format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The sine-Gordon S-matrix for the quantum scattering of solitons was solved initially in the literature in , by imposing conditions on the S-matrix called crossing and unitarity. These conditions were previously observed in other S-matrices found using perturbative techniques in quantum field theory , and were subsequently taken to be axioms for the non-perturbative result.

The bootstrap methods use the $`U_q(\widehat{sl_2})`$ Hopf algebra , and its spin half representation $`W`$, which is a space of functions taking values in $`C^2`$, where the first component corresponds to ‘solitons’ and the second to ‘anti-solitons’. Then $`WW`$ corresponds to a two soliton system, which can interact by collision. There is an initial two soliton quantum state in $`WW`$, and after the collision process we have a final quantum state in $`WW`$. The scattering matrix gives a map $`WWWW`$, which sends the initial to the final state. In terms of the Hopf algebra, this map is a braiding .

This scattering matrix is fairly easy to find up to a multiplication by a scalar function, but the scalar function itself is more difficult. We denote this scalar function by $`a(z)`$ where $`zC`$. The crossing condition in terms of this function becomes

$$a(z)=a\left(\frac{q}{z}\right)\frac{(zz^1)}{(zq^1z^1q)}$$
(1)
and the unitarity condition is $`a(z)a(z^1)=1`$.

The crossing condition arises from physics by equating a scattering process with the same scattering process after rotating the space-time diagram of the collision by a right-angle. This rotation involves a time reversal of one of the incoming and one of the outgoing solitons, which implies that these are turned into anti-solitons. The rotation of the diagram also implies that $`z`$, which corresponds roughly to the relative momentum of the colliding solitons (conserved in the collision), is transformed to $`z^1q`$. The interested reader can refer to the comprehensive book  for a complete discussion. The article  is also an excellent review.

Zamolodchikov-Zamolodchikov solved these equations (1) to get a formula for $`a(z)`$ in terms of a double infinite product of gamma functions. It was thought that this product probably converged for all physical values of $`z`$, and all values of $`q`$ where $`|q|=1`$. However no proof of this was provided. The convergence of this function has also not been treated in subsequent papers in the literature.

Here, in this paper, we find an alternative formula which is more amenable to a convergence analysis. We find that the convergence is highly delicate, and the function converges with probability one, for $`q`$ on the unit circle, i.e. $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$, including convergence for all irrational algebraic values of $`\tau `$, and diverges for certain transcendental values of $`\tau `$.

Another alternative formula for $`a(z)`$ was found in Johnson , as an integral, or as a combination of ‘regularised’ quantum dilogarithms. This was done to make contact with semi-classical results for the scattering which involve integrating classical time delays. However, the convergence of this formula, or of the individual quantum dilogarithms, was also difficult to analyse because the contour integrals which one has to do are difficult to perform, involving sums over an infinite double set of poles.

In this paper we shall consider the problem purely in terms of braidings of the representations of a Hopf algebra, rather than invoking the crossing and unitarity conditions of S-matrix theory. We begin with the loop group of analytic functions used in the classical inverse scattering procedure for sine-Gordon , and deform this by inclusion of a parameter $`q`$ .

## 2 The universal enveloping algebra $``$

We begin with the loop group of analytic functions from $`C^{}`$ to $`SL_2(C)`$ which obey the symmetry condition $`U\varphi (z)U^1=\varphi (z)`$, where

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

The Lie algebra for this group has generators $`X_{\pm 1}`$, $`X_{\pm 2}`$ and $`H`$, given by

$`X_{+1}(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ z& 0\end{array}\right)`$ , $`X_1(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1/z\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),H(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (2)
$`X_{+2}(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& z\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ , $`X_2(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1/z& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (3)
These generators obey the usual coproduct rule for the universal enveloping algebra of a Lie algebra, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }(X_{\pm 1})=X_{\pm 1}1+1X_{\pm 1}`$ etc. This rule can be deformed by the inclusion of a parameter $`qC`$ to give

$`\mathrm{\Delta }H=1H+H1`$ , $`\mathrm{\Delta }X_{\pm 1}=X_{\pm 1}q^{H/2}+q^{H/2}X_{\pm 1},`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }X_{\pm 2}`$ $`=`$ $`X_{\pm 2}q^{H/2}+q^{H/2}X_{\pm 2}.`$ (5)
The Lie algebra structure remains the same. If in addition we define a counit $`ϵ`$ (which kills all the generators) and an antipode $`S`$ (which has $`S(H)=H`$ and $`S(X_{\pm n})=q^{\pm 1}X_{\pm n}`$) we can make the universal enveloping algebra into a Hopf algebra, which we denote $``$. This is the so-called ‘principal gradation’ of $`U_q(\widehat{\mathrm{𝑠𝑙}_2})`$, which is actually a subalgebra of $`U_q(\widehat{\mathrm{𝑠𝑙}_2})`$. We use the convention that $`r=\sqrt{q}`$ in the terms $`q^{\pm H/2}`$.

## 3 Rigid braided tensor categories

Here we shall give a highly abbreveiated, specialised and incomplete account of rigid braided tensor categories, for a full account see .

The representations of a Hopf algebra $``$ form a category, with objects the representations, and the morphisms $`\rho :VW`$ are intertwining maps for the representations $`V`$ and $`W`$. This means that $`\rho `$ is linear and that $`\rho (h(v))=h(\rho (v))`$ for all $`h`$.

The tensor product of two representations is also a representation. The action on $`VW`$ is given by the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }:`$. If we write $`\mathrm{\Delta }h=h_{(1)}h_{(2)}`$, then $`h(vw)=h_{(1)}(v)h_{(2)}(w)`$. The category contains an ‘identity object’, the representation $`C`$ with all generators having zero action. This means that category of representations forms a tensor or monoidal category. (Technically we should also say that the associator is trivial.)

If the category is rigid, for an object $`V`$ there is a dual object $`V^{}`$, and an ‘evaluation’ morphism $`\mathrm{eval}:V^{}VC`$ given by $`\mathrm{eval}(\alpha ,v)=\alpha (v)`$.

If the category is braided, for two objects $`V`$ and $`W`$ there is a morphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{VW}:VWWV`$. The braiding is functorial, which means that if there is a morphism $`\theta :VX`$, then the maps $`(I\theta )\mathrm{\Psi }_{VW}:VWWX`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{XW}(\theta I):VWWX`$ are the same.

Figure 1 shows the standard diagramatic notation used for braided categories. Elements of representations are denoted by vertical lines. For evaluation (a), note that $`C`$ is traditionally denoted by an invisible line. The braiding $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{VW}:VWWV`$ is shown in (b), and the rule for the functoriality of the braiding in (c).

The finite dimensional representations of a quasitriangular Hopf algebra form a rigid braided tensor category. We shall assume that the representations of our Hopf algebra $``$ also form a rigid braided tensor category, and this will allow us to explicitly calculate the braiding.

## 4 The ‘standard’ representation of $``$

Take $`W`$ to be a vector space of analytic functions $`:C^{}C^2`$ (or at least analytic in a neighbourhood of zero and a neighbourhood of infinity), which obeys the condition $`Uw(z)=w(z)`$ for all $`wW`$. The algebra $``$ acts on $`W`$ using matrix multiplication, $`(hw)(z)=h(z)w(z)`$, for the five generators listed in (3).

We can consider a dual space $`W^{}`$ to $`W`$, which shall consist of analytic functions $`:C^{}C^2`$ which are defined for $`|z|`$ sufficiently small and sufficiently large. Now define an evaluation map $`\mathrm{eval}:W^{}WC`$ by

$`\mathrm{eval}\left(\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi i}}{\displaystyle _\gamma }\left(f(z)u(z)+g(z)v(z)\right){\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}},`$ (6)
where $`\gamma `$ consists of two anticlockwise circular contours about $`0`$, one of large radius, and one of small radius. To find the action of $``$ on $`W^{}`$ we use the fact that the action commutes with $`\mathrm{eval}:W^{}WC`$, and that the action of the generators is zero on $`C`$. This means that

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`H\left(\mathrm{eval}\left(\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{eval}\left(H\left(\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)\right)\right)=\mathrm{eval}\left(H\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)H\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)\right),`$
so we get

$`\mathrm{eval}\left(H\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{eval}\left(\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi i}}{\displaystyle \left(f(z)u(z)g(z)v(z)\right)\frac{dz}{z}},`$
so we deduce that

$$H\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}f(z)\\ g(z)\end{array}\right).$$

Now we continue with the generator $`X_{+1}`$,

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{eval}\left(X_{+1}\left(\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{eval}\left(X_{+1}\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u/r\\ vr\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}f/r\\ gr\end{array}\right)X_{+1}\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)\right),`$
from which we get

$$\mathrm{eval}\left(X_{+1}\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u/r\\ vr\end{array}\right)\right)=\mathrm{eval}\left(\left(\begin{array}{c}f/r\\ gr\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ zu\end{array}\right)\right)=\frac{r}{4\pi i}zg(z)u(z)\frac{dz}{z}.$$

From this, and the corresponding calculations for the other generators, we see that the action on $`W^{}`$ is given by the matrix multiplication

$`\left(h\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)\right)(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{h}(z)\left(\begin{array}{c}f(z)\\ g(z)\end{array}\right),`$ (7)
where the matrices $`\stackrel{~}{h}(z)`$ are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{X}_{+1}(z)=q\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& z\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{X}_1(z)=q^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1/z& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{H}(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (8)
$`\stackrel{~}{X}_{+2}(z)=q\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ z& 0\end{array}\right)`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{X}_2(z)=q^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1/z\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (9)
There is a morphism $`\theta :WW^{}`$ given by

$`\theta (k)(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)k(zq).`$ (10)
To verify this we check that it commutes with the actions of the generators, for example;

$`(X_{+1}\theta (\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)))(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& qz\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\theta (\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right))(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& qz\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}v(zq)\\ u(zq)\end{array}\right),`$
$`\theta (X_{+1}\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right))(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)(X_{+1}\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right))(zq)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ qz& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u(zq)\\ v(zq)\end{array}\right),`$
which are equal as required.

