the key principle governing the onset of superconductivity is the spontaneous breaking of the u(1 ) gauge symmetry via a non - zero vacuum expectation value of a charged field @xcite .
an immediate consequence of this is the generation of a photon mass and , for type ii superconductors , the formation of vortices which confine magnetic flux to narrow tubes as revealed by the ginzburg - landau theory@xcite .
lattice studies of dual superconductivity in su(n ) gauge theories seek to exploit this connection in establishing the underlying principle governing color confinement .    on a four dimensional lattice , the effective euclidean lattice higgs theory is the appropriate generalization of the ginzburg - landau theory .
the higgs field is a 0-form living on the sites and the gauge field is a 1-form living on the links .
classical solutions to this theory exhibit the connection between the non - zero vacuum expectation value of the higgs field and vortex formation .    in u(1 ) lattice
pure gauge theory ( no higgs field ) , this same connection is seen to be present , not in the defining variables , but rather in the dual variables . more specifically :    1 .
a field with non - zero magnetic monopole charge , @xmath0 , has been constructed@xcite .
it is a composite 4-form living on hypercubes constructed from gauge fields .
there are also monopole current 3-forms .
+ on the dual lattice this monopole operator is a 0-form living on dual sites . the monopole currents are 1-forms living on dual links .
these currents either form closed loops or end at monopole operators .
+ the monopole operator has a non - zero vacuum expectation value in the dual superconducting phase , @xmath1 , thereby signaling the spontaneous breaking of the u(1 ) gauge symmetry .
dual abrikosov vortices have been seen in simulations@xcite .
they are identified by the signature relationship between the electric field and the curl of the monopole current in the transverse profile of the vortex . the dual coherence length , @xmath2 measures the characteristic distance from a dual - normal - superconducting boundary over which the dual - superconductivity turns on . the dual london penetration length , @xmath3 measures the attenuation length of an external field penetrating the dual - superconductor . the dual photon mass @xmath4 and the dual higgs mass @xmath5 .
a signal @xmath1 without the consequent signal of a dual photon mass does not imply confinement .
an observation of a dual photon mass , i.e. vortex formation , without @xmath1 does not reveal the underlying principle governing the phenomenon .
the lattice higgs theory , treated as an effective theory , i.e. limited to classical solutions , and considered in the dual sense , provides a model for interpreting simulations of the pure gauge theory that can reveal these important connections .
the link of these considerations to confinement in non - abelian gauge theory is through the abelian projection@xcite .
one first fixes the gauge while preserving u(1 ) gauge invariance .
the non - abelian gauge fields can be parametrized in terms of a u(1 ) gauge field and charged coset fields .
the working hypothesis is that operators constructed from the u(1 ) gauge field alone , i.e. abelian plaquettes , abelian wilson loops , abelian polyakov lines and monopole currents , will exhibit the correct large distance correlations relevant for confinement .
but there is as yet no definitive way to choose the gauge which defines the abelian projection and hence no unique way to define abelian links and coset fields from the su(2 ) links .
we are seeking a judicious choice of dynamical variables  defined by a particular abelian projection  which can account for confinement via an effective theory involving these dynamical variables .
this should be our first goal .
if this is solved satisfactorily , then we can investigate how the picture changes if we go to an alternative set of variables  a different abelian projection  since the phenomenon we are describing is of course gauge invariant .
we do not expect that the same mechanism would describe confinement in two different abelian projections .
there is a very nice illustration of this point in a paper by chernodub , polikarpov and veselov@xcite .
they compare two abelian projections .    *
the first is the maximal abelian gauge@xcite which is the most widely studied and perhaps the most promising candidate .
monopoles are the magnetic charge carriers of the persistent currents . * second they exhibit an abelian projection in which confinement is due to objects other than monopoles .
they choose the `` minimal abelian projection '' and show that confinement is due to topological objects which are denoted `` minopoles '' .    here
we have two projections , two sets of dynamical variables , and two different descriptions of confinement , both viable candidate mechanisms .
our goal in this paper is to test the connection between vortex formation and a non - zero vacuum expectation of the monopole field in the same abelian projection .
there is an intimate connection between these two results in a higgs theory and hence it is a strong test of the idea for the dual theory .
the two obvious candidate projections are the polyakov gauge and the maximal abelian gauge .
polyakov gauge : : :    del debbio , di giacomo , paffuti and pieri@xcite have constructed a    monopole field operator that shows a very strong signal with a sharp    discontinuity in the vacuum expectation value of the monopole operator    as a function of temperature in the neighborhood of @xmath6 ,    the deconfining temperature .
their calculation is manifestly gauge    invariant but a polyakov line was used in the definition the monopole    operator . in this sense
we associate their calculation with the    polyakov gauge as we will explain further below .
we look at vortex    formation in the present paper .
maximal abelian gauge : : :    the vortices are well established@xcite .
the static potential constructed from abelian links gives as    definitive a signal of confinement as the gauge invariant static    potential as found by suzuki et.al.@xcite , stack et.al .
* ;    * ? ? ?
