format: text

text:
# Geometric interpretation of Schwarzschild instantons

## 1 Introduction

An Abelian instanton is a self-dual solution to Euclidean Maxwell’s equations. In the case of the Taub-NUT metric on $`^4`$ such a non-trivial solution was found by Eguchi-Hanson  in 1979. In mathematical terms a self-dual solution to Euclidean Maxwell’s equations with finite energy is a self-dual $`L^2`$ harmonic $`2`$-form with integer cohomology class. In this context the Eguchi-Hanson solution was reinvented by Gibbons  in 1996. Motivated by Sen’s S-duality conjecture he constructed a non-topological 111 In general we call a non-trivial $`L^2`$ harmonic form on a complete Riemannian manifold non-topological if either it is exact or not cohomologous to a compactly supported differential form. Roughly speaking the existence of non-topological $`L^2`$ harmonic forms are not predictable by topological means. (Cf. .) self-dual $`L^2`$ harmonic $`2`$-form in the Taub-NUT metric. A curious feature of this form is that, living on a space with no topology, it is cohomologically trivial, producing a family of Abelian instantons with continuous energy.

Gibbons’ construction is geometric in nature; indeed the $`L^2`$ harmonic $`2`$-form is obtained as the exterior derivative of a $`1`$-form dual to a Killing field of some natural $`U(1)`$-action. In 1999 Hitchin  completed the proof of Sen’s S-duality conjecture in the Taub-NUT case by showing that the whole $`L^2`$ harmonic space is spanned by the Eguchi-Hanson-Gibbons $`2`$-form.

In this note we imitate this construction of Gibbons for the case of the Euclidean Schwarzschild metric. It is a Ricci-flat metric on $`^2\times S^2`$  and was constructed by Hawking  in 1976 as the Wick rotation of the Schwarzschild space-time.

We show that the rotation on the $`^2`$ part induces a Killing field such that the exterior derivative of the dual $`1`$-form has finite energy. On a Ricci-flat manifold it follows from Killing’s equations that the form obtained this way solves Maxwell’s equations . However, unlike the Taub-NUT case, this form is not self-dual (this fact is related222Cf. Theorem 4 of . to the observation that the Euclidean Schwarzschild manifold is not hyperkähler while the Taub-NUT manifold is). Self-dualizing the form produces a self-dual $`L^2`$ harmonic $`2`$-form, which is not trivial333Nevertheless it is still non-topological in the sense of footnote 1 above, since on $`M`$ every compactly supported $`2`$-form is exact. cohomologically. Thus in order to obtain Abelian instantons, we have to quantize the form to have integer cohomology class. In this way we get Abelian instantons lying on $`U(1)`$-bundles of first Chern numbers $`n`$ and first Pontryagin numbers $`2n^2`$.

On the other hand $`SU(2)`$-instantons on the Euclidean Schwarzschild manifold were constructed by Charap and Duff  in 1977. They considered $`O(3)`$-invariant instantons, where the action of $`O(3)`$ is induced from the symmetry group of $`S^2`$. In this way their ansatz was reduced to a system of three relatively simple partial differential equations. They were able to find three kind of solutions of this system. The first was the trivial flat connection; the second the non-trivial “metric connection” of second Chern number $`1`$ obtained earlier in ; and the third was a family of solutions which gave rise to instantons of second Chern number $`2n^2`$. Apparently they refer to this last family as non-Abelian dyons and give no geometrical interpretation.

Representing $`U(1)`$ as a subgroup of $`SU(2)`$ we obtain $`SU(2)`$ instantons with second Chern numbers (i.e. instanton numbers) $`2n^2`$ from our integer $`L^2`$ harmonic forms. The main result of the present note is that this family coincides with the third group of $`SU(2)`$-instantons found by Charap and Duff. In spite of a few work dealing with or mentioning the Charap–Duff instantons  apparently its Abelian character has not been recognized yet.

Using a recent result of Hitchin  we finish our paper by showing that there are no other Abelian instantons, i.e. self-dual $`L^2`$ harmonic $`2`$-forms on the Euclidean Schwarzschild manifold. Indeed with the help of a result of Dodziuk  we are able to determine the whole $`L^2`$ harmonic space.

### Acknowledgement.

The work in this paper was done when the second author visited the Yukawa Institute of Kyoto University in February 2000. We are grateful for Prof. G.W. Gibbons for insightful discussions and Prof. H. Kodama and the Yukawa Institute for the invitation and hospitality.

## 2 Construction of the Abelian instanton

Hawking invented the Euclidean Schwarzschild manifold to argue for the thermal nature of particle creation at a Schwarzschild black hole.

Mathematically the Euclidean Schwarzschild $`4`$-manifold $`M`$ is a complete solution to the Euclidean Einstein’s equations with zero cosmological constant, and has the non-trivial topology $`M^2\times S^2`$. In other words it is a Ricci flat manifold. It is not a gravitational instanton (such as e.g. the Taub-NUT metric or the Eguchi-Hanson metric) in that its curvature tensor is not self-dual. Thus it is not hyperkähler either, which property will effect our considerations (cf. Theorem 4 of ) in the form of the existence of non-self-dual $`L^2`$ harmonic forms on $`M`$.

According to (14.3.11) of , we have a particularly nice form of the metric $`g`$ on a dense open subset $`(^2\{O\})\times S^2M^2\times S^2`$ of the Euclidean Schwarzschild manifold. It is convenient to use polar coordinates $`(r,\tau )`$ on $`^2\{O\}`$ in the range $`r(2m,\mathrm{})`$ and $`\tau [0,8\pi m)`$, where $`m>0`$ is a fixed constant. The metric then takes the form

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)\mathrm{d}\tau ^2+\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)^1\mathrm{d}r^2+r^2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$

where $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ stands for the line element of the unit round $`S^2`$. In sphere coordinates $`\mathrm{\Theta }(0,\pi )`$ and $`\varphi [0,2\pi )`$ it is

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }^2=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi ^2$$

on the open coordinate chart $`(S^2(\{S\}\{N\}))S^2`$. Consequently the above metric takes the following form on the open, dense coordinate chart $`U:=(^2\{O\})\times (S^2(\{S\}\{N\}))M^2\times S^2`$:

$`\mathrm{d}s^2=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}\right)\mathrm{d}\tau ^2+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}\right)^1\mathrm{d}r^2+r^2(\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi ^2).`$ (1)
Despite the apparent singularity of the metric at the origin $`O^2`$, it can be extended analytically to the whole $`^2\times S^2`$ as demonstrated on page 407 of .

The $`U(1)`$-action defined by $`\tau \tau +4m\lambda `$ for $`e^{i\lambda }U(1)`$ leaves this metric invariant, and thus defines the Killing field

$$X:=\frac{1}{4m}\frac{}{\tau },$$

which (together with the $`U(1)`$-action itself) clearly extends to a Killing field on the whole Euclidean Schwarzschild manifold, which we will also denote by $`X`$.

Now consider the differential $`1`$-form $`\xi :=g(X,)`$ dual to $`X`$. In our coordinate chart $`U`$ it takes the form

$$\xi =\frac{1}{4m}\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)\mathrm{d}\tau .$$

General considerations about Killing’s equations on a Ricci flat manifold yield that $`\mathrm{d}\xi `$ is a harmonic $`2`$-form, which on a complete manifold is equivalent to saying that it is closed and coclosed. For a proof see page 442-443 of . In our situation we can check it by hand that our form

$$\mathrm{d}\xi =\frac{1}{2r^2}\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}r$$

is coclosed. For this we need to calculate $`\mathrm{d}\xi `$. Evoking the local coordinate representation of the general Hodge operation (e.g. page 5 of ), the Hodge-operation $`:\mathrm{\Omega }^2(M)\mathrm{\Omega }^2(M)`$ on the Euclidean Schwarzschild manifold $`(M,g)`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}r=r^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi ,\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi =\frac{1}{r^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}r,$$

$$\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }=(1\frac{2m}{r})^1\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}r\mathrm{d}\varphi ,\mathrm{d}r\mathrm{d}\varphi =(1\frac{2m}{r})\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta },$$

$$\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}\varphi =(1\frac{2m}{r})^1\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{d}r\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{d}r\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }=(1\frac{2m}{r})\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}\varphi .$$

The orientation is fixed such that $`\epsilon _{\tau r\mathrm{\Theta }\varphi }=1`$. From here we can see that

$$\mathrm{d}\xi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi $$

is closed. Thus $`\mathrm{d}\xi `$ is indeed harmonic. Now we show that it is $`L^2`$ by calculating the Maxwell action of it: using the parameterization of the Euclidean Schwarzschild manifold given above we find

$`\mathrm{d}\xi _{L^2(M)}^2=\mathrm{d}\xi _{L^2(M)}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}\mathrm{d}\xi \mathrm{d}\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{2m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{8\pi m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }}{4r^2}}\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}r\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (2)
In this way we have produced a $`2`$-dimensional space of $`L^2`$ harmonic $`2`$-forms on $`M`$ spanned by $`\mathrm{d}\xi `$ and $`\mathrm{d}\xi `$, and a $`1`$-dimensional subspace of (anti)self-dual $`L^2`$ harmonic forms spanned by $`\omega _\pm :=\mathrm{d}\xi \pm \mathrm{d}\xi `$. From now on, without loss of generality we focus on self-dual forms only, i.e we will use the notation $`\omega :=\omega _+`$. Hence the self-dual form looks like

$`\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}r+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi \right)`$ (3)
on $`U`$. By (2), the Maxwell action or $`L^2`$-norm of the self-dual $`\omega `$ is given by

$`\omega _{L^2(M)}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}\omega \omega ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}2\mathrm{d}\xi \mathrm{d}\xi =1.`$ (4)
The self-dual $`2`$-form $`\omega `$ is not trivial topologically; indeed its cohomology class can be easily identified with the first Chern class of the $`U(1)`$-bundle $`H`$ whose restriction $`H|_{S^2}`$ is nothing but the Hopf $`U(1)`$-bundle (i.e. the positive generator of $`H^2(S^2,)`$) through the isomorphism $`H^2(^2\times S^2,)H^2(S^2,)`$ via the integral

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{S^2}{}}\omega |_{S^2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{S^2}{}}\mathrm{d}\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi =1,`$ (5)
where we embedded $`S^2`$ into $`M`$ as $`S^2\{p\}\times S^2M^2\times S^2`$, where for the sake of simplicity $`p^2`$ differs from the origin.

