arxiv: v2 [hep-lat] 9 May 2018

A new scheme for color confinement and violation of the non-abelian Bianchi identities Tsuneo Suzuki Kanazawa University, Kanazawa 9-9, Japan Katsuya Ishiguro Library and Information Technology, Kochi University, Kochi 78-85, Japan arxiv:7.59v [hep-lat] 9 May 8 Vitaly Bornyakov NRC Kurchatov Institute -IHEP, 8, Protvino, Russia School of Biomedicine, Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok 6995, Russia (Dated: September 5, 8) A new scheme for color confinement in QCD due to violation of the non-abelian Bianchi identities proposed earlier is revised. The violation of the non-abelian Bianchi identities (VNABI) J µ is equal to Abelian-like monopole currents k µ defined by the violation of the Abelian-like Bianchi identities. Although VNABI is an adjoint operator satisfying the covariant conservation law D µj µ =, it satisfies, at the same time, the Abelian-like conservation law µj µ =. There are N conserved magnetic charges in SU(N) QCD. The charge of each component of VNABIis assumed tosatisfy the Dirac quantization condition. Each color component of the non-abelian electric field E a is squeezed by the corresponding color component of the solenoidal current J a µ. Then only the color singlets alone can survive as a physical state and non-abelian color confinement is realized. This confinement picture is completely new in comparison with the previously studied monopole confinement scenario based on an Abelian projection after some partial gauge-fixing, where Abelian neutral states can survive as physical. To check if the scenario is realized in nature, numerical studies are done in the framework of lattice field theory by adopting pure SU() gauge theory for simplicity. Considering J µ(x) = k µ(x) in the continuum formulation, we adopt an Abelian-like definition of a monopole following DeGrand- Toussaint as a lattice version of VNABI, since the Dirac quantization condition of the magnetic charge is satisfied on lattice partially. To reduce severe lattice artifacts, we introduce various techniques of smoothing the thermalized vacuum. Smooth gauge fixings such as the maximal center gauge (MCG), block-spin transformations of Abelian-like monopoles and extraction of physically important infrared long monopole loops are adopted. We also employ the tree-level tadpole improved gauge action of SU() gluodynamics. With these various improvements, we measure the density of lattice VNABI: ρ(a(β),n) = µ,s n a (ka µ(s n)) /( V nb ), where k a µ(s n) is an n blocked monopole in the color direction a, n is the number of blocking steps, V n = V/n (b = na(β)) is the lattice volume (spacing) of the blocked lattice. Beautiful and convincing scaling behaviors are seen when we plot the density ρ(a(β),n) versus b = na(β). A single universal curve ρ(b) is found from n = to n =, which suggests that ρ(a(β),n) is a function of b = na(β) alone. The universal curve seems independent of a gauge fixing procedure used to smooth the lattice vacuum since the scaling is obtained in all gauges adopted. The scaling, if it exists also for n, shows that the lattice definition of VNABI has the continuum limit and the new confinement scenario is realized. PACS numbers:.8.aw,.8.hv I. INTRODUCTION Color confinement in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is still an important unsolved problem []. As a picture of color confinement, t Hooft [] and Mandelstam [] conjectured that the QCD vacuum is a kind of a magnetic superconducting state caused by condensation of magnetic monopoles and an effect dual to the Meissner effect works to confine color charges. However, in contrast to SUSY QCD [] or Georgi- e-mail:suzuki@staff.kanazawa-u.ac.jp Glashowmodel [5, 6] with scalarfields, to find colormagnetic monopoles which condense is not straightforward in QCD. An interesting idea to realize this conjecture is to project QCD to the Abelian maximal torus group by a partial (but singular) gauge fixing [7]. In SU() QCD, the maximal torus group is Abelian U(). Then color magnetic monopoles appear as a topological object. Condensation of the monopoles causes the dual Meissner effect [8 ]. Numerically, an Abelian projection in non-local gauges such as the maximally Abelian (MA) gauge [ ] has been found to support the Abelian confinement scenario beautifully [ ]. Also the Abelian dominance and the dual Meissner effect are observed clearly in local unitary