* ) and bali et .
bali et.al .
find the abelian string    tension calculation gives @xmath7 times the full string    tension for @xmath8 .
whether this approaches    @xmath9 in the continuum limit remains to be seen .
+    the calculation of del debbio et.al@xcite of the monopole field    operator as a practical matter is not adaptable to this gauge .
it    would require hundreds of gauge fixing sweeps of the whole lattice in    order to accept or reject a single link update .
chernodub , polikarpov    and veselov@xcite have more recently calculated the constraint    effective potential as a function of the monopole field in this gauge    and found a symmetry breaking minimum .
however they reported a problem    of obtaining statistics and instead calculated an approximation to the    effective potential .
in this paper we seek to establish vortex formation in the polyakov gauge .
more recently nakamura et al .
@xcite studied an alternative monopole operator defined in terms of the variables which occur in the monopole form of the action .
we have not yet addressed the issue of establishing vortex formation in that framework .
we point out some technical difficulties in implementing the polyakov abelian projection .
we use abelian polyakov lines to represent static sources .
however they have an anomalous behavior which we discuss in sec.iv .
after an appropriate modification of the sources we find vortices .
however they are suppressed relative to the analogous calculation in the maximal abelian gauge .
our conclusion is that the polyakov abelian projection is not likely to give a quantitative description of confinement within the the confines of this particular scenario .
the fact that there are vortices in conjunction with a non zero vacuum expectation value of a monopole operator confirms the connection we sought .
however that is not enough to get agreement between the string tensions as this calculation shows .
the charged coset fields are thought not to contribute to long range physics , but they are capable of partially screening the sources .
this consideration does not arise in the u(1 ) theory because there is no charged dynamical field and this effect appears to be minimized in the maximal abelian gauge .
we conclude in this paper that the screening due to these charged fields is quite large , and that is why the vortices are suppressed .
the signal of this suppression can be seen most easily in measurements of @xmath10@xmath11 . measuring this on a site coincident with the static source shows a very large attenuation in the polyakov projection compared to the maximal abelian projection .
a recent measurement of a gauge invariant definition of @xmath10@xmath11 by skala et .
al.@xcite for su(3 ) which uses the polyakov line to define the adjoint field exhibited no screening .    to unify the discussion of various choices of the abelian projection in sec .
ii we stress the introduction of a composite field @xmath12 constructed from the the gauge configuration @xmath13 . in sec .
[ sec:3 ] we review the gauge invariant definition of field strength in order to connect our calculation to the monopole operator calculation of del debbio et.al.@xcite in sec .  [ sec:4 ] we confront problems with the polyakov gauge as mentioned above .
we must represent static sources with polyakov lines in order to study the theory at finite temperature .
there is an inherent ambiguity on the lattice of ordering the eigenvalues of a diagonalized matrix at each site .
the anomalous behavior is intimately connected with this freedom .
we do not find a completely satisfactory solution , nevertheless we are led to an acceptable definition of sources . in sec .
[ sec:5 ] we present the results of our simulation .
the abelian projection requires a gauge condition that breaks the su(2 ) gauge invariance but preserves u(1 ) gauge invariance .
this can be accomplished through the following two - step construction :    1 .   consider a path ordered product of links , i.e. a wilson line , which begins and ends at a particular site @xmath14 .
this defines an su(2 ) group element , @xmath15 , e.g. , an open plaquette or polyakov line at the site @xmath14 ( no final trace at @xmath14 ) .
this in turn defines a composite field , @xmath16 . @xmath17 . \label{e2.1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] this composite field transforms under the adjoint representation of su(2 ) , @xmath18 we require two further generalizations to cover the adjoint field definitions used in this paper .
( i ) in the su(2 ) fundamental representation , a sum of group elements is , up to a normalization , also a group element .
hence we can also construct an adjoint field from a sum of the above defined wilson lines .
( ii ) further , the gauge invariant path ordered products of links can include the adjoint field itself , @xmath19 , at sites along the path .
this leads to a self consistent definition of an adjoint field as , e.g. , the case of the maximal abelian gauge .
2 .   after constructing @xmath16
, we then perform a gauge transformation at each @xmath14 that fixes the adjoint field @xmath20 in the @xmath21 direction @xmath22 this gauge fixing construction is invariant under subsequent u(1 ) gauge transformations which rotate in the @xmath23 plane , leaving the @xmath21 direction invariant .
the ambiguity of rotating @xmath24 into the @xmath25 or @xmath26 @xmath21-direction is equivalent to the choice of ordering the eigenvalues of @xmath27 .
there are @xmath28 variants on gauge fixing corresponding to choosing @xmath29 or @xmath30 in the 3-direction at each of the n sites .
we address this issue in sec .
the polyakov gauge is defined by the above construction in which @xmath15 is taken to be an open polyakov line , @xmath31 beginning and ending at @xmath14 .
