text:
# On the Monopole Model Of Form Factors for Heavy Meson Decays

## I Introduction and Motivation

Over the past decade or so, the heavy quark effective theory (HQET)  has proven to be a very useful tool for studying many aspects of the phenomenology of heavy quarks and the hadrons containing them. The predictions of this effective field theory have been used for ‘model independent’ extractions of $`V_{cb}`$, and similar extractions are being attempted for $`V_{ub}`$. Both inclusive and exclusive semileptonic decays have seen much activity in this field, but there have also been many applications to rare radiative decays and leptonic decays and, through various factorization approximations, weak nonleptonic decays, as well as rare ones, have also been treated, with some success.

One set of processes in which the predictions of the HQET appeared to fail was in the rare decays $`BK^{}\gamma `$, $`BK\psi ^{()}`$ and $`BK^{}\psi ^{()}`$. In particular, the predictions for the degree of longitudinal polarization of the vector mesons in the last process was found by many authors to be significantly different from the measured value. In treating these processes, the form factors extracted from $`DK^{()}`$ semileptonic decays were taken and extrapolated to the much larger kinematic regime of $`B`$ decays, and together with factorization, were used to describe the $`BK^{()}\psi ^{()}`$ processes. The failure of the HQET predictions has led to the suggestion that there are non-factorizable contributions to the decay matrix element .

It is possible that this conclusion is unnecessary, or that the size of the ‘non-factorizable contributions’ are smaller than estimated. A possible source of the discrepancy between theory and experiment could lie in the forms chosen for the semileptonic form factors that describe the $`DK^{()}`$ semileptonic decays. Since these form factors formed the crucial basis of all that followed, any ‘errors’ in them would propagate into the later predictions. Indeed, using the same assumptions of HQET, with factorization, we found a number of scenarios that successfully described all of the then available data, without the need for invoking other mechanisms or non-factorizable contributions, provided that the forms of the $`DK^{()}`$ semileptonic form factors were parametrized in a manner different from that chosen by the experimentalists .

To illustrate the problem, let’s look at the decays $`DK^{()}\mathrm{}\nu `$, both within the context of HQET, and otherwise. The weak matrix elements for these decay are parametrized in terms of six form factors as

$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`f_+\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu +f_{}\left(pp^{}\right)_\mu ,`$ (1)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`igϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu \left(p+p^{}\right)^\alpha \left(pp^{}\right)^\beta ,`$ (2)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`f\epsilon _\mu ^{}+\epsilon ^{}p\left[a_+\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu +a_{}\left(pp^{}\right)_\mu \right].`$ (3)
In the context of HQET, the $`D`$ meson is represented as

$$|𝒟(v)=\sqrt{\frac{m_D}{2}}\frac{1+v/}{2}\gamma _5_D(v),$$
(4)
where $`v=p/m_D`$, and the matrix elements are obtained as, at leading order in HQET

$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v^{(c)}\right|𝒟(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _5\left(\xi _1+p/\xi _2\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_D(v)\right],`$ (5)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v^{(c)}\right|𝒟(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left\{\left(\xi _3+p/\xi _4\right)\epsilon ^{}v+\epsilon /^{}\left(\xi _5+p/\xi _6\right)\right\}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D(v)\right].`$ (6)
The functions $`\xi _i`$ are independent of the mass of the heavy quark, and would be the same if the initial meson were a $`B`$ or $`T`$ meson instead.

Taking the traces for the specific cases above gives

$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2m_D}\left(\xi _1v_\mu \xi _2p_\mu ^{}\right),`$ (7)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2m_D}\xi _6ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu p^\alpha v^\beta ,`$ (8)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2m_D}\left[\xi _3\epsilon ^{}vv_\mu +\left(\xi _6\xi _4\right)\epsilon ^{}vp_\mu ^{}\left(\xi _5+vp^{}\xi _6\right)\epsilon _\mu ^{}\right].`$ (9)
Comparing the two sets of matrix elements leads to

$`f_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m_D}}}\left(m_D\xi _2+\xi _1\right),`$ (10)
$`f_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m_D}}}\left(\xi _1m_D\xi _2\right),`$ (11)
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m_D}}}\xi _6,`$ (12)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2m_D}\left(\xi _5+vp^{}\xi _6\right),`$ (13)
$`a_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m_D^3}}}\left[\xi _3+m_D\left(\xi _6\xi _4\right)\right],`$ (14)
$`a_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m_D^3}}}\left[\xi _3m_D\left(\xi _6\xi _4\right)\right].`$ (15)
If, on the other hand, the strange quark were to be treated as heavy, then all of the form factors could be written in terms of a single Isgur-Wise function, $`\xi (w)`$, as

$`f_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{m_Dm_K}}}\left(m_D+m_K\right)\xi (w),`$ (16)
$`f_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{m_Dm_K}}}\left(m_Dm_K\right)\xi (w),`$ (17)
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{m_Dm_K}}}\xi (w),`$ (18)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m_Dm_K}}{2}}\left(1+w\right)\xi (w),`$ (19)
$`a_+`$ $`=`$ $`a_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{m_Dm_K}}}\xi (w),`$ (20)
where $`w=vv^{}`$ and $`v^{}=p^{}/m_K^{()}`$. These relationships are obtainable from the previous ones by noting that, by comparison with the Falk representations of states, in the limit $`m_s\mathrm{}`$,

$`\xi _1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\sqrt{m_K}\xi ,`$ (22)
$`\xi _2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m_K}}}\xi ,`$ (23)
$`\xi _3`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (24)
$`\xi _4`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (25)
$`\xi _5`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\sqrt{m_K}\xi ,`$ (26)
$`\xi _6`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m_K}}}\xi .`$ (27)
It has become customary to parametrize these form factors as monopole forms and, in fact, this is how the available data in $`DK^{()}`$ semileptonic decays have been treated . However, from eqns. (10) and (16), it is clear that using simple monopole forms for all of the form factors is contradictory to the predictions of HQET. In particular, the form factor $`f`$ can not be a simple monopole. Indeed, if the Isgur-Wise function of eqn. (16) is chosen to be a simple monopole, then the $`q^2`$ dependence in $`f`$ is not that of a monopole. While the differences in parametrization may have insignificant impact on the analysis of the $`DK^{()}`$ semileptonic decays, the consequences can be very significant for $`BK^{()}`$ decays. Note that Aleksan et al.  have pointed out that $`f`$ should increase more slowly with $`q^2`$ than $`f_+`$, $`g`$ or $`a_+`$, in order to accomodate the nonleptonic and rare data.

The question of the parametrization of these form factors is also important for the semileptonic decays of $`B`$ mesons to light ones like $`\rho `$ and $`\pi `$, as these processes provide one means of obtaining the CKM matrix element $`V_{ub}`$. Some information on the $`B\pi `$ and $`B\rho `$ transition form factors can be obtained by applying HQET to the $`D\pi `$ and $`D\rho `$ semileptonic transitions. It has been proposed to extract these latter form factors with great precision at CLEO-c, and these could then be used in the extraction of $`V_{ub}`$ from the corresponding $`B`$ decays. However, the value obtained for this CKM matrix element could be strongly dependent on the parametrization of the form factors.

One question that arises here is the following. Is the monopole form valid, even for the Isgur-Wise function $`\xi (w)`$, or for the $`\xi _i`$? Is this a ‘model’ or an ansatz for the form factors that is consistent with HQET? To examine this, we have constructed a monopole model of form factors, and compared the predictions with those of HQET. The monopole model is constructed within the framework of HQET. In the next section, we discuss a number of relations among form factors that arise in HQET. For concreteness, we examine the ‘decays’ of $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ mesons to $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ mesons, through the scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial vector and tensor currents. In section III, we present the pole model we use, and point out some of the key results obtained there. In section IV we compare the predictions of HQET with those of the pole model, and in section V we present our conclusions.

