text:
# A note on monopole moduli spaces

## 1. Introduction

Recently there has been much interest in monopoles with non-maximal symmetry breaking at infinity. In particular questions have been raised as to when they are manifolds and when they have hyperKähler metrics. This note gathers together some mathematical results concerning the structure of the moduli spaces and their $`L^2`$ metrics. These range from theorems which have been proved in full generality, through partially proved theorems to outright conjectures.

Recall that we generally expect that moduli spaces of solutions of the self-duality equations and their reductions such as the Bogomolny equations and Nahm’s equations should be hyperKähler manifolds. One reason for this is that formally such moduli spaces arise as hyperKähler quotients. To recall this, fix a compact, connected Lie group $`G`$, with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, and consider the space $`𝒜`$ of $`G`$-connections (vector potentials) on the trivial $`G`$-bundle over flat $`^4`$. By identifying

$$A_0dx_0+A_1dx_1+A_2dx_2+A_3dx_3$$

with the $`𝔤`$-valued function

$$A_0+iA_1+jA_2+kA_3,$$

where $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`k`$ are unit quaternions, $`𝒜`$ becomes a quaternionic vector space. Formally, $`𝒜`$ can be equipped with the $`L^2`$-metric, making it a flat hyperKähler manifold. Because $`^4`$ is not compact, the convergence of this metric will depend upon subjecting our connections to suitable asymptotic conditions, and these will be considered in detail below. Setting this aside for the moment, it is a straightforward exercise to check that the hyperKähler moment map for the action of the gauge group $`𝒢`$ on $`𝒜`$ is given by

$$AF_A^+\mathrm{\Omega }^2(X,𝔤)\mathrm{Im}.$$

Hence the hyperKähler quotient $`𝒜///𝒢`$ should be the same as the space of anti-self-dual connections divided by the action of the gauge group, and the $`L^2`$ metric will descend to define a hyperKähler metric on the moduli space.

A monopole on $`^3`$ is a pair $`c=(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$, where $`A`$ is a connection on the trivial $`G`$-bundle $`E^3`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a section of the adjoint bundle $`E\times _G𝔤`$. The monopole $`c`$ satisfies the Bogomolny equations

(1.1)
$$\mathrm{d}_A\mathrm{\Phi }=F_A$$

if and only if the connection $`\mathrm{\Phi }dx_0+A`$ is anti-self-dual on $`\times ^3`$. In particular, from this four-dimensional point of view, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ cannot vanish at infinity, because it is independent of $`x_0`$. Thus the convergence of the $`L^2`$ metric and the non-degeneracy of the hyperKähler symplectic forms are important issues in this case.

These issues were fully resolved when $`G=SU(2)`$ by Atiyah and Hitchin : they showed that the moduli space of (framed) monopoles of charge $`k`$ is, indeed, a complete hyperKähler manifold. Its dimension is $`4k`$ where the charge of the monopole is $`k`$.

For a general compact Lie group of rank $`r`$ it is expected that the moduli space of monopoles with maximal symmetry breaking is a hyperKähler manifold although this has not been proved in generality. Except for very simple low charge cases, there are mostly partial results which compute the metric asymptotically near the edge of the moduli space, see for example  and references therein.

The real complications however arise when there is non-maximal symmetry breaking which is our primary interest below. The case of $`SU(3)`$ monopoles with minimal symmetry breaking was treated in detail by , but beyond this little seems to be known.

We shall present here a summary of the results discussed in the paper: the reader will have to refer forward for precise definitions.

The full moduli space of (framed) monopoles of mass $`\mu `$ and charge $`m`$ is denoted by $`(u,\mu ,[\varphi ]=m)`$. Here $`0\mu 𝔤`$ is arbitrary111maximal symmetry breaking is precisely the condition that $`\mu `$ should be regular and $`u`$ is a unit vector in $`^3`$. $`m`$ is a homotopy class, essentially a string of integers. The boundary conditions imposed guarantee that for some $`k𝔤`$,

(1.2)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tu)=\mu \frac{k}{2t}+o(t^1)\text{ for }t0.$$

There is therefore a map $`e:(u,\mu ,[\varphi ]=m)𝔤`$ which assigns $`k`$ to $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$. The image $`𝒦`$ of $`e`$ in $`𝔤`$ is not the whole of $`𝔤`$, but rather a disjoint union of $`C(\mu )`$-orbits

(1.3)
$$𝒦=C(\mu )k_1C(\mu )k_2\mathrm{}C(\mu )k_n.$$

It turns out that the $`k_j`$ are integral elements of $`𝔤`$. The set of all monopoles $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ with $`e(A,\mathrm{\Phi })C(\mu )k_j`$ is the $`j`$-th stratum $`_j`$, say, of the moduli space. This was defined in a different way for $`G=SU(r+1)`$ in . In general, $`_j`$ does not have dimension divisible by $`4`$, so cannot be hyperKähler. However, if we define, for $`k𝒦`$,

(1.4)
$$(u,\mu ,k)=\{(A,\mathrm{\Phi })(u,\mu ,[\varphi ]=m):e(A,\mathrm{\Phi })=k\}$$

(the moduli space of framed monopoles of type $`(\mu ,k)`$) then we shall see that $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ has dimension divisible by $`4`$ and the natural conjecture is that the $`L^2`$ metric makes $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ into a hyperKähler manifold.

At least one of the strata, $`_1`$, say, must be open, hence of the same dimension as $`(u,\mu ,[\varphi ]=m)`$, but this stratum need not be hyperKähler. If, however, $`C(\mu )k_1=k_1`$ then $`_1=(u,\mu ,k_1)`$ and then this stratum is a candidate to be hyperKähler. Notice more generally that if $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$ lie in $`C(\mu )k_j`$, an element $`gC(\mu )`$ with $`\mathrm{ad}(g)k=k^{}`$ can be regarded as a constant gauge transformation which maps $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ diffeomorphically to $`(u,\mu ,k^{})`$.

In §4, magnetic charges $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_s`$ and holomorphic charges $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_{rs}`$ are defined for monopoles in $`(u,\mu ,k)`$. The information in the magnetic charges is topological and is equivalent to the homotopy class $`m`$. In particular, the magnetic charges do not vary from stratum to stratum. By contrast the holomorphic charges determine the stratum $`_j`$. (The number $`s`$ of magnetic charges is completely determined by the mass $`\mu `$.)

We shall show that if $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ is non-empty, then the charges are all non-negative, and that

(1.5)
$$dim(u,\mu ,k)=4(m_1+\mathrm{}+m_s+h_1+\mathrm{}+h_{rs}).$$

Dimensions of the strata and full moduli space are also determined in §6.

## 2. The moduli space as a manifold

In this section we shall introduce various different monopole moduli spaces and explain carefully which of them are smooth manifolds, and which are likely to admit hyperKähler metrics. Throughout we shall be considering euclidean monopoles, that is to say monopoles on flat $`^3`$. Note that the metric enters the Bogomolny equation (1.1) through the Hodge star operator. Some work has also been done on hyperbolic monopoles, where $`^3`$ is replaced by hyperbolic $`3`$-space $`^3`$. It is expected that moduli spaces of hyperbolic monopoles will be diffeomorphic to the corresponding moduli spaces of euclidean monopoles, but this has not been proved in general. On the other hand, the issue of natural metrics on moduli spaces of hyperbolic monopoles is completely open: all that is known for certain is that the $`L^2`$ metric is infinite in this case.

There are two reasons why there are so many different monopole moduli spaces. The first is that the monopoles must be framed, and this can be done either at a base-point in $`^3`$ or ‘at infinity’. The second has to do with the specification of the asymptotics of the Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

### 2.1. Notation

In order to discuss monopoles, we shall fix the following:

* $`G`$ is a compact, connected, semi-simple Lie group of rank $`r`$. The complexification is denoted $`G^c`$ and Lie algebra $`𝔤`$.
* if $`a𝔤`$, $`O_a𝔤`$ is the orbit of $`a`$ in $`𝔤`$ under the adjoint action of $`G`$. $`C(a)G`$ is the centraliser of $`a`$, with Lie algebra $`𝔠(a)`$.
* As a homogeneous space, $`O_a=G/C(a)=G^c/P_a`$, where $`P_a`$ is the appropriate parabolic subgroup. The latter description gives $`O_a`$ the structure of a compact complex manifold.
* $`\mu `$ and $`k`$ are commuting elements of $`𝔤`$, $`[\mu ,k]=0`$.
* $`E^3`$ will denote the trivial principal $`G`$-bundle over $`^3`$.

### 2.2. Boundary conditions and moduli spaces

The physically natural condition to impose on solution of the Bogomolny equations is the finite-energy condition

(2.1)
$$|F_A|^2=|\mathrm{d}_A\mathrm{\Phi }|^2<\mathrm{}.$$

We shall impose apparently rather stronger asymptotic conditions. It follows from the work of Taubes if $`G=SU(2)`$ that (2.1) together with (1.1) implies these stronger conditions, but for general groups this must remain a conjecture.

Following Jarvis, we assume:

> (BC1) Along each straight line, there is a gauge in which
>
> $$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mu \frac{k}{2r}+O\left(\frac{1}{r^{1+\delta }}\right)$$
>
> for all sufficiently large $`r`$,
>
> (BC2) In this same gauge,
>
> $$\mathrm{d}_A\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{k}{2r^2}\mathrm{d}r+O\left(\frac{1}{r^{2+\delta }}\right)$$
>
> for all sufficiently large $`r`$.

These conditions are closely related to the Bogomolny-Prasad-Sommerfield (BPS) boundary conditions of .

Define

$$𝒞=\{(A,\mathrm{\Phi }):\mathrm{d}_A\mathrm{\Phi }=F_A,(A,\mathrm{\Phi })\text{ satisfies BC1 and BC2}\}.$$

Notice that we do not yet fix $`\mu `$ and $`k`$: we merely assert that the boundary conditions are satisfied for some elements $`\mu `$ and $`k`$ satisfying

(2.2)
$$\mu 0,[\mu ,k]=0.$$

Denote by $`𝒢`$ the group of all automorphisms $`g`$ of $`E`$ that preserve the boundary conditions (i.e. $`g`$ and $`g`$ have limits as $`r`$ goes to infinity along any straight line, and the limiting values are continuously differentiable when viewed as functions on the sphere at infinity). Then $`𝒢`$ acts on $`𝒞`$ and we would like to define the monopole moduli space as the quotient $`=𝒞/𝒢`$. This will have singularities because $`𝒢`$ does not act freely. In addition it will contain components of arbitrarily high dimension. We shall now explain how these two problems are eliminated.

