text:
# Quantum communication between atomic ensembles using coherent light

## Abstract

Protocols for quantum communication between massive particles, such as atoms, are usually based on transmitting nonclassical light, and/or super-high finesse optical cavities are normally needed to enhance interaction between atoms and photons. We demonstrate a surprising result: an unknown quantum state can be teleported from one free-space atomic ensemble to the other by transmitting only coherent light. No non-classical light and no cavities are needed in the scheme, which greatly simplifies its experimental implementation.

The goal of quantum communication is to transmit an unknown quantum state from one particle to another one at a distant location. This can be obtained either by direct transmission of the state , or by disembodied transport, i.e., quantum teleportation . Quantum teleportation of an unknown state from a photon to a photon , or from a single-mode light to another single-mode beam of light  has been demonstrated experimentally. A desired goal is to obtain quantum teleportation of the state of massive particles, since the massive particles are ideal for storage of quantum information, and they play an important role in local quantum information processing, such as quantum computation. At the same time, the information should be transferred from one location to another via optical states, since light is the best long distance carrier of information. There have been several proposals for quantum teleportation of atomic motional or internal states . by transmitting single-photon or non-classical light . Most of these proposals are based on the assumption that atoms are trapped inside high-Q optical cavities, which is difficult to achieve experimentally . The recent proposal  eliminates this requirement, however it still requires an external source of entanglement (non-classical light). Here, we propose and analyze a quantum communication scheme, which teleports an unknown collective internal state from one free-space atomic ensemble to another only using coherent light. This result is indeed surprising, since strong coherent light (light from an ordinary laser) is usually thought to be ‘purely classical’, but via it unknown quantum states of free-space atomic ensembles can nonetheless be teleported from one location to another!

The system we are considering is a cloud of identical atoms with the relevant level structure shown in Fig. 1. Each atom has two degenerate ground states and two degenerate excited states. The transitions $`|1|3`$ and $`|2|4`$ are coupled with a large detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to propagating light fields with different circular polarizations according to the angular-momentum selection rules. This kind of interaction has been analyzed semiclassically in , and recently shown to be applicable for quantum non-demolition measurements  and teleportation with non-classical light , with an adiabatic Hamiltonian and neglecting the noise due to spontaneous emission. Our goal here is twofold: first, we show based on this Hamiltonian, entanglement can be generated and furthermore quantum communication can be achieved between distant atomic ensembles using only coherent light; and second, we deduce this Hamiltonian through a full quantum description of the interaction of the atomic ensemble with free-space propagating light, taking into account the noise. The latter is an essential result since we make use of the quantum nature of both light and atoms in quantum communication, and it not clear from the outset that the noise can indeed be neglected during the interaction process.

Entanglement generation is basic to quantum communication. We create entanglement between two atomic ensembles through a nonlocal Bell measurement with the schematic setup shown by Fig. 2. The atomic ensemble is assumed to be of a pencil shape with Fresnel number $`F=A/\lambda _0L=1`$, where $`A`$ and $`L`$ are the cross section and the length of the ensemble, respectively, and $`\lambda _0`$ is the optical wave length. In this case, it is justified to use a one-dimensional theory to describe the propagating light field . The input laser pulse is linearly polarized and expressed as $`E^{(+)}(z,t)=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _0}{4\pi ϵ_0A}}\underset{i=1,2}{}a_i(z,t)e^{i\left(k_0z\omega _0t\right)}`$, where $`\omega _0=k_0c=2\pi c/\lambda _0`$ is the carrier frequency, and $`i`$ denotes two orthogonal circular polarizations, with the standard commutation relations $`[a_i(z,t),a_j(z^{},t)]=\delta _{ij}\delta \left(zz^{}\right)`$. The light is weakly focused with cross section $`A`$ to match the atomic ensemble. For a strong coherent input with linear polarization, the initial condition is expressed as $`a_i(0,t)=\alpha _t,`$ with the total photon number over the pulse duration $`T`$ satisfies $`2N_p=2c_0^T\left|\alpha _t\right|^2𝑑t1`$. The Stokes operators are introduced for the free-space input and output light (light before entering or after leaving the atomic ensemble) by $`S_x^p=\frac{c}{2}_0^T\left(a_1^{}a_2+a_2^{}a_1\right)𝑑\tau ,`$ $`S_y^p=\frac{c}{2i}_0^L\left(a_1^{}a_2a_2^{}a_1\right)𝑑\tau ,`$ $`S_z^p=\frac{c}{2}_0^L\left(a_1^{}a_1a_2^{}a_2\right)𝑑\tau .`$ In free space, $`a_i(z,t)`$ only depends on $`\tau =tz/c`$, and then the Stokes operators satisfy the spin commutation relations $`[S_y^p,S_z^p]=iS_x^p`$. For our coherent input, we have $`S_x^p=N_p`$ and $`S_y^p=`$ $`S_z^p=0`$. With a very large $`N_p`$, the off-resonant interaction with atoms is only a small perturbation to $`S_x^p`$, and we can treat $`S_x^p`$ classically by replacing it with its mean value $`S_x^p`$. Then, we define two canonical observables for light by $`X^p=S_y^p/\sqrt{S_x^p},`$ $`P^p=S_z^p/\sqrt{S_x^p}`$ with a standard commutator $`[X^p,P^p]=i`$. These operators, initially in a vacuum state, are the quantum variables we are interested in. Similar operators can be introduced for atoms. For an atomic ensemble with many atoms, it is convenient to define the continuous atomic operators $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }(z,t)=lim_{\delta z0}\frac{1}{\rho A\delta z}_i^{zz_i<z+\delta z}|\mu _i\nu |`$ ($`\mu ,\nu =1,2,3,4)`$ with the commutation relations $`[\sigma _{\mu \nu }(z,t),\sigma _{\nu ^{}\mu ^{}}(z^{},t)]=\left(1/\rho A\right)\delta \left(zz^{}\right)\left(\delta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\sigma _{\mu \mu ^{}}\delta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\sigma _{\nu ^{}\nu }\right)`$. In the definition, $`z_i`$ is the position of the $`i`$ atom, and $`\rho `$ is the number density of the atomic ensemble with the total atom number $`2N_a=\rho AL1`$. The collective spin operators are introduced for the ground states of the atomic ensemble by $`S_x^a=\frac{\rho A}{2}_0^L\left(\sigma _{12}+\sigma _{12}^{}\right)𝑑z,`$ $`S_y^a=\frac{\rho A}{2i}_0^L\left(\sigma _{12}\sigma _{12}^{}\right)𝑑z,`$ $`S_z^a=\frac{\rho A}{2}_0^L\left(\sigma _{11}\sigma _{22}\right)𝑑z`$. All the atoms are initially prepared in the superposition of the two ground states $`\left(|1+|2\right)/\sqrt{2}`$ (this can be obtained with negligible noise by applying classical laser pulses with detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$), which is an eigenstate of $`S_x^a`$ with a very large eigenvalue $`N_a`$. Similarly, we treat $`S_x^a`$ classically, and define the canonical operators for atoms by $`X^a=S_y^a/\sqrt{S_x^a},`$ $`P^a=S_z^a/\sqrt{S_x^a}`$ with $`[X^a,P^a]=i`$ and an initial vacuum state. As shown below, after the laser pulse passes through the atomic ensemble, the off-resonant interaction changes the canonical operators according to

$`X^p`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1\epsilon _p}\left(X^p\kappa P^a\right)+\sqrt{\epsilon _p}X_s^p,`$ (1)
$`X^a`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1\epsilon _a}\left(X^a\kappa P^p\right)+\sqrt{\epsilon _a}X_s^a,`$ ()
$`P^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1\epsilon _\beta }P^\beta +\sqrt{\epsilon _\beta }P_s^\beta ,\text{ }\left(\beta =a,p\right),`$ (2)
where the symbols with (without) a prime denote the operators after (before) the interaction, and $`X_s^a,P_s^a`$ and $`X_s^p,P_s^p`$ are the standard vacuum noise operators with variance $`1/2.`$ The interaction and damping coefficients $`\kappa ,\epsilon _p,\epsilon _a`$ are given respectively by $`\kappa =\frac{2\sqrt{N_pN_a}\left|g\right|^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }c},`$ $`\epsilon _p=\frac{N_a\left|g\right|^2\gamma }{\mathrm{\Delta }^2c},`$ $`\epsilon _a=\frac{N_p\left|g\right|^2\gamma ^{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2c}`$, where $`g`$ is the coupling constant and $`\gamma ,\gamma ^{}`$ are spontaneous emission rates (see Fig. 1). Equation (1) is obtained under the conditions $`\epsilon _{p,a}1`$ and $`\kappa \sqrt{N_{p,a}}.`$ For our application, we would like to have $`\kappa 1`$. This is possible if we choose $`N_pN_a1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$. The number matching condition $`N_pN_a`$ is an important requirement obtained here to minimize the noise effect, since we have $`\kappa =2\sqrt{\epsilon _p\epsilon _a}\mathrm{\Delta }/\sqrt{\gamma \gamma ^{}}`$ and the best choice is $`\epsilon _p\epsilon _a`$ to increase the signal-to-noise ratio.