gauges such as F and Polyakov (PL) gauges []. However, although numerically interesting, the idea of Abelian projection[7] is theoretically very unsatisfactory. ) In non-perturabative QCD, any gauge-fixing is not necessary at all. There are infinite ways of such a partial gauge-fixing and whether the t Hooft scheme is gauge independent or not is not known. ) After an Abelian projection, only one (in SU()) or two (in SU()) gluons arephoton-likewith respecttothe residualu()oru() symmetry and the other gluons are massive charged matter fields. Such an asymmetry among gluons is unnatural. ) How to construct Abelian monopole operators in a gauge-independent way in terms of original gluon fields is not clear at all. In this paper, we propose a new theoretical scheme for color confinement based on the dual Meissner effect which is free from the above problems. The idea was first expressed by one of the authors (T.S.) in Ref.[] and was extended in Ref.[]. However, the proofs of the Dirac quantization condition of g a m in SU() and SU() shown in Refs.[, ] are incorrect. Without knowing the explicit form of the gauge-field configuration corresponding to VNABI, it is impossible to prove the Dirac quantization condition theoretically. Since the authors expect that VNABI play an important role in color confinement, the Dirac quantization conditions for g a m in SU() and SU() are assumed. Also the simultaneous diagonalization of VNABI J µ for all µ can not be proved from the Coleman-Mandula theorem[] and Lorentz invariance contrary to the assertion in Ref.[]. When the simultaneous diagonalization of J µ for all µ is assumed, the condensation of J µ and electric color invariance of the confinement vacuum can be compatible. Then to check if the above scheme is realized in nature, we study the proposal in the framework of the non-abelian lattice gauge theory. For simplicity we adopt pure SU() lattice gauge theory. First considering J µ (x) = k µ (x) in the continuum, we define VNABI on lattice as an Abelian-like monopole following DeGrand- Toussaint[5]. Then as a most important point to be clarified, we are going to study if the lattice VNABI has the non-trivial continuum limit, namely if the scaling of the density exists. The lattice monopoles exist as a closed loop due to the current conservation law. As shown later explicitly, monopole closed loops are contaminated by lattice artifacts. Hence it is absolutely necessary to introduce various techniques avoiding such large lattice artifacts in order to analyse especially such a quantity as the monopole density, since all lattice artifacts contribute positively to the density. We introduce various techniques of smoothing the thermalized vacuum. Smooth gauge fixings such as the maximal center gauge (MCG)[6, 7], block-spin transformations of Abelian-like monopoles and extraction of physically important infrared long monopoles are taken into account. We also employ the tree-level tadpole improved gauge action. II. A NEW CONFINEMENT SCHEME BASED ON VNABI A. Equivalence of J µ and k µ First of all, we prove that the Jacobi identities of covariant derivatives lead us to conclusion that violation of the non-abelian Bianchi identities (VNABI) J µ is nothing but an Abelian-like monopole k µ defined by violation of the Abelian-like Bianchi identities without gaugefixing. Define a covariant derivative operator D µ = µ iga µ. The Jacobi identities are expressed as ǫ µνρσ [D ν,[d ρ,d σ ]] =. () By direct calculations, one gets [D ρ,d σ ] = [ ρ iga ρ, σ iga σ ] = ig( ρ A σ σ A ρ ig[a ρ,a σ ])+[ ρ, σ ] = igg ρσ +[ ρ, σ ], where the second commutator term of the partial derivative operators can not be discarded, since gauge fields may contain a line singularity. Actually, it is the origin of the violation of the non-abelian Bianchi identities (VNABI) as shown in the following. The non-abelian Bianchi identities and the Abelian-like Bianchi identities are, respectively: D ν G µν = and ν f µν =. The relation [D ν,g ρσ ] = D ν G ρσ and the Jacobi identities () lead us to D ν G µν = ǫ µνρσd ν G ρσ = i g ǫ µνρσ[d ν,[ ρ, σ ]] = ǫ µνρσ[ ρ, σ ]A ν = ν f µν, () where f µν is defined as f µν = µ A ν ν A µ = ( µ A a ν ν A a µ)σ a /. Namely Eq.() shows that the violation of the non-abelian Bianchi identities is equivalent to that of the Abelian-like Bianchi identities. Denote the violation of the non-abelian Bianchi identities as J µ : J µ = Ja µ σa = D ν G µν. () Eq.() is gauge covariant and therefore a non-zero J µ is a gauge-invariant property. An Abelian-like monopole k µ without any gauge-fixing is defined as the violation of the Abelian-like Bianchi identities: k µ = ka µ σa = ν f µν = ǫ µνρσ ν f ρσ. () Eq.() shows that Several comments are in order. J µ = k µ. (5)

. Eq.(5) can be considered as a special case of the important relation derived by Bonati et al.[8] in the framework of an Abelian projection to a simple case without any Abelian projection. Actually it is possible to prove directly without the help of the Jacobi identities J a µ ka µ = Trσa D ν G µν νf a µν = igtrσ a [A ν,g µν ] igǫ µνρσ Trσ a [ ν A ρ,a σ ] =.. VNABI J µ transforms as an adjoint operator, so that does the Abelian-like monopole current k µ. This can be proved also directly. Consider a regular gauge transformation Then A µ = VA µv i g µvv. Both Eqs.(7) and () are compatible, since the difference between both quantities [A µ,j µ ] = ǫ µνρσ[a µ, ν f ρσ ] = ǫ µνρσ [A µ, ν ρ A σ ] = ǫ µνρσ ν µ [A ρ,a σ ] = i g ( µ ν G µν µ ν f µν) =, where (8) and (9) are used. Hence the Abelian-like conservation relation () is also gauge-covariant. 5. The Abelian-like conservation relation () gives us three conserved magnetic charges in the case of color SU() and N charges in the case of color SU(N). But these are kinematical relations coming from the derivative with respect to the divergence of an antisymmetric tensor []. The number of conserved charges is different from that of the Abelian projection scenario [7], where only N conserved charges exist in the case of color SU(N). k µ = ǫ µνρσ ν ρ A σ = ǫ µνρσ ν ρ (VA σ V i g σvv ) = V(ǫ µνρσ ν ρ A σ )V = Vk µ V. (6). The above equivalence shows VNABI is essentially Abelian-like. It was already argued that singularities of gauge fields corresponding to VNABI must be Abelian[9], although the reasoning is different.. The covariant conservationlaw D µ J µ = is proved as follows[8]: where D µ J µ = D µ D ν G νµ = ig [G νµ,g νµ ] = ig ǫ νµρσ[g νµ,g ρσ ] =, (7) µ ν G µν = (8) is used. The Abelian-like monopole satisfies the Abelian-like conservation law µ k µ = µ ν f µν = (9) due to the antisymmetric property of the Abelianlike field strength[]. Hence VNABI satisfies also the same Abelian-like conservation law µ J µ =. () B. Proposal of the vacuum in the confinement phase Now we propose a new mechanism of color confinement in which VNABI J µ play an important role in the vacuum. For the scenario to be realized, we make two assumptions concerning the property of VNABI.. If VNABI are important physically, they must satify the Dirac quantization condition between the gauge coupling g and the magnetic charge g a m for a =,, in SU() and a = 8 in SU(). Since we do not know theoretically the property of VNABI, we have to assume the Dirac qunatization conditions: gg a m = πna, where n a is an integer.. The vacuum in the color confinement phase should be electric color invariant. Since VNABI transform as an adjoint operator, we have to extract electric color invariant but magnetically charged quantity from VNABI. One possible way it to assume that VNABI satisfy [J µ (x),j ν µ ] = which make it possible to diagonalize VNABI J µ simultaneously for all µ. At present, the authors do not know if the second assumption is the only way to have the magnetically charged but electrically neutral vacuum in the confinement phase.