### 2.3. The degree of a monopole

The asymptotic value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a section $`\varphi `$, say, of $`\mathrm{ad}(E_{\mathrm{}})`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the restriction of $`E`$ to the two-sphere at infinity. Since $`\mathrm{ad}(E_{\mathrm{}})`$ is a trivial bundle, we can view $`\varphi `$ as a continuous map into $`𝔤`$. By BC1, this takes values in the adjoint orbit $`O_\mu `$. This orbit is preserved by the action of gauge transformations $`g`$ on $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$, but $`g(\varphi )=\mathrm{ad}(g)\varphi `$, so that this map is not gauge-invariant. However its homotopy class $`m=[\varphi ]`$ is gauge invariant, because $`\pi _2(G)=0`$, so that any gauge transformation can be deformed to the identity. The homotopy class $`m`$ is called the degree of the monopole. This discussion suggests the definition of spaces

$$𝒞(O_\mu ,[\varphi ]=m)$$

where the adjoint orbit as well as the homotopy class of $`\varphi `$ are fixed. This is referred to as the set of monopoles of mass $`\mu `$ and charge $`m`$. Note that $`O_\mu =G/C(\mu )`$.

### 2.4. Radial scattering and interior framing

Let $`x^3`$ be any point. The moduli space of monopoles framed at $`x`$, of mass $`\mu `$ and charge $`m`$ is the quotient

$$(x,O_\mu ,[\varphi ]=m)=𝒞(O_\mu ,[\varphi ]=m)/𝒢(x)$$

where

$$𝒢(x)=\{g𝒢:g(x)=1\}.$$

In  Jarvis proved the following:

###### Theorem 2.1.

There is a natural bijection

$$r_x:(x,O_\mu ,[\varphi ]=m)(O_\mu ,m)$$

where the set on the RHS is the space of all holomorphic maps $`v:S^2O_\mu `$, with $`[v]=m`$.

In defining $`(O_\mu ,m)`$ recall from §2.1 that $`O_\mu `$ is in a natural way a complex manifold. It is known  that $`(O_\mu ,m)`$ is a finite-dimensional smooth manifold, often referred to as a space of rational maps. It follows that our framed moduli space can be identified with a smooth manifold. It should be the case that $`r_x`$ is naturally a diffeomorphism, but to prove that one would have to equip $`(x,O_\mu ,[\varphi ]=m)`$ with a smooth structure. Although this should be possible, we are not aware of a detailed treatment of this issue.

### 2.5. Framing at infinity and parallel scattering

To frame monopoles ‘at infinity’ we pick a point $`uS^2`$, viewed as the sphere at infinity in $`^3`$. Returning to BC1, we define:

$$𝒞(u,\mu ,[\varphi ]=m)=\{(A,\mathrm{\Phi })𝒞:\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }(tu)=\mu ,[\varphi ]=m\}$$

and

$$𝒞(u,\mu ,k)=\{(A,\mathrm{\Phi })𝒞:\mathrm{\Phi }(tu)=\mu k/2t+o(t^1)\}$$

and introduce the corresponding gauge group

$$𝒢(u)=\{g𝒢:\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}g(tu)=1\}.$$

The corresponding moduli spaces are

$$(u,\mu ,[\varphi ]=m)=𝒞(u,\mu ,[\varphi ]=m)/𝒢(u)\text{ and }(\mu ,k)=𝒞(u,\mu ,k)/𝒢(u).$$

The first of these is called the moduli space of (framed) monopoles with mass $`\mu `$ and degree $`m`$. The second is called the moduli space of (framed) monopoles of type $`(\mu ,k)`$.

These can also be identified with spaces of rational maps:

###### Theorem 2.2.

* There is a natural bijection $`r_u:(u,\mu ,m)\stackrel{~}{}(O_\mu ,m)`$.
* There is a natural bijection $`\widehat{r}_u:(u,\mu ,k)\stackrel{~}{}(O_{\mu k},m)`$.

Here $`\stackrel{~}{}(O_\mu ,m)(O_\mu ,m)`$ is the set of based rational maps, that is, those which send $`uS^2`$ to $`\mu `$. In part (b),

(2.3)
$$O_{\mu k}=G/H_{\mu k}=G^c/P_{\mu k},\text{ where }H_{\mu k}=C(\mu )C(k)$$

and $`P_{\mu k}`$ is the corresponding parabolic subgroup.

Part (a) of this result was proved first by Donaldson  for $`G=SU(2)`$ then by Hurtubise  for classical groups by a generalisation of Donaldson’s approach. Both parts were proved for general $`G`$ by Jarvis  using parallel scattering to associate a rational map to a monopole, and nonlinear analysis to invert this procedure.

We note in passing that Jarvis shows that the restriction of $`r_u`$ to $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ is the composition of $`\widehat{r}_u`$ with the projection $`\stackrel{~}{}(O_{\mu k},m)\stackrel{~}{}(G^c/P,m).`$

Once again, it is not clear that smooth structures have been defined on these framed moduli spaces. One conjectures that natural smooth structures should exist, such that these bijections are diffeomorphisms.

As we indicated in the Introduction, it is the moduli spaces $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ that have dimensions divisible by $`4`$ and which are therefore candidates to be hyperKähler spaces. In Proposition 6.2 the dimension of $`\stackrel{~}{}(O_{\mu k},m)`$ will be explicitly computed.

### 2.6. Discussion

Let $`x(t)=ut`$, and consider the bijection $`r_{x(t)}`$, for $`t`$ large, of Theorem 2.1. It is tempting to believe that this should approach the map $`r_u`$ of Theorem 2.2. However, they cannot be compared directly since they have different targets. But we could divide both sides by the appropriate groups to get bijections $`\stackrel{~}{r}_u:(O,[\varphi ]=m)\stackrel{~}{}(O_\mu ,m)/C(\mu )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{x(t)}:(O_\mu ,[\varphi ]=m)(O_\mu ,m)/G`$ and then compare them via the natural isomorphism induced by the inclusion of based maps into unbased maps. A straightforward calculation shows that the limit of $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{tu}(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ typically does not exist because evaluated in co-ordinates it blows up. Some kind of renormalization or scaling must be required to find the relationship between the limit of $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{x(t)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_u`$.

## 3. The $`L^2`$ metric

Formally, a tangent vector to $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ in $`𝒞`$ is a pair $`(\dot{A},\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ satisfying the linearization at $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ of the Bogomolny equations. The $`L^2`$ metric gives this vector length-squared equal to

(3.1)
$$_^3(|\dot{A}|^2+|\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}|^2)dx;$$

due to the non-compactness of $`^3`$, this need not converge. Looking back at BC1 and BC2, it is clear that (3.1) cannot converge if the variation $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ changes $`\mu `$ or $`k`$ in BC1. It is natural, therefore, to focus on $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ as the obvious candidate to carry a hyperKähler metric. Our first task is to show that if the Bogomolny equations hold asymptotically, then the pair $`(\mu ,k)`$ determines the leading asymptotics of the monopole on the whole of the two-sphere at infinity.

We begin by noting that the boundary conditions imply that the connection $`A`$ restricts to give a connection $`a`$ on $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ and that BC1 gives

(3.2)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tz)=\varphi (z)\frac{f(z)}{2t}+o(t^1)$$

where $`\varphi `$ and $`f`$ are smooth functions of $`zS^2`$ and the framing condition is

(3.3)
$$\varphi (u)=\mu ,f(u)=k.$$

The Bogomolny equations reduce to

(3.4)
$$f=0,\varphi =0,F_a=\frac{f}{2}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{vol}$$

where $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{vol}`$ denotes the standard area-form of the unit 2-sphere. A pair $`(\varphi ,f)`$ satisfying (3.3) and (3.4) are called monopole boundary data.

We now prove that, up to gauge, the pair $`(\varphi ,f)`$ is completely determined by its value $`(\mu ,k/2)`$ at the base-point $`u`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`(\varphi ,f)`$ and $`(\varphi ^{},f^{})`$ be boundary data for a monopole:
(i) if $`u`$ and $`v`$ are in $`S^2`$ then there is a $`gG`$ such that $`\varphi (u)=\mathrm{ad}(g)(\varphi (v))`$ and $`f(u)=\mathrm{ad}(g)(f(v))`$;
(ii) if there is an $`hG`$ such that $`\varphi (u)=\mathrm{ad}(h)(\varphi ^{}(u))`$ and $`f(u)=\mathrm{ad}(h)(f^{}(u))`$ then there is a $`g:S^2G`$ such that $`\varphi ^g=\varphi ^{}`$ and $`f^g=f^{}`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\varphi =0`$ this is a trivial case of the results of  classifying equivalence classes or Yang-Mills connections over a Riemann surface. We follow the proof in . Recall that $`E_{\mathrm{}}S^2`$ is a principal $`G`$-bundle. Then $`\varphi `$ and $`f`$ can be viewed as equivariant maps $`E_{\mathrm{}}𝔤`$. Fix a point $`p_0E_{\mathrm{}}`$ and let $`\varphi (p_0)=\mu `$ and $`f(p_0)=k`$. Because $`\varphi `$ and $`f`$ are covariantly constant they are constant along any horizontal path. If $`pP`$ we can join $`p_0`$ to some point $`pg`$ with a horizontal curve and then $`\varphi (p)=\mathrm{ad}(g)(\mu )`$ and $`f(p)=\mathrm{ad}(g)(k)`$ as required.

From the discussion in the preceding paragraph it follows that we have a map

$$(\varphi ,f):E_{\mathrm{}}O_{\mu k}=G/H_{\mu k},H_{\mu k}=C(\mu )C(k).$$

Here $`O_{\mu k}`$ is the orbit of $`(\mu ,k)`$. The pre-image of the coset $`H_{\mu k}`$, ie the set of all points $`p`$ in $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ at which $`\varphi (p)=\mu `$ and $`f(p)=k`$, is a reduction of $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ to $`H_{\mu k}`$ which we denote by $`E_{\mu k}`$. If $`pE_{\mu k}`$ then any horizontal curve is also in $`E_{\mu k}`$ because $`\varphi `$ and $`k`$ are constant along horizontal curves so the connection also reduces to $`P_{\mu k}`$.

Because $`S^2`$ is simply connected standard results on reduction of bundles to their holonomy subgroups can be used . It follows from the Ambrose-Singer theorem that the holonomy subgroup at $`p_0`$ is the subgroup $`HH_{\mu k}`$ obtained by exponentiating $`k`$ and that $`E_{\mu k}`$ reduces to a bundle $`E_0`$ with structure group $`H`$.

For the final point we need to know that $`k`$ is an integral element of the Lie algebra. This is done in  and in different fashion in . We proceed as follows. Because $`[\mu ,k]=0`$ the closure of the subgroup generated by $`\mathrm{exp}(t\mu +sk)`$ for any $`t`$ and $`s`$ will be an abelian subgroup of $`G`$ so a torus and hence inside a maximal torus containing $`H`$. If $`\lambda `$ is any weight of this maximal torus we can form an associated line bundle which will have integer chern class $`\lambda (k)`$. It follows that $`k`$ is an integer element of $`𝔤`$ and that it exponentiates to define a circle subgroup and a homomorphism $`\chi :U(1)G`$.

We have now reduced our original bundle to a sub-bundle $`QS^2`$ which is a circle bundle. It has a connection $`A`$ and a curvature $`F`$ with $`F=k/2`$ a constant so that it is a circle bundle of degree $`1`$. If $`A^{}`$ is another connection with curvature $`F^{}=F`$ then $`AA^{}=a`$ with $`da=0`$ so $`a=d(\mathrm{exp}(g))`$ for $`g:S^2U(1)`$ and hence the connections $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ are equal after a gauge transformation.