## 5 The braidings

We use the convention for tensor products that $`C^2C^2C^4`$ and $`M_2M_2M_4`$, where

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u^{}\\ v^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}uu^{}\\ uv^{}\\ vu^{}\\ vv^{}\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^{}& b^{}\\ c^{}& d^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}aa^{}& ab^{}& ba^{}& bb^{}\\ ac^{}& ad^{}& bc^{}& bd^{}\\ ca^{}& cb^{}& da^{}& db^{}\\ cc^{}& cd^{}& dc^{}& dd^{}\end{array}\right).`$ (11)
Then we can consider $`WW`$ or $`W^{}W`$ as a space of analytic maps from a subset of $`C^{}\times C^{}`$ to $`C^4`$. Now if $`kW^{}W`$ we have

$$\mathrm{eval}(k)=\frac{1}{4\pi i}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)k(x,x)\frac{dx}{x}.$$

By the coproduct rule $`H`$ and (for example) $`X_{+1}`$ act on $`WW`$ by matrix multiplication

$`(Hk)(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`(H(x)I_2+I_2H(y))k(x,y),`$
$`(X_{+1}k)(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`(X_{+1}(x)q^{H(y)/2}+q^{H(x)/2}X_{+1}(y))k(x,y),`$
and they act on $`W^{}W`$ by

$`(Hk)(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{H}(x)I_2+I_2H(y))k(x,y),`$
$`(X_{+1}k)(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{X}_{+1}(x)q^{H(y)/2}+q^{\stackrel{~}{H}(x)/2}X_{+1}(y))k(x,y).`$
The braiding $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{WW}:WWWW`$ will be assumed to have the form $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_{WW}k)(x,y)=M(x,y)k(y,x)`$, where $`M(x,y)`$ is a $`4\times 4`$ matrix. Since the braiding is a morphism we must have $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{WW}(hk)=h(\mathrm{\Psi }_{WW}k)`$ for the five generators $`h`$ and all $`kWW`$. The cases for $`h=H`$ and $`X_{+1}`$ are given below:

$`M(x,y)(H(y)I_2+I_2H(x))`$ $`=`$ $`(H(x)I_2+I_2H(y))M(x,y),`$
$`M(x,y)(X_{+1}(y)q^{H(x)/2}+q^{H(y)/2}X_{+1}(x))`$ $`=`$ $`(X_{+1}(x)q^{H(y)/2}+q^{H(x)/2}X_{+1}(y))M(x,y).`$
A simple calculation will show that these five conditions determine the matrix $`M(x,y)`$ up to a complex multiple, and we find

$$(\mathrm{\Psi }_{WW}k)(x,y)=a(x,y)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{xy(q^21)}{q^2x^2y^2}& \frac{q(x^2y^2)}{q^2x^2y^2}& 0\\ 0& \frac{q(x^2y^2)}{q^2x^2y^2}& \frac{xy(q^21)}{q^2x^2y^2}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)k(y,x),$$

where $`a(x,y)`$ is complex valued. Note that $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_{WW}^2k)(x,y)=a(x,y)a(y,x)k(x,y)`$. In the same manner we can determine the braiding $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{W^{}W}:W^{}WWW^{}`$ to be $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_{W^{}W}k)(x,y)=N(x,y)k(y,x)`$, where the matrix $`N(x,y)`$ is given by

$$(\mathrm{\Psi }_{W^{}W}k)(x,y)=\frac{c(x,y)}{q^2y^2x^2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}q^2y^2x^2& 0& 0& (q^21)xy\\ 0& 0& q(y^2x^2)& 0\\ 0& q(y^2x^2)& 0& 0\\ (q^21)xy& 0& 0& q^2y^2x^2\end{array}\right)k(y,x),$$

where $`c(x,y)`$ is another complex valued function.

Now we use the fact that as the braiding is functorial, it must commute with the evaluation morphism. We see that the maps $`(I\mathrm{eval})(\mathrm{\Psi }_{W^{}W}I)(I\mathrm{\Psi }_{WW})`$ and $`\mathrm{eval}I:W^{}WWW`$ are the same. In terms of the standard pictures, this is fig. 2.

Now, identifying $`W^{}WW`$ with maps from subsets of $`(C^{})^3`$ to $`C^2C^2C^2`$, we get

$`((\mathrm{\Psi }_{W^{}W}I)(I\mathrm{\Psi }_{WW})k)(x,y,z)`$ $`=`$ $`(N(x,y)I_2)((I\mathrm{\Psi }_{WW})k)(y,x,z)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`(N(x,y)I_2)(I_2M(x,z))k(y,z,x),`$ (13)
and applying $`I\mathrm{eval}`$ to this gives

$$\frac{1}{4\pi i}(I_2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right))(N(x,z)I_2)(I_2M(x,z))k(z,z,x)\frac{dz}{z},$$

and some matrix multiplication shows that this is

$$\frac{1}{4\pi i}a(x,z)c(x,z)(\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)I_2)k(z,z,x)\frac{dz}{z}.$$

Just applying $`\mathrm{eval}I`$ to $`k`$ gives

$$\frac{1}{4\pi i}(\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)I_2)k(z,z,x)\frac{dz}{z},$$

and since these must be the same for all choices of $`k`$ we deduce that $`c(x,z)=1/a(x,z)`$.

Now use the fact that the braiding commutes with the morphism $`\theta :WW^{}`$ in (10), so $`(I\theta )\mathrm{\Psi }_{WW}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{W^{}W}(\theta I):WWWW^{}`$ are the same. Then

$`((I\theta )\mathrm{\Psi }_{WW}k)(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`(I_2\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right))(\mathrm{\Psi }_{WW}k)(x,qy)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`(I_2\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right))M(x,qy)k(qy,x),`$ (15)
$`(\mathrm{\Psi }_{W^{}W}(\theta I)k)(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`N(x,y)((\theta I)k)(y,x),`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`N(x,y)(\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)I_2)k(qy,x).`$ (17)
From some more matrix multiplication, this is true if

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a(x,y)}}`$ $`=`$ $`a(x,qy){\displaystyle \frac{x^2q^2y^2}{q(x^2y^2)}}.`$ (18)
## 6 The normalisation of the braiding, $`|q|=1`$.

In this section we find the normalisation $`a(x,y)`$. For the moment we shall suppose that the value of $`x`$ is fixed. Suppose that a solution $`a(x,y)`$ of (18) is an analytic function of $`y`$ (except for isolated singularities) in some annulus centered on zero contained in the region $`|y|>|x|`$. We can narrow the annulus down until it no longer contains any isolated singularities or zeros. For convenience we set $`z=x/y`$ (so $`|z|<1`$), and $`f(z)=a(x,x/z)`$. Then $`f(z)`$ satisfies the equation

$`f(z)f(z/q)`$ $`=`$ $`q{\displaystyle \frac{z^21}{z^2q^2}}.`$ (19)
Now $`f(z)`$ will have a winding number $`\omega Z`$ around zero as $`z`$ winds once around zero. The function $`c(z)=z^\omega f(z)`$ will have zero winding number, so its log, $`b(z)=\mathrm{log}(c(z))`$, will be analytic (and single valued) in the annulus. Now $`c(z)`$ obeys the equation $`c(z)c(z/q)=q(z^2/q)^\omega (z^21)/(z^2q^2)`$, so we must have

$$b(z)+b(z/q)=\mathrm{log}(1z^2)\mathrm{log}(1z^2/q^2)\mathrm{log}(q)\omega \mathrm{log}(z^2/q),$$

as $`z/q`$ is in the annulus if $`z`$ is, because $`|q|=1`$. Since all the other functions are single valued in the annulus, we must have $`\omega =0`$. Now we can take the Laurent expansion of both sides in the annulus, and compare coefficients, to get the unique solution (up to the addition of a multiple of $`\pi i`$)

$`b(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}(q)+{\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{2n}}{1+q^{2n}}}z^{2n},|z|<1,z\mathrm{annulus}.`$ (20)
By the uniqueness of analytic continuation, the exponential of this formula must coincide with $`f(z)`$ in a disk from zero up to the radius of convergence of the series. We also conclude that $`f(z)`$ did in fact not have any zeros or isolated singularities in this disk.

In the same manner, if $`f(z)`$ were analytic (except for isolated singularities) in some annulus centered on zero outside the unit disk, we could conclude that on that annulus (again up to the addition of a multiple of $`\pi i`$)

$`b(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}(q){\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{2n}}{1+q^{2n}}}z^{2n},|z|>1.`$ (21)
We can now see explicitly from the series (on the assumption that the series converge anywhere) that $`b(z)=b(1/z)`$ plus a multiple of $`\pi i`$, i.e. that $`1/f(z)=\pm f(1/z)`$.

Now we can look at different values of $`x`$. As a consequence of the analyticity condition we assumed for $`a(x,y)`$, it can be seen that $`a(x,y)`$ in fact only depends on $`z=x/y`$. We shall abuse our previous notation by referring to $`a(z)`$.

## 7 The convergence of the series by number theory, $`|q|=1`$.

The radius of convergence $`R`$ of the series (20) is given by

$`R^1=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{2n}}{1+q^{2n}}}\right|^{1/(2n)}=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{2n}}{1+q^{2n}}}\right|^{1/(2n)}.`$ (22)
We see that the series is not even defined if $`q`$ is an even root of $`1`$. For any other root of unity the series has radius of convergence $`1`$, except for $`q=\pm 1`$, when the series terminates. Now consider the case $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$, where $`\tau `$ is irrational.

Call $`nN`$ type 1 if $`|1q^{2n}|<1`$, which implies that $`|1+q^{2n}|1`$. Then

$$\underset{n+\mathrm{},\mathrm{type}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}{lim\; sup}\left|\frac{1q^{2n}}{1+q^{2n}}\right|^{1/(2n)}\underset{n+\mathrm{},\mathrm{type}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}{lim\; sup}1=1.$$

Call $`nN`$ type 2 if $`|1q^{2n}|1`$, in which case

$$\underset{n+\mathrm{},\mathrm{type}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{lim\; sup}\left|\frac{1q^{2n}}{1+q^{2n}}\right|^{1/(2n)}\underset{n+\mathrm{},\mathrm{type}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{lim\; sup}\left|\frac{1}{1+q^{2n}}\right|^{1/(2n)}1,$$

and we deduce that

$$R^1=\underset{n+\mathrm{},\mathrm{type}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{lim\; sup}\left|\frac{1q^{2n}}{1+q^{2n}}\right|^{1/(2n)}.$$

Then we find

$$\underset{n+\mathrm{},\mathrm{type}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{lim\; sup}\left|\frac{1}{1+q^{2n}}\right|^{1/(2n)}R^1\underset{n+\mathrm{},\mathrm{type}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{lim\; sup}\left|\frac{2}{1+q^{2n}}\right|^{1/(2n)},$$

which implies

$`R^1=\underset{n+\mathrm{},\mathrm{type}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{lim\; sup}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+q^{2n}}}\right|^{1/(2n)}=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+q^{2n}}}\right|^{1/(2n)}.`$ (23)
If we let $`d(\tau ,n)`$ be the minimum distance from $`4\pi in\tau `$ to an odd multiple of $`\pi i`$, then $`d(\tau ,n)|1+q^{2n}|\frac{2}{\pi }d(\tau ,n)`$, so

$`R=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\left(\underset{p\mathrm{odd}}{\mathrm{min}}|4\pi in\tau p\pi i|\right)^{1/(2n)}=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\left(\underset{p\mathrm{odd}}{\mathrm{min}}|\tau {\displaystyle \frac{p}{4n}}|\right)^{1/(2n)}1.`$ (24)
We see that the radius of convergence of the power series is dependent on how well $`\tau `$ can be approximated by rational numbers. Fortunately many results are known in this area , and we shall use one of these now.

Suppose that the irrational number $`\tau R`$ is algebraic of degree $`k>1`$ (this means that it is a root of a polynomial of degree $`k`$ with integer coefficients). Then there is a constant $`K>0`$ so that for all $`n`$ and all $`pZ`$,

$$|\tau \frac{p}{4n}|\frac{K}{(4n)^k}.$$

From the formula for $`R`$ above (24),

$$R\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\left(\frac{K}{2^k(2n)^k}\right)^{1/(2n)}=1,$$

so we conclude that for any irrational algebraic number $`\tau `$, the radius of convergence is 1.

