text:
# Integration of the SL(2,ℝ)/U(1) Gauged WZNW Theory by Reduction and Quantum Parafermions

## 1 Introduction

Gauged Wess-Zumino-Novikov-Witten (WZNW) models are an important subclass of two-dimensional integrable conformal field theories. But there is an essential structural difference between nilpotent  and non-nilpotent  gauging. Although the equations of motion for both cases have a linear Lax pair representation , only the Lax pairs for nilpotently gauged (Toda) theories have been integrated directly .

In this paper we will focus on non-nilpotently gauged WZNW theory. In contrast to the Toda case a systematic integration method is lacking. Instead of integrating a Lax pair, we extend the methods of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian reduction in a gauge invariant manner and prove that a non-nilpotently gauged WZNW theory can be integrated directly. We rederive here the general solution of the SL(2,$``$)/U(1) theory, which was found in refs  in a non-systematic manner guided by the solution of the $`B_2`$ non-abelian Toda theory . While we will restrict ourselves to the simplest SL(2,$``$)/U(1) case, we presume that this approach can be generalised to any gauged WZNW theory.

Gauge invariant reduction also proves that the parafermionic conserved quantities are the coset currents, and the reduced energy-momentum tensor retains the simple Sugawara form in terms of these coset currents.

The SL(2,$``$)/U(1) theory is not only of mathematical interest. This model attracted much attention when it was realised that such theories have a black hole interpretation . In the early 1990’s studies of the quantum SL(2,$``$)/U(1) WZNW theory relied heavily on rather formal path integral manipulations  or related operator identities . Since the attempted path integration over the $`U(1)`$ gauge field provided an incomplete effective action , we define the SL(2,$``$)/U(1) theory by the classical Lagrangian given in ref. . Our goal is to perform for this theory an exact canonical quantisation, much in the same way as it has been done for Liouville theory . Here one recasts the general solution as a canonical transformation exchanging interacting and free fields and lifts the classical conformal transformation to an operator transformation.

We take the parafermion algebra as a starting point for quantisation. In doing this we are forced to deform the classical free field representation of the parafermions. Similar deformations have been found before in OPE based Feigin-Fuks constructions of WZNW Kac-Moody currents . In addition we derive the quantum analogue of the parafermion algebra. The Sugawara form of the energy-momentum tensor motivates us to build the quantum energy-momentum tensor using only the parafermions, and we find an improvement term which in the $`\sigma `$-model picture could correspond to a non-perturbative dilaton. Finally, we point out that the general solution of the model has a parafermion interpretation. More precisely, the general solution contains fields of conformal weight zero related to an alternative set of ‘auxiliary’ parafermions which also undergo quantum deformation.

## 2  A Lagrangian Reformulation of the SL(2,$``$) <br>WZNW Theory

WZNW models are defined by the action

$$S_{\mathrm{WZNW}}[g]=\frac{k}{8\pi }\underset{M}{}h^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{tr}\left(g^1_\mu gg^1_\nu g\right)\sqrt{h}𝑑\sigma 𝑑\tau +kI_{\mathrm{WZ}}[g],$$
(1)
which includes the topological Wess-Zumino term

$$I_{\mathrm{WZ}}=\frac{1}{12\pi }\underset{B}{}\mathrm{tr}\left(g^1\text{d}gg^1\text{d}gg^1\text{d}g\right).$$
(2)
Here $`h_{\mu \nu }=diag(+,)`$ is the Minkowskian metric of the world surface $`M`$, $`h`$ its determinant, $`B`$ a volume with the boundary $`B=M`$, $`k`$ the coupling parameter, and $`g(\tau ,\sigma )`$ is a field which takes values in a semi-simple Lie group $`G`$. We shall restrict ourselves in this paper to the case $`G=`$ SL(2,$``$).

To simplify the construction of the SL(2,$``$)/U(1) theory it will prove useful to rewrite the topological WZNW term (2) as an integral of a local Lagrangian with global $`U(1)`$ symmetry. We are going to verify that the differentiation of the 2-form (for a more general treatment see )

$$F=\frac{2}{1+agag^1}L_aR_a$$
(3)
provides the integrand of the topological WZ term (2)

$$dF=\frac{2}{3}g^1dgg^1dgg^1dg,$$
(4)
and then Stokes’ theorem reduces the Wess-Zumino term to a two dimensional integral of $`F`$ over $`M=B`$. Here $`a`$ is a fixed normalised time-like element of the sl(2,$``$) algebra with $`aa=1`$, where $`=\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}()`$ denotes a normalised trace, and the left and right 1-forms of (3) are given by

$$L_a=adgg^1,R_a=ag^1dg.$$
(5)
Let us introduce the basis of the sl(2,$``$) algebra

$$t_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \hfill 1\\ 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),t_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \hfill 1\\ 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),t_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
It satisfies the relations

$$t_mt_n=\eta _{mn}I+ϵ_{mn}{}_{}{}^{l}t_{l}^{},$$
(7)
where $`I`$ is the unit matrix, $`\eta _{mn}=\text{diag}(+,,)`$ the $`3d`$ Minkowskian metric, and $`ϵ_{012}=1`$. The normalised traces of the matrices $`t_n`$ are then given by

$$t_mt_n=\eta _{mn},t_lt_mt_n=ϵ_{lmn}.$$
(8)
This defines an isometry between the sl(2,$``$) algebra and $`3d`$ Minkowski space.

The left and right 1-forms

$$L_n=t_ndgg^1,R_n=t_ng^1dg$$
(9)
are related by $`L_m=\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^n(g)R_n`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^n(g)=t_mgt^ng^1$$
(10)
is a Lorentz transformation matrix. Since from (9) we have $`g^1dg=t^nR_n`$ and $`dgg^1=t^nL_n`$, using (8) the right hand side of (4) can be written in terms of right (or left) 1-forms

$$\frac{2}{3}g^1dgg^1dgg^1dg=4R_0R_1R_2.$$
(11)
Moreover, the differentials of (9) and (10)

$`dL_n`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_n^{lm}L_lL_m,d\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}=2ϵ_n^{kl}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mk}R_l`$
$`dR_n`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_n^{lm}R_lR_m,`$ (12)
give for the left hand side of (4) the same result $`4R_0R_1R_2`$. This proves our statement (4). With Stokes’ theorem, we finally obtain the alternative Lagrangian formulation of the WZNW theory

$$S=_M𝑑z𝑑\overline{z},=_0+_{WZ},$$
(13)
where the kinetic term $`_0`$ remains unchanged

$$_0=\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}g^1_zgg^1_{\overline{z}}g,$$
(14)
but the WZ term becomes

$$_{WZ}=\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}\frac{a_zgg^1ag^1_{\overline{z}}ga_{\overline{z}}gg^1ag^1_zg}{1+agag^1}.$$
(15)
Here we used light-cone coordinates $`z=\sigma +\tau ,\overline{z}=\tau \sigma `$, and a new coupling constant $`\gamma ^2=2\pi /k`$. The Euler-Lagrange equations obtained from (13-15) reproduce consistently the dynamical equations of the WZNW theory (1)

$$_{\overline{z}}(_zgg^1)=0,_z(g^1_{\overline{z}}g)=0.$$
(16)
Note that the timelike property of $`a`$ ($`aa=1`$) guarantees regularity of (15).

## 3 The Gauged SL(2,$``$)/U(1) WZNW Theory

The Lagrangian (13-15) is invariant under the global transformations

$$gh_a(\epsilon )gh_a(\epsilon ),\text{with}h_a(\epsilon )=e^{\epsilon a},$$
(17)
which for timelike $`a`$ form the $`U(1)`$ subgroup of SL(2,$``$).

By a standard gauging procedure we introduce the $`U(1)`$ gauge fields $`A_z`$, $`A_{\overline{z}}`$ and get the new Lagrangian

$$_G(g,A_z,A_{\overline{z}},_zg,_{\overline{z}}g)=(g,_zgA_z(ag+ga),_{\overline{z}}gA_{\overline{z}}(ag+ga)),$$
(18)
which is invariant under the local transformations

$$A_zA_z+_z\epsilon ,A_{\overline{z}}A_{\overline{z}}+_{\overline{z}}\epsilon ,gh_a(\epsilon )gh_a(\epsilon ),\epsilon =\epsilon (z,\overline{z}).$$
(19)
The non-dynamical gauge fields can easily be eliminated from (18) through their algebraic equations of motion

$$A_z=\frac{a_zgg^1}{1+agag^1},A_{\overline{z}}=\frac{ag^1_{\overline{z}}g}{1+agag^1}.$$
(20)
So we obtain a gauge invariant Lagrangian only in terms of the field $`g`$

$`_G|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}(g^1_zgg^1_{\overline{z}}g`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{a_zgg^1ag^1_{\overline{z}}g+a_{\overline{z}}gg^1ag^1_zg}{1+agag^1}}).`$
Without any loss of generality we assume $`a=t_0`$. Since $`t_0gt_0g^1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{00}`$ is strictly positive the denominator in (21) is never zero. It is important for the following that this Lagrangian can be rewritten entirely in terms of the gauge invariant variables

$$v_1=t_1g,v_2=t_2g.$$
(22)
The gauge invariance follows from $`e^{ϵt_0}t_ne^{ϵt_0}=t_n\text{for}n=1,2`$. Introducing the additional variables $`v_0=t_0g`$ and $`c=g`$, we parameterise $`g(z,\overline{z})`$ SL(2,$``$) as

$$g=cI+v^nt_n=\left(\begin{array}{cc}cv_2& \hfill v_1v_0\\ v_1+v_0& \hfill c+v_2\end{array}\right),\text{with}c^2+v^nv_n=1.$$
(23)
Inserting this in (21), we find that the dependence on the gauge variant fields $`v_0`$ and $`c`$ is eliminated, and the reduced Lagrangian becomes

$$_G|=\frac{_zv_1_{\overline{z}}v_1+_zv_2_{\overline{z}}v_2}{\gamma ^2(1+v_1^2+v_2^2)}.$$
(24)
This Lagrangian has a natural complex structure in terms of the Kruskal coordinates $`u=v_1+iv_2`$, $`\overline{u}=v_1iv_2`$ of . The resulting equation of motion

$$_z_{\overline{z}}u=\overline{u}\frac{_zu_{\overline{z}}u}{1+u\overline{u}}$$
(25)
is just that obtained in .

