Hooft loop operator .

In this paper, we consider magnetic monopoles in the continuum provided that the continuum is understood as the limiting case of lattice theories. First, we generalize the treatment of Dirac strings within the lattice compact QED to the non-Abelian case. As expected, the lattice formulation of the non-Abelian theories corresponds to non-observability of the Dirac strings, defined in a particular way. To substitute for their effect in the continuum, one allows for certain singular potentials. Thus, we argue that the standard continuum formulation is to be modified in a certain way to allow for the Dirac strings.

It is amusing that once the Dirac strings are admitted into the continuum limit the $`|Q_M|=2`$ monopoles cost no action either. Namely, we construct an explicit solution with zero action for a Dirac strings with open ends. In this respect the non-Abelian theories differ radically from their Abelian counterpart where the end points of the Dirac strings represent monopoles (1) with divergent action. It might worth emphasizing that the Abelian part of the fields in the no-action solution does correspond to the standard Abelian monopoles and it is the commutator term in the field-strength tensor which allows to nullify the non-Abelian action. This is in the correspondence with the instability of a single $`|Q_M|=2`$ monopole with nonzero action in the non-Abelian pure gauge theory which is known since long .

The explicit monopole-pair solution with no action mentioned above is obtained in empty, or perturbative vacuum. We check that quantum fluctuations around this zero-action solution do not distinguish it from the perturbative vacuum either. Therefore the modified continuum version corresponding to the limit of the lattice theories brings no change in the perturbative domain as compared with the standard Lagrangian theory.

We then imitate non-perturbative vacuum of QCD by introducing nonsingular background fields, $`F_{\mu \nu }^{soft}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$. Then there still exist Dirac strings with zero action whose color orientation is aligned with that of the background field. On the other hand, introduction of monopoles a la ’t Hooft (see above) is related to some singular gauge transformations with their own color orientation. As a result, monopoles in the physical vacuum are associated, generally speaking, with an action of order $`L\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ where $`L`$ is the length of the monopole world trajectory.

Finally, the same techniques as used to construct invisible Dirac strings in the continuum limit produce a continuum analog for the ’t Hooft loop operator. It shares the basic properties of the ’t Hooft loop operator and allows to formulate new predictions for the intermonopole potential. At short distances the ’t Hooft loop describes the Coulomb-like interaction of the monopoles with $`|Q_M|=1`$, Ref. . We fix the coefficient at front of this Coulombic term. At larger distances the $`|Q_M|=1`$ monopoles, introduced via the ’t Hooft loop interact with the $`|Q_M|=2`$ monopoles of the medium. We describe this interaction within the effective Abelian Higgs model (for review and references see ), which uniquely fixes the Yukawa-like behavior of the intermonopole potential. We include also consideration of the ’t Hooft loop at high temperatures where the Debye screening becomes essential.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section 1 we show that symmetries of the lattice and standard continuum actions of gluodynamics are different. We propose the modified continuum action which allows for the Dirac strings. In Sections 2, 3 monopole configurations within the new approach are considered. In Section 4 we introduce the ’t Hooft loop operator in the continuum. In Section 5 the predictions for the ’t Hooft loop are formulated. Our conclusions are summarized in the last section.

## 1 Dirac Strings in SU(2) Gauge Theory.

As is mentioned in the Introduction, the lattice formulation of the compact photodynamics gives a version of the U(1) gauge theory  with unobservable Dirac strings. In this section we develop a generalization of this construction to the case of SU(2) gauge model.

The general one–plaquette action of SU(2) lattice gauge theory (LGT) can be represented as:

$$S_{lat}(U)=\frac{4}{g^2}\underset{p}{}S_P(1\frac{1}{2}TrU[p]),$$
(4)
where $`g`$ is the bare coupling, $`p`$ is the boundary of an elementary plaquette $`p`$, the sum is taken over all $`p`$, $`U[p]`$ is the ordered product of link variables $`U_l`$ along $`p`$. To have the correct naive continuum limit the function $`S_P`$ should obey the condition $`lim_{x0}S_P(x)=x+\mathrm{}`$. In particular, if $`S_P(x)=x`$ then (4) is the standard Wilson action. The exponent of the lattice field strength tensor $`F_p`$ defines $`U[p]`$:

$$U[p]=e^{i\widehat{F}_p}=\mathrm{cos}[\frac{1}{2}|F_p|]+i\tau ^an_p^a\mathrm{sin}[\frac{1}{2}|F_p|],$$
(5)
where $`\widehat{F}=F^a\tau ^a/2`$, $`|F|=\sqrt{F^aF^a}`$ and we define $`n_p^a=F_p^a/|F_p|`$ for $`|F_p|0`$, $`n^a`$ is an arbitrary unit vector for $`|F_p|=0`$. Sometimes we also use the vector-like notations $`\stackrel{}{F}`$ instead of $`F^a`$. The lattice action (4) depends only on $`\mathrm{cos}[\frac{1}{2}|F_p|]`$. Therefore the action of the SU(2) LGT possesses not only the usual gauge symmetry, but allows also for the gauge transformations which shift the field strength by $`4\pi k`$, $`|F_p||F_p|+4\pi k`$, $`kZ`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\widehat{F}_p}\hfill & =\hfill & \mathrm{exp}\{i|F_p|\widehat{n}_p\}=\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \mathrm{exp}\{i(|F_p|+4\pi )\widehat{n}_p\}=\mathrm{exp}\{i(F_p^a+4\pi n_p^a)\tau ^a/2\},\hfill \end{array}& & \end{array}$$
(6)
Thus the symmetry inherent to the lattice formulation can be represented as:

$$F_p^aF_p^a+4\pi n_p^a,\stackrel{}{F}_p\times \stackrel{}{n}_p=0,\stackrel{}{n}_p^2=1.$$
(7)
The symmetry (7) is absent in the conventional continuum action, $`(F_{\mu \nu }^a)^2d^4x`$ and therefore the continuum limit of SU(2) LGT is different from the commonly accepted SU(2) gluodynamics at least in this respect. Below we explore the consequences of Eq. (7) for the continuum theory.

In the continuum limit $`n_p^a`$ becomes a singular two-dimensional structure $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{a}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda \rho }^a`$ which is a generalization of the Dirac strings in the compact electrodynamics and which transforms in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. Consider first a special class of the gauge potentials which may be gauge transformed to pure Abelian fields, $`A_\mu ^a=\delta ^{a,3}A_\mu `$. For such fields the action of the SU(2) gluodynamics coincides with the action of the compact U(1) gauge model, up to the ghost terms. Therefore in this gauge $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^a=\delta ^{a,3}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ is nothing else but the Dirac string:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }=d^2\sigma \sqrt{g}t_{\mu \nu }(\sigma )\delta ^{(4)}(x\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma )),$$
(8)
with the world-sheet coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma )`$ parameterized by $`\sigma _\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,2`$:

$$t_{\mu \nu }(\sigma )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \stackrel{~}{x}_\mu _\beta \stackrel{~}{x}_\nu ,t_{\mu \nu }^2=2,g(\sigma )=\mathrm{Det}[_\alpha \stackrel{~}{x}_\mu _\beta \stackrel{~}{x}_\mu ].$$
(9)
Thus for general gauge potentials

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^a=d^2\sigma \sqrt{g}t_{\mu \nu }^a(\sigma )\delta ^{(4)}(x\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma )).$$
(10)
The second equality in (7) requires that

$$\stackrel{}{t}_{\mu \nu }(\sigma )\times {}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})=0,$$
(11)
where the continuum field strength tensor $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu _\nu \widehat{A}_\mu i[\widehat{A}_\mu ,\widehat{A}_\nu ]`$. Eq. (11) determines the color structure of $`t_{\mu \nu }^a`$:

$$t_{\mu \nu }^a(\sigma )=t_{\mu \nu }(\sigma )n^a(\sigma ),n^a(\sigma )=(t{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{a})\left[(t{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{b})^2\right]^{1/2},$$
(12)
where $`(tF^a)t_{\mu \nu }(\sigma )F_{\mu \nu }^a(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ and $`n^a`$ is normalized as $`\stackrel{}{n}^2=1`$. On the set of points where $`(t{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{a})=0`$ the direction of $`n^a(\sigma )`$ is arbitrary. Therefore, in the general case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^a={\displaystyle d^2\sigma \sqrt{g}t_{\mu \nu }(\sigma )n^a(\sigma )\delta ^{(4)}(x\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma ))},`$
(13)
$`\stackrel{}{n}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}(\sigma )=1,\stackrel{}{n}(\sigma )\times (t_{\mu \nu }(\sigma ){}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}))=0.`$
and the continuum analog of the lattice symmetry Eq. (6,7) is:

$$F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a+4\pi {}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{a},$$
(14)
Note that we do not claim that the only string-like singularities which may exist in the continuum limit of SU(2) LGT are of the type (13,14). Indeed, there are known examples of various Abelian gauges (see  and references therein) in which Abelian monopoles and Dirac strings naturally arise. String singularities in these gauges are of the type (13), but their color orientation is different. Therefore the strings (13) are not the most general. Nevertheless, we claim that only the strings (13) produce no additional action. In other words the action of the SU(2) LGT in the continuum limit calculated with $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }^a+4\pi {}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{a}`$ is the same only if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is given by (13). We shall come back to discuss this issue in Section 3.

