text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the main objects in the Yang–Mills theory is the Wilson loop or holonomy; it is defined as a path-ordered exponent,

$$W_r=\frac{1}{d(r)}\text{Tr}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}i𝑑\tau \frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }A_\mu ^aT^a,$$
(1)
where $`x^\mu (\tau )`$ with $`0\tau 1`$ parametrizes the closed contour, $`A_\mu ^a`$ is the Yang–Mills field (or connection) and $`T^a`$ are the generators of the gauge group in a given representation $`r`$ whose dimension is $`d(r)`$.

It is generally believed that in three and four dimensions the average of the Wilson loop in a pure Yang–Mills quantum theory exhibits an area behavior for large and simple contours (like flat rectangular). This should be true not for all representations but those with ‘$`N`$-ality’ nonequal zero; in the simplest case of the $`SU(2)`$ gauge group these are representations with half-integer spin $`J`$.

One of the difficulties in proving the asymptotic area law for the Wilson loop in half-integer representations (and proving that in integer representations it is absent) is that the Wilson loop is a complicated object by itself: it is impossible to calculate it analytically in a general non-Abelian background field. Meanwhile, it is sometimes easier to average a quantity over an ensemble than to calculate it for a specific representative. However, in case of the Wilson loop the path-ordering is a serious obstacle on that way.

A decade ago we have suggested a formula for the Wilson loop in a given background belonging to any gauge group and any representation . In this formula the path ordering along the loop is removed, but at the price of an additional functional integration over all gauge transformations of the given non-Abelian background field. This formula is discussed below, in section 2. Furthermore, the Wilson loop can be presented in a form of a surface integral , see section 3. We call this representation the non-Abelian Stokes theorem. It is quite different from previous interesting statements  also called by their authors ‘non-Abelian Stokes theorems’ but which involve surface ordering. Our formula has no surface ordering. A classification of ‘non-Abelian Stokes theorems’ for arbitrary groups and their representations has been given recently by Kondo et al.  who used the naturally arising techniques of flag manifolds.

Though these formulae usually do not facilitate finding Wilson loops in particular backgrounds, they can be used to average over ensembles of Yang–Mills configurations, and in more general settings, see e.g. .

Our formula for the Wilson loop have been recently questioned by Faber, Ivanov, Troitskaya and Zach (FITZ) . In section 4 we show that all points of their criticism are due to mistakes in mathematics, which we thoroughly locate, one by one. An alternative formula for the Wilson loop proposed by FITZ is also mathematically inconsistent, and we pinpoint their concrete errors.

Finally, in section 5 we present a variant of our formula for the Wilson loop in lattice regularization. It appears to be very similar to that presented in section 2.

## 2 Formula for the Wilson loop

Let $`\tau `$ parametrize the loop defined by the trajectory $`x^\mu (\tau )`$ and $`A(\tau )`$ be the tangent component of the Yang–Mills field along the loop in the fundamental representation of the gauge group, $`A(\tau )=A_\mu ^at^adx^\mu /d\tau `$, $`\text{Tr}(t^at^b)=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}`$. The gauge transformation of $`A(\tau )`$ is

$$A(\tau )S^1(\tau )A(\tau )S(\tau )+iS^1(\tau )\frac{d}{d\tau }S(\tau ).$$
(2)
Let $`H_i`$ be the generators from the Cartan subalgebra ($`i=1,\mathrm{},r;r`$ is the rank of the gauge group) and the $`r`$-dimensional vector $`𝐦`$ be the highest weight of the representation $`r`$ in which the Wilson loop is considered. The formula for the Wilson loop derived in ref.  is a path integral over all gauge transformations $`S(\tau )`$ which should be periodic along the contour:

$$W_r=DS(\tau )\mathrm{exp}i𝑑\tau \text{Tr}\left[m_iH_i(S^1AS+iS^1\dot{S})\right].$$
(3)
Let us stress that eq. (3) is manifestly gauge invariant, as is the Wilson loop itself. For example, in the simple case of the $`SU(2)`$ group eq. (3) reads:

$$W_J=DS(\tau )\mathrm{exp}iJ𝑑\tau \text{Tr}\left[\tau _3(S^{}AS+iS^{}\dot{S})\right]$$
(4)
where $`\tau _3`$ is the third Pauli matrix and $`J=\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{}`$ is the ‘spin’ of the representation of the Wilson loop considered.

The path integrals over all gauge rotations (3,4) are not of the Feynman type: they do not contain terms quadratic in the derivatives in $`\tau `$. Therefore, a certain regularization is understood in these equations, ensuring that $`S(\tau )`$ is sufficiently smooth. For example, one can introduce quadratic terms in the angular velocities $`iS^{}\dot{S}`$ with small coefficients eventually put to zero; see ref. for details. In ref. eq. (4) has been derived in two independent ways: i) by direct discretization and ii) by using the standard Feynman representation of path integrals as a sum over all intermediate states, in this case that of an axial top supplemented by a ‘Wess–Zumino’ type of the action. Another discretization but leading to the same result has been used recently by Kondo . A similar formula has been used by Alekseev, Faddeev and Shatashvili  who derived a formula for group characters to which the Wilson loop is reduced in case of a constant $`A`$ field actually considered in . In ref. eq. (3) has been rederived in an independent way specifically for the fundamental representation of the $`SU(N)`$ gauge group. Finally, at the end of this paper we consider the Wilson loop in lattice regularization and derive a formula similar to eq. (4).

The second term in the exponent of eqs. (3,4) is in fact a ‘Wess–Zumino’-type action, and it can be rewritten not as a line but as a surface integral inside a closed contour. Let us consider for simplicity the $`SU(2)`$ gauge group and parametrize the $`SU(2)`$ matrix $`S`$ from eq. (4) by Euler’s angles,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\gamma \tau _3/2)\mathrm{exp}(i\beta \tau _2/2)\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \tau _3/2)`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\beta }{2}e^{i\frac{\alpha +\gamma }{2}}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{\beta }{2}e^{i\frac{\alpha \gamma }{2}}\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\beta }{2}e^{i\frac{\alpha \gamma }{2}}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{\beta }{2}e^{i\frac{\alpha +\gamma }{2}}\end{array}\right).`$
The derivation of eq. (4) implies that $`S(\tau )`$ is a periodic matrix. It means that $`\alpha \pm \gamma `$ and $`\beta `$ are periodic functions of $`\tau `$, modulo $`4\pi `$.

The second term in the exponent of eq. (4) which we denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is then

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \text{Tr}(\tau _3iS^{}\dot{S})}={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \dot{\alpha }(\mathrm{cos}\beta +\dot{\gamma })}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau [\dot{\alpha }(\mathrm{cos}\beta 1)+(\dot{\alpha }+\dot{\gamma })]}={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \dot{\alpha }(\mathrm{cos}\beta 1)}.`$
The last term is a full derivative and can be actually dropped because $`\alpha +\gamma `$ is $`4\pi `$-periodic, therefore even for half-integer representations $`J`$ it does not contribute to eq. (4). Notice that $`\alpha `$ can be $`2\pi `$-periodic if $`\gamma `$ (which drops from eq. (8)) is $`2\pi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\pi ,\mathrm{}`$-periodic. If $`\alpha (1)=\alpha (0)+2\pi k`$ we shall say that $`\alpha (\tau )`$ makes $`k`$ windings. Integration over all possible $`\alpha (\tau )`$ implied in eq. (4) can be divided into distinct sectors with different winding numbers $`k`$.

Let us prove that eq. (8) can be written as an integral over any surface spanned on the contour (we shall call it a ‘disk’),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma ϵ^{abc}ϵ_{ij}n^a_in^b_jn^c,i,j=\tau ,\sigma ,$$
(9)
where $`𝐧`$ is a unit 3-vector,

$$n^a=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}(S^{}\tau ^aS\tau _3)=(\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha ,\mathrm{cos}\beta ).$$
(10)
It is understood that $`𝐧`$ or $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are continued inside the disk. We denote the second coordinate by $`\sigma `$ such that $`\sigma =1`$ corresponds to the edge of the disk coinciding with the contour and $`\sigma =0`$ corresponds to the center of the disk. Let us establish what conditions should the continuation $`𝐧(\sigma ,\tau )`$ satisfy.

Eq. (9) can be identically rewritten as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \left[_\tau \alpha _\sigma (\mathrm{cos}\beta 1)_\sigma \alpha _\tau (\mathrm{cos}\beta 1)\right]}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \left\{_\sigma \left[_\tau \alpha (\mathrm{cos}\beta 1)\right]_\tau \left[_\sigma \alpha (\mathrm{cos}\beta 1)\right]\right\}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\tau \left[_\tau \alpha (\mathrm{cos}\beta 1)\right]_{\sigma =0}^{\sigma =1}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\sigma \left[_\sigma \alpha (\mathrm{cos}\beta 1)\right]_{\tau =0}^{\tau =1}.`$
The second term here is zero, for the following reasons. Let $`\alpha (\tau )`$ belong to the sector with winding number $`k`$. The periodicity property of $`\alpha (\sigma ,\tau )`$ cannot change abruptly as we continue it inside the disk. We can write $`\alpha (\sigma ,\tau )=2\pi k\tau +\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\sigma ,\tau )`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is strictly periodic, as well as $`\mathrm{cos}\beta `$. Therefore, the integrand of the second term in eq. (11) is zero by periodicity.