TABLE I: Comparison between the thooft Abelian projection studies and the present work in SU() QCD. ˆφ = V pσ V p, where V p is a partial gauge-fixing matrix of an Abelian projection. (u c,d c) is a color-doublet quark pair. MA means maximally Abelian. The thooft Abelian projection scheme This work and Refs.[, ] Previous works[ ] Reference [8] Origin of k µ A singular gauge transformation k µ = TrJ µˆφ kµ a = Jµ a No. of conserved k µ Role of A a µ One photon A µ with kµ + massive A ± µ Three gluons A a µ with kµ a Flux squeezing One electric field E µ Three electric fields Eµ a Number of physical mesons Abelian neutrals, ū cu c and d cd c color singlet ū cu c + d cd c Expected confining vacuum Condensation of Abelian monopoles Condensation of color-invariant λ µ[9] Privileged gauge choice A singular gauge MA gauge No need of gauge-fixing Using the above assumption, VNABI can be diagonalized by a unitary matrix V d (x) as follows: V d (x)j µ (x)v d (x) = λ µ(x) σ, where λ µ (x) is the eigenvalue of J µ (x) and is then color invariant but magnetically charged. Then one gets Φ(x) V d (x)σ V d (x) () J µ (x) = λ µ(x)φ(x), () (Jµ a (x)) = (kµ a (x)) = (λ µ (x)). () a a Namely the color electrically charged part and the magnetically charged part are separated out. From () and (), one gets µ J µ (x) = ( µλ µ (x)φ(x)+λ µ (x) µ Φ(x)) Since Φ(x) =, =. () µ λ µ (x) = λ µ(x)(φ(x) µ Φ(x)+ µ Φ(x)Φ(x)) =. Hence the eigenvalue λ µ itself satisfies the Abelian conservation rule. Furthermore, when use is made of (6), it is possible to prove that where ǫ µνρσ ν f µν (x) = λ µ(x) σ, (5) f µν(x) = µ A ν(x) ν A µ(x) A µ = V d A µ V d i g µv d V d, a A µ σ a. Namely, ǫ µνρσ ν f, ρσ (x)(x) = (6) ǫ µνρσ ν f ρσ (x)(x) = λ µ (x). (7) The singularity appears only in the diagonal component of the gauge field A µ. It is very interesting to see that f µν (x) is actually the gauge invariant thooft tensor[5]: f µν (x) = TrΦ(x)G µν (x)+ i g TrΦ(x)D µφ(x)d ν Φ(x), inwhichthefieldφ(x)()playsaroleofthescalarhiggs field in Ref.[5]. To be noted is that the field Φ(x) () is determined uniquely by VNABI itself in the gluodynamics without any Higgs field. In this sense, our scheme can be regarded as a special Abelian projection scenario with the partial gauge-fixing condition where J µ (x) are diagonalized. The condensation of the gauge-invariant magnetic currents λ µ does not give rise to a spontaneous breaking of the color electric symmetry. Condensation of the color invariant magnetic currents λ µ may be a key mechanism of the physical confining vacuum[9, ]. The main difference between our new scheme and previous Abelian projection schemes is that in the former there exist N conserved magnetic currents squeezing N color electric fields and color ( not charge) confinement is shown explicitly, whereas in the latter, there exists only N conserved currents giving charge confinement. In our scheme, the N conserved magnetic currents are degenerate in the vacuum to N color-invariant currents corresponding to the eigenvalues. To show the difference of this scheme from the previous thooft Abelian projection with some partial gaugefixing, we show Table I in which typical different points are written. Let us make a comment here on the relation derived by Bonati et al.[8]: k AB µ (x) = Tr{J µ(x)φ AB (x)}, (8) where k AB µ (x) is an Abelian monopole, Φ AB (x) = V AB (x)σ V AB (x) and V AB (x) is a partial gauge-fixing

5 matrix in some Abelian projection like the MA gauge. Making use of Eq.(), we get where k AB µ (x) = λ µ(x) Φ (x), (9) Φ(x) = V AB (x)v d (x)σ V AB (x)v d(x) = Φ a (x)σ a. The relation (8) is important, since existence of an Abelian monopole in any Abelian projection scheme is guaranteed by that of VNABI J µ in the continuum limit. Hence if in any special gauge such as MA gauge, Abelian monopoles remain non-vanishing in the continuum as suggested by many numerical data [ ], VNABI also remain non-vanishing in the continuum. Moreover it does not have a property corresponding to the Dirac quantization condition satisfied by the continuum VNABI, as we assumed. The last point is very unsatisfactory, since the topological property as a monopole is essential. Hence we adopt here the second possibility which can reflect partially the topological property satisfied by VNABI. That is, we define VNABI on lattice as the Abelian-like monopole[, ] following DeGrand and Toussaint[5]. First we define Abelian link and plaquette variables: θµ(s) a = arctan(uµ(s)/u a µ(s)) ( θµ(s) a < π) () θµν a (s) µθν a (s) νθµ a (s), () III. LATTICE NUMERICAL STUDY OF THE CONTINUUM LIMIT where ν ( ν ) is a forward (backward) difference. Then the plaquette variable can be decomposed as follows: A. Definition of VNABI on lattice Let us try to define VNABI on lattice. In the previous section, VNABI J µ (x) is shown to be equivalent in the continuum limit to the violation of the Abelian-like Bianchi identities J µ (x) = k µ (x). On lattice, we have to define a quantity which leads us to the above VNABI in the continuum limit. There are two possible definitions which lead us to the above VNABI in the naive continuum limit. One is a quantity keeping the adjoint transformation property under the lattice SU() gauge transformation V(s): U(s,µ) = V(s)U(s,µ)V (s+µ). Here U(s,µ) is a lattice gauge link field. Such a quantity was proposed in Ref[]: J µ (s) ( U(s,ν)Uµν (s+ν)u (s,ν) U µν (s) ), U µν (s) U(s,µ)U(s+µ,ν)U (s+ν,µ)u (s,ν) where U µν (s) is a plaquette variablecorrespondingto the non-abelian field strength. This transforms as an adjoint operator: θµν a (s) = θ µν a (s)+πna µν (s) ( θ µν a < π), () where n a µν (s) is an integer corresponding to the number of the Dirac string. Then VNABI as Abelian monopoles is defined by kµ(s) a = (/)ǫ µαβγ α θa βγ (s+ ˆµ) = (/)ǫ µαβγ α n a βγ (s+ ˆµ) J µ (s) ka µ (s)σa. (5) This definition (5) of VNABI satisfies the Abelian conservation condition () and takes an integer value which corresponds to the magnetic charge obeying the Dirac quantization condition. The eigenvalue λ µ is defined from () as J µ(s) = V(s)J µ (s)v (s) () and satisfies the covariant conservation law ( U(s+µ,µ)Jµ (s)u (s,µ) J µ (s) ) (λ µ (s)) = a (k a µ (s)). (6) µ Dµ L J µ(s) = µ =. However it does not satisfy the Abelian conservation law: ( Jµ (s+µ) J µ (s) ) =. () µ However Eq.(5) does not satisfy the transformation property () on the lattice. We will demonstrate that this property is recovered in the continuum limit by showing the gauge invariance of the monopole density or the squared monopole density (6) in the scaling limit.