The action of SU(2) gluodynamics which possesses the additional symmetry (14) can be formally represented as:

$$Z=𝒟A\mathrm{exp}\left\{S(F)\right\},$$
(15)
$$S(F)=\mathrm{log}𝒟\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{4g^2}d^4x\left[F_{\mu \nu }^a+4\pi {}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{a}\right]^2\right\},$$
(16)
where the integration is over all possible surfaces (13). The expressions (15,16) are only formal since, as we show in Section 2 it is impossible to separate rigorously the measure $`𝒟\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ from the gauge degrees of freedom in $`𝒟A`$. Nevertheless, the Eq. (15,16) is a good starting point for the analysis of the next section. Note that the action (16) is invariant under smooth SU(2) gauge transformations since vector $`n^a`$ transforms in the same way as $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ does. By construction, this action is also invariant under transformations (13,14) which correspond to the lattice symmetry relations (6,7).

Note also that for self-intersecting surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$, Eq. (13), the world-sheet vector field $`n^a(\sigma )`$ is generally multi-valued as function of $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$. Furthermore, for the non-orientable surfaces the field $`n^a(\sigma )`$ cannot be defined smoothly everywhere on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. To avoid these complications we consider only the orientable surfaces without self-intersections. This reservation is specific for Dirac strings in the non-Abelian case.

## 2 Monopoles.

We proceed now to consider Dirac strings with open ends. The end points can be associated, as usual, with monopoles. If one follows only the Abelian-like part of the field strength tensors, these are standard Dirac monopoles. However, the full non-Abelian action is no longer bounded in terms of the Abelian magnetic field and we will present a zero-action solution for open Dirac strings. Therefore contrary to the Abelian models the open Dirac strings in SU(2) gluodynamics are the gauge copies of the vacuum $`A=0`$. Moreover, we show that this result is also valid at the one loop level and hence the Dirac strings (13) do not change the perturbation theory.

### 2.1 String Independence.

Consider the partition function (15,16) in case of a single surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^a`$:

$$Z[\mathrm{\Sigma }]=𝒟A\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{4g^2}d^4x\left[F_{\mu \nu }^a+4\pi q{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{a}\right]^2\right\},$$
(17)
where the constant $`q`$ is equal to unity in (15,16). Varying the gauge fields $`A`$ we get the classical equations of motion:

$$D_\nu \left(\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }(A)+4\pi q{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mu \nu }^{}\right)=0,$$
(18)
which should be supplemented by Bianchi identities:

$$D_\nu {}_{}{}^{}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}=0.$$
(19)
Note that Eq. (18) is consistent with the covariant conservation of electric currents:

$`D_\mu D_\nu \widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=4\pi qD_\mu D_\nu {}_{}{}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mu \nu }^{}{\displaystyle }d^2\sigma _{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}[D_\mu ,D_\nu ]\widehat{n}(\sigma )\delta ^{(4)}(x\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma ))=0.`$
where the last equality is due to (13).

To appreciate the meaning of eq.(18) let us confine ourselves for the moment to the fields $`A_\mu ^a=Q^aA_\mu `$ with a constant color direction $`Q^a`$. Then $`n^aQ^a`$ and Eq. (18) becomes:

$$_\nu \left(_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]}\right)=4\pi q_\nu {}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{}.$$
(20)
The solution of this equation in the Landau gauge,

$$A_\mu ^a=Q^a4\pi q\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\nu {}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{},$$
(21)
corresponds to the gauge potential of an Abelian monopole current $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ embedded into the SU(2) group. Thus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Dirac string worldsheet.

Let us show that the shape of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is irrelevant, that is the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be shifted by a gauge transformation provided that the boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is fixed. Assuming that the orientable surface (13) has no self-intersections, we may write $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^a=n^a\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$. Consider then a closed non self-intersecting surface $`𝒮`$ on which the vector field $`n^a(\sigma )`$ is a single valued function of $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$. We can define the field $`n^a(x)`$, $`\stackrel{}{n}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}=1`$, in the whole space-time in such a way that

$$n^a(x)=n^a(\stackrel{~}{x})\text{for}x𝒮.$$
(22)
Note that the definition of the vector $`n^a(x)`$ is not unique, but this is irrelevant for our analysis.

Consider the following gauge transformation matrix:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒱_𝒮)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{i\alpha (𝒱_𝒮,x)\stackrel{}{n}(x)\stackrel{}{\tau }\},`$ (23)
$`\alpha (𝒱_𝒮,x)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi q{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}}V_\mu 𝑑x_\mu ,V_\mu ={\displaystyle \underset{𝒱_𝒮}{}}\left({}_{}{}^{}d_{}^{3}\zeta \right)_\mu \delta ^{(4)}(x\zeta ),`$ (24)
where $`V_\mu `$ is a characteristic function of the volume $`𝒱_𝒮`$ bounded by the surface $`𝒮`$. The first integral in (24) is taken along any path $`C_x`$ connecting infinity with the point $`x`$. Under the general gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the field strength tensor transforms as:

$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }(A^\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Omega }^+\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }(A)\mathrm{\Omega }+i\mathrm{\Omega }^+[_\mu ,_\nu ]\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }^+\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }(A)\mathrm{\Omega }+\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }(i\mathrm{\Omega }^+\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(25)
Straightforward calculations show that for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined by Eq. (23)

$`F_{\mu \nu }^a(i\mathrm{\Omega }^+\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`2n^a[_\mu ,_\nu ]\alpha `$
$`\left(\mathrm{sin}[2\alpha ]\delta ^{ac}+(1\mathrm{cos}[2\alpha ])\epsilon ^{abc}n^b\right)[_\mu ,_\nu ]n^c.`$
Note that the function $`\alpha (x)`$ takes only two values, $`0`$ and $`2\pi q`$. Therefore for integer or the half-integer valued charge $`q`$ we have:

$$F_{\mu \nu }^a(i\mathrm{\Omega }^+\mathrm{\Omega })=2n^a[_\mu ,_\nu ]\alpha =4\pi qn^a_{[\mu }V_{\nu ]}=4\pi qn^a{}_{}{}^{}𝒮_{\mu \nu }^{}.$$
(27)
Thus the gauge transformation considered adds a closed surface $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒮_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ to the field strength tensor, $`\widehat{F}(A^\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Omega }^+\widehat{F}(A)\mathrm{\Omega }4\pi q{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{𝒮}`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}=\widehat{n}𝒮`$. It is easy to see that the color structure of the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^a`$ was inessential in our analysis. Indeed, one may perform exactly the same transformations with arbitrary $`n^a(\sigma )`$, $`\stackrel{}{n}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}=1`$, instead of (13). Therefore the orientable non self-intersecting surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in Eq. (17) with arbitrary color orientation can be deformed by the singular gauge transformation provided that $`q=0,\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm 1,\mathrm{}`$.

We see that the situation looks similar to the Abelian case where the shape of the Dirac strings is inessential and can be changed by a gauge transformation so that only the end points of the strings have a physical meaning: they are identified with monopoles. However despite of this similarity the Yang–Mills theory is different in some respects. In particular, for the examples considered below the boundaries of the strings (13) have zero action thus being a pure gauge artifacts<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 Note that in the standard Yang–Mills theory these configurations have infinite action and therefore are not important. .