Let us now consider the first term in eq. (11). We want the surface integral (9) to reproduce the contour integral (8), up to a possible contribution of $`4\pi l`$ with integer $`l`$, coming from the center of the disk, $`\sigma =0`$. Such a contribution is allowed since it does not affect eq. (4) even for half-integer $`J`$. The contribution of the first term in eq. (11) at $`\sigma =0`$ is

$$_0^1𝑑\tau [2\pi k+_\tau \stackrel{~}{\alpha }(0,\tau )][\mathrm{cos}\beta (0,\tau )1]=2\pi k[\mathrm{cos}\beta (0)1]=4\pi l,$$
(12)
where we have used that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is periodic while $`\beta (0,\tau )`$ is in fact independent of $`\tau `$, otherwise $`n^3=\mathrm{cos}\beta `$ would be not uniquely defined at the center of the disk. Eq. (12) means that either $`\alpha (\tau )`$ belongs to the winding number $`k=0`$ sector, then $`\beta (0)`$ is arbitrary, or, if $`k0`$ then $`\beta =0,\pi `$ meaning that $`n^3=\pm 1`$ at the center of the disk. Notice that for $`|n^3|1`$ the components $`n^{1,2}`$ are nonzero and are varying very rapidly as function of $`\tau `$ at the point $`\sigma =0`$. These conditions can be summarized as the condition that $`𝐧(\sigma ,\tau )`$ should be smooth and uniquely defined inside the disk.

Let us note that if the surface is closed or infinite the r.h.s. of eq. (9) is the integer topological charge of the $`𝐧`$ field on the surface:

$$Q=\frac{1}{8\pi }𝑑\sigma 𝑑\tau ϵ^{abc}ϵ_{ij}n^a_in^b_jn^c.$$
(13)
Eq. (9) can be also rewritten in a form which is invariant under the reparametrizations of the surface. Introducing the invariant element of a surface,

$$d^2S^{\mu \nu }=d\sigma d\tau \left(\frac{x^\mu }{\tau }\frac{x^\nu }{\sigma }\frac{x^\nu }{\tau }\frac{x^\mu }{\sigma }\right)=ϵ^{\mu \nu }d(\mathrm{Area}),$$
(14)
one can rewrite eq. (9) as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}d^2S^{\mu \nu }ϵ^{abc}n^a_\mu n^b_\nu n^c.$$
(15)
We get for the Wilson loop

$$W_J=D𝐧(\sigma ,\tau )\mathrm{exp}\left[iJ𝑑\tau (A^an^a)+\frac{iJ}{2}d^2S^{\mu \nu }ϵ^{abc}n^a_\mu n^b_\nu n^c\right].$$
(16)
The interpretation of this formula is obvious: the unit vector $`𝐧`$ plays the role of the instant direction of the color ‘spin’ in color space; however, multiplying its length by $`J`$ does not yet guarantee that we deal with a true quantum state from a representation labelled by $`J`$ – that is achieved only by introducing the ‘Wess–Zumino’ term in eq. (16): it fixes the representation to which the probe quark of the Wilson loop belongs to be exactly $`J`$.

## 3 Non-Abelian Stokes theorem

We can now rewrite the exponent in eq. (16) so that both terms appear to be surface integrals :

$$W_J=D𝐧(\sigma ,\tau )\mathrm{exp}\frac{iJ}{2}d^2S^{\mu \nu }\left(F_{\mu \nu }^an^a+ϵ^{abc}n^a\left(D_\mu n\right)^b\left(D_\nu n\right)^c\right),$$
(17)
where $`D_\mu ^{ab}=_\mu \delta ^{ab}+ϵ^{acb}A_\mu ^c`$ is the covariant derivative and $`F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+ϵ^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c`$ is the field strength. Indeed, expanding the exponent of eq. (17) in powers of $`A_\mu `$ one observes that the quadratic term cancels out while the linear one is a full derivative reproducing the $`A^an^a`$ term in eq. (16); the zero-order term is the ‘Wess–Zumino’ term (9) or (8). Note that both terms in eq. (17) are explicitly gauge invariant. We call eq. (17) the non-Abelian Stokes theorem. We stress that it is different from previously suggested Stokes-like representations of the Wilson loop, based on ordering of elementary surfaces inside the loop . It is understood that the functional integration measure in eq. (17) is such that $`W_J=1`$ for zero field.

The gauge-invariant field strength appearing in eq. (17),

$$G_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }^an^aϵ^{abc}n^a\left(D_\mu n\right)^b\left(D_\nu n\right)^c,$$
(18)
coincides in form with the field strength introduced by Polyakov  and ’t Hooft  in connection with monopoles. In that case the unit-vector field $`n^a`$ has the meaning of the direction of the elementary Higgs field, $`\varphi ^a/|\varphi |`$.

One can introduce a ‘monopole current’,

$$j_\mu ^{}=\frac{1}{8\pi }ϵ_{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda }_\nu G_{\kappa \lambda }.$$
(19)
Using equations

$`ϵ_{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda }D_\nu ^{ab}F_{\kappa \lambda }^b`$ $`=`$ $`0,ϵ_{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda }ϵ^{abc}(D_\nu n)^a(D_\kappa n)^b(D_\lambda n)^c=0,`$
$`ϵ_{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda }(D_\nu D_\kappa n)`$ $`=`$ $`0,n^a(D_\kappa n)^a=0,`$
one can easily check that this current is zero. In mathematical language it is the statement that any exact two-form is complete. There is a subtlety here, however. Let us consider a configuration which we shall call the ‘Wu–Yang monopole’, $`n^a=x^a/r`$ (not to be confused with the monopoles of the $`A_\mu `$ field). Let us take a contour of unit radius about the origin lying in the $`z=0`$ plane, the equator. In terms of angles the monopole corresponds to $`\alpha (\tau )=\varphi =2\pi \tau `$, $`\beta =\theta `$, see eq. (10). At the equator $`\theta =\pi /2`$, and we have from the line form (8):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=_0^1𝑑\tau _\tau \alpha (\mathrm{cos}\beta 1)=_0^1𝑑\tau \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi (1)=2\pi .$$
(20)
Let us now compute $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the surface form: first, over the upper hemisphere whose edge is the equator, second, over the lower hemisphere. For the upper hemisphere we introduce the variable $`\sigma =1\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, so that $`\sigma =0`$ at the north pole and $`\sigma =1`$ on the equator. Then $`\mathrm{cos}\beta 1=\sigma `$, and eq. (9) reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=_0^1_0^1𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma _\tau (2\pi \tau )_\sigma (\sigma )=2\pi ,$$
(21)
in agreement with eq. (20). For the lower hemisphere we define the variable $`\sigma =1+\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ so that $`\sigma =0`$ at the south pole and $`\sigma =1`$ on the equator. Then $`\mathrm{cos}\beta 1=\sigma 2`$, and eq. (9) reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=_0^1_0^1𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma _\tau (2\pi \tau )_\sigma (\sigma 2)=+2\pi .$$
(22)
There is no arithmetical contradiction here since in deriving the surface form (11) we have allowed for the contribution from $`\sigma =0`$ to be a multiple of $`4\pi `$, and it is exactly what has happened here. Simultaneously, it is in correspondence with the fact that the integral over the full sphere around a monopole (see eq. (13)) is $`4\pi `$. In both cases the contribution of the ‘Wu–Yang monopole’ configuration to the functional integral (17) is

$$\mathrm{exp}\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi iJ=(1)^{2J},$$
(23)
irrespective of whether the surface is drawn above or below the singularity of the $`𝐧`$ field. Notice that eq. (23) makes a clear distinction between integer and half-integer representations.

If, however, we take the surface which passes exactly through the center of the monopole, we shall be in trouble. For example, choosing the equatorial plane we have $`n^3=0`$ everywhere on the plane, hence the surface integral (9) is zero, in contradiction with eq. (20). It is because we have drawn the surface directly through the singularity and have thus violated the condition needed for the applicability of the surface form (9). Does it mean that singular configurations of the type $`n^a=x^a/r`$ are altogether forbidden in the functional integral (17)? Probably not, as long as such singularities have a zero-measure probability to hit the surface.

Let us integrate the ‘monopole charge density’ $`j_0^{}`$ over a volume surrounded by a closed surface. According to the Gauss theorem,

$$8\pi d^3V_\mu j_\mu ^{}=d^2S^{\mu \nu }ϵ^{abc}n^a_\mu n^b_\nu n^c=8\pi Q,$$
(24)
where $`Q`$ is the integer winding number (13) of the $`𝐧`$ field over the closed 2-surface surrounding the ‘monopole’; in the concrete case of the field $`n^a=x^a/r`$ one has $`Q=1`$. Since the surface can be drawn as close to the center as one wishes, it is tempting to say that the ‘Wu–Yang monopole’ has $`j_0^{}=\delta ^{(3)}(r)`$. Since computing $`j_0^{}`$ involves singular operations, one can regularize the singularity, for example by replacing $`n^ax^a/(r^2+\delta ^2)^{1/2},\delta 0`$. This regularization, indeed, leads to $`j_0^{}=3\delta ^2/(r^2+\delta ^2)^{5/2}/(4\pi )\delta ^{(3)}(r)`$. It should be stressed, however, that this regularization violates the condition $`𝐧^2=1`$ which has been crucial to prove that $`j_\mu ^{}=0`$.

To conclude this discussion: The Wilson loop is defined as a contour integral, so when one writes it in a surface form one has to take care that it does reproduce the contour form. Generally, singular $`𝐧(\sigma ,\tau )`$ leading, after regularization, to nonzero $`j_\mu ^{}`$ imply that the result depends on how one draws the surface, which is unacceptable. However, e.g. a ‘gas’ of singularities of the type $`n^a=x^a/r`$ with quantized $`4\pi `$ flux (in $`d=4`$ it is a ‘gas’ of worldlines) is still admissible since the probability that the singularity occurs exactly on the surface has zero measure.