@xmath32 . \label{e2.1a}\end{aligned}\ ] ] in section iv we argue there that we should choose @xmath33 at all sites , or equivalently @xmath34 at all sites .
the maximal abelian gauge@xcite is conventionally defined as a configuration , @xmath13 , which maximizes @xmath35 $ ] , @xmath36 = \sum_{x , \mu }   \frac{1}{2}tr\biggl[\sigma_3 u_{\mu}(x)\sigma_3   u_{\mu}^{\dagger}(x)\biggr ] , \label{e2.16}\end{aligned}\ ] ] over the set of gauge equivalent configurations @xmath13
. the continuum limit of this condition is @xmath37 = 0.\end{aligned}\ ] ] we wish to cast this into the language of the composite adjoint field . to do this
let us consider a gauge fixing sweep in which we propose a gauge transformation on the links @xmath38 to test for an increase in @xmath39 .
then @xmath39 becomes @xmath40 & = & \sum_{x , \mu }   \frac{1}{2}tr\biggl[\sigma_3 u_{\mu}'(x)\sigma_3   u_{\mu}'^{\dagger}(x)\biggr ] , \nonumber \\   & = & \sum_{x , \mu }   \frac{1}{2}tr\biggl[\sigma_3 \biggl(g(x ) u_{\mu}(x ) g^{\dagger}(x + \mu ) \biggr)\sigma_3
\biggl(g(x + \mu ) u_{\mu}^{\dagger}(x ) g^{\dagger}(x ) \biggl)\biggr ] , \nonumber \\   & = & \sum_{x , \mu }   \frac{1}{2}tr\biggl[\biggl(g^{\dagger}(x)\sigma_3 g(x)\biggr )   u_{\mu}(x ) \biggl(g^{\dagger}(x + \mu ) \sigma_3   g(x + \mu)\biggr ) u_{\mu}^{\dagger}(x )   \biggr ] .
\label{e2.16a}\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence a proposed gauge transformation of @xmath41 is equivalent to proposing a change in the component of @xmath42 from @xmath43 at each site to @xmath44 , while leaving @xmath41 unchanged .    let us reformulate this procedure slightly by defining a gauge invariant quantity @xmath45 similar to @xmath39 but in which @xmath43 is promoted to a variable @xmath44 transforming as eqn.([2.101 ] ) .
@xmath46 = \sum_{x , \mu }   \frac{1}{2}tr\biggl[\phi(x)u_{\mu}(x)\phi(x+\mu ) u_{\mu}^{\dagger}(x)\biggr ] .
\label{e2.15}\end{aligned}\ ] ] we search for the maximum by proposing @xmath47 , while holding @xmath13 constant , to test for an increase in @xmath45 .    having found the maximum , if we then perform a guage transformation on both @xmath48 and @xmath41 , which rotates @xmath49 , or @xmath34 for all @xmath14 , then @xmath50 . but
@xmath45 is gauge invariant by construction and hence in this last step , the value of @xmath45 does not change , and the transformed links are the solution to the maximization problem , eqn.([e2.16 ] ) .
this construction divides the maximal abelian gauge fixing procedure into two logically independent steps described above , unifying maximal abelian gauge fixing with other gauge fixing schemes .
in order to find the set @xmath51 corresponding to the maximum of @xmath45 , consider variations of @xmath52 about the stationary point under an infinitesimal transformation of @xmath16 , while leaving @xmath13
constant : @xmath53 the condition that @xmath45 is stationary under these variations is @xmath54 \phi(x)\biggr ) = 0 ,   \;\;\;\ ; \forall x , \label{e2.18}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath55 is defined @xmath56 the notation @xmath57 means that the quantity is parallel transported to the point @xmath14 as indicated in fig .
the sum is over the nearest neighbor sites to the point @xmath14 .
writing @xmath58 , the stationary condition , eqn .
( [ e2.18 ] ) , gives : @xmath59 since @xmath60 is arbitrary , @xmath12 must be either parallel or antiparallel to @xmath61 at each site .
therefore @xmath62 where @xmath63 .
let us now examine the second derivatives of @xmath52 about the stationary point .
define @xmath64 - { \cal s}[\phi(x ) ] .
\label{e5.25}\end{aligned}\ ] ] then , using the stationary condition , eqn .
( [ e2.2 ] ) , and keeping second order terms @xmath65 . \label{e5.3}\end{aligned}\ ] ] this can be cast into the form @xmath66 this shows that the second derivative with respect to the variables @xmath67 is @xmath68 a negative number . if we choose @xmath69 for all @xmath14 , then @xmath45 is a local maximum under these infinitesimal variations .
this defines the composite adjoint field @xmath70 , i.e. step ( 1 ) in the process .    in step ( 2 )
we perform a gauge transformation which takes @xmath71 into the 3-direction .
if we choose a gauge transformation that brings @xmath72 at all sites , then @xmath45 is cast into the form @xmath39 .
this is the transformation to the the maximal abelian gauge , and justifies our notation : @xmath70 .
equivalently , we can take @xmath73 at all sites and reach the same conclusion .
consider a solution corresponding to @xmath74 .
if we then set @xmath75 at one site , @xmath76 , and search anew for a solution , we will then obtain one in which @xmath77 is given by the normalized average of @xmath77 at the neighboring sites , parallel transported to @xmath14 , except that @xmath78 is antiparallel to the average of its neighbors .