## 4 Integration of the Theory by Lagrangian Reduction

The WZNW equations of motion (16) have the well-known general solution

$$g(z,\overline{z})=g_L(z)g_R(\overline{z}),$$
(26)
where $`g_L(z)`$, $`g_R(\overline{z})`$ are arbitrary SL(2,$``$) group valued (anti-)chiral functions.

Now let $`g(z,\overline{z})`$ be a solution (26) which satisfies the conditions

$$t_0_zg_L(z)g_L^1(z)=0\text{and}t_0g_R^1(\overline{z})_{\overline{z}}g_R(\overline{z})=0.$$
(27)
Then, due to (20), the set of functions $`g(z,\overline{z}),A_z(z,\overline{z})=A_{\overline{z}}(z,\overline{z})=0`$ form a solution of the dynamical equations derived from (18). Since the Lagrangians (18) and (24) have in terms of the gauge invariant fields $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ the same dynamical equations (25), the solutions of (25) can be written as

$$u(z,\overline{z})=(t_1+it_2)g_L(z)g_R(\overline{z}),$$
(28)
where the fields $`g_L`$ and $`g_R`$ satisfy (27). Equations (20) and (25) imply vanishing field strength $`F_{z\overline{z}}=_zA_{\overline{z}}_{\overline{z}}A_z=0`$. Then due to gauge invariance, (28) describes the general solution of (25).

We seek these solutions in terms of unconstrained (anti-) chiral fields. Therefore, we parameterise $`g_L`$ and $`g_R`$ as in (23)

$$g_L(z)=c(z)I+v^n(z)t_n,g_R(\overline{z})=\overline{c}(\overline{z})I+\overline{v}^n(\overline{z})t_n,$$
(29)
and introduce for convenience polar coordinates for the chiral fields

$`c`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{cos}\beta ,v_0=R\mathrm{sin}\beta ,`$
$`v_1`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,v_2=r\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,`$ (30)
and similarly for the anti-chiral ones. The conditions (27) lead to $`R^2\beta ^{}r^2\alpha ^{}=0`$, and with $`R^2r^2=1`$ which follows from (23), we deduce the relations

$$R=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}},r=\sqrt{\frac{\beta ^{}}{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}}.$$
(31)
Here  denotes differentiation. The insertion of (29) and (4) in (28) yields finally the general solution of (25)

$$u(z,\overline{z})=R(z)\overline{r}(\overline{z})e^{i\overline{\alpha }(\overline{z})i\beta (z)}+r(z)\overline{R}(\overline{z})e^{i\alpha (z)+i\overline{\beta }(\overline{z})},$$
(32)
which is correctly parameterised by the two chiral and two anti-chiral functions $`\alpha (z),\beta (z)`$, $`\overline{\alpha }(\overline{z}),\overline{\beta }(\overline{z})`$.

As a conformal field theory (24) has a traceless energy-momentum tensor $`T_{z\overline{z}}=0`$, with the chiral component

$$T=T_{zz}=\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}\frac{_z\overline{u}_zu}{1+u\overline{u}}=\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}\left(\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}+\frac{(\alpha ^{\prime \prime }\beta ^{}\beta ^{\prime \prime }\alpha ^{})^2}{4\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}(\alpha ^{}\beta ^{})^2}\right),$$
(33)
and similarly for the anti-chiral part $`\overline{T}=T_{\overline{z}\overline{z}}`$. A free-field form of this energy-momentum tensor, $`T(z)=\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(z)+\varphi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(z)`$, can be obtained by passing to canonical free fields ($`k=1,2`$)

$$\psi _k(\sigma ,\tau )=\varphi _k(z)+\overline{\varphi }_k(\overline{z}),$$
(34)
where $`\varphi _k(z)`$ and $`\overline{\varphi }_k(\overline{z})`$ are chiral and anti-chiral components, respectively. The free-field transformation which solves this problem is given by

$`e^{i\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\gamma \varphi _2}{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{\gamma \varphi _1}e^{\gamma \varphi _1}+2ie^{\gamma \varphi _1}\mathrm{\Phi }}{\sqrt{\left(2e^{\gamma \varphi _1}e^{\gamma \varphi _1}\right)^2+4e^{2\gamma \varphi _1}\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}},`$ (35)
$`e^{i\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\gamma \varphi _2}{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{\gamma \varphi _1}+e^{\gamma \varphi _1}2ie^{\gamma \varphi _1}\mathrm{\Phi }}{\sqrt{\left(2e^{\gamma \varphi _1}+e^{\gamma \varphi _1}\right)^2+4e^{2\gamma \varphi _1}\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ is defined as the integral of

$$_z\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\gamma e^{2\gamma \varphi _1(z)}_z\varphi _2(z).$$
(36)
The general solution (32) then takes the form of a canonical transformation mapping SL(2,$``$)/U(1) fields onto free fields

$`u=e^{i\gamma (\varphi _2+\overline{\varphi }_2)}(e^{\gamma (\varphi _1+\overline{\varphi }_1)}(1+\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{\gamma (\varphi _1+\overline{\varphi }_1)}`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\mathrm{\Phi }e^{\gamma (\varphi _1\overline{\varphi }_1)}+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}e^{\gamma (\varphi _1\overline{\varphi }_1)})).`$
In the following we will impose periodicity in the spatial direction

$$u(\sigma +2\pi ,\tau )=u(\sigma ,\tau ),\psi _k(\sigma +2\pi ,\tau )=\psi _k(\sigma ,\tau ).$$
(38)
While the $`\psi _k`$ are strictly periodic their chiral and anti-chiral pieces have the following monodromy

$`\varphi _k(z+2\pi )=\varphi _k(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_k}{2}},\overline{\varphi }_k(\overline{z}2\pi )=\overline{\varphi }_k(\overline{z}){\displaystyle \frac{p_k}{2}},`$ (39)
where the $`p_k`$ are momentum zero modes. With these boundary conditions the integration of (36) gives

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\frac{\gamma }{2\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{1}{2}\gamma p_1)}_0^{2\pi }𝑑z^{}_z^{}\varphi _2(z^{})e^{\frac{1}{2}\gamma p_1ϵ_{2\pi }(zz^{})2\gamma \varphi _1(z^{})}.$$
(40)
Inserting (40) into (37) exactly reproduces the results obtained in .

Thus, we have demonstrated that the gauge invariant Lagrangian reduction indeed yields an integration method which allows one to solve the equations of motion of a non-nilpotently gauged WZNW theory in a straightforward manner.

## 5  Integration of the Theory by Hamiltonian Reduction

The Hamiltonian reduction of the WZNW theory is an alternative method for the construction and integration of coset models. The phase space of the system (13) is given by a set of functions $`R(\sigma ),g(\sigma )`$, where $`R(\sigma )`$ and $`g(\sigma )`$ take values in the sl(2,$``$) algebra and the SL(2,$``$) group, respectively. The reformulated WZNW action (13-15) can be written as $`S=\left(\theta H\text{d}\tau \right)`$ where the 1-form $`\theta `$ and the Hamiltonian $`H`$ are

$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma \left(Rg^1\text{d}g+{\displaystyle \frac{t_0g^1g^{}t_0\text{d}gg^1t_0g^{}g^1t_0g^1\text{d}g}{\gamma ^2(1+t_0gt_0g^1)}}\right)`$
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma \left(\gamma ^2RR+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}g^1g^{}g^1g^{}\right).`$ (41)
Here $`g^{}=_\sigma g`$, and d denotes the exterior derivative. Variation of $`R(\sigma )`$ yields the Hamiltonian equation

$$\gamma ^2R(\sigma )=g^1_\tau g.$$
(42)
Accordingly, we parameterise the functions $`R(\sigma ),g(\sigma )`$ by the SL(2,$``$) group valued fields $`g_L`$ and $`g_R`$

$`g(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`g_L(\sigma )g_R(\sigma ),`$
$`R(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`g_R^1(\sigma )g_L^1(\sigma )g_L^{}(\sigma )g_R(\sigma )+g_R^1(\sigma )g_R^{}(\sigma ).`$ (43)
Then the Hamiltonian in (5) splits into chiral and anti-chiral parts $`H=H_L+H_R`$, where

$$H_L=\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma g_L^1g_L^{}g_L^1g_L^{},$$
(44)
and similarly for $`H_R`$. The corresponding splitting holds (up to boundary terms) also for the symplectic form $`\omega =\text{d}\theta `$. Using (5) and (5) we obtain

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma \left((g_L^1\text{d}g_L)^{}(g_L^1\text{d}g_L)(\text{d}g_Rg_R^1)^{}(\text{d}g_Rg_R^1)\right)`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}\left((g_L^1\text{d}g_L)(\text{d}g_Rg_R^1){\displaystyle \frac{t_0g^1\text{d}gt_0\text{d}gg^1}{1+t_0gt_0g^1}}\right)|_0^{2\pi }.`$
The last term of this equation vanishes for periodic $`g`$ and in this case (45) reduces to the WZNW symplectic form of . Then the Hamiltonian equations split into $`\dot{g}_L=g_L^{},`$ and $`\dot{g}_R=g_R^{}`$, providing the general solution (26). That is why we used the same notation for the $`g_L`$, $`g_R`$ fields in the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian approaches.