This gives us a method of constructing the original bundle, connection and Higgs field from the data $`\mu `$ and $`k`$. First take the standard $`U(1)`$ bundle $`QS^2`$ with its $`SU(2)`$ invariant connection and fix $`q_0Q`$ in the fibre over the point $`u`$. Let $`\chi :U(1)G_{\mu k}G`$ be the homomorphism defined by exponentiating $`k`$. We can then form $`Q\times _\chi G`$ the associated bundle using the action $`(q,k)z=(qz,\chi (z)^1k)`$ for $`zU(1)`$. This inherits a connection and the Higgs field is defined by $`\widehat{\varphi }([q,k])=\mathrm{ad}(k)(\mu )`$.

Let $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ denote the set of all monopole boundary data $`(\varphi ,f)`$ and let $`𝒢^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the space of all gauge transformations at infinity, that is maps $`g:S^2G`$. Define the moduli space of boundary data to be the quotient $`^{\mathrm{}}=𝒞^{\mathrm{}}/𝒢^{\mathrm{}}`$. We have the boundary map

(3.5)
$$:^{\mathrm{}},$$

which sends $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ to the value of the Higgs field and curvature at infinity. Our reason for introducing the boundary map is that we believe that the methods of Atiyah and Hitchin  can be adapted to to show that

###### Conjecture 3.2.

If $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })=(A^{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$ then there is a gauge transformation $`g`$ such that $`A^gA^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^g\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ are $`L^2`$.

The idea here is that if the condition holds then for some gauge transformation $`g`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ should agree up to order $`1/r`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^g\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ will be square integrable. Similar considerations should apply to the difference between the connections.

Let $`𝒢^{\mathrm{}}(u)`$ be all gauge transformations which are the identity at $`u`$ and let $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(u,\mu ,m)`$ be all pairs $`(\varphi ,f)`$ with $`\varphi (u)=\mu `$ and $`[\varphi ]=m`$. Denote $`^{\mathrm{}}(u,\mu ,m)=𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(u,\mu ,m)/𝒢^{\mathrm{}}(u)`$. We have the commuting diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(u,\mu ,m)& & ^{\mathrm{}}(u,\mu ,m)\\ & & \\ (O,m)& & ^{\mathrm{}}(O,m)\end{array}$$

where both vertical maps are quotienting by the group $`C(\mu )`$.

Conjecture 3.2 would imply that the $`L^2`$ metric is finite on each of the moduli spaces $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ of monopoles of type $`(\mu ,k)`$. This suggests

###### Conjecture 3.3.

The spaces $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ are hyperKähler manifolds.

A natural approach to these conjectures is the analysis of the linearization $`𝒟`$ at $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })(u,\mu ,k)`$ of (1.1). Combined with the Coulomb gauge-fixing condition, $`𝒟`$ becomes a coupled Dirac operator on $`^3`$,

$$𝒟:C^{\mathrm{}}(^3,\mathrm{ad}(E))C^{\mathrm{}}(^3,\mathrm{ad}(E))$$

where $``$ is the regarded as the spin-bundle of $`^3`$. Unfortunately this operator is not ‘invertible at infinity’ and so it is not automatically a Fredholm operator in $`L^2`$. Taubes analysed it in detail when $`G=SU(2)`$, but in general, rigorous results about this operator are not available. Nonetheless, it should be possible to find a suitable space of functions such that $`𝒟`$ becomes a Fredholm operator, with index calculable in terms of the type data $`(\mu ,k)`$. Formally $`𝒟`$ is quaternionic, so its $`L^2`$ null space will automatically be a quaternionic vector space with compatible inner product. The reader is referred to \[2, Ch 3 and Ch 4\] for a detailed discussion of the case $`G=SU(2)`$.

### 3.1. Group actions

Consider $``$, the group of Euclidean transformations of $`^3`$, which is the semi-direct product of $`SO(3)`$, the group of rotations and $`^3`$ the group of translations. As the monopole bundle $`E^3`$ is trivial the group $``$ acts on the connection and Higgs field, preserves the Bogomolny equations and commutes with gauge transformations so it acts on the full-unframed moduli space. In general this action disturbs the framings. If $`x^3`$ then the sub-group $`_x`$ of transformations preserving $`x`$ which is isomorphic to $`SO(3)`$, acts naturally on the moduli space of monopoles framed at $`x`$. If $`uS^2`$ then the subgroup of $`_u`$ of transformations preserving the line through $`u`$, which is isomorphic to $`SO(2)\times ^2`$, will act naturally on the moduli space of monopoles framed at $`u`$.

As well as these straightforward actions the moduli space $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ also carries an action of the full group of Euclidean transformations. For this we need a different description of this moduli space (cf. \[2, pp. 15–16\]). Note that Proposition 3.1 shows that $`k`$ defines a representation of the circle in $`G`$ hence an associated $`G`$-bundle over the two-sphere. This carries a natural $`SO(3)`$-action and has a unique $`SO(3)`$-equivariant connection $`a`$ and Higgs field $`\varphi `$ such that $`\varphi (u)=\mu `$ and $`f(u)=k`$. The moduli space $`(\mu ,k)`$ is now defined to consist of configurations $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi },q)`$ where $`(A,\varphi )`$ is a monopole and $`q`$ is an isomorphism between $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and $`(\varphi ,f)`$, modulo the group of gauge transformations that approach the identity at infinity. Then $`(\mu ,k)`$ has a natural $`SO(3)`$-action and can be shown to be diffeomorphic to $`(u,\mu ,k)`$. The subtlety is (as in the case $`G=SU(2)`$) that the diffeomorphism between $`(\mu ,k)`$ and $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ is not equivariant with respect to the copy of $`SO(2)SO(3)`$ which fixes the direction $`u`$.

### 3.2. Discussion

Assuming that the $`L^2`$-metric does define a genuine hyperKähler metric on $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ there are many interesting open questions surrounding it. First of all, there is the issue of whether it is complete for all $`\mu `$ and $`k`$. Secondly there are questions relating to variation of the parameters $`\mu `$ and $`k`$. It is natural to conjecture that the metrics will vary smoothly with $`\mu `$ as long as the corresponding orbit $`O_\mu `$ does not jump. An interesting conjecture of Lee, Weinberg and Yi  suggests that these hyperKähler metrics should also behave well with respect to specialization of $`\mu `$. To state the conjecture, call a path $`\mu :[0,\delta ]𝔤`$ a regular deformation of $`\mu _0=\mu (0)`$ if $`\mu (t)`$ is regular for all $`t>0`$. Let $`_t=(u,\mu _t,k)`$, and let $`g_t`$ be the $`L^2`$ metric on $`_t`$.

###### Conjecture 3.4.

Given any $`0\mu _0𝔤`$, there is a regular deformation $`\mu _t`$, such that $`(_t,g_t)`$ tends to $`(_0,g_0)`$ as $`t0`$.

Note that Jarvis  describes a ‘filling-out procedure’ which associates to any holomorphic map $`v:S^2O_{\mu ,k}`$ a new map $`\stackrel{~}{v}:S^2G/T`$ where $`T`$ is a maximal torus. This would appear to be closely related to the idea of regular deformation of a general element $`\mu `$, but it says nothing about the behaviour of the metrics.

We have now filled in the details of our account in the Introduction up to equation (1.4), though we have not yet shown that $`𝒦`$ has the structure claimed in (1.3). We turn to that in the next section.

## 4. Magnetic and holomorphic charges

We will now show how to calculate explicitly the magnetic charges of a monopole which determine the homotopy class $`m`$ and the holomorphic charges which determine the strata. We will also make some conjectures about the possible values these can take.

In this section, $`\mu `$ and $`k`$ are as before. In addition, $`T`$ is a maximal torus whose Lie algebra $`𝔱`$ contains both $`\mu `$ and $`k`$. Recall that a choice of Weyl chamber $`C`$ in $`𝔱`$ gives rise to a set of simple roots $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _r`$ and the corresponding fundamental weights $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r`$ defined by

(4.1)
$$2\frac{\alpha _i,\lambda _j}{\alpha _i,\alpha _i}=\delta _{ij}.$$

We can always choose a fundamental Weyl chamber $`C`$ satisfying

(4.2)
$$\alpha _1(\mu )>0,\mathrm{},\alpha _s(\mu )>0,\text{ and }\alpha _{s+1}(\mu )=0,\mathrm{},\alpha _r(\mu )=0,$$

because this is just the condition that $`\mu `$ is in the closure of $`C`$ and a particular ordering of the simple roots.

We would like to apply the corresponding fundamental weights to $`k`$ but this is not possible as we only know that $`k`$ is in the Lie algebra of the centraliser of $`\mu `$. We can conjugate $`k`$ by $`C(\mu )`$ until it is inside the torus but then we find that $`𝔱C(\mu )k`$ is not a single point but an orbit under $`𝒲_\mu `$ the subgroup of the Weyl group stabilising $`\mu `$. Our first result resolves this problem by showing that we can pick out a unique element $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ of $`𝔱C(\mu )k`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Suppose that the moduli space $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ is non-empty and we have fixed a maximal torus containing $`\mu `$, a fundamental Weyl chamber $`C`$ with $`\mu `$ in its closure and have ordered the simple roots so they satisfy (4.2). Then there exists a uniquely determined $`\stackrel{~}{k}𝔱C(\mu )k`$, such that

$$\alpha _{s+1}(\stackrel{~}{k})0,\mathrm{},\alpha _r(\stackrel{~}{k})0.$$

Moreover, we have $`\lambda _j(\stackrel{~}{k})0`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},r`$.

We shall give the proof of this proposition in a moment. For now, we shall use it to define the charges of the monopole to be the non-negative integers

$$\lambda _1(\stackrel{~}{k}),\mathrm{},\lambda _r(\stackrel{~}{k}).$$

They are naturally divided into magnetic charges

$$m_1=\lambda _1(\stackrel{~}{k}),\mathrm{},m_s=\lambda _s(\stackrel{~}{k})$$

and the holomorphic charges:

$$h_1=\lambda _{s+1}(\stackrel{~}{k}),\mathrm{},h_{rs}=\lambda _r(\stackrel{~}{k}).$$

In some examples the simple roots have a natural ordering and it is convenient not to re-order them. In that case we just choose $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ to be the unique $`\stackrel{~}{k}𝔱C(\mu )k`$ such that whenever $`\alpha _i(\mu )=0`$ we have $`\alpha _i(\stackrel{~}{k})0`$. We then say that $`\lambda _i(\stackrel{~}{k})`$ is a magnetic charge if $`\alpha _i(\mu )>0`$ and a holomorphic charge if $`\alpha _i(\mu )=0`$.