equation([e5.4 ] ) , shows that the new solution is no longer a local maximum of @xmath45 and hence it is not associated with the maximal abelian gauge .
we will return to this issue in a discussion of the minimal abelian gauge in sec .
iv .    in order to find a stationary solution one can start with an arbitrary configuration @xmath51 and then iterate . to update the site @xmath14 ,
one calculates @xmath79 , eqn.([e2.19 ] ) , based on the current neighboring @xmath48 s . then set @xmath80_{normalized }     \;\ ; \rightarrow   \;\ ; \widehat{\phi}(x),\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath81 is the over - relaxation parameter .
for @xmath82 we go directly to the stationary point for that site based on the current values of the neighboring @xmath77 s .
however by employing over - relaxation with @xmath83 , the overall search rate for a self consistent solution is greatly enhanced .
we tune this parameter to optimize performance .
this procedure requires an iterative search for a solution but it does not require iterative gauge transformations .
after finding a solution , a single gauge transformation brings the gauge field into the maximal abelian gauge .
this method of obtaining the maximal abelian gauge involves fewer multiplications than directly maximizing @xmath39 through gauge transformations and hence is a little faster .
the maximal abelian gauge condition has multiple solutions , known as gribov copies@xcite for a given field configuration .
the particular solution depends on the initial configuration and on the update algorithm .
however bali et .
al.@xcite have studied these multiple solutions and have offered an algorithm that limits this ambiguity .
this gribov ambiguity does not seem to have a large effect on the measured values of abelian projected observables . in our discussion of the maximal abelian gauge
, we should understand that the above procedure is very unlikely to find the global maximum since there is no direct procedure to achieve that .
hence it must be understood that in general we are only at a local maximum , not the global maximum , of @xmath39 .
the lattice georgi - glashow model@xcite has an elementary adjoint higgs field living on the sites coupled to the gauge field living on the links .
this allows one to define a gauge invariant field strength .
the lattice definition of this is given in fig .
this is the construction used to identify the ordinary magnetic field due to monopoles in non - abelian gauge theory@xcite .
the classical continuum limit of these operators gives : @xmath84 \biggr)\biggr ] \nonumber\\   & & + \frac{1}{2 } a^2 tr\biggl[\phi   \biggl(\partial_{\mu } \phi - ig[a_{\mu},\phi]\biggr )   \biggl(\partial_{\nu } \phi - ig[a_{\nu},\phi]\biggr)\biggr ] , \label{e3.1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath85 is defined @xmath86 , @xmath87 is the lattice spacing and @xmath88 is the gauge coupling .
this manifestly gauge invariant form can be cast into the alternative form : @xmath89 , \label{e3.2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we have used @xmath90 , ( @xmath91 ) , and @xmath92 .
we can implement a gauge transformation that brings @xmath93 for all @xmath14 .
then the last term of eqn .
( [ e3.2 ] ) vanishes .
the first term gives a conventional abelian field strength , @xmath94 whether @xmath77 denotes an elementary higgs field , or a composite adjoint field as we discussed in sec .
ii , this definition of field strength , eqn .
( [ e3.1 ] ) , is a manifestly gauge invariant quantity .
however this is perhaps misleading in the composite adjoint field case because the definition of the field is identified with a specific gauge choice .
del debbio et al .
@xcite employed @xmath95 in defining the abelian field strength . this
was needed in order to construct the monopole field operator .
the vacuum expectation value of this field gave a very clear signal for dual superconductivity .
although their construction is manifestly gauge invariant , it is identified with the polyakov gauge in the sense of this section .
it is this connection that prompted us to study vortex formation in the polyakov gauge to probe the connection between vortices and a non - zero vacuum expectation value .
the abelian projection consists of ( i ) choosing a gauge that preserves a u(1 ) gauge invariance , and ( ii ) identifying abelian links associated with that residual invariance@xcite . in sec .
ii we discussed the first step of choosing the gauge except for the ambiguity of transforming @xmath77 into the @xmath96 or @xmath97-direction at each site .
we will argue here that the @xmath98-direction is the preferred choice for all sites or @xmath97 for all sites .
however this leads to an unsettling result for the polyakov gauge as we point out in part b below .
hence we are led to examine the issue more broadly to check out alternatives in the following parts of this section .
there are @xmath99 choices , where @xmath100 is the number of sites .
the choice of rotating @xmath77 into the + 3-direction at every site is the prescription one would anticipate in order to get a smooth classical limit in which the changes in the gauge field are small between one site and its neighbors .
but we feel alternatives should be presented for the record .
the reader can skip to part h , the conclusion for this section , without losing continuity .
we have summarized the key results of this section in table  [ t1 ] .
for the purpose of defining abelian links , consider the parametrization@xcite : @xmath101 the abelian link is defined through the factorization of eqn .