The gauging procedure which led to the coset model (24) is equivalent to a Hamiltonian reduction with the same constraints (27). For the parameterisation (29), (4) the reduced chiral Hamiltonian and 2-form become

$$H_L|=\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}_0^{2\pi }d\sigma (f^2+\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}),\omega _L|=\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}_0^{2\pi }d\sigma (\text{d}f^{}\text{d}f+\text{d}\beta ^{}\text{d}\alpha ),$$
(46)
where $`\mathrm{tanh}^2f=\beta ^{}/\alpha ^{}`$, and we have neglected boundary terms in $`\omega _L`$. Note that the integrand of $`H_L`$ is just the energy-momentum tensor (33).

A canonical free-field form of (46) can be obtained by passing to the canonical free fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ using again the free-field transformation (35), and we get

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}(f^2+\alpha ^{}\beta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1^2+\varphi _2^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}(\text{d}f^{}\text{d}f+\text{d}\beta ^{}\text{d}\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`\text{d}\varphi _1^{}\text{d}\varphi _1+\text{d}\varphi _2^{}\text{d}\varphi _2`$ (47)
$`+\text{boundary terms}.`$
In fact the free-field transformation (35) was obtained as a solution of these equations.

This shows that the Hamiltonian reduction like the Lagrangian reduction provides a convenient approach for the integration of our non-nilpotently gauged SL(2,$``$)/U(1) WZNW theory. We envisage that these methods should be generalisable to other gauged WZNW theories.

## 6 The Parafermionic SL(2,$``$)/U(1) Coset Currents

It is well known that the chiral WZNW currents

$$\gamma ^2J_k(z)=t_k_zg(z,\overline{z})g^1(z,\overline{z})=t_k_zg_L(z)g_L^1(z)$$
(48)
satisfy the linear Kac-Moody algebra

$$\{J_k(z),J_l(z^{})\}=ϵ_{kl}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}J_m(z)\delta (zz^{})+\frac{1}{2\gamma ^2}\eta _{kl}\delta ^{}(zz^{}).$$
(49)
Here we would like to understand how these properties are impacted by the reduction. The chiral currents

$$\gamma ^2V_\pm (z)=(t_1\pm it_2)_zg_L(z)g_L^1(z)$$
(50)
are of particular interest. Taking into account the parameterisations (29,4), the constraints (31) and the free-field transformations (35), a straightforward calculation yields

$$V_\pm (z)=\frac{1}{\gamma }\left(_z\varphi _1(z)\pm i_z\varphi _2(z)\right)e^{\pm 2i\gamma \varphi _2(z)}.$$
(51)
Interestingly, these fields are the free-field transformed conserved parafermions of , which now obtain a coset current interpretation through the reduction.

The Sugawara energy-momentum tensor of the WZNW theory

$$T(z)=\gamma ^2J^k(z)J_k(z)$$
(52)
retains this simple form in terms of the parafermionic coset currents  even after reduction

$$T(z)=\gamma ^2V_+(z)V_{}(z).$$
(53)
The free-field parameterisation of the parafermions (51) clearly leads to the free-field energy-momentum tensor (5). But in contrast to the WZNW Kac-Moody currents (48), the coset currents satisfy a non-linear and non-local Poisson bracket algebra, which can be calculated either through the Dirac bracket method or directly from the free field representations. The results for the Poisson brackets depend on the chosen boundary conditions. Here we work with the periodic ones prescribed in section 3. For the chiral and anti-chiral components $`\varphi _k(z)`$, $`\overline{\varphi }_k(\overline{z})`$ of the canonical free fields $`\psi _k(\sigma ,\tau )`$ (34) we choose the usual mode expansion

$`\varphi _k(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}p_kz+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{4\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_n^{(k)}}{n}}\text{e}^{inz},`$
$`\overline{\varphi }_k(\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}p_k\overline{z}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{4\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{a}_n^{(k)}}{n}}\text{e}^{in\overline{z}},`$ (54)
with the canonical mode algebra

$`\{q_k,p_l\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{k,l},i\{a_n^{(k)},a_n^{(l)}\}=m\delta _{k,l}\delta _{m+n,0},`$
$`\{q_k,a_m^{(l)}\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\{p_k,a_m^{(l)}\}=0.`$ (55)
Instead of the $`V_\pm (z)`$’s we will consider the periodic parafermions

$$W_\pm (z)=\frac{1}{\gamma }\left(_z\varphi _1(z)\pm i_z\varphi _2(z)\right)e^{\pm 2i\gamma \phi _2(z)},$$
(56)
where $`\phi _2`$ is $`\varphi _2`$ with the momentum zero mode $`p_2`$ removed and the whole $`q_2`$ zero mode of the free field (34) included, i.e. $`\phi _2(z)=\frac{1}{2}q_2+\varphi _2(z)|_{p_2=0}`$. These periodic coset currents have the algebra

$`\{W_\pm (z),W_\pm (z^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^2W_\pm (z)W_\pm (z^{})h(zz^{}),`$
$`\{W_\pm (z),W_{}(z^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^2W_\pm (z)W_{}(z^{})h(zz^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}\left(_z+{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma p_2}{2\pi }}\right)\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{}),`$
$`\{p_2,W_\pm (z^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\gamma W_\pm (z^{}),`$ (57)
where

$$h(z)=\left(ϵ_{2\pi }(z)\frac{z}{\pi }\right)$$
(58)
is the periodic sawtooth function and $`ϵ_{2\pi }(z)`$ the stairstep function<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1$`ϵ_{2\pi }(\sigma )=2n+1`$ for $`2n\pi <\sigma <(2n+2)\pi `$ which coincides with $`\text{sign}(\sigma )`$ for $`2\pi <\sigma <2\pi `$.. Note that the momentum zero mode $`p_2`$ enters into the periodic parafermion algebra.

The energy-momentum tensor (53), now expressed in terms of the $`W_\pm `$’s, provides the Virasoro algebra

$$\{T(z),T(z^{})\}=_z^{}T(z^{})\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})+2T(z^{})_z\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{}),$$
(59)
indicating for it conformal weight $`\mathrm{𝑡𝑤𝑜}`$, and the parafermions $`W_\pm (z)`$

$`\{T(z),W_\pm (z^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`_z^{}W_\pm (z^{})\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})+W_\pm (z^{})_z\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma p_2}{2\pi }}W_\pm (z^{})\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$
have conformal weight $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑛𝑒}`$. Finally, we add a useful formula which generates the energy-momentum tensor $`T(z)`$ through a Poisson bracket

$`\{D_zW_+(z),W_{}(z^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^2D_zW_+(z)W_{}(z^{})h(zz^{})`$
$`2T(z)\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}D_z^2\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{}),`$
where

$$D_z=_z+\frac{i\gamma p_2}{2\pi }.$$
(62)
Equation (6) becomes important quantum mechanically because the operator product $`W_+(z)W_{}(z)`$ is ill defined and cannot be used to define a $`T(z)`$ operator.

## 7  Canonical Quantisation of the Parafermions

In this section we shall determine explicitly the quantum analogue of the parafermion algebra (6) instead of analysing operator product expansions. The quantisation of the theory will be defined by replacing Poisson brackets of the canonical free fields by commutators $`i\mathrm{}\{,\}[,]`$, and non-linear expressions in the free fields will be normal ordered. But calculations with normal ordered operators usually yield anomalous contributions. Such anomalies can be avoided by quantum mechanically deforming the composite operators of the theory. Therefore, let us define the normal ordered parafermion operators corresponding to (56) as

$$W_\pm (z)=\frac{1}{\gamma }:\left(\eta _z\varphi _1(z)\pm i_z\varphi _2(z)\right)e^{\pm 2i\gamma \phi _2(z)}:,$$
(63)
where $`\eta `$ is a deformation parameter with the classical limit $`\eta =1`$.

First we look for the quantum analogue of the Poisson brackets (6), starting with the simplest example $`\{W_+(z),W_+(z^{})\}=\gamma ^2W_+(z)W_+(z^{})h(zz^{})`$. In the appendix we have explicitly derived the relation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_+(z)W_+(z^{})}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W_+(z^{})W_+(z)}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^{}(zz^{})}}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2\gamma ^2}}\left(\eta ^21+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2\mathrm{}}{\pi }}\right):e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z)}e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z^{})}:_z\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{}),`$
where

$$h^\pm (z)=\frac{1}{2}h(z)\frac{i}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\left(4\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{z}{2}\right)$$
(65)
are the positive and negative frequency parts of $`h(z)`$, respectively. The right hand side of (7) is proportional to the operator $`:e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z)}e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z^{})}:`$ which evidently cannot be rewritten bilocally in terms of the parafermions, as is necessary to have a closed operator algebra. However we can remove the offending term altogether by imposing the restriction

$$\eta ^21+\frac{\gamma ^2\mathrm{}}{\pi }=0,\text{or}\eta =\pm \sqrt{1\frac{\mathrm{}\gamma ^2}{\pi }}.$$
(66)
The classical limit $`\eta =1`$ corresponds to the positive square root. With this choice we have

$$\frac{W_+(z)W_+(z^{})}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}}\frac{W_+(z^{})W_+(z)}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^{}(zz^{})}}=0.$$
(67)
The quantum relations corresponding to the other Poisson brackets of (6) are (see the appendix)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{}(z)W_{}(z^{})}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}}}{\displaystyle \frac{W_{}(z^{})W_{}(z)}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^{}(zz^{})}}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (68)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_+(z)W_{}(z^{})}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}}}{\displaystyle \frac{W_{}(z^{})W_+(z)}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^{}(zz^{})}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{\gamma ^2}}\left(_z+{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma p_2}{2\pi }}\right)\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{}),`$ (69)
$`[p_2,W_\pm (z)]`$ $`=`$ $`\pm 2\mathrm{}\gamma W_\pm (z).`$ (70)
As in the derivation of (67) it is necessary to impose (66) to eliminate anomalous contributions.