### 2.2 Open Strings With Zero Action.

Consider the following gauge transformation matrix:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\phi }& \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\\ & \\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\phi }\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Omega }_1^+\tau ^3\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\widehat{x}^a\tau ^a,$$
(28)
defined in the time-slice $`t=0`$; $`\theta `$, $`\phi `$ are polar and azimuthal angles. Performing the gauge transformation on the pure vacuum configuration $`A=0`$ one gets:

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{a}(A^{\mathrm{\Omega }_1})=4\pi \delta _{0,[\mu }\delta _{\nu ],3}\delta ^{a,3}\mathrm{\Theta }(z)\delta (x)\delta (y).$$
(29)
Therefore the singular gauge transformation (28) produces singular $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ as well, but the singularity in (29) is of allowed type (14) with time independent surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ directed along $`\tau ^3`$ in the color space. On the other hand, in the gauge transformed potentials one finds an Abelian monopole which is double charged in terms of the minimal Dirac quantization condition (cf. Eq. (1)):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A^3& =& A_\mu ^3dx_\mu =(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\phi ,\hfill \\ \text{}A^+& =& (A_\mu ^1+iA_\mu ^2)dx_\mu =e^{i\phi }(d\theta i\mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
The interpretation of (29,30) is as follows. In the U(1) case due to the magnetic flux conservation the Dirac string terminates at an Abelian monopole with the magnetic field $`|𝐇|1/r^2`$. In the SU(2) gauge model the Abelian string with net flux $`4\pi `$ may disappear into the vacuum. Although we still have the conservation of Abelian flux, this does not imply any bound on the action. In fact, because of the nontrivial components $`A^\pm `$ the full SU(2) action is zero. The zero action of the configuration (30) is due to the cancellation between the Abelian-like and commutator pieces in $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$. Note that already in Ref.  it was shown that the double charged Abelian monopoles being immersed into SU(2) gauge group are unstable against fluctuations of non-Abelian components of gauge fields.

Proceed now to generalizing (28) to the case of finite Dirac string. Consider the potential $`A_\mu `$ which in U(1) theory represents the monopole–antimonopole pair located at $`x,y=0`$, $`z=\pm R/2`$:

$$A_\mu dx_\mu =\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{z_+}{r_+}\frac{z_{}}{r_{}}\right)d\phi =A_D(z,\rho )d\phi ,0A_D(z,\rho )1$$
(31)
$$z_\pm =z\pm R/2,\rho ^2=x^2+y^2,r_\pm ^2=z_\pm ^2+\rho ^2,$$
(32)
and the following gauge transformation matrix

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\phi }\sqrt{A_D}\hfill & \sqrt{1A_D}\hfill \\ & \\ \sqrt{1A_D}\hfill & e^{i\phi }\sqrt{A_D}\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(33)
It is easy to check that (33) when applied to the vacuum $`A=0`$ produces a string of the type (13,14) which begins and terminates at the points $`\rho =0`$, $`z=z_\pm `$, respectively:

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{a}=4\pi \delta _{0,[\mu }\delta _{\nu ],3}\delta ^{a,3}\mathrm{\Theta }(R/2|z|)\delta (x)\delta (y).$$
(34)
The corresponding gauge potential $`A=i\mathrm{\Omega }_2^+\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ contains Abelian monopole and antimonopole located at the ends of the string, $`A_\mu ^3dx_\mu =2A_D(z,\rho )d\varphi `$.

The described above monopole configurations might be related to the monopoles common to the the lattice Abelian projections . In a way, it is a consequence of the asymptotic freedom alone. Indeed, by the monopole one understands field configurations which in their Abelian part look like the standard Dirac monopole (1). The action associated with the Abelian monopole is linearly divergent in the ultraviolet,

$$S_{Abelian}(ag^2(a))^1,$$

where $`a`$ is an ultraviolet cut off, say, the lattice spacing. At first sight, on the background of this linear divergence the logarithmic behavior of the coupling is not important at all. However, it was shown in Ref.  that the $`a^1`$ factor in the action can be overcome by the entropy since it is proportional to an exponential of the length of monopole trajectories measured in the same units of $`a`$. As a result, the value of the coupling is becoming crucial and the Abelian-like monopoles can be abundant in the vacuum only if the coupling is of order unit, $`g^21`$. Which is inconsistent with the asymptotic freedom of the gluodynamics. The only way out is to have the non-Abelian field strength vanishing at short distances, $`F_{\mu \nu }^a0`$ at $`r0`$. In other words, the cancellation of the Abelian-like and commutator terms in the field strength tensor should be exact at short distances. The latter condition is satisfied by (30) which appears to be the unique monopole solution at short distances

The monopole structure at short distances can be studied directly on the lattice. At the distances available so far, the monopoles in SU(2) LGT are associated with a sizeable excess in the action, although the excess is substantially smaller than it would be in the pure Abelian case . Further measurements at smaller distances would be very interesting.

### 2.3 Quantum Corrections.

The examples presented above show that an arbitrary (non self-intersecting) string (13) may be considered as a result of combined gauge transformations of the type (23), (28), (33). Moreover, in the case of trivial background $`\widehat{F}(A)=0`$ such a singular gauge transformations are allowed and produce no action. A crucial question is whether the strings (13) are equivalent to gauge transformations when quantum fluctuations are included. Of course, if it were not so that the gauge transformations considered are singular, there would be no doubt that the quantum corrections do not destroy equivalence of the two field configurations related by a gauge transformation. But because of the presence of singularities we performed an explicit analysis of the quantum corrections. The result is that the quantum corrections do not distinguish between the standard perturbative vacuum and the zero-action field configuration presented in the preceding section.

For the sake of definiteness we consider a straight Dirac string in the partition function (17)

$$Z[\mathrm{\Sigma }]=𝒟A\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{4g^2}d^4x\left[F_{\mu \nu }^a+4\pi {}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{a}\right]^2\right\},$$
(35)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^a=4\pi \delta _{0,[\mu }\delta _{\nu ],3}\delta ^{a,3}\mathrm{\Theta }(z)\delta (x)\delta (y).$$
(36)
The ”classical” solution of the field equations is the pure gauge configuration (30) $`A^{cl}=i\mathrm{\Omega }^+\mathrm{\Omega }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given by (28) and the ”classical” action is $`S^{cl}=0`$. Expanding the action up to the second order in small perturbations $`A=A^{cl}+a`$ one finds that in the background gauge $`D_\mu (A^{cl})a_\mu =0`$ Eq. (35) becomes:

$$Z[\mathrm{\Sigma }]=\mathrm{Det}^1[D^2(A^{cl})]$$
(37)
since in the present case the Pauli paramagnetic term is zero. With conventional normalization to the perturbative vacuum to vacuum amplitude the question whether the string $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is relevant on quantum level, is equivalent to exploring the spectrum of the operator $`D^2(A^{cl})`$:

$$D^2(A^{cl})=M_1+M_2+M_3$$
(38)
$$M_1^{ab}=\delta ^{ab}\stackrel{}{}^2M_2^{ab}=2\epsilon ^{akb}\stackrel{}{A}^k\stackrel{}{}M_3^{ab}=\epsilon ^{akb}\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{A}^k+\stackrel{}{A}^a\stackrel{}{A}^b\delta ^{ab}\stackrel{}{A}^k\stackrel{}{A}^k$$
(39)
where superscripts denote the color indices and vector notations are used for spatial components of $`A^{cl}`$. Using the explicit form (28) one finds that the non-zero elements of the antisymmetric matrix $`M_2`$ are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill M_2^{12}& =& \frac{2}{r^2}\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }_\phi \hfill \\ \hfill \text{}M_2^{13}& =& \frac{2}{r^2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\phi _\theta \frac{\mathrm{sin}\phi }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\phi \right)\hfill \\ \hfill \text{}M_2^{23}& =& \frac{2}{r^2}\left(\mathrm{sin}\phi _\theta +\frac{\mathrm{cos}\phi }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\phi \right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
where $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$ are the polar and azimuthal angles, respectively. In the same coordinate system the matrix $`M_3`$ is given by

$$M_3=\frac{2}{r^2}\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ \mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{sin}\theta & 1\mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right]$$
(41)
It is convenient to perform the transformation $`D^2(A^{cl})RD^2(A^{cl})R^1`$ where the matrix $`R`$ transforms to the spherical basis:

$$R=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \\ \mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\phi & \mathrm{cos}\phi & 0\end{array}\right].$$
(42)
One finds that in the new basis:

$$D^2(A^{cl})=\stackrel{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}+\frac{1}{r^2}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ \text{}0& \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }& \frac{2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }_\phi \\ \text{}0& \frac{2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }_\phi & \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\end{array}\right].$$
(43)
Next, introduce

$$a_0=a_ra_\pm =\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(a_\theta ia_\phi ),$$
(44)
then the operator $`D^2(A^{cl})`$ becomes diagonal:

$$D^2(A^{cl})=\stackrel{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}+\frac{1}{r^2}\mathrm{diag}[0,\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }(12i_\phi ),\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }(1+2i_\phi )]$$
(45)
Once $`D^2(A^{cl})`$ is brought to the diagonal form, the direct calculation shows that the spectrum of (45) is identical to that of free Laplacian $`\stackrel{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}`$. Therefore, the quantum fluctuations do not distinguish the string, Eq. (35,36), from the perturbative vacuum. Thus the modified theory (15,16) is perturbatively equivalent to the conventional gluodynamics.