According to (5) $`\frac{1}{2\pi }\omega H^2(M,)`$ is an integer form, thus there is a connection $`A_1`$ on $`H`$, whose curvature satisfies $`F_{A_1}=\omega 𝐤`$, where we used the identification $`𝔲(1)𝐤`$. Furthermore it is unique, since $`\pi _1(M)=1`$, consequently any flat connection must be the trivial one. Similarly the $`U(1)`$-bundle $`H^n`$ admits a unique connection $`A_n`$ such that $`F_{A_n}=n\omega 𝐤`$.

Now we write down $`A_n`$ locally on two charts and explain how to glue them together: Let us denote by $`H^\pm `$ the northern and southern hemispheres of $`S^2`$ respectively, in other words $`H^+`$ is the set of points, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }\pi /2`$ and $`H^{}`$ is the set, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }\pi /2`$. Consider the coordinate charts $`U^\pm :=^2\times H^\pm `$ of the space $`M=^2\times S^2`$. Clearly, $`M=U^+U^{}`$ and $`U^+U^{}^2\times S^1`$ is given by the points satisfying $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /2`$. By integrating (3), in our coordinate chart $`U`$ and an appropriate trivialization of $`H^n`$ the connection $`A_n`$ takes the form ($`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ are arbitrary real constants):

$`A_n^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left(\left(c_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)\mathrm{d}\tau +(c_2+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{d}\varphi \right)𝐤.`$
For this to extend to the North pole ($`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$) and respectively to the South pole ($`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi `$), we need to choose $`c_2=1`$ on $`U^+`$ and respectively $`c_2=1`$ on $`U^{}`$. Thus our connection $`A_n`$ takes the following shape on the charts $`U^\pm `$:

$`A_n^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left(\left(c_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)\mathrm{d}\tau +(1+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{d}\varphi \right)𝐤.`$ (6)
Note that these connection forms are regular along $`U^+U^{}`$ and are related by the Abelian gauge transformation

$$A_n^+A_n^{}=n\mathrm{d}\varphi 𝐤$$

given by $`e^{n\varphi 𝐤}U(1)`$ along $`U^+U^{}`$. We recognize the above connections as the $`L^2`$ harmonic generalizations for the Euclidean Schwarzschild case of the connections appearing in the well-known bundle-theoretic description of the Dirac magnetic monopole, see e.g. page 231-232 of . The extra term $`(c1/r)\mathrm{d}\tau `$ can be interpreted as a scalar potential and will cause that our solutions carry electric charge.

Consider now the associated $`U(2)`$-bundle $`P_{U(2)}H^nH^n`$, via the diagonal embedding of $`U(1)\times U(1)U(2)`$, and the associated connection $`B_n=A_nA_n`$ with curvature form $`F_{A_n}F_{A_n}`$ on it. Since $`H^4(M,)0`$ the principal $`U(2)`$-bundle $`P_{U(2)}`$ of $`H^nH^n`$ is trivial. Moreover its determinant $`U(1)`$-bundle is trivial and thus $`P_{U(2)}`$ reduces to the trivial $`SU(2)`$-bundle which we denote by $`P=M\times SU(2)`$. Furthermore the $`U(2)`$-connection $`B_n`$ induces a trivial connection on the determinantal $`U(1)`$-bundle so it reduces to an $`SU(2)`$-connection on $`P`$. In our coordinate charts $`U^\pm `$ the connection $`B_n`$ is induced by the embedding $`𝐤𝔲(1)𝔰𝔲(2)\mathrm{Im}`$. In other words self-dual $`L^2`$ harmonic $`2`$-forms may be regarded as the curvature $`2`$-forms of (reducible) self-dual Yang-Mills $`SU(2)`$-connections given locally by the formula (6).

Using (4) we find that the second Chern numbers of these self-dual Yang-Mills $`SU(2)`$-connections $`B_n=A_nA_n`$ on the associated $`SU(2)`$-bundles $`H^nH^n`$ satisfy:

$$\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\underset{M}{}tr\left(F_{A_n}F_{A_n}F_{A_n}F_{A_n}\right)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\underset{M}{}2F_{A_n}F_{A_n}=2n^2$$

since we have $`tr(AB)=2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(x\overline{y})`$ for the Killing-form on the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔲(2)\mathrm{Im}`$.

Note that if we calculate the first Pontryagin number of the connection $`A_n`$ on the real plane bundle $`H^n`$ (here we made the identification $`U(1)SO(2)`$) we also find

$$\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\underset{M}{}F_{A_n}F_{A_n}=2n^2.$$

In the following section we prove that the reducible $`SU(2)`$-instantons just derived coincide with the third group of instantons found by Charap and Duff .

## 3 Identification with instantons of Charap and Duff

Now we will follow . In that paper solutions of type (II) of the self-duality equations on $`P`$ are referred to as ”non-Abelian dyons” of Pontryagin numbers $`2n^2`$. Let us denote them $`\stackrel{~}{A}_n`$. In this section we show that they are in fact reducible, i.e. Abelian connections and identify them with the connections $`B_n`$ defined above. To round things off, we finish this section by giving the explicit local gauge transformations which identify our Abelian connections (6) with Charap–Duff’s (8).

Let $`n`$ be an integer and focus our attention to solution (II), more precisely the self-dual one, which means that we choose all the functions of positive sign. Putting solution (II) into the spherical symmetric ansatz (5) of  and adjusting notations of  to ours via the identification $`𝔰𝔲(2)\mathrm{Im}`$ given by $`\{\sigma ^1/2,\sigma ^2/2,\sigma ^3/2\}\{𝐢/2,𝐣/2,𝐤/2\}`$, the coordinate transformation

$`(\tau ,x^1,x^2,x^3)(n\tau ,r\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi ),r\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi ),r\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta })`$ (7)
and the notation

$$𝐪_n:=\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi )𝐢+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )𝐣+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }𝐤,$$

we get the new form for the self-dual connection

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_n={\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left(\left(c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)\mathrm{d}\tau +\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi \right)𝐪_n{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{d}\varphi 𝐤+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )𝐢\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi )𝐣).`$ (8)
A long but straightforward calculation shows that the curvature takes the form

$`F_{\stackrel{~}{A}_n}=n\omega 𝐪_n.`$ (9)
Consider now the $`U(1)`$-sub-bundle $`H_n`$ of $`P`$ whose smooth sections are given by $`s=\mathrm{exp}(f𝐪_n),`$ where $`\mathrm{exp}:𝔰𝔲(2)SU(2)`$ is the exponential map and $`f`$ is any smooth function on $`M`$. We show that the covariant derivative $`_{\stackrel{~}{A}_n}:\mathrm{\Omega }^0(ad(P))\mathrm{\Omega }^1(ad(P))`$ on the associated bundle $`ad(P)`$ leaves the real line bundle $`ad(H_n)ad(P)`$ invariant. We thus calculate in our coordinate chart $`U`$:

$`_{\stackrel{~}{A}_n}s=_{\stackrel{~}{A}_n}(f𝐪_n)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{d}(f𝐪_n)+[\stackrel{~}{A}_n,f𝐪_n,]`$
where by abuse of notation $`\stackrel{~}{A}_n`$ denotes the connection matrix of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_n`$ in the gauge (8). The first term equals:

$`\mathrm{d}(f𝐪_n)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{d}f𝐪_n+f\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi )𝐢+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )𝐣+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }𝐤)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{d}f𝐪_n+f\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi )𝐢+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )𝐣\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }𝐤\right)+`$
$`+fn\mathrm{d}\varphi \left(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )𝐢+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi )𝐣\right),`$
and the second gives,

$$[\stackrel{~}{A}_n,f𝐪_n]=$$

$$=[\frac{n}{2}\left(\left(c\frac{1}{r}\right)\mathrm{d}\tau +\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi \right)𝐪_n\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{d}\varphi 𝐤+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )𝐢\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi )𝐣),f𝐪_n]=$$

$$=[\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{d}\varphi 𝐤+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )𝐢\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi )𝐣\right),f𝐪_n]=$$

$$=fn\mathrm{d}\varphi \left(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )𝐢\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi )𝐣\right)+$$

$$+f\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi )𝐢\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )𝐣+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }𝐤\right).$$

Adding the two above expressions up we see that

$$_{\stackrel{~}{A}_n}(f𝐪_n)=\mathrm{d}f𝐪_n,$$

showing that $`\stackrel{~}{A}_n`$ reduces to a $`U(1)`$-connection on $`H_nP`$. Now (9) shows that this $`U(1)`$-connection on $`H_n`$ has the same curvature than $`A_n`$ therefore they should coincide, in particular $`H_nH^n`$. Thus we proved that the Charap-Duff’s connection (8) is equivalent to our connection (6).