## II Form Factors

In this section, we discuss the transitions $`D^{()}K^{()}`$ through the scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial vector and tensor currents. We first give the general Lorentz structure of the matrix elements, then examine the structures that arise in HQET, if the strange quark is treated as a light quark. In this case, the matrix elements are written in terms of the 6 functions $`\xi _i`$, introduced previously.

The 20 matrix elements of interest are written in terms of form factors as

$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`S_1(q^2),`$ (28)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )=0,`$ (29)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`S_2(q^2)\epsilon \epsilon ^{}+S_3(q^2)\epsilon p^{}\epsilon ^{}p,`$ (30)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _5c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (31)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _5c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`r_1(q^2)\epsilon ^{}p,`$ (32)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _5c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`r_2(q^2)\epsilon p^{},`$ (33)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _5c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`ir_3(q^2)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\mu \epsilon ^\nu \left(p+p^{}\right)^\alpha \left(pp^{}\right)^\beta =2ir_3(q^2)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\mu \epsilon ^\nu p^\alpha p^\beta ,`$ (34)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`f_+(q^2)\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu +f_{}(q^2)\left(pp^{}\right)_\mu ,`$ (35)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`ig(q^2)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu \left(p+p^{}\right)^\alpha \left(pp^{}\right)^\beta ,`$ (36)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`ig^{}(q^2)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu \left(p+p^{}\right)^\alpha \left(pp^{}\right)^\beta ,`$ (37)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`v_1(q^2)\epsilon p^{}\epsilon _\mu ^{}+v_2(q^2)\epsilon ^{}p\epsilon _\mu `$ (38)
$`+`$ $`\epsilon p^{}\epsilon ^{}p\left[v_+(q^2)\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu +v_{}(q^2)\left(pp^{}\right)_\mu \right]`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`\epsilon \epsilon ^{}\left[v_+^{}(q^2)\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu +v_{}^{}(q^2)\left(pp^{}\right)_\mu \right]`$ (40)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (41)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`f(q^2)\epsilon _\mu ^{}+\epsilon ^{}p\left[a_+(q^2)\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu +a_{}(q^2)\left(pp^{}\right)_\mu \right]`$ (42)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`f^{}(q^2)\epsilon _\mu +\epsilon p^{}\left[a_+^{}(q^2)\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu +a_{}^{}(q^2)\left(pp^{}\right)_\mu \right]`$ (43)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\{(p+p^{})^\alpha (pp^{})^\beta [h_1(q^2)\epsilon p^{}\epsilon ^\nu +h_2(q^2)\epsilon ^{}p\epsilon ^\nu ]`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`\epsilon ^\nu \epsilon ^\alpha [h_+(q^2)(p+p^{})_\beta +h_{}(q^2)(pp^{})_\beta ]\}`$ (45)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`is(q^2)\left[\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu \left(pp^{}\right)_\nu \left(pp^{}\right)_\mu \left(p+p^{}\right)_\nu \right]`$ (46)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\left\{h(q^2)\epsilon ^{}p\left(p+p^{}\right)^\alpha \left(pp^{}\right)^\beta +\epsilon ^\alpha \left[g_+(q^2)\left(p+p^{}\right)^\beta +g_{}(q^2)\left(pp^{}\right)^\beta \right]\right\},`$ (47)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\left\{h^{}(q^2)\epsilon p^{}\left(p+p^{}\right)^\alpha \left(pp^{}\right)^\beta +\epsilon ^\alpha \left[g_+^{}(q^2)\left(p+p^{}\right)^\beta +g_{}^{}(q^2)\left(pp^{}\right)^\beta \right]\right\},`$ (48)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`it_0(q^2)\left(\epsilon _\mu \epsilon _\nu ^{}\epsilon _\nu \epsilon _\mu ^{}\right)`$ (49)
$`+`$ $`i\left[\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu \left(pp^{}\right)_\nu \left(p+p^{}\right)_\nu \left(pp^{}\right)_\mu \right]\left(t_1(q^2)\epsilon \epsilon ^{}+t_2(q^2)\epsilon p^{}\epsilon ^{}p\right)`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`i\epsilon ^{}p\left\{t_+(q^2)\left[\epsilon _\mu \left(p+p^{}\right)_\nu \epsilon _\nu \left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu \right]+t_{}(q^2)\left[\epsilon _\mu \left(pp^{}\right)_\nu \epsilon _\nu \left(pp^{}\right)_\mu \right]\right\}`$ (51)
$`+`$ $`i\epsilon p^{}\left\{t_+^{}(q^2)\left[\epsilon _\mu ^{}\left(p+p^{}\right)_\nu \epsilon _\nu ^{}\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu \right]+t_{}^{}(q^2)\left[\epsilon _\mu ^{}\left(pp^{}\right)_\nu \epsilon _\nu ^{}\left(pp^{}\right)_\mu \right]\right\}.`$ (52)
These 20 matrix elements are thus expressed in terms of 40 a priori independent form factors.

In terms of the 6 functions $`\xi _i`$, at leading order in HQET, the matrix elements above are found to be

$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2m_D}\left[vp^{}\xi _2+\xi _1\right],`$ (53)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2m_D}\left[\epsilon \epsilon ^{}\left(\xi _5+vp^{}\xi _6\right)+\epsilon p^{}\epsilon ^{}v\left(\xi _4\xi _6\right)\right],`$ (54)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _5c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2m_D}\epsilon ^{}v\left(vp^{}\xi _4+\xi _5\xi _3\right),`$ (55)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _5c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2m_D}\epsilon p^{}\xi _2,`$ (56)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _5c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2m_D}\xi _6ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\mu \epsilon ^\nu p^\alpha v^\beta ,`$ (57)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2m_D}\left(\xi _2p_\mu ^{}+\xi _1v_\mu \right),`$ (58)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2m_D}\xi _6ϵ_{\nu \mu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu p^^\alpha v^\beta ,`$ (59)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2m_D}\xi _2ϵ_{\nu \mu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu p^\alpha v^\beta ,`$ (60)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2m_D}[\epsilon p^{}\epsilon _\mu ^{}\xi _6+\epsilon ^{}v\epsilon _\mu (\xi _3vp^{}\xi _4\xi _5)`$ (61)
$`+`$ $`\epsilon p^{}\epsilon ^{}p\xi _4v_\mu +\epsilon \epsilon ^{}(\xi _6p_\mu ^{}+\xi _5v_\mu )],`$ (62)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2m_D}\left\{\left(\xi _5+vp^{}\xi _6\right)\epsilon _\mu ^{}+\epsilon ^{}v\left[\xi _3v_\mu +\left(\xi _6\xi _4\right)p_\mu ^{}\right]\right\},`$ (63)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2m_D}\left[\left(\xi _1+vp^{}\xi _2\right)\epsilon _\mu +\epsilon p^{}\xi _2v_\mu \right],`$ (64)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2m_D}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\left[\epsilon ^\alpha \epsilon ^\beta \left(\xi _6p_\nu ^{}+\xi _5v_\nu \right)+\xi _4\epsilon ^{}v\epsilon ^\nu p^\alpha v^\beta \right],`$ (65)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2m_D}\xi _2\left(p_\mu ^{}v_\nu p_\nu ^{}v_\mu \right),`$ (66)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2m_D}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\left[\xi _4\epsilon ^{}vp^\alpha v^\beta +\epsilon ^\alpha \left(\xi _6p^\beta +\xi _5v^\beta \right)\right],`$ (67)
$`K(p^{})\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2m_D}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\alpha \left(\xi _1v^\beta +\xi _2p^\beta \right),`$ (68)
$`K^{}(p^{},\epsilon ^{})\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }c\right|D^{}(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2m_D}\{(\xi _5+vp^{}\xi _6)(\epsilon _\mu \epsilon _\nu ^{}\epsilon _\nu \epsilon _\mu ^{})`$ (69)
$`+`$ $`\xi _6\left[\left(v_\mu p_\nu ^{}v_\nu p_\mu ^{}\right)\epsilon \epsilon ^{}+\epsilon p^{}\left(v_\mu \epsilon _\nu ^{}v_\nu \epsilon _\mu ^{}\right)\right]`$ (70)
$`+`$ $`\epsilon ^{}v[(\xi _6\xi _4)(\epsilon _\mu p_\nu ^{}\epsilon _\nu p_\mu ^{})+\xi _3(\epsilon _\mu v_\nu \epsilon _\nu v_\mu )]\}.`$ (71)
Because there are 40 form factors in eqns. (28) and only 6 functions in eqns. (53), a large number of relationships among the form factors of eqns. (28) can be derived. Among these are