( [ e4.1 ] ) @xmath102 where @xmath103 .
the abelian link is given by @xmath104 .
the complex coset field is given by @xmath105 . under a u(1 ) gauge transformation , @xmath106 @xmath107 the coset vector fields live on the sites and are doubly charged .
the ambiguity of rotating @xmath77 to the @xmath108 direction , @xmath109 , is the same as the ambiguity of ordering the eigenvalues of this @xmath110 diagonal matrix .
the order of the eigenvalues for a particular link can be interchanged via an su(2 ) gauge transformation @xmath111 at the two neighboring sites corresponding to the link in question .
translation invariance suggests that whatever rule we adopt for ordering the eigenvalues , we should use the same rule at every site .
let us choose @xmath113 , denoting this as the @xmath112 prescription .    in the polyakov gauge
if we choose @xmath114 at every site , then there is a difficulty .
the su(2 ) polyakov line , eqn .
( [ e2.1 ] ) , can be written @xmath115 .
\label{4.31}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the @xmath116 element of this is the u(1 ) polyakov line @xmath117 .
since @xmath118 is distributed in the domain @xmath119 $ ] the imaginary part of @xmath31 can not be negative . as a consequence
, the average of @xmath31 will have a non - zero imaginary part due to this kinematical effect .
this is anomalous .
polyakov lines represent static sources .
if we are to get the ` expected ' distribution in which @xmath120 is distributed symmetrically in the domain @xmath121 $ ] we would need a rule that allows the choice @xmath122 with a statistical weight equal to the @xmath114 case .
if we choose @xmath73 at all sites , we reach the same conclusion except that @xmath123 can not be positive .
we can examine the u(1 ) model for guidance .
we expect abelian projected su(2 ) to resemble the u(1 ) theory .
consider the limit in which the su(2 ) theory goes over to the u(1 ) theory
. in su(2 ) the links lie in the group manifold @xmath124 . in u(1 ) they lie in a submanifold @xmath125 .
consider adding a term to the action that is invariant under u(1 ) but which breaks su(2 ) .
further choose it to bias the links into a peaked distribution centered on @xmath125 .
then as the width of the peak approaches zero , the su(2 ) theory goes over to the u(1 ) theory . in u(1 ) , the polyakov line @xmath126 takes values for @xmath118 distributed in the domain @xmath121 $ ] .
positive and negative values of @xmath118 are equally probable .      to try to resolve the discrepancy between the u(1 ) theory and abelian projected su(2 ) in the @xmath112 prescription ,
let us consider a prescription in which we choose @xmath112 or @xmath26 depending on the value of @xmath12 .
for example , we can correlate the signs @xmath112 or @xmath26 with the sign of @xmath129_3 $ ] .
in other words , if @xmath12 is in the upper hemisphere then choose @xmath112 .
if it is in the lower hemisphere then choose @xmath26 .
we denote this the @xmath127 prescription .
the phase of the abelian polyakov line will now be distributed in the expected way , @xmath121 $ ] .
this is perhaps the prescription most closely associated with the limiting procedure in the previous section .
this prescription is equivalent to choosing @xmath112 or @xmath26 randomly .
the reason is that a gauge transformation can give an arbitrary orientation to @xmath77 .
if after each update , we follow it with a random gauge transformation , ( an update followed by a gauge transformation is indistinguishable from an update alone ) then the assignments of @xmath112 or @xmath26 at each site will be random .
the su(2 ) transformations do not respect the homotopy classes of u(1 ) .
we now apply the @xmath127 prescription to the abelian projection in the polyakov gauge and point out a flaw in this choice .
let @xmath130 denote the open polyakov line at site @xmath14 , and @xmath131 the open polyakov line at the neighboring site in the @xmath132 direction .
then @xmath133 where @xmath41 is the link in the @xmath134 direction connecting the two sites .
now go to the polyakov gauge .
suppose we choose @xmath114 at both sites .
then @xmath135 and the solution to eqn .
( [ e4.41 ] ) gives @xmath136 showing that the links in the @xmath134 direction are diagonal .
contrast this with the case in which we choose @xmath114 at one site and @xmath122 at the neighboring site .
then @xmath137 and the solution to eqn .
( [ e4.41 ] ) gives @xmath138 this second case does not give an acceptable abelian projection since the @xmath134 abelian link is undefined , i.e. the @xmath116 element of the link matrix is zero .
we can still define a @xmath127 prescription appropriately modified for the polyakov gauge in which the spatial sites have independent random @xmath127 choices , but that the choice is independent of the values of @xmath134 .
however this construction has a further problem .
consider the correlator shown in fig .
[ f2.5 ] . _
the correlation of the field strength with a product of two abelian polyakov lines representing a static quark - antiquark pair vanishes .
_ this correlation is given by @xmath139 the @xmath127 signs , arising from the prescription of a random gauge transformation , @xmath111 , have the effect of flipping the sign of the charge of the two sources .
with a statistical weight equal for each of the four signs , the field averages to zero .
the correlation also vanishes if one only considers random @xmath140 gauge transformation at the sites contiguous with the plaquette .
consider the parametrization of a link in eqn .
( [ e4.1 ] ) .
we adopt this parametrization for a link in which the @xmath112 prescription is applied at both ends .
the su(2 ) link and the corresponding abelian link are @xmath141 different prescriptions will change the su(2 ) links and accordingly the choice of the abelian angles . let @xmath142 be the gauge transformation changing the orientation of the adjoint field .