Before we proceed to demonstrating Eq. (1), first we show that this transformation allows us to generate entanglement, and to achieve quantum communication between atomic ensembles using only coherent light. Entanglement is generated through a nonlocal Bell measurement of the EPR operators $`X_1^aX_2^a`$ and $`P_1^a+P_2^a`$ with the setup depicted by Fig. 2. This setup measures the Stokes operator $`X_2^p`$ of the output light. Using Eq. (1) and neglecting the small loss terms, we have $`X_2^p=X_1^p+\kappa \left(P_1^a+P_2^a\right)`$, so we get a collective measurement of $`P_1^a+P_2^a`$ with some inherent vacuum noise $`X_1^p`$. The efficiency $`1\eta `$ of this measurement is determined by the parameter $`\kappa `$ with $`\eta =1/\left(1+2\kappa ^2\right)`$. After this round of measurements, we rotate the collective atomic spins around the $`x`$ axis to get the transformations $`X_1^aP_1^a,`$ $`P_1^aX_2^a`$ and $`X_2^aP_2^a,`$ $`P_2^aX_2^a`$. The rotation of the atomic spin can be easily obtained with negligible noise by applying classical laser pulses with detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$. After the rotation, the measured observable of the first round of measurement is changed to $`X_1^aX_2^a`$ in the new variables. We then make another round of collective measurement of the new variable $`P_1^a+P_2^a`$. In this way, both the EPR operators $`X_1^aX_2^a`$ and $`P_1^a+P_2^a`$ are measured, and the final state of the two atomic ensembles is collapsed into a two-mode squeezed state with variance $`\delta \left(X_1^aX_2^a\right)^2=\delta \left(P_1^a+P_2^a\right)^2=e^{2r}`$, where the squeezing parameter $`r`$ is given by

$$r=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+2\kappa ^2\right).$$
(3)
Thus, using only coherent light, we generate continuous variable entanglement  between two nonlocal atomic ensembles. With the interaction parameter $`\kappa 5`$, a high squeezing (and thus a large entanglement) $`r2.0`$ is obtainable. Note that entanglement generation is the key step for many quantum protocols, and is the basis of quantum communication, quantum cryptography, and tests of Bell inequality. In the following, we show as an example how to achieve indirect quantum communication, i.e., quantum teleportation, between distant atomic ensembles using only coherent light.

We consider unconditional quantum teleportation of continuous variables  from one atomic ensemble to the other since we have continuous variable entanglement. To achieve quantum teleportation, first two distant atomic samples 1 and 2 are prepared in a continuously entangled state using the nonlocal Bell measurement described above. Then, a Bell measurement with the same setup as shown by Fig. 2 on the two local samples 1 and 3, together with a straightforward displacement of $`X_3^a,`$ $`P_3^a`$ on the sample 3, will teleport an unknown collective spin state from the atomic sample 3 to 2. The teleported state on the sample 2 has the same form as that in the original proposal of continuous variable teleportation using squeezing light , with the squeezing parameter $`r`$ replaced by Eq. (2) and with an inherent Bell detection inefficiency $`\eta =1/\left(1+2\kappa ^2\right)`$. The teleportation quality is best described by the fidelity, which, for a pure input state, is defined as the overlap of the teleported state and the input state. For any coherent input state of the sample 3, the teleportation fidelity is given by

$$F=1/\left(1+\frac{1}{1+2\kappa ^2}+\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}\right).$$
(3)
Equation (3) shows, if there is no extra noise, a high fidelity $`F96\%`$ would be possible for the teleportation of the collective atomic spin state with the interaction parameter $`\kappa 5`$.

Next we will include noise and derive expressions for the squeezing and the fidelity under realistic experimental conditions. Before we analyze the effects of noise, let us first demonstrate Eq. (1) with a full quantum approach. The demonstration of Eq. (1) including the spontaneous emission noise is necessary in the following context: First, it is not clear that the spontaneous emission is indeed negligible through a simple estimation of the noise, since during the interaction approximately $`\frac{N_pN_a\left|g\right|^2\gamma }{\mathrm{\Delta }^2c}`$ atoms in the atomic ensemble (normally much large than $`1`$) will be subjected to quantum jumps caused by the spontaneous emission . We need to show that quantum jumps of individual atoms have negligible influence on the collective spin operators which are the quantities of interest. Second, the maximally allowable interaction parameter $`\kappa `$ is mainly limited by the noise. We need a balance between the desired interaction and the noise to maximize the squeezing and the teleportation fidelity. Third, some subtle experimental requirements, such as the number matching condition $`N_pN_a`$, is only obtainable by considering the noise.

With introduction of the continuous atomic operators, the interaction between atoms and the propagating light $`E^{(+)}(z,t)`$ is described by the following Hamiltonian (in the rotating frame),

$$H=\mathrm{}\underset{i=1,2}{}_0^L[\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{i+2,i+2}(z,t)+(ge^{ik_0z}a_i(z,t)\sigma _{i,i+2}(z,t)+h.c)]\rho Adz,$$
(4)
where the coupling constant $`g=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _0}{4\pi \mathrm{}ϵ_0A}}d`$ and $`d`$ is the dipole moment of the $`|i|i+2`$ transition. Corresponding to this Hamiltonian, the Maxwell-Bloch equations are written as as

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+c{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right)a_i(z,t)=ig^{}e^{ik_0z}\rho A\sigma _{i+2,i}(z,t),`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[\sigma _{\mu \nu },H]{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{\mu \nu }}{2}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }+\sqrt{\gamma _{\mu \nu }}\left(\sigma _{\nu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \mu }\right)F_{\mu \nu }\text{ }\left(\mu <\nu \right),`$ ()
where the spontaneous emission rates (see Fig. 1) are $`\gamma _{13}=\gamma _{24}\gamma =\frac{\omega _0^3\left|d\right|^2}{3\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}c^3},`$ $`\gamma _{14}=\gamma _{23}\gamma ^{},`$ and $`\gamma _{12}=0`$, respectively. Assuming that the spontaneous emission is independent for different atoms (because the distance between atoms is larger than optical wave length), the vacuum noise operators $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfy the $`\delta `$-commutation relations $`[F_{\mu \nu }(z,t),F_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^{}(z^{},t^{})]=\left(1/\rho A\right)\delta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\delta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\delta \left(zz^{}\right)\delta \left(tt^{}\right)`$. To simplify Eq. (5), first we change the variables by $`\tau =tz/c`$, and then adiabatically eliminate the excited states $`|3`$ and $`|4`$ of atoms in the case of a large detuning, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }ga_i(z,t)g\sqrt{N_p/\left(cT\right)}`$. The resultant equations read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}a_i(z,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{i\left|g\right|^2\rho A\sigma _{ii}}{\mathrm{\Delta }c}}a_i(z,\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{\left|g\right|^2\rho A\gamma \sigma _{ii}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2c}}a_i(z,\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}e^{ik_0z}\rho A\sqrt{\gamma }\sigma _{ii}}{\mathrm{\Delta }c}}F_{i,i+2}(z,\tau ),`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}\sigma _{12}={\displaystyle \frac{i\left|g\right|^2\left(a_2^{}a_2a_1^{}a_1\right)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\sigma _{12}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|g\right|^2\gamma ^{}\left(a_2^{}a_2+a_1^{}a_1\right)}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\sigma _{12}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma ^{}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(g^{}e^{ik_0z}a_2^{}\sigma _{11}F_{14}+ge^{ik_0z}a_1\sigma _{22}F_{23}^{}\right).`$ ()
The physical meaning of the above equation is quite clear: The first term at the right hand side is the phase shift caused by the off-resonant interaction between light and atoms, and the second and the third terms represent the damping and the corresponding vacuum noise caused by the spontaneous emission, respectively. In Eq. (3), the $`\sigma _{ii}`$ and $`a_i^{}a_i`$ are approximately constant operators, only with a small damping caused by the spontaneous emission. To consider the spontaneous emission noise to the first order, it is reasonable to assume constant $`\sigma _{ii}`$ and $`a_i^{}a_i`$ for Eq. (6). Then, this equation can be easily solved by integrating over $`z,\tau `$ on both sides. In this way we obtain Eq. (1) with the introduced canonical operators. The vacuum noise operators in Eq. (1) are defined from the integration of $`F_{\mu \nu }(z,\tau )`$, $`X_s^p=\sqrt{\frac{c}{4N_pN_a\left|g\right|^2}}_0^T_0^L\rho A[ig^{}e^{ik_0z}(a_2^{}\sigma _{11}F_{13}a_1^{}\sigma _{22}F_{24})+h.c.]dzd\tau `$ for instance. It should be noted that the damping term cannot be directly neglected in Eq. (6) compared with the phase shift term, even when $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$, since $`a_2^{}a_2+a_1^{}a_1a_2^{}a_2a_1^{}a_1`$. What is remarkable is that due to the collective effect, the phase shift term obtains another large prefactor $`\sqrt{N_{p,a}}`$ when we perform the integration in Eq. (6), which makes this contribution well exceed the noise term.