Let us briefly discuss gauge groups higher than $`SU(2)`$: for that purpose we have to return to our eq. (3). Eq. (3) is valid for any group and any representation. It is easy to present it also in a surface form. We denote the combination of Cartan generators $`m_iH_i`$ where $`𝐦`$ is the highest weight of a given representation $`r`$ by $`_r`$. Using the identity

$`ϵ_{ij}_i\text{Tr}_rS^1_jS`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ij}\text{Tr}_r\left[S^1\left(_i_jS\right)+\left(S^1\stackrel{}{}_i\right)\left(_jS\right)\right]`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_{ij}\text{Tr}_r\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(S^1F_{ij}S)+\left(S^1\stackrel{}{}_i\right)\left(_jS\right)\right],`$
$`_i`$ $`=`$ $`_iiA_i^at^a,\stackrel{}{}_i=\stackrel{}{}_i+iA_i^at^a,`$
we can present eq. (3) in a surface form:

$$W_r=DS(\sigma ,\tau )\mathrm{exp}i𝑑S^{\mu \nu }\text{Tr}_r\left[\frac{i}{2}(S^1F_{\mu \nu }S)+\left(S^1\stackrel{}{}_\mu \right)\left(_\nu S\right)\right].$$
(26)
Actually, eqs. (3,26) depend not on all parameters of the gauge transformation but only on those which do not commute with the Cartan combination $`_r=m_iH_i`$. In the $`SU(2)`$ case one has $`m_iH_i=J\tau _3,J=1/2,1,3/2,\mathrm{}`$, since $`SU(2)`$ is of rank 1, and there is only one Cartan generator. Therefore, in the $`SU(2)`$ case one integrates over the coset $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ for any representation; this coset can be parametrized by the $`𝐧`$ field as described above.

In case of higher groups the particular coset depends on the representation of the Wilson loop. For example, in case the Wilson loop is considered in the fundamental representation of the $`SU(N)`$ group the combination $`m_iH_i`$ is proportional to one particular generator of the Cartan subalgebra, which commutes with the $`SU(N1)\times U(1)`$ subgroup. \[In case of $`SU(3)`$ this generator is the Gell-Mann $`\lambda _8`$ matrix or a permutation of its elements.\] Therefore, the appropriate coset for the fundamental representation of the $`SU(N)`$ group is $`SU(N)/SU(N1)/U(1)=CP^{N1}`$. A possible parametrization of this coset is given by a complex $`N`$-vector $`u^\alpha `$ of unit length, $`u_\alpha ^{}u^\alpha =1`$. To be concrete, the Cartan combination in the fundamental representation can be always set to be $`m_iH_i=\mathrm{diag}(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ by rotating the axes and subtracting the unit matrix. In such a basis $`u^\alpha `$ is just the first column of the unitary matrix $`S`$ while $`u_\alpha ^{}`$ is the first row of $`S^{}`$. Unitarity of $`S`$ implies that $`u_\alpha ^{}u^\alpha =1`$.

In this parametrization eq. (3) can be written as

$$W_{\mathrm{fund}}^{SU(N)}=DuDu^{}\delta (u_\alpha ^{}u^\alpha 1)\mathrm{exp}i𝑑\tau \frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }u_\alpha ^{}\left(i_\mu \right)_\beta ^\alpha u^\beta .$$
(27)
Using the identity,

$`ϵ_{ij}_i\left(u^{}_ju\right)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ij}\left[\left(_iu\right)^{}\left(_ju\right)+u^{}_i_ju\right]`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_{ij}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(u^{}F_{ij}u)+\left(_iu\right)^{}\left(_ju\right)\right],`$
we can present eq. (27) in a surface form:

$$W_{\mathrm{fund}}^{SU(N)}=DuDu^{}\delta (|u|^21)\mathrm{exp}i𝑑S^{\mu \nu }\left[\frac{1}{2}(u^{}F_{\mu \nu }u)+i\left(_\mu u\right)^{}\left(_\nu u\right)\right],$$
(29)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the field strength in the fundamental representation. Eq. (26) has been first published in ref. however with an unexpected overall coefficient 2 in the exponent. Eq. (29) presents the non-Abelian Stokes theorem for the Wilson loop in the fundamental representation of $`SU(N)`$. In the particular case of the $`SU(2)`$ group transition to eq. (17) is achieved by identifying the unit 3-vector: $`n^a=u_\alpha ^{}(\tau ^a)_\beta ^\alpha u^\beta `$ where

$$u^\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\beta }{2}e^{i\frac{\alpha +\gamma }{2}}\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\beta }{2}e^{i\frac{\alpha \gamma }{2}}\end{array}\right),2iu^{}_\tau u=\dot{\alpha }(\mathrm{cos}\beta 1)+(\dot{\alpha }+\dot{\gamma }).$$
(30)
It should be mentioned that the quantity

$$𝑑\sigma 𝑑\tau ϵ_{ij}i_iu_\alpha ^{}_ju^\alpha =2\pi Q$$
(31)
appearing in eq. (29) is the topological charge of the 2-dimensional $`CP^{N1}`$ model. For closed or infinite surfaces $`Q`$ is an integer. For example, in case of the ‘Wu–Yang monopole’ $`u^\alpha `$ can be chosen in two forms compatible with periodicity:

$$u^\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\varphi }\end{array}\right)\mathrm{or}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\varphi }\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(32)
They are regular everywhere except the negative (positive) $`z`$ axis. One can regularize the string singularity of $`u^\alpha `$ relaxing the condition $`|u|^2=1`$. The coefficient $`2\pi `$ guarantees that eq. (29) does not actually depend on the choice of the surface even for singular $`u`$’s, cf. the discussion around eq. (23) above. At the same time it means that $`CP^{N1}`$ ‘instantons’ of an effective 2-dimensional model, having integer topological charges, can hardly be relevant to the area behavior of the Wilson loop, as conjectured recently in ref.. The coefficient with which the topological charge enters the formula for the Wilson loop (29) corresponds to the ‘instanton angle’ $`\theta =2\pi `$, hence it is unobservable from the point of view of the 2-dimensional instantons. Only configurations with half-integer topological charges (like that given by eq. (32) or its gauge equivalents) stand a chance of being of relevance to confinement.

In case the Wilson loop is taken in the adjoint representation of the $`SU(N)`$ gauge group the combination $`m_iH_i`$ in eq. (3) is the highest root. Only group elements of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha _iH_i)`$ commute with this combination, belonging to the maximal torus subgroup $`U(1)^{N1}`$. Hence, in case of the adjoint representation one in fact integrates over the maximal coset $`SU(N)/U(1)^{N1}=F^{N1}`$, i.e. over flag variables .

## 4 Reply to criticizm by Faber, Ivanov, Troitskaya and Zach

In a recent paper  Faber, Ivanov, Troitskaya and Zach (FITZ) have questioned the validity of our formula for the Wilson loop, eq. (4). Their points can be summarized as follows:

1. A direct calculation using eq. (4) in two simple cases where the Wilson loop is known, i.e. for a pure gauge potential and for a vortex field, produces zero results instead of correct ones.

2. The regularized evolution operator for an axial top used by us to derive the formula for the Wilson loop, when computed directly, is zero.

3. The evaluation of this evolution operator by introducing small regulator moments of inertia, as suggested by us, is prohibited because it changes the symmetry from $`SU(2)`$ to that of $`U(2)`$.

4. Another formula for the Wilson loop is proposed which is similar to but different from our.

We consider these points below, one by one, and show that all four are groundless as due to errors in mathematics.

1. In sections 4,5 of their paper FITZ attempt to compute the Wilson loop in two simple cases: i) in a pure gauge background and ii) in a background of a vortex. In both cases the Wilson loop is known. In this calculation FITZ use our discretization of the path integral though without the regulator terms which, as we have stressed in the original paper , are important to get the correct result. Nevertheless, it could be a useful exercise, were it not for mistakes in mathematics.

In this calculation FITZ use several relations for group characters citing a paper by Bars  “modified for our case”. The modification is not performed properly. Ref.  deals with the $`GL(N)`$ group, and averaging is performed over the $`U(N)`$ group, not $`SU(N)`$ which is the case in question. The characters of a group are unambiguously defined for the elements of that group. Meanwhile, FITZ intensively use such ambiguous quantities as $`SU(2)`$ characters of the non-$`SU(2)`$ elements like $`t_3,t_3^2=1/4`$, etc. ($`t_3`$ is one half of the Pauli matrix $`\tau _3`$). Though no explicit definition of the characters of non-$`SU(2)`$ elements is given in the paper, from eqs. (64) and (A3) of ref. one infers that FITZ implicitly use the definition:

$$\chi _j[(t_3)^nU]=\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}m^nD_{mm}^j(U)$$
(33)
where $`D_{mn}^j(U)`$ are Wigner’s finite rotation matrices, $`_mD_{mm}^j(U)=\chi _j[U]`$. \[The properties of $`D`$-functions are given, e.g., in ref. .\]

The key formula of FITZ calculation is their decomposition formula (51),

$$\mathrm{exp}z\text{Tr}[t_3U]=\underset{j}{}a_j(z)\chi _j[t_3U]=\underset{j}{}a_j(z)\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}mD_{mm}^j(U),$$
(34)
and its inverse (eq. (53) of ),

$$a_j(z)=\frac{3}{j(j+1)}𝑑U\chi _j[t_3U^{}]\mathrm{exp}\left(z\text{Tr}[t_3U]\right).$$
(35)
The quantities $`\chi _j[t_3U]`$ do not form a complete set of functions for the space of $`SU(2)`$ matrices, therefore there are no reasons why the decomposition (34) is at all possible, for whatever coefficients $`a_j(z)`$. To see that it is in fact wrong let us present the decomposition of the l.h.s. of eq. (34) using well-defined characters of group elements only. We make use of the fact that $`t_3=(i/2)(i\tau _3)=(i/2)\mathrm{exp}(i\pi t_3)`$ where the last factor is definitely an element of $`SU(2)`$.

We have

$$\mathrm{exp}z\text{Tr}[t_3U]=\mathrm{exp}\left\{(iz/2)\text{Tr}[e^{i\pi t_3}U]\right\}=\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{a}_j(z)\chi _j\left[e^{i\pi t_3}U\right]$$

$$=\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{a}_j(z)\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}e^{i\pi m}D_{mm}^j(U),\stackrel{~}{a}_j(z)=e^{i\pi j}(2j+1)\frac{2J_{2j+1}(z)}{z},$$
(36)
the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{a}_j(z)`$ being well-known from the lattice strong-coupling expansion .