6 TABLE II: A typical example of monopole loop distributions (Loop length (L) vs Loop number (No.)) for various gauges in one thermalized vacuum on lattice at β =.6 in the tadpole improved action. Here I and L denote the color component and the loop length of the monopole loop, respectively. NGF I= MCG I= DLCG I= L No L No L No 5 66 6 6 6 6 6 66 8 7 8 8 8 5 6 78 6 5 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 5 8 58 58 6 5 8 AWL I= MAU I= MAU I= L No L No L No 7 9 6 66 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 5 7 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 58 6 8 66 588 6 8 6 7 58 8 866 B. Simulation details. Tadpole improved gauge action First of all, we adopt the tree level improved action of the form [] for simplicity in SU() gluodynamics: S = β imp pl S pl β imp u S rt (7) where S pl and S rt denote plaquette and rectangular loop terms in the action, S pl,rt = Tr( U pl,rt), (8) the parameter u is the input tadpole improvement factor taken here equal to the fourth root of the average plaquette P = tru pl. In our simulations we have not included one loop corrections to the coefficients, for the sake of simplicity. The lattices adopted are 8 for β =..9 and for β =..9. The latter was taken mainly for studying finite-size effects. The simulations with the action (7) have been performed with parameters given in Table V in AppendixA following similarly the method as adopted in Ref.[5].. The non-abelian string tension In order to fix the physical lattice scale we need to compute one physical dimensionful observable the value of which is known. For this purpose we choose the string tension σ. The string tension for the action (7) was computed long ago in [5, 6] but we improve this measurement according to present standards. We use the hypercubic blocking (HYP) invented by the authors of Ref. [7 ] to reduce the statistical errors. After one step of HYP, APE smearing [] were applied to the space-like links. The spatial smearing is made, as usually, in order to variationally improve the overlap with a mesonic flux tube state. The results of the measured string tensions are listed also in Table V in AppendixA.. Introduction of smooth gauge-fixings Monopole loops in the thermalized vacuum produced in the above improved action (7) still contain large amount of lattice artifacts. Hence we here adopt a gaugefixing technique smoothing the vacuum, although any gauge-fixing is not necessary in principle in the continuum limit[]:. Maximal center gauge (MCG). The first gauge is the maximal center gauge[6, 7] which is usually discussed in the framework of the center vortex idea. We adopt the so-called direct rt

7 b=na(β).5.5.5.5 FIG. : b = na(β) in unit of / σ versus β b=na(β) versus β.....6.7.8.9 β n= n= n= n= n=6 n=8 n= TABLE III: The n = blocked monopole loop distribution (Loop length (L) vs Loop number (No.)) in various gauges on 6 reduced lattice volume at β =.6 in the same vacuum used in TableII. NGF I= MCG I= DLCG I= L No L No L No 966 5 8 6 6 6 AWL I= MAU I= MAU I= L No L No L No 5 8 6 6 6 8 5 6 6 76 7 maximal center gauge which requires maximization of the quantity R = s,µ(tru(s,µ)) (9) with respect to local gauge transformations. The condition (9) fixes the gauge up to Z() gauge transformation and can be considered as the Landau gauge for the adjoint representation. In our simulations, we choose simulated annealing algorithm as the gauge-fixing method which is known to be powerful for finding the global maximum. For details, see the reference[].. Direct Laplacian center gauge (DLCG). The second is the Laplacian center gauge[] which is also discussed in connection to center vortex idea. Here we adopt the so-called direct Laplacian center gauge (DLCG). Firstly, we require maximization of the quantity R M = s,µ Tr [ M T (s)u A (s,µ)m(s,µ) ] () where U A (s,µ) denotes the adjoint representation of U(s,µ) and M(s,µ) is a real-valued matrix in SU() gauge theory which satisfies the constraint V Mij(s)M T jk (s) = δ ik () s j with V lattice volume. Matrix field M(s) which leads to a global maximum of R M is composed of the three lowest eigenfunctions of a lattice Laplacian operator. Secondly, to determine the corresponding gauge transformation, we construct SO() matrix-valued field which is the closest to M(s) and satisfies the corresponding Laplacian condition by local gauge transformation. Finally, the SO() matrix-valued field is mapped to an SU() matrix-valued field which is used to the gauge transformation for the original lattice gauge field in fundamental representation. After that, DLCG maximizes the quantity (9) with respect to solving a lattice Laplacian equation.. Maximal Abelian Wilson loop gauge (AWL). Another example of a smooth gauge is introduced. It is the maximal Abelian Wilson loop gauge (AWL) in which R = (cos(θµν a (s)) () s,µ ν a is maximaized. Here θµν(s) a have been introduced in eq. (). Since cos(θµν a (s)) are Abelian Wilson loops, the gauge is called as the maximal Abelian Wilson loop gauge(awl). A similar gauge was proposed in [5], although only one-color component was considered then in comparison with the maximal Abelian gauge (MAG). Note that even small Abelian Wilson loop is enhanced when a smooth gauge condition such as the MA gauge is adopted. The details are presented in the Appendix B.. Maximal Abelian and U() Landau gauge(mau). The fourth is the combination of the maximal Abelian gauge (MAG) and the U() Landau gauge[, ]. Namely we first perform the maximal Abelian gauge fixing and then with respect to the remaining U() symmetry the Landau gauge fixing is done. This case breaks the global SU() color symmetry contrary to the previous three cases (MCG, DLCG and AWL) but nevertheless we consider this case since the vacuum is smoothed fairly well. MAG is the gauge which maximizes R = ( ) Tr σ U(s,µ)σ U (s,µ) () s,ˆµ