## 3 Strings in General Background.

We have shown that in the perturbation theory both closed and open Dirac strings with arbitrary color orientation carry no action and are thus pure gauge artifacts. On one hand, this conclusion is welcome since it shows that the continuum limit as understood in this paper perturbatively is the same as the standard continuum limit. And, indeed, there are no doubts in the validity of the standard perturbation theory. On the other hand, if it were so that the singular fields admitted now into the continuum formulation are not associated with any action at all then the new formulation would be equivalent to the standard one.

In this section we address this issue on a non-perturbative level and imitate the non-perturbative fields by a smooth background. The crucial observation then is that only the Dirac strings with the proper color alignment (13) cost no action in the continuum limit, while the Dirac strings associated with the monopoles defined a la ’t Hooft  do not satisfy this constraint.

Consider as an example the class of Abelian gauges of Ref.  which are defined by the requirement that some adjoint operator $`h^a`$ is to be directed along $`\tau ^3`$ in the color space. This operator may be arbitrary in principle, but for the given $`h^a`$ the remaining gauge freedom consists of U(1) rotations around $`\tau ^3`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \mathrm{\Omega }^+\widehat{h}\mathrm{\Omega }h^3\tau ^3,& \\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Omega }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}H,& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}G/U(1),& HU(1).\end{array}$$
(46)
This gauge condition is not defined on the set of points where $`h^a=0`$ which in four dimensions defines the monopole trajectory. Clearly enough, the Dirac strings associated with the monopoles are oriented along the third direction in the color space. Thus, there exist now two different directions in the color space determined by the background field and through the gauge fixation inherent to the definition of the monopoles.

Note that while the boundary of the string singularity is fixed by the equations $`h^a=0`$, the actual position of the string may be changed with a suitable choice of $`H`$. Indeed, the gauge transformation (LABEL:tHooft-gauge-transformation) gives rise to the Dirac string:

$$\widehat{F}(A^\mathrm{\Omega })=H^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+\widehat{F}(A)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}H+iH^+[,]H+iH^+\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+[,]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)H.$$
(47)
The both terms $`H^+[,]H`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+[,]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ are proportional to $`\tau ^3`$. Let us stress that the freedom to choose the U(1) matrix $`H`$ allows to shift the position of the string in the ordinary space. Simultaneously, the background field is also transformed and one may not say that shifting the Dirac string brings no change in the action. However, since there is no spontaneous breaking of the color symmetry, the dependence on the position of the string drops off after integrating over all the background fields.

Note that similar considerations apply to the ’t Hooft loop operator which we consider in the next section. Indeed, the definition of the ’t Hooft loop operator as well as its value in a given background are string dependent. But the freedom to shift the position of the string in the path integral approach guarantees that no physical result depends on the string position.

It is amusing to note that the present considerations provides with a general framework to understand the correlation between instantons and monopoles which has been discussed in various contexts recently (see, e.g., ). Indeed, background fields in the physical vacuum are described realistically by instantons (see  for a review). On the other hand , monopoles, as is argued above, are meaningful only in the presence of background fields.

## 4 The ’t Hooft Loop in the Continuum Limit.

In this Section we show that the construction presented above allows to define and study the properties of the ’t Hooft loop operator in the path integral formalism.

The ’t Hooft loop in SU(2) LGT with the one-plaquette action (4) has the following form:

$$H_{lat}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)=\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{4}{g^2}\underset{p{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j}^{}}{}\left[S_P\right(1\frac{1}{2}TrU[p])S_P(1+\frac{1}{2}TrU[p])]\},$$
(48)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j}^{}`$ is the set of the plaquettes dual to the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$ with the boundary $`j`$. In the path integral formulation the ’t Hooft loop effectively changes the sign of the plaquette variables $`U[p]`$ belonging to $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j}^{}`$: $`U[p]U[p]`$. To define the ’t Hooft loop in the continuum we consider the path integral, Eq. (17), with an open orientable non self-intersecting surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^a=n^a\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j=j`$, multiplied by the Wilson loop $`W_J(𝒞)`$:

$`Z(𝒞,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟A\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{4g^2}d^4x\left[F_{\mu \nu }^a+4\pi q{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j\mu \nu }^{a}\right]^2\right\}W_J(𝒞)},`$ (49)
$`W_J(𝒞)`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\text{P}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle \underset{𝒞}{}}T_J^aA_\mu ^a𝑑x_\mu \right\},`$ (50)
where $`T_J^a`$ are the generators of SU(2) in the representation $`J`$. It is convenient to use the following integral representation :

$`W_J(𝒞)={\displaystyle 𝒟\omega \mathrm{exp}\left\{iJ\underset{𝒞}{}\left[A_\mu ^\omega \right]^3𝑑x_\mu \right\}},\left[A_\mu ^\omega \right]^3=Tr\left[\tau ^3\omega ^+(A_\mu +i_\mu )\omega \right],`$
where the path integral is over all gauge transformations $`\omega `$ of the potential $`A`$ on the contour $`𝒞`$. Therefore

$$Z(𝒞,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)=𝒟A𝒟\omega \mathrm{exp}\{S(A,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)+iJ\underset{𝒞}{}\left[A_\mu ^\omega \right]^3𝑑x_\mu \}.$$
(51)
The action $`S(A,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)`$ and the measure of integration $`𝒟A`$ are gauge invariant. The gauge transformation $`AA^{\omega ^1}`$ defined on $`𝒞`$ allows to factorize the integral $`𝒟\omega `$:

$$Z(𝒞,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)=𝒟\omega 𝒟A\mathrm{exp}\{S(A,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)+iJ\underset{𝒞}{}A_\mu ^3𝑑x_\mu \}.$$
(52)
The expression (52) has the following meaning: if there is no gauge fixing in the path integral (49) the Wilson loop may be calculated exactly by restricting the gauge potential $`A`$ to diagonal U(1) subgroup of SU(2) .

Now we deform the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$ spanned on the contour $`j`$ to another orientable non self-intersecting surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}`$ spanned on the same contour. We also consider the field $`n^a(\sigma )`$ defined on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}`$ according to (13). Then the closed surface $`𝒮=\mathrm{\Sigma }_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}`$, which bounds the 3-volume $`𝒱_𝒮=𝒱_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}}`$, has no self-intersection points and there exists a vector field $`n^a(x)`$, defined in the whole space–time,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}n^a(x)=n^a(\stackrel{~}{x})& \text{for}& x\mathrm{\Sigma }_j,\\ n^a(x)=n^a(\stackrel{~}{x})& \text{for}& x\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}.\end{array}$$
(53)
In particular, $`n^a(x)`$ is defined on the contour $`𝒞`$ and there exists an SU(2) matrix $`h𝒞`$, such that:

$$\left[h\sigma ^3h^+\right]^a=n^a(x)x𝒞.$$
(54)
After the gauge transformation $`AA^h`$ Eq. (52) becomes:

$$Z(𝒞,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)=𝒟\omega 𝒟A\mathrm{exp}\{S(A,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)+iJ\underset{𝒞}{}(n^aA^a+[ih^+h]^3)$$
(55)
Consider now the additional gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒱_𝒮)`$ (23,24) with $`𝒱_𝒮=𝒱_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}}`$. A straightforward calculation gives

$$n^a\left[A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Omega }\right]^a=n^aA_\mu ^a4\pi qV_\mu .$$
(56)
As is shown in Section 2.1 for integer and half-integer charges $`q`$ this gauge transformation shifts $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}`$:

$$S(A^\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)=S(A,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}).$$
(57)
For self–consistency of the theory, the Wilson loop is to be invariant under the gauge transformations. If we apply the transformation (56,57) to $`Z(𝒞,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)`$, see Eq. (49), we get:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒱_𝒮):Z(𝒞,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)Z(𝒞,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j𝒮)e^{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi qJ(𝒞,𝒮)},$$
(58)
where $`(𝒞,𝒮)`$ is the 4D linking number between the closed contour $`𝒞`$ and the closed surface $`𝒮`$:

$`(𝒞,𝒮)={\displaystyle \underset{𝒮}{}}\left({}_{}{}^{}d_{}^{2}\sigma \right)_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \underset{𝒞}{}}𝑑x_\nu _\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^1(\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma )x).`$ (59)
Since $`ZZ`$ and $`J`$ takes integer and half–integer values the independence of the Wilson loop on the gauge transformations $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies the quantization condition:

$`qZZ.`$ (60)
This equation is a direct analog of the Dirac quantization condition in electrodynamics. Physically it means that the electrically charged particle introduced by Wilson loop does not scatter on the Dirac string $`𝒮`$.