Eq. (36) differs significantly from eq. (34) suggested by FITZ; there exists no choice of coefficients $`a_j(z)`$ for which eq. (34) coincides with the correct one, eq. (36). Eq. (34) and its inverse, eq. (35), (eqs. (51) and (53) of ) result from uncritical ‘modification’ of ref. and are wrong.

Furthermore, assuming the decomposition (34) to hold true FITZ arrive to a “completeness condition” for their coefficients $`a_j(z)`$ (see their eq.(59)):

$$a_0^2(z)+\underset{j>0}{}\frac{1}{3}j(j+1)a_j^2(z)=1,$$
(37)
where (see eq.(A6) of )

$$a_j(z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2}{z}J_1(z),& j=0,\\ \frac{3(2j+1)}{j(j+1)}\frac{J_{2j+1}(z)}{z},& j=1/2,3/2,5/2,\mathrm{},\\ 0,& j=1,2,\mathrm{}\end{array}.$$
(38)
We plot the l.h.s. of (37) as function of $`z`$ in Fig.1: it does not look as being identically unity, as claimed by FITZ. It is another manifestation of that eqs. (34,35) are wrong <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Ironically, FITZ have checked their “completeness condition” themselves but only at one value of $`z=1`$ where the l.h.s. of eq. (37) is still rather close to unity being equal to 0.986. Having computed this value summing up the series on the l.h.s. up to $`j=\frac{5}{2}`$ FITZ note: “Thus, the series converges slowly to unity” not paying attention to that their $`j=\frac{3}{2}`$ contribution is $`10^4`$ and the next contribution at $`j=\frac{5}{2}`$ is $`10^9`$. The series converges rather rapidly but not to unity..

Unfortunately, this “completeness condition” together with the erroneous coefficients $`a_j(z)`$ are at the heart of the calculation of the Wilson loop by FITZ both for the pure gauge and vortex cases, which cannot be, thus, considered as correct.

2. In section 6 of their paper FITZ attempt to compute the (regularized) evolution operator for the ‘Wess–Zumino’ action, following directly our approach. This calculation has been presented in some detail in the original paper , however, FITZ seem to be dissatisfied by it and present their own. Their final answer (eqs. (98) and (112) of ref. ), which differs from our, is a result of several mistakes.

First, going from eq.(83) to eq.(87) FITZ use a strange relation,

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}(i)\frac{I_{}}{2\delta }(4)\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(iN(N+1)\frac{I_{}}{\delta }\right),$$
(39)
instead of the correct (and trivial) $`\mathrm{exp}(i2(N+1)I_{}/\delta )`$, where $`I_{}`$ and $`\delta `$ are constants and $`N`$ is the number of pieces in which one divides the contour.

Second, and more important, both equations in (91) are erroneous, they do not follow from eq.(89) from where they are derived. Passing from eq.(89) to eq.(91) one gets:

$`\text{Tr}(R_nR_{n+1}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[\delta \alpha _n^2+\delta \beta _n^2+\delta \gamma _n^2+2\delta \alpha _n\delta \gamma _n\mathrm{cos}\beta _n\right],`$ (40)
$`\text{Tr}(R_nR_{n+1}^{}\tau _3)`$ $`=`$ $`i(\delta \alpha _n+\delta \gamma _n\mathrm{cos}\beta _n),`$
$`\delta \alpha _n`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{n+1}\alpha _n,\delta \beta _n=\beta _{n+1}\beta _n,\delta \gamma _n=\gamma _{n+1}\gamma _n.`$
FITZ have written these formulae without the crucial factors $`\mathrm{cos}\beta _n`$. Because of this mistake the subsequent integration over Euler angles $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ becomes gaussian, and the evolution operator for the axial top, as computed by FITZ, in fact becomes that of a free particle, which is definitely wrong. The factors $`\mathrm{cos}\beta _n`$ being reinstalled, the derivation returns to that of our paper .

3. The last objection by FITZ is to our alternative (and in fact equivalent) derivation of the evolution operator, this time through the standard Feynman representation for the path integral as a sum over intermediate states. FITZ quote our result for the evolution operator of an axial top with the ‘Wess–Zumino’ term, evolving from its orientation given by a unitary matrix $`R_1`$ at time $`t_1`$ to orientation $`R_2`$ at time $`t_2`$:

$$𝒵_{\mathrm{Reg}}(R_2,R_1)=(2J+1)D_{JJ}^J(R_2R_1^{})\mathrm{exp}\left[i(t_2t_1)\frac{J}{2I_{}}\right]$$
(41)
where $`I_{}`$ is a regulator moment of inertia, $`I_{}0`$. Apart from a nontrivial dependence on the orientation matrices $`R_{1,2}`$ coming through the Wigner $`D`$-function, this expression contains a phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i(t_2t_1)\mathrm{})`$. It is an overall factor independent of the external field: it can and should be absorbed into the integration measure to make the evolution operator unity for the trivial case $`R_2=R_1=1`$. Indeed, dividing the time interval into $`N`$ pieces of small length $`\delta ,N\delta =t_2t_1`$, one can write this factor as a product,

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[i(t_2t_1)\frac{J}{2I_{}}\right]=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\delta \frac{J}{2I_{}}\right],$$
(42)
where, according to the regularization prescription of ref. , $`\delta /I_{}1`$ so that each factor is close to unity. Each factor can be now absorbed into the integration measure $`dR(t_k)`$ in the functional-integral representation for the evolution operator (41). The fact that the factor is complex is irrelevant; moreover, it is typical for the path-integral representation of the evolution operators to have a complex measure, see the classical Feynman’s book . However, FITZ write: “…a removal of the fluctuating factor is prohibited since this leads to the change of the starting symmetry of the system from $`SU(2)`$ to $`U(2)`$”. It may seem that FITZ believe that an absorption of a constant factor into the integration measure changes the number of variables over which one integrates.

4. FITZ make an attempt to derive another formula for the Wilson loop (see section 2 of ref. ); this derivation is, however, inconsistent. Their resulting path-integral representation for the Wilson loop is (see eq.(30) of ; we simplify their notations to make the formulae better readable):

$$W_J=\frac{1}{(2J+1)^2}D\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )\underset{\{m(\tau )\}}{}(2J+1)\mathrm{exp}\left(i_C𝑑\tau m(\tau )\sqrt{2\text{Tr}\left[A^\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )A^\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )\right]}\right),$$
(43)
where $`A^\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }A\mathrm{\Omega }^{}i\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is the gauge-transformed Yang–Mills field tangent to the contour parametrized by $`\tau ,0\tau 1,`$ such that $`A=A_\mu dx^\mu /d\tau ,\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}=_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }dx^\mu /d\tau `$. One integrates over all gauge transformations $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )`$ in a given representation of the $`SU(2)`$ group, labelled by spin $`J`$, and sums over the projections $`m`$ from $`J`$ to $`+J`$ at all points of the loop.

Integration over a variable $`m(\tau )`$ assuming only integer or half-integer values is a unusual construction and one can question whether such an integral has a limiting value as one takes the number of discretization points $`N`$ to infinity. We have checked that eq. (43) does not possess a finite limiting value at least for the zero field, $`A=0`$. However, this is not our main point. The main problem is the derivation of eq. (43) by FITZ.

If one looks into how eq. (43) has been derived by FITZ one finds that it is a result of two mistakes in mathematics.

FITZ start from using the following discretized form of the Wilson loop (see their eqs. 14,15):

$$W_r=\frac{1}{d_r^2}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _1)\mathrm{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _N)$$

$$d_r\chi _r\left[\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _N)(1+iA\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\tau _{N1})\right]\mathrm{}d_r\chi _r\left[\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _1)(1+iA\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\tau _N)\right],\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =\tau _k\tau _{k1},$$
(44)
where gauge transformations $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the gauge field $`A`$ are taken in a given representation $`r`$ with dimension $`d_r`$; $`\chi _r`$ is the group character. Indeed, integrating over gauge transformations at all points along the loop $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _k)`$ and using the relation

$$𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})_{a_1b_1}(\mathrm{\Omega })_{a_2b_2}=\frac{1}{d_r}\delta _{a_1b_2}\delta _{b_1a_2},$$
(45)
one recovers the Wilson loop as a path-ordered product of the factors $`(1+iA\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )`$ along the loop. However at this point FITZ depart from a consistent derivation.

It is tempting to say that, since the discretization points on the contour can be taken as close to one another as one wishes, the gauge transformations $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at neighboring points are also close. It should be emphasized that this is, generally, wrong: one needs a fully independent integration over $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$’s at neighbor points – otherwise the unity matrix on the r.h.s. of eq. (45) is not achieved. In other words the unitary matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _k)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\tau _{k1})`$ is, generally, not close to the unity matrix, even though the points $`\tau _k`$ and $`\tau _{k1}`$ are close. The derivative $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ does not exist in a strict sense since taking the neighbor points closer does not change the fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _{k1})`$ are independent integration variables.

This important circumstance is neglected by FITZ who say: “Due to the infinitesimality of the segments we can omit the path ordering operator” and write (see their eq. (18))

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _k)(1+iA\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\tau _{k1})=\mathrm{exp}i_{\tau _{k1}}^{\tau _k}𝑑\tau A^\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau ).$$
(46)
This equation is erroneous for reasons explained above. Only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )`$ has a finite derivative one can expand $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _k)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\tau _{k1})=1+\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\tau _{k1})\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\tau _{k1})\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ but then the exponent on the r.h.s. of eq. (46) should be expanded too. If the derivative is large so that one cannot expand the exponent (and FITZ keep it), then eq. (46) is simply wrong. To see it more clearly let us take an example of a zero field, $`A=0,A^\mathrm{\Omega }=i\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. Apparently,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _k)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\tau _{k1})\mathrm{exp}_{\tau _{k1}}^{\tau _k}𝑑\tau \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}$$
(47)
if the l.h.s is an arbitrary unitary matrix. The path ordering on the r.h.s. is absolutely necessary to restore the l.h.s.