To check that these operator relations correspond to the classical Poisson brackets we expand the exact formulae in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$, e.g. equation (67) gives

$$[W_+(z),W_+(z^{})]i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2W_+(z)W_+(z^{})h(zz^{})+O(\mathrm{}^2)=0.$$
(71)
Here we have used the splitting relation $`h(z)=h^+(z)+h^{}(z)`$, which follows immediately from (65).

## 8 The Energy-Momentum Tensor Operator

As was mentioned before, to generate the quantum energy-momentum tensor we should consider the quantum analogue of (6). From the calculations given at the end of the appendix it follows that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{D_zW_+(z)W_{}(z^{})}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{}(z^{})D_zW_+(z)}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^{}(zz^{})}}}={\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{\gamma ^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma ^2}{2\pi }}\right)D_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$
$`2i\mathrm{}\eta ^2(:(_z\varphi _1)^2(z^{}):+:(_z\varphi _2)^2(z^{}):`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma }{2\pi \eta }}_z^2\varphi _1(z^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma ^2}{(4\pi \eta )^2}})\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{}).`$
The second entry on the right hand side just corresponds to the term $`2T(z^{})\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$ of the classical Poisson bracket (6) which suggests that

$$T(z)=:(_z\varphi _1)^2(z):+:(_z\varphi _2)^2(z):+\frac{\mathrm{}\gamma }{2\pi \eta }_z^2\varphi _1(z)+\frac{\mathrm{}\gamma ^2}{(4\pi \eta )^2}$$
(73)
is the free-field energy-momentum tensor of our model with an additional improvement term. In the $`\sigma `$-model interpretation this improvement term could correspond to a non-perturbative dilaton .

Note that the energy-momentum tensor obeys the Virasoro algebra

$`[T(z),T(z^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}_z^{}T(z^{})\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})+2i\mathrm{}T(z^{})_z\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}c}{24\pi }}(_z^3+2_z)\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{}),`$
with central charge

$$c=\mathrm{}\left(2+\frac{3\gamma ^2}{\pi \eta ^2}\right),$$
(75)
in agreement with the results of .

Classically the parafermions are primary fields of weight one. Quantum mechanically the commutator

$`[T(z),W_+(z^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma ^2}{2\pi }}\right)W_+(z^{})_z\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$
$`i\mathrm{}_z^{}W_+(z^{})\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma }{2\pi }}:p_2W_+(z^{}):\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$
shows that the quantum parafermions have the shifted conformal weight $`1+\mathrm{}\gamma ^2/(2\pi )`$.

## 9 Auxiliary Parafermions

In order to quantise the canonical transformation (37) we need the operators corresponding to the simple exponentials in (37) as well as the non-local fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\overline{z})`$. However, it turns out that

$$A(z)=\frac{1}{2}e^{2\gamma \varphi _1(z)}i\mathrm{\Phi }(z),\overline{A}(\overline{z})=\frac{1}{2}e^{2\gamma \varphi _1(\overline{z})}i\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{z})$$
(77)
are more amenable to a quantum treatment. Actually $`A(z)`$ is one of the chiral fields which parametrises the general solution given in . The derivative of $`A(z)`$ has a similar structure to that of the parafermions, and so we will refer to $`A^{}(z)`$ as an auxiliary parafermion

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_{}(z)=\gamma \left(_z\varphi _1(z)i_z\varphi _2(z)\right)e^{2\gamma \varphi _1(z)}.$$
(78)
It satisfies a closed chiral algebra if we replace $`\varphi _1(z)`$ by $`\frac{1}{2}q_1+\varphi _1(z)`$. The somewhat artificial doubling of the $`q_1`$ zero-mode is an artifact of our strict separation of chiral and anti-chiral objects, whereas each term in the general solution is a product of chiral and anti-chiral pieces. Following the recipe of section 7 the quantum auxiliary parafermion turns out to be

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_{}(z)=\gamma :\left(\eta _z\varphi _1(z)i_z\varphi _2(z)\right)e^{2\gamma \eta ^1(\frac{1}{2}q_1+\varphi _1(z))}:.$$
(79)
It commutes with $`V_{}(z^{})`$, but unlike $`V_{}(z)`$ retains its classical conformal weight one. Thus, $`A(z)`$ has conformal weight zero, suggesting that it plays the role of a screening charge.

Summarising, only one fixed deformation parameter is sufficient for consistent quantisation. Of course, our quantisation of the SL(2,$``$)/U(1) theory is still incomplete. In particular, it remains to quantise the black hole metric. It could answer the question whether a non-perturbative dilaton renders this metric dynamical.

Acknowledgments

G.W. thanks J. Schnittger for discussions on the quantum aspects of the problem. We would like to thank C. J. Biebl for reading the manuscript. G.J. is grateful to DESY Zeuthen for hospitality. His research was supported by grants from the DFG, GSRT and RFBR (99-01-00151).

## Appendix A Normal Ordered Operator Identities

In this appendix we elaborate on the normal ordered operator identities quoted in the text. To effect the normal ordering we decompose the chiral free fields $`\varphi _i(z)`$ defined in (6) as follows

$$\varphi _i(z)=\frac{1}{2}q_i+\frac{1}{4\pi }p_iz+\varphi _i^+(z)+\varphi _i^{}(z),$$
(80)
where

$$\varphi _i^\pm (z)=\pm \frac{i}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\underset{n>0}{}\frac{a_{\pm n}^{(i)}}{n}e^{inz}.$$
(81)
$`\varphi _i^{}(z)`$ and $`\varphi _i^+(z)`$ will be interpreted as creation and annihilation operators, respectively. The equivalent anti-chiral constructions will not be considered here.

Using the commutator algebra

$$[q_i,p_j]=i\mathrm{}\delta _{i,j},[a_m^{(i)},a_n^{(j)}]=m\mathrm{}\delta _{i,j}\delta _{m+n,0},i,j=1,2$$
(82)
it follows that

$$[\varphi _i^\pm (z),\varphi _j^\pm (z^{})]=0,[\varphi _i^\pm (z),\varphi _j^{}(z^{})]=\frac{i\mathrm{}}{4}\delta _{ij}h^\pm (zz^{}),$$
(83)
where

$$h^\pm (z)=ϵ^\pm (z)\frac{z}{2\pi }.$$
(84)
Here the $`ϵ^\pm (z)`$ denote the positive and negative frequency parts of the stairstep function $`ϵ_{2\pi }(z)`$, and have the Fourier series representation

$$ϵ^+(z)=\frac{z}{2\pi }+\frac{i}{\pi }\underset{n>0}{}\frac{e^{in(zi\epsilon )}}{n},ϵ^{}(z)=\frac{z}{2\pi }+\frac{i}{\pi }\underset{n<0}{}\frac{e^{in(z+i\epsilon )}}{n}.$$
(85)
Note that we have included a convergence factor, $`\epsilon >0`$. The $`ϵ^\pm (z)`$ functions have the properties $`ϵ^+{}_{}{}^{}(z)=ϵ^{}(z),ϵ^+(z)=ϵ^{}(z)`$, and in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$ they exhibit free-field short distance singularities

$$ϵ^\pm (z)=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{2\pi }(z)\frac{i}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\left(4\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{z}{2}\right).$$
(86)
We also introduce ‘split’ delta functions $`\delta ^+(z)=1/2_zϵ^+(z)`$

$$\delta ^+(z)=\frac{1}{4\pi }+\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{n>0}{}e^{in(zi\epsilon )}=\frac{1}{4\pi }+\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{1}{1e^{i(zi\epsilon )}},$$
(87)
and similarly $`\delta ^{}(z)=1/2_zϵ^{}(z)`$, which have the properties $`\delta ^+{}_{}{}^{}(z)=\delta ^{}(z)`$, $`\delta ^+(z)=\delta ^{}(z)`$, and as $`\epsilon 0`$ the $`\delta ^\pm (z)`$ sum up to the periodic delta function $`\delta _{2\pi }(z)`$.

Now we are ready to establish the normal ordered operator identities quoted in the text. As usual normal ordering moves creation and annihilation operators respectively to the left and right, and the Hermitian normal ordering of zero modes $`:e^{2q}f(p):=e^qf(p)e^q`$ will be understood. With the definitions

$$e_\pm (z):=e^{i\gamma q_2}e^{2i\gamma \varphi _2^\pm (z)},\nu (z):=\frac{1}{\gamma }\left(\eta _z\varphi _1(z)+i_z\varphi _2(z)\right),$$
(88)
our periodic parafermion operator $`W_+(z)`$ (63) can be written

$$W_+(z)=e_{}(z)\nu (z)e_+(z).$$
(89)
Let us start with a quantum analogue of the Poisson bracket $`\{W_+(z),W_+(z^{})\}`$. Naively one would consider the commutator, $`[W_+(z),W_+(z^{})]`$, suggesting that we should compute the operator product $`W_+(z)W_+(z^{})`$. Using the identity $`e^Ae^B=e^Be^Ae^{[A,B]}`$, which holds if $`[A,B]`$ commutes with $`A`$ and $`B`$, we have $`e_+(z)e_{}(z^{})=e_{}(z^{})e_+(z)e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}`$, so that

$$e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}W_+(z)W_+(z^{})=e_{}(z)\nu (z)e_{}(z^{})e_+(z)\nu (z^{})e_+(z^{}).$$
(90)
But this operator is still not correctly normal ordered. We decompose $`\nu (z)`$ as in (80)