The most important point to be made here is that it is easy to show that $`\pi _2(O_\mu )=^s`$ and the magnetic charges determine the homotopy class of $`\varphi `$ the Higgs field at infinity (see for example ). The magnetic charges therefore cannot change under continuous deformation of a monopole. By contrast, the holomorphic charges can jump under continuous deformation of the monopole.

Note that the strata in the moduli space are all those monopoles with the same $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$.

As well as being non-negative the holomorphic charges satisfy the additional constraint that $`\alpha _i(\stackrel{~}{k})0`$ for all $`i=s+1,\mathrm{},r`$. This is equivalent to:

(4.3)
$$\underset{l=1}{\overset{rs}{}}\frac{2\alpha _i,\alpha _{l+s}}{\alpha _{l+s},\alpha _{l+s}}h_l+\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}\frac{2\alpha _i,\alpha _j}{\alpha _j,\alpha _j}m_j0,\text{for}i=s+1,\mathrm{},r.$$

We conjecture:

###### Conjecture 4.2.

For a given $`\mu `$ there are monopoles with any collection of non-negative magnetic charges $`(m_1,\mathrm{},m_s)`$. Given a choice of magnetic charges there are monopoles with any collection of holomorphic charges $`(h_1,\mathrm{},h_{rs})`$ satisfying 4.3.

It should be possible to prove this result using rational maps but it has eluded us. We can prove however:

###### Proposition 4.3.

For a given $`\mu `$ and choice of magnetic charges there are at most a finite number of possible holomorphic charges satisfying 4.3.

We defer the proof to the next section but note that this gives

###### Corollary 4.4.

There are only a finite number of strata and in particular there must be an open stratum.

Note that this approach gives a nice picture in terms of Dynkin diagrams. For maximal symmetry-breaking, all charges are magnetic (i.e. topological) and the heuristic is that there are $`m_i`$ fundamental monopoles of type $`i`$ for each $`i`$ a node on the Dynkin diagram. For non-maximal symmetry breaking mark each node $`i`$ with $`\alpha _i(\mu )=0`$. Now each Dynkin node still has associated to it the non-negative integer $`\lambda _i(\stackrel{~}{k})`$. This number is a magnetic charge $`m_i`$ if $`i`$ is unmarked, and again the heuristic is that there are $`m_i`$ fundamental monopoles of type $`i`$. If $`i`$ is a marked node then $`\lambda _i(\stackrel{~}{k})`$ is a holomorphic charge. This labels the strata and can jump under continuous deformation of the monopole. The possible holomorphic charges are constrained by inequalities which can be deduced from the Dynkin diagram and (4.3).

### 4.1. Proof of Proposition 4.1

Let $`𝒲_\mu `$ be the subgroup of the Weyl group fixing $`\mu `$ and note that it acts transitively on the set of all fundamental Weyl chambers with $`\mu `$ in their closure .

To prove first that a $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ exists we follow Jarvis  and consider the condition $`\alpha (\mu tk^{})>0`$ for large enough $`t`$ and any $`k^{}𝔱C(\mu )k`$. As there are only a finite number of roots we can find an $`ϵ>0`$ such that for all $`t(0,ϵ]`$ we have that $`\alpha (\mu tk^{})=0`$ if and only if $`\alpha (\mu )=0`$ and $`\alpha (k^{})=0`$ and $`\alpha (\mu tk^{})>0`$ implies $`\alpha (k^{})=0`$ and $`\alpha (k^{})<0`$. For any such $`t`$ choose a fundamental Weyl chamber with $`\mu tk^{}`$ in its closure. As $`t0`$ we see that this has $`\mu `$ in its closure as well. If this is not the fundamental Weyl chamber we first thought of we can move it by $`\sigma 𝒲_\mu `$ until it is and then let $`\stackrel{~}{k}=\sigma (k^{})`$. Then $`\mu t\stackrel{~}{k}`$ is in the closure of our fundamental Weyl chamber so that $`\alpha _i(\mu )>0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$ and $`\alpha _j(\mu )=0`$ and $`\alpha _j(\stackrel{~}{k})0`$ for $`j=s+1,\mathrm{},r`$.

We will see in a moment that $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ is unique but for now we show that $`\lambda _i(\stackrel{~}{k})0`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$.

Consideration of the twistor construction for monopoles shows that $`\varphi `$ and $`f`$ satisfy the following non-negativity constraint for any direction $`u`$. Choose any maximal torus $`T`$ so that $`\varphi (u),f(u)𝔱`$. Choose a fundamental Weyl chamber whose closure contains $`\varphi (u)`$ and let $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _r`$ be the corresponding simple roots. Define the fundamental weights $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r`$ by (4.1) then:

$$\lambda _i(f(z))0\text{ for all }i=1,\mathrm{},r$$

independent of all the choices made. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ is a conjugate of $`k`$ under an element of $`C(\mu )`$ and hence corresponds to the $`k`$ for some different monopole which also satisfies the positivity constraint. Hence we must have $`\lambda _i(\stackrel{~}{k})0`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$.

Consider lastly the uniqueness of $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$. So assume we have $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ and $`\sigma (\stackrel{~}{k})`$ for $`\sigma 𝒲_\varphi `$ and $`\alpha _j(\stackrel{~}{k})0`$ and $`\alpha _j(\sigma (\stackrel{~}{k}))0`$ for every $`i=s+1,\mathrm{},r`$. Let $`V`$ be the span of the roots $`\alpha _{s+1},\mathrm{},\alpha _r`$. This is a root system with Weyl group $`𝒲_\mu `$. Let $`C_{ij}`$ be the inverse of the matrix $`D_{ij}=\alpha _i,\alpha _j`$. Then both $`C`$ and $`D`$ are symmetric. Define

$$\chi :𝔱V$$

by

$$\chi (h)=\underset{j,k=s+1}{\overset{r}{}}\alpha _j(h)C_{jk}\alpha _k.$$

Let $`\sigma _l`$ be a simple root reflection for $`s+1lr`$. Then

$`\chi (\sigma _l(h))`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j,k=s+1}{\overset{r}{}}}\sigma _l(\alpha _j)(h)C_{jk}\alpha _k`$
$`=\chi (h){\displaystyle \underset{j,k=s+1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _j,\alpha _l}{\alpha _l,\alpha _l}}C_{jk}\alpha _k(h)`$
$`=\chi (h){\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _l(h)}{\alpha _l,\alpha _l}}\alpha _l.`$
Moreover

$`\sigma _l(\chi (h))`$ $`=\chi (h){\displaystyle \frac{2\chi (h),\alpha _l}{\alpha _l,\alpha _l}}`$
$`=\chi (h){\displaystyle \underset{j,k=s+1}{\overset{r}{}}}\alpha _j(h)C_{jk}{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _k,\alpha _l}{\alpha _l,\alpha _l}}`$
$`=\chi (h){\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _l(h)}{\alpha _l,\alpha _l}}\alpha _l`$
$`=\chi (\sigma _l(h)).`$
It follows that if $`\sigma 𝒲_\mu `$ then $`\chi (\sigma (\stackrel{~}{k}))=\sigma (\chi (\stackrel{~}{k}))`$. We also have $`\alpha _l,\chi (h)=\alpha _l(h)`$ so that $`\chi (\stackrel{~}{k})`$ and $`\chi (\sigma (\stackrel{~}{k}))`$ are in the closure of the same Weyl chamber in $`V`$. Applying Humphreys’ 10.3 Lemma B  we see that $`\chi (\sigma (\stackrel{~}{k}))=\sigma (\chi (\stackrel{~}{k}))=\chi (\stackrel{~}{k})`$ and hence $`\alpha _i(\stackrel{~}{k}\sigma (\stackrel{~}{k}))=0`$ for $`i=s+1,\mathrm{},r`$. We have previously seen that $`\lambda _i(\stackrel{~}{k}\sigma (\stackrel{~}{k}))=0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$. Moreover the span of the $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _s`$ is orthogonal to the span of the $`\alpha _{s+1},\mathrm{},\alpha _r`$ so together they must span $`𝔱^{}`$ and hence $`\stackrel{~}{k}=\sigma (\stackrel{~}{k})`$.

### 4.2. Proof of Proposition 4.3

Let $`ϵ`$ be the sum of all the positive roots which are in the span of the simple roots $`\alpha _{s+1},\mathrm{},\alpha _r`$. Notice that $`ϵ(\stackrel{~}{k})0`$. Recall  that a simple root reflection $`\sigma _i`$ permutes all the positive roots except $`\alpha _i`$ which it sends to $`\alpha _i`$. So if $`s+1ir`$ we have $`\sigma _i(ϵ)=ϵ2\alpha _i`$ so that

$$2\frac{ϵ,\alpha _i}{\alpha _i,\alpha _i}=2.$$

So we have

$`ϵ`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ,\alpha _i}{\alpha _i,\alpha _i}}\lambda _i`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ,\alpha _i}{\alpha _i,\alpha _i}}\lambda _i+{\displaystyle \underset{i=s+1}{\overset{r}{}}}2\lambda _i`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}}p_j\lambda _j+{\displaystyle \underset{i=s+1}{\overset{r}{}}}2\lambda _i`$
where $`p_j0`$ because if $`1js`$ we have $`ϵ,\alpha _j0`$. Applying $`ϵ`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ gives

$$0\underset{i=1}{\overset{rs}{}}h_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}p_jm_j$$

and as each $`h_j`$ is non-negative this means there can only be a finite number of possibilities.

## 5. Examples

Let $`G=SU(N)`$ and $`\mu `$ be a diagonal matrix with eigenvalues $`i\mu _1,i\mu _2,\mathrm{}i\mu _q`$ with multiplicities $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_q`$ and assume that $`\mu _1>\mu _2>\mathrm{}>\mu _q`$. Choose the usual fundamental Weyl chamber. That is, if $`d`$ is any diagonal matrix with entries $`id_1,\mathrm{},id_N`$ then it is in the fundamental Weyl chamber if $`d_1>d_2>\mathrm{}>d_N`$. Clearly this has $`\mu `$ in its closure. Define $`x_j(d)=d_j`$. Then the simple roots are $`\alpha _i=x_{i+1}x_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N1`$. The fundamental weights satisfy

$$\lambda _j(d)=d_1+\mathrm{}+d_j$$

and a weight is magnetic if $`j=n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_{q1}`$ and holomorphic otherwise.

Let $`^N=^{n_1}\mathrm{}^{n_q}`$ be the corresponding eigenvalue decomposition of $`^N`$. Assume that on $`^{n_j}`$ the eigenvalues of $`k`$ are

$$k_{n_1+\mathrm{}+n_{j1}+1}k_{n_1+\mathrm{}+n_{j1}+2}\mathrm{}k_{n_1+\mathrm{}+n_j}$$

Then $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ is the diagonal matrix with entries $`ik_1,\mathrm{},ik_N`$.

Let $`_j`$ be the stratum containing $`(u,\mu ,k)`$. It was shown in  that

$$dim_j=4\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(k_1+\mathrm{}+k_i)+dimC(\mu )k.$$

and hence from the definition of the strata in the Introduction,

$$dim((u,\mu ,k))=4\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(k_1+\mathrm{}+k_i).$$

so the dimension is divisible by four as required for a hyperKähler manifold. In Proposition 6.2 we shall show that this result is always true.