In the derivation above, we have neglected motion of the atoms. The atomic motion introduces two effects: the Doppler broading, and decoherence of the ground states caused by the atomic collisions. Doppler broading is negligible here, since it is suppressed significantly for off-resonant interactions with the collinear input and output light. On the other hand, the ground state coherence time ($`1`$ms$`1`$s) is much larger than the interaction time scale considered here ($`1`$ns$`1\mu `$s) under realistic experimental conditions, both for a cold trapped atomic ensemble and for a room-temperature atomic cell with a buffer gas , so that this kind of decoherence can be safely neglected. It is helpful to give an estimation of the relevant parameters for typical experiments. The interaction parameter $`\kappa `$ can be rewritten as $`\kappa =\left(3\rho \lambda _0^2L\gamma \right)/\left(8\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }\right)`$ with $`N_p=N_a`$. For a atomic sample of density $`\rho 5\times 10^{12}`$cm<sup>-3</sup> and of length $`L2`$cm, $`\kappa 5`$ is obtainable with the choice $`\mathrm{\Delta }300\gamma `$, and at the same time the loss $`\epsilon _p\epsilon _a<1\%`$.

As our last point, let us return to the analysis of the influence of some important noise terms on the teleportation fidelity. The noise includes the spontaneous emission noise described by Eq. (1), the detector inefficiency, and the transmission loss of the light from the first sample to the second sample. The spontaneous emission noise can be included partly in the transmission loss and partly in the detector efficiency, so we do not analyze it separately. The effect of the detector inefficiency $`\eta _d`$ is to replace $`\kappa ^2`$ in Eqs. (2) and (3) with $`\kappa ^2\left(1\eta _d\right)`$, and the teleportation fidelity is decreased by a term $`\eta _d/\kappa ^2`$, which is very small and can be safely ignored. The most important noise comes from the transmission loss. The transmission loss is described by $`X_2^p=\sqrt{1\eta _t}X_1^p^{}+\sqrt{\eta _t}X_s^t`$ (see Fig. 2), where $`\eta _t`$ is the loss rate and $`X_s^t`$ is the standard vacuum noise. The transmission loss changes the measured observables to be $`\sqrt{1\eta _t}X_1^aX_2^a`$ and $`\sqrt{1\eta _t}P_1^a+P_2^a`$. These two observables do not commute, and the two rounds of measurements influence each other. To minimize the influence on the teleportation fidelity, we choose the following configuration (for simplicity, we assume we have the same loss rate $`\eta _t`$ from the sample 1 to 2 and from 1 to 3): In the nonlocal Bell measurements on the samples 1 and 2 (the entanglement generation process), we choose a suitable interaction coefficient $`\kappa _2`$ (where its optimal value will be determined below) for the second round measurement, whereas $`\kappa _1`$ for the first round of measurement is large with $`\kappa _1^2\kappa _2^2`$ (the interaction coefficient can be easily adjusted, for instance, by changing the detuning). In the local Bell measurement, we choose the same $`\kappa _2`$ for the first round of measurement and the large $`\kappa _1`$ for the second round of measurement. For a coherent input state of the sample 3, the teleported state on the sample 2 is still Gaussian, and the teleportation fidelity $`F^{}`$ is found to be

$$F^{}2/\left(2+\frac{1}{\kappa _2^2}+\kappa _2^2\eta _t\right)1/\left(1+\sqrt{\eta _t}\right),$$
(7)
which is still independent of the coherent input state with suitable gain for the displacements . The optimal value for $`\kappa _2`$ is thus given by $`\kappa _2=1/\sqrt[4]{\eta _t}`$. Even with a notable transmission loss rate $`\eta _t0.2`$, quantum teleportation with a remarkable high fidelity $`F0.7`$ is still achievable. It is known that for coherent inputs a fidelity exceeding $`1/2`$ has ensured quantum teleportation .

In summary, we have shown that quantum communication between free space atomic ensembles can be achieved using only coherent laser beams. Quantum teleportation of the atomic spin state is observable even in the presence of significant noise. This result, together with the much simplified experimental setup proposed here, suggests that efficient quantum communication between atomic samples is within reach of present experimental conditions. ESP acknowledges fruitful discussions with A. Kuzmich. LMD acknowledges discussions with A. Sorensen. This work was supported by the Austrian Science Foundation, by the European TMR network Quantum Information, and by the Institute for Quantum Information.


format: text

text:
# Flux Stabilization of D-branes

## 1 Introduction

String compactifications on group manifolds have long been of interest. Their world-sheet theories are the exactly solvable Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) conformal field theories and thus stringy effects can be understood in detail. The case of primary interest in superstring theory is the $`SU(2)`$ group manifold, because the near-horizon geometry of $`k`$ coincident NS fivebranes is a direct product including $`S^3`$, and the corresponding CFT is a product of supersymmetric $`SU(2)`$ level $`k`$, a “Feigin-Fuchs superfield”, and six free superfields . Another exact supersymmetric string background  is $`S^3\times AdS_3`$ – this corresponds to the CFT of two supersymmetric WZW models, one for the $`SU(2)`$ and one for the $`SL(2,R)`$ group manifold, and it describes the near-horizon geometry of intersecting branes .

D-branes in group manifolds have been studied in a series of papers  and the basic story, at least for the compact case, is fairly well understood. The natural boundary conditions (those for which the gluing can be expressed in terms of an automorphism $`\omega `$ of the current algebra) can be classified purely in CFT terms. In the case of trivial gluing, $`\omega =1`$, Cardy’s general theory , puts them in one-to-one correspondence with primary fields. 111Cardy’s theory can be generalized to non-trivial $`\omega `$; in this case, one obtains a correspondence of boundary conditions with primary fields in twisted sectors of appropriate orbifold theories, . The results turn out to be geometrical :  an allowed boundary condition corresponds to a D-brane wrapped on an allowed (twisted) conjugacy class of the group. The only sign of the underlying CFT is a quantization condition on the allowed (twisted) conjugacy classes. For example, in the $`SU(2)`$ level $`k`$ model D-branes can wrap on $`k1`$ distinct $`S^2`$’s around any point (these are subject to a $`_2`$ identification). There is also a D$`0`$-brane, to complete the spectrum (there is no D$`3`$ because $`H0`$ ).

One then can study the world-volume theories of these branes by classifying massless modes and computing interactions. The results show an intriguing parallel with the noncommutative torus in that the algebra of open string primary fields (for large $`k`$ but finite conjugacy class) is the algebra of the “fuzzy sphere,” the natural quantization of the sphere .

However, there is a more elementary question one might ask first. Why is it that branes wrapped about spheres which are not minimal volume surfaces are stable at all ?

It is easiest to check that the other boundary conditions lead to stable branes by considering the parallel with the boundary state describing a D$`2`$-brane ending on an NS fivebrane. This boundary state is a tensor product of “D$`0`$” in the WZW sector with “Neumann” in the linear dilaton sector and in two of the Minkowski dimensions. It preserves half of the supersymmetry of the fivebrane theory. If $`k>1`$, the WZW component of the boundary state can be replaced with a different WZW boundary condition, leaving everything else unchanged. In particular the supersymmetry of the object is unchanged, so it is stable. The geometrical interpretation of these objects is “conical” D$`4`$-branes again wrapping a non-minimal $`S^2`$. Thus our question is appropriate.

It seems clear that this stability is linked with the origin of the quantization condition, and there are two ways one might try to explain this. One might imagine that the integrated NS two-form potential $`\widehat{B}`$ takes quantized values on a D-brane world-sheet. This would imply an implausible non-local constraint on the allowed embeddings of the D-brane, with no known origin in string theory.

A better idea is that it follows from the usual quantization of $`U(1)`$ gauge field strength, relevant because the D-brane is wrapped on $`S^2`$. Indeed there is a well known mechanism of “flux stabilization” (which has been invoked in large extra dimension scenarios, for example) which could then explain the brane’s stability. It is simply that the energy $`F^2`$ of a constant flux will be inversely proportional to the volume, and thus the total energy with the brane tension will have a minimum at non-vanishing volume.

This argument is not really correct, because, unlike what happens in the Maxwell energy, the Born-Infeld energy of a constant flux stays finite as the brane shrinks to zero volume (this is why there are no stable spherical D-branes in flat spacetime). What enters in the D-brane energy, on the other hand, is the flux of the gauge-invariant combination $`=B+2\pi \alpha ^{}F`$. In a varying external $`B`$ field the total energy including the brane tension can indeed have a minimum at nonzero volume, as we will show.

Our main result is to show that this explanation works not only qualitatively but quantitatively: indeed, up to the well known one loop shift $`kk+2`$ which renormalizes the radius of $`S^3`$, computations starting from the Born-Infeld action precisely reproduce the masses, multiplicities, and even the spectrum of small fluctuations of these branes, as calculated in CFT. The exact agreement implies that higher-order corrections to the Born-Infeld theory must vanish – this could be related to the BPS property of the corresponding objects in the fivebrane or $`S^3\times AdS_3`$ geometries.