$`\nu (z)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^+(z)+\nu ^{}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta p_1+ip_2}{4\pi \gamma }},`$
$`\nu ^\pm (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}\left(\eta _z\varphi _1^\pm (z)+i_z\varphi _2^\pm (z)\right).`$ (91)
With a little algebra the right hand side of (90) can be rewritten as follows

$`e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}W_+(z)W_+(z^{})`$ $`=`$ $`:W_+(z)W_+(z^{}):`$
$`+e_{}(z)e_{}(z^{})[\nu ^+(z),\nu ^{}(z^{})]e_+(z)e_+(z^{})`$
$`+e_{}(z)[\nu (z),e_{}(z^{})]\nu (z^{})e_+(z)e_+(z^{})`$
$`+e_{}(z)e_{}(z^{})\nu (z)[e_+(z),\nu (z^{})]e_+(z^{})`$
$`+e_{}(z)[\nu (z),e_{}(z^{})][e_+(z),\nu (z^{})]e_+(z^{}).`$
Using the results

$`[\nu (z),e_{}(z^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}e_{}(z^{})\delta ^\pm (zz^{}),`$
$`[\nu ^+(z),\nu ^{}(z^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2\gamma ^2}}(\eta ^21)_z\delta ^+(zz^{}),`$ (93)
we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_+(z)W_+(z^{})}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}}}`$ $`=`$ $`:W_+(z)W_+(z^{}):`$
$`+i\mathrm{}:\left(e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z)}W_+(z^{})W_+(z)e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z^{})}\right):\delta ^+(zz^{})`$
$`+:e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z)}e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z^{})}:({\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2\gamma ^2}}(\eta ^21)_z\delta ^+(zz^{})`$
$`+\mathrm{}^2\left(\delta ^+(zz^{})\right)^2).`$
At this point the following identity is useful

$$\left[\delta ^+(z)\right]^2=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}+\frac{i}{2\pi }_z\delta ^+(z),$$
(95)
which is valid even for finite $`\epsilon `$. Using this formula the right hand side of (90) can be written linearly in $`\delta ^+(zz^{})`$ and its derivative. Recall that this distribution becomes $`\delta ^{}(zz^{})`$ on exchanging $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$. Thus, if we take (A) and subtract the equation obtained by exchanging $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_+(z)W_+(z^{})}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W_+(z^{})W_+(z)}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^{}(zz^{})}}}=`$
$`i\mathrm{}:\left(e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z)}W_+(z^{})W_+(z)e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z^{})}\right):\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2\gamma ^2}}\left(\eta ^21+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma ^2}{\pi }}\right):e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z)}e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z^{})}:_z\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{}).`$
The first term on the right hand side is zero since the prefactor of $`\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$ tends to zero as $`zz^{}`$, and so (7) follows immediately.

Since all the other results quoted in the text can be derived by the same technique, we will be rather sketchy from now on. Evaluating the operator products $`W_+(z)W_{}(z^{})`$ and $`W_{}(z^{})W_+(z)`$ one is led to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_+(z)W_{}(z^{})}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{}(z^{})W_+(z)}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^{}(zz^{})}}}=`$
$`i\mathrm{}:\left(\nu (z)\nu ^{}(z^{})\right)e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z)}e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z^{})}:\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2\gamma ^2}}\left(\eta ^2+1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma ^2}{\pi }}\right):e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z)}e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z^{})}:_z\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{}).`$
Using the identity $`f(z)\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})=f(z^{})\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$ (valid for periodic $`f(z)`$) and derivatives thereof

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_+(z)W_{}(z^{})}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}}}{\displaystyle \frac{W_{}(z^{})W_+(z)}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^{}(zz^{})}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}p_2}{2\pi \gamma }}\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\gamma }}\left(\eta ^21+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma ^2}{\pi }}\right)_z\phi _2(z^{})\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2\gamma ^2}}\left(\eta ^2+1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma ^2}{\pi }}\right)_z\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{}).`$
(69) follows on imposing (66).

We conclude by laying the ground for the derivation of the energy-momentum operator. To prove (8) one first establishes that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{D_zW_+(z)W_{}(z^{})}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}}}{\displaystyle \frac{W_{}(z^{})D_zW_+(z)}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^{}(zz^{})}}}`$ $`=`$ (99)
$`2i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2A(z,z^{})`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{\gamma ^2}}D_z^2\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{}),`$
where

$$A(z,z^{})=\frac{W_+(z)W_{}(z^{})}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^+(zz^{})}}\delta ^+(zz^{})+\frac{W_{}(z^{})W_+(z)}{e^{i\mathrm{}\gamma ^2h^{}(zz^{})}}\delta ^{}(zz^{}).$$
(100)
In computing $`A(z,z^{})`$ we encounter the same operator products as in the calculation of (A). The result can be written as

$`A(z,z^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(:W_+(z)W_{}(z^{}):+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{16\pi ^2}})\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi }}:e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z)}e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z^{})}\left(\nu (z)\nu ^{}(z^{})\right):_z\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{8\pi \gamma ^2}}\left(\eta ^2+1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma ^2}{\pi }}\right):e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z)}e^{2i\gamma \phi _2(z^{})}:_z^2\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{}).`$
Again we used (95) and its derivative $`\delta ^+(z)_z\delta ^+(z)=i_z^2\delta ^+(z)/(4\pi )`$. With the help of (66) as well as standard properties of the delta function (A) reduces to

$`A(z,z^{})=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{\gamma ^2}}(:(_z\varphi _1)^2(z^{}):+:(_z\varphi _2)^2(z^{}):)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\eta }{2\pi \gamma }}_z^2\varphi _1(z^{})`$ (102)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi \gamma ^2}}(_z+{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma p_2}{2\pi }})^2]\delta _{2\pi }(zz^{}).`$
Inserting this into (99) gives (8).


format: text

text:
# Testing the Symmetrization Postulate on Molecules with Three Identical Nuclei

## I Introduction

In the latest years, the possibility of small violations of the symmetrization postulate (SP) and the spin-statistics connection has been addressed from both the experimental and the theoretical point of view. The SP is at the basis of the quantum-mechanical description of systems composed by identical particles, asserting that only wave functions completely symmetric or antisymmetric in the permutation of the particles labels can describe physical states. In principle there would be no arguments against the existence of states with different symmetries, although they lack some of the properties which are peculiar of the completely symmetric and antisymmetric states. The only strict requirement that can be derived in a formal way in Quantum Mechanics is the so called superselection rule, which forbids transitions between different symmetry classes.

In addition, the experimental observation seems to indicate so far a well defined connection between the spin of the particles and the symmetry properties: half-integer spin particles can be described only by antisymmetric wave functions, while integer-spin particles by symmetric wave functions only. According to their behavior in a statistical ensemble, the two kinds of particles are indicated respectively as fermions and bosons.

Although both the SP and the spin-statistics connection seem to hold in the physical world, there is great interest in investigating possible very small violations, not detected so far. In case of two-particles systems, only the symmetrical and antisymmetrical states can be defined, and therefore the SP is redundant. As a matter of fact, the experimental tests of symmetry reported so far have been limited to the investigation of states containing only two identical particles, looking for violations of the usual connection between spin and statistics. In particular the latest high-sensitivity experiments of this kind have been performed on both fermionic systems, namely electrons, and bosonic systems, such as photons and oxygen nuclei. In the case of electrons, the existence of totally symmetric states in the spectrum of atomic helium has been searched , and the negative result of such investigation has led to the establishment of a bound to the degree of violation of the spin-statistics, i.e. to the presence of exchange-symmetric electrons. A different experiments was performed on a metallic Cu sample , looking for the presence of any of the electrons in the conduction band with no symmetry requirements with respect to the electrons in the already filled shells. This can be considered a one-particle test of the identity of the electrons, which is even a more general property of the particles, but not a test of their symmetry. Results which are conceptually identical to the first case have been obtained for bosonic particles, by searching for an exchange-antisymmetric two-photons transition in atomic barium , and for rotational states in molecular oxygen  and carbon dioxide  which are antisymmetrical in the exchange of O nuclei. The principle of all these experiments was to look for particular atomic or molecular transitions, whose probability would be zero according to the usual spin-statistics, by using high sensitivity spectroscopic detection techniques. The extrapolated bounds on the relative weight of the wrong statistics are almost at the level of 10-9 . Reviews of different experiments which have been proposed, and interpretations of the results of various measurements as tests of the statistics, can be found in .

Theoretical studies of possible violations of the usual symmetry properties have focused on systems composed by a non-fixed number of particles, which can be treated within the Quantum-Field Theory formalism. In such context the spin-statistics connection is no more a postulate dictated by the experimental observation, but it can be rigorously proved through the spin-statistic theorem, the main assumption being the validity of the SP. Several theories allowing for small violations of such postulate have been proposed , and one of the most successful is based on the $`q`$-mutator algebra , in which deformed bilinear commutation relations are used in place of the ordinary ones. In this way it is possible to define exotic symmetries as a smooth interpolation between the symmetric and antisymmetric ones, or statistics interpolating between the Bose and Fermi cases. By assuming the validity of this algebra it has also been possible to translate the bound on the spin-statistics for oxygen nuclei , into a bound on the statistics of the nucleons composing the nuclei  or, more generally, to establish a relationship between constraints on different kinds of particles.

To summarize, so far experiments have been devoted to search possible violations of the spin-statistics in simple systems, while theories allowing for violations of the more fundamental SP were focused on much more complex systems, which cannot be easily investigated experimentally. We note that no rigorous theoretical study of a simple quantum-mechanical system allowing for violations of the SP has been reported so far, although possible experiments on multi-particle molecular systems have been indicated .