Now we show that the ’t Hooft loop operator $`H(\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)`$ is given by:

$`H(\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{S(\widehat{F})S(\widehat{F}+2\pi {}_{}{}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{j}^{})\right\},`$ (61)
where the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^a`$ is bounded by the contour $`j`$ and is given by Eq. (13), the action $`S`$ is defined by Eq. (16). Indeed, the transformation (58), when applied to the quantum average of the product of the fundamental, $`J=1/2`$, Wilson loop and operator (61), gives:

$$<H(j,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)W_{1/2}(𝒞)>=<H(j,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{})W_{1/2}(𝒞)e^{i\pi (𝒞,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{})}>.$$
(62)
This formula proves that the operator $`H`$ is the ’t Hooft loop operator since it is in accordance with relations given in Refs. .

## 5 Predictions for the ’t Hooft loop.

In this Section we consider the rectangular $`T\times R`$ time-like contours $`j`$, Eq. (61), with $`TR`$. Then the expectation value of the ’t Hooft loop operator is

$$<H(\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)>=<H(T,R)>e^{TV_{m\overline{m}}(R)},$$
(63)
where by analogy with the Wilson loop we refer to the quantity $`V_{m\overline{m}}(R)`$ as to the intermonopole (monopole–antimonopole) potential. It is worth emphasizing that the potential $`V_{m\overline{m}}`$ corresponds to the $`|Q_M|=1`$ monopoles while in Ref.  the monopole–antimonopole potential with the charge $`|Q_M|=2`$ has been studied. These double charged monopoles are identified with the Abelian monopoles in Abelian projections.

Below we formulate predictions for the ’t Hooft loop operator, Eq. (61), and its expectation value, Eq. (63). In particular, we show that the ’t Hooft loop operator inserts the pair of $`|Q_M|=1`$ monopoles which are pure Abelian in the Maximal Abelian gauge. This fact allows to fix the short distance asymptotic of the intermonopole potential. We argue then that this potential at larger distances at zero and high temperatures is of Yukawa type. We also find the screening mass in both cases and compare it with the masses measured on the lattice . Our estimates turn to be in agreement with the numerical data.

### 5.1 Intermonopole Potential at Small Distances.

Consider the potential $`V_{m\overline{m}}(R)`$ at small distances for the monopole–antimonopole pair introduced by the operator $`H(T,R)`$. The definition (61) shows that we have enough gauge freedom to take $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^a=\delta ^{a,3}\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$ on the non self-intersecting surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$. Then at the classical level the solution of the corresponding equations of motion is :

$$\begin{array}{c}A_\mu ^3dx_\mu =\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{z_+}{r_+}\frac{z_{}}{r_{}}\right)d\phi ,A_\mu ^{1,2}=0,\\ \text{}z_\pm =z\pm R/2,\rho ^2=x^2+y^2,r_\pm ^2=z_\pm ^2+\rho ^2,\end{array}$$
(64)
and represents the Abelian monopole-antimonopole pair separated by the distance $`R`$. Since the monopoles in (64) have minimal allowed magnetic charge $`q=1/2`$ (see Section 2.1), at the classical level the intermonopole potential is given by:

$$V_{m\overline{m}}(R)=\frac{\pi }{g^2R}=\pi ^2\beta \frac{1}{4\pi R},\beta =\frac{4}{g^2}.$$
(65)
Note that the statement on the Coulombic nature of the intermonopole potential at short distances is well known . However, the fixation of the coefficient in front of $`1/R`$ is new, to the best of our knowledge<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2 The same coefficient is derived in Ref. , which appeared on the day of submission of the present paper. .

Since the potential (65) was obtained for pure Abelian fields, we still have to prove that the general solution with minimal energy in SU(2) gluodynamics is indeed a gauge rotation of (64). A straightforward way to test the Eq. (65) is to investigate the problem numerically. We have calculated the expectation value of the ’t Hooft loop in the standard SU(2) lattice gauge theory in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. Technically this limit is realized with the help of the so–called cooling procedure which was used to minimize the expectation value of the ’t Hooft loop with respect to the classical lattice equations of motion. Our calculations have been performed on the three-dimensional $`24^3`$ lattice with periodic boundary conditions, which is adequate to consider the static monopole–antimonopole pair. We minimized the ’t Hooft loop operator, which creates static monopole and antimonopole separated by the distance $`R`$. We have fitted our data for the monopole–antimonopole potential by:

$$V_{m\overline{m}}^{lat.}(R)=\pi ^2\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_{lat.}^1(R),$$
(66)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{lat.}^1(R)`$ is the three-dimensional lattice Coulomb potential. Eq. (66) is the lattice regularization of the continuum expression (65). Note that the lattice and continuum potentials drastically differ from each other and this is of crucial importance in fitting the lattice data: the potential (66) is regular at $`R=0`$ contrary to (65).

Our numerical calculations confirmed the behavior (66) with accuracy $`2\%`$. We also observed that after the cooling procedure the fields are Abelian up to a gauge transformation. In more detail, we found that in the Maximal Abelian gauge the gauge fields are diagonal and consist of the Abelian monopoles located at the boundary of the string $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$, Eq. (61). Therefore the classical limit of the state created by non-Abelian ’t Hooft loop is the Abelian monopole–antimonopole pair.

Moreover, once the result (65) is established classically, the effect of the quantum corrections is also known on general grounds. Namely, the effect of the quantum corrections should be reduced to the replacement of the bare coupling by the running one, $`g^2g^2(R)`$. Although the result is easy to guess, its derivation might look rather mysterious. Indeed, we have now both non-Abelian magnetic monopoles as external objects and ordinary gluons as virtual particles. At first sight we need both the standard and dual formulations of the gluodynamics to describe interaction both with magnetic and electric charges. While in case of U(1) gauge theories such a formulation is well known , it is absent in case of non-Abelian theories. Thus, we seem to know how the coupling runs although do not know, whose coupling is it!

We think that the resolution of the paradox is in the Abelian nature of the $`|Q_M|=1`$ monopoles established above. Indeed, the classical considerations allow us to fix vertices, or the Lagrangian. The exact Abelian nature of the monopoles implies that once we choose an Abelian gauge fixing only neutral bosons (diagonal gluons) interact with the monopoles $`|Q_M|=1`$. The charged vector bosons are still manifested through the loops. Thus, the situation is similar to the U(1) case with inclusion of the effect of virtual charged particles. As for the virtual monopoles, their effect can be neglected since the monopoles $`|Q_M|=1`$ are infinitely heavy in the continuum limit. There is no much difficulty to deal with this problem and one can check that indeed the effect of the loops is the running of the coupling $`g^2`$. The details of the U(1) case can be found in the review in Ref. , see also the recent paper . As for the perturbative calculations in non-Abelian theories in the Abelian projections, they can be found in Ref.

### 5.2 Abelian Dominance and Intermonopole Potential.

Next we discuss the monopole–antimonopole potential at larger distances. The basic idea is to apply the Abelian Dominance hypothesis . Indeed, as has been shown above the ’t Hooft loop operator inserts the $`|Q_M|=1`$ monopole pair in the vacuum of SU(2) gauge theory. Moreover, in the Maximal Abelian gauge these monopoles become a pure Abelian objects. Therefore it is natural to expect that in this particular gauge the dominant contribution to the potential (63) is due to the interaction with Abelian fields. In the Maximal Abelian gauge the vacuum of zero temperature SU(2) gluodynamics is a dual superconductor where, instead of condensate of Cooper pairs, there exists a monopole condensate. The principle of Abelian Dominance assumes that long distance properties of gluodynamics might be explained in terms of the interaction with the monopole condensate (for reviews see, e.g., ).