Notice that we could find a deformation $`\mu _t`$ of $`\mu `$ by choosing $`\mu _t`$ to be diagonal with entries $`i\mu _j(t)`$ such that

$$\mu _1(t)>\mu _2(t)>\mu _3(t)>\mathrm{}>\mu _N(t)$$

and, of course, with $`\mu (0)=\mu `$. It follows from known results on the moduli spaces  that $`dim(u,\mu _t,k)=dim(u,\mu ,k)`$. In fact the method used in  to calculate the dimension formula shows that $`(u,\mu (t),k))`$ and $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ are diffeomorphic spaces of holomorphic maps. This result was generalized to arbitrary $`G`$ by Jarvis .

## 6. Dimensions

In this section we compute the dimension of the moduli space $`(u,\mu ,m)`$ by computing the dimension of $`\stackrel{~}{}(O_\mu ,m)`$. We shall also compute the dimensions of the strata and the moduli space $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ of monopoles of type $`(\mu ,k)`$, by computing the dimension of $`\stackrel{~}{}(O_{\mu k},m)`$.

Fix a maximal torus $`T`$, a fundamental Weyl chamber and a set of simple roots $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _r`$. For a root $`\alpha `$ let $`𝔤_\alpha `$ be the $`\alpha `$ root space. Denote by $`B`$ the standard Borel determined by this choice of simple roots. That is the Lie algebra of $`B`$ contains the root space of every simple root. The parabolic $`P`$ is determined by the fact that its Lie algebra $`𝔭`$ contains the root spaces for the negative roots $`\alpha _{s+1},\mathrm{},\alpha _r`$.

If $`f:S^2G^c/P`$ is a holomorphic map then we can use it to pull back the tangent bundle to $`G^c/P`$ and the Riemann-Roch theorem tell us that

$$\begin{array}{c}dim(H^0(S^2,f^1(TG^c/P))dim(H^1(S^2,f^1(TG^c/P))\hfill \\ \hfill =dim(G^c/P)+c_1(det(f^1TG^c/P))\end{array}$$

where $`det(TG^c/P)`$ is the determinant line bundle of $`f^1TG^c/P`$ and $`c_1`$ denotes the first Chern class. Because the group $`G`$ acts holomorphically on $`G^c/P`$ every element of $`𝔤`$ defines a holomorphic vector field on $`G^c/P`$ so we have a surjection of holomorphic vector bundles over $`S^2`$

$$𝔤\times S^2f^1TG^c/P0$$

and it follows from the short exact sequence in cohomology that

$$dim(H^1(S^2,f^1(TG^c/P))=0.$$

The tangent space to $`(G^c/P,m)`$ at the function $`f`$ is just the subset of sections in $`H^0(S^2,f^1(TG^c/P))`$ which vanish at the base point, say $`PG^c/P`$. This has real dimension

$`dim(G^c/P,m)=`$ $`2(dim(H^0(S^2,f^1(TG^c/P))dimG^c/P)`$
$`=`$ $`2c_1(det(f^1TG^c/P)).`$
Each of the fundamental weights $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _s`$ extend to one-dimensional representations of $`P`$ and hence define homogeneous line bundles $`L(\lambda _i)`$ over $`G^c/P`$. The magnetic charges of a holomorphic map $`f`$ are $`m_i=c_1(f^1(L(\lambda _i)))`$. Choose $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ so that $`m_i=\lambda _i(\stackrel{~}{k})`$. Then $`c_1(f^1(L(\lambda )))=\lambda (\stackrel{~}{k})`$ for any weight $`\lambda `$.

Let $`ϵ`$ be the weight defined by the adjoint representation of $`P`$ on $`𝔭`$. Then the weight defined by the adjoint representation of $`P`$ on $`𝔤/𝔭`$ is $`ϵ`$. The bundle $`det(T(G^c/P)`$ is then a homogeneous bundle over $`G^c/P`$ induced by the character $`ϵ`$ so that that

$$c_1(f^1(det(TG^c/P)))=c_1(f^1(L(ϵ)))=ϵ(\stackrel{~}{k}).$$

Hence

$$dim\stackrel{~}{}(G^c/P,m)=2ϵ(\stackrel{~}{k}).$$

In the case of maximal symmetry breaking where the parabolic $`P`$ is a Borel $`B`$

$$ϵ=\underset{\alpha >0}{}\alpha =2\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\lambda _i$$

so that

$$dim\stackrel{~}{}(G/B,m)=4\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}m_i.$$

In the non-maximal symmetry breaking case we can proceed further. Because $`ϵ`$ is a weight we know that $`ϵ=_{i=1}^rn_i\lambda _i`$ for some integers $`n_i`$. We also know that $`ϵ`$ is a character of $`P`$ so invariant under the simple root reflections $`\sigma _i`$ for $`i=s+1,\mathrm{},r`$. But $`\sigma _j(ϵ)=ϵ+n_j\alpha _j`$ so that we must have

$$ϵ=\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}n_i\lambda _i$$

and hence

$$dim\stackrel{~}{}(G^c/P,m)=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}n_im_i.$$

We can obtain some further information about the $`n_i`$. Firstly we note that

$$n_i=2\frac{ϵ,\alpha _i}{\alpha _i,\alpha _i}.$$

Also if $`\rho `$ is one-half the sum of the positive roots and $`\rho _𝔭`$ is one-half the sum of the positive roots $`\alpha `$ for which $`𝔤_\alpha 𝔭`$ then we have that $`ϵ=2\rho +2\rho _𝔭`$ and hence

$`n_i`$ $`=2{\displaystyle \frac{2\rho 2\rho _𝔭,\alpha _i}{\alpha _i,\alpha _i}}`$
$`=2\left(12{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _𝔭,\alpha _i}{\alpha _i,\alpha _i}}\right)\lambda _i`$
using the standard fact that $`\rho =_{i=1}^r\lambda _i`$. Hence

$$dim(\stackrel{~}{}(G^c/P,m))=4\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}\left(12\frac{\rho _𝔭,\alpha _i}{\alpha _i,\alpha _i}\right)m_i$$

which agrees with the result in . So we have

###### Proposition 6.1.

The dimension of the moduli space $`(u,\mu ,m)`$ is

$$4\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}\left(12\frac{\rho _𝔭,\alpha _i}{\alpha _i,\alpha _i}\right)m_i.$$

Notice that while the Lie theory guarantees $`\rho `$ is a weight the same may not be true of $`\rho _𝔭`$ and hence expressions such as

$$2\frac{\rho _𝔭,\alpha _i}{\alpha _i,\alpha _i}$$

may not be integers. This is consistent with the fact that for non-maximal symmetry breaking the moduli space may not be hyperKähler for the simple reason that its dimension is not a multiple of four.

Next we calculate $`dim\stackrel{~}{}(O_{\mu k},m)`$ where $`P_{\mu k}`$ is the parabolic subgroup containing all the positive roots and the negative roots $`\alpha `$ where $`\alpha (\mu )=\alpha (\stackrel{~}{k})=0`$ and we let $`O_{\mu k}=G^c/P_{\mu k}`$. This is the parabolic subgroup occurring in (2.3).

Then $`ϵ`$ is the sum of all these roots so that

$$ϵ(\stackrel{~}{k})=\underset{\alpha >0}{}\alpha (\stackrel{~}{k})$$

and we have

$$dim\stackrel{~}{}(G^c/P_{\mu k},k)=4\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}m_i+\underset{j=1}{\overset{rs}{}}h_j\right).$$

Hence we deduce:

###### Proposition 6.2.

The dimension of the moduli space $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ is

$$4\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}m_i+\underset{j=1}{\overset{rs}{}}h_j\right).$$

In particular it is divisible by four.

Similarly for the strata, we have

###### Corollary 6.3.

The dimension of the stratum $`_j`$ containing $`(u,\mu ,k)`$ is

$$4\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}m_i+\underset{j=1}{\overset{rs}{}}h_j\right)+dimC(\mu )dimC(\mu )C(k).$$

### 6.1. Acknowledgements

The first author thanks Michael Eastwood for helpful discussions and the Australian Research Council for support.


format: text

text:
# A Magnetic Resonance Realization of Decoherence-Free Quantum Computation

## Abstract

We report the realization, using nuclear magnetic resonance techniques, of the first quantum computer that reliably executes an algorithm in the presence of strong decoherence. The computer is based on a quantum error avoidance code that protects against a class of multiple-qubit errors. The code stores two decoherence-free logical qubits in four noisy physical qubits. The computer successfully executes Grover’s search algorithm in the presence of arbitrarily strong engineered decoherence. A control computer with no decoherence protection consistently fails under the same conditions.

A computer that uses the laws of quantum mechanics to store and manipulate information could in theory perform certain tasks such as searching Grover (1997) and factoring Shor (1997) with incredible efficiency. The most critical problem that must be solved to make quantum computing possible on a useful scale is decoherence, the inevitable process of entanglement between a quantum computer and its environment. Decoherence causes the superposition states that carry information within the computer to decay rapidly. Several solutions to the decoherence problem have been proposed (for a review, see Nielsen and Chuang (2000)). One technique, quantum error avoidance, calls for information within the computer to be carried exclusively by quantum states that are not adversely affected by decoherence Zanardi and Rasetti (1998); Duan and Guo (1998); Lidar et al. (1998, 2001a) (for a review, see Lidar and Whaley ). Here we present the first experimental proof that a nontrivial quantum computation can be protected against decoherence com (a). Using quantum error avoidance, we have constructed a nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computer Cory et al. (1997); Gershenfeld and Chuang (1997); Z. L. Mádi, R. Brüschweiler, and R. R. Ernst (1998) which is unaffected by certain types of decoherence. Our computer successfully executes Grover’s quantum search algorithm Grover (1997) in the presence of arbitrarily strong engineered decoherence. A control computer with no decoherence protection consistently fails under the same conditions.

Decoherence is typically characterized by the decay of off-diagonal elements in a system’s density matrix $`\rho `$. Formally, decoherence takes the system from state $`\rho _i`$ to a state $`\rho _f=_dE_d\rho _iE_d^{}`$ where the Kraus operators $`E_d`$ describe transformations that may result from the system-environment coupling (they satisfy $`_dE_d^{}E_d=I=\text{identity}`$Nielsen and Chuang (2000); Kraus (1983).

When the coupling between a quantum system and its environment possesses an element of symmetry, some of the system’s states will be immune to decoherence Zanardi and Rasetti (1998); Duan and Guo (1998); Lidar et al. (1998, 2001a); Lidar and Whaley . These states span a decoherence-free subspace (DFS). The quantum computer we have constructed comprises two decoherence-free logical quantum bits (qubits Nielsen and Chuang (2000)), encoded in the DFSs of four noisy physical qubits. The code protects against multiple-qubit errors Lidar et al. (2001a): To satisfy the symmetry condition for the existence of DFSs, we assume the system-environment coupling affects certain pairs of qubits rather than affecting each qubit independently. Note that this error model is different from the popular “collective decoherence” model Zanardi and Rasetti (1998); Duan and Guo (1998); Lidar et al. (1998).