$`a_+^{}a_{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`h^{}=h_1=t_2=t_+^{}t_{}^{}=v_+v_{}=0,`$ (72)
$`f_++f_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(g_+^{}+g_{}^{}\right),`$ (73)
$`f_+f_{}`$ $`=`$ $`=r_2=2m_Dg^{}=m_D\left(a_+^{}+a_{}^{}\right)=2m_Ds=g_{}^{}g_+^{},`$ (74)
$`t_+^{}+t_{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2r_3=2g={\displaystyle \frac{v_1}{m_D}}={\displaystyle \frac{v_+^{}v_{}^{}}{m_D}}={\displaystyle \frac{h_+h_{}}{m_D}}={\displaystyle \frac{g_+g_{}}{m_D}}=2t_1,`$ (75)
$`a_++a_{}`$ $`=`$ $`t_++t_{},`$ (76)
$`v_++v_{}`$ $`=`$ $`2h_2=2h,`$ (77)
$`v_+^{}+v_{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(h_++h_{}\right)=g_++g_{},`$ (78)
$`a_{}a_+`$ $`=`$ $`=s_3=t_{}t_+,`$ (79)
$`s_1`$ $`=`$ $`f^{},`$ (80)
$`s_2`$ $`=`$ $`f=t_0,`$ (81)
$`r_1`$ $`=`$ $`v_2.`$ (82)
We emphasize here that these relationships are independent of the masses of the light hadrons, the value of $`q^2`$, and even the number of colors in QCD. The only criterion required is that the mass of the heavy quark be much larger than some scale ‘$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$’, which determines the regime of non-perturbative QCD dynamics.

In addition to the relationships among the form factors, eqns. (28) and (53) can be used to determine how the form factors of eqn. (28) scale with the mass of the heavy quark or heavy meson. For instance,

$$f_++f_{}\sqrt{m_D},g^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{m_D}},a_++a_{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{m_D^3}}.$$
(83)
## III Pole Model

We assume that the process $`DK`$ through the current $`\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }c`$ proceeds as a two-step process, in which there is first the strong ‘decay’ $`DKD_s^i`$, where $`D_s^i`$ is any of the $`D_s`$ resonances with the appropriate quantum numbers, followed by the ‘leptonic’ decay of the $`D_s^i`$ through the current $`\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }c`$. This means that we write

$$K^{()}\left|\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }c\right|D^{()}=\underset{i,\mathrm{spins}}{}\frac{0\left|\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }c\right|D_s^iD_s^iK^{()}|D^{()}}{q^2m_{D_s^i}^2},$$
(84)
where the sum includes all possible $`D_s^i`$ states allowed, and over all spins of those states.

Within HQET we have already discussed, in the previous section, all of the ‘semileptonic’ matrix elements $`K^{()}\left|\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }c\right|D^{()}`$. Now we turn to the strong and ‘leptonic’ matrix elements.

For the leptonic processes $`0\left|\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }c\right|D_s^i`$, we find from HQET that these matrix elements can be written

$$0\left|\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }c\right|D_s^i(v)=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_s^i}(v)\right]f_{D_s^i},$$
(85)
where $`_{D_s^i}(v)`$ is taken to be the Falk representation of the state, and $`f_{D_s^i}`$ is its decay constant. This immediately implies that only states whose Falk representations have no free Lorentz indices can contribute in the pole model, as only these have non-zero leptonic matrix elements. Thus, only the $`(0^{},1^{})`$ and $`(0^+,1^+)`$ $`D_s`$ multiplets are of interest.

For the strong vertices, we use the form developed by the author , namely that

$`D_s^i(v)K(p)|D^{()}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[a_ip/\gamma _5\overline{}_{D_s^i}(v)_D^{()}(v)\right],`$ (86)
$`D_s^i(v)K^{}(p,\epsilon )|D^{()}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}[(b_i\epsilon /^{}+c_i\epsilon ^{}v)p/\overline{}_{D_s^i}(v)_D^{()}(v)].`$ (87)
Here $`a_i`$, $`b_i`$ and $`c_i`$ are phenomenological constants that are independent of the mass of the heavy quark in the parent hadron.

There is one subtlety here in that the emission of the light kaon cannot change the velocity of the heavy hadron, so that the parent $`D^{()}`$ and daughter $`D_s^i`$ move with the same velocity. However, we will simply take the forms above as being valid for all kinematics.

With these forms, we can then calculate the semileptonic matrix elements, and extract the contributions to the various form factors. Doing this, we find, for instance, that

$`f_+`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_D}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_Dm_{D_s}+q^2}{m_{D_s}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s}a_{D_s}}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s}^2}}},`$ (88)
$`f_{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_D}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_Dm_{D_s}^3+m_{D_s}m_D^32m_{D_s}^2m_K^2m_{D_s}m_Dm_K^2+m_{D_s}^2q^2m_{D_s}m_Dq^2+m_D^2q^2+m_K^2q^2q^4}{m_{D_s}^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s}a_{D_s}}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s}^2}}}`$ (89)
$``$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_D}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_D^3m_{D_s^{}}+m_D^3+m_{D_s^{}}m_K^2m_Dm_K^2m_{D_s^{}}q^2m_Dq^2}{m_{D_s^{}}^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s^{}}a_{D_s^{}}}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s^{}}^2}}},`$ (90)
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_D}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_D+m_{D_s}}{m_{D_s}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s}c_{D_s}}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s}^2}}},`$ (91)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_D}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{D_s^{}}m_D^2+m_D^3+m_{D_s^{}}m_K^2m_Dm_K^2m_{D_s^{}}q^2m_Dq^2}{m_{D_s}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s^{}}c_{D_s^{}}}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s^{}}^2}}},`$ (92)
$`a_+`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_D^3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[b_{D_s^{}}(m_Dm_{D_s^{}}+q^2)m_Dc_{D_s^{}}(m_{D_s^{}}+m_D)\right]}{m_{D_s^{}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s^{}}}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s^{}}^2}}},`$ (93)
$`a_{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_D^3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[b_{D_s}(m_D^2m_{D_s}+m_D^3+m_{D_s}m_K^2m_Dm_K^2m_{D_s}q^2m_Dq^2)+2m_Dm_K^2c_{D_s}\right]}{m_{D_s}^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s}}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s}^2}}}`$ (94)
$``$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_D^3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{D_s^{}}^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s^{}}}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s^{}}^2}}}[c_{D_s^{}}(2m_{D_s^{}}m_Dm_K^2m_{D_s^{}}^3m_Dm_{D_s^{}}^2m_D^2)`$ (96)
$`+b_{D_s^{}}(m_Dm_{D_s^{}}^3+m_{D_s^{}}m_D^32m_{D_s^{}}^2m_K^2m_{D_s^{}}m_Dm_K^2+m_{D_s^{}}^2q^2m_{D_s^{}}m_Dq^2+m_D^2q^2+m_K^2q^2q^4)].`$
In these equations, the subscript $`D_s`$ refers to either member of the $`(0^{},1^{})`$ ground state multiplet of $`D_s`$ states, while $`D_s^{}`$ refers to the $`(0^+,1^+)`$ multiplet.