Following this logic, we expect that at the zero temperatures the monopole–antimonopole potential is:

$$V_{m\overline{m}}(R)=\frac{\pi }{g^2}\frac{e^{\mu R}}{R}$$
(67)
$$V_{m\overline{m}}^{lat.}(R)=\beta \pi ^2(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mu ^2)_{lat.}^1(R)$$
(68)
where $`\mu `$ is the dual photon mass $`m_V`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mu ^2)_{lat.}^1`$ is the three-dimensional lattice Yukawa potential. The recent numerical investigation of the ’t Hooft loop in SU(2) lattice gauge theory  agrees with Eq. (67). The value of $`\mu 3.24(42)\sqrt{\sigma }`$ obtained in Ref.  is quite close to the dual photon mass $`m_V1\mathrm{GeV}=2.3\sqrt{\sigma }`$ found in Ref. . Let us also note that we would not identify directly the mass $`\mu `$ in Eq. (67) with a glueball mass. Indeed, the definition of the ’t Hooft loop is highly nonlocal and includes a Dirac string with infinite action. Therefore, the validity of the dispersive relations is questionable in this case. Note, however, that $`\mu `$ in Eq. (67) coincides with the $`0^{++}`$ glueball mass in the strong coupling expansion . If this result is valid also in the weak coupling limit, then the Abelian Dominance is reduced to the prediction that the dual photon mass $`m_V`$ coincides with the $`0^{++}`$ glueball mass. Comparison of numerical results for the Yukawa mass $`\mu `$ with glueball masses can be found in .

Note that the prediction (67) is highly non-trivial in fact. Indeed the $`|Q_M|=1`$ monopoles are so to say fundamental monopoles which look as Abelian monopoles at short distances and are associated for this reason with an infinite action. They are introduced therefore as external objects via the ’t Hooft loop, similar to introduction of infinitely heavy quarks via the Wilson loop. The $`|Q_M|=2`$ monopoles, on the other hand, have a finite action and their description as a fundamental objects seems to be granted only at large distances. This could be manifested, in particular, through existence of an intermediate region between the distances where the Coulombic and Yukawa pictures apply. In other words, the coefficient in front of the Coulombic term could have not matched the coefficient in front of the Yukawa-like potential. However, existing data about the ’t Hooft loop  indicate that the matching is exact, within the error bars. In other words, the dual Abelian Higgs model of QCD vacuum works already at smallest distances available on the lattice. Similar conclusions can be drawn in fact from the studies of the heavy quark potential induced by monopoles  and from description of the structure of the flux string , for a review see .

### 5.3 Finite Temperatures.

The authors of Ref.  have also performed numerical calculations of the ’t Hooft loop at finite temperatures, and determined the dependence of the Yukawa mass $`\mu `$ on the temperature. To provide a theoretical framework for the behavior of the ’t Hooft loop at high temperatures we can use again the idea of the Abelian Dominance.

In more detail, we estimate the screening mass $`\mu `$ using the fact that the Abelian model which corresponds to the high temperature SU(2) gluodynamics is the 3D compact U(1) theory. Therefore the intermonopole potential at high temperatures is essentially given by (67,68), with $`\mu `$ now being the Debye mass :

$$m_D^2=16\pi \frac{\rho }{e_3^2},$$
(69)
where $`\rho `$ is the density of Abelian monopoles and $`e_3`$ is the corresponding three-dimensional coupling constant. To estimate the temperature dependence of $`m_D`$ we use the numerical results of Ref. , where the density of Abelian monopoles was obtained<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3 Note that the original result of Ref.  for the lattice monopole density is: $`\rho _{lat.}=0.50(1)\beta _G^3`$, where $`\beta _G^3`$ is a three dimensional coupling constant which is expressed in terms of the 3D electric charge $`e_3`$ and lattice spacing $`a`$ as $`\beta _G^3=4/(ae_3^2)`$. The physical density $`\rho `$ of monopoles is given by $`\rho =\rho _{lat.}a^3`$ which can easily be transformed into Eq. (70). :

$$\rho =2^7(1\pm 0.02)e_3^6,$$
(70)
Therefore

$$m_D=1.11(2)e_3^2.$$
(71)
Moreover, at high temperatures we can use the dimensional reduction formalism and express the 3D coupling constant $`e_3`$ in terms of the 4D Yang–Mills coupling $`g`$. At the tree level one has

$$e_3^2(T)=g^2(\mathrm{\Lambda },T)T,$$
(72)
where $`g(\mathrm{\Lambda },T)`$ is the running coupling calculated at the scale $`T`$,

$$g^2(\mathrm{\Lambda },T)=\frac{11}{12\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{T}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)+\frac{17}{44\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}[2\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{T}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)],$$
(73)
and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a dimensional constant which can be determined from lattice simulations.

At present the lattice measurements of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameter are not very precise. We use the results of two particular calculations. Namely, in Ref.  the lattice data for the gluon propagator have been used to determine the so–called ”magnetic mass” in high temperature SU(2) gluodynamics. These measurements imply the following value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.262(18)T_c=0.197(14)\sqrt{\sigma },$$
(74)
where $`T_c`$ is the temperature of the deconfinement phase transition, $`T_c0.75\sqrt{\sigma }`$. In Ref. , on the other hand, the spatial string tension has been calculated and the corresponding value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ turned to be three times smaller:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.076(13)T_c=0.057(10)\sqrt{\sigma }.$$
(75)
Collecting Eqs. (71)-(75) we get predictions for the Debye mass which are shown in Table 1 along with the values of mass $`\mu `$ obtained numerically in Ref. . One can clearly see that the predictions and the numerical results are in agreement within the theoretical uncertainties. There are at least three sources of these uncertainties. First, the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not determined precisely as we already noted. Second, we have used the dimensional reduction which is supposed to work well only at asymptotically high temperatures, while only one value $`T=3.676\sqrt{\sigma }5T_c`$ in the Table 1 may be considered as high enough. Third, as we already noted the lattice and continuum Yukawa interactions are substantially different. For example, we may treat the ’t Hooft loop quantum average studied in Ref.  as a two–point correlator in three spatial dimensions. Then we may use the results of Ref.  and relate the value of $`\mu `$ obtained with the use of the continuum propagator to the correct value, $`\mu ^{\mathrm{correct}}\frac{2}{a}\mathrm{ArcSinh}\left(\frac{\mu a}{2}\right)`$. If we apply this correction to the values of $`\mu `$ in Table 1 then for $`a\mu =2.29(55)`$ and $`T=3.676\sqrt{\sigma }`$ the correction is essential. Indeed, we obtain: $`\mu ^{\mathrm{correct}}14.8(3.5)`$, which is quite close to our prediction with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.197\sqrt{\sigma }`$.

## Conclusions

We have tried to formulate a theoretical framework which would allow for monopoles in the continuum version of non-Abelian gauge theories. Indeed, monopoles nowadays are very common field configuration on the lattice. In the continuum, on the other hand, monopoles appear to be associated with singular fields and divergent action.

The key element to introduce monopoles in the continuum is to allow for Dirac strings. While naively the action associated with the Dirac strings is infinite, they cost no action at all in the compact U(1) gauge model . Thus, within the continuum formulation, one has to postulate that there are certain singular fields which cost no action as well. An alternative representation for the singular fields are Dirac sheets (see, e.g., Eq. (8) above). In the non-Abelian case, we argued that the continuum version should admit certain singular or stringy fields without any change in the action. One can say that the Dirac strings which cost no action are aligned in the color space with the background, or regular fields.

Once the Dirac strings are admitted into the continuum version of gluodynamics, the end points of the strings, or monopoles, cost in the perturbative vacuum no action either. This is true both classically and with account of quantum corrections. And this is in distinction from the U(1) case where the end points are monopoles with an ultraviolet divergent action. As a result, although the modified continuum version appears very different from the standard one since it allows for singular potentials inversely proportional to the coupling, perturbatively the two theories are in fact equivalent. Thus, at this point the problem seems to be the other way around. Namely, there is no difficulty any longer to introduce fields which look as monopoles in terms of Abelian fields but cost no action and appear as gauge artifacts once the full spectrum of the non-Abelian degrees of freedom is taken into account.