The multiple qubit errors model is relevant to a number of physical systems recently used as quantum computers Lidar et al. (2001a). For example, the primary source of decoherence in liquid state NMR is the random modulation of internuclear dipolar interactions by molecular tumbling. Under certain conditions, for example very slow tumbling, the interactions reduce to a symmetrical multiple qubit error process. This makes some of a system’s coherences resistant or immune to decoherence (an effect recently exploited in NMR studies of large proteins Tugarinov et al. (2003)) and gives rise to DFSs similar to those used in this work. However, the object of this work is to demonstrate DFS protection against multiple qubit errors, not to demonstrate specific resistance to the natural decoherence processes of liquid state NMR. We chose an error model that supports a relatively simple DFS and that affords us complete control of the decoherence strength, and as such it is not related to our system’s natural decoherence.

Specifically, the code our computer uses resists errors of the form com (b).

$`E_d`$ $`=`$ $`a_{d,0}I_1I_2I_3I_4+a_{d,1}X_1X_2I_3I_4`$ (1)
$`+a_{d,2}I_1I_2X_3X_4+a_{d,3}X_1X_2X_3X_4,`$
where $`X_n`$ indicates that physical qubit $`n\{1,2,3,4\}`$ is flipped and $`I_n`$ indicates that it is unaffected. There are four DFSs for this set of errors Lidar et al. (2001a). Each DFS is a simultaneous eigenspace of the operators {$`I_1I_2I_3I_4`$, $`X_1X_2I_3I_4`$, $`I_1I_2X_3X_4`$, $`X_1X_2X_3X_4`$} with eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$. The following states are an orthonormal basis for one DFS:

$`|00_L^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|0000+|1100+|0011+|1111\right)/2`$
$`|01_L^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|1000+|0100+|1011+|0111\right)/2`$
$`|10_L^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|0001+|1101+|0010+|1110\right)/2`$
$`|11_L^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|1001+|0101+|1010+|0110\right)/2.`$
These can be used as basis states for two decoherence-free logical qubits and are labeled as such. The other three DFSs are related to this DFS by sign changes. For example:

$`|00_L^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|0000+|1100|0011|1111\right)/2`$
$`|00_L^3`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|0000|1100+|0011|1111\right)/2`$
$`|00_L^4`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|0000|1100|0011+|1111\right)/2,`$
where superscript numerals indicate to which DFS a state belongs. The remaining basis states of DFSs 2–4 are obtained by applying similar sign changes to the other states of DFS 1.

The code uses all four of these DFSs in classical parallel. An arbitrary state of the two logical qubits, $`|\psi _L=a|00_L+b|01_L+c|10_L+d|11_L`$ where $`|a|^2+|b|^2+|c|^2+|d|^2=1`$, is encoded in the density matrix $`\rho _{|\psi _L}`$ describing the four physical qubits according to

$$\rho _{|\psi _L}=|\psi _L\psi |_L=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}c_i|\psi _L^i\psi |_L^i,$$
(2)
where $`|\psi _L^i=a|00_L^i+b|01_L^i+c|10_L^i+d|11_L^i`$ and $`c_i=1/4`$. Note that only the component of the density matrix that deviates from identity is described above (the identity portion of $`\rho `$ is immutable and unobservable during any NMR experiment Nielsen and Chuang (2000)).

It should be noted that in general a quantum superposition of states from different DFSs is not decoherence-free. This is because the DFSs are eigenspaces of the $`E_d`$ operators, and for a given $`E_d`$ each DFS may have a different eigenvalue. However, the encoding of Eq. (2) uses the DFSs in classical superposition only and $`\rho _{|\psi _L}`$ is therefore unaffected by the errors described by Eq. (1). It can be shown that $`E_d|\psi _L^i=A_{d,i}|\psi _L^i`$ where $`A_{d,i}`$ is a constant Lidar et al. (2001a). It follows that, when the errors of Eq. (1) occur:

$`\rho _f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{d}{}}E_d\rho E_d^{}={\displaystyle \underset{d}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}c_iE_d|\psi _L^i\psi |_l^iE_d^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}c_i\left({\displaystyle \underset{d}{}}A_{d,i}A_{d,i}^{}\right)|\psi _L^i\psi |_L^i={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}c_i^{}|\psi _L^i\psi |_L^i`$
where $`c_i^{}=c_i_dA_{d,i}A_{d,i}^{}`$. Thus the net effect of the errors is a change in the relative weights $`c_i^{}`$ of the different DFSs: The logical qubit information in each DFS is intact. For the errors we implement experimentally, it is always the case that $`_dA_{d,i}A_{d,i}^{}=1`$ so that the errors have no effect whatsoever ($`c_i^{}=c_i`$ so that $`\rho _f=\rho `$). This simplifies interpretation of the experimental results but is not essential to the code’s performance.

Pulse sequences that perform logic gates on the two encoded qubits were developed using methods derived in Lidar et al. (2001b) and will be described in detail in a subsequent publication. Unfortunately the computer leaves the DFS code during gate sequences. It has been shown that this class of DFS codes can function as active quantum error correction codes against errors occuring during qubit manipulation Lidar et al. (2001b), a property that can be used in future implementations to detect and correct such errors.

Before any computation, the computer’s two logical qubits are initialized by temporal averaging Knill et al. (1998) to the state $`|00_L`$. The code maps this logical qubit state to the following state of the four physical qubits:

$`\rho _{|00_L}`$ $`=`$ $`(|00000000|+|11001100|`$ (3)
$`+|00110011|+|11111111|)/4`$
This density matrix can be decomposed into a sum of tensor products of the $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix $`I`$ and the Pauli matrix $`Z`$.

$`\rho _{|00_L}`$ $`=`$ $`(I_1I_2I_3I_4+Z_1Z_2I_3I_4`$
$`+I_1I_2Z_3Z_4+Z_1Z_2Z_3Z_4)/16`$
The $`I_1I_2I_3I_4`$ term can be neglected and each of the remaining three can easily be prepared from the system’s equilibrium state using standard pulsed NMR techniques Ernst et al. (1987). During a quantum computing experiment, the computation is repeated three times, each time prefaced with a pulse sequence that prepares a different one of $`Z_1Z_2I_3I_4`$, $`I_1I_2Z_3Z_4`$, and $`Z_1Z_2Z_3Z_4`$. The three results are added together and because computation is a linear quantum operation, the summed result corresponds to a computation starting from the state $`|00_L`$.

Because the code uses states from four DFSs in classical parallel, our ensemble computer does not use true pseudo-pure states. We chose this approach to reduce the number of temporal averaging steps, facilitating a thorough test of the computer’s resistance to decoherence. In fact, the three temporal averaging steps we perform are a subset of the fifteen required for a pseudo-pure state implementation.

We use our computer to perform Grover’s quantum search algorithm Grover (1997) (Fig. 1).

The algorithm’s purpose is to retrieve, from an unsorted list, the single item that satisfies a given criterion. Grover’s algorithm is highly efficient, requiring only $`𝒪(\sqrt{N})`$ steps to search a list with $`N`$ items; a classical algorithm requires $`𝒪\left(N\right)`$ steps. In our implementation of Grover’s algorithm, the logical qubit basis states $`|00_L`$, $`|01_L`$, $`|10_L`$ and $`|11_L`$ correspond to the four items in our list. We choose state $`|11_L`$ to correspond to the item we wish to retrieve. The algorithm’s first step is to prepare the register in an equal superposition of its basis states, $`|\psi _L=(1/2)_{x_1=0}^1_{x_2=0}^1|x_1x_2_L`$. The rest of the algorithm is an iterative process that increases the amplitude of the sought-after state ($`|11_L`$) until it is the dominant part of the superposition. For our two-qubit register, only one iteration is required. Finally, the logical qubits are measured; an outcome of $`|11_L`$ indicates that the algorithm has been successful. (We have also used our computer to implement the improved Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm described by Collins *et al.* Collins et al. (1998), with similar results.)

Our computer is based on the isotope-substituted glycine molecule shown in Fig. 2 com (c).

Each of the molecule’s four spin-1/2 nuclei is used as a physical qubit. The errors of Eq. (1) are applied artificially according to the following protocol. At each of nine points in the experiment (indicated in Fig. 1), error operator $`X_1X_2I_3I_4`$ is applied with probability $`e`$, then error operator $`I_1I_2X_3X_4`$ is applied with the same probability. To simulate the effect of a microscopic random process, the experiment is performed 2048 times, each time with different randomly selected errors, and the results are averaged, giving the overall decoherence process a non-unitary, deterministic character. The resulting decoherence increases with the error probability $`e`$, becoming strongest at $`e=0.5`$. Formally, the operators describing our engineered decoherence are $`E_0=\left(1e\right)I_1I_2I_3I_4`$, $`E_1=\sqrt{e\left(1e\right)}X_1X_2I_3I_4`$, $`E_2=\sqrt{e\left(1e\right)}I_1I_2X_3X_4`$, and $`E_3=eX_1X_2X_3X_4`$. (Note that for these error operators, it is clear that $`_dE_d\rho _{|00_L}E_d^{}=\rho _{|00_L}`$, where $`\rho _{|00_L}`$ is defined by Eq. (3).)

We have repeated the Grover algorithm experiment in the presence of nine different levels of engineered decoherence ranging from $`e=0`$ to $`e=0.5`$. At all values of $`e`$, the resulting NMR spectra contain little distortion and clearly describe the final state of the qubit register as $`|11_L`$, indicating the computer has successfully executed the algorithm. To quantify the resistance of each computation to the applied decoherence, we measured the integrated absolute intensity of the final signal relative to the $`e=0`$ experiment. The dependence of signal intensity on $`e`$ is different for each of the experiment’s three temporal averaging steps and we have chosen to analyze the results of the steps separately (Fig. 3).

We observe only small losses of signal, and these cannot be attributed to any fault in the DFS encoding. The losses are predominantly due to imperfections in pulses used to implement the engineered decoherence, evidenced by a linear decrease in signal with increasing $`e`$.

As a control, we have repeated these experiments on a quantum computer that does not use error avoidance. The unprotected computer is similar to the error-avoiding computer, with only the following changes: Spins 1 and 4 (Fig. 2) serve directly as qubits (in place of the two logical qubits), the temporal averaging scheme prepares a different (pseudo-pure) initial state, and different pulse sequences are used to implement quantum logic gates. The same engineered decoherence is applied and the computer executes the same algorithm as in the error-avoiding computing experiments. As expected, the unprotected computer’s signal intensity decreases rapidly with the error strength $`e`$. We observe effectively no signal when $`e0.3`$ and the result of the algorithm is incorrect or unreadable for $`e0.2`$.