To get a radius of convergence less than 1, we shall have to create an irrational number with very good rational approximations. Let

$`\tau ={\displaystyle \underset{s1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m_s}},`$ (25)
where the strictly positive integers $`m_s`$ have the property that $`4m_s`$ divides $`m_{s+1}`$ for all $`s1`$. If we set $`n=m_t`$, then

$$\frac{n}{m_{t+1}}|l4n\tau |\frac{2n}{m_{t+1}}$$

for $`l=_{ts1}m_t/m_s`$ an odd integer, so

$$\frac{1}{4m_{t+1}}\underset{p\mathrm{odd}}{\mathrm{min}}|\tau \frac{p}{4n}|\frac{1}{2m_{t+1}}.$$

Then by (24),

$$R\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\left(\frac{1}{m_{t+1}}\right)^{1/(2m_t)}.$$

If we set $`m_1=1`$ and $`m_{s+1}=2^{2sm_s}`$ for all $`s1`$, then the radius of convergence of the series (20) for $`\tau `$ given by (25) is zero. Also $`\tau `$ is too closely approximated by non-equal rational numbers to be rational itself.

## 8 The convergence of the series by probability, $`|q|=1`$.

We consider the probability that the radius of convergence $`R`$ of the series (20) is 1, given that $`q`$ has a uniform distribution on the circle (equivalently, $`\tau `$ has a uniform distribution on $`[0,1]`$). From (24), for $`0<s<1`$:

$`P[R>s]=P[\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\underset{p\mathrm{odd}}{\mathrm{min}}|\tau {\displaystyle \frac{p}{4n}}|^{1/(2n)}>s]=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}P[\underset{nm}{inf}\underset{p\mathrm{odd}}{\mathrm{min}}|\tau {\displaystyle \frac{p}{4n}}|^{1/(2n)}>s].`$ (26)
For any random variable $`X_n`$ and $`s<t<1`$,

$$(nmX_n>t)\underset{nm}{inf}X_n>s,$$

or alternatively

$$P[X_n>tnm]P[\underset{nm}{inf}X_n>s].$$

Then from (26),

$$P[R>s]\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}P[\underset{p\mathrm{odd}}{\mathrm{min}}|\tau \frac{p}{4n}|^{1/(2n)}>tnm].$$

If we define

$$A_n(x)=\{\tau [0,1]:\underset{p\mathrm{odd}}{\mathrm{min}}|\tau \frac{p}{4n}|x\},$$

then (with superscript $`c`$ denoting complement)

$$P[R>s]\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}P[_{nm}A_n(t^{2n})^c].$$

Then by taking complements

$$P[Rs]\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}P[_{nm}A_n(t^{2n})]\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{nm}{}P[A_n(t^{2n})],$$

so if the series

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}P[A_n(t^{2n})]`$ (27)
converges, then $`R>s`$ with probability one. If we write

$$A_n(x)=\{\tau [0,1]:\underset{p\mathrm{odd}}{\mathrm{min}}|4n\tau p|4nx\},$$

then, if $`4nx1`$, in the interval $`[0,4n]`$ there are $`2n`$ odd integers $`p`$, and each has a disjoint interval of length $`8nx`$ about it satisfying the inequality above. From this we find $`P[A_n(x)]=4nx`$, so the sum (27) becomes (with the exception of a finite number of terms at the beginning),

$$\underset{n1}{}4nt^{2n},$$

which converges since $`|t|<1`$. We conclude that $`P[R>s]=1`$, and so $`R=1`$ with probability one. Since the algebraic numbers have measure zero, the series must have $`R=1`$ for many transcendental (non-algebraic) $`\tau `$.

## 9 The case $`|q|1`$.

In this case we would get the same unique series if the annulus in which $`a(z)`$ was analytic and free of zeros or singularities was sufficiently wide. We would need to have both $`z`$ and $`z/q`$ in the same annulus, so the ratio of the outer and inner radii of the annulus would have to be greater than the larger of $`|q|`$ and $`1/|q|`$. If this condition was satisfied, we would have the solutions (20) or (21). However there may be other solutions to the normalisation which would always have zeros or singularities in such wide annuli.

Let us examine the series (20) for $`|q|1`$. Here $`lim_{n+\mathrm{}}|(1q^{2n})/(1+q^{2n})|=1`$, so the series has radius of convergence 1. However now we can make an analytic continuation of the series. In the case $`|q|<1`$ we write, for any integer $`k1`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{2n}}{1+q^{2n}}}=1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(1)^mq^{2mn}{\displaystyle \frac{2(1)^kq^{2(k+1)n}}{1+q^{2n}}},`$ (28)
and substituting this into (20) gives

$$b(z)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(q)\mathrm{log}(1z^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\underset{m=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^m\mathrm{log}(1z^2q^{2m})\underset{n1}{}\frac{2(1)^kq^{2(k+1)n}z^{2n}}{n(1+q^{2n})}.$$

The last term in the formula tends to zero uniformly on any bounded set as $`k\mathrm{}`$, allowing us to take the limit as $`k\mathrm{}`$ of the other terms. We then get the infinite product expansion, valid everywhere in $`C^{}`$,

$`a_+(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1z^2)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{odd}m1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1z^2q^{2m})^2}{(1z^2q^{2(m+1)})^2}},|q|<1.`$ (29)
A similar rearrangement to (28) for $`|q|>1`$ would give

$`a_+(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1z^2)}{r}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{odd}m1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1z^2q^{2(m+1)})^2}{(1z^2q^{2m})^2}},|q|>1.`$ (30)
These are the unique (up to a sign) solutions of (19) which are analytic for $`z`$ in a neighbourhood of zero in $`C^{}`$. In the same way we can analytically extend the series (21) to obtain $`a_{}(z)=\pm 1/a_+(1/z)`$, the unique solutions of (18) which are analytic for $`z`$ in a neighbourhood of infinity in $`C^{}`$.


text:
# Comparison between Geometric Quantisation and Covariant Quantum Mechanics

## 1 Introduction

Some years ago A. Jadczyk and M. M. proposed a covariant formulation of Quantum Mechanics for a scalar particle on a curved spacetime with absolute time, based on non standard methods such as fibred manifolds, jet spaces, non–linear connections, systems of connections, cosymplectic structures and Froelicher smooth spaces . This theory has been extended to spin particles in cooperation with D. Canarutto , further developed in cooperation with J. Janyška, D. Saller, C. Tejero Prieto and R. Vitolo  and partially extended to a Lorentz manifold in cooperation with J. Janyška and R. Vitolo .

In the proceedings of the previous session of the meeting on Lie Theory, we have accounted for a summary of this theory . In order to capture the non standard methods and results of this theory it would be useful to compare it with the more standard Geometric Quantisation. This is the goal of the present paper.

For the sake of simplicity, our theory in the Galileian case will be conventionally referred to as Covariant Quantum Mechanics (CQM). Moreover, we shall be concerned with the main thread of Geometric Quantisation (GQ) and omit to consider special approaches dealing with quantisation of cosymplectic structures  and so on. We have no pretension at all of analysing extensively the wide literature of Geometric Quantisation; such a task would require a much larger space than a short note. Here, we just try to discuss some basic items concerning the comparison of the above theories.

Acknowledgements: The first author thanks the organizers of the Meeting for the invitation and for the warm hospitality. This work has been partially supported by University of Florence, Italian MURST and Italian GNFM of CNR.

## 2 Covariant Quantum Mechanics

Let us start with a very brief sketch of the skeleton of the theory. For further details the reader can refer, for instance, to .

The covariance of the theory includes also independence from the choice of units of measurements. For this reason, we need a rigorous treatment of this feature and assume the following “positive 1–dimensional semi–vector spaces” over $`IR^+`$ as fundamental unit spaces (roughly speaking they have the same algebraic structure of $`IR^+`$, but no distinguished generator over $`IR^+`$): the space $`𝕋`$ of time intervals, the space $`𝕃`$ of lengths, the space $`𝕄`$ of masses.

Moreover, we assume the Planck constant to be an element $`\mathrm{}𝕋^{}𝕃^2𝕄`$.

We refer to a particle with mass $`m𝕄`$ and charge $`q𝕋^{}𝕃^{3/2}𝕄^{1/2}`$.

### 2.1 Classical theory

The classical framework is described in the following way.

The spacetime is an oriented $`(n+1)`$–dimensional manifold $`𝑬`$ (in the standard case $`n=3`$), the absolute time is an affine space associated with the vector space $`IR𝕋`$, the absolute time map is a fibring $`t:𝑬𝑻`$. We denote fibred charts of spacetime by $`(x^\lambda )(x^0,x^i)`$. The tangent space and the vertical space of $`𝑬`$ are denoted by $`T𝑬`$ and $`V𝑬`$.

A motion is a section $`s:𝑻𝑬`$. The phase space is the first jet space of motions $`J_1𝑬`$ . We denote fibred charts of phase space by $`(x^0,x^i;x_0^i)`$. The absolute velocity of a motion $`s`$ is its first jet prolongation $`j_1s:𝑻J_1𝑬`$. An observer is a section $`o:𝑬J_1𝑬`$ and the observed velocity of a motion $`s`$ is the map $`[o]s:=j_1sos:𝑻𝕋^{}V𝑬`$.

The spacelike metric is a scaled Riemannian metric of the fibres of spacetime $`g:𝑬𝕃^2(V^{}𝑬\underset{𝑬}{}V^{}𝑬)`$. Given a particle of mass $`m`$, it is convenient to consider the re–scaled spacelike metric $`G:=\frac{m}{\mathrm{}}g:𝑬𝕋(V^{}𝑬\underset{𝑬}{}V^{}𝑬)`$.

The gravitational field is a time preserving torsion free linear connection of the tangent space of spacetime $`K^{\mathrm{}}:T𝑬T^{}𝑬\underset{T𝑬}{}TT𝑬`$, such that $`[K^{\mathrm{}}]g=0`$ and the curvature tensor $`R[K^{\mathrm{}}]`$ fulfills the condition $`R^{\mathrm{}}{}_{\lambda }{}^{i}{}_{\mu }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}=R^{\mathrm{}}{}_{\mu }{}^{j}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}^i`$.

The electromagnetic field is a scaled 2–form $`f:𝑬(𝕃^{1/2}𝕄^{1/2})\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T^{}𝑬`$, such that $`df=0`$. Given a particle of charge $`q`$, it is convenient to consider the re–scaled electromagnetic field $`F:=\frac{q}{\mathrm{}}f:𝑬\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T^{}𝑬`$.

The electromagnetic field $`F`$ can be “added”, in a covariant way, to the gravitational connection $`K^{\mathrm{}}`$ yielding a (total) spacetime connection $`K`$, with coordinate expression

$`K_i{}_{}{}^{h}{}_{j}{}^{}=K^{\mathrm{}}{}_{i}{}^{h}{}_{j}{}^{},K_j{}_{}{}^{h}{}_{0}{}^{}=K_0{}_{}{}^{h}{}_{j}{}^{}=K^{\mathrm{}}{}_{0}{}^{h}{}_{j}{}^{}+\frac{1}{2}F^h{}_{j}{}^{},K_0{}_{}{}^{h}{}_{0}{}^{}=K^{\mathrm{}}{}_{0}{}^{h}{}_{0}{}^{}+\frac{1}{2}F^h{}_{0}{}^{}.`$
This turns out to be a time preserving torsion free linear connection of the tangent space of spacetime, which still fulfills the properties that we have assumed for $`K^{\mathrm{}}`$.