We consider the above results convincing evidence for the advocated explanation of stability. They do in particular confirm the fact that it is the $`U(1)`$ flux $`F`$ (rather than the flux of $``$) that must be quantized. This leads, however, to an apparent paradox: the RR charges of the branes are not quantized. We will explain why the $`F`$-flux quantization is correct, and discuss possible resolutions of the paradox in the final section.

## 2 Semiclassical brane solutions

Consider the WZW model on the group manifold of SU(2) – we will comment on the generalization to other groups later. A general group element can be parametrized as $`U=\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{\psi }\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, where $`\stackrel{}{\psi }`$ is a 3-vector of length $`\psi `$ pointing in the direction ($`\theta ,\varphi `$), and $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are the usual Pauli matrices. The coordinate $`\psi `$ takes values in the interval $`[0,\pi ]`$ with the two extremes corresponding to the two elements of the center. In these coordinates the metric and Neveu-Schwarz three-form backgrounds read

$$ds^2=k\alpha ^{}\left[d\psi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\psi \left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right],$$
(1)
and

$$HdB=2k\alpha ^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\psi d\theta d\varphi ,$$
(2)
with $`k`$ the (integer) level of the associated current algebra. We can choose a gauge in which the NS two-form is proportional to the volume form of the two-sphere spanned by $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$,

$$B=k\alpha ^{}\left(\psi \frac{\mathrm{sin2}\psi }{2}\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi .$$
(3)
This is a smooth choice everywhere except at the point $`\psi =\pi `$. The wavefunction of a fundamental string wrapping around this potential singularity picks up a Bohm-Aharonov phase equal to $`_{S^2}B/2\pi \alpha ^{}=2\pi k`$. The singularity is therefore unobservable for integer $`k`$ as it should be.

Let us next put this WZW model together with seven flat space-time coordinates, so that the full geometry is $`S^3\times R^7`$. This is a non-critical background for type-II string theory because the central charges don’t add up to ten, but the dilaton tadpole will not affect our discussion of D-branes at leading order in the string-loop expansion. Consider now a static D2-brane wrapping the $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ two-sphere at fixed value of $`\psi `$. This configuration breaks the $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ symmetry of the background to a diagonal $`SU(2)`$. If the dominant brane energy were tensive our configuration would tend to shrink to a point at one of the two poles of $`S^3`$, either $`\psi =0`$ or $`\psi =\pi `$. The total brane energy, on the other hand, has contributions also from the induced NS-NS two-form $`\widehat{B}`$ and from the worldvolume gauge field $`F=dA`$, which enter through the invariant combination $`=\widehat{B}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F`$. Consistently with the symmetry we may turn on a uniform worldvolume flux,

$$F=dA=\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi $$
(4)
where $`n`$ is the ‘magnetic monopole’ number. For $`0<n<k`$ one can check that $`||`$ is locally maximum at the poles, so this could prevent the D2-brane from collapsing.

A crucial point in the further considerations is that it is the flux of $`F`$, rather than that of $``$, which is quantized. This may seem counterintuitive in that $`F`$ is not invariant under the gauge transformations $`\delta \widehat{B}=2\pi \alpha ^{}d\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\delta A=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. One might have expected the quantization condition to apply to the gauge invariant $``$.

A first comment one can make is that gauge transformations for which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is single-valued do not affect $`F`$, so claiming that $`F`$ is quantized is not evident nonsense. Although $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ need not be single-valued, in fact such large gauge transformations can only shift $`F`$ by an integer. This is how the usual quantization condition on $`H`$ arises in space-time language: one must define $`\widehat{B}`$ in patches on $`S^3`$, and the allowed transition functions between the patches are those respecting this quantization condition.

This shows that the claim that $`F`$ and not $``$ is quantized is sensible, but does not really prove it. Indeed, any argument for this claim which starts from a conventional world-volume gauge theory (such as the Born-Infeld action) would be circular, as the conventional gauge potential only makes sense if $`F`$ is quantized.

As is by now well-known, there do exist other gauge theories such as noncommutative gauge theory in which $`F`$ is not quantized in the usual way. However, the examples in which this is known to make sense at present are related to manifolds with non-trivial fundamental group, such as the torus. Indeed the case of $`S^2`$ has been much studied and the only noncommutative gauge theories which are known to make sense in this case are based on the “fuzzy sphere”  and have finitely many degrees of freedom (the original algebra of functions on $`S^2`$ is truncated). There is even a “no-go” theorem  to the effect that deformations of the algebra of functions which do not make this truncation, and which respect the natural $`SO(3)`$ symmetry, do not exist as bounded algebras.

Although this is a theorem, we have not proven that its assumptions are the physically appropriate ones, and so we are not claiming at this point to show that noncommutative gauge theory with a field theoretic number of degrees of freedom does not exist on $`S^2`$. The point of this discussion is to explain why there is no sensible candidate low energy theory (at this writing) to describe the alternate hypothesis that $`F`$ is not quantized.

In any case, our hypothesis that $`F`$ is quantized will be confirmed shortly by the beautiful agreement of our results with those of conformal field theory.

Let us now fill in the appropriate formulae. The energy of our D2-brane with $`n`$ units of worldvolume magnetic flux in the semiclassical (large-$`k`$) limit reads

$`E_n(\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`T_{(2)}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi \sqrt{\mathrm{det}(\widehat{G}+)}+\mathrm{}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`4\pi k\alpha ^{}T_{(2)}\left(\mathrm{sin}^4\psi +(\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin2}\psi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi n}{k}})^2\right)^{1/2}+\mathrm{}`$
where $`T_{(2)}`$ is the D-brane tension and the dots stand for higher $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections (see for instance ). For $`0<n<k`$ this expression has a unique minimum away from the poles, at

$$\psi _n=\frac{\pi n}{k},$$
(6)
where it takes the value

$$M_n=4\pi k\alpha ^{}T_{(2)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi n}{k}.$$
(7)
For values of $`n`$ outside this range the minimum of the energy is at $`\psi =0`$ (if $`n<o`$) or $`\psi =\pi `$ (if $`n>k`$) and it corresponds to a singular configuration of the brane. This gives a total of $`k1`$ non-singular configurations. In order to take into account the well-known one loop shift of the sphere curvature, we should replace everywhere $`k`$ by $`k+2`$. There is however no reason at this point to trust our expressions beyond the large $`k`$ and $`n`$ (with $`n/k`$ held fixed) limit, since only in this limit are the wordvolume curvatures small in string units.

We can also evaluate the D-particle charge induced by the background flux on the above stable non-degenerate D2-branes. Using the standard formulae  one finds

$$Q_n=T_{(2)}_{S^2}=2\pi k\alpha ^{}T_{(2)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi n}{k}.$$
(8)
These charges are not even rationally related to each other – here is the apparent paradox we have alluded to in the introduction. Note also that in the flat limit, $`k\mathrm{}`$ with $`n`$ held fixed, eqs. (7), (8) reduce to the mass and charge of $`n`$ free D-particles, $`E_nQ_nnT_{(0)}`$. The above stable configurations should have in fact a dual description as bound states of $`n`$ D-particles on the sphere, which can be analyzed along the lines of . From the exact properties of these bound states we can place restrictions on the non-abelian Born Infeld theory, similar to those of , but this is outside the scope of the present work.

## 3 Small fluctuations

The ‘mini-superspace’ analysis of the previous section took only into account the degree of freedom corresponding to rigid motions of the D2-brane in the $`\psi `$-direction. In this section we derive the complete spectrum of small quadratic fluctuations around the above D-brane solutions. This will allow us to confirm their stability, to find their classical moduli space, and to compare later on with the spectrum of boundary operators for the corresponding Cardy states.

We use static gauge in which the worldvolume is parametrised by $`(t,\theta ,\varphi )`$, and impose $`A_0=0`$ for the worldvolume gauge field. We ignore for simplicity brane fluctuations and gauge-field components in the extra spectator spatial directions, and concentrate on the three remaining degrees of freedom

$$\psi =\frac{\pi n}{k}+\delta ,A_\theta =\frac{k}{2\pi }\alpha _\theta ,\mathrm{and}A_\varphi =\frac{n}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\theta 1)+\frac{k}{2\pi }\alpha _\varphi .$$
(9)
Here the small fluctuations $`\delta ,\alpha _\theta ,\alpha _\varphi `$ are arbitrary functions on $`R\times S^2`$, and the $`k/2\pi `$ normalization is introduced for convenience. The Born-Infeld energy-density reads

$$_{BI}=T_{(2)}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(\widehat{G}+)}$$
(10)
where

$$\widehat{G}+=k\alpha ^{}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\frac{1}{k\alpha ^{}}+(_t\delta )^2\hfill & & _t\delta _\theta \delta +_t\alpha _\theta \hfill & & _t\delta _\varphi \delta +_t\alpha _\varphi \hfill \\ _t\delta _\theta \delta _t\alpha _\theta \hfill & & \mathrm{sin}^2\psi +(_\theta \delta )^2\hfill & & _\theta \delta _\varphi \delta +_{\theta \varphi }\hfill \\ _t\delta _\varphi \delta _t\alpha _\varphi \hfill & & _\theta \delta _\varphi \delta _{\theta \varphi }\hfill & & \mathrm{sin}^2\psi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta +(_\varphi \delta )^2\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(11)
with

$$_{\theta \varphi }\left(\delta \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\psi )}{2}\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta +_\theta \alpha _\varphi _\varphi \alpha _\theta .$$
(12)
In expanding out the determinant to quadratic order, terms involving $`\delta `$ off the diagonal drop out. After some tedious but straightforward algebra the Born-Infeld lagrangian up to quadratic order takes the form

$$\begin{array}{c}_{BI}2f\mathrm{cot}(\frac{n\pi }{k})+k\alpha ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta \left[(_t\delta )^2+(_t\alpha _\theta )^2+(_t\alpha _\varphi )^2/\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right]\hfill \\ \\ (1/\mathrm{sin}\theta )\left[(_\varphi \delta )^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (_\theta \delta )^2+2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \delta ^2+4\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta f+f^2\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
We have here denoted $`f_\theta \alpha _\varphi _\varphi \alpha _\theta `$ for short, and have dropped the leading, fluctuation-independent term of the lagrangian as well as an irrelevant multiplicative constant.