The DFS encoding our error-avoiding computer uses has an overhead cost, but the results show it is small compared to the protection it affords. The pulse sequences that perform logical operations on the error-avoiding computer are more complex than for the unprotected control computer, so the error-avoiding computer is more vulnerable to signal loss due to pulse imperfections and natural spin relaxation. This is why, when signal intensities from the two computers are compared on an absolute scale (dotted and dashed lines in Fig. 3), the unprotected computer gives the stronger signal for low values of $`e`$. However, the unprotected computer consistently fails when $`e0.2`$, while the error-avoiding computer gives the correct result for all $`e`$. The overall fidelity of the Grover algorithm is governed by the temporal averaging step that is least tolerant to decoherence (Fig. 3b), and for this step the error-avoiding computer’s signal is the more intense for $`e`$ $`0.15`$. Even at this low level of decoherence, the protection afforded by DFS encoding outweighs the overhead involved.

In summary, we have provided the first experimental demonstration of quantum computation in the presence of strong decoherence com (a), thus proving that quantum error avoidance based on DFSs can very effectively protect qubits from decoherence during the execution of a quantum algorithm. We have implemented Grover’s search algorithm on two two-qubit quantum computers, one error-avoiding and one unprotected. While the unprotected computer fails when exposed to even a moderate amount of decoherence, the error-avoiding computer is successful in the presence of the strongest possible decoherence. This demonstration is a proof of the concept of quantum error avoidance and suggests that DFS encoding will play an important role in future experimental implementations of quantum algorithms in the presence of decoherence.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank D. R. Muhandiram for assistance with NMR experiments and O. Millet for help in sample synthesis. This work is supported by NSERC (all authors) and by the DARPA-QuIST program, managed by AFOSR under agreement No. F49620-01-1-0468 (D. A. L.). L. E. K. holds a Canada Research Chair in Biochemistry.


text:
# Coulomb Energy, Vortices, and Confinement

## I Introduction

There is an old idea about confinement in Coulomb gauge which was originally put forward by Gribov Gribov , and which has been advocated in recent years by Zwanziger Dan . The idea is roughly as follows: For an SU($`N`$) gauge theory fixed to “minimal” Coulomb gauge, the path integral is restricted to the region of configuration space in which the Faddeev–Popov operator

$$M^{ac}=_iD_i^{ac}(A)=^2\delta ^{ac}ϵ^{abc}A_i^b_i$$
(1)
has only positive eigenvalues. The boundary of this region in configuration space, beyond which $`M`$ acquires zero or negative eigenvalues, is known as the “Gribov Horizon.” In Coulomb gauge, the inverse of the Faddeev–Popov operator enters into the non-local part of the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}d^3x(\stackrel{}{E}^{a,tr}\stackrel{}{E}^{a,tr}+\stackrel{}{B}^a\stackrel{}{B}^a)+\frac{1}{2}d^3xd^3y\rho ^a(x)K^{ab}(x,y)\rho ^b(y),$$
(2)
where $`\rho ^a`$ is the (matter plus gauge field) color charge density, $`\stackrel{}{E}^{a,tr}`$ is the transverse color electric field operator, and

$$K^{ab}(x,y)=\left[M^1(^2)M^1\right]_{x,y}^{ab}$$
(3)
is the instantaneous Coulomb propagator. The expectation value of the non-local $`\rho K\rho `$ term in the Hamiltonian gives us the Coulomb energy. Now, since the dimension of configuration space is very large, it is reasonable that the bulk of configurations are located close to the horizon (just as the volume measure $`r^{d1}dr`$ of a ball in $`d`$-dimensions is sharply peaked near the radius of the ball). Since it is the inverse of the $`M`$ operator which appears in the Coulomb energy, it is possible that the near-zero eigenvalues of this operator will enhance the magnitude of the energy at large quark separations, possibly resulting in a confining potential at large distances. It may be, then, that the static quark potential is simply the Coulomb potential. In a diagrammatic analysis, the area-law falloff of large timelike Wilson loops in Coulomb gauge would be obtained by exponentiating instantaneous one-gluon exchange, going like

$$D_{00}(\text{k},t)\frac{A}{|\text{k}|^4}\delta (t)$$
(4)
at small $`|\text{k}|`$.

An objection that can be raised to this scenario is that if the confining potential is coming just from one-gluon exchange, it would be very hard to understand the origin of string-like behavior indicated by roughening rough  and the Lüscher term lush , for which there is now solid numerical evidence lush1 . On the other hand, Zwanziger Dan1  has pointed out that the Coulomb energy of static sources is an upper bound on the static potential. This means that if the static potential is confining, then so is the Coulomb potential. It then seems economical to identify the two, as suggested by recent data on the Coulomb propagator reported by Cucchieri and Zwanziger ZC .

In this article we calculate, by Monte Carlo techniques, the equal-times correlator of timelike link variables in Coulomb gauge. The logarithm of this quantity, in the continuum limit, is the Coulomb energy. We find, in agreement with Ref. ZC , that the Coulomb energy rises linearly with distance at large quark separations. On the other hand, we also find that the slope is far too high to identify the Coulomb string tension with the usual asymptotic string tension. We will discuss the relevance of this result to the gluon chain proposal of Thorn and one of us (J.G.) gchain , and in connection with some related comments of ’t Hooft tH .

A second motivation of this article is to find out if there is a connection between the confining Coulomb potential and the center vortex confinement mechanism. We have therefore repeated our calculation of the Coulomb energy, in thermalized lattice configurations, with vortices removed by a procedure introduced by de Forcrand and D’Elia dFE . We find that vortex removal also removes the Coulomb string tension.

## II Link Correlators and the Coulomb Energy

We begin by defining the correlator, in Coulomb gauge, of two timelike Wilson lines

$$G(R,T)=\text{Tr}[L^{}(\text{x},T)L(\text{y},T)],$$
(5)
where $`R=|\text{x}\text{y}|`$ and

$$L(\text{x},T)=P\mathrm{exp}\left[i_0^T𝑑tA_0(\text{x},t)\right].$$
(6)
Wick rotation to Euclidean time is understood. This correlator represents the creation, at time $`t=0`$, of two static sources in a (global) color singlet state separated by a spatial distance $`R`$. This is a physical state in Coulomb gauge, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{qq}`$, and can be represented by massive quark/antiquark creation operators $`\overline{q}(\text{x})q(\text{y})`$ acting on the true vacuum state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. The color sources propagate for a time $`T`$, and are then annihilated. From the existence of a transfer matrix we have

$$G(R,T)=\underset{n}{}|c_n|^2e^{E_nT},$$
(7)
where the sum is over all states $`|n`$ that have non-vanishing overlap $`c_n`$ with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{qq}`$, and $`E_n`$ is the energy of the $`n`$-th state above the vacuum energy.

The energy expectation value of the state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{qq}`$, above the vacuum energy, consists of an $`R`$-independent self-energy term $`E_{se}`$, plus an $`R`$-dependent potential. In this state, an $`R`$-dependent energy can only arise from the expectation value of the non-local Coulomb term in the Hamiltonian, so the $`R`$-dependent part of the energy is the Coulomb potential between static sources $`V_{coul}(R)`$. We have

$$=\mathrm{\Psi }_{qq}|H|\mathrm{\Psi }_{qq}\mathrm{\Psi }_0|H|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=V_{coul}(R)+E_{se}.$$
(8)
Defining

$$𝒱(R,T)=\frac{d}{dT}\mathrm{log}[G(R,T)]$$
(9)
it is easy to see that GH

$$=\underset{T0}{lim}𝒱(R,T),$$
(10)
while

$$E_{min}=\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒱(R,T)=V(R)+E_{se}^{},$$
(11)
where $`E_{min}`$ is the minimum energy, above the vacuum energy, of the quark-antiquark system, $`V(R)`$ is the usual static quark potential, and $`E_{se}^{}`$ is an $`R`$-independent self-energy. The minimum energy state, which dominates the sum over states in Eq. (7), is expected to represent a flux tube in its ground state, stretching between the static sources.

The self-energies $`E_{se}`$ and $`E_{se}^{}`$ are regulated when the gauge theory is formulated on the lattice. If the static quark potential is confining, then these self-energies must be negligible, at sufficiently large $`R`$, compared to the static potential. Then, from the fact that $`E_{min}`$, if follows that

$$V(R)V_{coul}(R),$$
(12)
as first pointed out by Zwanziger Dan1 . This means that if the static quark potential is confining, the instantaneous Coulomb potential is also confining.

With a Euclidean lattice regularization, we define

$$L(\text{x},T)=U_0(\text{x},a)U_0(\text{x},2a)\mathrm{}U_0(\text{x},T)$$
(13)
as the appropriate ordered product of link variables, and

$$V(R,T)=\frac{1}{a}\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{G(R,T)}{G(R,T+a)}\right],$$
(14)
where $`a`$ is the lattice spacing. The identity (10) then holds only in the continuum limit, i.e.

$$\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}V(R,0)=V_{coul}(R)+\text{const.},$$
(15)
while we still have, at any $`\beta `$,

$$\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}V(R,T)=V(R)+\text{const.},$$
(16)
where the constants are self-energies, and

$$V(R,0)=\frac{1}{a}\mathrm{log}[G(R,a)].$$
(17)
By calculating $`V(R,0)`$ via lattice Monte Carlo, we may address several questions:

1. Does $`V(R,0)`$ (and hence the Coulomb potential) increase linearly with $`R`$ at large $`\beta `$?
2. If so, does the associated Coulomb string tension $`\sigma _{coul}`$ match the usual asymptotic string tension $`\sigma `$ of the static quark potential?
3. If center vortices are removed from thermalized lattice configurations, what happens to the measured Coulomb potential?

## III Numerical Results

From here on we will work in lattice units, with $`a=1`$. Lattice sizes used in numerical simulations are $`16^4,16^4,20^4`$, and $`24^4`$ at $`\beta =2.2,2.3,2.4`$, and $`2.5`$ respectively. Data points are derived from 500 configurations separated by 50 sweeps at each $`\beta `$.

First, as a check of Eq. (16), it is useful to verify that the string tension $`\sigma (T)`$ extracted from $`V(R,T)`$ approaches the accepted asymptotic string tension at large $`T`$, where the link correlator $`G(R,T)`$ is computed in lattice Coulomb gauge (implemented by the over-relaxation technique). String tensions $`\sigma (T)`$ are extracted from a fit of $`V(R,T)`$ to the form

$$V(R,T)=c(T)\frac{\pi }{12R}+\sigma (T)R$$
(18)
in the range $`R_{min}RR_{max}`$, where we have used $`R_{min}=3,3,4,4`$, and $`R_{max}=5,6,8,10`$ at $`\beta =2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5`$ respectively. The results for $`\sigma (T)`$ vs. $`T`$ at $`\beta =2.32.5`$ are shown in Fig. 1. The data does appear to converge towards the accepted asymptotic string tension as $`T`$ increases. The data for $`V(R,4)`$ at $`\beta =2.5`$ is shown in Fig. 2 (data points marked “without vortices” will be explained below).111In order to avoid multiply overlapping, overcrowded symbols, not all available data points are displayed in Figs. 2 and 3. In this case $`\sigma (4)=0.0402(2)`$, which can be compared to the accepted asymptotic string tension $`\sigma =0.0350(4)`$ at this coupling Bali . We note that timelike Wilson line correlators, in a physical gauge, have been used previously to compute static potentials, most recently by de Forcrand and Philipsen dFP  in connection with adjoint string-breaking. The static ground-state potential is obtained from the asymptotic correlators at large $`T`$, but in connection with the Coulomb potential we are interested in the opposite, small $`T`$ limit.