The fibring of spacetime, the total spacetime connection and the spacelike metric yield, in a covariant way, a 2–form $`\mathrm{\Omega }:J_1𝑬\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T^{}J_1𝑬`$ of phase space, with coordinate expression

$`\mathrm{\Omega }=G_{ij}^0(dx_0^i(K_\lambda {}_{}{}^{i}{}_{0}{}^{}+K_\lambda {}_{}{}^{i}{}_{h}{}^{}x_{0}^{h})dx^\lambda )(dx^jx_0^jdx^0).`$
This is a cosymplectic form , i.e. it fulfills the following properties: 1) $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, 2) $`dt\mathrm{\Omega }^n:J_1𝑬𝕋\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}J_1𝑬`$ is a scaled volume form of $`J_1𝑬`$. Conversely, the cosymplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ characterises the spacelike metric and the total spacetime connection. Moreover, the closure of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is equivalent to the conditions that we have assumed on $`K`$.

There is a unique second order connection  $`\gamma :J_1𝑬𝕋^{}TJ_1𝑬`$, such that $`i_\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. We assume the generalised Newton’s equation $`[\gamma ]j_1s=0`$ as the equation of motion for classical dynamics .

We can also obtain this equation by a Lagrangian formalism according to a cohomological procedure in the following way . The cosymplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ admits locally potentials of the type $`\mathrm{\Theta }:J_1𝑬T^{}𝑬`$, defined up to a closed form of the type $`\alpha :𝑬T^{}𝑬`$, which are called Poincaré–Cartan forms . Each Poincaré–Cartan form $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ splits, according to the splitting of $`T^{}𝑬`$ induced by $`J_1𝑬`$, into the horizontal component $`:J_1𝑬T^{}𝑻`$, called Lagrangian, and the vertical component $`𝒫:J_1𝑬V^{}𝑬`$, called momentum. These components are observer independent, but depend on the chosen gauge of the starting Poincaré–Cartan form. On the other hand, given an observer $`o`$, each Poincaré–Cartan form $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ splits, according to the splitting of $`T^{}𝑬`$ induced by $`o`$, into the horizontal component $`[o]:J_1𝑬T^{}𝑻`$, called observed Hamiltonian, and the vertical component $`𝒫[o]:J_1𝑬V^{}𝑬`$, called observed momentum. Moreover, the horizontal component of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, according to the splitting of $`T^{}J_1𝑬`$ induced by $`J_2𝑬`$, is the map $`=G^{\mathrm{}}([\gamma ]):J_2𝑬𝕋^{}V^{}𝑬`$, which turns out to be the Euler–Lagrange operator associated with $``$. We have the coordinate expressions

$`=(\frac{1}{2}G_{ij}^0x_0^ix_0^j+A_ix_0^i+A_0)dx^0,𝒫=(G_{ij}^0x_0^j+A_i)(dx^ix_0^idx^0),`$
and, in a chart adapted to $`o`$,

$`[o]=(\frac{1}{2}G_{ij}^0x_0^ix_0^jA_0)dx^0,𝒫[o]=(G_{ij}^0x_0^j+A_i)dx^i,`$
where $`Ao^{}\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

The cosymplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ yields in a covariant way the Hamiltonian lift of functions $`f:J_1𝑬IR`$ to vertical vector fields $`H[f]:J_1𝑬VJ_1𝑬`$; consequently, we obtain the Poisson bracket $`\{f,g\}`$ between functions of phase space. Given an observer, the law of motion can be expressed, in a non covariant way, in terms of the Poisson bracket and the Hamiltonian.

More generally, chosen a time scale $`\tau :J_1𝑬T𝑻`$, the cosymplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ yields, in a covariant way, the Hamiltonian lift of functions $`f`$ of phase space to vector fields $`H_\tau [f]:J_1𝑬TJ_1𝑬`$, whose time component is $`\tau `$. In view of our developments in the Quantum Theory, we prove that $`H_\tau [f]`$ is projectable on a vector field $`X[f]:𝑬T𝑬`$ if and only if the following conditions hold: i) the function $`f`$ is quadratic with respect to the affine fibres of $`J_1𝑬𝑬`$ with second fibre derivative $`f^{\prime \prime }G`$, where $`f^{\prime \prime }:𝑬T𝑻`$, ii) $`\tau =f^{\prime \prime }`$. A function of this type is called special quadratic and has coordinate expression of the type

$`f=\frac{1}{2}f^0G_{ij}^0x_0^ix_0^j+f_i^0x_0^i+\stackrel{𝑜}{f},\mathrm{with}f^0,f_i^0,\stackrel{𝑜}{f}:𝑬IR.`$
The vector space of special quadratic functions is not closed under the Poisson bracket, but it turns out to be an $`IR`$–Lie algebra through the covariant special bracket

$`[[f,g]]=\{f,g\}+\gamma (f^{\prime \prime }).g\gamma (g^{\prime \prime }).f.`$
We have the subalgebra of quantisable functions whose time component factorises through $`𝑻`$, the subalgebra of functions whose time component is constant, the subalgebra of affine functions whose time component vanishes and the abelian subalgebra of spacetime functions which factorise through $`𝑬`$. In particular, the Hamiltonian is a quantisable function, the components of the momentum are affine functions and the spacetime coordinates are spacetime functions.

Moreover, the map $`fX[f]`$ turns out to be a morphism of Lie algebras. The coordinate expression of the tangent lift of $`f`$ is $`X[f]=f^0_0f^i_i`$.

### 2.2 Quantum theory

The quantum framework is described in the following way.

A quantum bundle is defined to be a 1–dimensional complex vector bundle over spacetime $`𝑸𝑬`$ equipped with a Hermitian metric $`h:𝑸\underset{𝑬}{\times }𝑸\mathrm{\Lambda }^nV^{}𝑬`$ with values in the complexified volume forms of the fibres of spacetime. We shall refer to normalised local bases $`b`$ of $`𝑸`$ and to the associated complex coordinates $`z`$; accordingly, the coordinate expression of a quantum section is of the type $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi b`$, with $`\psi :𝑬`$.

We consider also the extended quantum bundle $`𝑸^{}J_1𝑬`$, by taking the pullback of $`𝑸𝑬`$, with respect to the map $`J_1𝑬𝑬`$. A system of connections of $`𝑸`$ parametrised by the sections of $`J_1𝑬𝑬`$ induces, in a covariant way, a connection of $`𝑸^{}`$, which is called universal . A characteristic property of the universal connection is that its contraction with any vertical vector field of the bundle $`J_1𝑬𝑬`$ vanishes.

A quantum connection is defined to be a connection $`q`$ of the extended quantum bundle, which is Hermitian, universal and whose curvature is $`R[q]=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We stress that $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}`$ has been incorporated in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ through the re–scaled metric $`G`$. In a chart adapted to the observer $`o`$, the coordinate expression of a quantum connection is locally of the type

$`q_0=[o],q_i=𝒫[o],q_i^0=0,`$
where the choice of the potential $`A[o]`$ is locally determined by $`q`$ and by the quantum base $`b`$. A quantum connection exists if and only if the cohomology class of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is integer; the equivalence classes of quantum bundles equipped with a quantum connection are classified by the cohomology group $`H^1(𝑬,U(1))`$ .

We stress the minimality of our quantum bundle and quantum connection.

Let us assume a quantum bundle equipped with a quantum connection.

Any other quantum object is obtained, in a covariant way, from this quantum structure. The quantum connection lives on the extended quantum bundle, while we are looking for further quantum objects living on the original quantum bundle. This goal is successfully achieved by a method of projectability: namely, we look for objects of the extended quantum bundle which are projectable to the quantum bundle and then we take their projections. Indeed, our method of projectability turns out to be our way of implementing the covariance of the theory; in fact, it allows us to get rid of the family of all observers, which is encoded in the quantum connection (through $`J_1𝑬`$).

J. Janyška  has proved that all covariant quantum Lagrangians of the quantum bundle are proportional to

$`\mathrm{L}[\mathrm{\Psi }]=\mathrm{dt}\left(\mathrm{h}(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{i}\overline{}\mathrm{\Psi })+\mathrm{h}(\mathrm{i}\overline{}\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi })(\overline{\mathrm{G}}\mathrm{h})(^{^{^{}}}\mathrm{\Psi },^{^{^{}}}\mathrm{\Psi })+\mathrm{k}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{h}(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi })\right),`$
where $`k`$ is an arbitrary real factor, $`\overline{}`$ denotes the covariant differential with respect to time induced by the phase space, $`^{^{^{}}}`$ denotes the vertical covariant differential and $`r:𝑬IR𝕋^{}`$ is the scalar curvature of the spacelike metric $`G`$. Thus, $`k`$ remains undetermined in our scheme. Several authors have tried to determine this factor via Feynmann’s path integral approach, but they found different results, according to different ways to perform the integral .

The standard Lagrangian formalism yields, from the above covariant quantum Lagrangian, the covariant quantum $`(n+1)`$–momentum, the covariant Euler–Lagrange equation and the covariant conserved probability current. These objects can also be obtained directly in terms of covariant differentials through the quantum connection, by means of the projectability method. The coordinate expression of the Euler–Lagrange equation is

$`\mathrm{S}.\psi \left(\stackrel{o}{}_0+\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \frac{_0\sqrt{|\mathrm{g}|}}{\sqrt{|\mathrm{g}|}}}\right)\psi \mathrm{i}\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{o}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0\mathrm{k}\mathrm{r}_0\right)\psi =0,`$
where

$`\stackrel{𝑜}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0G_0^{hk}\stackrel{𝑜}{}_h\stackrel{𝑜}{}_k+K_h{}_{}{}^{k}{}_{}{}^{h}\stackrel{𝑜}{}_{k}^{},\stackrel{𝑜}{}_\lambda _\lambda \mathrm{i}\mathrm{A}_\lambda ,`$
denote the Laplacian and the covariant differential induced by the connections $`q,K`$ and by the observer attached to the spacetime chart. J. Janyška  has proved that any covariant Schrödinger equation is of the above type, hence it is the Euler–Lagrange equation associated with a covariant Lagrangian. We assume the above equation as the quantum dynamical equation.

Next, we classify the Hermitian vector fields of the extended quantum bundle, which are projectable to the quantum bundle. We find that the projected vector fields $`Y:𝑸T𝑸`$ of the quantum bundle, called quantum vector fields, constitute a Lie algebra naturally isomorphic to the Lie algebra of quantisable functions. The coordinate expression of the quantum vector field associated with the quantisable function $`f`$ is

$`Y[f]=f^0_0f^j_j+\left(\mathrm{i}(\mathrm{f}^0\mathrm{A}_0\mathrm{f}^\mathrm{h}\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{h}+\stackrel{o}{\mathrm{f}})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{div}\mathrm{X}[\mathrm{f}]\right)zz,`$
where $`\mathrm{div}X[f]=f^0\frac{_0\sqrt{|g|}}{\sqrt{|g|}}\frac{_j(f^j\sqrt{|g|})}{\sqrt{|g|}}`$.