The difference between the two formulations becomes manifest once the gauge is fixed a la ’t Hooft  and background non-perturbative fields are introduced. The point is that in presence of the background field only those Dirac strings which are parallel to the background in the color space are non observable. On the other hand, the definition of the monopoles in terms of the topology of the gauge fixing introduces Dirac strings which do not satisfy this condition. As a result, the action associated with the monopoles is not vanishing any longer. And the monopoles do emerge as possible fluctuations with finite action which are present in the continuum theory modified to incorporate Dirac strings. It is worth emphasizing that upon integration over the background fields the monopole action does not depend on the position of the Dirac string but only on the monopole trajectory.

The machinery to prove the independence on the position of the Dirac string is also all what is needed to introduce a continuum analog of the ’t Hooft loop operator . The continuum formulation of the ’t Hooft loop is one of the central points of this paper. Furthermore, we were able to derive both rigorous and model-dependent results for the behavior of the ’t Hooft loop at zero and high temperature SU(2) gluodynamics.

In terms of physical applications, the picture developed explains in generic terms correlation between instantons and monopoles (for discussion see, e.g., ). Also, it was demonstrated that while perturbatively the modified theory allowing for the Dirac strings is equivalent to the standard one, non-perturbatively they are different. This might explain a kind of mystery with the non-perturbative $`1/Q^2`$ corrections from short distances which seem to exist phenomenologically but evade, so far, theoretical understanding within the standard framework (for reviews and further references see ).

## Acknowledgments

M.N.Ch. and M.I.P. acknowledge the kind hospitality of the staff of the Max-Planck Institut für Physik (München), where the work was initiated. The authors are grateful to V.A. Rubakov for useful discussions. Work of M.N.C., F.V.G. and M.I.P. was partially supported by grants RFBR 99-01230a, RFBR 96-1596740 and INTAS 96-370.


format: text

text:
# Response to Comments on “Simple Measure for Complexity”

## Abstract

We respond to the comment by Crutchfield, Feldman and Shalizi and that by Binder and Perry, pointing out that there may be many maximum entropies, and therefore “disorders” and “simple complexities”. Which ones are appropriate depend on the questions being addressed. “Disorder” is not restricted to be the ratio of a nonequilibrium entropy to the corresponding equilibrium entropy; therefore, “simple complexity” need not vanish for all equiibrium systems, nor must it be nonvanishing for a nonequilibrium system.

We are pleased that our contribution on a “simple measure for complexity”  (hereafter referred to as SDL) is of sufficient interest to have generated two comments, one by Crutchfield, Feldman and Shalizi  (CFS) and another by Binder and Perry  (BP). In SDL we proposed

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^\beta ,$$
(1)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }S/S_{max},\mathrm{\Omega }1\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(2)
as a “simple measure for complexity”. $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are (constant) parameters, $`S`$ is the Boltzmann-Gibbs-Shannon entropy , and $`S_{max}`$, the maximum entropy. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ was introduced earlier by one of us as a measure for disorder, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is referred to as “order” .

CFS raise several points:

* Since $`S_{max}`$ is the equilibrium entropy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ vanish for all equilibrium systems, and neither can “distinguish between two-dimensional Ising systems at low temperature, high temperature, or the critical temperature …\[nor\] …between the many different kinds of organization observed in equilibrium.”
* $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ “is over-universal in the sense that it has the same dependence on disorder for structurally distinct systems.”
* The “statistical complexity” $`C_\mu `$ of one-dimensional spin systems  is not the same as the entropy of noninteracting spins. The identification in SDL of $`C_\mu `$ with the disorder of noninteracting spins is incorrect.
* SDL mentions “thermodynamic depth”  as a complexity measure with a convex dependence on disorder, whereas Crutchfield and Shalizi  have shown that it is an increasing function of disorder.

The comment of BP is more specific: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ does not capture all aspects of complexity; in particular, “it does not describe the transition from regular to indexed languages observed at the period-doubling accumulation points of quadratic maps.”

We welcome the two comments, as well as the opportunity to respond to them and clarify the work presented in SDL. Let us first note that we have only a limited interest in terminology, and if someone does not like our use of the word “complexity” for the expression defined in eq. 1, let them call it the “lambda-function” or invent another term. The important thing is to have a clear definition of the terms one is using. For this reason, we will mostly refrain from calling $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ “complexity” in this response.

* CFS have understood $`S_{max}`$ to always be the equilibrium entropy, from which it follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ vanish for all equilibrium systems. This is a misinterpretation of SDL, perhaps due to our choice of a nonequilibrium system to illustrate the case where the entropy of the equiprobable distribution may not be the appropriate $`S_{max}`$ and our statement that one can interpret $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ as the product of “order” and “distance from equilibrium”. We did not write that “$`S_{max}`$ is taken to be the equilibrium entropy of the system …for all …systems.” . Neither “disorder” $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ nor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ is restricted to this interpretation. A perusal of our other work  will yield examples additional to those in SDL where $`S_{max}`$ is not the equilibrium entropy of a nonequilibrium system.

In fact, it is possible to have more than one $`S_{max}`$, depending on the question(s) being addressed.

+ Take the entropy of the universe as largely due to the black body radiation background. The maximum conceivable entropy can be constructed by taking all the matter in the universe to make one black hole, yielding a very small “disorder” (see, e.g. ). In a sense that is an ultimate equilibrium entropy.
    + The absolute maximum entropy possible is usually taken to be the that of the equiprobable distribution.
    + For a nonequilibrium system, one could take the entropy of the equilibrium system with the same number of particles, total energy, …as the maximum entropy .
    + The one-dimensional Ising system (two-state spins, only nearest neighbor interactions) provides a simple example where different $`S_{max}`$’s are appropriate for answering different questions. The entropy is a function of the interaction parameter $`J`$, the external field $`B`$ and temperature $`T`$: $`S(B,J,T)`$. The case of vanishing external field and vanishing interaction yields the equiprobable distribution and the absolute maximum entropy: $`S(B=0,J=0,T)`$ . The absolute “disorder”, that with reference to $`S(B=0,J=0,T)`$, is then

    $$\mathrm{\Delta }=S(B,J,T)/S(B=0,J=0,T).$$
    (3)
    How much of the reduction of $`S(B,J,T)`$ compared to $`S(B=0,J=0,T)`$ is due to the interaction between spins? To answer this question we find the maximum of $`S(B,J,T)`$ with respect to $`J`$ under the condition of constant net magnetization $`M`$ (since, even for the paramagnet, the entropy varies with $`M`$). As expected, the entropy is maximum in the case of vanishing interaction, $`J=0`$. Thus, the maximum entropy under the constraint of constant net magnetization is $`S(B_0,J=0,T)`$, where $`B_0`$ is the value of the external field such that $`M(B_0,J=0,T)=M(B,J,T)`$. We now have a second “disorder”:

    $$\mathrm{\Delta }_{J=0}=S(B_0,J=0,T)/S(B=0,J=0,T).$$
    (4)
    This is the absolute “disorder” of the paramagnet with the same net magnetization as the Ising system with nonvanishing $`J`$. Since we have three entropies, $`S(B,J,T)S(B_0,J=0,T)S(B=0,J=0,T)`$, we can introduce a third “disorder”:

    $$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}=S(B,J,T)/S(B_0,J=0,T),$$
    (5)
    which is the “disorder” of the Ising system with respect to the paramagnet with the same net magnetization. The three “disorders” are related by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }_{J=0}`$.

The point is that there are many possible $`S_{max}`$’s, and therefore “disorders”, “orders” and “complexities” $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$, even for equilibrium systems. Which one(s) are appropriate depends on the question(s) being addressed. It is not in general true that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is identically $`1`$ for equilibrium systems; therefore neither “order” nor “complexity” must vanish at equilibrium. When CFS write that as a consequence of $`S_{max}`$’s being taken as the equilibrium entropy (for nonequilibrium systems) neither $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ nor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ can “distinguish between two-dimensional Ising systems at low temperature, high temperature, or the critical temperature …\[n\]or …between the many different kinds of organization observed in equilibrium”, this is an overly restrictive interpretation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$.