We finish this section by writing down the explicit gauge transformations on $`U^\pm `$ which transform our connection (6) to Charap-Duff’s (8). From (9) we can guess that the gauge transformations we are looking for should rotate the vector $`𝐪_n`$ into the unit vector $`𝐤`$. This transformation cannot be carried out continously over the whole $`S^2`$ by using only one transformation but there is no obstruction if we use two gauge transformations on the charts $`U^\pm `$ which are related along $`U^+U^{}`$ by an Abelian gauge transformation. Consider the gauge transformations $`g_n^\pm :U^\pm SU(2)S^3`$ given by444By abuse of notation we will regard the unit quaternions $`𝐢,𝐣,𝐤`$ either elements of the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔲(2)\mathrm{Im}`$ or of the group $`SU(2)S^3`$ depending on the context.

$$g_n^\pm (\tau ,r,\mathrm{\Theta },\varphi ):=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm 𝐤\frac{n\varphi }{2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(𝐣\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(𝐤\frac{n\varphi }{2}\right).$$

In this form we only see that $`g_n^\pm `$ are smooth gauge transformations on $`U`$. In order to be well defined as smooth maps $`g_n^\pm :U^\pm SU(2)`$ we have to show that they extend analytically over the appropriate poles. We show this for $`g^+`$ here, the case of $`g^{}`$ being similar. It is easily checked that the following gauge transformation in Descartes coordinates gives rise555In other words the gauge transformation (10) pulls back to $`g^+`$ by the map given by (7). to $`g^+`$ after the coordinate transformation (7):

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{2r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{2r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝐢{\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{2r}}𝐣{\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{2r}}\right).`$ (10)
In this form we see that the map $`g^+:USU(2)`$ extends analytically to $`U^+U`$, that is to points of $`M`$, where $`(\mathrm{\Theta }=0)`$ or equivalently $`x_3/r=1`$.

Let us prove that the above gauge transformations do indeed transform (8) into (6)! First we show that it rotates $`𝐪_n`$ into $`𝐤`$: Writing $`𝐪_n=\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi )𝐢+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )𝐣+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }𝐤=\mathrm{exp}(𝐤n\varphi )\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }𝐢+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }𝐤`$, we can proceed as follows:

$$g_n^\pm (\mathrm{exp}(𝐤n\varphi )\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }𝐢+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }𝐤)(g_n^\pm )^1=$$

$$=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm 𝐤\frac{n\varphi }{2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(𝐣\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}\right)(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }𝐢+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }𝐤)\mathrm{exp}\left(𝐣\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(𝐤\frac{n\varphi }{2}\right).$$

Since $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }𝐢+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }𝐤=\mathrm{exp}(𝐣\mathrm{\Theta })𝐤`$, we can go further by writing

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm 𝐤\frac{n\varphi }{2}\right)𝐤\mathrm{exp}\left(𝐤\frac{n\varphi }{2}\right)=𝐤$$

proving that the above gauge transformations $`g_n^\pm `$ send $`𝐪_n`$ into $`𝐤`$.

Finally we calculate that at one hand

$$g_n^\pm \mathrm{d}(g_n^\pm )^1=\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{d}\varphi 𝐤+\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{d}\varphi \mathrm{exp}\left(\pm 𝐤\frac{n\varphi }{2}\right)\mathrm{exp}(𝐣\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{exp}\left(𝐤\frac{n\varphi }{2}\right)𝐤+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{exp}(\pm 𝐤n\varphi )𝐣,$$

on the other hand

$$g_n^\pm \left(\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{d}\varphi 𝐤+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )𝐢\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi )𝐣)\right)(g_n^\pm )^1=$$

$$=\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{d}\varphi \mathrm{exp}\left(\pm 𝐤\frac{n\varphi }{2}\right)\mathrm{exp}(𝐣\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{exp}\left(𝐤\frac{n\varphi }{2}\right)𝐤\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{exp}(\pm 𝐤n\varphi )𝐣.$$

But these terms cancel each other except $`\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{d}\varphi 𝐤`$ demonstrating the desired result

$$g_n^\pm \stackrel{~}{A}_n(g_n^\pm )^1+g_n^\pm \mathrm{d}(g_n^\pm )^1=A_n^\pm $$

where $`A_n^\pm `$ are given by (6). Note that the two gauge transformations are related along $`U^+U^{}`$ by the Abelian gauge transformation

$$\mathrm{exp}(𝐤n\varphi )g_n^{}=g_n^+$$

yielding again $`A_n^{}𝐤n\mathrm{d}\varphi =A_n^+`$.

Thus we gave two proofs that the Charap–Duff instantons coincide with ours proving that these solutions are nothing but Abelian dyons carrying magnetic charge $`n`$ and electric charge $`n`$. Indeed, the electric charge is given by the integration of the electric field over an embedded two-sphere. By self-duality

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{S^2}{}\omega |_{S^2}=1,$$

hence it is clear that the general solution has electric charge $`n`$, too. In summary we see that the basic characteristic numbers of these solutions are their magnetic charge $`n`$ represented by the first Chern class of the $`U(1)`$-bundle $`H^n`$ instead of the first Pontryagin number $`2n^2`$.

## 4 $`L^2`$-cohomology

In this final section we show that we have found all the Abelian instantons on the Euclidean Schwarzschild manifold.

###### Theorem 4.1

Let $`\eta `$ be an $`L^2`$ harmonic form on $`M`$. Then it is a linear combination of $`\mathrm{d}\xi `$ and $`\mathrm{d}\xi `$. Consequently a self-dual $`L^2`$ harmonic $`2`$-form on $`M`$ is some constant multiple of $`\omega =\mathrm{d}\xi +\mathrm{d}\xi `$.

### Proof.

First of all the volume of $`(M,g)`$ is infinite. It can be seen by calculating:

$$\underset{M}{}\mathrm{𝟏}=\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}\underset{2m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{8\pi m}{}}r^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}r\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi =\mathrm{},$$

where we have used again the parameterization of the Euclidean Schwarzschild manifold given in the previous section. This implies that there are no $`L^2`$ harmonic $`0`$\- or equivalently $`4`$-forms. Now, as $`M`$ is Ricci-flat and complete, Corollary 1 of Dodziuk  implies that there are no $`1`$\- and equivalently $`3`$-forms on $`M`$.

It remains to show that any $`L^2`$ harmonic $`2`$-form is a linear combination of $`\mathrm{d}\xi `$ and $`\mathrm{d}\xi `$. For this we use a recent result of Hitchin, namely Theorem 3 of  which we cite in full:

###### Theorem 4.2 (Hitchin)

Let $`M`$ be a complete oriented Riemannian manifold and let $`G`$ be a connected Lie group of isometries such that the Killing vector fields $`X`$ it defines satisfy

$$|X|c^{}\rho (x_0,x)+c^{\prime \prime }.$$

Then each $`L^2`$ cohomology class is fixed by $`G`$.

(Here $`\rho `$ is the distance function of the Riemannian manifold.) We would like to apply this result to $`M`$ with $`GSO(3)`$ acting on $`M`$ by isometries of $`S^2`$. A glance at the metric (1) assures us that the Killing fields of this action have indeed linear growth. Thus it is sufficient to find all $`SO(3)`$-invariant harmonic $`2`$-forms on $`M`$. Let $`\eta `$ be such a form. In our coordinate chart $`U`$ it must have the shape:

$$\eta =f(\tau ,r)\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}r+\alpha _\tau (\tau ,r)\mathrm{d}\tau +\alpha _r(\tau ,r)\mathrm{d}r+\beta (\tau ,r),$$

where $`f(r,\tau )`$ is an $`SO(3)`$-invariant function on $`S^2`$, moreover $`\alpha _\tau (\tau ,r)`$ and $`\alpha _r(\tau ,r)`$ are $`SO(3)`$ invariant $`1`$-forms on $`S^2`$, and finally $`\beta (\tau ,r)`$ is an $`SO(3)`$-invariant $`2`$-form on $`S^2`$. However there are very few $`SO(3)`$-invariant forms on $`S^2`$. Namely only the constant functions and constant times the volume form of the round $`S^2`$ are $`SO(3)`$-invariant. It follows because $`SO(3)`$ acts transitively showing that only the constant functions and equivalently constant multiples of the volume form are the $`SO(3)`$-invariant $`0`$\- and $`2`$-forms respectively. Moreover there are no non-trivial $`SO(3)`$-invariant $`1`$-forms on $`S^2`$, which could be seen by looking at the dual vector field and seeing that the action of the $`U(1)`$ stabilizator of any point on the tangent space at that point has only the origin as its fixed point.

It follows that our $`SO(3)`$-invariant $`2`$-form must have the form:

$$\eta =f(\tau ,r)\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}r+h(\tau ,r)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi $$

where $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi `$ is the volume form of the unit $`S^2`$ and $`f(\tau ,r)`$ and $`h(\tau ,r)`$ stand for a function on $`M`$ depending only on $`\tau `$ and $`r`$. Its Hodge-dual is given by

$$\eta =h(\tau ,r)\frac{1}{r^2}\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}r+r^2f(\tau ,r)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi .$$

In order that both $`\eta `$ and $`\eta `$ be closed we need that neither $`h(r,\tau )`$ nor $`r^2f(r,\tau )`$ depend on $`\tau `$ or $`r`$ which means that $`\eta `$ must have the form:

$$\frac{c_1}{r^2}\mathrm{d}\tau \mathrm{d}r+c_2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\varphi ,$$

exactly as claimed. The result follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Concluding Remarks

Previously we have proved that the self-dual solutions to the $`SU(2)`$ Yang–Mills equations over the Euclidean Schwarzschild manifold found by Charap and Duff correspond to Abelian dyons rather than non-Abelian ones. From the mathematical point of view we have seen that the curvatures of these solutions represent elements of the non-trivial second reduced $`L^2`$ cohomology group of the Euclidean Schwarzschild manifold. This identification enabled us to find all the Abelian instantons over this manifold.

The physical interpretation of these solutions is more subtle, however. In light of our results these solutions seem to describe a static electromagnetic dyon configuration surrounding the Schwarzschild black hole. Accepting this, we can interpret their Pontryagin numbers $`2n^2`$ as their three dimensional energy rather then their Euclidean action. Indeed, it is straightforward that the Euclidean Schwarzschild metric tends to the three dimensional flat metric of $`\times S^2`$ and can be extended as the flat metric to the whole $`^3`$ as $`m0`$ (i.e. as the Hawking temperature of the black hole tends to infinity) while neither solutions (6) nor their Euclidean action depends on $`m`$. Henceforth in the limit $`m0`$ we recover the static dyon of charge $`(n,n)`$ on flat space and such a configuration has energy $`2n^2`$ as it is well known.