The quantum vector field $`Y[f]`$ acts on the sections $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the quantum bundle via the associated Lie derivative $`Z[f]:=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{Y}[\mathrm{f}]_{}`$. In particular, we obtain

$`Z[_0](\mathrm{\Psi })=\mathrm{i}(_0+\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \frac{_0\sqrt{|\mathrm{g}|}}{\sqrt{|\mathrm{g}|}}})\psi \mathrm{b},\mathrm{Z}[𝒫_\mathrm{j}](\mathrm{\Psi })=\mathrm{i}(_\mathrm{j}+\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \frac{_\mathrm{j}\sqrt{|\mathrm{g}|}}{\sqrt{|\mathrm{g}|}}})\psi \mathrm{b}.`$
Next, we consider the pre–Hilbert functional quantum bundle $`𝑯𝑻`$ over time, whose infinite dimensional fibres are constituted by the sections of the quantum bundle at a given time and with compact support. The quantum dynamical operator $`\mathrm{S}`$ can be regarded as a covariant differential $`[\chi ]`$ of the functional quantum bundle; hence, the quantum Lagrangian yields a lift of the quantum connection $`q`$ of the extended quantum bundle to a connection $`\chi `$ of the functional quantum bundle.

Moreover, we can see that, if $`f`$ is a quantisable function, then

$`\widehat{f}=\mathrm{i}(\mathrm{Y}[\mathrm{f}]_{}\mathrm{f}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}[\chi ])`$
is the unique combination of $`Z[f]`$ and $`[\chi ]`$, which yields an operator acting on the fibres of the functional quantum bundle. We have the following coordinate expression

$`\widehat{f}(\mathrm{\Psi })=(\frac{1}{2}f^0\stackrel{𝑜}{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}_{0}{}^{}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{f}^\mathrm{j}\stackrel{o}{}_\mathrm{j}+\stackrel{o}{\mathrm{f}}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{k}\mathrm{f}^0\mathrm{r}_0\mathrm{i}\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \frac{_\mathrm{j}(\mathrm{f}^\mathrm{j}\sqrt{|\mathrm{g}|})}{\sqrt{|\mathrm{g}|}}})\psi \mathrm{b}.`$
The map $`f\widehat{f}`$ is injective. Moreover, $`\widehat{f}`$ is Hermitian.

We assume $`\widehat{f}`$ to be the Hermitian quantum operator associated with the quantisable function $`f`$. This is our correspondence principle.

We define the commutator of Hermitian fibred operators $`h,k`$ of the functional quantum bundle by $`[h,k]:=\mathrm{i}(\mathrm{hk}\mathrm{kh})`$. Then, for each quantisable functions $`f,g`$, we obtain the formula

$`[\widehat{f},\widehat{g}]=\widehat{[f,g]}+[(g^{\prime \prime }Y[f]_{}f^{\prime \prime }Y[g]_{}),\mathrm{S}].`$
The second term in the above formula is the obstruction for the map $`\widehat{}:f\widehat{f}`$ to be a morphism of Lie algebras. There is any substantial physical reason by which the map $`\widehat{}`$ should be a morphism of Lie algebras? On the other hand, the restriction of the map $`\widehat{}`$ to the subalgebra of affine functions yields an injective morphism of Lie algebras.

The Feynmann path integral formulation of Quantum Mechanics  can be naturally expressed in our formalism; in particular, the Feynmann amplitudes arise naturally via parallel transport with respect to the quantum connection . So the Feynmann path integral can be regarded as a further way to lift the quantum connection $`q`$ to a functional quantum connection.

In the particular case when spacetime is flat, our quantum dynamical equations turns out to be the standard Schrödinger equation and our quantum operators associated with spacetime coordinates, momenta and energy coincide with the standard operators.

Therefore, all usual examples of standard Quantum Mechanics are automatically recovered in our covariant scheme.

The above procedure can be easily extended to classical and quantum multi–body systems.

The above covariant theory can be extended to particles with spin; in this way, we obtain a generalised Pauli equation and all that.

Several techniques of the above theory (including the Lie algebra of quantisable functions and the corresponding Lie algebra of quantum vector fields) can be reproduced on a Lorentz manifold in a covariant way in the sense of Einstein. However, we do not know so far how to achieve a Hilbert stuff in this contest. It is possible that this problem has no solution (out of the Quantum Field Theory), as it is commonly believed.

## 3 Comparison

Covariant Quantum Mechanics (CQM) has several points in common with Geometric Quantisation (GQ) . The differences between the two theories arise from the fact that their basic goals are different: quantisation procedure and covariant formulation, respectively.

### 3.1 Quantisation

GQ can be regarded as a general programme aimed at “quantising” a classical system. More precisely, GQ is aimed at establishing a procedure in order to represent an algebra of functions of a classic symplectic manifold into a Hilbert space, according to some reasonable rules.

Perhaps, the original notion of “canonical quantisation” goes back to P. M. Dirac . The first rigorous mathematical formulation of the notion of “geometric pre-quantisation” was due to I. E. Segal ; later J. M. Soriau  and B. Kostant  founded the Geometric Quantisation. This theory has been refined by several authors, see  and . For instance, see , a “full quantisation” of a symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ is defined to be a pair $`(,\delta )`$ where $``$ is a separable complex Hilbert space and $`\delta `$ is a map taking functions $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ to self adjoint operators $`\delta _f`$ of $``$ such that

1. $`\delta `$ is $`IR`$-linear,
2. $`\delta _1=\mathrm{id}_{}`$,
3. $`[\delta _f,\delta _g]=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\delta _{\{\mathrm{f},\mathrm{g}\}}`$,
4. if $`𝒜C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ is a complete subalgebra, i.e. if its centraliser with respect to the Poisson bracket is $`IR`$, then $`\delta _𝒜`$ acts irreducibly on $``$.

There are no go theorems stating that there are no such quantisations in several situations ; among them we mention the famous Groenewold - Van Hove theorem for the symplectic manifold $`(IR^{2n},\omega )`$. If there is no full quantisation, then one looks for a subalgebra $`𝒪C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ to be quantised.

Since the requirement of a quantisation is too restrictive, one defines, as first step, a pre-quantisation by requiring just properties $`(1,2,3)`$. A pre-quantisation, called the Dirac problem, exists for every symplectic manifold, whose symplectic form defines an integer cohomology class.

In some respects, the aim of CQM is not the quantisation of a classical system. More precisely, we are just looking for a covariant formulation of the standard Quantum Theory . On the other hand, any quantum measurement is eventually constituted by classical observations, so we need to consider a classical spacetime as background of the Quantum Theory. Then, this background structure plays an important role in the Quantum Theory. But our heuristic geometric techniques are partially different from those of representations of Lie algebras. We observe also that in our formulation the classical spacetime and its structures, rather than the classical dynamics, determine the Quantum Theory.

Eventually, we do obtain a correspondence principle, which is a consequence of a classification theorem and not a postulate. But, this can be regarded as a quantisation only partially.

### 3.2 Covariance

The standard literature on GQ is not concerned with the special or general relativistic covariance of the theory. Indeed, the language of GQ is geometric, hence coordinate free; but this is not sufficient for attaining the covariance. In fact, in the standard literature on GQ, a given frame of reference is implicitly assumed.

On the other hand, CQM looks for a formulation of standard Quantum Mechanics, which be manifestly covariant (with respect to all frames of references, including accelerated frames), in the spirit of General Relativity.

Indeed, it would be natural to take a curved Lorentz manifold as classical background spacetime for such a theory. However, it is well known that there are serious physical difficulties to formulate the Special or General Relativistic Quantum Mechanics in this framework; actually, these difficulties led to the Quantum Field Theory. On the other hand, we realised that it is possible to keep the framework of Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger and Pauli equations and all that) and formulate our covariant theory in a curved spacetime with absolute time and spacelike Riemannian metric. This approach stands in between the standard non relativistic Quantum Mechanics and a possible general relativistic Quantum Mechanics. In fact, our classical spacetime supports accelerated frames and several features of General Relativity (including the geometric interpretation of the gravitational field), but misses all features strictly related to the Lorentz metric (including the finite speed of signals).

In the flat case, this setting allows us to recover the standard non relativistic Quantum Mechanics. In the curved case, it suggests several new interpretations and techniques which might be possibly useful for a “true” general relativistic theory.

Thus, the covariance is the leading principle of our theory. Indeed, it turns out to be a powerful heuristic guide, as in all general relativistic theories. All main differences between our theory and GQ are related to the covariance.

Our covariant approach can be compared with a large literature dealing with Galileian General Relativity  and covariant formulations of Quantum Mechanics .

### 3.3 Generality

The starting programme of GQ is quite general and is based on weak assumptions. In fact, GQ deals just with a symplectic manifold without further structure. On the other hand, strong symmetries of the framework are usually assumed and specified case by case.

CQM starts with a fibred manifold equipped with a spacelike metric and a fibre preserving linear connection, which fulfill a natural condition. In our opinion, the above geometric structure well reflects the physical features occurring in all examples of interest for Quantum Mechanics and yields in a functorial way any further object which is needed for the development of the classical theory (including the cosymplectic structure).

Thus, the CQM deals with a type of model more specific than that of GQ. On the other hand, the large generality of GQ is a beautiful mathematical feature, which, in practice, cannot be physically implemented in full extent. Actually, perhaps all concrete examples of physical interest that can be treated in the framework of GQ can be regarded as particular cases of our model.

### 3.4 Role of time

In GQ, time is essentially an exterior parameter. This theory basically deals with classical and quantum systems which do not depend explicitly on time. So, the starting classical configuration space is a manifold $`𝑺`$ which does not “include” time. If the theory needs to consider time, then it refers to the product manifold $`𝑬𝑻\times 𝑺`$; the fact that spacetime is a product manifold means that a global observer has been implicitly chosen.

In CQM, the requirement that the theory be observer independent imposes that spacetime “includes” time but be not naturally split into space and time.

In Einsteinian General Relativity, spacetime $`𝑬`$ yields no observer independent time $`𝑻`$ and space $`𝑺`$, hence we have no observer independent projections $`𝑬𝑻`$ and $`𝑬𝑺`$. In our Galileian General Relativity, spacetime $`𝑬`$ is equipped with an observer independent time $`𝑻`$ and projection $`𝑬𝑻`$, but we have no observer independent space $`𝑺`$ and projection $`𝑬𝑺`$. In non relativistic GQ, spacetime $`𝑬`$ is equipped with time $`𝑻`$, space $`𝑺`$, and projections $`𝑬𝑻`$ and $`𝑬𝑺`$.

The further developments of our theory respect the starting assumption on the existence of absolute time without a preferred splitting of spacetime. Thus, all peculiar features of our theory follow from the covariance through the role of time. In particular, the cosymplectic structure of our phase space, the universality of the quantum connection, the method of projectability, the absence of the problem of polarisations and the construction of classical and quantum Hamiltonians are related to the role of time.

### 3.5 Phase space

In GQ the phase space is, in principle, any manifold supporting a symplectic form. Usually, the cotangent manifold of a manifold plays the role of phase space in virtue of the fact that it carries a canonical symplectic form. Thus, phase space has even dimension.