Even if one accepts the wrong eq. (46) the way FITZ proceed further is questionable. According to eq. (44) FITZ need to compute the character of eq. (46). Denoting the exponent in eq. (46) by an $`su(2)`$ matrix $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ in representation $`J`$,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=𝑑\tau A^\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Phi }^aT^a=𝑑\tau \left[A^\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )\right]^aT^a,$$
(48)
the character can be written as

$`\chi _J[\mathrm{exp}i\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=J}{\overset{J}{}}}\mathrm{exp}im\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^a}={\displaystyle \underset{m=J}{\overset{J}{}}}\mathrm{exp}im\sqrt{{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _1\left[A^\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _1)\right]^a𝑑\tau _2\left[A^\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _2)\right]^a}}`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=J}{\overset{J}{}}}\mathrm{exp}im\sqrt{{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2c_J\text{Tr}\left[A^\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _1)A^\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _2)\right]}},`$
$`c_J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{J(J+1)(2J+1)}}.`$
Meanwhile, FITZ use the following formula (their eqs.(19), (21) and (22))

$$\chi _J[\mathrm{exp}i\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]=\underset{m=J}{\overset{J}{}}\mathrm{exp}im𝑑\tau \sqrt{2\text{Tr}\left[A^\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )A^\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )\right]}.$$
(50)
Leaving aside the incorrect numerical coefficient, the square root of a product of integrals is not equal to the integral of the square root of the product of integrands. In this way FITZ arrive to their formula for the Wilson loop, eq. (43). Their $`SU(3)`$ generalization (section 3 of ) is based on the same manipulation and is wrong from the start.

To conclude this section: all points of the FITZ’ criticism of our formula for the Wilson loop are based on their errors in mathematics, and the alternative formula suggested by these authors is mathematically inconsistent, too.

Finally, we would like to comment on two sentences from FITZ’ paper. In the Conclusion they write: “The use of the erroneous path integral representation for Wilson loops \[meaning our formula\] has led to the conclusion that at large distances the average value of the Wilson loops shows area-law falloff for any irreducible representation of $`SU(N)`$…”, and “…has led to result supporting the hypothesis of maximal Abelian projection”. We are not aware of any work where either of the statements has been mathematically derived using our formula.

Obviously on the contrary, the non-Abelian Stokes theorem of section 3 stresses the difference between various representations for Wilson loops: in $`SU(2)`$ there is a clear distinction between integer and half-integer representations (see, e.g., eq. (23)); in higher groups the number of integration variables itself depends on the representation (see the end of section 3).

## 5 Lattice-regularized formula for the Wilson loop

The Wilson loop on a lattice is just the trace of the product of link variables in a given representation along the discretized contour. Else, it is the character of the product of link variables,

$$W_J=\frac{1}{2J+1}\chi _J\left(U_{N,N1}U_{N1,N2}\mathrm{}U_{1,N}\right)$$
(51)
(we consider the $`SU(2)`$ gauge group for simplicity). The aim of this section is to derive a representation for eq. (51) analogous to the continuum eq. (4), using lattice regularization. It has the form:

$$W_J=𝒩^1\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}dS_k\mathrm{exp}\frac{z}{2}\text{Tr}(S_k^{}U_{k,k1}S_{k1}\tau _3),$$
(52)
where $`z`$ is a function of $`J`$ and $`𝒩`$ is a normalization coefficient, both of them to be determined below. $`U_{k,k1}`$ are link variables which in the continuum limit become $`U_{k,k1}1+iaA_k`$ where $`a`$ is the lattice spacing and $`A_k`$ is the component of the Yang–Mills field along the link at point $`k`$. In eq. (52) one integrates over all gauge transformations $`S_k`$ at lattice sites $`k`$ along the loop, with the condition that $`S_0=S_N`$ where $`N`$ is the total number of links in the loop. Integration is over the Haar measure normalized to unity. We shall see that eq. (52) is valid for large Wilson loop with number of links $`N1`$. Notice that on cubic lattices $`N`$ is always even for closed loops.

In the limit $`aA_k1`$ and of smoothly varying $`A_k`$ and $`S_k`$ eq. (52) coincides with eq. (4) provided one takes $`z=2J`$. However, eq. (4) has been derived from another regularization of the functional integral over gauge transformations, and there is no a priori reason to expect that in the lattice regularization $`z`$ should be the same.

Let us expand the exponent in eq. (52) according to eq. (36):

$`W_J`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩^1{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}dS_k\underset{j_k}{}\stackrel{~}{a}_{j_k}(z)\underset{m_k=j_k}{\overset{j_k}{}}e^{i\pi m_k}D_{m_km_k}^{j_k}\left(S_k^{}U_{k,k1}S_{k1}\right)},`$ (53)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}_j(z)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi j}(2j+1){\displaystyle \frac{2}{z}}J_{2j+1}(z).`$ (54)
Every matrix $`S_k`$ enters twice this expression. The integration can be performed as follows:

$$𝑑S_kD_{m_{k+1}m_{k+1}}^{j_{k+1}}\left(AS_k\right)D_{m_km_k}^{j_k}(S_k^{}B)=\frac{1}{2j_k+1}\delta _{j_kj_{k+1}}\delta _{m_km_{k+1}}D_{m_km_k}^{j_k}\left(AB\right).$$
(55)
Using eq. (55) we get:

$`W_J`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩^1{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[b_j(z)\right]^Ne^{i\pi N(jm)}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}D_{mm}^j\left(U_{N,N1}U_{N1,N2}\mathrm{}U_{1,N}\right),`$ (56)
$`b_j(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{z}}J_{2j+1}(z)`$ (57)
The factor $`e^{i\pi N(jm)}=1`$ for any $`j,m`$ since $`jm`$ is an integer and $`N`$ is even. Consequently,

$`W_J`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩^1{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[b_j(z)\right]^N\chi _j\left(U_{N,N1}U_{N1,N2}\mathrm{}U_{1,N}\right),`$ (58)
$`𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(2j+1)\left[b_j(z)\right]^N,`$ (59)
where we have chosen the normalization factor $`𝒩`$ such that $`W_J=1`$ for unity link variables.

Thus, eq. (52) is actually a weighted sum of Wilson loops in all representations $`j`$. However at $`N1`$ the sum in eq. (58) is dominated by the term with $`j`$ maximizing the coefficient $`b_j(z)`$. Then only one term survives both in the numerator and the denominator of eq. (58) and we obtain:

$$W_J\stackrel{N1}{}\frac{1}{2J+1}\chi _J\left(U_{N,N1}U_{N1,N2}\mathrm{}U_{1,N}\right),$$
(60)
as it should be for the Wilson loop in representation $`J`$.

Let us choose $`z(J)`$ from the requirement that $`b_j(z)`$ is maximal at $`j=J`$. We find that for $`J2`$ one can choose

$$z(J)=2(J+1).$$
(61)
With this value of $`z(J)`$ the Wilson loop in the needed representation $`J`$ is reproduced by eq. (52) at large number of links. \[We would like to mention on this occasion that one can obtain eq. (61) also in a continuum formulation where the regularization is performed by introducing small moments of inertia $`I_,`$, as in ref. . In that paper we used the following limiting procedure: first $`I_{}0`$, then $`I_{}0`$, and obtained $`z(J)=2J`$. Had we chosen the opposite order of limits we would get eq. (61).\]

In fact, one is not bound to take simple values like given by eq. (61) but choose the values of $`z(J)`$ for $`J=\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{}`$ such that $`b_j(z(J))`$ is maximum maximorum at $`j=J`$. The result of such ‘fine tuning’ is presented in Table 1, where we give the best value of $`z`$ for given $`J`$, the maximum value of $`b_{\mathrm{best}}`$ and the ratio of $`b_j(z)`$ to $`b_{\mathrm{best}}`$ for the most ‘dangerous’ competitor at $`jJ`$.

Table 1
$`J`$ best $`z`$ $`b_{\mathrm{best}}`$ $`b_j(z)/b_{\mathrm{best}}(j)`$    $`\frac{1}{2}`$ 3.25103 0.296 0.50  (0)  $`1`$ 4.36765 0.198 0.60 (1/2)  $`\frac{3}{2}`$ 5.46564 0.146 0.86  (0)  $`2`$ 6.55104 0.114 0.83 (1/2)  $`\frac{5}{2}`$ 7.62728 0.093 0.83  (3)  $`3`$ 8.69644 0.078 0.85 (7/2)

If, for example, we wish to get the Wilson loop in representation $`J=\frac{5}{2}`$, we choose the coefficient $`z(5/2)=7.62728`$. The largest contribution to eq. (58) will be from $`j=J=\frac{5}{2}`$. The next largest but parasite contribution will be from $`j=3`$; however, the Wilson loop in this representation will be suppressed as $`0.83^N`$ as compared to the needed $`j=\frac{5}{2}`$ contribution. If the number of links in the loop is $`N=16`$ the suppression factor is 0.051, for $`N=24`$ it is 0.011.

The lattice version of the ‘non-Abelian Stokes theorem’ is trivial: one takes any surface (realized as a collection of plaquettes) inside a given discretized contour (realized as a chain of links) and writes in the exponent a sum of the terms $`\text{Tr}\left[S_k^{}U_{k,kl}S_{kl}\tau _3\right]`$ for each link belonging to all plaquettes inside the contour. Since all internal links are encountered twice in this sum, once going in a positive and once in a negative direction, all links cancel except those lying at the border of the surface, that is on the contour itself. The cancellation of links is due to the fact that $`\text{Tr}(V\tau _3)=\text{Tr}(V^{}\tau _3)`$ for a unitary matrix $`V`$. The lattice version of the non-Abelian Stokes theorem reads:

$$W_J=𝒩^1\left(\underset{k\mathrm{surf}}{}dS_k\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{z}{2}\underset{\mathrm{plaq}\mathrm{surf}}{}\underset{\mathrm{links}\mathrm{plaq}}{}\text{Tr}(S_k^{}U_{k,kl}S_{kl}\tau _3)\right\}.$$
(62)
We would like to stress that any Stokes theorem is trivial when written in discretized form. At the same time, if we first assemble links belonging to one plaquette and ascribe to the quantities $`S`$ and $`U`$ arguments corresponding to the plaquette centers, we recover, in the appropriate continuum limit, the non-Abelian Stokes theorem for the continuum, eq. (17).