The general (non self-dual) dyons of charge $`(k,n)`$ correspond to the general elements of the integer lattice $`\overline{H}_{L^2}^2(M,g)`$ in the reduced $`L^2`$-cohomology group of $`(M,g)`$.


text:
# References

Representations of $`SU(1,1)`$ in Non-commutative Space Generated by the Heisenberg Algebra

H. Ahmedov1 and I. H. Duru2,1

1. Feza Gürsey Institute, P.O. Box 6, 81220, Çengelköy, Istanbul, Turkey 111E–mail : hagi@gursey.gov.tr and duru@gursey.gov.tr.

2. Trakya University, Mathematics Department, P.O. Box 126, Edirne, Turkey.

Abstract: $`SU(1,1)`$ is considered as the automorphism group of the Heisenberg algebra $`H`$. The basis in the Hilbert space $`K`$ of functions on $`H`$ on which the irreducible representations of the group are realized is explicitly constructed. The addition theorems are derived.

March 2000

1. Introduction

Investigating the properties of manifolds by means of the symmetries they admit has a long history. Non-commutative geometries have become the subject of similar studies in recent decades. For example there exists an extensive literature on the $`q`$-deformed groups $`E_q(2)`$ and $`SU_q(2)`$ which are the automorphism groups of the quantum plane $`zz^{}=qz^{}z`$ and the quantum sphere respectively . Using group theoretical methods the invariant distance and the Green functions have also been written in these deformed spaces .

In the recent work we started to analyze yet another non-commutative space $`[z,z^{}]=1`$ ( i. e. the space generated by the Heisenberg algebra ) by means of its automorphism groups: We considered $`E(2)`$ group transformations in $`z,z^{}`$ space; and constructed the basis (which are written in terms of the Kummer functions) in this space where the unitary irreducible representations of $`E(2)`$ are realized . This analysis revealed a peculiar connection between the $`2`$-dimensional Euclidean group and the Kummer functions.

In the present work we continue to study the same non-commutative space $`[z,z^{}]=1`$, this time by means of the other admissible automorphism group $`SU(1,1)`$.

In Section 2 we define $`SU(1,1)`$ in the Heisenberg algebra $`H`$ and construct the unitary representations of the group in the Hilbert space $`X`$ where $`H`$ is realized.

In Section 3 we classify the invariant subspaces in the space of the bounded functions on $`H`$ where the irreducible representations of $`SU(1,1)`$ are realized.

In Section 4 we show that in the Hilbert space $`K`$ of the square integrable functions only principal series is unitary. We construct the orthonormal basis in $`K`$ which can be written in terms of the Jacobi functions.

Section 5 is devoted to the addition theorems. These theorems provide a group theoretical interpretation for the already existing identities involving the hypergeometric functions which all are actually the Jacobi functions. They may also lead to new identities.

2. Weyl representations of $`SU(1,1)`$

The one dimensional Heisenberg algebra $`H`$ is the 3-dimensional vector space with the basis elements $`\{z,z^{},1\}`$ and the bilinear antisymmetric product

$$[z,z^{}]=1.$$
(1)
The $``$-representation of $`H`$ in the suitable dense subspace of the Hilbert space $`X`$ with the complete orthonormal basis $`\{n\}`$, $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is given by

$$zn=\sqrt{n}n1,z^{}n=\sqrt{n+1}n+1.$$
(2)
Let us represent the pseudo-unitary group $`SU(1,1)`$ in the vector space $`H`$

$$g\left(\begin{array}{c}z\\ z^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ \overline{b}& \overline{a}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z\\ z^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
Due to

$$a\overline{a}b\overline{b}=1$$
(4)
the transformations (3) preserve the commutation relation

$$[gz,gz^{}]=[z,z^{}].$$
(5)
Therefore

$$gz=U(g)zU^1(g),gz^{}=U(g)z^{}U^1(g)$$
(6)
where $`U(g)`$ is the unitary representation of $`SU(1,1)`$ in $`X`$:

$$U(g_1)U(g_2)=U(g_1g_2),U^{}(g)=U^1(g)=U(g^1).$$
(7)
The Cartan decomposition for the group reads

$$g=k(\varphi )h(\alpha )k(\psi ),$$
(8)
where

$$k(\psi )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{\frac{i\psi }{2}}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\frac{\psi }{2}}\end{array}\right),h(\alpha )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\alpha }{2}& \mathrm{sinh}\frac{\alpha }{2}\\ \mathrm{sinh}\frac{\alpha }{2}& \mathrm{cosh}\frac{\alpha }{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
For the subgroup $`k(\psi )`$ we have

$$U(k(\psi ))n=e^{i\frac{n\psi }{2}}n.$$
(10)
Let us choose the following realizations for $`z`$, $`z^{}`$ and $`X`$:

$$z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x+\frac{d}{dx}),z^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x\frac{d}{dx}),$$
(11)
$$xn=\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x),\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x)=\sqrt{\frac{e^{x^2}}{2^nn!\sqrt{\pi }}}H_n(x),$$
(12)
where $`H_n`$ is the Hermite polynomial. From

$$h(\alpha )z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(xe^{\frac{\alpha }{2}}+e^{\frac{\alpha }{2}}\frac{d}{dx})$$
(13)
and

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_m(x)}\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x)=\delta _{nm}$$
(14)
we get

$$U(h(\alpha ))\mathrm{\Psi }_m(x)=e^{\frac{\alpha }{4}}\mathrm{\Psi }_m(e^{\frac{\alpha }{2}}x).$$
(15)
Matrix elements of $`U(h(\alpha ))`$ in the basis $`\{n\}`$ reads

$$U_{mn}(h)mU(h(\alpha ))n=e^{\frac{\alpha }{4}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_m(x)}\mathrm{\Psi }_n(e^{\frac{\alpha }{2}}x).$$
(16)
Evaluating this integral we get

$$U_{mn}(h)=\frac{2^{\frac{mn}{2}}}{(\frac{nm}{2})!}\sqrt{\frac{n!\mathrm{sinh}^{nm}\frac{\alpha }{2}}{m!\mathrm{cosh}^{n+m+1}\frac{\alpha }{2}}}F(\frac{m}{2},\frac{1m}{2};1+\frac{nm}{2};\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{\alpha }{2})$$
(17)
if $`nm`$ and $`n+m`$ is even and

$$U_{mn}(h)=0$$
(18)
if $`n+m`$ is odd. For $`mn`$ one has to replace $`m`$, $`n`$ and $`\alpha `$ in the above formulas by $`n`$, $`m`$ and $`\alpha `$ respectively.

3. Irreducible representations of $`SU(1,1)`$ in $`H`$

The formula

$$T(g)F(z)=F(gz)$$
(19)
defines the representation of $`SU(1,1))`$ in the space $`K_0`$ of bounded operators in the Hilbert space $`X`$ representable as the finite sums

$$F=(f_n(\zeta )z^n+z^nf_n(\zeta )).$$
(20)
Here $`f_n(\zeta )`$ are functions of the self-adjoint operator $`\zeta =z^{}z`$. Using (6) we can rewrite (19) in the form

$$T(g)F(z)=U(g)F(z)U^{}(g)$$
(21)
With the one parameter subgroups $`g_1=h(ϵ)`$, $`g_2=k(\frac{\pi }{2})h(ϵ)k(\frac{\pi }{2})`$ and $`g_3=k(ϵ)`$ of $`SU(1,1)`$ we associate the linear operators $`E_k:K_0K_0`$

$$E_k(F)=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{1}{ϵ}(T(g_k)FF)$$
(22)
with the limit being taken in the strong operator topology. Inserting (21) into (22) we get ( with $`H_\pm =E_1iE_2,H=iE_3`$ )

$$H_{}(F)=\frac{1}{2}[F,z^2],H_+(F)=\frac{1}{2}[z^2,F],H(F)=\frac{1}{2}[\zeta ,F],$$
(23)
which implies the Lie algebra of $`SU(1,1)`$

$$[H_+,H_{}]=2H,[H,H_\pm ]=\pm H_\pm .$$
(24)
The irreducible representations labelled by pair $`(\tau ,ϵ)`$, $`\tau C`$ and $`ϵ=0,\frac{1}{2}`$ are given by the formulas

$$H_{}D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}=(k+\tau +ϵ)D_{k1}^{(\tau ,ϵ)},$$
(25)
$$H_+D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}=(k\tau +ϵ)D_{k+1}^{(\tau ,ϵ)},$$
(26)
$$HD_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}=(k+ϵ)D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}.$$
(27)
(23) and (27) imply

$$D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}=z^{2(k+ϵ)}f_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(\zeta )$$
(28)
for $`k0`$ and

$$D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}=f_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(\zeta )z^{2(k+ϵ)}$$
(29)
for $`k<0`$. By substituting (28) in (25) and (26) with

$$f_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(\zeta )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{()^n2^{n+k+ϵ}}{n!}C_{kn}z^nz^n$$
(30)
we get the recurrence relations

$$nC_{kn1}+\frac{k+ϵ+\tau }{2k+2ϵ+n1}C_{k1n}(2k+2ϵ+n)C_{kn}=0,$$
(31)
$$C_{kn+1}C_{kn+2}(k+ϵ\tau )C_{k+1n}=0,$$
(32)
which are solved by

$$C_{kn}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\tau +ϵ+k+n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2ϵ+2k+n)}.$$
(33)
Using

$$z^nz^n=\zeta (\zeta 1)\mathrm{}(\zeta n+1)$$
(34)
for $`k0`$ we get

$$f_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(\zeta )=(2)^k^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\tau +k^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2k^{})}F(\zeta ,1+\tau +k^{};1+2k^{};2),$$
(35)
where $`k^{}=k+ϵ`$. The functions $`f_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}`$ for $`k<0`$ is shown to be defined from the expression

$$f_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(\zeta )=f_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(\zeta ).$$
(36)
From (25), (26) and (27) we conclude that $`SU(1,1)`$ admits the following irreducible representations:

i) $`T_{(\tau ,ϵ)}:(\tau +ϵ)\overline{}Z`$

ii) $`T_{(\tau ,ϵ)}^\pm :(\tau +ϵ)Z,\tau ϵ<0`$, that is $`\tau =\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{}`$

iii) $`T_{(\tau ,ϵ)}^0:(\tau +ϵ)Z,\tau ϵ0`$, that is $`\tau =0,\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{}`$