In CQM phase space is constituted by the first jet of sections of the spacetime fibred over time . This choice is essential for the covariance of the theory. Thus, the phase space has odd dimension. Actually, the techniques related to even and odd phase spaces, respectively, present important differences.

On the other hand, any observer induces an affine fibred isomorphism of the first jet bundle with the vertical tangent bundle of spacetime (up to a time–scale factor); moreover, the spacelike metric induces a linear fibred isomorphism of the vertical tangent bundle with the vertical cotangent bundle of spacetime. Thus, breaking the covariance, the choice of an observer and the reference to the spacelike metric allow us to compare our phase space with that of GQ.

### 3.6 Symplectic and cosymplectic structures

In GQ the basic geometric structure of Classical Mechanics is constituted by a symplectic form and a Hamiltonian function of phase space. In principle, nothing else is necessary; in practice, one adds the fibring of the phase space over the configuration space and a suitable group of symmetry.

In CQM the geometric structure of Classical Mechanics is constituted by the spacetime fibred over time, the spacelike metric and the spacetime connection. These objects yield a cosymplectic form in a covariant way.

Any observer yields, by pullback and vertical restriction, a Riemannian symplectic form of the fibres of the vertical tangent bundle of spacetime. In this way we recover the analogue of the symplectic form of GQ. However, we stress that this symplectic form is not covariant and carries less information than the original cosymplectic form.

Furthermore, the cosymplectic form and the choice of an observer yield a classical Hamiltonian function. Thus, in CQM the cosymplectic form encodes the Hamiltonian (but an observer is needed to extract it).

### 3.7 Classical Lie brackets

In the original programme of GQ the classical Lie algebra to be quantised is the Poisson Lie algebra of all functions of the phase space, whose bracket is associated with the symplectic form. Actually, we have mentioned before that some obstructions to this quantisation programme occur, but there is no subalgebra $`𝒪`$ that can be consistently considered for all cases.

In CQM we do define the Poisson Lie algebra of all functions of phase space, whose bracket is associated with the cosymplectic form. However, we are only partially interested in this algebra. Indeed, we exhibit a new Lie algebra of special quadratic functions, which is involved in our Quantum Theory. This Lie algebra includes all functions which are usually quantised in the standard approaches.

### 3.8 Symmetries

In GQ the conserved quantities associated with the group of symmetries of the classical system are not necessarily quantisable. For a system whose phase space is a co-adjoint orbit for some group, one possibly imposes that the generators of the group are quantisable and act irreducibly on the Hilbert space. This is done in order to establish a correspondence between “elementary systems” at the classical and quantum levels, and can be considered as a sort of irreducibility condition.

In CQM there is no need for any specific group of symmetries acting on the classical system. Actually, the procedure of quantisation does not depend on such a group. On the other hand, the possible classical symmetries yield interesting consequences, including the momentum map . In particular, all symmetries of the classical structure yield conserved quantisable functions .

### 3.9 Quantum structure

In GQ the quantum bundle is assumed to be a Hermitian line bundle over phase space. Moreover, the quantum bundle is assumed to be equipped with a Hermitian connection whose curvature is proportional to the classical symplectic form.

In CQM the quantum bundle is assumed to be a Hermitian line bundle over spacetime. Moreover, the extended quantum bundle is assumed to be equipped with a Hermitian connection whose curvature is universal and proportional to the classical cosymplectic form.

Thus the novelties of CQM consist in the following minimal assumptions: the quantum bundle lives on spacetime and not on the phase space, the quantum connection is universal.

### 3.10 Polarisation and projection method

In GQ one realises that the base space of the quantum bundle is too big in order to obtain an irreducible representation of the classical Poisson Lie algebra and to fulfill the uncertainty principle. Then, one looks for a polarisation $`P`$, that is for a Lagrangian subbundle $`P`$ of the complexified tangent bundle of the phase space $`M`$, such that $`D_{}=P\overline{P}`$ has constant rank and $`P`$, $`P+\overline{P}`$ are closed under the Lie bracket; moreover, the polarisation is said to be reducible if the quotient of the phase space $`M`$ by the distribution $`D`$ exists and the canonical projection $`\pi :MM/D`$ is a submersion. Once a polarisation is chosen, we can consider the polarised sections of the quantum bundle, that is the sections whose covariant derivative with respect to every vector field of the polarisation vanish. The polarised sections should yield the Hilbert space with the correct size. Actually, the problem of finding polarisations is very hard in practice, should be faced case by case and leads to a lot of complications and ambiguities, where the beauty of the original programme misses over considerably.

In CQM we have, in a covariant way, an implicit natural polarisation, namely the vertical polarisation.

The quantum connection is the only source of all further quantum objects, such as quantum dynamical equation, probability current, quantum operators and so on.

On the other hand, the quantum connection lives on the extended quantum bundle, while we are looking for further quantum objects living on the original quantum bundle. This goal is successfully achieved by the method of projectability.

Thus, in simple words, the difficult search for the inclusion of a polarisation (which should be performed case by case) is substituted by the easy search for projectable objects (which is successful and can be performed in general).

### 3.11 Half–densities and half–forms

In GQ, once a polarisation $`P`$ is chosen, we take the polarised sections of the quantum bundle. The problem is how to build a Hilbert space. For instance, if $`P`$ is reducible, then the Hermitian product $`h(s_1,s_2)`$ of two polarised sections can be understood as a function on the quotient space $`M/D`$; but a problem arises because $`M/D`$ has no natural volume element, which is necessary to define the Hilbert space of $`L^2`$–polarised sections. One way to remedy this problem is to tensor out the sections by the half–densities associated to $`D`$ and to use the natural partial flat connection of $`D`$ to build the Hilbert space. Unfortunately, even for the simplest physical systems, the results do not agree with those found in Quantum Mechanics.

Therefore, a further modification of the theory is needed: here is where half-forms come into play. They are defined through a metaplectic structure for the bundle of frames of the polarisation $`P`$; this imposes new conditions, since metaplectic structures do not exist in general. Even further problems arise, since it may happen that the tensor product of the quantum bundle with the bundle of half–forms has no polarised section at all.

In CQM we do not see any trouble concerning half–densities and all that. It seems that this convenient feature depends on the fact that CQM gets rid of all problems concerning polarisations.

In the first version of CQM the theory assumed a $``$–valued Hermitian metric of the quantum bundle. In this case the theory, in order to prove that quantum operators are Hermitian, needed to use half–densities.

In the recent version of CQM the theory assumes a $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^nV^{}𝑬)`$–valued Hermitian metric of the quantum bundle. In this case the theory uses just sections of the quantum bundle and does not need half–densities at all.

### 3.12 Schroedinger equation

In GQ there is no clear Schrödinger equation in an explicit formulation ready to be directly compared with the Schrödinger equation of standard Quantum Mechanics. The Schrödinger equation in this framework is understood as the infinitesimal generator of the flow of the Hamiltonian acting on the Hilbert space. The problem is that in general the Hamiltonian does not preserve the chosen polarisation and therefore we are led to compare different polarisations, this is handled through the Blattner-Kostant- Sternberg kernel machinery, see , which is extremely cumbersome. Even here one encounters new problems since there are obstructions discovered by Blattner  in order to construct the BKS kernel.

In CQM we have an explicit, covariant and intrinsic Schrödinger equation, which is immediately comparable with the standard Schrödinger equation  (see also ). Moreover, we prove that it comes from a quantum Lagrangian.

### 3.13 Hilbert space and Hilbert bundle

GQ and standard Quantum Mechanics deal with a Hilbert space, which usually consists of $`L^2`$ sections of the quantum bundle.

CQM deals with a Hilbert bundle over time. This formulation is unusual but does not seem to be really in contrast with standard Quantum Mechanics.

Once more, this novelty is related to the explicit role of time in the CQM.

### 3.14 Feynmann path integral

In CQM the Feynmann amplitudes appear very naturally in terms of parallel transport with respect to the quantum connection. In fact, the classical Lagrangian turns out to play the role of local symbol of the quantum connection of the extended quantum bundle over time.

The proof of the equivalence of the Feynmann path integral with the covariant Schrödinger equation has not yet been worked out in detail.

### 3.15 Energy

Most of the practical difficulties of GQ run around the quantisation of energy. Actually, the classical Hamiltonian function has to be explicitly postulated and is not encoded in the basic structure of spacetime. Moreover, the energy requires a treatment quite different from the simpler approach required by other observables such as spacetime coordinates and momentum.

Even in CQM the energy has a special role, but no hard problems arise in this respect. First of all, we stress that energy is encoded in the basic geometric structure of spacetime and that it appears explicitly, in a non covariant way, by means of the choice of an observer.

If one accepts the point of view of Covariant Quantum Mechanics, maybe one can understand the difficulties of GQ from this perspective. In fact, in practice what is done in GQ is to take the vertical tangent (or cotangent) space of spacetime as phase space, instead of the first jet space; accordingly, GQ tries to formulate and quantise energy by methods related to vertical subspace. On the other hand, in CQM, it is very clear that energy is related to the horizontal aspect of phase space. We could roughly say that the vertical aspect of phase space is essentially related to the static geometry of spacetime, while the horizontal aspect is related to the dynamics. This observation can also be analysed in terms of the Lie algebra of quantisable functions and their tangent lift; actually, the quantisable functions dealing with the vertical aspects of spacetime constitute the subalgebra of affine functions, while energy is a quadratic function. In CQM, all quantisable functions can quantised on the same footing.

### 3.16 Examples

In GQ it is not granted that every reasonable physical example can be worked out. Actually, there are few examples that have been successfully solved.

CQM reduces to standard Quantum Mechanics in the flat case. Hence, in CQM, all standard physical examples can be formulated; moreover, the Schrödinger equation and quantum operators corresponding to the quantisable functions can be explicitly and immediately computed. Of course, the integration of the Schrödinger equation and the computation of the energy spectrum is an analytical question which should be faced case by case.


text:
# Stability of the Smectic Quantum Hall State: A Quantitative Study

\[

## Abstract

We present an effective elastic theory which quantitatively describes the stripe phase of the two-dimensional electron gas in high Landau levels ($`N2`$). The dynamical matrix is obtained with remarkably high precision from the density-density correlation function in the time-dependent Hartree-Fock approximation. A renormalization group analysis shows that at $`T=0`$, as the partial filling factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \nu \nu `$ moves away from $`1/2`$, the anisotropic conducting state may undergo quantum phase transitions: stripes may get pinned along their conducting direction by disorder, or may lock into one another to form a two-dimensional crystal. The model predicts values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ for each transition. The transitions should be reflected in the temperature dependence of the dissipative conductivity.