In this paper we propose an experiment to be performed on molecular systems containing three identical nuclei, to search for possible violations of the SP in a system described within the quantum-mechanical theory. For this purpose, in Section II we briefly recall the concept of identity of particles, and the permutation properties of identical particles; we also recall that at least three particles are needed to define symmetries different from the usual ones. Then, in Section III, we discuss the properties of particular rotational states of symmetrical plane molecules with three spin-0 nuclei, which are forbidden by the SP, and with three spin-1/2 nuclei, which are forbidden by both the spin-statistics connection and the SP. We show that, nevertheless, such states have the proper symmetry to be defined consistently in a more general quantum-mechanical theory which does not include the SP. In Section IV we briefly discuss how to test the possible small symmetry violations. Finally, in Section V, we propose a high-sensitivity spectroscopic investigation to be performed on selected transitions of SO3 molecule, and of BH3 and NH3 molecules, which best represent the prototypal molecule respectively for the spin-0 and spin-1/2 cases treated above. In the latter case, such states could be investigated in search of small violation of the statistics or of the symmetry of protons.

## II The indistinguishability of identical particles and the symmetrization postulate

### A General discussion

The indistinguishability of identical particles is one of the principles lying at the basis of Quantum Mechanics. It states that given a system of particles belonging to the same species (i.e. which have the same physical properties, like mass, charge, spin, etc.), a permutation of such particles cannot lead to any observable effect . To discuss the implications of such principle, here we briefly recall some properties of a system containing $`N`$ identical particles (for a general discussion see for example Ref. ).

To each observable of the system is associated an hermitian operator $`\widehat{A}`$, which can be written as

$$\widehat{A}=A(\{\widehat{O}_1\},\mathrm{}\{\widehat{O}_N\})\widehat{A}(1,\mathrm{},N)$$
(1)
where $`\{\widehat{O}_j\}`$ is a set of single-particle observables. In the same way, the vector

$$|1,2,\mathrm{},N$$
(2)
represents a state where the first particle is characterized by a set of quantum numbers $`\{1\}`$, the second by $`\{2\}`$, and so on. Moreover we can define the permutation operators as

$$\widehat{P}_{j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_N}f(1,2,\mathrm{},N)=f(j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_N)$$
(3)
and these operators form the symmetrization group $`S_n`$. Therefore, since a permutation of identical particles cannot be observed in any experiment, all quantum observables must be permutation-invariant

$$[\widehat{P},\widehat{A}]=0$$
(4)
and since the evolution operator $`\widehat{U}(t)`$ is related to the Hamiltonian of the system $`\widehat{H}`$, which is a physical observable, the above condition is fulfilled at any instant of time

$$[\widehat{P},\widehat{H}]=0[\widehat{P},\widehat{U}(t)]=0.$$
(5)
An important consequence of these relations is that the Hilbert space $``$ can be written as a direct sum of hortogonal subspaces, each one invariant under the permutation group, the hortogonality being preserved along the evolution of the system, and following a physical measurement. This result can be stated as a super-selection rule which forbids transitions between states transforming under inequivalent representations of the permutation group.

To investigate in detail the symmetry properties of a generic state of the system under permutation, it is convenient to introduce the operator of a cyclic permutation

$$\widehat{P}_{(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_K)}f(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_K)=f(k_2,\mathrm{},k_K,k_1)$$
(6)
and the exchange operators of two particle, $`\widehat{P}_{(j,k)}`$ (they are a particular case of the former), which are hermitian and unitary, with eigenvalues $`ϵ_{j,k}=\pm 1`$.

Each generic permutation can be written either as the product of exchange between two particles, or of cyclic permutation of distinct elements, in the form

$$\widehat{P}_{cyclic}\widehat{P}_{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_p)(k_{p+1},\mathrm{},k_{p+q})(k_{p+q+1},\mathrm{},k_{p+q+r})\mathrm{}}$$
(7)
with the only condition that the sum of each cycle length must be equal to $`N`$

$$p+q+r+\mathrm{}=N$$
(8)
(here we adopt the convention $`pqr\mathrm{}`$). The properties of transformation of such operators under permutation do not change the length of the cycles, and therefore all the cyclic permutation with the same values of $`p,q,r,\mathrm{}`$ are said to form a class. Obviously there are as many classes as many are the possible decomposition of $`N`$ as sum of integer numbers.

From the properties of the exchange operators $`\widehat{P}_{(j,k)}`$ it follows that the permutation operators admit only two common eigenstates, with the eigenvalues $`ϵ_{j,k}`$ all equal to $`1`$ or $`1`$. In fact, the eigenvalue equation for the exchange operators $`\widehat{P}_{(j,k)}`$ is ($`ϵ_{j,k}=\pm 1`$)

$$\widehat{P}_{(j,k)}f(1,2,\mathrm{},N)=ϵ_{j,k}f(1,2,\mathrm{},N)$$
(9)
then, from the relation

$$\widehat{P}_{(j,k)}=\widehat{P}_{(2,k)}\widehat{P}_{(1,j)}\widehat{P}_{(1,2)}\widehat{P}_{(2,k)}\widehat{P}_{(1,j)}$$
(10)
it follows

$$ϵ_{j,k}=ϵ_{1,2}ϵ_{2,k}^2ϵ_{1,j}^2=ϵ_{1,2}.$$
(11)
These eigenvalues $`ϵ_{j,k}=\pm 1`$ correspond respectively to vectors of state completely symmetric or antisymmetric under the exchange of two particles, and we indicate the subspaces spanned by these vectors by $`_+`$ and $`_{}`$ respectively. For $`N=2`$ the Hilbert space can be decomposed exactly as $`=_+_{}`$, i.e. only symmetric or antisymmetric states are possible. For $`N>2`$ this is no more true, and we have

$$=_+_{}_1^{}_2^{}\mathrm{},$$
(12)
where $`_j^{}`$ are permutation-invariant subspaces. Contrarily to $`_+`$ and $`_{}`$, which have a definite symmetry and are one-dimensional representation of the permutation group (for a given set of quantum numbers $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}`$ there exist only one possible combination which gives symmetric or antisymmetric states), the subspaces $`_j^{}`$ do not posses a definite symmetry and have dimension greater that one. This is the reason why one usually assumes the symmetrization postulate (SP), requiring physical states to be either symmetric or antisymmetric. Nevertheless, there is no stringent reason to exclude a priori the possibility of physical states not obeying SP, since their presence do not violate any basic principle of Quantum Mechanics. The only difference that one has to take into account is the lack of a correspondence between physical states and vectors (modulo a phase factor), since the subspaces $`_j^{}`$ have dimension greater that one and do not admit a complete set of mutually commutating physical observables. In fact, let us imagine to have a common eigenvector $`|u`$ of a complete set of operators $`\{O_i`$} in $`_j^{}`$. Since $`|u`$ can not be eigenvector of all the permutation operator, there must exist some permutation such that $`\widehat{P}_{j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_N}|u`$ is linearly independent of $`|u`$, and therefore $`_j^{}`$ must have dimension greater that one, and the set of operators $`\{O_i\}`$ can not be complete (i.e. the state of the system is not completely determined by the set of eigenvalues $`\{o_i\}`$).

In the following we work out in more detail the permutation properties for the special case n=3 .

### B A system of 3 identical particles

The symmetrization group $`S_3`$ is a non-abelian group of order 6, formed by the $`3!`$ cyclic permutations of the labels $`(1,2,3)`$, which belong to three distinct classes

$$P_{(1)(2)(3)}=I$$
(13)
$$P_{(2,3)};P_{(1,3)};P_{(1,2)}$$
(14)
$$P_{(1,2,3)}=P_{231};P_{(3,2,1)}=P_{312}.$$
(15)
This group is isomorphic to the dihedral group $`D_3`$, generated by the symmetry transformation shown in Fig. 1. In fact, reflection about each axis ($`a,b,c`$) is equivalent to a two label permutation $`P_{(i,j)}`$, while rotations around the center by angles $`2\pi /3`$ and $`2\pi /3`$, lead to cyclic permutation of all the three labels. The visualization of the group $`S_3`$ by its association to the geometrical symmetries of $`D_3`$ is very helpful since it is indeed this realization on a physical system (a molecule in our case) that we are looking for.

The permutation operators can be written explicitly in a matrix form, on the basis formed by the $`3!`$ permutations of the vector $`|1,2,3`$. For example, by defining

$`|1,2,3|1`$ (16)
$`|1,3,2|2`$ (17)
$`|2,1,3|3`$ (18)
$`|2,3,1|4`$ (19)
$`|3,1,2|5`$ (20)
$`|3,2,1|6`$ (21)
we obtain

$$P_{(1,2,3)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(22)
and

$`P_{(3,2,1)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (23)
(24)
This matrix representation of the group $`S_3`$ can be reduced, since it must contain a number of irreducible representation equal to the number $`n_c`$ of distinct classes ($`n_c=3`$). Moreover, since this is the so called regular representation, each irreducible representation must appear a number of times equal to its dimensionality. From general results  we know that these representations are the symmetric and antisymmetric ones (which are 1-dimensional), and that there must be also a 2-dimensional representation occurring two times. A formal way to systematically reduce the regular representation of $`S_n`$ into its irreducible components would be by using the Young diagrams . Here we work out the S3 case with more heuristic arguments, as follows.

First of all, we can define the operators $`S`$ and $`A`$, which are respectively the projectors on the subspaces $`_+`$ and $`_{}`$

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\left[I+P_{213}+P_{312}+P_{132}+P_{312}+P_{231}\right]/6`$ (25)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\left[IP_{213}P_{312}P_{132}+P_{312}+P_{231}\right]/6.`$ (26)
Each of them has therefore only one eigenvector associated to a non-zero eigenvalue, which are respectively

$`|s`$ $``$ $`\left[|1+|2+|3+|4+|5+|6\right]/\sqrt{6}`$ (27)
$`|a`$ $``$ $`\left[|1+|2+|3|4|5+|6\right]/\sqrt{6}.`$ (28)
and are the standard symmetric and antisymmetric states.