8 with respect to local gauge transformations. Then there remains U() symmetry to which the Landau gauge fixing is applied, i.e., s,µ cosθ µ(s) is maximized[6].. Extraction of infrared monopole loops An additional improvement is obtained when we extract important long monopole clusters only from total monopole loop distribution. Let us see a typical example of monopole loop distributions in each gauge in comparison with that without any gauge fixing starting from a thermalized vacuum at β =.6 on lattice. They are shownintableii.onecanfindalmostallmonopoleloops are connected and total loop lengths are very large when no gauge fixing (NGF) is applied as shown in the NGF case. On the other hand, monopole loop lengths become much shorter in all smooth gauges discussed here. Also it is found that only one or few loops are long enough and others are very short as observed similarly in old papers in MAG. The long monopole clusters are called as infrared monopoles and they are the key ingredient giving confinement as shown in the old papers[7]. It is important that in addition to MAU, all other three MCG, DLCG and AWL cases also have similar behaviors. Since small separate monopole loops can be regarded as lattice artifacts, we extract only infrared monopoles alone. Although there observed only one infrared monopole loop in almost all cases, there are some vacua (especially for large beta) having two or three separate long loops which can be seen as infrared one, since they have much longer length than other shorter ones. We here define as infrared monopoles as all loops having loop lengths longer than % of the longest one. The cutoff value is not so critical. Actually the definition of infrared loops itself has an ambiguity, since even in the longest loop, we can not separate out some short artifact loops attached accidentally to the real infrared long loop. But such an ambiguity gives us numerically only small effects as seen from the studies of different cutoff values. FIG. : The VNABI (Abelian-like monopoles) density versus a(β) in MCG on 8. Top: total density; bottom: infrared density. n in the legend means n-step blocked monopoles..5.5.5.5..5..5..5..5.5.5 are defined as MCG monopole density a(β) MCG IFmonopole density monopole monopole monopole monopole 6 monopole 8 monopole monopole.5..5..5..5. a(β) IFmonopole IFmonopole IFmonopole IFmonopole 6 IFmonopole 8 IFmonopole IFmonopole 5. Blockspin transformation Block-spin transformation and the renormalizationgroup method is known as the powerful tool to study the continuum limit. We introduce the blockspin transformation with respect to Abelian-like monopoles. The idea was first introduced by Ivanenko et al.[8] and applied in obtaining an infrared effective monopole action in Ref.[9]. The n blocked monopole has a total magnetic charge inside the n cube and is defined on a blocked reducedlatticewiththespacingb = na, abeingthespacing of the original lattice. The respective magnetic currents k (n) µ (s n ) = ǫ µνρσ ν n (n) ρσ (s n + ˆµ) = n (n) ρσ (s n ) = n i,j,l= k µ (ns n +(n )ˆµ+iˆν +jˆρ+lˆσ), () n i,j= n ρσ (ns n +iˆρ+jˆσ),

9 FIG. : The VNABI (Abelian-like monopoles) density versus b = na(β) in MCG on 8. Top: total density; bottom: infrared density..5.5 MCG monopole density monopole monopole monopole monopole 6 monopole 8 monopole monopole.5.5.5.5.5 β.5.5 MCG IFmonopole density IFmonopole IFmonopole IFmonopole IFmonopole 6 IFmonopole 8 IFmonopole IFmonopole.5.5.5.5.5 β where s n is a site number on the reduced lattice. For example, k () µ (s ) = k () µ (s ) = i,j,l= i,j,l= k µ (s + ˆµ+iˆν +jˆρ+lˆσ), k µ (s +ˆµ+iˆν +jˆρ+lˆσ) These equations show that the relation between k µ () (s ) and k µ () (s ) is similar to that between k µ () (s ) and k µ (s) and hence one can see the above equation () corresponds to the usual block-spin transformation. After the

FIG. : The fit of the infrared VNABI (Abelian-like monopoles) density data in MCG on 8 lattice to Eq.(6).. MCG IFmonopole MCG IFmonopole density MCG IFmonopole MCG IFmonopole MCG IFmonopole MCG 6 IFmonopole MCG 8 IFmonopole MCG IFmonopole ρ(b) log(ρ(b))=.5-.756b+.b..5.5.5.5 β FIG. 5: The VNABI (Abelian-like monopole) density at b =.5,.,.5,. for different n in MCG on 8. The data used are derived by a linear interpolation of two nearest data below and above for the corresponding b and n. As an example, see the original data at b =. in TableIV..9.8.7.6.5.... MCG monopole density for different n b=.5 b=. b=.5 b=. 5 6 7 8 9 n TABLE IV: IF monopole density ρ IF around b =. for each blocking steps n in MCG case on 8. n β b = na(β) db ρ IF error..8..9e-.e-..965..8e-.6e-..5.6.99e-.e-..866.8 5.E-.7E- 6..9..9E-.8E- 6.98..6E- 7.E- 8.6.7.7.77E- 9.E- 8.7.96.8.75E-.78E-.8...7E-.E-.9.998..56E- 8.6E- block-spin transformation, the number of short lattice artifact loops decreases while loops having larger magnetic charges appear. We show an example of the loop length and loop number distribution of the four step (n = ) blocked monopoles in TableIII with respect to the same original vacuum as in TableII. For reference, we show the relation between the spacing of the blocked lattice and β in Fig.. In Fig.and in what followswepresentspacings a and b in units of / σ. C. Numerical results Now let us show the simulation results with respect to VNABI (Abelian-like monopole ) densities. Since

FIG. 6: The VNABI (Abelian-like monopoles) density versus b = na(β) in AWL on 8. Top: total density; bottom: infrared density. FIG. 7: The VNABI (Abelian-like monopoles) density versus b = na(β) in DLCG on..5.5 AWL monopole density monopole monopole monopole monopole 6 monopole 8 monopole monopole.5.5.5 DLCG monopole density monopole monopole monopole monopole 6 monopole.5.5.5.5.5 β...6.8..!"β#.5.5.5 AWL IFmonopole density IFmonopole IFmonopole IFmonopole IFmonopole 6 IFmonopole 8 IFmonopole IFmonopole.5.5.5.5 β. Scaling For the purpose of studying the continuum limit, it is usual to analyse scaling behaviors. First of all, let us show the data of MCG case in Fig.. In this Figure and in what follows we present the monopole density ρ in units of σ.5. When the scaling exists for both the string tension and the monopole density, we expect ρ const as a(β) and V, since a(β) is measured in unit of the string tension. In the case of total monopole density such a behavior is not seen yet. When infrared monopoles alone and blocked monopoles are considered, the behavior becomes flatter as seen from Fig.. But still this scaling is not conclusive. We need to study larger β regions on larger lattice volumes. These features are very muchsimilarinothersmoothgaugesasawl,dlcgand MAU and so their data are not shown here. monopoles are three-dimensional objects, the density is defined as follows: ρ = µ,s n a (ka µ(s n )) V n b, (5) where V n = V/n is the dimensional volume of the reduced lattice, b = na(β) is the spacing of the reduced lattice after n-step blockspin transformation. s n is the site on the reduced lattice and the superscript a denotes acolorcomponent. Notethat a (ka µ ) isgauge-invariant in the continuum limit. Although the global color invariance is exact except in MAU gauge, the average of the density of each color component of k a µ is not equal to the average of the above ρ, since two or three colored monopoles can run on the same dual links. In general, the density ρ is a function of two variables β and n.. Scaling under the block-spin transformations It is very interesting to see that more beautiful and clear scaling behaviors are observed when we plot ρ(a(β),n) versus b = na(β). As one can see from the figures shown below for various smooth gauges considered in this work, one can see a universal function ρ(b) for β =..9 (β =..7) and n =,,,,6,8, (n =,,,,6) on 8 ( ) lattice. Namely ρ(a(β),n) is a function of b = na(β) alone. Thus we observe clear indication of the continuum (a(β) ) limit for the lattice VNABI studied in this work.. MCG case First we show the case of MCG gauge-fixed vacua in details. AscanbeseenfromFig., dataforρ(a(β),n) can