\]

In a strong magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of a two-dimensional (2D) electron or hole system, the energy spectrum is characterized by discrete Landau levels (LLs) separated by the cyclotron energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _c=\mathrm{}eB/mc`$ and the Zeeman energy $`g\mu _BB`$. Since the degeneracy of each LL, $`𝒩_\varphi `$, is proportional to the magnetic field, for sufficiently strong magnetic fields, only a small number of low-lying LLs are occupied. In this situation, the kinetic energy is practically quenched, sometimes leading to interesting strongly correlated liquid ground states . For example, it is now very well established that the ground state of a sufficiently clean system is given by the fractional quantum Hall fluid  if the filling factor $`\nu =𝒩/𝒩_\varphi `$ ($`𝒩=\text{number of electrons or holes}`$), which measures how many LLs are filled, is close to some rational numbers such as $`1/3`$, $`1/5`$, $`2/3`$, $`2/5`$, etc.

However, recent experiments on high-mobility 2D electron  and hole  systems have revealed that the transport properties are qualitatively different for higher filling factors ($`\nu >4`$ for electrons and $`\nu >2`$ for holes.) One of the most remarkable findings is that the longitudinal resistivities are highly anisotropic near half integer filling factors. As a natural explanation, it has been suggested that the electrons form unidirectional charge density waves or “stripes”, predicted earlier by Koulakov et al.  and Moessner and Chalker . An important theoretical development  was the observation that the states of this system may be classified by their symmetries, which are highly analogous to those of liquid crystals. The possible states include stripe crystals, smectic, and nematic phases . Of these, the smectic shows promise of explaining the anisotropic transport data at very low temperature .

While some progress has been made in understanding the temperature dependence of transport in this system , the true groundstate when quantum fluctuations are included remains a subject of debate. It has been shown that continuous quantum phase transitions may occur among different possible states when the system parameters are varied. To assess whether this happens requires a knowledge of the parameters entering the effective theory from microscopic calculations. In one such study, MacDonald and Fisher, using an elastic edge state model, found that both interstripe locking interactions  and pinning by weak random disorder are relevant perturbations at all $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ . However, they argued that both perturbations are extremely small in any experimentally accessible systems, and computed the anisotropic resistivities using a semiclassical Boltzmann transport theory.

In this work, we focus on filling factors away from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =1/2`$. In recent work , it was found that in the Hartree-Fock approximation, uniform stripe states are unstable to the formation of density modulations along the stripes — i.e., to the formation of a stripe crystal. Interestingly, the collective modes  of the modulated stripe state obtained from a time-dependent Hartree-Fock approximation (TDHFA)  shows that the motion of density deformations in the low energy modes  looks strikingly similar to that of phonon modes in a highly anisotropic lattice (see Fig. 1). Motivated by this observation, we develop an effective elastic lattice model which provides a quantitative description of the low temperature behavior of the stripe phase. As described below, from the density-density correlation function in the TDHFA, we may numerically obtain a dynamical matrix which reproduces the low-energy microscopic behavior of the system with remarkably high precision. Using the result, we perform a renormalization group (RG) analysis on two important perturbations: interactions among stripe modulations, which presumably stabilize a stripe crystal, and disorder, which may pin the electrons and render the smectic insulating. In contrast to uniform stripes , we find for modulated stripes that, both these perturbations are irrelevant close to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =1/2`$, and that they become relevant at different critical values as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ moves away from 1/2. Either of these Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) transitions represent a metal-insulator transition, and could be identified experimentally by measuring the filling factor dependence of the activation gap on the insulating (i.e., quantized Hall effect) side of the transition.

In our simple lattice model, we assume that each lattice site $`𝐑`$ is occupied by an object with a local density profile or a “form factor” $`f(𝐫)`$, and that the only dynamic variable is the displacement $`𝐮(𝐑)`$ of the object center. The elastic energy associated with the displacements may be described by a Hamiltonian in Fourier space as

$$H_0=\frac{1}{2}\underset{𝐪}{}\underset{\alpha \beta }{}u_\alpha ^{}(𝐪)D_{\alpha \beta }(𝐪)u_\beta (𝐪),(\alpha ,\beta =x,y).$$
(1)
Since the Hamiltonian is Hermitian and invariant under a rotation by $`\pi `$, all dynamical density matrix elements are real and $`D_{xy}(𝐪)=D_{yx}(𝐪)`$, leaving us only three independent real parameters per wave vector. Below, we will treat $`D_{\alpha \beta }`$ as a fitting parameter, chosen to match the density-density correlation function  obtained from the TDHFA of the underlying microscopic fermion model in the partially filled uppermost LL.

Since the density-density correlation function is computed at the one-phonon level in the TDHFA , a proper matching procedure requires the corresponding quantity in the lattice theory to be defined also within a harmonic approximation. More specifically, assuming $`𝐪𝐮`$ is small, the density fluctuation operator in the lattice model may be written as

$`\delta n(𝐪)n(𝐪)n(𝐪)`$ (2)
$`f(𝐪)\left[i𝐪𝐮(𝐪)+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐆0}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫e^{i𝐆[𝐫𝐮(𝐫)]i𝐪𝐫}}\right],`$ (3)
where $`𝐆`$ is a reciprocal lattice vector and $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes an average over the above elastic Hamiltonian. Ignoring the higher-order second term, the density-density correlation function may be written as

$`\chi (𝐪,𝐪^{},\tau )𝒯\delta n(𝐪,\tau )\delta n(𝐪^{},0)`$ (4)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{f(𝐪)f^{}(𝐪^{})}{(𝒩ab)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}q_\alpha q_\beta ^{}𝒯u_\alpha (𝐪,\tau )u_\beta ^{}(𝐪^{},0),`$ (5)
where $`𝒯`$ is the time ordering operator and $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the lattice constants as in Fig. 1. Due to the lattice symmetry, $`u_\alpha (𝐪)`$ is defined only within the first Brillouin zone, and the above expression vanishes unless $`𝐪^{}=𝐪+𝐆`$ for any reciprocal lattice vector $`𝐆`$.

Using the fact that the single-LL-projected displacement operators obey $`[u_x(𝐪),u_y(𝐪^{})]=il_B^2\delta _{𝐪+𝐪^{},0}`$ ($`l_B=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/eB}`$ is the magnetic length), the above correlation function is easily computed, and may be written in terms of the Matsubara frequency $`i\omega _n`$ as

$`\chi (𝐪+𝐆,𝐪+𝐆^{},i\omega _n)=`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{W(𝐪;𝐆,𝐆^{})}{i\omega _n\omega _𝐪}}{\displaystyle \frac{W^{}(𝐪;𝐆,𝐆^{})}{i\omega _n+\omega _𝐪}},`$ (7)
where $`W(𝐪;𝐆,𝐆^{})`$ are weights that depend on $`D_{\alpha \beta }`$, and $`\omega _𝐪=l_B^2\sqrt{D_{xx}D_{yy}D_{xy}^2}`$ is the eigenmode frequency.

For each wave vector $`𝐪`$ in the first Brillouin zone, we need to compute $`\chi `$ for at least three reciprocal lattice vectors to fit all unknown parameters in the problem. Assuming the stripes are along the $`x`$-axis as in Fig. 1, we use  $`𝐆,𝐆^{}=0,\pm 𝐆_0`$ ($`𝐆_0\widehat{𝐲}2\pi /a`$), to find the three dynamical matrix elements $`D_{xx}`$, $`D_{xy}`$, and $`D_{yy}`$, as well as the three form factors $`f(𝐪)`$, and $`f(𝐪\pm 𝐆_0)`$. (Due to the inversion symmetry, the $`f`$’s are real.) For concreteness, we set $`\nu =6`$ (the third lowest LL) in our calculations. In our matching procedure, we focus on the $`3\times 3`$ Hermitian matrix $`W(𝐪;𝐆,𝐆^{})`$ with $`𝐆,𝐆^{}=0,\pm 𝐆_0`$ provided to us by the TDHFA. Together with the mode frequency $`\omega _𝐪`$, this gives ten parameters, of which we use six to produce the dynamical matrix and form factors. (In practice, it is easiest to use the off-diagonal elements of the Hermitian matrix.) The remaining four are used to estimate an errorbar and to examine the validity of the fitting. For example, Fig. 2 shows $`\omega _𝐪`$ obtained from the TDHFA and the lattice theory. For all the quantities, the agreement is quite impressive. The relative error is typically $`10^8`$ unless $`\omega _𝐪`$ is very small, and always remains below $`10^3`$.

The numerical solution of $`D_{\alpha \beta }`$ agrees remarkably well with a harmonic theory of a 2D charged smectic system with long-range Coulomb interaction such as discussed in Ref. . Specifically, the functional forms of the dynamical matrix elements may be written for small $`𝐪`$ as

$`D_{xx}`$ $``$ $`q_x^2+q_x^2/q,`$ (8)
$`D_{xy}`$ $``$ $`q_xq_y+q_xq_y/q,`$ (9)
$`D_{yy}`$ $``$ $`q_y^2+q_y^2/q+q_x^4,`$ (10)
$`\omega _𝐪`$ $``$ $`q_x\sqrt{(q_y^2+q_x^4)/q},`$ (11)
where the terms proportional to $`1/q`$ are from the long-range Coulomb interaction, the $`q_x^4`$ term from bending energy of each stripe, and all the rest from effective short-range interactions.

Note that $`\omega _𝐪=0`$ at $`q_x=0`$. In fact, the only true gapless mode of the stripe crystal is at $`𝐪=0`$. However, the gaps are extremely small if $`q_x=0`$, for any $`q_y`$ . (In these modes, the stripes slide with respect to one another .) We are thus able to model the results of the TDHFA as a charged smectic, despite the formal presence of gaps away from $`𝐪=0`$. Obviously, these nearly gapless modes greatly affect the low temperature behavior; the RG exponents depend on all $`q_y`$’s up to the first Brillouin zone boundary. Thus, a reliable elastic Hamiltonian must match the microscopic system at short wavelengths perpendicular to the stripes. Along the stripes, however, only the long-wavelength behavior is important.

Using our quantitative elastic theory, we examine some important perturbations and their effect at low temperatures by computing the RG exponents. We first consider locking between stripes, which controls the transition between the smectic and the stripe crystal phases. The perturbative action may be written as

$`S_\lambda =`$ (12)
$`\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑\tau \mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{b}\left[u_x(x,j,\tau )u_x(x,j1,\tau )\right]}.`$ (13)
Here we represent the displacements in real space, with the $`j`$ labeling the stripes. For convenience, we have adopted a continuum approximation in the $`x`$-axis, which should not affect the small $`q_x`$ behavior. A standard RG analysis  yields the flow equation

$$\frac{d\lambda }{d\mathrm{}}=\left(2\frac{x_\kappa }{2}\right)\lambda ,$$
(14)
where

$$x_\kappa \frac{2al_B^4}{b}𝑑q_y(1\mathrm{cos}q_ya)\underset{q_x0}{lim}\frac{D_{yy}(𝐪)q_x}{\omega _𝐪}.$$
(15)
The exponent is plotted as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ in Fig. 3. Note that if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu 0.38`$, then $`2x_\kappa /2`$ becomes negative and locking is irrelevant .