In their model for the form factors, Bauer, Stech and Wirbel  write

$`f_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h_1}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s}^2}}},`$ (97)
$`f_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_D^2m_K^2}{q^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{h_0}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s^{}}^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_1}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s}^2}}}\right],`$ (98)
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_D+m_K^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_V}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s}^2}}},`$ (99)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_D+m_K^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{h_{A_1}}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s^{}}^2}}},`$ (100)
$`a_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_D+m_K^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{A_2}}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s^{}}^2}}},`$ (101)
$`a_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_K^{}}{q^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{h_{A_0}}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s}^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_D+m_K^{}}{2m_K^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{A_1}}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s^{}}^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_Dm_K^{}}{2m_K^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{A_2}}{1\frac{q^2}{m_{D_s^{}}^2}}}\right].`$ (102)
The forms written in the last two sets of equations are similar, not unexpectedly, up to the extra kinematic dependence present in the numerators of eqns. (88).

## IV Results and Discussion

The numerators of the form factor expressions obtained are, in general, $`q^2`$ dependent, and $`q^2`$ ranges from $`q^2=m_{\mathrm{}}^2`$, where $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the mass of the ‘lepton’ emitted in the decay, to $`q^2=(m_{D^{()}}m_{K^{()}})^2`$. In the latter case, $`q^2`$ scales with the mass of the heavy quark, so it is instructive to examine the relationships among the form factors in the two extremes, independently. We note, however, that the predictions for the relationships among the form factors arising from HQET are independent of $`q^2`$, and so should hold at any value of $`q^2`$.

### A $`q^2=(m_{D^{()}}m_{K^{()}})^2`$

Of the numerous relations among the form factors shown in eqn. (72), very few are satisfied in the pole model we have constructed, in the $`q^2=(m_{D^{()}}m_{K^{()}})^2`$ limit, at least at first sight. If we set $`m_c`$ to infinity, so that all the heavy mesons are approximately degenerate, and take the kaon and $`K^{}`$ as approximately massless, we still find that very few of the relationships are satisfied. However, if we also take into account the scaling relationships of the form factors, then we find that most of the relationships do indeed hold.

For instance, we find that $`f_+f_{}=r_2`$ so that $`f_+f_{}r_2=0`$ should hold. In fact, in the pole model, the right hand side of this latter equation does not vanish. However,

$`f_+f_{}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{m_D},`$ (103)
$`r_2`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{m_D},`$ (104)
while, in the pole model

$`f_+f_{}r_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m_D}}},`$ (105)
meaning that ‘at leading order’ for these form factors, the relationship $`f_+f_{}=r_2`$ is satisfied. This is the manner in which all of the form factor relationships that do hold, become satisfied; the observed violations are of higher order in $`1/m_c`$.

The form factors, or combinations of form factors, that vanish exactly, namely

$$a_+^{}a_{}^{}=h^{}=h_1=t_3=t_+^{}t_{}^{}=v_+v_{}=0$$
(106)
are not satisfied in the pole model, at the $`q^2=(m_{D^{()}}m_{K^{()}})^2`$ limit. Setting all heavy masses to be the same, and the kaon ($`K^{}`$) mass to be zero does not help. In fact, these form factor combinations are all proportional to $`1/m_{K^{()}}`$, in this limit. Thus, it is not clear how else to interpret these results but to say that these relationships are not satisfied in this pole model. Furthermore, use of scaling arguments may work for the combinations $`a_+^{}a_{}^{}`$, $`t_+^{}t_{}^{}`$ and $`v_+v_{}`$, but there are no clear scaling arguments that can be made to say that the non-vanishing contributions to $`h^{}`$, $`h_1`$ and $`t_3`$ are in fact consistent with zero, at leading order. We note that using such scaling arguments suggests that while the combinations $`t_+^{}t_{}^{}`$ and $`v_+v_{}`$ do indeed vanish at leading order (modulo a factor of $`1/m_{K^{()}}`$), the combination $`a_+^{}a_{}^{}`$ does not.

### B $`q^2=0`$

In this limit, fewer of the relationships among the form factors are satisfied, even when the scaling arguments are used. For instance,

$`f_++f_{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m_D}}},`$ (107)
$`g_+^{}+g_{}^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m_D}}},`$ (108)
and

$`f_++f_{}(g_+^{}+g_{}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m_D}}}.`$ (109)
In the $`q^2=(m_{D^{()}}m_{K^{()}})^2`$ limit, this difference scales like $`1/\sqrt{m_D^3}`$, thus vanishing at leading order. Here, in the $`q^2=0`$ limit, this difference clearly does not vanish, not even when scaling arguments are invoked.

## V Conclusions

In the pole model that we have constructed, a number of the HQET-predicted relationships among form factors are found to be violated at all values of $`q^2`$. Grinstein  has argued that in the combined heavy quark, chiral and large $`N_c`$ limits, the few relationships examined for pseudoscalar meson transitions ($`B\pi `$), in a pole model similar to the one constructed herein, do hold. However, the relationships shown in eqn. (72) are obtained only in the limit of a heavy quark, and are ‘unaware’ of the mass of the light mesons and the number of colors. They should therefore hold without the need to invoke these additional limits.

In view of our results, we suggest that the available data on $`D`$ semileptonic decays be reanalyzed using a paramterization of the form factors other than the monopole form. Certainly, at least the form factor $`f`$ should be allowed to depart from the ‘simple’ monopole form. Furthermore, if funding for CLEO-c is approved, analysis of new data obtained on $`D`$ semileptonic decays should relax the ‘monopole assumption’ for the form factors. Because of the limited phase space, the form of the parametrization used will probably not have important consequences for $`D`$ meson decays, not even for $`D\pi `$ processes. However, the differences in parametrization can lead to very different results for $`B`$ decays, and are therefore of crucial importance for the extraction of $`V_{ub}`$, for instance. This becomes even more important if the form factors for $`D\pi `$ (or $`D\rho `$) semileptonic decays, in conjunction with the scaling predictions of HQET, are used in analysis of $`B\pi `$ (or $`B\rho `$) processes.

The author thanks J. L. Goity for reading the manuscript, and for discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation through grants # PHY-9457892 and # PHY 9820458. This work was also supported by the Department of Energy through contract DE-AC05-84ER40150, under which the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF), and through contract DE-FG05-94ER40832.


format: text

text:
# Gauge Invariant Monopoles in SU(2) Gluodynamics. ITEP-LAT-2002-03 MPI-PhT-2002-09

## Introduction

The issue of magnetic monopoles in gauge models has a long history. The most famous result remains the Dirac quantization condition . Although the monopoles themselves appeared to be purely mathematical constructions there were many exciting theoretical issues elucidated in the next 50 years or so following the Dirac’s paper, for a review see . The next breakthrough was the realization  that magnetic monopoles naturally appear as classical configurations in the context of grand unified theories.

Since then the main development is the observation and accumulation of data on the monopoles in lattice gauge theories (see Ref.  for a review). The monopoles are intrinsically a $`U(1)`$ object and in the non-Abelian case, with no spontaneous symmetry breaking, the choice of a particular $`U(1)`$ turns out to be a matter of gauge fixing. As a result, the definition of the monopoles is not unique and it is a separate issue which monopoles are relevant physically.

Despite of the gauge dependence of monopoles in non-Abelian models the crucial point is that it is only the compactness of the gauge group that makes the very existence of monopoles possible . Therefore the lattice regularization is singled out since it explicitly preserves the global structure of the gauge group. In particular, any non-Abelian lattice action is a periodic functional which permits for this reason existence of chromo-magnetic singular fluxes (Dirac strings) . In this paper we show that the monopoles defined as the end-points of non-Abelian Dirac strings are $`SU(2)`$ gauge invariant. It is important that the singularity of the non-Abelian flux does not necessarily imply singular gauge potentials, contrary to the Abelian case. Whether the potentials are singular or not depends now on a particular gauge. We also formulate the monopole charge in terms of physical fluxes (Wilson loops) alone thus demonstrating explicitly its gauge invariance.

To substantiate our definition of the magnetic charge we first consider a particular case of spontaneously broken gauge symmetry, namely, the Georgi-Glashow model and show that at the level of classical field configurations our formulation is identical to the well known definition of the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole charge. Then we rederive it in terms of Wilson loops which allows us to check that in the limit of pure Abelian gauge fields our construction is the same as for the Abelian monopole. At the level of classical field configurations it is also possible to estimate the self-energy of the monopole, which turns out to be linearly divergent in the ultraviolet.