( this gauge transformation is defined up to a @xmath143 transformation . )
the link will transform according to one of the following cases : @xmath144 where the @xmath145 notation refers to the prescription at each end of the link .
after a random gauge transformation the @xmath146 of the abelian plaquette angle will assume one of the forms shown in fig .
we are working in the polyakov gauge hence there are only four possibilities since the adjoint field must be constant in @xmath134 .
all the above configurations have the same statistical weight and for each configuration there is always another configuration differing only by the sign .
hence the field strength in the presence of two sources vanishes in the @xmath127 prescription according to this argument also .
this argument generalizes to any wilson loop since the parametrization could apply to a wilson line instead of a single link .
further we can replace the polyakov line source by another wilson loop and then we obtain @xmath147 for the @xmath127 prescription if the two wilson loops do not share any spatial sites .      to get further support for the @xmath112 prescription consider the abelian projected theory in the polyakov gauge but instead of calculating the field strength from the abelian plaquette let us instead represent the field strength by the manifestly gauge invariant form , fig .
[ f2.0 ] .    in the polyakov gauge , @xmath12 is independent of @xmath134 and as a consequence , the second term in fig .
[ f2.0 ] vanishes .
consider a static source represented by an abelian polyakov line at point @xmath14 , and the field strength at point @xmath148 as shown in fig .
[ f3.0](a ) .
let us define variables for the ( open ) plaquette in fig .
[ f3.0](a ) by @xmath149 then the correlator is given by @xmath150 where the last equality is due to the choice of the polyakov gauge .
measuring the field strength with the abelian plaquette , fig .
[ f3.0](b ) , gives @xmath151 the field strength in eqn .
( [ e4.62 ] ) is manifestly gauge invariant , and therefore the prescription at the site @xmath148 has no bearing on the definition of the correlator . if we use the abelian plaquette , eqn .
( [ e4.63 ] ) , instead , then the value depends on the prescription .
however the @xmath112 prescription has the same classical limit for small lattice spacing @xmath87 as the classical limit of the gauge invariant form , eqn.([e3.3 ] ) .
this follows from the discussion in sec .
[ sec:4.d ] . in fig .
[ f2.6 ] in the cases in which the four points of the plaquette have the same prescription , the abelian plaquette has the standard classical limit . in the other cases , the plaquette involves angles arising from the off - diagonal elements of the su(2 ) link .    for completeness
we compare this to the connected definition of field strength at point @xmath148 as shown in fig .
[ f3.0](c ) . in our notation
the correlator is given by @xmath152 where @xmath153 means that the variables are parallel transported from @xmath14 to @xmath148 in the same sense as applied to eqn.([e2.19 ] ) .
we consider only lattices which allow an even - odd checkerboard assignment to the sites .
consider two solutions of eqn .
( [ e2.2 ] ) , corresponding to different values of @xmath154 .
@xmath155 for the case in which the lhs of eqn .
( [ e2.2 ] ) involves only odd ( even ) sites then the rhs involves only even ( odd ) sites , and vice versa .
hence @xmath156 in other words , the @xmath157 solution is identical to the @xmath158 solution except that it is flipped at the even ( odd ) sites .
this is in contrast to the example in sec .
iib where a change in @xmath154 led to a new solution which has no simple relation to the old solution .
we further note that each term in @xmath159 $ ] , eqn.([e2.15 ] ) , involves @xmath12 at an even site and @xmath12 at an odd site .
therefore the effect of the flipping is to change the sign of @xmath45 @xmath160 =          -{\cal s}[\widehat{\phi}_{ma } ]   \label{e4.641 } \end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath161 maximizes @xmath45 , it follows that @xmath162 minimizes @xmath45 .
this is corroborated by the stability analysis , eqn.([e5.4 ] ) .
the adjoint field @xmath162 defines the minimal abelian projection introduced by chernodub , polikarpov and veselov@xcite .
they showed that confinement is due to objects other than monopoles , which they denoted as minopoles .      the arguments in this
section lead us to adopt the @xmath112 prescription for abelian projected su(2 ) in the polyakov gauge .
this prescription is not completely satisfactory .
it does not go over smoothly to a u(1 ) theory as one might expect .
this is indicated by the behavior of the phase angle of the abelian projected polyakov line .
it is bounded artificially in the interval @xmath119 $ ] giving the expectation value of the polyakov line an anomalous imaginary part .
the adjoint field defined for the maximal abelian gauge is a construct that does relate directly to an observable in this sense and does not seem to cause a similar difficulty .
further we must rethink how to represent static sources .
the distribution of the abelian polyakov phase angle in the domain @xmath119 $ ] is weighted by the haar measure , @xmath163 which is peaked at @xmath164 .
this means , e.g. that the average of two polyakov lines @xmath165 will have a non - vanishing real part arising from the same kinematic effect .
our solution to this is to define the quark - antiquark source as the connected part of the product of the two polyakov loops , @xmath166
in this section we study the electric flux and the magnetic monopole current distributions around static sources in the polyakov gauge with the @xmath112 prescription and the definition of abelian static sources as in sec .