If one uses eq. (52) or eq. (62) for the average Wilson loop in the lattice formulation of gauge theory there is no need to perform explicitly integration over gauge transformations as these are included in the integration over link variables. Therefore, one can use the following formula for the average Wilson loop on the lattice:

$$W_J=𝒩^1\underset{l}{}𝑑U_l\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{lattice}\mathrm{action}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{z(J)}{2}\underset{lC}{}\text{Tr}(U_l\tau _3)\right].$$
(63)
Actually, this formula has been suggested in ref. , however with the coefficient $`z(J)=2J`$ arising from another regularization. This is not too consistent: in lattice calculations one has to use lattice regularization for the Wilson loop. Therefore, one has either to put $`z(J)=2(J+1)`$ (for small $`J`$) or, better, pick it up from Table 1.

Finally, we note that the choice of the matrix $`\tau _3`$ in eq. (63) is arbitrary: one can take any rotated matrix as well. This fact can be used to increase many times the statistics in numerical computation of the average Wilson loop from eq. (63). It may be interesting to study the dependence of the r.h.s of eq. (63) on the coefficient $`z`$ for a fixed but large loop as it can provide new information on the difference of integer and half-integer representations in respect to confinement.

## 6 Conclusions

We have formulated the non-Abelian Stokes theorem for the Wilson loop. The path-ordering is replaced by an ordinary exponent of a surface integral, but at the price of an additional functional integration over all gauge transformations of the Yang–Mills potential, actually, over a coset depending on the representation in which the Wilson loop is considered. We have given several forms of this representation, and discussed requirements on the continuation of the fields inside the contour.

Since the validity of our formula for the Wilson loop, which is key to the non-Abelian Stokes theorem, has been questioned recently in ref.  we had to reply to that criticism. We have demonstrated that it is groundless as due to mistakes in mathematics, which we have thoroughly pinpointed, one by one.

As the lattice regularization of functional integrals is one of the most popular we have included the derivation of the formula for the Wilson loop in lattice regularization. The resulting eq. (52) is very similar to the continuum formula (4). The corresponding lattice version of the Stokes theorem is almost trivial.

A formula analogous to the non-Abelian Stokes theorem can be also derived in gravity theory for holonomies in curved spaces .

One of us (V.P.) thanks NORDITA for kind hospitality and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research for partial support, grant RFBR-00-15-96610.


format: text

text:
# 1 Proton charge radius

THE HYDROGEN LAMB SHIFT AND THE PROTON RADIUS
SAVELY G. KARSHENBOIM<sup>* ) </sup><sup>* ) </sup>* ) E-mail: sek@mpq.mpg.de; sgk@onti.vniim.spb.su

D. I. Mendeleev Institute for Metrology, 198005 St. Petersburg, Russia
and
Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik, D-85748, Garching, Germany

## Abstract

The Lamb shift measurement and theory are now both a dynamically developing field and we give a review of the current data. Critical comparison of theory and experiment can be done using a value of the proton charge radius and we pay attention to several results of its determination.

The talk is devoted to the Lamb shift in the hydrogen atom. The workshop is for exotic atoms and first of all I would like to say that to my mind the hydrogen is one of them. The possibility both to calculate and to measure different energy intervals with extremely high accuracy make hydrogen a quite exotic system. Next, one has to remember that there is actually no special separate theory of the positronium or muonium atom, investigations of which were discussed here in detail. The same expression can be of use in a number of calculations for several atomic systems (see e. g. Refs. . One more point which is quite similar to the pionium and pionic hydrogen is that we investigate an atomic system but after all the result is important for particle physics, namely for the proton charge radius. All of these reasons show that hydrogen atomic properties are to be discussed among exotic ones. The workshop talk is based on a Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik report  and all references can be found there.

The hydrogen atom is one of the most important QED systems. In contrast to muonium and positronium the nucleus is a proton and hence the energy of the level is influenced by the proton structure, i. e. by the strong interaction. The knowledge of the proton radius leads now to a limit of the theoretical value for the Lamb shift. We discuss here the problem of the radius determination, the most popular values of which are summarized in Table 1. We give a critical review of all of these values, as well as of the theory and the experiment on the Lamb shift.

Let us briefly describe all items of the Table 1. The elastic electron-proton scattering data were obtained with small momentum transfer and were extrapolated to zero momentum. The other way to extract the radius from such data is based on a dispersion relation approach which allows to involve data from other kinematic areas into fitting. The numerical calculation within the chiral limit of the lattice QCD can be corrected due to the chiral perturbative theory. And indeed one of the ways to determine the radius is based on the hydrogen Lamb shift investigation. First we mention that we expect that the uncertainties presented in Table 1 accordingly to the original works  are significant underestimations and we will not consider those anymore here. The details can be found in our review .

We start our consideration with the Lamb shift. Several results obtained within different approaches are summarized in Table 2 (see Fig. 1 for more detail). The results presented are found within different experiments:

* the $`LS`$ result is an average value of the best direct measurement of the Lamb splitting $`𝒮`$ by Lundeen and Pipkin  and older works. We also take into account a recent paper by van Wijngaaden, Holuj and Drake , published after our work on review  was completed;
* the $`LS/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ result of an indirect measurement of the splitting $`𝒮`$. The measurement was performed by Sokolov and Yakovlev  for the ratio of $`𝒮`$ and the $`2p_{1/2}`$ radiative width. The width was recalculated by Karshenboim recently including a leading radiative correction of relative order $`\alpha (Z\alpha )^2\mathrm{ln}(Z\alpha )`$ (see Ref.  for detail)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(2p_{1/2})=\frac{2^{10}\pi }{3^8}\alpha ^3Ry\frac{m_R}{m}\left\{1+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{9}{8}\right)\left(Z\alpha \right)^2+\frac{16}{3\pi }\alpha \left(Z\alpha \right)^2\left(1.5084\mathrm{}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{\left(Z\alpha \right)^2}\right\};$$
* in case of $`FS`$ the measured value is the fine structure splitting $`2s_{1/2}2p_{3/2}`$, the most recent result for which was found by Hagley and Pipkin ;
* the $`OBF`$ abbreviation means optical beat frequency. The value is an average one from recent Garching , Yale  and Paris  data;
* the $`CAF`$ result is obtained by comparison of two optical frequencies measured separately, namely the $`1s2s`$ interval from Garching  and $`2s8s/d`$ from Paris .

To recalculate the data obtained by FS, OBF and CAF methods one has to use a significant piece of theory. In case of the fine structure that is the theory of the $`2p`$ states and in case of the optical measurement that is theory of a specific difference

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(n)=E_L(1s)n^3E_L(ns).$$
(1)
First we explain the importance of this difference and next we consider the status of its calculation as well as of $`E_L(2p_j)`$. The progress in measurement of the either the Lamb splitting or the fine structure has been relatively slow. In contrast to that great development was obtained in optical measurement of the transition frequency between levels with different value of the principal quantum number $`n`$ (gross structure). The highest precision was reached in two-photon Doppler-free transitions like $`1s2s`$. The problem of utilizing those results was due to the Rydberg constant determination. There is no way to find it except by investigation of the gross structure. Hence to find anything for the Lamb shift one has to measure two optical transitions and to construct some difference in which the Rydberg contribution is canceled. It is possible to instrumentally extract a beat frequency directly or indirectly within an experiment. It is also possible to do that with data obtained in two independent determinations of different intervals. But still one has to solve one more problem: the Lamb shift result is after all a combination of the Lamb shift of the $`1s`$ and $`2s`$ states and also a portion of a higher excited levels contribution is included. In order to manage that a specific difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$ was introduced by us some time ago (see Ref.  for detail). This difference as well as the $`2p`$ state Lamb shift has a much better theoretical status than the ground state Lamb shift (or $`𝒮`$). A number of contributions like e. g. a three-loop term which have not been known up to date for $`𝒮`$ are known for the difference and for the $`2p`$ states.

The theoretical expression for the difference of Eq. (1) is of the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(n)=\frac{\alpha (Z\alpha )^4}{\pi }\frac{m_R^3}{m^2}\times \{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{ln}\frac{k_0(1s)}{k_0(ns)}(1+Z\frac{m}{M})^2$$

$$+(Z\alpha )^2\times \left[\left(4\left(\mathrm{ln}(n)\psi (n+1)+\psi (2)\right)\frac{77(n^21)}{45n^2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{(Z\alpha )^2}+A_{60}^{VP}(n)+G_n^{SE}(Z\alpha )\right]$$

$$\frac{14}{3}\frac{Zm}{M}(\psi (n+1)\psi (2)\mathrm{ln}(n)+\frac{n1}{2n})\}+\frac{\alpha ^2(Z\alpha )^6m}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{1}{(Z\alpha )^2}B_{62}.$$
(2)
The results of the $`2p`$ states are similar to that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_L(2p_{1/2})=\frac{\alpha (Z\alpha )^4}{8\pi }m\left(\frac{m_R}{m}\right)^3\{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{ln}k_0(2p)\times (1+2Z\frac{m}{M}+Z^2(\frac{m}{M})^2)$$

$$+(Z\alpha )^2(\frac{103}{180}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{(Z\alpha )^2}\frac{9}{140}+G_{2p_{1/2}}(Z\alpha ))\}\frac{(Z\alpha )^4m}{24}m\left(\frac{m_R}{m}\right)^2)\frac{g_e2}{2}$$

$$+\frac{\alpha ^2(Z\alpha )^6m}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{1}{(Z\alpha )^2}B_{62}+\frac{(Z\alpha )^5}{8\pi }m\left(\frac{m_R}{m}\right)^3\frac{m}{M}\left(\frac{7}{18}+(Z\alpha )\frac{\pi }{3}\right)+\frac{(Z\alpha )^4}{48}m\left(\frac{m}{M}\right)^2$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_L(2p_{3/2})=\frac{\alpha (Z\alpha )^4}{8\pi }m\left(\frac{m_R}{m}\right)^3\{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{ln}k_0(2p)\times (1+2Z\frac{m}{M}+Z^2(\frac{m}{M})^2)$$

$$+(Z\alpha )^2(\frac{29}{90}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{(Z\alpha )^2}\frac{1}{70}+G_{2p_{3/2}}(Z\alpha ))\}+\frac{(Z\alpha )^4m}{48}m\left(\frac{m_R}{m}\right)^2)\frac{g_e2}{2}$$

$$+\frac{\alpha ^2(Z\alpha )^6m}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{1}{(Z\alpha )^2}B_{62}+\frac{(Z\alpha )^5}{8\pi }m\left(\frac{m_R}{m}\right)^3\frac{m}{M}\left(\frac{7}{18}+(Z\alpha )\frac{\pi }{3}\right)\frac{(Z\alpha )^4}{96}m\left(\frac{m}{M}\right)^2.$$