FIG. 8: The VNABI (Abelian-like monopoles) density versus b = na(β) for k and k components in MAU on 8. Top: total density; bottom: infrared density. One can see the scaling behavior also clearly from the density plot for different n at b =.,.5,. as shown in Fig.5. However a scaling violation is seen at b =.5[5]..5.5.5 MAU k and k monopole density k monopole k monopole.5.5.5.5 $%&'(β).5.5.5 MAU k and k IFmonopole density k IFmonopole k IFmonopole.5.5.5.5 *+,-.β/ be expressed by a function of one argument b = na(β) alone. There is a very beautiful scaling behavior for the range of β =..9 and n =,,,,6,8,. When we are restricted to long infrared monopoles alone, the density becomes substantially reduced for small b <.5 region. But the scaling also can be seen except for small b region as shown in Fig.. The violation of scaling for small b region is mainly due to the ambiguity of extracting infrared monopoles. When we restrict ourselves to the data for b.5, the scaling function ρ(b) is obtained using the χ fit to a simple function as shown in Fig.: ρ(b) = exp(a +a b+a b ), (6) a =.5(),a =.756(58),a =.(5). But the fit is not good enough, since χ /N dof =.56for N dof =. Here we show the function (6) only for the purpose of illustration, since we have not found a simple but better fit. To see in more details, let us consider the data points at b =.5,.,.5,. for each n. Especially the data at b =. can be fixed from the data at 5 different values of β from. β.9 as seen from Fig. and TableIV.. AWL case Verysimilarbehaviorsareseeninthe AWL gaugecase. Again beautiful scaling behaviors for the range of β =..9 and n =,,,,6,8, are seen in Fig.6. But inthecaseofinfraredmonopolesshowninfig.6, ascaling violation is observed for small b region. 5. DLCG case Since the DLCG gauge-fixing needs much time for larger lattice, we evaluate monopole density only on lattice. As seen from Fig.7, a scaling behavior is found, although small deviations exist for small b region. 6. MAU case NowwediscussthecaseofMAUgauge. Inthisgauge, the global isospin symmetry is broken. Hence let us first evaluate the monopole density in each color direction. Namely ρ a µ,s = n kµ a (s n)) V n b. (7) As expected we find ρ ρ ρ, so that we show ρ and ρ. The results are shown in Fig.8. Here the scaling is seen clearly with respect to the off-diagonal k currents, but the violation is seen for the diagonal k currents especially at small b region. Similar behaviors are found when we are restricted to infrared monopoles. However when we evaluate the monopole density (5), we can observe similar beautiful scaling behaviors as in MCG and AWL cases. They are shown in Fig.9. D. Gauge dependence Since a (ka µ ) should be gauge-invariant according to ourderivationinsectionii,wecomparethedataindifferent smooth gauges. Look at Fig., which show the comparison of the data in four gauges (MCG, AWL, DLCG and MAU). One can see that data obtained in these four different gauges are in good agreement with each other providing strong indication of gauge independence. This is the main result of this work. Note that in MAU gauge, the global color invariance is broken and usually off-diagonal color components of gauge fields are said to have large lattice artifacts. However here we performed additional U Landau gauge-fixing with respect to the remaining U() symmetry after MA fixing, which seems to

FIG. 9: The VNABI (Abelian-like monopoles) density (5) versus b = na(β) in MAU on 8. Top: total density; bottom: infrared density..5.5 MAU monopole density monopole monopole monopole monopole 6 monopole 8 monopole monopole.5.5.5.5.5 β5.5.5 MAU IFmonopole density IFmonopole IFmonopole IFmonopole IFmonopole 6 IFmonopole 8 IFmonopole IFmonopole.5.5.5.5.5 6789:β; make the vacua smooth enough as those in MCG gauge case. The fact that the scaling functions ρ(b) obtained in MCG gauge can reproduce other three smooth-gauge data seems to show that it is near to the smallest density corresponding to the continuum limit without large lattice artifact effects. In other non-smooth gauges or without any gauge-fixing (NGF), ρ does not satisfy the scaling and actually becomes much larger. This is due to our inability to suppress lattice artifacts in the nonsmooth gauges or without gauge-fixing. E. Volume dependence in MCG case The volume dependence is also studied when the two data on 8 and lattices in MCG are plotted for the same β region (. β.6) and the blocking steps ( n 6) as shown in Fig.. We found sizable finite volume effects for β =.7 only (not shown in the figure) when lattice size for L = becomes La <.7/ σ. Volume dependence for (. β.6) is very small as seen from Fig..

FIG. : Comparison of the VNABI (Abelian-like monopoles) densities versus b = na(β) in MCG, AWL, DLCG and MAU cases. DLCG data only are on lattice. Here ρ(b) is a scaling function (6) determined from the Chi-Square fit to the IF monopole density data in MCG. Top: total density; bottom: infrared density.. Monopole densty in smooth gauges MCG monopole AWL monopole MAU monopole DLCG monopole ρ(b) log(ρ(b))=.5-.756b+.b..5.5.5.5 <=>?@βa IFmonopole densty in smooth gauges. MCG IFmonopole AWL IFmonopole MAU IFmonopole DLCG IFmonopole ρ(b) log(ρ(b))=.5-.756b+.b..5.5.5.5 BCDEFβG F. Gauge action dependence IV. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, we have proposed a new color confinement scheme which is summarized as follows: Let us in short check how the gauge action adopted here improves the density ρ behavior by comparing the data in the tadpole improved action with those in the simple Wilson gauge action. It is shown in Fig.. The density in the Wilson action is higher especially for b. and so considerable improvement is obtained with the choice of the tadpole improved gauge action.. VNABI is equal to the Abelian-like monopole coming from the violation of the Abelian-like Bianchi identities.. VNABI satisfies the Abelian-like conservation law as well as the covariant one. Hence there are N conserved magnetic charges in the case of color SU(N).