The corresponding invariant subspaces are:

i) $`V_{(\tau ,ϵ)}`$ generated by $`\{D^{(\tau ,ϵ})_k\}_{k=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$

ii) $`V_{(\tau ,ϵ)}^+`$ and $`V_{(\tau ,ϵ)}^{}`$ generated by $`\{D^{(\tau ,ϵ})_k\}_{k=\mathrm{}}^{\tau ϵ}`$ and $`\{D^{(\tau ,ϵ})_k\}_{k=\tau ϵ}^{\mathrm{}}`$

iii) $`V_{(\tau ,ϵ)}^0`$ generated by $`\{D^{(\tau ,ϵ})_k\}_{k=\tau ϵ}^{\tau ϵ}`$

4. Unitary irreducible representations of $`SU(1,1)`$ in $`H`$

We can define the norm in the subspace of $`K_0`$ with $`f_n(\zeta )`$ in (20) being the functions with finite support in $`Spect(\zeta )=\{0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ as

$$F=\sqrt{tr(F^{}F)}.$$
(37)
Completion of this subspace leads to the Hilbert space $`K`$ of the square integrable functions in the linear space $`H`$ with the scalar product

$$(F,G)=tr(F^{}G).$$
(38)
Using (21), the unitarity of $`U(g)`$ and the property of the trace we conclude that the representation $`T(g)`$ in $`K`$ is unitary. (23) implies the real structure in the Lie algebra

$$H_\pm ^{}=H_{},H^{}=H.$$
(39)
To investigate the unitarity of the irreducible representations in the Hilbert space $`K`$ classified in the previous section we consider the orthogonality condition for the basis elements $`D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}`$. Using (2) and (28) we get

$$(D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)},D_m^{(\tau ^{},ϵ^{})})=\delta _{mk}\delta _{ϵϵ^{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(n+2k+2ϵ)!}{n!}\overline{f_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(n)}f_k^{(\tau ^{},ϵ)}(n).$$
(40)
Putting

$$s=1e^t,\lambda =1+2(k+ϵ)+\mu $$
(41)
in the formula

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\lambda )}{n!\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}}s^nF(n,a;\lambda ;2)F(n,b;\lambda ;2)=`$
$`=(1s)^{a+b\lambda }(1+s)^{ab}F(a,b;\lambda ;{\displaystyle \frac{4s}{(1+s)^2}})`$ (42)
and taking first the limit $`\mu +0`$ and then $`t\mathrm{}`$ we obtain for $`\tau =\frac{1}{2}+i\rho `$, $`\rho R`$ the orthogonality relations

$$(D_k^{(\frac{1}{2}+i\rho ,ϵ)},D_m^{(\frac{1}{2}+i\rho ^{},ϵ^{})})=\delta _{mk}\delta _{ϵϵ^{}}\delta (\rho \rho ^{}).$$
(43)
In the deriving of the above relation we used

$$F(a,b;c;1)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cab)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ca)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)}$$
(44)
and the representation

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{e^{izt}}{z+i0}=2\pi i\delta (z)$$
(45)
for the Dirac delta function. For other values of $`\tau `$ there is no orthogonality condition. Thus in $`K`$ only the representation $`T_{(\tau ,ϵ)}`$ with $`\tau =\frac{1}{2}+i\rho `$ of Section 3, which is the principal series is unitary.

5. The addition theorems

(i) Restriction of (19) on the subspace $`V_{(\tau ,ϵ)}`$ reads:

$$T(g)D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_{nk}^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(g)D_n^{(\tau ,ϵ)}$$
(46)
or

$$U(g)D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}U^{}(g)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_{nk}^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(g)D_n^{(\tau ,ϵ)}$$
(47)
where

$`t_{kn}^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(g)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{i(k+ϵ)\varphi i(k+ϵ)\psi }}{(kn)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\tau ϵn)\mathrm{sinh}^{kn}\frac{\alpha }{2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\tau ϵk)\mathrm{cosh}^{k+n+2ϵ}\frac{\alpha }{2}}}\times `$
$`\times F(\tau ϵn,1+\tau ϵn;1+kn;\mathrm{sinh}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}})`$ (48)
are the matrix elements of the irreducible representations which are valid for $`kn`$. For $`k<n`$ one has to replace $`k`$ and $`n`$ on the right hand side by $`k`$ and $`n`$ respectively.

(ii) Restriction of (19) on the subspaces $`V_{(\tau ,ϵ)}^+`$ and $`V_{(\tau ,ϵ)}^{}`$ gives the following addition theorems:

$$U(g)D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}U^{}(g)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\tau ϵ}{}}t_{nk}^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(g)D_n^{(\tau ,ϵ)}$$
(49)
and

$$U(g)D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}U^{}(g)=\underset{n=\tau ϵ}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_{nk}^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(g)D_n^{(\tau ,ϵ)}.$$
(50)
(iii) On the subspaces $`V_{(\tau ,ϵ)}^0`$ the addition theorem reads

$$U(g)D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)}U^{}(g)=\underset{n=\tau ϵ}{\overset{\tau ϵ}{}}t_{nk}^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(g)D_n^{(\tau ,ϵ)}.$$
(51)
Sandwiching both sides of (47), (49), (50) and (51) between the states $`l`$ and $`s`$ we get

$$\underset{m,t=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}U_{lm}(g)\overline{U_{st}(g)}(D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)})_{mt}=\underset{n}{}t_{nk}^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(g)(D_n^{(\tau ,ϵ)})_{ls}$$
(52)
Multiplying (47), (49), (50) and (51) by $`U(g)`$ from the right and sandwiching them between the states $`l`$ and $`s`$ we get

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}U_{lm}(g)(D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)})_{ms}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n}{}t_{nk}^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(g)(D_n^{(\tau ,ϵ)})_{lm}U_{ms}(g)$$
(53)
Multiplying (47), (49), (50) and (51) by $`U^{}(g)`$ and $`U(g)`$ from the left and right respectively and sandwiching them between the states $`l`$ and $`s`$ we get

$$(D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)})_{ls}=\underset{m,t=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n}{}t_{kn}^{(\tau ,ϵ)}(g)U_{ts}(g)\overline{U_{ml}(g)}(D_n^{(\tau ,ϵ)})_{mt}$$
(54)
where

$$(D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)})_{mt}=\sqrt{\frac{m!}{t!}}f_k^{(\tau ,ϵ}(t)\delta _{m,t+2k+2ϵ}$$
(55)
for $`k0`$ and

$$(D_k^{(\tau ,ϵ)})_{mt}=\sqrt{\frac{t!}{m!}}f_k^{(\tau ,ϵ}(m)\delta _{m,t+2k+2ϵ}$$
(56)
for $`k<0`$.

Finally we like to give two simple specific examples: Let $`g=h(\alpha )`$, $`ϵ,k=0`$ in (51) that is $`\tau `$ is positive integer. Taking $`s,l=0`$ in (52) and (53) we get

$$P_\tau (\mathrm{cosh}\alpha )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\alpha }{2}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\frac{1}{2})}{n!}\mathrm{tanh}^{2n}\frac{\alpha }{2}F(2n,1+\tau ;1+n;\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{\alpha }{2})$$
(57)
and

$$1=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\tau }{}}\frac{()^n!}{(n!)^2}\frac{(\tau +n)!}{(\tau n)!}\mathrm{tanh}^{2n}\frac{\alpha }{2}F(\tau ,1+\tau ;1+n;\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{\alpha }{2})$$
(58)
respectively. $`P_\tau `$ in (57) is the Legendre function.


text:
# Direct-interaction electrodynamics of a two-electron atom

## I Action-at-a-distance electrodynamics

The Wheeler-Feynmanelectrodynamics developed from the Schwarzschild-Tetrode-Fokker direct-interaction functional. Equations of motion are derived from Hamilton’s principle for the action integral

$`S=_im_ic𝑑s_i+e^2_{ij}\delta \left(x_ix_j^2\right)x_ix_j𝑑s_i𝑑s_j,`$

where the four-vector $`x_i(s_i)`$ represents the four-position of particle $`i`$ parametrized by arc-length $`s_i`$ , double bars indicate quadri-vector modulus $`x_ix_j^2(x_ix_j)(x_ix_j)`$ and the dot indicates the usual Minkowski relativistic scalar product of four-vectors. (integration is to be carried over the hole particle trajectories, at least formally). The above action integral describes an interaction at the advanced and retarded light-cones with an electromagnetic potential given by half the sum of the advanced and retarded Liènard-Wierchert potentials . Wheeler and Feynman showed that electromagnetic phenomena can be described by this direct action-at-a-distance theory in complete agreement with Maxwell’s theory as far as the classical experimental consequences. This direct-interaction formulation of electrodynamics was developed to avoid the complications of divergent self-interaction, as there is no self-interaction in this theory, and also to eliminate the infinite number of field degrees of freedom of Maxwell’s theory . It was a great inspiration of Wheeler and Feynman in 1945, that followed a lead of Tetrode  and showed that with the extra hypothesis that the electron interacts with a completely absorbing universe, the advanced response of this universe to the electron’s retarded field arrives at the present time of the electron and is equivalent to the local instantaneous self-interaction of the Lorentz-Dirac theory. The action-at-a-distance theory is also symmetric under time reversal, as the Fokker action includes both advanced and retarded interactions. Dissipation in this time-reversible theory becomes a matter of statistical mechanics of absorption. The area of Wheeler-Feynman electrodynamics has been progressing slowly but steadily since 1945: Quantization was achieved by use of the Feynman path integral technique and the effect of spontaneous emission was successfully described in terms of interaction with the future absorber, in agreement with quantum electrodynamics. It was also shown that it is possible to avoid the usual divergencies associated with quantum electrodynamics by use of proper cosmological boundary conditions. As far as understanding of the dynamics governed by the equations of motion, the state of the art is as follows: The exact circular orbit solution to the attractive two-body problem was proposed in 1946 and rediscovered by Schild in 1962. The 1-dimensional symmetric two-electron scattering is a special case where the equations of motion simplify a lot and it has been studied by many authors, both analytically and numerically . In this very special case the initial value functional problem surprisingly requires much less than an arbitrary initial function to determine a solution manifold with the extra condition of bounded manifold for all times. It was shown that the solution is uniquely determined by the interelectronic distance at the turning point if this distance is large enough (this minimum distance curiously evaluates to 0.49 Bohr radii by the action-at-a-distance theory, much larger than about one classical electronic radius that one would naively guess). As a result of this theorem, there is a single continuous parameter (the positive energy) describing the unique non-runaway symmetric orbit at that given positive energy.