[ sec:4.g ] .
moreover we make a comparison between this projection and the maximal abelian projection in which the main properties of dual vortices have already been studied .
our simulations were performed on a @xmath167 lattice with the standard form of the wilson action .
the calculation follows the method given in @xcite .
we used two abelian polyakov lines correlated along the 3-direction as static sources in the finite temperature theory .
the longitudinal electric field between two charges separated by a distance @xmath168 in the 3-direction is given by : @xmath169 where @xmath170 is the angle of the abelian plaquette in the @xmath171 plane , @xmath172 is the angle of the product of the two abelian polyakov lines and @xmath173 is the electric charge .
magnetic monopole currents can be identified by the dual maxwell equations that in the continuum are : @xmath174 on the lattice one can choose @xcite : @xmath175 we measured the magnetic current distribution around static sources : @xmath176 where the curl of the magnetic current is constructed as in @xcite , and @xmath177 is the magnetic charge .
we made our simulations at @xmath178 and @xmath179 .
as we chose the temporal extent of the lattice equal to 4 , the first value of @xmath180 corresponds to the confined phase while the second corresponds to the unconfined phase .
the results for the polyakov gauge are shown in fig .
[ empoly ] for @xmath181 .
for @xmath178 we see a clear signal for both the electric field and the curl of the magnetic currents on the axis of the two charges . as we move in the transverse direction @xmath182
, we observe a rapid fall off of the electric field that always vanishes after a few lattice spacings and a behavior of the monopole current consistent with the predictions of the ginzburg - landau theory . as the distance @xmath168 of the static charges increases , the values of the electric field decreases as expected .    in the unconfined phase ( @xmath179 )
we see a remarkably different behavior of the curl of the magnetic currents that is much smaller than in the other phase and at @xmath183 is consistent with zero everywhere .
moreover the electric field approaches zero less rapidly although not clearly evident from the figure .
a similar scenario has been found for the maximal abelian gauge@xcite . in fig .
[ emmag ] we show the results in this gauge for the case @xmath183 .
we used the procedure described in sec .
[ sec:2 ] to define the abelian projection .
although both abelian projections produce results consistent with the ginzburg - landau theory , the dual superconductivity parameters are quite different for the two projections .
we are not able to perform a quantitative analysis in order to evaluate the coherence length @xmath2 and the london penetration length @xmath3 .
nevertheless while the data for the maximal abelian gauge support a non - vanishing value for the coherence length , there is no evidence for @xmath2 being different from zero in the polyakov gauge .    moreover
a comparison between the two different projections shows that in the polyakov gauge the peak values of the electric field and of the curl of the magnetic currents are more than an order of magnitude smaller than the correspondent values in the maximal abelian gauge .
suzuki et .
al.@xcite reported similarly that the string tension was suppressed in the polyakov gauge .    to understand these differences
we remember that after abelian projection we are left not only with the abelian links but also with the coset vector fields .
the dynamics of these doubly charged fields is clearly dependent on the choice of the abelian projection . to show the different role of the coset fields in the two projections , we measure the divergence of the electric field giving the spatial distribution of the electric charge .
the divergence at site @xmath14 is defined as @xmath184 so that all the six plaquettes have in common the link starting at @xmath14 and extending in the time direction . in fig .
[ gauss ] we show the results for two polyakov lines separated by three lattice spacings .
the figure clearly shows that the effective charge of the static source is much smaller in the polyakov gauge and that the coset fields in the two prescriptions respond in opposite ways to the presence of an electric charge with the fields in the polyakov gauge shielding the static charge .
skala et al .
have studied @xmath185 in su(3 ) in a gauge invariant formulation and conclude there is no screening @xcite .
using the u(1 ) theory as a guide , we explore the connection between ( i ) the non - vanishing of a vacuum expectation value of the monopole field and ( ii ) vortex formation . item ( i ) provides the underlying principle , item ( ii ) gives direct evidence of a photon mass and confinement . in the abelian projection of su(2 ) @xmath186 u(1 ) there is an additional consideration . after identifying the u(1 ) gauge field ,
there remain dynamical charged vector coset fields .
they can screen the static sources and change the electric flux , affecting the string tension .    from prior work
we know that , e.g. , the minimal abelian projection and the maximal abelian projection account for the physics of confinement through very different mechanisms .
we anticipated that the monopoles in the polyakov projection would give a picture very similar to the maximal abelian gauge .
however we found that the coset fields greatly suppress the static sources .
it could be that we are much farther from the continuum limit than we thought .
but that seems unlikely since other quantities are close to scaling values .
our definitions of field strength , monopoles , static sources etc . have some leeway , but all should give the same continuum limit .
or it could be that the dynamical variables arising from the polyakov abelian projection do not adequately separate the short distance and long distance physics .
this leaves the maximal abelian gauge as the prime candidate to define an effective theory of confinement in this scenario .
we would like to thank adriano di giacomo and tsuneo suzuki for discussions .
work was partially supported by the department of energy under grant no .
de - fg05 - 91er40617 .
giuseppe di cecio was partially supported by a university of pisa postdoctoral fellowship .