Then, in order to generate the two 2-dimensional irreducible representations of $`^{}`$, we can try to diagonalize the permutation operators $`P_{(1,2,3)}`$ and $`P_{(3,2,1)}`$. The eigenvectors of the former, and their corresponding eigenvalues $`\lambda `$, are

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}|v_1\lambda _{}|2+\lambda _+|3+|6\hfill & \\ & \\ |v_2\lambda _+|1+\lambda _{}|4+|5\hfill & \end{array};\lambda _{}=\mathrm{e}^{i{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}}`$ (29)
(30)
$`\{\begin{array}{cc}|v_3\lambda _+|2+\lambda _{}|3+|6\hfill & \\ & \\ |v_4\lambda _{}|1+\lambda _+|4+|5\hfill & \end{array};\lambda _+=\mathrm{e}^{+i{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}}`$ (31)
The other cyclic permutation, $`P_{(3,2,1)}`$, has the same eigenvectors, with the eigenvalues exchanged.

By looking at the behavior of such states under the exchange of two particles, it is easy to find out that the two invariant subspaces $`_1^{}`$ and $`_2^{}`$ are generated respectively by $`\{v_1,v_4\}`$ and $`\{v_2,v_3\}`$. Therefore, the effect of a generic exchange is a rotation of the vectors in $`_j^{}`$, with a change of the eigenvalues of $`P_{(1,2,3)}`$ and $`P_{(3,2,1)}`$. For example, the action of $`P_{(2,3)}`$ on $`v_1`$ gives

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \mathrm{e}^{i\frac{2}{3}\pi }\\ \mathrm{e}^{+i\frac{2}{3}\pi }\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{2}{3}\pi }\\ 0\\ 0\\ \mathrm{e}^{+i\frac{2}{3}\pi }\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(32)
The resulting vector is $`v_4`$, which corresponds to a different eigenvalue of both cyclic permutations. The same result applies for the other two exchanges.

In the next Section we investigate the consequences of these properties of the cyclic permutations for the specific case of three nuclei bound in a rigid molecule, and the possible physical implication of the existence of these states not obeying SP.

## III Symmetry-forbidden states in symmetrical 3-nuclei molecules

### A Three spin-0 identical nuclei

The prototypal molecule that we want to consider is composed by three identical spin-zero nuclei disposed at the vertices of an equilater triangle, as sketched in Fig. 1, whose symmetries belong to the dihedral group $`D_3`$. Anyway, the discussion below can be extended to any symmetrical molecule with additional nuclei in the plane (point group $`D_{3h}`$).

Within the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, the total wave function can be decomposed in the usual way as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_e\mathrm{\Psi }_n\mathrm{\Psi }_v\mathrm{\Psi }_r,$$
(33)
where the partial wave functions are respectively the electronic, nuclear spin, vibrational and rotational components. To simplify our description, we can assume the molecule to be in the ground electronic and vibrational state, with species $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (which is the most common case), or, in other words, we assume the total electronic spin, electronic angular momentum and vibrational angular momentum to be zero. Therefore, the electronic and vibrational wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_v`$ are completely symmetric under any permutations of the labels of the nuclei. In the case of spin-zero nuclei also the nuclear spin wave-function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ is symmetric under permutations, and therefore we must consider the symmetry of the rotational wave-function alone.

For this purpose, we briefly recall the main properties of the rotational states of such a molecule, which are eigenstates of the rigid rotational Hamiltonian

$$H=B(𝐉/\mathrm{})^2(BC)(𝐊/\mathrm{})^2,$$
(34)
where $`B`$ and $`C`$ are the two rotational constants, J is the total angular momentum and K is its projection on the three-fold symmetry axis perpendicular to the molecule’s plane. The eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian are of the form

$$E(J,K)=BJ(J+1)(BC)K^2,$$
(35)
with $`K=J,J+1,\mathrm{},J`$, and are strictly degenerate in the sign of $`K`$ as far as the molecule is symmetric, even if non-rigidity and perturbations are considered (the degeneracy accounts for the undistiguishability of the two orientations of K with respect to the molecular axis). The eigenfunctions are somewhat complicated functions of $`J`$, $`K`$, and of the Eulerian angles ; they also depend parametrically on the equilibrium positions of the three nuclei in the molecular potential. Here we are interested in their transformation properties under a generic rotation of the molecule. The general rule for such transformations is the usual

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{\Psi }_re^{i\alpha 𝐮_\alpha 𝐉},$$
(36)
where $`\alpha `$ is the angle of rotation and $`𝐮_\alpha `$ is the versor of the plane containing $`\alpha `$. To find the symmetry character of the rotational states, we want to compare this transformation rule to those associated to the permutations of particles. For such purpose we write the generic rotational states in a formal way as a function of the coordinates of the three minima in the molecular potential

$$|𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐},𝐱_\mathrm{𝟑}.$$
(37)
These states are defined in the 6-dimensional Hilbert space defined in the previous Section. We note that a permutation of the quantum labels corresponds to a classical permutation of the nuclei’s mean positions, and therefore all the permutations are equivalent to rotations of the molecule.

We start by considering rotations in the plane of the molecule by angles $`\theta `$=$`ϵ2\pi /3`$, with $`ϵ`$=$`\pm `$1, which are equivalent to the cyclic permutations $`P_{(1,2,3)}`$, $`P_{(3,2,1)}`$. Since the effect on the molecular wave function of these rotations must be the same of such cyclic permutations, we can compare the general transformation rules under rotations and under permutations. For the formers, the appropriate phase shift is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{exp}^{iϵ2\pi K/3},$$
(38)
since the rotation is in the molecule’s plane, while for the permutations we have

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{exp}^{iϵ2\pi /3},`$ (39)
respectively for states in $`_+`$, $`_{}`$ and in $`^{}`$. Therefore, a state with $`K`$=3$`q`$, with $`q`$ integer, can be defined in $`_+`$ or $`_{}`$, while states with $`K`$=3$`q\pm `$1 can be defined only in $`^{}`$.

For the special case of a rotational state with $`K`$=0 we can consider also rotations about any of the three symmetry axes in the plane of the molecule by a angles $`\varphi `$=$`ϵ\pi `$. Such rotations are equivalent to the three exchanges $`P_{(1,2)}`$, $`P_{(2,3)}`$ and $`P_{(1,3)}`$, and also the correspondent phase shifts in the wave function must be identical. This class of rotations transform the wave function as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{exp}^{iϵ\pi J},$$
(40)
according to Eq. (36), since the angular momentum J lays in the molecule’s plane. The exchanges are instead characterized by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{exp}^{i\pi },`$ (41)
for states belonging respectively to $`_+`$ and $`_{}`$. As a result, the even-J states belong to $`_+`$, and the odd-J ones to $`_{}`$, as summarized in Tab. I.

From the results obtained above, it appears that all the rotational states with $`K`$=3$`q\pm `$1 are strictly forbidden by the SP, which requires any physical state to be defined in $`_+`$ or $`_{}`$. Moreover, the odd-$`J`$ states with $`K`$=0 are forbidden by the spin-statistics, since the identical nuclei are spin-0 particles. The latter case is very similar to that of symmetrical molecules with two identical nuclei . These consequences of both the SP and the spin statistics are well known in the field of molecular spectroscopy , since they lead to the absence of more than two thirds of the rotational states in molecules with the proper symmetry, as confirmed by the experimental investigation performed so far.

We now discuss a property of the SP-forbidden states, which can be defined in the unsymmetrical subspace $`^{}`$. Specifically, the states with $`K`$=3$`q`$-1 could be described by the vectors $`v_1,v_2`$, while the ones with $`K`$=3$`q`$+1 by the vectors $`v_3,v_4`$ to preserve the equality of the phase shifts reported in Eq. (38) and Eq. (39). As we noted, such pairs of vectors do not define invariant subspaces, and therefore the physical states have to be defined in the two invariant subspaces $`_1^{}`$ and $`_2^{}`$. Although in each of these subspaces the sign of the rotational phase shift is not defined (see Eq. (30)), also the sign of $`K`$ is not a physical observable, due to the degeneracy of the states with $`\pm K`$. In other words, even if in $`^{}`$ it is not possible to define a complete set of operators due to its multi-dimensionality, and in particular the sign of $`K`$ is undefined, no paradox arises, since we have no means to measure such a sign.

### B Three spin-1/2 identical nuclei

In case of a molecule containing three identical nuclei with non-zero spin, we should consider also the influence of the nuclear spin wave function; in the following we will discuss the special case of spin 1/2. Since the spin is non-zero, we can now define a non-trivial Hilbert space for the spin, in the same way we defined it for the spatial coordinates. The total Hilbert space will be the direct product of the rotational and spin spaces

$$=_S_R.$$
(42)
The general properties of the Hilbert space can be easily found, considered the discrete nature of the quantum labels associated to each particle. The generic three-particles state is now defined as

$$|S_{z1},S_{z2},S_{z3},$$
(43)
and there are two states with total spin $`I`$=1/2 and one with $`I`$=3/2 (two doublet and one quartet). Using the formalism of Section II it is possible to assign the quartet state to the symmetrical subspace $`_+`$, and the two doublet to the unsymmetrical $`^{}`$. We note that is not possible to build non-vanishing states completely antisymmetric under permutations of more than two spin-1/2 particles, since each quantum label can assume only two values.