As already explained, the Coulomb potential is obtained at large $`\beta `$ from $`V(R,0)`$. At all four values of $`\beta `$ that we have used in our simulations, $`V(R,0)`$ is clearly a linear function of $`R`$ at large $`R`$, and we see no reason that this behavior would change as $`\beta `$ is increased. This means that the instantaneous Coulomb potential is also linear at large $`R`$, and the first question posed at the end of Section 2 can be answered affirmatively, in agreement with Cucchieri and Zwanziger ZC . Our data for $`V(R,0)`$ at $`\beta =2.5`$ is shown in Fig. 3.

On the other hand, there is no indication that $`\sigma (0)\sigma (\mathrm{})`$ at large $`\beta `$, which is what is required if the Coulomb string tension $`\sigma _{coul}`$ would agree with the usual asymptotic string tension $`\sigma `$. If anything, there is the opposite tendency as $`\beta `$ increases. In Fig. 4 we plot the ratio $`\sigma (0)/\sigma `$ as a function of $`\beta `$. We have obtained $`\sigma (0)`$ from two different fits, with and without the Lüscher term $`\pi /12R`$. It makes sense to include the Lüscher term at large $`T`$, but it is a little hard to see how such a term, derived from string-like fluctuations, would originate due to instantaneous one-gluon exchange, which is the origin of the Coulomb force. So we have also extracted $`\sigma (0)`$ from a fit in which the Lüscher term is dropped in Eq. (18). In any case the ratios $`\sigma (0)/\sigma `$, extracted from fits with and without the Lüscher term, are not much different, and both results are shown in Fig. 4. These ratios show a tendency to increase with $`\beta `$, and we do not really see convergence to a finite value, at least in this range of $`\beta `$, and certainly no evidence that the ratio converges to unity. If the rise in $`\sigma (0)/\sigma `$ is monotonic in $`\beta `$, then assuming the ratio converges at all, it is unlikely to be less than $`\sigma (0)/\sigma =3`$. The data therefore appears to give a negative answer to the second question posed at the close of the previous section. Our results are not compatible with $`\sigma _{coul}\sigma `$, and we differ in this respect from the conclusions of Ref. ZC .

### III.1 Vortex Removal

The idea that confinement is entirely due to the Coulomb potential, arising from the instantaneous part of the $`A_0A_0`$ propagator, has certain problematic features. Apart from the issue of the Lüscher term, it is not entirely clear how the Coulomb propagator would explain the string tension of spacelike Wilson loops, which are constructed from the transverse gluon field.222We thank D. Zwanziger for this comment. An alternative explanation of the confining force in terms of center vortices has been extensively investigated (cf. the review in Ref. rev  and references therein), and this mechanism can be invoked to obtain an area law falloff for spacelike loops as well as timelike loops. It is interesting, then, to ask if there is some relation between the linear confining Coulomb potential found in Coulomb gauge, and the effects of center vortices identified by center projection in an adjoint gauge.

To study this question, we adopt the “vortex removal” method devised by de Forcrand and D’Elia dFE . In SU(2) lattice gauge theory, a thermalized lattice is fixed to maximal center gauge, and then the links are modified according to the rule

$$U_\mu (x)U_\mu ^{}(x)=\text{signTr}[U_\mu (x)]U_\mu (x).$$
(19)
The modified configuration is still in maximal center gauge, but has no vortices upon center projection. The procedure can be visualized as placing thin center vortices in the middle of thick center vortices; the effect of the two types of vortices on large loops cancel out. It is well known that the string tension of Wilson loops in the modified configuration vanishes dFE . For present purposes we gauge fix the modified $`U_\mu ^{}(x)`$ configuration to Coulomb gauge, and compute $`V(R,T)`$ as before. The result, labelled “without vortices” in Figs. 2 and 3, is that the string tension $`\sigma (T)`$ vanishes at every $`T`$ and every $`\beta `$. There is no Coulomb string tension, and no asymptotic string tension, when center vortices are removed.333The effect of vortex removal on Landau gauge propagators, and its possible implications for confinement, has been investigated by K. Langfeld et al. in Ref. Langfeld .

## IV Coulomb Energy and the Gluon Chain Model

We have alluded several times to the string-like behavior of the QCD flux tube, which manifests itself both in the phenomenon of “roughening,” i.e. the logarithmic growth of flux tube thickness with quark separation, and also by the presence of the Lüscher term in the static potential. It is not obvious how this string-like behavior would be obtained from instantaneous one-gluon exchange, even given that such an exchange generates a linear confining potential. Our data also indicates that the purely Coulombic force, at long range, may be several times greater than the actual asymptotic force between static quarks. We would like to suggest that the two issues are related: the Coulombic force is lowered to the true asymptotic force by constituent gluons in the QCD flux tube, and the fluctuations of these gluons in transverse directions accounts for the string-like phenomena. The general picture is known as the “gluon chain model,” advocated by Thorn and one of us (J.G.) in Ref. gchain .

The gluon chain model is motivated by the fact that a time-slice of a high order planar diagram for a Wilson loop reveals a sequence of gluons, with each gluon interacting only with its nearest neighbors in the diagram. This suggests that the QCD string might be regarded, in a physical gauge, as a “chain” of constituent gluons, with each gluon held in place by attraction to its two nearest neighbors in the chain. The linear potential in this model comes about in the following way: As heavy quarks separate, we expect that the Coulombic interaction energy increases rapidly due to the running coupling. Eventually it becomes energetically favorable to insert a gluon between the quarks, to reduce the effective color charge separation. As the quarks continue to separate, the process repeats, and we end up with a chain of gluons. The average gluon separation $`d`$ along the axis joining the quarks is fixed, regardless of the quark separation $`R`$, and the total energy of the chain is the energy per gluon times the number $`N=R/d`$ of gluons in the chain, i.e.

$$E_{chain}NE_{gluon}=\frac{E_{gluon}}{d}R=\sigma R,$$
(20)
where $`E_{gluon}`$ is the (kinetic+interaction) energy per gluon, and $`\sigma =E_{gluon}/d`$ is the asymptotic string tension. In this picture, the linear growth in the number of gluons in the chain is the origin of the linear potential. A typical gluon-chain state would have the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{chain}[A]`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}^{a_1}(\text{x})\{{\displaystyle }d\text{x}_1d\text{x}_2\mathrm{}d\text{x}_N\psi _{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _N}(\text{x}_1,\text{x}_2,\mathrm{},\text{x}_N)`$ (21)
$`A_{\mu _1}^{a_1a_2}(\text{x}_1)A_{\mu _2}^{a_2a_3}(\text{x}_2)\mathrm{}A_{\mu _N}^{a_Na_{N+1}}(\text{x}_N)\}q^{a_{N+1}}(\text{y})\mathrm{\Psi }_0[A]`$
where $`\psi `$ is a “string-bit” wavefunction correlating positions of the $`N`$ constituent gluons in the chain, and is to be determined by minimizing the energy of the chain. This minimization only involves the interaction of neighboring gluons separated by an average distance $`d`$, rather than the direct interaction of quarks separated by a very large distance $`R`$. It was shown in Ref. gchain , on the basis of a simplified quantum-mechanical model, that gluon-chain states can plausibly account for the observed string-like behavior of the QCD flux tube.

However, as pointed out last year by ’t Hooft tH , there are certainly states in the Fock space, containing the static sources, which are not gluon chain states. If the gluon chain scenario has any validity, then it must be that the interaction energy of these non-chain states is also confining, but of much higher energy than the gluon chain states.

This is where the numerical result of the last section, which indicates that $`\sigma _{coul}>\sigma `$, becomes relevant. The simplest “no-chain” state is a state with no constituent gluons at all, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{qq}=\overline{q}^a(\text{x})q^a(\text{y})\mathrm{\Psi }_0.$$
(22)
The $`R`$-dependent part of the energy expectation value of this state is precisely the Coulomb energy. If it is true, as our data suggests, that (i) the Coulomb potential is linearly confining; and (ii) the Coulomb string tension $`\sigma _{coul}`$ is greater than the string tension $`\sigma `$ of the usual static potential, then we find that this simplest no-chain state is indeed confining, and of higher energy than the lowest energy flux tube state, which we suggest has the form of a gluon chain.

## V Conclusions

Our numerical results, extracted from the correlators of timelike Wilson loops in Coulomb gauge, are relevant to several ideas about confinement. First of all, we have found that the Coulomb energy grows linearly with quark separation $`R`$ at large $`R`$, in agreement with a result long maintained by Cucchieri and Zwanziger ZC ; ZC1 . We also find that when center vortices are removed from lattice configurations by the de Forcrand–D’Elia procedure, the Coulomb string tension $`\sigma _{coul}`$ drops to zero. This finding lends further support to the contention that center vortices are crucial to the confinement property.

Finally, our data indicates that $`\sigma _{coul}`$ is several times larger than the asymptotic string tension; a result which is entirely consistent with the inequality $`V(R)V_{coul}(R)`$ at large distances, and which bears on the validity of the gluon chain model. In order to have $`\sigma _{coul}\sigma `$, it would be necessary that the string tension $`\sigma (T)`$, extracted from correlators of timelike lines of length $`T`$ and $`T+1`$, should be almost independent of $`T`$, since $`\sigma _{coul}=\sigma (0)`$ at large $`\beta `$, and $`\sigma =\sigma (\mathrm{})`$. This is not what is found; instead $`\sigma (T)`$ drops off sharply with $`T`$ near $`T=0`$. If this result holds at still larger values of $`\beta `$, then we must conclude that $`\sigma _{coul}`$ is substantially higher than the usual asymptotic string tension.444We note however that the authors of Ref. ZC , who use inversion of the Faddeev–Popov operator to compute the Coulomb string tension, reach a somewhat different conclusion.

Assuming that in fact $`\sigma _{coul}`$ is greater than $`\sigma `$, it follows that the simplest state ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_{qq}`$) containing static sources but no constituent gluons is overconfining, and therefore has a negligible overlap with the true QCD flux tube state at very large quark separations. A lower interaction energy must be obtainable by operating on the vacuum with some arrangement of gluon operators, and the gluon chain model is a specific proposal for that arrangement. While $`\sigma _{coul}>\sigma `$ does not necessarily imply that the gluon chain proposal is right, the result $`\sigma _{coul}\sigma `$ would have been a strong indication that the proposal is wrong.

###### Acknowledgements.

J.G. is pleased to acknowledge correspondence with Daniel Zwanziger, which inspired this investigation. Our research is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-92ER40711 (J.G.), and the Slovak Grant Agency for Science, Grant No. 2/3106/2003 (Š.O.).