The Noether’s four-constant of motion derived from the Fokker Lagrangian involves an integral over the past history. For example in the case of a hydrogen atom this four-momentum constant evaluates to

$`P^\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`m_p\dot{x}_p^\lambda +eA^\lambda (x_p)+m_e\dot{x}_e^\lambda eA^\lambda (x_e)`$
$`2e^2{\displaystyle _\tau ^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau _p{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\tau }𝑑\tau _e\stackrel{´}{\delta }\left(x_ex_p^2\right)(x_px_e)\dot{x}_e\dot{x}_p`$
$`+2e^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\tau }𝑑\tau _p{\displaystyle _\tau ^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau _e\stackrel{´}{\delta }\left(x_ex_p^2\right)(x_px_e)\dot{x}_e\dot{x}_p,`$
where $`\stackrel{´}{\delta }`$ represents the derivative of the delta function. Notice that because of this delta function, only finite portions of the trajectory are involved: actually an extent of length $`t2r_{12}/c`$ approximately. This non-local constant will behave very differently from the local Coulombian energy, that is known to confine orbits of a negative energy within a maximum separation distance. In the case where the particles acquire a large separation (unbound state), the hole past history is involved ($`t2r_{12}/c\mathrm{}`$) in the determination of the non-local energy constant.

As regards the mathematical structure of the equations of motion, for the case of a two-electron atom the acceleration of electron 1 is given by

$$a_1(t)=\frac{e}{m\gamma }\{E\frac{v_1(t)}{c^2}Ev_1(t)+\frac{v_1(t)}{c}\times B\},$$
(1)
where $`e`$ and $`m`$ are the electronic charge and mass, $`\gamma `$ $`1/\sqrt{(1\frac{v_1^2(t)}{c^2})^{1/2}}`$and $`E`$ and $`B`$ are the total electric and magnetic fields produced by electron 2 and the nucleus. In the action-at-a-distance theory these fields are given by the average of the retarded and advanced Liènard-Wiechert fields, calculated with the instantaneous position of the stationary nucleus and the retarded and advanced positions of electron 2 at the times $`t_2=t_{}`$ , which is defined by the implicit condition

$`R_{}|r_2(t_{})r_1(t_1)|=c(t_{}t_1),`$

where the minus and plus signs are the conditions for the retarded and advanced times respectively. The partial electric fields of electron 2 acting on electron 1 at time $`t_{1\text{ }}`$are

$`E_{}(x_1,x_2,v_2,a_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e(n_{}\beta _2)}{\gamma _2^2(1n_{}\beta _2)^3R_{}^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{n_{}\times \left\{(n_{}\beta _2)\times \dot{\beta }_2\right\}}{(1n_{}\beta _2)^3R_{}}}\right],`$
where $`R_{}n_{}r_2(t_{})r_1(t_1)`$ , $`\beta _2v_2/c,(e),\gamma _2(1\beta _2^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`c`$ is the speed of light. The advanced field $`E_+`$ is obtained from the above expression by replacing $`t_{}`$ by $`t_+`$ and $`c`$ by $`c.`$ The partial magnetic fields of electron 2 are

$`B_{}=\pm n_{}\times E_{},`$

where the $`\pm `$ is to ensure an outgoing Poynting vector $`(cE\times B)`$ for the retarded fields and an incoming Poynting vector for the advanced fields. The total electric field in equation (1) must include also the instantaneous Coulomb electric field of the stationary nucleus.

Equation (1) can suggest a paradox about causality, as the force depends on the future of particle 2. In the following, and to finish this introduction, we show that equation (1), when written properly, becomes a functional differential equation with delayed argument only, as first observed in. To outline the essentials of the explanation, let us first ignore the field of the nucleus and take the nonrelativistic limit of (1) ($`v_1=0`$). In this approximation the electric field $`E`$ entering in equation (1) evaluates to $`E=0.5E_+(x_1,x_{2+},v_{2+},a_{2+})+0.5E_{}(x_1,x_2,v_2,a_2)`$. Then we note that one can use equation (1) as an equation of motion for particle 2 , by solving the rearranged form of (1),

$`eE_+(x_1,x_{2+},v_{2+},a_{2+})`$ $`=`$ (3)
$`2ma_1(t)eE_{}(x_1,x_2,v_2,a_2),`$
for the most advanced acceleration of particle 2, $`a_{2+}a_2(t+\frac{d_+}{c}).`$ In the above form it is clear that the right hand side involves only functions evaluated at times prior to the most advanced time, defined by $`s=t+\frac{d_+}{c}`$, and no further advanced information is necessary, eliminating the ghost of dependence on the future. In the same way, the causal equation of motion of particle 1 is to be produced from the equation for particle 2 by solving for the most advanced acceleration of particle 1. For the special case of 1-dimensional motion of two electrons, $`E_+=E_+(x_1,x_{2+},v_{2+})`$ depends only on the advanced velocity, and (LABEL:causal) can easily be solved for this advanced velocity as a function of the past history. In the 3-dimensional case there is an extra complexity, as the acceleration appears in the Liènard-Wiechert partial field $`E_+`$ in the form $`n_{12}\times (n_{12}\times a_{2+})/r_{12}`$. The bad news is that the component of the acceleration along the advanced normal can not be solved for from the value of the double-vector-product only. Because of this degeneracy, equation (LABEL:causal) is an algebraic-differential equation, and the null direction of the left hand side of (LABEL:causal) is a constraint to be satisfied by the right hand side (the scalar product with $`n_{12}`$ must vanish). The numerically correct way to integrate this type of equation is by use of the modern integrators for algebraic-differential equations like DASSL  adapted for retarded equations (which has never been done yet) or by dealing directly with the algebraic constraint . According to the standard classification of G. A. Kamenskii, equation (LABEL:causal) belongs to the class of differential-difference equations of neutral type. Even though more complex, the motion is still causally determined by the past trajectory, as we wanted to demonstrate, the price being an algebraic neutral delay equation.

As far as initial conditions go, the general theory on delay equations  tells us that we need to provide an initial $`C^2`$ function describing the position of particle 2 from $`s\frac{(d_++d_\mathrm{\_})}{c}=t\frac{d_\mathrm{\_}}{c}`$ up to the initial instant $`s=0`$. The information on particle 1 needed is also to be provided over twice the retardation lag seen by particle 1. This is a short piece of trajectory for bound nonrelativistic atomic orbits, but for a ionized state or a runaway orbit this can be the whole past history! Unless further simplifications or conditions are added, this is the generic problem at hand. The 3-dimensional cases of atomic interest (e.g. helium) have never been studied, and they are more complex than the 1-d scattering because one can have negative energy bound states for example. Most relevant for physics is the question of the conditions for the existence of a bounded manifold solution, which still needs to be understood in the general case (it would be very curious if they turned out to be a discrete set of negative energies). The only existing analytical result in the 3-dimensional case is the linear stability of the Schonberg-Schild circular orbits, resulting in an infinite number of unstable solutions to the characteristic equation. The numerical treatment ofthe exact neutral equations displays instabilities and is generally difficult. In the following we resort to the Darwin approximation not as much as a mathematical approximation to the action-at-a-distance electrodynamics, but as a physical approximation of Lorentz-invariant dynamics in the atomic (shallow) energy range.

## II Numerical Calculations for the Coulomb Dynamics

To introduce our numerical calculations, we start from the scale-invariant Coulomb limit of the Tetrode-Fokker-Wheeler-Feynman interaction: Let $`e`$ and $`m`$ be the electronic charge and mass respectively and $`Ze`$ the nuclear charge of our two-electron atom, which in this work is assumed to have an infinite mass. All our numerical work uses a scaling which exploits the scale invariance of the Coulomb dynamics: Given a negative energy, there is a unique circular orbit at that energy with frequency $`\omega _o`$ and radius$`R`$ related by $`e^2/(m\omega _o^2R^3)=1/(Z\frac{1}{4})\zeta (Z)`$. We scale distance, momentum, time and energy as $`xRx`$, $`pm\omega _oRp`$ , $`\omega _odtd\tau `$ and $`Em\omega _o^2R^2\widehat{H}`$, respectively. In these scaled units, the Coulomb dynamics of the two-electron atom is described by the scaled Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{𝐇}=\frac{1}{2}(|\stackrel{}{p}_1|^2+|\stackrel{}{p}_2|^2)+\zeta (Z)\{\frac{1}{r_{12}}\frac{Z}{r_1}\frac{Z}{r_2}\},$$
(5)
where $`r_1|\stackrel{}{x}_1|,r_2|\stackrel{}{x}_2|,r_{12}|\stackrel{}{x}_1\stackrel{}{x}_2|`$(single bars represent euclidean modulus) and $`\beta \omega _oR/c`$. For a generic non-circular orbit, $`\beta `$ plays the role of a scale parameter, and we recover the value of the energy in ergs through $`E=mc^2\beta ^2\widehat{H}`$. Notice that $`\beta `$ does not appear in the scaled Hamiltonian, which is the scale invariance property. From the scaled frequency $`\widehat{w}`$ and scaled angular momentum $`\widehat{l}`$ we can recover the actual values in CGS units by the formulas

$$w=\frac{mc^2\zeta (Z)\beta ^3}{e^2/c}\widehat{w},l=\frac{e^2/c}{\zeta (Z)}\frac{\widehat{l}}{\beta }.$$
(6)
The only other analytic constant of the Coulomb dynamics, besides the energy (5) is the total angular momentum, and this dynamics in chaotic and displays Arnold diffusion, as proved in  for a similar three-body system.