Even in absence of an electronic or vibrational angular momentum, the nuclear spin can couple to the rotational angular momentum and give rise to a very small hyperfine splitting of the rotational states. The molecular states will therefore be eigenstates of the total angular momentum F=J+I. We want now to assign each molecular state to a particular subspace of the overall Hilbert space, as we did in the previous case. For such purpose we have to decompose the representation of the S3 group on the direct product Hilbert space $`_S_R`$, into irreducible representations. By using general rules  we easily obtain the decomposition shown in Tab. II.

It is then straightforward to evaluate the appropriate Hilbert subspace for the overall rotational and nuclear spin states, using the associations of Tab. I; the results are reported in Tab. III. If the hyperfine splitting of the rotational states is not resolved, as it is usually the case, the states with $`K`$ 0 are no more completely forbidden by the SP, while the even-$`J`$ states with $`K`$=0 are forbidden by both the SP and the spin-statistics. Specifically, the states defined in $`_+`$ will have $`I`$=3/2, and the ones in $`^{}`$ $`I`$=1/2. As a consequence of the multidimensionality of $`^{}`$, it is impossible to distinguish between the two doublet states, but this is not a problem, since they are rigorously degenerate. In fact the invariant subspaces of $`^{}`$ are eigenstates of $`I_z`$, and therefore also in presence of a magnetic field there is no fundamental principle other than the SP to forbid the existence of these unsymmetrical states.

We conclude by noting that in the case of a nuclear spin larger than 1/2 it is possible to build also antisymmetrical spin states in $`_{}`$, and therefore none of the rotational states with $`K`$=0 is forbidden.

### C Non-planar symmetrical molecules

We now extend the discussion to non-planar symmetrical molecules containing three spin-0 or spin-1/2 identical nuclei (point group $`C_{3v}`$: the molecule has additional non-identical nuclei out of the plane containing the identical nuclei). The main difference from the planar case stands in the transformation rule of the $`K`$=0 rotational states under rotations about a symmetry axis in the plane of the three identical nuclei. These rotations, by angles $`\varphi `$=$`ϵ\pi `$, are not identical to permutations of two identical nuclei, as it was for a planar molecule, since also the additional nuclei out of the plane has rotated. On the other hand, the combination of such a rotation with an inversion of the coordinates of all the nuclei with respect to the origin cannot be distinguished from a permutation of two nuclei.

The properties of the rotational states under space inversion are well known in the field of molecular spectroscopy , and here we give only the main result. If the non-rigidity of the molecule is taken into account, each rotational state is split into two states with definite symmetry under inversion (s\- and a-species, respectively symmetric and antisymmetric under inversion). The splitting of the degeneracy of these pairs of states is indicated as inversion splitting. The analogous of the transformation rule of Eq. (40) for the rotation plus inversion is therefore

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_r\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{exp}^{iϵ\pi J},$$
(44)
where the positive (negative) sign refer to the s-species (a-species). If we compare this rule with the one for the exchange of two particles (Eq. (41)) we can assign each rotational state to the proper symmetry class, as summarized in Tab. IV for the cases of spin-0 and spin-1/2.

In the last Section we will indicate one molecular species in which the inversion splitting is sufficiently large to resolve the states forbidden by the SP from those allowed.

## IV Testing small symmetry violations

As we noted above, those rotational states forbidden by the SP can be defined consistently in the unsymmetrical subspace $`^{}`$, since they are not violating any basic principle of Quantum Mechanics. The discussion can be extended to particular classes of rotational sub-states in excited vibrational and electronic states; due to the different symmetry of the vibrational and electronic wave functions, different classes of $`K`$-levels and $`J`$-levels can be forbidden by the SP. In any case, electromagnetic transitions between rotational levels are allowed only if the involved states belong to the same symmetry type, in accordance with the superselection rule.

Therefore, a violation of the SP can be thought of only in terms of the appearance of a population of nuclei identical between themselves, whose quantum states belong to $`^{}`$, and whose properties (mass, spin, charge) are the same as those of the normal nuclei. The presence of a non-zero population in SP-forbidden rotational states of the molecules formed by such nuclei could be detected by exciting electromagnetic transitions towards other forbidden states, in the same way it was done in previous experiments for testing the statistics. For a matter of sensitivity, the experimental investigation should focus on states completely forbidden by the SP alone, or by both the SP and the spin-statistics, since we expect the violation, if present, to be very small. Therefore, the most interesting states to be probed in both $`D_{3h}`$ and $`C_{3v}`$ molecules are those with $`K`$=3$`q\pm `$1 in the case of $`S`$=0, and those with $`K`$=0 in the case of $`S`$=1/2.

We note also that all the statements above would not lose validity in case of breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. Indeed, the symmetry character of the particles under permutation can only be assigned to a single class (i.e. Hilbert subspace), as stated by the super-selection rule, and no coherent superposition is allowed . Therefore, if the total wave function appears to be correctly described as symmetrical (unsymmetrical) in the frame of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, it would be so for any degree of violation of the approximation itself. The same argument applies in case of presence of external perturbations, such as electric or magnetic fields: even if they can change the molecular wave function to a large extent in a continuous way, the symmetry character of the wave function will be locked to a single class.

## V Proposal for a high-sensitivity test of the symmetry on oxygen nuclei and protons

A simple tool to investigate for possible violations of the SP would be high sensitivity spectroscopy of a thermal sample of gas, in search for a non-zero absorption of light by symmetry-violating molecules, as performed in previous experiments on the spin-statistics. It is possible to define a few general criteria to choose the proper molecule for such an experimental search. The first important parameter is the weight of the molecule, which determines the spacing between adjacent rotational transitions (the rotational constants $`B`$ and $`C`$ are inversely proportional to the mass), and therefore also the capability of resolving the forbidden transitions from the allowed ones . This point is very important, since in non-linear molecules the number of transitions which can possibly interfere in the detection of SP-violations is increased with respect to linear molecules, due to the increased molteplicity of rotational states. Secondly, in order to have a high sensitivity in detecting a violation of the SP, one should probe strong transitions starting from low-laying rotational states in the ground electronic and vibrational state, which have the largest occupation probability. As usual, in this kind of molecules the strong electronic transitions are confined to the UV, where laser sources are not easily available, and therefore one should rely on the fundamental vibrational transitions in the infrared, which are somewhat weaker. It is therefore important to find a near coincidence between a vibrational band and the emission of a coherent laser source suitable for high sensitivity spectroscopy. The quantum-cascade semiconductor lasers are particularly interesting from this point of view, since they can be designed to emit almost everywhere in the mid-infrared, they are widely tunable and have low-noise characteristics .

In the case of spin-0 nuclei, the lightest molecule with the proper symmetry is the plane SO3 (group $`D_{3h}`$), whose vibrational energies  are reported in Tab. V. In principle the sensitivity for detection of SP-violating transitions can be expected to be comparable to those obtained in previous experiments on molecular systems. It could possibly be reduced by increased experimental difficulties (for example, SO3 is not chemically stable in presence of oxygen, and therefore may not be easy to have the proper pressure and cell volume to optimize the sensitivity) or more fundamental limitations, such as the presence of weak hot-transitions close to the SP-forbidden ones.

An alternative approach could be to perform the spectroscopic investigation on a supersonic beam of SO3, instead of a thermal sample. With this technique, the problems connected with the high reactivity of SO3 could possibly be solved, while the reduction in density of the sample could be compensated by the reduction of the rotational temperature and by an increase of the detection sensitivity. In addition, one would benefit from the accompanying increase in resolution, for a better identification of the detected spectrum of transitions.

As for the case of spin-1/2 nuclei, it is possible to find a relatively light plane molecule, BH3 (group $`D_{3h}`$), on which to search violations of the SP and of the spin-statistics for $`K`$=0 rotational states. As we mentioned, the same symmetry properties can be found also for the corresponding rotational states of non-planar symmetrical molecules (group $`C_{3v}`$) with inversion splitting. One of the most interesting species of this kind is NH3, which is stable and particularly light, and has very strong vibrational absorption bands in the infrared spectral region covered by semiconductor lasers. Moreover, its spectrum has been the subject of extensive investigation, and therefore the assignment of observed lines can be performed in a relatively easy way. In addition, it is characterized by a very large inversion splitting of the rotational spectrum, and therefore the forbidden lines can be easily distinguished form the allowed ones. For such molecules, which are composed by spin-1/2 nuclei, we noted that for the $`K`$=0 states different hyperfine components are forbidden by the SP and by the spin-statistics. Since the hyperfine slitting of the rotational levels is usually negligible (at least for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ electronic states ), we can expect to resolve the two classes of substates only thanks to Zeeman effects in strong magnetic fields.

To conclude, we note that in the case of BH3 or NH3, one would be testing the SP and the spin-statistics for protons. Such an experimental test would be particularly interesting to compare the present bound for violation of the statistics for composed nucleons  to a corresponding bound for fundamental nucleons, also in view of the recent theoretical predictions .

## VI Conclusions

We have shown how to define consistently particular classes of rotational levels of symmetrical molecules containing three identical nuclei, by allowing for violations of the symmetrization postulate. This violation, if existing, must be small, according to the results of the past experimental observations. However, it is possible to look with high sensitivity for the presence of tiny population in SP-forbidden states, using spectroscopic tools in a scheme similar to those of previous experiments on O2 and CO2. If we allow for the presence of molecules composed by SP-violating nuclei in a sample of gas, which are identical to the normal molecules in all but the symmetry, then such a measurement can be interpreted as a test of the SP. This kind of experiment would represent a substantial improvement with respect to the past investigations on possible violations of the spin-statistics connection. We propose a few simple molecules containing spin-0 nuclei (SO3) or spin-1/2 nuclei (BH3 and NH3) as candidates for a high sensitivity spectroscopic investigation to be performed on infrared vibrational transitions, with the help of semiconductor lasers. The latter species are particularly interesting, since they represent systems on which to test the SP for fundamental nucleons.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge stimulating discussions with G. M. Tino.