The one-loop contribution due to the vacuum polarization ($`A_{60}^{(VP)}`$) was found for an arbitrary $`ns`$ state by Karshenboim and Ivanov and for an $`np_j`$ state by Manakov, Nekipelov and Feinstein. The self-energy term ($`G_n^{SE}(Z\alpha )`$) is mainly determined by a value of $`A_{60}^{(SE)}`$. The last was found by Pachucki for $`1s`$ and $`2s`$ and by Jentschura and Pachucki for $`2p`$. The result has to be found extrapolating numerical data calculated by Mohr and by Kim and Mohr for higher nuclear charge $`Z`$. It is simpler to extrapolate the data for the difference of Eq. (1) and for the $`p`$ state in comparison to extrapolation for the ground state. The leading two-loop logarithmic term was found by Karshenboim. Pachucki and Grotch found that the recoil term of the order $`(Z\alpha )^6m^2/M`$ for an $`ns`$ state is scaling by $`1/n^3`$ and so it cannot contribute to the difference. In case of the $`2p`$ states this correction was evaluated by Golosov, Yelkhovsky, Milstein and Khriplovich.

The theoretical progress mentioned for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$ and the $`2p`$ Lamb shift allows to obtain results in Table 2 with pretty small theoretical uncertainty. The QED results for $`4p`$ states are also needed for the evaluation of some experimental data. The value of $`A_{60}^{(SE)}`$ was found by Jentschura, Mohr and Soff and the recoil effects were investigated by Yelkhovsky and Pachucki independently. That is, however, only a not significant part of the QED calculations which have to be done on a way to reach a value of the proton radius from hydrogen atom spectroscopy. It is necessary to calculate the Lamb shift of the $`2s`$ state (as we can see from the discussion above the significant part of the QED theory of $`1s`$ and $`2s`$ states is the same and we speak here about the ground state).

The expression for the ground state Lamb shift is much more complicated. The term most important for the further discussion is of the well known form

$$\delta E_{nucl}(ns)=\frac{2}{3}\frac{(Z\alpha )^4m_R}{n^3}m_R^2R_p^2.$$
(3)
That includes the proton charge radius and subtracting the QED result (Eq. (3) excl.) from the experimental value we can determine the proton charge radius. A detailed review of the ground state Lamb shift was presented by Pachucki et al. . Here we mention some important features. The most recent corrections considered there are the one-loop self-energy (Pachucki; Mohr), the two-loop contribution of the order $`\alpha ^2(Z\alpha )^5m`$ (Pachucki and Eides, Grotch and Shelyuto), the leading two-loop logarithm of a higher order (Karshenboim), a pure recoil term (Fell et al.; Grotch and Pachucki and Shabaev and coworkers) and the radiative-recoil correction (Bhatt and Grotch contradicting to Pachucki).

We mainly agree with a consideration in review . However, our result is shifted by -3.6 kHz because the $`\alpha ^2(Z\alpha )^6m\mathrm{log}^3Z\alpha `$-correction has not been included there. We would also like to present here all sources of the theoretical uncertainty for the Lamb splitting $`𝒮`$:

* unknown $`\alpha (Z\alpha )^7m`$ and higher order one-loop corrections are estimated to 1 kHz;
* $`\alpha ^2(Z\alpha )^6m\mathrm{log}^2Z\alpha `$ and higher order two-loop terms can give up to 2 kHz;
* the three-loop $`\alpha ^3(Z\alpha )^5m`$ contribution is here estimated preliminary to 2 kHz and needs more understanding.

The one-loop term is going to be calculated exactly and so the uncertainty is being removed .

Now let us turn to the discussion of the scattering results. We start from simple estimates. The value extracted from elastic electron-proton scattering cross sections is the electric form factor of the proton $`G(q^2)`$. We need to investigate it at low momentum transfer where the ‘signal’ which is $`G1`$ is mainly determined by the radius term ($`(q^2R_p^2)/6`$). The $`G1`$ term lies at the condition of experiment in Ref.  between 1% and 15% (see Fig. 2). The scattering radius in Table 1 is claimed  to be with uncertainty within about 1%. That means that all shifts on the level of a few percents are important. We discussed in our review  some QED corrections to the cross section which are expected to be on a few percent level and which are beyond evaluation of Ref. . In this paper we concentrate our attention to more important problem. That is due to the normalization of the data. It is clear that the value of the electric form factor at zero momentum transfer is equal to one

$$G_{th}(0)=1.$$

That is absolutely correct theoretically, but the form factor cannot be measured straightforwardly. It is possible to measure only some cross section. Evaluating the data one can extract form factor from the Rosenbluth formulae. On this way the extracted experimental value which is expected to be the form factor is only consistent with the true form factor within some uncertainty. As one of results the value of $`G_{exp}(0)`$ is consistent with one and it has to be found within some fitting procedure. In other words we have to write a trivial equation

$$G_{exp}(q^2)=a_0G_{th}(q^2),$$

where the value of $`a_0`$ is consistent with one, but not equal to that a priori. For application to the low momentum transfer electron-proton scattering  we can expect that $`a_0`$ is a constant (but it realy depends on experimental setup).

In both Mainz papers  some special a priori prescriptions for $`a_0`$ were used. The problem of normalization was investigated by Wong  prior to publication of the dispersion paper . He found that the result strongly depends on an assumption on the value of the constant $`a_0`$. The correct value of the radius corresponds to the free normalization (i. e. $`a_0`$ is one of the fitting parameters). The constant

$$a_0=1.0028(22)$$

found from the Mainz scattering data  a posteriori  (see Fig. 3) is consistent with one (the prescription of Ref.  is $`a_0=1`$) and with the value of $`a_0=1.0014`$ prescripted in Ref. . However, on this way the uncertainty of the proton radius is significantly larger than in both Mainz papers  (see Ref.  for more details).

We have discussed all items of Table 1 and we present now some conclusions. The scattering value has an uncertainty of about 0.24 fm. We cannot present here any eventual figure because Wong performed his evaluation with the most important part of data but not with all of them. Not all corrections to the data were included. The result should be close to the Wong value (0.877(24) fm) but it needs more analysis. However data are quite old and practically it is not possible to reevaluate them. Hopefully, a new measurement in Mainz is going to be done. The Lamb shift examination can give a better value. We have to mention that the experiment claimed as the most accurate one (uncertainty is 2 kHz) is under some criticism and the average value of all other measurements gives now some larger uncertainty (about 3 kHz). The uncertainty for the proton radius extracted is 0.15 fm (the equal portions arise from the ground state Lamb shift QED theory and from the optical experiments). We also would not like to give any value because it is a running value now: some data are still coming. The most precise value which is included into our analysis is due to the Garching and Paris absolute measurements. Some parts of the Paris data are changing now due to recalibration of the standards . The preliminary value from the Lamb shift is in fair agreement with the Wong value but with twice larger accuracy.

The situation now, when the uncertainties from spectroscopy measurement, QED calculation and the scattering data are on the same level is quite challenging and we believe that new results are coming in all these fields. Recently a new wave of activity projecting of a muonic hydrogen experiment for the Lamb shift has been arisen at the PSI and we also hope that will give one more value for the proton radius. We also would like to attract attention to the Lamb shift measurement in hydrogen-like system with a moderate value of the nuclear charge $`Z520`$. It seems it is necessary to encourage such investigations because they can lead to experimental estimation of the higher order QED terms. That is to be helpful for the hydrogen Lamb shift theory.

This work was supported in part by the Russian state program of Fundamental metrology. We would like to thank T. W. Hänsch and the whole hydrogen team of the MPQ for the support, hospitality and stimulating discussions.


text:
# Critical Behavior of a Three-State Potts Model on a Voronoi Lattice

## 1 Introduction

The randomness in the lattice of statistical spin models has been studied in order to access the effect of impurities and dilutions over their critical behavior. It was conjectured by Harris Har1974  that the sign of the critical exponent of the specific heat, $`\alpha `$, determines whether the system is affected or not by such a randomness. For positive values of $`\alpha `$, the impure system should have a critical behavior different from the one of the pure system. For negative values of $`\alpha `$, on the other hand, the critical behavior of the system should be the same for both cases. In the marginal case of $`\alpha =0`$, one should not be able to draw any conclusion about changes in the system.

The pure ferromagnetic three-state Potts model has $`\alpha =1/3`$, hence, from the Harris criterium we expect to find a different behavior with a random interaction system. However, Picco Picco  used this model with two types of interactions ($`J_0=1`$ and $`J_1=1/10`$) randomly and equally distributed ($`p=0.5`$) and did not find significant differences from the pure case. In another study Jae-Kown , a quenched random interaction between nearest neighbors has been introduced, where the coupling factor $`J_{ij}`$ for each pair $`i,j`$ is selected from two positive values $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$ with respective probabilities equal to $`p`$ and $`1p`$. It was found that the exponent $`\eta (=2\gamma /\nu )`$ does not depend on the disorder length, while $`\nu `$ and $`\gamma `$ vary continuously with this type of disorder, satisfying the concept of weak universality proposed by Suzuki Suzuki . The finite size scaling behavior of the Potts model with three and four states on regular square lattice has been studied by Kim and Landau Kim1998 , where they found that for $`q=4`$ the multiplicative logarithmic correction is insufficient to correct the dominant terms.