The numerical calculations were performed using a 9th-order Runge-Kutta embedded integrator pair. We chose the embedded error per step to be $`10^{14}`$, and after ten million time units of integration the percentage changes in energy and total angular momentum were less than $`10^6`$. As a numerical precaution we performed the numerical calculations using the double Kustanheimo coordinate transformation to regularize single collisions with the nucleus. As these alone are not enough for faithful integration, we checked that there was never a triple collision, as the minimum inter-electronic distance was about $`0.3`$ units while the minimum distance to the nucleus was $`0.01`$ units for all the orbits considered in this work. We also checked that along stable non-ionizing orbits we can integrate forward up to fifty thousand time units, reverse the integration, go backwards another fifty thousand units and recover the initial condition with a percentile error of $`10^5`$. For longer times this precision of back and forth integration degenerates rapidly, which is due to the combined effect of numerical truncation and stochasticity. The question of how far in time the numerical trajectories approximate shadowing trajectories in the present system is far from trivial , but we assume it to be a time at least of the order of these one hundred thousand units. (Energy conservation of one part in a million is achieved for much longer times, even one billion time units).

The study of orbits of a two-electron atom was greatly stimulated by the recent interest in semiclassical quantization, and these studies discovered two types of stable zero-angular-momentum periodic orbits for helium ($`Z=2`$): the Langmuir orbit and the frozen-planet orbit . A detailed study of the non-ionizing orbits of Coulombian helium was initiated in reference  for plane orbits, and we describe some of their results below. There are basically two types of non-ionizing orbits: Symmetric if $`r_1=r_2`$ for all times and asymmetric if $`r_1r_2`$ generically. Symmetric orbits are produced by symmetric initial conditions like for example $`x_1(0)=x_2(0)`$ and $`v_1(0)=v_2(0)`$ or $`x_1(0)=x_2(0)`$ and $`v_1(0)=v_2(0)`$ with $`x_1(0)v_1(0)=0`$  Because (5) is symmetric under particle exchange, these orbits satisfy $`r_1=r_2`$ at all times, and therefore cannot ionize if $`H<0`$ (both electrons would have to ionize at the same time, which is impossible at negative energies). For example the double-elliptical orbits (two equal ellipses symmetrically displaced along the x-axis) discussed in  are in this class. Double-elliptical orbits are known to be unstable  and we find that they ionize in about one hundred turns because of the numerical truncation error. Most symmetric plane orbits are very unstable to asymmetric perturbations, with the exception of the Langmuir orbit for a small range of $`Z`$ values around $`Z=2`$ .

The simplest way to produce an asymmetric non-ionizing plane orbit is from the initial condition $`x_1=(r_1,0,0)`$ , $`\dot{x}_1=(0,v_1\sqrt{4/7},0)`$ , $`x_2=(1.0,0,0)`$ , $`\dot{x}_2=(0,\sqrt{4/7},0)`$, as suggested in . In Figure 1 we show the electronic trajectories for the first three hundred scaled time units along a two-dimensional non-ionizing orbit of $`Ca^{+18}(Z=20)`$ with $`r_1=1.4`$ and $`v_1=1.28442`$ in the above defined condition. We used a numerical refining procedure to finely adjust $`v_1`$as to maximize the non-ionizing time and this condition of Figure 1 does not ionize for one million time units. The orbit survives that far only for a very sharp band of values of $`v_1`$, other neighboring values producing quick ionization. This orbit was named double-ring torus in . The other possible type of non-ionizing orbit resulting from the above initial condition, depending on $`(r_1,v_1),`$ is what was named braiding torus in reference , with both electrons orbiting within the same region. A search over $`(r_1,v_1)`$ was conducted in , and it was found that most values of $`(r_1,v_1)`$ produce quick ionization except for a zero-measure set of $`(r_1,v_1)`$ values where braiding tori or double ring orbits are found. This suggests the general result that non-ionizing orbits are rare in phase space.

To search for general tridimensional non-ionizing orbits in phase space, it is convenient to introduce canonical coordinates $`\stackrel{}{x}_d`$ and $`\stackrel{}{x}_c`$

$`\stackrel{}{p}_d`$ $``$ $`(\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2)/\sqrt{2},\stackrel{}{x}_d(\stackrel{}{x}_1\stackrel{}{x}_2)/\sqrt{2}`$ (7)
$`\stackrel{}{p}_c`$ $``$ $`(\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2)/\sqrt{2},\stackrel{}{x}_c(\stackrel{}{x}_1+\stackrel{}{x}_2)/\sqrt{2}.`$ (8)
Initial conditions with $`\stackrel{}{x}_c=`$ $`\stackrel{}{p}_c=0`$ describe double-elliptical orbits (and circular as a special case). To generate an elliptical initial condition, we exploit the scale invariance and set the energy to minus one. It is easy to check that elliptical orbits of the Hamiltonian (5) with an energy of minus one must have a total angular momentum of magnitude ranging from zero to two. To exploit the rotational invariance of (5), we can choose the plane defined at $`\stackrel{}{x}_c=`$ $`\stackrel{}{p}_c=0`$ by the angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{L}=`$ $`\stackrel{}{x}_d\times \stackrel{}{p}_d+\stackrel{}{x}_c\times \stackrel{}{p}_c=\stackrel{}{x}_d\times \stackrel{}{p}_d`$ to be the $`xy`$ plane. On this $`xy`$ plane a single number $`0<|\stackrel{}{x}_d\times \stackrel{}{p}_d|<2`$ (the angular momentum), determines completely the elliptical orbit. The next step in producing a generic orbit is to add all possible perturbations along $`\stackrel{}{x}_c`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_c`$ to the chosen elliptical orbit. These are six directions and once we are looking for bound oscillatory orbits, we can choose $`z_c=0`$, once $`z_c`$ has to cross the $`xy`$ plane at some point. These are five numbers to vary and plus the angular momentum of the elliptical orbit it totals six parameters. Our numerical search procedure consists in varying these six parameters over a fine grid, integrating every single initial condition until the distance from one electron to the nucleus is greater than twenty units, which is our ionization criterion. This criterion fails if the orbit has a very low angular momentum because these can go far away from the nucleus and come back, and therefore our search possibly misses low-angular-momentum non-ionizing orbits. As the majority of the initial conditions ionize very quickly, this search procedure is reasonably fast. We first perform a coarse search for ionization times above one thousand units and then refine in the neighborhood of each surviving condition to get conditions that do not ionize after one million time units.

Using the above numerical search procedure we found the tridimensional non-ionizing initial condition of Figure 2 for helium, a tridimensional double-ring orbit generated by the initial condition

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`(1.2812617,0.0147169,0.0)`$
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`(1.5511484,0.0147169,0.0)`$
$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`(0.0194868,0.4398889,0.1094930)`$
$`p_2`$ $`=`$ $`(0.0194868,0.7972467,0.1094930),`$
which does not ionize before ten million turns. (After the search and refinement, we scaled this orbit’s energy to minus one, for later convenience). We also found the non-ionizing orbit orbit of Figure 3 for H-minus ($`Z=1`$), a tridimensional orbit generated by the condition

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`(1.9776507,0.3411364,0.0)`$
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`(1.2288121,0.3411364,0.0)`$
$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`(0.0421302,0.5057782,0.2810539)`$
$`p_2`$ $`=`$ $`(0.0421302,0.4132970,0.2810539),`$
which does not ionize before one million turns (Coulombian energy of this condition is also minus one). This last orbit is fragile and numerically harder to find: as the first electron has an orbit very close to the positive $`Z=1`$ charge, there remains only a dipole field to bind the second electron. As the outer electron is much slower in the scaled units, we had to plot the first $`10000`$ time units of evolution to display the generic features of the trajectory. Non-ionizing orbits of $`H^{}`$ are very rare in phase space, which is reminiscent of the quantum counterpart, as the $`H^{}`$ ion is known to have only one quantum bound state at $`E0.55mc^2\alpha ^2`$, very close to the ionization threshold $`(0.5mc^2\alpha ^2)`$.

One remarkable fact about these non-ionizing orbits is that they all have a very sharp Fourier transform. This property makes them approximately quasi-periodic orbits. For example in Figure 4 we plot the fast Fourier transform of the orbit of Figure 2, performed using $`2^{16}`$ points. (It seems that there are at least two basic frequencies in the resonance structure of Figure 4). Even though these orbits look like quasi-periodic tori, there seems to be a thin stochastic tube surrounding each orbit, as evidenced by a small positive maximum Lyapunov exponent. We calculated numerically this maximum Lyapunov exponent by doubling the integration times up to $`T=10^7`$ and found that the exponent initially decreases but then saturates to a value of about $`0.001`$ for the orbits of Figures 1, 2 and 3. The gravitational three-body problem has recently been proved to display Arnold diffusion, and this numeriacally calculated positive Lyapunov exponent suggests that the same is true for the two-electron Coulombian atom.

## III Numerical calculations for the Darwin Dynamics

The numerical integrations in this section are performed using the Darwin approximation. The Darwin equations of motion are a $`\beta ^2`$ perturbation of the Coulomb dynamics, of size $`\beta ^210^4`$ for atomic energies. In the scaled units of section II the Darwin Hamiltonian is the following $`\beta ^2`$ perturbation of Hamiltonian (5)

$`\widehat{𝐇}_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|\stackrel{}{p}_1|^2+|\stackrel{}{p}_2|^2)+\zeta (Z)\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{12}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{r_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{r_2}}\}`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (Z)\beta ^2}{2r_{12}}}[\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2+(\widehat{n}_{12}\stackrel{}{p}_1)(\widehat{n}_{12}\stackrel{}{p}_2)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{8}}[|\stackrel{}{p}_1|^4+|\stackrel{}{p}_2|^4],`$
where $`\widehat{n}_{12}(\stackrel{}{x}_1\stackrel{}{x}_2)/r_{12}`$. The second line represents the Biot-Savart magnetic interaction plus the first relativistic correction to the static electric field and the last line describes the relativistic mass correction. Notice that these are both proportional to the small parameter $`\beta ^2`$, which makes them a small scale-dependent perturbation on the scale invariant Coulomb Hamiltonian (first line). It is possible to regularize the Darwin equations with the same double-Kustanheimo transformation, only that here one needs to define the regularized time using the higher powers $`dt=r_1^2r_2^2ds`$, instead of the lower powers $`dt=r_1r_2ds`$ used to regularize the Coulomb equations.