The above expression starts out with a linear term, which seems to contradict our assertion that we are expanding around a classical solution. This is however not the case. The linear term is proportional to the fluctuation of the integrated flux, which must be set to zero because of the quantization condition. This demonstrates explicitly that it is the magnetic flux that stabilizes the D-brane. The quadratic terms in (13) are furthermore independent of the background solution we expand around. This means that the spectrum of fluctuations is independent of $`n`$, in agreement with the conformal field-theory result as we will see soon.

From the above lagrangian we derive the following linearized equations for the fluctuation fields,

$$\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta \hfill \\ \alpha _\theta \hfill \\ \alpha _\varphi \hfill \end{array}\right)=𝒪\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta \hfill \\ \alpha _\theta \hfill \\ \alpha _\varphi \hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(14)
where the operator-valued matrix is

$$𝒪=\frac{1}{k\alpha ^{}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+2\hfill & & \frac{2}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\varphi \hfill & & \frac{2}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\theta \hfill \\ & & & & \\ \frac{2}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\varphi \hfill & & \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }_\varphi ^2\hfill & & \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }_\varphi _\theta \hfill \\ & & & & \\ \frac{2}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\theta \hfill & & \mathrm{sin}\theta _\theta \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\varphi \hfill & & \mathrm{sin}\theta _\theta \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\theta \hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(15)
and

$$\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }_\varphi ^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta _\theta $$
(16)
is the covariant Laplacian on $`S^2`$. The operator $`𝒪`$ has zero eigenvalues corresponding to the unphysical longitudinal polarization of the photon. We can extract the transverse polarization by combining the last two equations so as to express everything in terms of the physical fluctuation $`f`$. After some algebra the answer is

$$\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta \hfill \\ f/\mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill \end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{k\alpha ^{}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+2\hfill & & 2\hfill \\ 2\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\hfill & & \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta \hfill \\ f/\mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(17)
We can now readily diagonalize this operator by going to a basis of spherical harmonics,

$$\delta =\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\delta _{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{and}f=\mathrm{sin}\theta \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}f_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )$$
(18)
with the reality conditions $`\delta _{lm}=\delta _{lm}^{}`$ and similarly for $`f`$. Notice that the absence of the s-wave in the expansion of $`f`$ guarantees the flux quantization condition, as can be checked using the orthonormality of the spherical harmonics. For $`l=0`$ there is therefore only the $`\delta `$-fluctuation, and its frequency squared is $`2/k\alpha ^{}`$. For all other $`l`$ we need to consider the matrix

$$\frac{1}{k\alpha ^{}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l(l+1)+2\hfill & & 2\hfill \\ 2l(l+1)\hfill & & l(l+1)\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(19)
whose eigenvalues are $`(l+1)(l+2)/k\alpha ^{}`$ and $`l(l1)/k\alpha ^{}`$. Putting it all together we thus have the following spectrum of quadratic fluctuations

$$m^2=j(j+1)/k\alpha ^{},\mathrm{in}\mathrm{reps}.(j1)(j+1),\mathrm{for}j=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(20)
with the understanding that only the spin-one representation appears in the special case $`j=0`$. This corresponds precisely to a triplet of zero modes, corresponding to arbitrary rotations of the worldvolume two-sphere inside $`S^3`$. All other excitations have positive mass, confirming the stability of our solutions.

## 4 CFT analysis

Let us now compare the results of the last two sections with those of conformal field theory. In the diagonal-invariant bosonic theory there are ($`k+1`$) Cardy  boundary states preserving a SU(2) symmetry,

$$|q_C\underset{p=0}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{S_{qp}}{\sqrt{S_{0p}}}|p_I$$
(21)
where $`|p_I`$ is the Ishibashi (character) state corresponding to the chiral primary of spin $`p/2`$, and

$$S_{ij}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{k+2}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{(i+1)(j+1)\pi }{k+2}\right)$$
(22)
is the modular-transformation matrix.

We want to identify these states with the semiclassical configurations of section 2. We have seen that there are $`k1`$ stable non-degenerate D2-branes, when the $`S^3`$ radius is $`\sqrt{k\alpha ^{}}`$, and adding the two D-particles at the north and south poles gives the correct total number. Alternatively, if we take into account the quantum shift $`kk+2`$, we find exactly $`k+1`$ non-degenerate D2 branes. These two ways of counting are of course indistinguishable in the semiclassical large $`k`$ limit, since it is hard to tell the difference between a point-like D-particle and one with radius $`\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$ (this is the radius of the worldvolume for $`n=1`$ units of flux). Adopting the latter point of view makes, however, the Born-Infeld results exact – this may be related to supersymmetry in the fivebrane context, but we did not have any reason to expect it a priori. To exhibit this precise agreement of the formulae we will assume that the $`S^3`$ radius is $`\sqrt{(k+2)\alpha ^{}}`$, and identify

$$|n1_C(\mathrm{flux}n\mathrm{D2}\mathrm{brane})$$
(23)
where the flux $`n`$ takes the values $`1,2,..,k+1`$.

The mass of a Cardy state can be read off from the coefficient of its $`p=0`$ Ishibashi component which has non-vanishing overlap with the (seven-dimensional) graviton and dilaton, see for instance . To be more precise, the interaction energy between two D-branes a distance $`r`$ apart due to the exchange of the (seven-dimensional) graviton and dilaton can be calculated along the lines of  with the result222We can formally ignore the dilaton tadpole in this calculation.

$$(r)=2\kappa _{(7)}^2M_n^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{(6)}(r)$$
(24)
where $`\kappa _{(7)}`$ is the gravitational coupling in seven dimensions, $`M_n`$ the mass of the D-branes and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(6)}(r)`$ the six-dimensional Euclidean Green’s function. The string-theory calculation for this interaction energy on the other hand is

$$(r)=(2\pi )^4\frac{|S_{n0}|^2}{S_{00}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(6)}(r)$$
(25)
where we have here projected onto the identity-operator in the closed-string channel of the amplitude, and we have set $`\alpha ^{}=1/2`$. Comparing the two expressions gives

$$M_n=\frac{2\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}{\kappa _{(7)}}\frac{|S_{n0}|}{\sqrt{S_{00}}}=\frac{(2\pi )^{3/2}(2k+4)^{1/4}}{\kappa _{(7)}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{n\pi }{k+2}\right),$$
(26)
where we have here used the expressions for the S-matrix coefficients. Using now the relations

$$T_{(2)}=\frac{\sqrt{2\pi ^3}}{\kappa _{(10)}},\mathrm{and}\kappa _{(10)}^2=\kappa _{(7)}^2\left(\frac{k+2}{2}\right)^{3/2}2\pi ^2$$
(27)
one can verify that the above mass agrees precisely with our semiclassical result (7), including all the numerical prefactors.

Consider next the spectrum of quadratic fluctuations, to be compared with the open-string excitations in the $`_{(n1)(n1)}`$ Hilbert space. If we neglect transverse spatial dimensions, the light states in this Hilbert space are of the form

$$|\mathrm{open}>=J_1^a|j>$$
(28)
where $`J^a`$ are the SU(2) currents and $`|j>`$ is created by a primary field with $`j=0,\mathrm{}k/2`$. These transform in the $`(j1)j(j+1)`$ representations of $`SU(2)`$, but imposing the (super)Virasoro constraint will project the representation $`j`$ out of the spectrum. One way to see this is to note that there are as many constraints as number of primaries, namely $`2j+1`$, and since physical states must form $`SU(2)`$ representations it is necessarily the $`j`$ representation that is projected out. The conformal weight of the vertex operators corresponding to the states (28) is $`j(j+1)/(k+2)`$ , in complete agreement with the semiclassical mass formula of small fluctuations derived in section three.