In the present work, we investigate the effect of quenched disorder on the three-state Potts model using a two dimensional Voronoi-Delaunay network. This kind of disordered lattice exhibits a random coordination number that varies from 3 to $`\mathrm{}`$, depending on the number of sites. In addition, the distance $`r`$ between nearest neighbors changes randomly from site to site. This geometrical feature is incorporated in our model by using a coupling parameter that is an exponential function of $`r`$, $`J(r)\mathrm{exp}(ar)`$, with $`a>0`$. In a previous work, we observed that the two-dimensional ferromagnetic Ising model with the same coupling mechanism and the same lattice displays critical behaviors for $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\nu `$ that are independent of the value of $`a`$ and are the same as those of the pure system Lima . Here we extend this analysis to the three-state ferromagnetic Potts model.

## 2 Model and Simulation

The Voronoi construction or tessellation for a given set of points is defined as follows. $`N`$ points are randomly placed in a square with side lengths equal to $`N^{1/2}`$. Then, for each point we determine the polygonal cell consisting of the region closer to this point than to any other. The points whose cells share an edge are considered neighbors. The dual lattice (Delaunay’s) is composed by the vertices of these polygons. The lattice obtained by linking the neighbor sites is the Voronoi network.

The Hamiltonian for the three-state ferromagnetic Potts model is given by

$$KH=\underset{<i,j>}{}J_{ij}\delta (\sigma _i\sigma _j),$$

where $`K=1/k_BT`$, $`T`$ is the temperature, $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant and $`\delta `$ is the Dirac’s delta. The summation is performed over all pair of neighbors in the Voronoi’s network and the spins can take values in the set $`\{1,2,3\}`$. We assume that

$$J_{ij}=J(r_ir_j)=J_0\mathrm{exp}(a|r_ir_j|),$$

where $`J_0`$ is a dimensionless and positive interaction factor, $`r_i`$ and $`r_j`$ are the position vectors of the sites $`i`$ and $`j`$, respectively, and $`a0`$ is a model parameter.

For each grid size, we use the single-cluster algorithm Wolf  to simulate the system in the vicinity of the phase transition, i.e., with $`K=K_{C_{\text{max}}}`$, to determine the system finite size behavior.

The value of $`K_{C_{\text{max}}}`$ is determined in the following way. We find the first estimate $`K_0`$ as the point of maximum specific heat obtained in the curve (specific heat against $`K`$) constructed by simulations with $`K`$ varying. The value of $`K_0`$ is used to perform from $`R=10`$ to $`20`$ independent simulations with $`10^6`$ MC steps each, from which, using the single histogram algorithm Ferrenberg , we construct a series of curves of $`C`$ against $`K`$. We then average over all of these curves in order to find the specific heat curve as

$$C(K)=(1/R)\underset{i=1}{\overset{R}{}}C^{(i)}(K),$$
(1)
where $`C^{(i)}(K)=K^2N(<e^2>_K<e>_K^2)`$ is computed using the single-histogram with the results of simulation $`i`$. Finally, we obtain, from the average curve, the maximum value of the specific heat, $`C_{\text{max}}`$, and its abscissa $`K_{C_{\text{max}}}`$.

In order to estimate the ratios $`\beta /\nu `$ and $`\gamma /\nu `$, we use the fact that the magnetization at the inflection point and the susceptibility should scale, respectively, as

$$|<M>|_{\text{inf}}=L^{\beta /\nu }f(tL^{1/\nu })L^{\beta /\nu },$$
(2)
$$\chi _{\text{max}}(L)=\chi (K_{C_{\text{max}}}(L),L)=AL^{\gamma /\nu },$$
(3)
and that

$$\left|\frac{d}{dK}<|M|>\right|_{\text{max}}=L^{\beta /\nu +1/\nu }f^{}(tL^{1/\nu })L^{(1\beta )/\nu }.$$
(4)
Hence, the logarithmic derivatives should scale as

$$\left|\frac{d}{dK}\text{ln}<|M|>\right|_{\text{max}}=\left|\frac{1}{|M|}\frac{d}{dK}<|M|>\right|_{\text{max}}L^{1/\nu },$$
(5)
and

$$\left|\frac{d}{dK}\text{ln}<|M^2|>\right|_{\text{max}}=\left|\frac{1}{|M^2|}\frac{d}{dK}<|M^2|>\right|_{\text{max}}L^{1/\nu },$$
(6)
and so we can get a good estimate of $`\nu `$ from their scaling behavior. Finally, from finite size scaling arguments we can also predict that the specific heat should scale as

$$C_{\text{max}}(L)=B_0+B_1\text{ln}L.$$
(7)
## 3 Results and Conclusions

We study the critical behavior of the Potts model for three values of $`a`$ ($`a=0.0,0.5`$ and $`1.0`$). For each value of $`a`$, we apply the finite size scaling technique Fisher  together with the single-histogram algorithm. We perform the same procedure for systems with different number of sites $`N=250`$, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, and 8000. The critical temperature for infinite size system is estimated by using the fourth-order magnetization (Binder) cumulant and we find the critical values $`K_C=0.607`$, $`1.035`$ and $`1.959`$ and $`U^{}=0.606`$, $`0.615`$ and $`0.623`$, corresponding to $`a=0.0`$, $`0.5`$ and $`1.0`$, respectively.

In Fig. 1 we show a log-log plot of $`M`$ against $`L`$($`=N^{1/2}`$) for $`a=0.0`$, $`0.5`$ and $`1.0`$. By linear fitting each of these plots and using Eq. (2), we obtain $`\beta /\nu =0.133`$, $`0.118`$ and $`0.106`$, respectively. The errors in these measurements are in order of ten percent, which is true also for the plots of the other figures. This is a consequence of the small range of the system size.

In Fig. 2 we show the plot of $`\chi _M`$ against $`L`$ also in logarithmic scale, from which we obtain the values of the exponent $`\gamma /\nu =1.764`$, $`1.751`$ and $`1.754`$ for $`a=0.0`$, $`0.5`$ and $`1.0`$, respectively. As in Jae-Kown , we observe that both $`\gamma `$ and $`\nu `$ vary with $`a`$ while the ratio $`\gamma /\nu `$ remains essentially the same.

Figures 3 and 4 show the plots of the logarithmic derivatives (5) and (6) against $`\text{ln}L`$. The slopes of the curves produce the estimates for $`1/\nu `$, from which we get the values $`\nu _1=0.840`$, $`0.934`$ and $`1.060`$ and $`\nu _2=0.841`$, $`0.934`$ and $`1.061`$ for $`a=0.0`$, $`0.5`$ and $`1.0`$ respectively.

In Fig. 5 we show the plots of $`C_{\text{max}}`$ versus $`\text{ln}L`$ for values of $`a=0.0`$, $`0.5`$ and $`1.0`$. We observe that the curves for $`a=0.5`$ and $`a=1.0`$ can be well fitted by a straight line while the curve for $`a=0.0`$ can not. The least-squares fits to data give the estimates $`B_0=0.818`$ and $`0.956`$ and $`B_1=1.464`$ and $`0.506`$ for $`a=0.5`$ and $`1.0`$ respectively. Figure 5 also contains the exponential fittings of $`C_{\text{max}}`$ versus $`L`$. From this figure, we can conjecture that, in the case of $`a=0.0`$, the specific heat behaves like a power-law of $`L`$. In order to provide a quantitative support for this argument, we present in Table 1 the sum of the square errors obtained by the linear regressions (first row) and by the exponential fittings (second row) of $`C_{\text{max}}\times \text{ln}L`$.

Table 2 contains our numerical results in a condensed form. From the analysis of this data, we conclude that the randomness, which is introduced here through the geometry of the Voronoi-Delaunay lattice, changes the critical behavior of the system. This can be clearly observed by the change in the values of $`\gamma `$ and $`\nu `$. The value of $`\beta `$ is not affected by the randomness. The analysis of the behavior of the exponent $`\alpha `$ is not conclusive since it is difficult, due to the limited number of data points, to distinguish the trend (power-law or logarithmic) in the curve of $`C_{\text{max}}`$ versus $`L`$. As already mentioned, the fittings shown in Fig. 5 provide some indication that the specific heat is a power-law of $`L`$ for $`a=0.0`$, and varies as a linear function of $`\text{ln}L`$ for $`a=0.5`$ and $`1.0`$. This conjecture needs to be checked, however, for values of $`L>8000`$.

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by CNPq and Funcap (Brazilian agencies).

Figure Captions

Fig. 1 – Logarithmic plots of magnetization ($`\text{ln}(M)`$) versus $`\text{ln}(L)`$ for $`a=0.0`$ (circles), $`0.5`$ (squares) and $`1.0`$ (diamonds).

Fig. 2 – Logarithmic plots of susceptibility ($`\text{ln}(\chi )`$) versus $`\text{ln}(L)`$ for $`a=0.0`$ (circles), $`0.5`$ (squares) and $`1.0`$ (diamonds).

Fig. 3 – Plots of $`\text{ln}\left(\right|\frac{d}{dK}\text{ln}<|M>|_{\text{max}})`$ versus $`\text{ln}(L)`$ for $`a=0.0`$ (circles), $`0.5`$ (squares) and $`1.0`$ (diamonds).

Fig. 4 – Plots of $`\text{ln}\left(\left|\frac{d}{dK}\text{ln}<|M^2|>\right|_{\text{max}}\right)`$ versus $`\text{ln}(L)`$ for $`a=0.0`$ (circles), $`0.5`$ (squares) and $`1.0`$ (diamonds).

Fig. 5 – Plots of $`C_{\text{max}}`$ versus $`\text{ln}(L)`$ for $`a=0`$ (circles), $`0.5`$ (squares) and $`1.0`$ (diamonds). Also shown are the linear (solid lines) and exponential (dashed-lines) fittings to the data.