Thus, our definition of the monopole charge if applied to classical field configurations would select the singular Wu-Yang monopole . However, it is well known that the Wu-Yang solution is in fact unstable . Physically the instability arises because the interaction of spins with the magnetic field is so strong that the massless gluons fall onto the monopole center. Thus, it is an open dynamical question, what kind of the field configurations would be primarily identified as having the magnetic charge. Most probably, one should rely on the numerical simulations to answer this question. Thus, it is worth mentioning that our, pure topological definition of the monopole charge can be implemented in the quantum context  of the lattice gauge theories.

## 1. Monopole Charge in Georgi-Glashow Model.

Magnetic monopoles of finite energy were found  as classical solutions to non-Abelian field theories with scalar matter fields. And in fact it is a common belief that monopoles in QCD, if they exist, should resemble somehow the monopoles of the Georgi-Glashow model. However, this feeling is difficult to formalize since there are no scalar fields anymore. To substantiate our definition of monopoles in gluodynamics it is convenient to start from the Georgi-Glashow model where the monopole charge is a well defined quantity which explicitly depends however upon the scalar fields profile. We will reformulate the standard definition in terms of the gauge field alone. The latter construction then directly applies in gluodynamics since it makes no reference to the scalar fields. Of course, the equivalence of the both constructions holds only on the classical level. As far as the quantum problem is concerned they produce a priori different results.

Consider the Georgi-Glashow model with a scalar triplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$:

$$L=\frac{1}{4g^2}(F_{\mu \nu }^a)^2+\frac{1}{2}(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a)^2+V(|\mathrm{\Phi }|),$$
(1)
$$F_{\mu \nu }^a=_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]}^a+\epsilon ^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c,$$

$$(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^a=_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a+\epsilon ^{abc}A_\mu ^b\mathrm{\Phi }^c,$$

where the potential $`V(|\mathrm{\Phi }|)`$ is such that classically $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|=v0`$. The ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole solution corresponds to the ansatz:

$$A_i^a=\epsilon ^{aik}\frac{r^k}{r^2}A(r),\mathrm{\Phi }^a=\frac{r^a}{r}v\mathrm{\Phi }(r).$$
(2)
Moreover, let us consider sufficiently large vector- and Higgs- boson masses, (denoted $`m_V`$ and $`m_H`$, respectively). Then the following asymptotic behavior of the profile functions $`A(r)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ is true almost everywhere:

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}A(r)=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }(r)=1.$$
(3)
Of course, Eqs. (2,3) are valid only for a single monopole. In general, there are many objects like (2,3) in the vacuum and the question is, what is the net monopole charge contained in a three-dimensional volume large compared to $`1/m_V^3`$, $`1/m_H^3`$? The answer is that one has to take a closed smooth surface $`S_{phys}^2`$ containing the volume and consider the Higgs field distribution on it. Then the net monopole charge can be calculated as:

$`q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{S_{phys}^2}{}}\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{S_{phys}^2}{}}\left\{\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\stackrel{}{A}+\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right\}=`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{S_{phys}^2}{}}\left\{\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\stackrel{}{F}+\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}D\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\times D\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right\},`$
where $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}/|\mathrm{\Phi }|`$. Thus the monopole trajectory is parameterized by three equations $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a=0`$ which are quite convenient to use when the scalar fields are explicitly given. But suppose that Higgs field distribution is unknown. How can one detect the monopole (2,3) in this case?

The answer is straightforward provided that the radius of $`S_{phys}^2`$ is sufficiently large. Indeed, the scalar field $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ satisfying the classical field equations is covariantly constant at large distances:

$$D_i\mathrm{\Phi }=0\left(rm_V,rm_H1\right).$$
(5)
Thus, the direction of the vector $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ on $`S_{phys}^2`$ is the same as the direction of the tangential to $`S_{phys}^2`$ components of $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$:

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\times \stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }d^2\sigma ^{\mu \nu }|_{S_{phys}^2}=0,$$
(6)
where $`d^2\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ is an infinitesimal surface element. Therefore, assuming that $`\stackrel{}{F}d^2\sigma 0`$ one can introduce the unit vector

$$\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{F}d^2\sigma ,\stackrel{}{n}S_{phys}^2$$
(7)
and calculate the monopole charge $`q`$ by substituting $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\stackrel{}{n}`$ in Eq. (4):

$$q=\frac{1}{8\pi }\underset{S_{phys}^2}{}\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{n}.$$
(8)
It is evident that in case of the classical ’t Hooft-Polyakov solution Eqs. (4) and (8) are exactly equivalent at least for sufficiently large $`S_{phys}^2`$. What might be more surprising is that the equivalence of (4) and (8) holds true at all the distances, that is even inside the core of the ’t Hooft-Polyakov solution. Indeed, the color magnetic field of the monopole (2,3) is given by:

$$B_k^a\delta ^{ak}A^{}/r+\frac{\widehat{x}_a\widehat{x}_k}{r^2}\left[ArA^{}\right]$$
(9)
and therefore

$$n^aB_k^ads^k=\widehat{x}_a\frac{A}{r^2},ds^k\epsilon ^{kij}d^2\sigma _{ij}.$$
(10)
It is clear that the monopole charge (8) calculated on the configuration (9) is exactly the same as the charge defined by Eq. (4).

We would like to emphasize that Eqs. (7,8) by themselves make no reference neither to the Georgi-Glashow model nor to a particular classical solution. They may also be considered in case of pure $`SU(2)`$ gluodynamics as well. Therefore Eqs. (7,8) might serve as a natural gauge invariant definition of the monopole charge in pure gauge theories.

Let us make several remarks concerning the above monopole-charge definition:

i) The monopole charge is well defined as far as the unit vector $`\widehat{n}`$ is defined, that is as far as $`\stackrel{}{F}d^2\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ is not vanishing. However, even if $`\stackrel{}{F}d^2\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=0`$ for a particular $`d^2\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ it does not mean that there is a magnetic monopole located at this point. Generally speaking, it is enough to vary the surface. Indeed, vanishing of all the components $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ constitutes too many equations to be satisfied on a world-line in case of $`D=4`$.

ii) One can verify that Eq. (8) is invariant under small deformation of the surface $`S_{phys}^2`$ provided that the field (7) is non singular. Therefore the Gauss law holds true for the magnetic charge (8), at least for smooth non vanishing $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$.

iii) The definition (7,8) makes no explicit reference to the non-Abelian action density. In fact this is a common feature of all monopole constructions considered so far in gluodynamics. What is specific, however, is that Eq. (8) is gauge invariant. It is well known that the only gauge invariant objects in pure gluodynamics are the Wilson loops. Therefore it should be possible to reformulate Eqs. (7,8) in terms of Wilson loops alone. We consider this issue in the next section.

## 2. Monopole Charge in Terms of Wilson Loops.

In this section we reformulate the definition (7,8) in terms of Wilson loops (see also Ref. ). In fact, our approach is close to quantum mechanical consideration of non adiabatic Berry phase  (see Ref.  for a review). Therefore we recall first the basics of the Berry phase construction and then apply it to the $`SU(2)`$ pure gauge theory (for related ideas see Ref. ).