Another qualitative confirmation of the results in section two follows from an analysis of the ‘wavefunctions’ of the Cardy states in position space . These are peaked around equally-spaced values of the polar angle $`\psi `$, in agreement again with the semiclassical result (6). Notice that the moduli space for rigid translations of the D2-branes on the group manifold corresponds to the freedom of obtaining equivalent Cardy states by group conjugation.

Finally, let us compare the induced D-particle charge (8) with the result of CFT. In the CFT this charge is given by the $`p=1`$ coefficient of the Cardy state, because the corresponding closed-string RR states transform in the $`(p/21/2,p/21/2)`$ representation of $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$. The reason is that the zero modes of the supersymmetric WZW fermions are realized on a bispinor of $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$. Now the D-particle charge of interest is a $`SO(4)`$ singlet – this can be verified explicitly by checking that it does not transform under rigid translations of the D2-brane on $`S^3`$. Thus only $`p=1`$ contributes to this coupling, and a calculation similar to the one for the mass gives

$$Q_n=\frac{(2\pi )^{3/2}(2k+4)^{1/4}}{2\kappa _{(7)}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2n\pi }{k+2}\right),$$
(29)
in perfect agreement again with the result of section two. That these charges are not rationally related to each other is thus confirmed by the CFT analysis – we will return to the point in the final section.

## 5 General group manifolds

In this section we discuss some aspects of the generalization of our results to compact Lie groups $`G`$ which we assume to be simple, connected and, for simplicity, to be simply connected. Our discussion will be entirely topological, the precise form of the metric and antisymmetric tensor will not play any role. The reader not interested in this generalization can go directly to the final section.

The D-brane world volumes for all boundary conditions for which the gluing of left movers and right movers at the boundary is given by an automorphism $`\omega `$ of $`G`$ have been described in . They are (regular) twined conjugacy classes, i.e. they are subspaces of the form

$$𝒞_\omega (g)=\{hg\omega (h)^1\text{ with }hG\}$$
(30)
where $`gG`$ is a regular element.

Let us describe the geometry of twined conjugacy classes in somewhat more detail: for any automorphism $`\omega `$, there is a maximal torus $`T`$ of $`G`$ that is invariant under $`\omega `$. The subgroup of elements of $`T`$ that are left pointwise fixed by $`\omega `$,

$$T^\omega =\{tT|\omega (t)=t\},$$
(31)
is not a torus, but a semi-direct product of a torus and a finite abelian group; its connected component $`T_0^\omega `$ of the identity is a torus. In case $`\omega `$ is an inner automorphism – and this is always true for $`G=SU(2)`$ – all subgroups of $`G`$ coincide:

$$T=T_0^\omega =T^\omega .$$
(32)
For inner automorphisms, this torus actually coincides with a maximal torus and the dimension of the torus equals the rank of $`G`$; so e.g. for inner automorphisms of $`SU(3)`$ we have a two-dimensional torus. For outer automorphisms, the dimension of $`T_0^\omega `$ is smaller than the rank; for outer automorphisms of $`SU(3)`$ it is equal to one.

Weyl’s classical theory of conjugacy classes has in fact a nice generalisation to twined conjugacy classes. We will sketch some statements of this theory. The central tool is the following: given a maximal torus $`T`$, we define a map from the coset space $`G/T`$ and the maximal torus $`T`$ to the group by using conjugation:

$$\begin{array}{c}q:G/T\times TG\hfill \\ q([g],t)=gtg^1\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
Weyl could show that the mapping degree of $`q`$ equals the number of elements in the Weyl group $`W`$. Maps with positive degree are surjective, so in particular one sees that any element of $`G`$ is conjugated to some element in the maximal torus $`T`$. So any conjugacy class can be characterized by an element of the maximal torus. In fact, different elements of the maximal torus parametrize identical conjugacy classes if and only if they are related by the action of the Weyl group. In the case of $`SU(2)`$, a maximal torus is one-dimensional; examples are given by circles of constant values of $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$; they can be parametrized by $`\psi `$. The Weyl group is just $`Z_2`$, and its action has been taken into account by restricting $`\psi `$ to the range $`0\psi \pi `$. Finally, fixing $`t`$ we see that regular conjugacy classes are isomorphic to the homogeneous space $`G/T`$. In the case of $`SU(2)`$ this gives $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ which is isomorphic to the two-sphere.

The results nicely generalize to twisted conjugacy classes (for details see ). For any automorphism $`\omega `$, $`q`$ is replaced by $`q_\omega `$ that is defined via twisted conjugation:

$$\begin{array}{c}q_\omega :G/T_0^\omega \times T_0^\omega G\hfill \\ q_\omega ([g],t)=gt\omega (g^1)\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
The mapping degree of $`q_\omega `$ can be shown to be positive. To state more precise results, we need the subgroup $`W_\omega `$ of the Weyl group $`W`$ that commutes with the action of $`W`$ on the weight space:

$$W_\omega :=\{wW|\omega ^{}w=w\omega ^{}\text{ for all }wW\}$$
(35)
The group $`W_\omega `$ has been shown in  to be isomorphic to the Weyl group of the so-called orbit Lie algebra . For the outer automorphism of $`SU(3)`$ this group is $`Z_2`$, which is the Weyl group of the orbit Lie algebra $`SU(2)`$.

The mapping degree of $`q_\omega `$ is just $`n_{T^\omega }|W_\omega |`$, where $`n_{T^\omega }`$ is the number of connected components of $`T^\omega `$. Weyls classical results can now be generalized to twined conjugacy classes. All statements remain true, provided one replaces the maximal torus $`T`$ by $`T_0^\omega `$ and the Weyl group $`W`$ by $`W_\omega `$: Twined conjugacy classes are characterized by elements of $`T_0^\omega `$; different elements of $`T_0^\omega `$ describe identical twined conjugacy classes if and only if they are related by the action of $`W_\omega `$. Regular twined conjugacy classes are isomorphic to the homogeneous space $`G/T_0^\omega `$. Even a generalization of Weyl’s integration formula holds .

To give an explicit example, regular D-branes for inner automorphisms of $`SU(3)`$ are isomorphic to $`SU(3)/U(1)^2`$ and are thus six-dimensional. They are characterized by two parameters. For outer automorphisms, they are isomorphic to $`SU(3)/U(1)`$ and therefore seven-dimensional. For their characterization a single parameter suffices. Outer automorphisms therefore change the dimensionality of the worldvolume.

Extending the analysis of $`SU(2)`$ to other groups requires a detailed knowledge of the differential geometry of the group manifold, in particular a good choice of coordinates. The corresponding calculations become rather complicated and are beyond the scope of the present note. However, there is a simple and yet non-trivial check of the stabilization mechanism: we expect as many independent $`U(1)`$ fluxes as the number of transverse brane coordinates that must be stabilized.

The possible $`U(1)`$ fluxes on the worldvolume of the D-brane are given by

$$\mathrm{dim}H^2(G/T_0^\omega ,\mathrm{R})$$
(36)
Following our previous discussion, the description of a specific D-brane requires on the other hand $`dimT_0^\omega `$ parameters. We should thus expect the general relation

$$\mathrm{dim}H^2(G/T_0^\omega ,𝐑)=\mathrm{dim}T_0^\omega $$
(37)
Such a relation does indeed hold in full generality: for a simply connected compact Lie group $`G`$ also the second homotopy group $`\pi _2(G)`$ vanishes. The long exact sequence in homotopy

$$\mathrm{}\pi _k(G)\pi _k(G/T_0^\omega )\pi _{k1}(T)\pi _{k1}(G)\mathrm{}$$
(38)
implies for $`k=1`$ that the homogeneous space $`G/T_0^\omega `$ is simply connected and for $`k=2`$ that $`\pi _2(G/T_0^\omega )`$ is isomorphic to $`\pi _1(T_0^\omega )`$. The latter is a free abelian group whose rank is $`dimT_0^\omega `$. The homotopy group $`\pi _2(G/T_0^\omega )`$ therefore coincides with the homology we want to determine, and we find indeed that

$$H^2(G/T_0^\omega ,R)\pi _2(G/T_0^\omega )\pi _1(T_0^\omega )𝐙^{\mathrm{dim}T_0^\omega }$$
(39)
Notice in particular that the line bundles over $`G/T_0^\omega `$ do not have any continuous parameters. This generalizes the situation of $`SU(2)`$, where we consider bundles over $`S^2`$. This is reflected in the conformal field theory analysis by the fact that we find D-brane worldvolumes whose only continuous deformations are given by (inner) automorphisms of the group, but which do not have any other moduli.

The fact that the relation (37) always holds shows that the advocated mechanism could indeed be responsible for the stability of all known WZW D-branes.

## 6 Fivebrane and a paradox

To further discuss the physics of the $`SU(2)`$ branes, let us consider a configuration of $`N`$ coincident supersymmetric (NS) five-branes in type II theory.

The full fivebrane background is (in string frame)

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`dx^2+f(r)dy^2`$ (40)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`g_s^2f(r)`$ (41)
$`f(r)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{N\alpha ^{}}{r^2}}`$ (42)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`N\alpha ^{}ϵ_3`$ (43)
where $`x`$ are the $`5+1`$ longitudinal coordinates, $`y`$ are $`4`$ transverse coordinates and $`r=|y|`$.