5 FIG. : Volume dependence of VNABI (Abelian-like monopole) density in the case of MCG in 8 and tadpole improved gauge action. The data for. β.6 and n 6 alone are plotted for comparison..5.5.5 Volume dependence MCG monopole density N monopole N monopole N monopole N monopole N 6 monopole N8 monopole N8 monopole N8 monopole N8 monopole N8 6 monopole.5.5.5 HIJKLβM FIG. : Gauge action dependence of VNABI (Abelian-like monopole) densities in the case of DLCG in tadpole improved and Wilson gauge actions, The data for. β.7 and n 6 alone are plotted..5.5.5.5 DLCG monopole density : improved action : improved action : improved action : improved action 6 : improved action : Wilson action : Wilson action : Wilson action : Wilson action 6 : Wilson action.5.5.5 NOPQRβS. All magnetic charges are assumed to satisfy the Dirac quantization condition.. VNABI can be defined on lattice aslattice Abelianlike monopoles. Previous numerical results suggest that the dual Meissner effect due to condensation of VNABI must be the color confinement mechanism of QCD. The role of Abelian monopoles is played by VNABI. This must be a new scheme for color confinement in QCD. 5. VNABI are assumed to satisfy [J µ,j ν µ ] = leading to the simultaneous diagonalization for all µ. 6. Condensation of the color invariant magnetic currents λ µ which are the eigenvalue of VNABI J µ may be a key mechanism of the physical confining vacuum. Then to check if the new confinement scenario is correct in the continuum limit, densities of VNABI defined on lattice were studied extensively in this work. Since VNABI is equivalent to Abelian-like monopoles in the continuum, VNABI on lattice is defined as lattice Abelian-like monopoles following DeGrand- Toussaint[5]. This definition even on lattice keeps partially the topological property of VNABI satisfied in the continuum. In the thermalized vacuum, there are plenty of lattice artifact monopoles which contribute equally to the density, so that we have adopted various improvement techniques reducing the lattice artifacts. One of them is to adopt the tadpole improved gauge action. The second is to introduce various gauges smoothing the vacuum, although gauge-fixing is not necessary at all in the continuum. We have considered here four smooth gauges, MCG, DLCG, AWL and MAU. The third is to perform a blockspin renormalization group study. With these improvement techniques, we have been able to get very beautiful results. First of all, in MCG, AWL and MAU gauges, clear scaling behaviors are observed up to the -step blockspin transformations for β =..9. Namely the density ρ(a(β),n) is a function of b = na(β) alone, i.e. ρ(b). If such scaling behaviors are seen for n, the obtained curve depending on b = na(β) alone corresponds to the continuum limit a(β). It is just the renormalized trajectory. The second beautiful result is the gauge independence of the measured densities at least with respect to MCG, AWL and MAU smooth gauges on 8 and DLCG on adopted here. The gauge independence is the property expected in the continuum limit, since the observed quantity ρ in (5) is gauge invariant in the continuum. These beautiful results suggest that the lattice VNABI adopted here has the continuum limit and hence the new confinement scenario can be studied on lattice with the use of the lattice VNABI. Let us note that monopole dominance and the dual Meissner effect due to VNABI as Abelian monopoles were shown partially without any smooth gauge fixing with the use of random gauge transformations in Ref.[, ], although scaling behaviors were not studied enough. More extensive studies of these effects and derivation of infrared effective VNABI action using block-spin transformation in these smooth gauges discussed here and its application to analytical studies of non-perturbative quantities will appear in near future. Acknowledgments The numerical simulations of this work were done using computer clusters HPC and SX-ACE at Reserach Center for Nuclear Physics (RCNP) of Osaka University and the

6 supercomputer at ITEP, Moscow. The authors would like to thank RCNP for their support of computer facilities. Work of VB was supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) grant 6--6. One of the authors (T.S.) would like to thank Prof. T. Kugo and Prof. H. Tamura for pointing him the errors in the original paper and fruitful discussions. Appendix A: Tadpole improved action The parameter u has been iterated over a series of Monte Carlo runs in order to match the fourth root of the average plaquette P. The values of u are shown in Table V. TABLE V: Details of the simulations with improved action β imp L N conf u < P > / σa..8985.895().7(). 8 5.8985.8978().78()..969.997().(). 8 5.969.9688().55(8)..9578.96().6(). 8 5.9578.9576().6()..95.95().(). 8 5.95.95().65()..9.9().8(5). 8 5.9.97().8().9775.978().555(6) 8 5.9775.9778().56().6.966.966().6().6 8 5.966.965().8().7.99.978().().7 8 5.99.98().().8 8 5.96.966().95().9 8 5.9858.9857().89() At the site s, the minimal gauge transformation is written as U (s,µ) = e i α(s) σ U(s,µ) = (+i α(s) σ)u(s,µ)+o(( α) ). Hence in case of the minimal gauge transformation, we get U (s,µ) = U (s,µ) α(s) U(s,µ) U (s,µ) = U(s,µ)+U (s,µ) α(s) α U(s,µ). Then an Abelian link field () is transformed as θ a µ (s) = θ a µ (s)+δa µ (s), δµ a (s) = αa (s) + (U (s,µ)) +(U a (s,µ)) ( U a (s,µ) b aα b (s)u b (s,µ) ǫ abc U (s,µ)u c (s,µ) ). The function R is changed as follows: R = cos(θµν a (s)) a,µ ν,s = a,µ ν,s = R = R b cos(θ a µν (s)+δa µ (s) δa ν (s)) a,µ ν,s (δ a µ (s) δa ν (s))sin(θa µν (s)) α b (s)a b (s) Appendix B: The maximal Abelian Wilson loop gauge In the maximal Abelian Wilson loop gauge (AWL), R = s,µ ν (cos(θµν(s)) a a (B) is maximized. Here θµν a (s) is defined in Eq.(). Since the gauge transformation property of the Abelian link fields is not simple, to do the gauge-fixing efficiently is not easy. Hence we adopt a gauge fixing iteration method of a minimal gauge transformation starting from the already-known smooth gauge configurations such as those in the maximal center gauge (MCG) or the direct Laplacian center gauge (DLCG) where the quantity R in (B) is known to be already large.