### 2.1. Non Adiabatic Berry Phase.

Consider unitary evolution of a quantum mechanical system described by a state vector $`|\psi (t)`$, where $`|\psi `$ is an element of the $`N+1`$-dimensional complex vector space $`^{N+1}`$ with $`N`$ finite, for simplicity. In terms of the complex coordinates $`\{z_0,\mathrm{},z_N\}`$ the state vector is $`|\psi (t)=\{z_0(t),\mathrm{},z_N(t)\}`$. Since the unitary evolution preserves the norm, the normalization condition $`\psi |\psi =1`$ defines a $`2N+1`$-dimensional sphere $`S^{2N+1}^{N+1}`$ on which the evolution takes place. However, the space of physical states is even narrower since the states $`|\psi `$ and $`|\psi ^{}`$ are physically equivalent if $`|\psi =e^{i\alpha }|\psi ^{}`$. Therefore, the set of physically non-equivalent states is the $`N`$-dimensional projective space:

$$P^N=S^{2N+1}/U(1).$$
(11)
The quantum mechanical evolution is governed by the Schrödinger equation

$$i_t|\psi (t)=H(\lambda (t))|\psi (t),$$
(12)
where Hamiltonian $`H(\lambda (t))`$ depends implicitly on time through the set of the parameters $`\lambda _i(t)`$, $`\lambda _i(0)=\lambda _i(T)`$. We will be interested in the eigenstate of the full evolution operator which returns to the same physical state after evolving along a closed path $`CP^N`$:

$$W(T)|\psi (0)|\psi (T)=e^{i\phi (T)}|\psi (0),W(t)=\text{T}\mathrm{exp}\{i\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}H\},$$
(13)
Here $`C`$ is the image of a closed path $`𝒞=\{\lambda (t),0<t<T\}`$ in the space of parameters $`\lambda `$ under the mapping $`|\psi (t):𝒞C`$. In order to calculate the total phase $`\phi (T)`$ acquired by $`|\psi (0)`$ during the evolution, we introduce a single-valued vector $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t)`$ which differs from $`|\psi (t)`$ by a phase factor

$$|\psi (t)=e^{i\phi (t)}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t)$$
(14)
and satisfies the condition:

$$|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(T)=|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(0).$$
(15)
Note that Eq. (15) still does not define the $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ uniquely: for a given $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$, vector $`e^{i\theta }|\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is also single-valued provided that $`\theta (T)\theta (0)=2\pi n`$.

From Eqs. (12,14) it is straightforward to get the total phase:

$$\phi (T)=\delta +\gamma =\underset{𝒞}{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }|H|\stackrel{~}{\psi }+i\underset{𝒞}{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }|d|\stackrel{~}{\psi }.$$
(16)
The first term in Eq. (16) is known as the non adiabatic dynamical phase. It depends explicitly on detailed structure of the Hamiltonian. One can show that in the adiabatic limit it reduces to $`\delta =_0^TE_n`$ where $`E_n`$ is the corresponding energy level. The second term is the non adiabatic Berry phase which depends only on the form of the closed path $`CP^N`$ spanned by $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ during the evolution.

Let us illustrate the above representation by the spin-$`1/2`$ evolution in an external time-dependent magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}(\lambda (t))`$, $`\lambda (T)=\lambda (0)`$. The corresponding Hamiltonian is $`H=\frac{1}{2}B^a\sigma ^a`$ where $`\sigma ^a`$ are the Pauli matrices. A convenient basis is provided by the spin coherent states $`|\stackrel{}{n}`$ which are in one-to-one correspondence with points on two-dimensional sphere. Note that the phase ambiguity for the states $`|\stackrel{}{n}`$ is fixed by the requirement that every $`|\stackrel{}{n}`$ is obtainable via action of a specific $`SU(2)`$ element on the highest weight state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2,1/2`$:

$$\theta ,\varphi |\stackrel{}{n}=\theta ,\varphi |\mathrm{exp}\{i\frac{\theta }{2}\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2,1/2,\stackrel{}{m}=(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,0).$$
(17)
One can find the evolving family $`|\stackrel{}{n}(t)`$ from the defining equation,

$$e^{i\phi (t)}|\stackrel{}{n}(t)=W(t)|\stackrel{}{n}(0)=\text{T}\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\}|\stackrel{}{n}(0),$$
(18)
where the initial vector $`|\stackrel{}{n}(0)`$ is an eigenstate of the full evolution operator $`W(T)|\stackrel{}{n}(0)=e^{i\phi (T)}|\stackrel{}{n}(0)`$. Let $`𝒞`$ denote a closed path $`\lambda (t)`$, $`0<t<T`$ in space of the parameters $`\lambda `$. Then the phase angle $`\phi (T)`$ can be calculated as:

$$\phi (T)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{𝒞}{}\stackrel{}{n}|\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{\sigma }|\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{i}{2}\underset{𝒞}{}\stackrel{}{n}|d|\stackrel{}{n}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{𝒞}{}\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{4}\underset{S_𝒞}{}\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{n},$$
(19)
where $`S_𝒞`$ is a surface in the parameter space spanned on $`𝒞`$. Note that only $`\phi \mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi `$ is a well defined quantity.

### 2.2. Single Wilson Loop.

There is a particular class of quantum mechanical systems for which the space of state vectors carries unitary irreducible representation of a compact semisimple Lie group $`G`$. Namely, let the Hamiltonian $`H`$ be an element of the Lie algebra of $`G`$. The time dependence is introduced, as usual, in terms of the parameters $`\lambda _i(t)`$. Then the evolution operator for the Schrödinger equation (12),

$$V(t)=\mathrm{T}\mathrm{exp}\{i_0^tH\},$$
(20)
is given by a path $`[0;T]G`$ in the group space and for any $`t`$ is an operator in the representation space of $`G`$. Therefore, if at $`t=0`$ we start with an arbitrary state $`|\psi (0)`$, then the state vector at the time $`t`$, $`|\psi (t)=V(t)|\psi (0)`$ is a generalized coherent state . Moreover, in case $`G=SU(2)`$ the generalized coherent states coincide in fact with the spin coherent states described above.

The evolution operator (20) is of particular importance in gauge theories. Indeed, consider a Wilson loop $`W(T)`$ in the fundamental representation on the contour $`𝒞`$ parameterized by coordinates $`x_\mu (t)`$, $`t[0;T]`$:

$$W(T)=\text{P}\mathrm{exp}\{i_0^TA(t)𝑑t\},A(t)=\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ^a(x(t))\dot{x}_\mu (t)\sigma ^a,$$
(21)
where the dot denotes differentiation with respect to $`t`$. The P-exponent is defined as a solution to the following first order differential equations:

$$(i_t+A)|\psi =0,|\psi (t)=W(t)|\psi (0).$$
(22)
Therefore the Wilson loop can be thought of as the evolution operator (20) with a time-dependent Hamiltonian, $`H=A(x(t))`$. Moreover, the space of parameters $`\lambda `$ is identified now with the physical space $`x_\mu `$. The importance of the cyclic states and the corresponding phase angles is also apparent since $`\frac{1}{2}TrW(T)=\mathrm{cos}\phi (T)`$. Therefore one can directly apply the considerations of the previous section to the $`SU(2)`$ gluodynamics. Namely, any Wilson loop operator $`W(t)`$ gives rise to a family of spin states $`|\stackrel{}{n}(t)`$

$$e^{i\phi (t)}|\stackrel{}{n}(t)=W(t)|\stackrel{}{n}(0),\stackrel{}{n}(T)=\stackrel{}{n}(0),$$
(23)
which map the contour $`𝒞`$ in the physical space to a closed path $`𝒞_{color}`$ on a unit two-dimensional sphere $`S_{color}^2`$. For the phase of the Wilson loop $`\phi `$ one gets expression similar to Eq. (19):

$$\phi (T)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{𝒞}{}\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{4}\underset{S_𝒞}{}\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{n},$$
(24)
where $`S_𝒞`$ is an arbitrary surface spanned on $`𝒞`$. The second term in Eq. (24) is nothing else but the oriented solid angle corresponding to $`𝒞_{color}`$ on $`S_{color}^2`$.

Of course, Eq. (24) is by no means helpful in calculating the Wilson loop itself since the construction of evolving spin states (23) already requires the knowledge of $`W(t)`$. Nevertheless, it might be useful in the context of the lattice gauge models where $`W(t)`$ can be evaluated by a direct multiplication of the link matrices .