For a paramagnet “pumped out of equilibrium”, one could interpret $`S`$ and $`S_{max}`$ as the nonequilibrium entropy and the equilibrium entropy *under the appropriate constraints* , respectively. However, here again, CFS misinterpret our work. They wish to argue that since the pumped state is out of equilibrium, we would assign a nonzero level of complexity to this state. This is not true for this simple case of a paramagnet, for which the entropy can be written simply in terms of the total number of spins and the net magnetization. The key is to realize that the appropriate constraints here are just the total number of spins and the net magnetization; otherwise the nonequilibrium entropy could be greater than the equilibrium entropy. Since the total number of spins and the net magnetization must then be the same for the equilibrium and the nonequilibrium case, the entropies are the same, and we have maximum “disorder” and vanishing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$. Incidentally, we have never maintained that $`1\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the ratio of a nonequilibrium entropy to the corresponding equilibrium entropy, could distinguish different equilibrium distributions. To do this, one needs some of the various equilibrium disorders, as pointed out above.
* CFS write that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ is “over-universal in the sense that it has the same dependence on disorder for structurally distinct systems.” We assume they mean that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ always has the same dependence on “disorder” (given $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$). We agree with this as far as it goes; it follows from the definition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$. It is rather superficial though, and the question arises as to which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ and which “disorder” are meant. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ is calculated from one “disorder” and its dependence on another “disorder” investigated, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ may well have a variable dependence on “disorder.” In Fig. 4 of SDL, we investigated $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11,J=0}`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for one-dimensional Ising systems. This relation varies with $`J`$. Thus, it is not generally true that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ “has the same dependence on disorder for structurally distinct systems.” One has to be careful to clearly state which “disorder” and which “complexity” one is dealing with. If one does so, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ may show different dependencies on “disorder” for “structurally distinct systems” and is not “over-universal” in the sense used here.

Our calculation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11,J=0}`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is analogous to Crutchfield and Feldman’s  calculation of “statistical complexity” $`C_\mu `$ and “excess entropy” $`E`$, or “effective measure complexity” , again for one-dimensional Ising systems. In our interpretation of their results, they found $`C_\mu `$, to within a multiplicative constant, to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{J=0}`$ (we will return to this point below), and $`E`$, again to within a multiplicative constant, to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{J=0}\mathrm{\Delta }`$. They then investigated the dependence of $`C_\mu `$ and $`E`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and found that these dependencies vary with $`J`$. From an “order”-“disorder” point of view, what they have investigated is the dependence of “disorder” under one set of conditions ($`J=0`$) on “disorder” under another set of conditions ($`J0`$), or in the case of $`E`$, the difference between these two “disorders” on one of the “disorders”.
* In SDL we identified $`C_\mu `$ for the one-dimensional Ising system, to within a multiplicative constant, with the “disorder” of that system in the absence of interactions between spins. CFS object to this on two grounds, the first of which is dimensional inconsistency. This is not the place to get into a discussion of the proper units for entropy; let us just reiterate – to within a multiplicative constant. More seriously, CFS maintain that we “conflate” the definition of $`C_\mu `$ with eq. (8) of , which is only valid within a limited range. Actually, we were not referring to that equation to identify $`C_\mu `$, but rather to identify the excess entropy $`E`$. Be that as it may, our identification of $`C_\mu `$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{J=0}`$ in SDL is restricted to one-dimensional spin systems, which is what they treat in  and we treat in SDL. We were not “conflating”, but referring to their results for one-dimensional spin systems. They disagree with this, too, when they say that although $`C_\mu =H(1)`$, $`H(1)`$ is not the same as the entropy of noninteracting spins. However, on pg. 1240 of  they write: “For a NN system, Eq. (6) is equivalent to saying that $`C_\mu =H(1)`$, the entropy associated with the value of one spin.” Earlier, pg. 1239, they used the phrase “isolated-spin uncertainty $`H(1)`$”. Since an isolated spin can not be subject to interactions with neighboring spins, to our reading, they themselves have stated that $`H(1)`$ is the entropy of a spin subject to no interactions, and thus, to within a multiplicative constant, just $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{J=0}`$. (Note that according to  the identification of $`C_\mu `$ with $`H(1)`$ breaks down for the paramagnetic case and the high temperature limit; we exclude these cases, too, of course.)
* Does “thermodynamic depth”  show a convex dependence on “disorder”, as we stated in SDL, or does it increase monotonically with “disorder” ? Our statement was based on the original exposition by Lloyd and Pagels  and other discussions (e.g. ). The results of Crutchfield and Shalizi  would indeed seem to indicate that thermodynamic depth is a monotonically increasing function of “disorder”, given their insistence that the choice of states to be made should be the “causal states” of “$`ϵ`$ \- machines”. In particular, they object to “judiciously redefining” (pg. 277) the “appropriate set” of macroscopic states. However, we believe the situation may not be so simple. First of all, they write  (pg. 278): “It is certainly not desirable to conflate a process’s complexity with the complexity of whatever apparatus connects the process to the variables we happen to have seized upon as handles”. This argument ignores the fact that the only access we have to real systems is through measurement. The situation would seem to be reminiscent of the endo-exophysics distinction (see, e.g., ), at least superficially. Crutchfield and Shalizi take more of a endophysical point of view, while it would seem that Lloyd and Pagels take a more exophysical approach. Along a similar vein, the argument of Crutchfield and Shalizi seems to ignore the problem of frames of reference. For example, Andresen and Gordon  and Spirkl and Ries  have shown that a necessary condition for minimum entropy production in a continuous time system is a constant rate of entropy production in eigen time. This can be described as the instantaneous internal time scale of the system and is different from clock or wall time except for linear systems. In other words, for nonlinear systems the rate of entropy production will not be constant for an external observer, but only to the (nonlinear) system as it sees itself. In any case, “thermodynamic depth” would seem to be a convex measure of “complexity” in some cases. “Back of the envelope” calculations of “thermodynamic depth”, taken as the difference between a coarse-grained entropy and a fine-grained entropy , for a one-dimensional Ising ferromagnet indicate a convex dependence on “disorder”. However, this is not the case for an antiferromagnet with sufficiently negative $`J`$. Thus, “thermodynamic depth” may not qualify as either a convex or a monotonic complexity measure, or it may be either depending on the particulars of the system being investigated.
* We agree with Binder and Perry (BP) that results obtained on the basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ should be carefully interpreted and complemented with results based on other measures, if possible. However, we are not so sure that all of their statements are completely accurate. For example, they argue that “effective measure complexity” will “\[c\]ertainly …pick up the non-regularity of a language”, but that our measure will not in the logistic map. However, a comparison of Fig. 10 of  and Fig. 3 of SDL show that, as stated in SDL, “major maxima as well as less major ones occur at the same values of $`r`$”, although the relative values of the maxima differ.

Perhaps the main point of contention is that BP desire a“complexity” measure which can become infinite, whereas we purposefully constructed the measure in SDL so that it would not have this property (for $`\alpha ,\beta 0`$). Our reasoning is similar to that which argues that $`S/S_{max}`$ is, for certain purposes, a “better” measure for“disorder” than is the entropy $`S`$ .

It would also seem that BP, like CFS, may have taken the definition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ too literally in that they may not have realized that there may be several different $`S_{max}`$’s, and therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s, and therefore $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$’s for a given system.

Nonetheless, we would like to reiterate that we stated only that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ behaves similarly to “effective measure complexity” for the logistic map, that it was not clear to us why this is so, and we do not know the breadth of systems for which this will be the case.

There is a plethora of proposed complexity measures in the literature, all trying to capture some aspects of what we mean when we say that something is complex. Among ones that we ourselves find attractive are “thermodynamic depth”, “statistical complexity” and “effective measure complexity”. However, none of these nor any of the others capture all aspects of “complexity”. This is made explicit by the statement by CFS “that a useful role for statistical complexity measures is to capture the structure – patterns, organization, regularities, symmetries – intrinsic to a process”. We have nothing against this statement, unless one interprets “a useful role” as “ the only useful role”, or one means that a measure of complexity must be a statistical complexity measure. There are many useful roles for complexity measures.  Perhaps at some time a consensus will arise; but until that time, we believe that there is a need for various approaches to complexity.

The situation becomes even more confused, when one realizes that even seemingly “exact” measures such as “statistical complexity” and “effective measure complexity” are not uniquely defined: “For higher dimensional systems, e.g., spins in 2D, there are several ways to define $`E`$ and $`C_\mu `$.”  (pg. R1242) Thus, we believe there is a place for simple measures of complexity. The great advantage of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$, as noted in SDL, is that it is available for systems where much less information is available than is necessary to calculate some other measures, such as $`E`$ and $`C_\mu `$.

We do not claim any “universality” for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ though, and think that one should examine several possible complexity measures to get a handle on the various things which can be meant by saying a system or a process is complex.

This work was supported in part by grant no. 31-42069.94 from the Swiss National Science Foundation.