Another important perturbation is that of weak disorder, which may pin the stripes. We model this with, perturbative action for white noise disorder,

$$S_V=𝑑𝐫𝑑\tau V(𝐫)n(𝐫),$$
(16)
where the disorder average is given by $`\overline{V(𝐫)V(𝐫^{})}=V_0^2ab\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})`$. Using the density in Eq. (3), the RG analysis is straightforward. If the $`𝐆`$ in the second term of Eq. (3) is parallel to the stripes, the flow equation for the most relevant operator $`G_x=2\pi /b`$ is given by

$$\frac{dV_0}{d\mathrm{}}=\left(\frac{3}{2}x_V\right)V_0,$$
(17)
with

$$x_V=\frac{al_B^4}{2b}𝑑q_y\underset{q_x0}{lim}\frac{D_{yy}(𝐪)q_x}{\omega _𝐪}.$$
(18)
As plotted in Fig. 3, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu 0.43`$, the exponent is negative and pinning along the stripes is irrelevant.

The RG analysis is more complicated if $`𝐆`$ is perpendicular to the stripes. We find, for any $`𝐆=(0,G_y)`$, that the free energy $`F\mathrm{ln}𝒟𝐮\mathrm{exp}(S_0S_V)`$ computed using Eq. (11) diverges at low temperatures as $`T^{2/5}`$ for any $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$. This indicates that pinning across the stripes is always relevant. Our interpretation of this is that the stripes will be trapped in channels; however, they are still free to move along the channels so that this would not spoil the phase transitions we found above.

Using particle-hole symmetry for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu >1/2`$, the above results imply that for $`0.43\mathrm{\Delta }\nu 0.57`$, the stripes are pinned only in the the direction perpendicular to the stripes at $`T=0`$, supporting the existence of an anisotropic metallic state . This is the main result of this Letter, and is in qualitative agreement with experiment .

Our results suggest that the anisotropic transport properties observed in experiment may well represent a new and unusual metallic state of the quantum Hall system, separated from insulating (quantized Hall) states by quantum phase transitions as a function of $`\nu `$, on either side of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =1/2`$. One direct probe of this is the activation energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the diagonal transport coefficients $`\rho _{xx},\rho _{yy}`$ in the quantized Hall state. As the transition is approached from below, the gap is controlled by the growing correlation length $`\xi `$, which for a KT transition has the characteristic form $`\mathrm{\Delta }\xi ^1\mathrm{exp}\{C/\sqrt{|\nu _c\nu |}\}`$, where $`C`$ is a non-universal constant. The observation of such behavior in finite temperature studies away from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =1/2`$ would constitute direct evidence of a new type of phase transition for these systems.

We conclude with a few final remarks. Our simple model was analyzed only in the third lowest LL and it included neither finite thickness of the 2D layer nor more complex effects such as spin-orbit coupling. We expect that the qualitative picture presented will be robust, although the precise location of the phase transitions will surely be affected. Although in our specific model, pinning preempted locking, the order of transitions may well be reversed when these effects are included. We note also that the method we have developed here works very well away from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =1/2`$, but breaks down close to this value. The breakdown occurs for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\nu 1/2|0.01`$, and is reflected in rapidly growing error bars for our matching procedure in that small range. This is in part caused by the charge motion of the collective modes found in TDHFA becoming more complicated near half-filling, taking on a mixed character of both edge states and lattice phonons. Apparently our simple elastic model does not capture this complicated behavior.

In summary, we have developed a method for generating a quantitative elastic model of quantum Hall stripes from microscopic TDHFA calculations. An RG analysis shows that an anisotropic conducting (smectic) state may be stable against crystallization and pinning near filling factor 1/2, and may be destabilized by either of these away from this filling in a continuous quantum phase transition.

The authors would like to thank Ganpathy Murthy, Allan MacDonald, and Jim Eisenstein for helpful suggestions and discussions. This work was supported by NSF Grant No. DMR-9870681.


text:
# Parallel Quantum Computation, the Library of Babel and Quantum Measurement as the Efficient Librarian

## Abstract

The complementary roles played by parallel quantum computation and quantum measurement in originating the quantum speed-up are illustrated through an analogy with a famous metaphor by J.L. Borges.

Why there is a quantum speed-up is considered to be an interesting open problem. This letter is an excerpt from the paper titled “Performing Quantum Measurement in Suitably Entangled States Originates the Quantum Computation Speed Up” . That paper is rather lengthy, due to the need of checking that all types of quantum algorithms found so far obey the speed-up mechanism propounded. We shall summarize herebelow the justification of the speed-up provided in .

Let us enter “in media res”. One unnecessary but clarifying step of Simon’s algorithm is to measure the content of register $`v`$ (designated by $`\left[v\right]`$ in the following) in the entangled state

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}}\underset{x=0}{\overset{2^n1}{}}|x_a|f\left(x\right)_v.$$
(1)
State (1) is the result of reversibly computing the function $`f\left(x\right)`$ for all possible values of $`x`$, in quantum parallelism; $`a`$ and $`v`$ are two n-qubit registers containing the argument $`x`$ and the respective function $`f\left(x\right)`$; $`|x_a`$ denotes an eigenstate of register $`a`$ (in the measurement basis), etc.. Given $`B=\{0,1\}`$, as well known $`f\left(x\right)`$ is a function from $`B^n`$ to $`B^n`$ with the following properties:

* for any $`x`$, there is one and only one $`x^{^{}}x`$ such that $`f\left(x\right)=f\left(x^{^{}}\right)`$;
* all such $`x`$ and $`x^{^{}}`$ are evenly spaced by a constant $`r`$; namely, for all $`x`$, $`\left|xx^{^{}}\right|=r`$ (we are following the simplified version of Simon’s algorithm);
* given $`x`$, computing $`f\left(x\right)`$ requires poly(n) time, whereas given a value $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{f}`$ of $`f\left(x\right)`$, finding the two values of $`x`$ such that $`f\left(x\right)=f\left(x^{^{}}\right)=\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{f}`$ requires exp(n) time by classical computation – the function is hard to reverse.

The problem is to efficiently find $`r`$ by using a quantum computer that, given $`x`$, computes $`f\left(x\right)`$ in poly(n) time. In fact, this computer has already been used to reach state (1). Because of the character of $`f\left(x\right)`$, measuring $`\left[v\right]`$ in (1) yields an outcome of the form

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\right|\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{x}_a+|\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{x}+r_a)|\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{f}_v,$$
(2)
where $`f\left(\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{x}\right)=f\left(\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{x}+r\right)=\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{f}.`$

Without entering into detail, the subsequent part of Simon’s algorithm consists in measuring $`\left[a\right]`$ after performing the Hadamard transform on the state of register $`a`$ in (2). The measurement outcome $`z`$ is such that $`rz=0`$; $`rz`$ denotes the module 2 inner product of the two numbers in binary notation (seen as row matrices). By repeating the overall process a poly(n) number of times, a number of constraints $`rz_i`$ sufficient to identify $`r`$ is gathered with any desired probability of success.

The role played by quantum measurement in originating the speed-up will be discussed by using a special way of comparing quantum and classical efficiency: the quantum computational cost of going from quantum state (1) to quantum state (2) is benchmarked with the classical computational cost of going through their (symbolic) descriptions. Such descriptions can be visualized as the print-outs of (1) and (2), provided that $`x,`$ $`f\left(x\right)`$, $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{x}`$, etc. are substituted by proper numerical values. This criterion is instrumental to achieving an a-posteriori self evident result.

We shall instrumentally use the following way of thinking (opposite to our view):

> quantum computation can produce a number of parallel outputs exponential in register size, at the cost of producing one output, but this “exponential wealth” is easily spoiled by the fact that quantum measurement reads only one output.

Let us examine the cost of classically deriving description (2) from description (1). This latter can be visualized as the print-out of the sum of 2n tensor products. Loosely speaking, two values of $`x`$ such that $`f\left(x_1\right)=f\left(x_2\right)`$, must be exp$`\left(n\right)`$ spaced. Otherwise such a pair of values could be found in poly$`\left(n\right)`$ time by classical “trial and error”.

The point is that the print-out would create a Babel Library***From the story “The Library of Babel” by J.L. Borges. effect. Even for a small $`n`$, it would fill the entire known universe with, say, $`\mathrm{}`$ $`|x_1_a|f\left(x_1\right)_v`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ here, and $`\mathrm{}`$ $`|x_2_a|f\left(x_2\right)_v`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ \[such that $`f\left(x_1\right)=f\left(x_2\right)`$\] in Alpha Centauri. Finding such a pair of print-outs would still require exp$`\left(n\right)`$ time. The capability of directly accessing that “exponential wealth” would be frustrated by its “exponential dilution”. This seems to be in match with the baffling feeling inspired by Borges’ story.

The quantum measurement of $`\left[v\right]`$ instead, distills the desired pair of arguments in a time linear in $`n`$, namely in the number of qubits of register $`v`$.It is a basic axiom of quantum measurement theory that the time required to measure $`\left[v\right]`$ is independent of state (1) entanglement – entanglement is interaction free. In fact, it does more than randomly selecting one measurement outcome; by selecting one outcome, it performs a logical operation (selecting the two values of $`x`$ associated with the value of that outcome) crucial for solving the problem. The active role played by quantum measurement in originating the speed-up, complementary to the production of the parallel computation outputs, appears to be self evident.

Ref.  also shows that performing or skipping $`\left[v\right]`$ measurement in (1) is equivalent. It also formalizes the active role played by quantum measurement. Given a suitably entangled state before measurement, the constraint that there is a single measurement outcome becomes a set of logical-mathematical constraints that represent the problem to be solved (or the hard part thereof). Satisfaction of such constraints, by the measurement outcome, amounts to having solved the problem. The computational complexity of satisfying these constraints comes from entanglement and is completely transparent to measurement time, which justifies the speed-up.Having found that the speed-up is an observable consequence of the transition from the quantum to the classical world, naturally revamps the quantum measurement problem. After having – so to speak – buried it, its unexpected return might be coldly welcomed; while acknowledging this, we should note that this time we are clearly dealing with a new and striking fact, not with a debatable interpretation of quantum measurement.

Acknowledging the active role played by quantum measurement yields a more realistic vision of what quantum computation is and is not.

It is not, as commonly believed, the quantum transposition of reversible Turing-machine computation, where quantum measurement would only be needed to read the output of a sequential computation process. In fact, we have shown that quantum measurement plays a crucial role in efficiently creating that output. A quantum computation yielding a speed-up is not a reversible computation, although reversibility is of course essential to prepare the state before measurement.

Today, people is looking for non-sequential (e.g. topological) forms of quantum computation. It is therefore a matter of some importance to understand that the current “quantum algorithms” are already non-sequential in character.

It is reasonable to think that detaching the notion of “quantum algorithm” from that of sequential computation – a classical vestige – is a precondition for pursuing further developments at a fundamental level.

For example, let us consider the possibility of exploiting particle statistics symmetrizations to achieve a quantum speed-up. Such symmetrizations can be seen as projections on symmetrical (constrained) Hilbert subspaces. There is no relation between a projection and sequential reversible computation, namely a unitary evolution. If instead quantum computation is (properly) seen as a projection on a constrained Hilbert subspace, which amounts to solving a problem, then we have an analogy with particle statistics symmetrizations to work with.

Thanks are due to the co-Authors of Ref.  for their consent to issue an excerpt.

References

1. G. Castagnoli, D. Monti, A. Sergienko, “Performing Quantum Measurement in Suitably Entangled States Originates the Quantum Computation Speed Up”, arXiv: quant-ph/9908015 v2 14 Feb. 2000.