In the near-horizon limit $`r0`$, the background factorizes into a radial component and an $`S^3`$. The corresponding CFT has a Feigin-Fuchs (linear dilaton) field in addition to the supersymmetric SU(2) WZW model . The supersymmetric WZW model can be realized as a tensor product of three free fermions (with level $`2`$ current algebra) and a bosonic WZW model of level $`k`$ (the $`k`$ of the previous sections). The fivebrane number $`N`$ is identified with the total central charge $`k+2`$ of the $`SU(2)`$ current algebra. This may sound unsatisfactory, as there is apparently no candidate theory for a single five-brane, but it agrees with the standard lore that the center-of-mass degrees of freedom of the branes are not be visible in the dual holographic theory. A single fivebrane has no degrees of freedom other than center-of-mass, and hence no dual holographic description.

The D particles of the previous section are nonsupersymmetric and unstable in this background. They are momentum modes in the eleventh dimension, which tend to fall towards the core of the fivebrane where the eleventh dimension blows up and the D-particles become massless. This agrees with the expectation that they should complete SO(5) representations of the fivebrane fields .

D$`2`$-branes which end on the fivebrane are supersymmetric and correspond to the product of a Neumann boundary state in the linear dilaton theory, and a Dirichlet (D$`0`$) boundary state in the WZW model. In this context, the additional WZW boundary states will correspond to D$`4`$ branes extending along the radial direction (and so ending on the fivebranes), but now (in the near horizon regime) “wrapped” on an transverse $`S^2`$, forming a conical geometry.

To study the supersymmetry properties of these branes, we need to write down the space-time supersymmetry generators. The world-volume supersymmetry generators are given in  and the D$`2`$ boundary conditions in the WZW model preserve an $`N=4`$ world-sheet supersymmetry. This is enough to guarantee that the world-volume operator corresponding to the space-time supercharge also exists with these boundary conditions.

The conjugate brane (in the sense of electric-magnetic duality) would be a D$`4`$-brane with three dimensions wrapped on $`S^3`$ and $`1+1`$ extending in Minkowski space. Although this of course does not exist because it is wrapping a surface with $`H0`$, there is a similar object which is believed to exist . The total flux $`H`$ on the brane can be made zero by allowing $`k`$ D$`2`$-branes to end on the brane (and extend outward), analogous to the “baryon” of .

The existence of the conjugate object would appear to require D$`2`$ charge quantization. So why is RR charge not quantized ?

We first note that there is a superficially similar effect, already visible in toroidal compactification, with a much simpler explanation. Since the integrals $`\widehat{B}`$ over two-cycles in the target space can take arbitrary non-zero values, the induced RR charges $`C\widehat{B}`$ are non-integral. However, this is not a violation of quantization but rather a rotation of the entire charge lattice.

A simple way to see that this is not what is happening here is to realize that charge quantization requires that there be an integral basis of the charge lattice of rank equal to the number of charges (one must then check that the DSZ form is integral of course). In the present case (and for $`SU(2)`$), we have found $`O(k/2)`$ distinct ‘charges’ satisfying no integer relations, but at most two independent RR charges (from the two-dimensional cohomology of $`S^3`$).

The way one avoids an immediate contradiction is by noting that the RR fields in question are massive in the near-horizon geometry. This can be seen in the CFT where the normalizable vertex operators have (six-dimensional) mass bounded below by the background charge of the Feigin-Fuchs coordinate . Alternatively, in the low energy effective theory, this follows from the Chern-Simons coupling $`GG\widehat{B}`$. We work in the usual string conventions in which the RR kinetic terms and sources are independent of the dilaton. This leads to

$$dG=HG+\delta ^{(7)}+B\delta ^{(5)}$$
(44)
and

$$dG=\delta ^{(5)}$$
(45)
where $`G=dC^{(3)}`$ is the four-form field strength, $`\delta ^{(9p)}`$ is the source associated to a $`p+1`$-brane (a $`9p`$ form normal to the world-volume). The conserved electric and magnetic RR charges are then

$$Q_M=G$$

and

$$Q_E=GBG.$$

In the near-horizon limit of the five-brane background, $`B`$ is independent of distance $`r`$. In this case the CS term makes the RR field effectively massive, so the quantization condition will not be visible.

In the true five-brane background, when we go to asymptotic infinity (the Minkowski region), the $`B`$ field does fall off with distance, and the charge quantization must become observable again. This regime is of course not described by our explicit CFT. Since the volume of the $`S^3`$ grows with radius in the normal way here, presumably the conical four-brane must asymptote to a cylindrical four-brane (or even $`n`$ two-branes again). This fits with the asymptotic BPS bound which implies that the tension here is just $`n`$ times that of the original two-brane.

In a general background with non-zero $`H`$, it is clear that the induced RR charge will depend on the embedding of the brane through $`\widehat{B}`$ and so this contribution cannot be quantized. However this variation could be cancelled by the bulk CS term: the total variation of the right hand side of (44) under a variation of the embedding of the D$`4`$-brane is zero, under a suitable interpretation of the boundary terms.

These points seem to us to resolve the paradox both in the context of the near-horizon geometry (because the RR fields are massive) and in the full geometry (in which the $`H`$ flux falls off fast enough to apply the second argument). However they leave open the interesting question of just what the CFT results (29) are measuring. One possibility is that they are related to the $`N1=k+1`$ independent charges of the holographically dual field theory on the fivebranes. For $`N`$ type IIB fivebranes the worldvolume theory has $`SU(N)`$ gauge symmetry, and hence $`N1`$ independent charges. These charges may indeed correspond to the different allowed couplings of the massive RR field in the bulk theory.

We feel there is more to say about this issue, but will leave it for future work.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the organizers of the workshop on ‘Non-Commutative Gauge Theory’ at the Lorentz Center in Leiden, Holland, where this collaboration started. CB thanks the New Center for High Energy Physics at the University of Rutgers for hospitality during completion of this work. MRD would like to thank A. Rajaraman and M. Rozali for discussions on this problem and especially for emphasizing the importance of RR charge quantization. We also thank O. Aharony, J. Maldacena and J. Polchinski for useful comments.


text:
# Momentum conservation and local field corrections for the response of interacting Fermi gases

\[

## Abstract

We reanalyze the recently derived response function for interacting systems in relaxation time approximation respecting density, momentum and energy conservation. We find that momentum conservation leads exactly to the local field corrections for both cases respecting only density conservation and respecting density and energy conservation. This rewriting simplifies the former formulae dramatically. We discuss the small wave vector expansion and find that the response function shows a high frequency dependence of $`\omega ^5`$ which allows to fulfill higher order sum rules. The momentum conservation also resolves a puzzle about the conductivity which should only be finite in multicomponent systems.

\]

Recently the improvement of the response function in interacting quantum systems has regained much interest . This quantity is important in a variety of fields and describes the induced density variation if the system is externally perturbed: $`\delta n=\chi V^{\mathrm{ext}}`$. As an example for an interacting system with potential $`V`$ the conductivity can be calculated from the response function via

$`\mathrm{Re}\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{V}{4\pi }}\omega \mathrm{Im}\chi .`$ (1)
One of the most fruitful concepts to improve the response functions including correlations are the local field corrections $`G`$

$`\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _0}{1+G\chi _0}},`$ (2)
see  and references therein.

On the other hand there exists an extremely useful form of the response function when the interactions are abbreviated in the relaxation time approximation $`\tau `$ respecting density conservation. One of the advantages of the resulting Mermin formula (11) is that it leads to the Drude -like form of the dielectric function in the long wavelength limit

$`ϵ=1V\chi =1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega (\omega +\frac{i}{\tau })}}`$ (3)
with the plasma frequency $`\omega _p`$ for the Coulomb potential $`V`$ from which follows the conductivity

$`\mathrm{Re}\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{ne^2\tau }{m(1+\omega ^2\tau ^2)}}=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{ne^2\tau }{m}+o(\omega )\\ \frac{ne^2}{m\omega ^2\tau }+o(\frac{1}{\omega })\end{array}.`$ (4)
However one should note that this formula is valid only for the extension to a multicomponent system  (at least a two-component system) since it makes no sense to speak of conductivity in a single component system where the conductivity should be infinite. Clearly the Mermin formula does not distinguish these cases and cannot be sufficient to describe the response. Therefore we will show that the inclusion of additional momentum conservation will repair this defect (39) and will lead to a conductivity

$`\mathrm{Re}\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{ne^2\tau }{m(1+\omega ^2\tau ^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{nq^2}{m\omega ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\mu n}}{\displaystyle \frac{2E}{n^2}}\right)`$ (5)
which shows indeed for the static limit a diverging behavior in contrast to (4).

There are two distinguishable cases, the single component case where we have to include momentum conservation and obtain divergent conductivity and the multicomponent case where we should expect Mermin-like formulae in order to render the conductivity finite. In order to bring these two extreme cases together the response function for multicomponent systems should be considered .