Note that the phase angle $`\phi `$ (24), as it stands, is not a well defined quantity. The ambiguity in $`\phi `$ stems from the freedom to arbitrarily choose $`S_𝒞`$ and from the gauge invariance of the Wilson loop. Indeed, various choices of $`S_𝒞`$ result in different values of $`\phi `$ which differ by $`2\pi n`$, $`nZ`$. On the other hand, a gauge transformation $`g(t)`$ applied along $`𝒞`$ changes the evolving family of spins $`|\stackrel{}{n}(t)g(t)|\stackrel{}{n}(t)`$. However, one can verify that in this case $`\phi (T)`$ is changing by $`2\pi n`$ also and therefore $`\phi \mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi `$ is gauge invariant and well defined. From now on we will consider only $`\phi \mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi `$. Moreover, to simplify notations the $`\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi `$ operation will not be indicated explicitly.

It is amusing to note that (24) looks like a semi-classical approximation to the so called non-Abelian Stokes theorem :

$$\frac{1}{2}TrW(T)=\underset{\stackrel{}{n}(T)=\stackrel{}{n}(0)}{}D\stackrel{}{n}(t)\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{2}\underset{𝒞}{}\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{i}{4}\underset{S_𝒞}{}\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{n}\}.$$
(25)
But in fact Eq. (24) has little to do with any semi-classical evaluation of (25). Indeed, since equation (24) is exact it would imply the exactness of WKB approximation in the theory (25) which in turn is not the case (at least so to the best of our knowledge). Thus the evolving family of spins (23) does not correspond to any classical trajectory in (25).

To conclude this section we would like to mention that for any given Wilson loop there exist of course two eigenstates, $`|\pm \stackrel{}{n}`$ (’spin up’ and ’spin down’) with corresponding phases $`\pm \phi (T)`$. For a single Wilson loop there is no distinction between $`|\pm \stackrel{}{n}`$ and either of them might be taken as the initial state $`|\stackrel{}{n}(0)`$. While in the continuum limit this sign ambiguity can be self consistently resolved, on the lattice it becomes a severe problem .

### 2.3. Monopole Charge in Terms of Wilson Loops.

Consider now an arbitrary closed smooth surface $`S_{phys}^2`$ in the physical space and cover it with a set of infinitesimal patches. The area of each patch is $`\delta \sigma _x`$ which in turn is bounded by an infinitesimal contour $`\delta 𝒞_x`$. The phase angle evaluated on $`\delta 𝒞_x`$ is:

$$\delta \phi _x=\frac{1}{4}\{(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{A})+\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{n}\}\delta \sigma _x.$$
(26)
It is tempting to integrate (26) over $`S_{phys}^2`$. But before doing this one has to show that families of spin states $`|\stackrel{}{n}`$ constructed separately on each $`\delta 𝒞_x`$ define a smooth vector field $`\stackrel{}{n}S_{phys}^2`$. In fact the smoothness of $`\stackrel{}{n}S_{phys}^2`$ immediately follows from the usual assumption of the gauge-fields continuity. Indeed, the Wilson loop evaluated on an infinitesimal contour $`\delta 𝒞_x`$ is:

$$W(\delta 𝒞)=1+\frac{i}{2}(\sigma ^aF_{\mu \nu }^a)\delta \sigma _{\mu \nu }+O((\delta \sigma )^2)$$
(27)
and therefore the direction of $`\stackrel{}{n}_x`$ coincides (up to the sign, see below) with the direction in the color space of the tangential components of the field-strength tensor, $`\stackrel{}{F}\delta \sigma _x`$. Thus for smooth $`\stackrel{}{F}\delta \sigma S_{phys}^2`$ the vector field $`\stackrel{}{n}_x`$ is continuous as well. Moreover, it is clear that $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ just constructed is the same as the unit vector field considered in section 1, see Eqs. (7,8).

As a result we get the following expression for the monopole charge contained in $`S_{phys}^2`$ which is written now in terms of infinitesimal Wilson loops alone:

$$q=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{S_{phys}^2}{}\delta \phi =\frac{1}{8\pi }\underset{S_{phys}^2}{}\{(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{A})+\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{n}\}\delta \sigma .$$
(28)
Let us comment on the sign problem mentioned above. For every infinitesimal Wilson loop $`W(\delta 𝒞_x)`$ there are two eigenstates $`|\pm \stackrel{}{n}_x`$ and either of them may be taken as $`\stackrel{}{n}_x`$. But in fact for smooth $`S_{phys}^2`$ and continuous $`\stackrel{}{F}\delta \sigma `$ the sign ambiguity is not important, because the continuity requirement for the field $`\stackrel{}{n}S_{phys}^2`$ fixes completely the relative signs of $`\stackrel{}{n}_x`$ at neighboring $`x`$. Therefore the only remaining freedom is to globally change the sign of all $`\stackrel{}{n}_x`$ which in turn is equivalent to changing the sign of $`q`$, see Eq. (28).

Finally, let us note that for pure diagonal gauge fields the monopole charge (28) coincides with the well known Abelian monopole definition. Indeed, one can easily see that in this case $`n_x^a=\delta ^{a3}`$ everywhere on $`S_{phys}^2`$ and Eq. (28) measures the Abelian magnetic flux of the monopole, as it should.

## 3. Monopoles and non-Abelian Dirac Strings.

Let us gauge rotate the field $`\stackrel{}{n}S_{phys}^2`$ to a fixed direction in the color space, e.g. $`n^a=\delta ^{a3}`$. Then the charge (28), at least on the classical level, corresponds to the Abelian Dirac monopole embedded into $`SU(2)`$ along the diagonal subgroup. Moreover, it is accompanied by the corresponding Dirac string which brings in the total flux to the magnetic charge. Note that the standard Dirac string singularity appears only in this particular gauge. Indeed, for the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole (2) the potentials are regular everywhere for $`r0`$. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to introduce such a generalization of the Dirac string to the non-Abelian case that the string does not disappear while going from the unitary to hedgehog gauge. Indeed, the magnetic monopoles are intrinsically Abelian configurations for which the magnetic flux is conserved.

One concludes, therefore, that it makes no much sense to discuss the Dirac strings using the usual definition of the field strength tensor

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]}+[A_\mu ,A_\nu ].$$
(29)
Indeed, the chromo-magnetic field (29) is regular for continuous gauge potentials and no string-like singularity can appear. On the other hand, there is another well known definition of $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ which is introduced through consideration of matter field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ in a given gauge-field background. Namely, the change in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ due to its transportation along an infinitesimal contour $`\delta 𝒞_x`$ is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_x=i[F\delta \sigma _x,\mathrm{\Phi }_x],$$
(30)
where $`\delta \sigma _x`$ is a surface spanned on $`\delta 𝒞_x`$ and $`F\delta \sigma _x`$ is the field strength tensor evaluated on $`\delta \sigma _x`$. The advantage of Eq. (30) is that it allows to deal consistently with large chromo-magnetic fields, $`|F\delta \sigma _x|1`$, by considering the evolution of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ along $`\delta 𝒞_x`$. In fact, in the previous sections we considered exactly the same Eq. (30) in the context of pure gauge theories. Moreover, the states $`|\stackrel{}{n}_x`$ constructed above directly correspond to the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ and the phase angle (26) coincides with the magnitude of the color vector $`\stackrel{}{F}\delta \sigma _x`$.