99 s. weinberg , vol ii , cambridge university press , cambridge 1996 , see chapter 21.6 for a thorough treatment of this viewpoint . for a review and
further references see e.g. r.w .
haymaker , _ `` dual abrikosov vortices in u(1 ) and su(2 ) lattice gauge theories '' _ , proceedings of the international school of physics `` enrico fermi '' , course cxxx , a. di giacomo and d. diakonov ( eds . ) ios press , amsterdam 1996 , hep - lat 9510035 . for a review of monopoles and confinement , see e.g. t. suzuki , nucl.phys .
* b * proc . suppl . * 30 * , 176 ( 1993 ) .
v. l. ginzburg and l. d. landau , zh .
ekxperim , i theor .
fiz , * 20 * , 1064 ( 1950 ) .
a. a. abrikosov , sov .
jetp * 32 * , 1442 ( 1957 ) .
m. tinkham , introduction to superconductivity , ( mcgraw - hill , new york , 1975 ) j. frlich and p. a. marchetti , euro .
* 2 * , 933 ( 1986 ) ; commun .
phys . * 112 * , 343 ( 1987 ) ; * 116 * , 127 ( 1988 ) ; * 121 * , 177 ( 1989 ) ; lett .
phys * 16 * , 347 ( 1988 ) .
l. polley and u .- j .
wiese , nucl .
* b356 * , 621 ( 1991 ) .
m. i. polikarpov , l. polley and u .- j .
weise , phys .
b253 * , 212 ( 1991 ) .
l. del debbio , a. di giacomo and g. paffuti , phys . lett . *
b349 * , 513 , ( 1995 ) ; nucl .
phys b ( proc . suppl . )
* 42 * , 231 ( 1995 ) ; v. singh , r.w .
haymaker , and d.a .
browne , phys . rev . *
d47 * , 1715 ( 1993 ) .
haymaker , v. singh , d. browne and j. wosiek ; proc . of workshop on qcd vacuum structure and its applications , the american university of paris , june 1 - 5 , 1992 , p184 , world scientific 1993 .
g. t hooft , nucl . phys .
* b 190 * , 455 ( 1981 ) .
chernodub , m.i .
polikarpov and a.i .
veselov , phys . lett .
* b 342 * , 303 ( 1995 ) .
a.s . kronfeld , g. schierholz and u.j .
wiese , nucl .
* b 293 * , 461 ( 1987 ) ; a.s .
kronfeld , m.l .
laursen , g. schierholz and u.j .
wiese , phys .
* b 198 * , 516 ( 1987 ) ; t. suzuki and i. yotsuyanagi , phys . rev . *
d 42 * , 4257 ( 1990 ) .
l. del debbio , a. di giacomo , g. paffuti and p. pieri , phys . lett .
* b 355 * , 255 ( 1995 ) . v. singh , d.a .
browne , and r.w .
haymaker , nucl .
b ( proc . suppl . )
* 30 * , 658 ( 1993 ) ; phys .
b306 * , 115 ( 1993 ) .
y. matsubara , s. ejiri , and t. suzuki , nucl .
b34 * ( proc .
suppl . ) 176 ( 1994 ) .
y. peng and r.w .
haymaker , phys . rev .
* d 52 * 3030 , ( 1995 ) .
p. cea and l. cosmai , nucl .
* b * proc . suppl . *
30 * , 572 ( 1993 ) ; phys . rev .
* d 52 * , 5152 ( 1995 ) . h. shiba and t. suzuki , phys .
* b 333 * , 461 ( 1994 ) . j. stack and r. wensley , nucl .
* d 22 * , 597 ( 1992 ) .
j. stack , s. neiman and r. wensley , phys . rev .
* d 50 * , 3399 ( 1994 ) g. s. bali , v. bornyakov , m. mller - preussker and k. schilling , phys . rev . *
d 54 * 2863 ( 1996 ) .
chernodub , m.i .
polikarpov and a.i .
veselov , nucl .
. suppl . * 49 * , 307 , ( 1996 ) .
n. nakamura , v. bornyakov , s. ejiri , s. kitahara , y. matsubara and t. suzuki , lattice-96 conference abstract , st .
louis , june 1996 e - print 9608004 .
p. skala , m. faber and m. zach , ahrenshoop symp .
301 - 306 , 1995 hep - lat/9603009 . v.n .
gribov , nucl . phys . *
b 139 * , 1 ( 1978 ) .
h. georgi and s.l .
glashow , phys .
* 28 * , 1494 ( 1972 ) .
g. t hooft , nucl . phys .
* b 79 * , 276 ( 1974 ) .
m. zach , m. faber , w. kainz and p. skala , phys .
* b 358 * , 325 ( 1995 ) . t. suzuki , s. ilyar , y. matsubara , t. okude and k. yotsuji , phys .
* b 347 * , 375 ( 1995 ) ; _ erratum - ibid .
_ * b 351 * , 603 ( 1995 ) .
.summary of gauge fixing .
the problem in defining time - like abelian links can be remedied by choosing either  @xmath112 " or  @xmath26 " at all sites along a particular polyakov line . )
[ cols="<,^ , < , < " , ]