In this letter we want to restrict to the one - component situation. In  we have derived the density, current and energy response $`\chi ,\chi _J,\chi _E`$ of an interacting quantum system

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta n\\ \delta 𝐉\\ \delta E\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi \\ \chi _J\\ \chi _E\end{array}\right)V^{\mathrm{ext}}𝒳\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)V^{\mathrm{ext}}𝒳\nu ^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ (6)
(7)
to the external perturbation $`V^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ provided the density, momentum and energy are conserved. The interacting system has been described by the quantum kinetic equation for the density operator in relaxation time approximation where the relaxation is considered with respect to the local density operator or the corresponding local equilibrium distribution function. This local equilibrium is given by a local chemical potential $`\mu `$, a local temperature $`T`$ and a local momentum $`Q`$ of mass motion. These local quantities are specified by the requirement that the expectation values for density, momentum and energy are the same when calculated from local distribution function or performed with the density operator.

The density response functions have been expressed in  for the inclusion of successively more conservation laws in terms of polarization functions $`𝒫=\{\mathrm{\Pi },\mathrm{\Pi }_n,\mathrm{\Pi }_E\}`$ and have the general form

$`𝒳=𝒫(1𝒱𝒫)^1`$ (8)
due to the induced mean fields which can have density - and momentum - dependent Skyrme form.

When we note the free response function or Lindhard polarization function without collisions as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0=s{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{f_0(𝐩+\frac{𝐪}{2})f_0(𝐩\frac{𝐪}{2})}{\frac{\mathrm{𝐩𝐪}}{m}\omega i0}}`$ (9)
with finite temperature Fermi functions $`f_0`$, the inclusion of only density conservation leads to the Mermin polarization

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{n}(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_0(𝐪,\omega +i/\tau )}{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1i\omega \tau }}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_0(𝐪,\omega +i/\tau )}{\mathrm{\Pi }_0(𝐪,0)}}\right]}}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`(1i\omega \tau ){\displaystyle \frac{g_1(\omega +\frac{i}{\tau })g_1(0)}{h_1}}.`$ (11)
If we include also the energy conservation we obtain  an additional term to (11)

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{E}}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`(1i\omega \tau )({\displaystyle \frac{g_1(\omega +\frac{i}{\tau })g_1(0)}{h_1}}`$ (13)
$`\omega \tau i{\displaystyle \frac{(h_ϵg_1(0)h_1g_ϵ(0))^2}{h_1(h_ϵ^2h_{ϵϵ}h_1)}})`$
where we use the abbreviation

$`h_\varphi =g_\varphi (\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\tau }})\omega \tau ig_\varphi (0).`$ (14)
The different occurring correlation functions can be written in terms of moments of the usual Lindhard polarization function (9) as follows :

$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0,`$ (15)
$`g_ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega ^2}{2q^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2,`$ (16)
$`g_{ϵϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}E{\displaystyle \frac{nq^2}{16m}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2\omega ^2}{q^4}}){\displaystyle \frac{m^2\omega ^4}{4q^4}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2q^2}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m^2}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_4.`$
Integration via the chemical potential yields the higher moments of the polarization function

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2`$ $`=`$ $`2m{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mu }{}}}𝑑\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_0,`$ (19)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_4`$ $`=`$ $`2(2m)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mu }{}}}𝑑\mu ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mu ^{}}{}}}𝑑\mu ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ (20)
and the density and energy are given by

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}f_0(p)},`$ (21)
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\frac{p^2}{2m}f_0(p)}.`$ (22)
For the inclusion of additional momentum conservation to formulae (11) or (13) we obtain now a tremendous simplification by observing that the formulae given in  can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{j}}(\omega )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{n}(\omega )}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{j},\mathrm{E}}(\omega )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{E}}(\omega )}}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{nq^2}}G.`$ (24)
This shows that the inclusion of momentum conservation leads to nothing but the local field correction with the same form $`G`$ for both cases, the inclusion of only density conservation and additional energy conservation. Formula (24) is the main result of this paper since it leads to a tremendous simplification. To see the advantages more clearly we discuss now limiting cases.

The long wave length expansion is particularly important for the classical limit and for the discussion of sum rules . Since the discussion above has shown the advantage of discussing the inverse polarization function instead of the polarization function itself we proceed and give the expansion for the inverse polarization functions (9), (11) and (13)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }_0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega ^2}{nq^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2E}{n^2}}+o(q^2),`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{n}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega (\omega +\frac{i}{\tau })}{nq^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\omega \tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\mu n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2E}{n^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\omega +\frac{i}{\tau }}}+o(q^2),`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{E}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{n}}}{\displaystyle \frac{nq^2}{18m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{9}{_\mu n}}{\displaystyle \frac{10E}{n^2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{(\omega +\frac{i}{\tau })^3}}+o(q^4).`$ (27)
From equations (24) it is straight forward to derive the expansions for $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{nj}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{njE}}`$.

The first observation is that up to zeroth order in $`q`$ the local field corrections (24) induced by momentum conservation lead to an exact cancellation of the effect of collisions in (11) since we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{n}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }_0}}=G+o(q^0)`$ (29)
which shows that we have to go to the next order in $`q`$ as done in (LABEL:nn).

Also one recognizes that the inclusion of energy conservation leads only to corrections in next order of $`q^2`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{n}`$. Moreover, we observe that this correction even vanishes if we employ the zero temperature limit. For zero temperature we have $`E=3ϵ_fn/5`$ and $`_\mu n=3n/2ϵ_f`$ with the Fermi energy $`ϵ_f`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{njE}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{nj}}}}+o(q^4)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega ^2}{nq^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ_f}{15n}}{\displaystyle \frac{9\omega +\frac{5i}{\tau }}{\omega +\frac{i}{\tau }}}+o(q^4).`$ (31)
Using (LABEL:nn) one can write all the effects of correlation including conservation laws in one common local field factor

$`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{j},\mathrm{E}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }_0}}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1i\omega \tau }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\mu n}}{\displaystyle \frac{2E}{n^2}}\right)+o(q^2)`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1i\omega \tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{8ϵ_f}{15n}}+o(q^4)`$ (34)
where the last line is valid for zero temperature.

This allows in turn to give the small wave vector expression of the polarization function itself in a Drude-like expression

$`\underset{𝐪0}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{j},\mathrm{E}}(𝐪,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{nq^2}{m\omega \left[\omega +\frac{nq^2}{m\omega }\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{G}(\omega )+\frac{i}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }(\omega )}\right]}}`$ (35)
with the modified frequency–dependent relaxation rate

$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^1={\displaystyle \frac{nq^2}{m\omega }}\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{G}(\omega )`$ (37)
similar to . The advantage here is that we have simple explicit formulae for the dynamical local field factor $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and the modified relaxation rate while in  this could only be given in static approximation and involving complicated integrals. If we had used simply the Mermin formula (11) we would have obtained $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{G}=0`$.

In particular we find for the imaginary part

$`\underset{\omega \mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{j},\mathrm{E}}(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n^2q^4}{\omega ^5\tau m^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\mu n}}{\displaystyle \frac{2E}{n^2}}\right)`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8ϵ_fnq^4}{15\omega ^5\tau m^2}},`$ (39)
$`\underset{\omega \mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{n}(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n^2q^4}{\omega ^3\tau m^2}}`$ (40)
showing a characteristic different high frequency behavior. While in  we have checked the improved convergence of first energy weighted sum rule for the full expression (24) we want to point out that the $`\omega ^5`$ decrease for high frequencies allows to fulfill higher order sum rules. The analytical discussion and proof similar to  will be devoted to a forthcoming work.

In Fig. 1 we compare the imaginary part of the polarization function for the density and momentum approximation (gray lines) with the Mermin (density) approximation (dark lines) as function of energy with the corresponding limiting cases.

First we want to discuss the corresponding complete expressions (solid lines) of the Mermin formula (11) and the formula (24) including momentum, density and energy conservation. One recognizes that the low frequency limit agrees between Mermin (density) formula and the complete formula while the high frequency limit shows the characteristic different behavior of $`\omega ^3`$ for Mermin (40) and a stronger decrease of $`\omega ^5`$ for the complete expression as have been seen in (39). The high frequency expressions according to (39) and (40) are given by corresponding dashed lines in the figure.

Let us now examine the long–wave length limits (35) of the Mermin formula (11) and the one including momentum, density and energy conservation (24) plotted in the figure as dotted lines. We see that the long wave limit of the Mermin formula approximates the high frequency behavior of the Mermin formula (11) nicely but fails for low frequencies. In contrast, the long wave length expansion of the expression including momentum conservations (35) shows an excellent agreement with the complete expression (24) for both the high and low frequency limit. Please remember that in the latter expression (35) the corrections of order $`q^2`$ drop out and it is effectively of the order $`q^4`$. The nice numerical agreement of the expression (35) with the full result (24) underlines also the force of local field corrections in constructing approximate formulae for the response functions.

The valuable comments by J. D. Frankland (GANIL) are gratefully acknowledged.