7 A b (s) = a b Hence if we choose (U b (s,µ) ǫ bca U c (s,µ)) µ ν U (s,µ)sin(θ a µν(s)) U (s,µ)) +(U a (s,µ)). The maximum value of R is.. Actually R in MCG gauge for β =. is around.58. When the parameter c is taken as small as.5, R becomes R.5 after four iterations and then tends to decrease. It is the vacuum adopted as the AWL vacuum. If we start from the thermalized vacuum without any smooth gauge-fixing, the large value of R is not obtained with this minimal gauge transformation method. α b (s) = ca b (s) (c > ), we get R = R+c b (A b (s)) R. [] K. Devlin, The millennium problems : the seven greatest unsolved mathematical puzzles of our time,basic Books, New York (). [] G. t Hooft, in Proceedings of the EPS International, edited by A. Zichichi, p. 5, 976. [] S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rept., 5 (976). [] N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B6, 9 (99). [5] G. t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B79, 76 (97). [6] A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B, 9 (977). [7] G. t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B9, 55 (98). [8] Z. F. Ezawa and A. Iwazaki, Phys. Rev. D5, 68 (98). [9] T. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 8, 99 (988). [] S. Maedan and T. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 8, 9 (989). [] T. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 69, 87 (98). [] A. S. Kronfeld, M. L. Laursen, G. Schierholz, and U. J. Wiese, Phys. Lett. B98, 56 (987). [] A. S. Kronfeld, G. Schierholz, and U. J. Wiese, Nucl. Phys. B9, 6 (987). [] T. Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl., 76 (99). [5] V. Singh, D. A. Browne, and R. W. Haymaker, Phys. Lett. B6, 5 (99). [6] M. N. Chernodub and M. I. Polikarpov, in Confinement, Duality and Nonperturbative Aspects of QCD, edited by P. van Baal, p. 87, Cambridge, 997, Plenum Press. [7] G. S. Bali, C. Schlichter, and K. Schilling, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 65 (998). [8] T. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 6 (998). [9] Y. Koma, M. Koma, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, T. Suzuki, and M. I. Polikarpov, Phys. Rev. D68, 98 (), [] Y. Koma, M. Koma, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, and T. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D68, 5 (), [] T. Sekido, K. Ishiguro, Y. Koma, Y.Mori, and T. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D76, 5 (7). [] Tsuneo Suzuki, A new scheme for color confinement due to violation of the non-abelian Bianchi identities, arxiv:.9 [] Tsuneo Suzuki, Katsuya Ishiguro and Vitaly Bornyakov, New scheme for color confinement and violation of the non-abelian Bianchi identities(vnabi), Phys. Rev. D97, 5 (8). [] S. Coleman and J. Mandula, Phys. Rev. 59, 5 (967). [5] T. A. DeGrand and D. Toussaint, Phys. Rev. D, 78 (98). [6] L. Del Debbio, M. Faber, J. Greensite and S. Olejnik, Phys. Rev. D55, 98 (997) [7] L. Del Debbio, M. Faber, J. Giedt, J. Greensite and S. Olejnik, Phys. Rev. D58, 95 (998) [8] C. Bonati, A. Di Giacomo, L. Lepori and F. Pucci, Phys. Rev. D8, 85 (). [9] A. Di Giacomo and V.I. Zakharov, Phys.Atom.Nucl. 7, 7 (). [] J. Arafune, P.G.O. Freund and C.J. Goebel, J.Math.Phys. 6, (975). [] P. Skala, M. Faber and M. Zach, Phys. Lett. B, 55 (998) P. Skala, M. Faber and M. Zach, Nucl. Phys. B9, 9 (997). P. Skala, M. Faber and M. Zach, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl.9, (996) [] T. Suzuki, K. Ishiguro, Y. Koma and T. Sekido, Phys. Rev. D77, 5 (8). [] T. Suzuki, M. Hasegawa, K. Ishiguro, Y. Koma and T. Sekido, Phys. Rev. D8, 55 (9). [] M. G. Alford, W. Dimm, G. P. Lepage, G. Hockney, and P. B. Mackenzie, Phys. Lett. B 6, 87 (995). [5] V. G. Bornyakov, E. -M. Ilgenfritz, and M. Muller- Preussker, Phys. Rev. D7, 55 (5). [6] G. I. Poulis, Phys. Rev. D 56, 6 (997). [7] A. Hasenfratz and F. Knechtli, Phys. Rev. D 6, 5 (). [8] A. Hasenfratz, R. Hoffmann and F. Knechtli, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 6, 8 (). [9] C. Gattringer, R. Hoffmann and S. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D 65, 95 (). [] V. G. Bornyakov et al. [DIK Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 7, 5 (5). [] M. Albanese et al. [APE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 9, 6 (987). [] The reader may wonder why a cooling or a smearing method smoothing the vacuum is not used instead of introducing a gauge-fixing. But these methods do not keep the value of the gauge action, changing the real vacuum. Hence they are not considered here.

8 [] V. G. Bornyakov, D. A. Komarov and M.I. Polikarpov, Phys. Lett. B97, 5 (). [] M. Faber, J. Greensite and S. Olejnik, JHEP, 5 (). [5] T. Suzuki et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 5, 5 (997). [6] G. S. Bali, V. Bornyakov, M. Muller-Preussker and K. Schilling, Phys. Rev. D5, 86 (996). [7] S. Ejiri et al., Phys. Lett. B, (995). [8] T.L. Ivanenko, A. V. Pochinsky and M.I. Polikarpov, Phys. Lett. B, 58 (99)., [9] H. Shiba and T. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. B5, 59 (995). [5] The reduced chisquare χ /N dof of the fit at b =.5 is 6.67 for N dof =, whereas those at b =.,.5 and. are.575 (N dof = ),.8 (N dof = ) and.59 (N dof = ), respectively.