The latter observation paves the way for a natural definition of the Dirac strings in non-Abelian gauge models. Indeed, let us remind the reader that we are always considering not the full phase of the Wilson loops $`\phi `$, but $`\phi \text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi `$ instead. One can readily see that the appearance of a non-zero magnetic charge in Eq. (28) is entirely due to this $`\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi `$ operation<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 Of course, one can glue $`S_{phys}^2`$ from several patches and follow the Wu-Yang construction to avoid singularities in $`\delta \phi _x`$. But this is essentially the same approach, since $`\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi `$ operation would inevitably reappear when patches are glued together. . This means in particular, that once $`q0`$ there must be at least one point $`x_0`$ on $`S_{phys}^2`$ for which

$$\underset{\delta \sigma _{x_0}0}{lim}\delta \phi _{x_0}=\pm 2\pi .$$
(31)
In fact, the singular point $`x_0`$ is the location of the non-Abelian Dirac string since it corresponds to a singular flux

$$F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a4\pi ^2/a^2\text{no summation over }\mu \text{}\nu $$
(32)
piercing $`S_{phys}^2`$. Moreover, Eqs. (31,32) reveal a distinguished role of the lattice regularization . Indeed, on the lattice the action is intrinsically periodic:

$$S_{lat}\frac{1}{g^2}\underset{p}{}\frac{1}{2}TrW_p=\frac{1}{g^2}\underset{\delta \sigma _x}{}\mathrm{cos}\delta \phi _x,$$
(33)
where the sum is taken over all elementary (infinitesimal) two-dimensional cells. Therefore the Dirac strings (31,32) are automatically invisible within the lattice formulation, in contrast with the conventional continuum gluodynamics which completely suppresses by the action factor the fluctuations (32). Therefore the consideration of monopoles in usual gluodynamics is in fact inconsistent unless extra rules to deal with the string singularities (32) are introduced which would bring it in line with the lattice formulation.

Similar to the Abelian case, one can show that the Dirac string is completely unphysical object because its location can be arbitrarily shifted by an appropriate gauge transformation. However, in the non-Abelian models the string (31) is even more of a phantom since it does not necessarily imply singularities of gauge potentials. This can be explicitly demonstrated for ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole solution (2) in the hedgehog and unitary gauges. The only important point is that for any non-zero magnetic charge (28) there is at least one Dirac string which brings in the total chromo-magnetic flux to the monopole.

## 4. Monopole Self-Energy.

The arguments above show that it makes no much sense to ask what is the self-energy of the magnetic monopoles (28) within the conventional gluodynamics. Indeed, the main contribution would come in this case from the self-energy of the Dirac string which is quadratically divergent in the ultraviolet. But once the string energy is subtracted (either by hands or via the lattice regularization), the self-energy of the monopole (28) becomes well defined and may be estimated by rewriting Eq. (28) in an explicitly gauge invariant form:

$$q=\frac{1}{8\pi }\underset{S_{phys}^2}{}\{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{F}+\stackrel{}{n}D\stackrel{}{n}\times D\stackrel{}{n}\}\delta \sigma ,$$
(34)
where $`\stackrel{}{F}`$ is the full non-Abelian field strength tensor and $`D`$ is the covariant derivative. By construction, the vector field $`\stackrel{}{n}_x`$ is everywhere parallel to $`\stackrel{}{F}\delta \sigma _x`$ and therefore

$$[D\stackrel{}{n},D\stackrel{}{n}]=0,\stackrel{}{n}D\stackrel{}{n}\times D\stackrel{}{n}=0$$
(35)
is true almost everywhere (in fact, Eq. (35) is violated at the position of the Dirac string (31) where $`\stackrel{}{n}D\stackrel{}{n}\times D\stackrel{}{n}2\pi /\delta \sigma `$). If we assume the rotational symmetry of the monopole (34), then

$$\left(F_{\alpha \beta }^a\right)^2\left[\frac{2q}{R^2}\right]^2\text{no summation over }\alpha \text{}\beta ,$$
(36)
where $`R`$ is the radius of $`S_{phys}^2`$ and $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ denote the tangential components of $`\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }`$. The estimation of the monopole self-energy is then:

$$E_{self}\frac{(2q)^2}{g^2}\frac{1}{a},$$
(37)
which might also be obtained in a slightly different way. Namely, since Eq. (28) is gauge invariant and the contribution of the first term on the r.h.s. vanishes it is possible to find such a gauge that

$$\gamma \stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{n}=\frac{2q}{R^2}$$
(38)
for any two-dimensional sphere $`S^2(R)`$ of radius $`R`$ centered at the origin. Thus:

$$E_{self}\frac{R^2}{4g^2}𝑑R\underset{S^2(R)}{}(F_{\alpha \beta }^a)^2\frac{R^2}{4g^2}𝑑R\underset{S^2(R)}{}[\gamma ^2+2\gamma \stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{A}].$$
(39)
The latter integral is zero due to Eq. (38) and the estimate (37) follows.

In view of the result (37) it is natural to ask whether the field configurations with a non-zero charge (28) are at all relevant dynamically. Indeed, the $`g^2`$ factor indicates that we are dealing with a classical solution which is, however, infinitely heavy as one would expect on the dimensional grounds. In fact, it is straightforward to identify the corresponding classical field configuration and it is nothing else but the Wu-Yang monopole:

$$A_i^a=\epsilon ^{aik}\frac{r^k}{r^2}.$$
(40)
Moreover, the quantum effects would result in the running of the coupling, $`g^2g^2(a)`$, where $`a`$ is the ultraviolet cut off. Such monopoles could not condense, as it follows from the standard action-entropy balance . Another setback for the semi-classical approximation to the monopoles (28) is that the solution (40) is known to be unstable  due to the strong magnetic interaction with massless gluons. Thus, the field configurations with non-zero charge (28) are to be thought of as quantum objects and their anatomy is poorly understood at present (see also Ref. ). It is amusing to note that there exist strong indication  that the monopoles on the lattice are not rotationally invariant which was our starting assumption in the classical approximation above.

To summarize, there are no reasons to expect that classical configurations (40) survive in the real vacuum. This is clear already from the instability of the solution (40). However, the topological definition (28) itself is not related to the classical approximation. Eq. (28) is sensitive only to the topological properties and not to the concrete fields distribution. Analytically, it does not seem possible to predict which field configurations would dominate the nontrivial $`q`$. However, the monopole charge definition (28) can be used in the lattice gauge models  and the monopole dynamics can be investigated numerically.

## Conclusions

We have shown that in pure SU(2) gluodynamics it is possible to define a gauge invariant monopole charge despite of the absence of physical scalar fields. The non-trivial topology is provided by the non-Abelian field strength tensor. Namely, the non zero monopole charge in a three dimensional volume is due to the hedgehog configuration of $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ on the boundary of that volume. Loosely speaking the physical Higgs field in our construction is replaced by the gauge fields tensor itself.

We have shown that the topological definition reproduces the standard monopole charge formulation in the Georgi-Glashow model and in the limit of pure Abelian gauge fields. We were also able to represent the monopole charge entirely in terms of Wilson loop thus demonstrating explicitly its gauge invariance. Moreover, there is a natural analog of the Dirac strings in our construction which are defined as a quantized singular non-Abelian flux piercing infinitesimal surface element. This allows to alternatively define the monopoles as end-points of the non-Abelian Dirac string. While the string itself is not physical and its position is not meaningful, the location of the string’s end-points is well defined and gauge invariant. Therefore in the language of the non-Abelian Dirac strings our definition is not much different from the corresponding Abelian construction. The only important difference is that in the non-Abelian case the string singularity does not imply singular gauge potentials. Whether the potentials are singular, depends on choice of gauge.

We have also estimated at the classical level the self-energy of the monopole. As could be expected, it is linearly divergent in the ultraviolet, the same as in pure Abelian case. However, the corresponding classical solution (Wu-Yang monopole) is much different from its Abelian akin since it is unstable. The instability reflects the non-Abelian nature of the theory and physically corresponds to the gluons falling onto the center of monopole. The monopole instability cannot be treated self-consistently because of the strong back-reaction on the solution itself. Thus we are driven in the direction of numerical lattice simulations to investigate the properties of the configurations with a non-trivial charge (28.

## Acknowledgments.

We acknowledge thankfully fruitful discussions with V. Belavin, M.N. Chernodub,R. Hofmann, M.I. Polikarpov and L. Stodolsky. The work of F.V.G. was partially supported by grants RFFI-02-02-17308, RFFI-0015-96786, INTAS-00-0011 and CRDF award RP1-2364-MO-02. The work of V.I.Z. was partially supported by grant INTAS-00-0011 and DFG program ’Hadrons and the Lattice QCD’.