The main question we address numerically in this section is the dependence of the stability of a non-ionizing orbit with the energy scale of the orbit . Here we use the word stability to mean ionization-stability: We call an initial condition ionization-stable if any small perturbation of it produces another non-ionizing orbit. The scale-dependent Darwin terms (of size $`\beta ^2)`$ produce significant deviations from the Coulomb dynamics only in a time-scale of order $`1/\beta ^2,`$ which we find numerically to be the typical time for a non-ionizing Coulombian initial condition to ionize along the Darwin vector field. This poses a numerical difficulty if $`\beta `$ is too small because one has to integrate the orbit for very long times to investigate the stability. It turns out that ionization-stable orbits can be found at larger values of $`\beta `$ for larger values of $`Z`$ . Here the dynamical stability mechanism is reminiscent of quantum atomic physics, where the values of $`\beta `$ vary with the nuclear charge as $`\beta Z/137`$. Large values of $`Z`$ facilitate the numerical procedure and in the following we present the numerical investigation of the stability of non-ionizing orbits starting from the large $`Z`$ case.

Let us start with the $`Z=20`$ calcium ion two-electron system along the non-ionizing orbit of Figure 1 by fixing $`r_1=1.4`$ and $`v_1=1.28442.`$ in the condition defined in section II. To test the stability of the orbit at each value of $`\beta `$ we add a random perturbation of average size $`\beta ^2`$ to the initial condition and integrate the Darwin dynamics until either we find ionization or the time of integration is greater than $`10^7`$ time units We repeat this for at least twelve randomly chosen perturbations (because of the twelve degrees of freedom) and the minimum time to ionization is plotted in Figure 5 as a function of $`\beta `$. It can be seen that only for a narrow set of values around $`\beta 0.037`$ this minimum time to ionization was greater than $`10^6`$. or the other values it decreases rapidly to a value of about $`10^3`$. One could argue that for the other values of $`\beta `$ the non-ionizing initial condition has shifted away from the $`v_1=1.28442`$ initial condition and this being the reason that our orbit ionized. To test this, we fixed $`\beta `$ at a ”bad ” value for example $`\beta =0.02`$ and varied the plane initial condition in the neighborhood of this condition of Figure 1. We found that the minimum time to ionization was always about $`10^3`$ (also the maximum time before ionization was about $`10^3`$). We also searched in a bigger neighborhood, of size proportional to $`\beta `$. This suggests the interpretation that for the special resonant value of $`\beta =0.037`$ the net diffusive effect of the scale-dependent term vanishes, allowing a non-ionizing perturbed manifold. In order to have a direct interpretation (in atomic units) of the scale parameter $`\beta `$, it is convenient to scale to minus one the energy of the initial condition of Figure 1 (by exployting the Coulombian scale invariance). After this, the energy of the orbit in ergs evaluates to $`E=mc^2\beta ^2\widehat{H}=mc^2\beta ^2`$, and for $`\beta =0.037`$ this is approximately $`24.59`$ atomic units. The total angular momentum of this orbit is $`l_z=7.94\mathrm{}`$. This orbit’s energy is above the ionization continuum of the ion, $`E=mc^2\alpha ^2Z^2/2=200`$ atomic units, but it is still in the quantum range. It serves nevertheless to demonstrate that this dynamical system might exhibit non-ionizing stable orbits only at very sharply defined energy values.

For the orbits of Figures 2 and 3, the above procedure becomes prohibitively slow, as the value of $`\beta `$ are much smaller and one must integrate for very long times, much beyond the estimated shadowing time. To partially overcome this we used a larger amplitude random perturbation (of average size $`20\beta ^2`$), to produce faster ionization. The drawback with this is that the minimum ionization time does not show pronounced peaks, only the average ionization time still showing a signature of scale dependence. In Figure 6 we show this average time for the orbit of Figure 3. This property of sharply defined energies can possibly be found for the lower-lying energies below the ionization threshold as well. These orbits would involve configurations where the electrons come very close to the nucleus and acquire a large velocity. Even though our integrator is regularized, the correct physical electronic repulsion is greatly amplified when one electron has a relativistic velocity and the Darwin approximation can not describe the physics then. Actually, it is known that the Darwin interaction can produce unphysical effects when pushed to relativistic energies. We therefore do not expect to find these low-lying atomic energy scales with the present Darwin approximation and shall be contempt with these interesting result already.

For the same reason given above, we do not study here the frozen-planet periodic orbit (the two electrons performing one-dimensional periodic motion on the same side of the nucleus, with the inner electron rebounding from the origin, an artifact of regularization). The main problem being the failure of the Darwin approximation, as the inner particle goes to the speed of light. The correct relativistic dynamics can actually produce a new physical inner turning point very close to the origin but not at the origin as the regularized motion, and we discuss elsewhere.

Last, we consider the non-ionizing symmetric periodic orbit called the Langmuir orbit, where the two electrons perform symmetric bending motion shaped approximately like a semi-circle. For the Coulomb two-electron atom with $`Z=2`$ this orbit was found to have a zero maximum Lyapunov exponent. The orbit is therefore neutrally stable, which is the best one can expect from a periodic orbit of a Hamiltonian vector field. (Absolute stability violates the symplectic symmetry, which says that to every stability exponent $`\lambda `$ one should have a $`1/\lambda `$ exponent). It is a simple matter to obtain the Langmuir-like orbit for the Darwin Hamiltonian at any given value of $`\beta `$: all it takes is a little adjusting in the neighborhood of the Coulombian Langmuir condition. We attempted to investigate numerically any scale-dependent diffusion away from this Darwin-Langmuir condition for $`\beta `$ in the atomic range, but again the numerics is prohibitively slow at the time of writing this work.

## IV Conclusions and Discussion

The simplified dynamical mechanism behind resonant non-ionization seems to go intuitively as follows: The peculiar scale-invariant Coulomb dynamics determines the non-ionizing orbits within narrow ”stochastic tubes ”. The next step is the action of the small scale-dependent relativistic corrections that produce a slow diffusion of the orbit out of the thin tube in a time of the order of $`1/\beta ^2`$. After this, quick ionization follows. Only at very special resonant values of $`\beta `$ the relativistic terms leave the orbit within the tube, a resonant effect that depends on $`\beta `$, fixing the energy scale. In the literature, the escape to infinity from simpler to understand two-degree-of-freedom systems has been attributed to cantori, which, as is well known, can trap chaotic orbits near regular regions for extremely long times. In the present larger dimensional case it appears that resonances are also controlling the escape to infinity of one electron by the existence of extra resonant constants of motion. This seems to be in agreement with the numerical results of very sharp peaks for the minimum ionization time. We have tried to concentrate on the physics described by this combination of chaotic dynamics on a two-electron atom with inclusion of relativistic correction, while discussing this highly nontrivial result of nonlinear dynamics.

In references  we noticed that a simple resonant normal form criterion gives a surprisingly good prediction for the discrete atomic energy levels of helium. The resonant structure was calculated using the Darwin interaction (11), which is the low-velocity approximation to both Maxwell’s  and Wheeler-Feynman’s electrodynamics. As we saw in section II, the Coulombian non-ionizing orbits are far from circular, and these orbits would radiate even in dipole according to the time-irreversible Maxwell’s electrodynamics (circular orbits radiate only in quadrupole but are linearly unstable). It becomes then clear that the heuristic results of  can only have a physical meaning in the context of a time-reversible theory (as the action-at-a-distance electrodynamics for example).

The combination of chaotic dynamics with relativistic invariance has never been explored numerically, and most known Lorentz-invariant dynamical systems are for one particle and possess trivially integrable dynamics. The situation gets unexpectedly much more complicated for more than one particle (apart from the trivial non-interacting many-particle system): Due to the famous no-interaction theorem, the relativistic description of two directly interacting particles is impossible within the Hamiltonian formalism and its set of ten canonical generators for the Poincare group . Description of interacting particles is possible only in the context of constraint dynamics, with eleven canonical generators and with the Dirac bracket replacing the Poisson bracket. For example the relativistic action-at-a-distance equations for two interacting electrons are non-local and possess only infinite-dimensional constrained Hamiltonian representations. The interested reader should consult some recently found two-body direct-interaction relativistic Lagrangian dynamical systems as well as the constraint-dynamics direct-interaction models recently used in chromodynamics and two-body Dirac equations. The nonlinear dynamics of these models could display interesting and so far inexplored dynamical behaviour.

It would be natural to wonder if one can find an analogous scale-dependent dynamics for a dynamical system describing the hydrogen atom, apparently the simplest example of Lorentz-invariant two-body relativistic dynamics of atomic interest. It turns out that hydrogen is not simpler than helium at all, but it appears to us that there is an essential difference which has actually made the interesting dynamics of a two-electron atom amenable to study already within the Darwin approximation: In a two-electron atom orbits with a negative energy can ionize, while in hydrogen this might be possible only if one includes all orders of the relativistic action-at-a-distance interaction. (As we saw in section I, the ”Noether’s energy constant” involves a segment of the past trajectory, and a negative value does not forbid ionization). Ionization with a negative energy would be impossible for hydrogen within the Darwin approximation (unless the electron goes to the speed of light). This is indication that in hydrogen the essential physics described by the action-at-a-distance electrodynamics is of non-perturbative character. The paradoxical result of the infinite linear instability of circular orbits in atomic hydrogen is another warning of this non-perturbative dynamics.

## V Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the support of FAPESP, proc. 96/06479-9 and CNPQ, proc. 301243/94-8(NV).