text:
# Measurements in quantum physics: towards a physical picture of relevant processes

## I Measurements and ensembles

It took Albert Einstein, in 1935 , to formulate the basic conclusion to Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations : the systems, we are dealing with in quantum theory (QT), are not completely defined by our mathematical representations (In case this is new to you, please read Sheldon Goldstein’s recent articles in Physics Today ). However, given the proof by John von Neumann , that the linearity of the main equations in QT entails that no conventional ensemble can lie underneath the statistical description of measurements, we are left with a somewhat puzzling consequence: although there must be an ensemble, we do not know its structure. Most lucidly, this dilemma has been expressed by David Bohm :

Yet it is not immediately clear, how the ensembles, to which … probabilities refer, are formed and what their individual elements are. For the very terminology of quantum mechanics contains an unusual and significant feature, in that what is called the physical state of a quantum mechanical system is assumed to manifest itself only in an ensemble of systems.

By now the way Bohm proposed to amend this deficiency in the logical structure of QT is well researched: if the wavefunction at a given location and moment is a complex number defined by

$$\psi =Re^{iS}$$
(1)
then the Schrödinger equation gives rise to a ”quantum potential”

$$Q=\frac{^2R}{R}$$
(2)
which, in the same way a physical potential $`V`$ determines the solutions of Schrödinger’s equation, determines the mathematical form of the wavefunction $`\psi `$. There is an important difference, though: since $`Q`$ is proportional to the second derivative of $`R`$, the value of $`\psi `$ at one point of the system influences $`Q`$ throughout the whole system and vice versa: the very ansatz of Bohm thus gives rise to strongly non-local effects .

This non-locality of Bohm’s theory was, initially, taken as an argument against its theoretical soundness (see Goldstein’s article), until John Bell and Alain Aspect proved that the same applies to QT itself . Since then the community is divided: while the more orthodox faction believes in physical non-locality regardless of the contradiction with Special Relativity (see e.g. the recent article in Nature on ”quantum teleportation” ), the more cautious view is that we are dealing with a conceptual non-locality due to our representation of micro physical systems. It seems that only a clear perception of the ensemble structure in QT will allow a decision in this issue. As previous work revealed, the features of the ensembles in quantum theory could arise from intrinsic fields due to particle propagation . This approach goes beyond the proposed modifications of Everett , Ghirardi , Omnes , Hartle , Griffiths , Zurek  and others, who, although pioneering new ways to solve the measurement problem in QT, confined themselves more or less to the question of wavefunction collapse.

The strategy employed in developing this new framework was roughly the following: since the mathematical description in QT yields correct results, it should be feasible to complete these - mathematical - expressions by a physical basis. It is evident that the conventional framework of QT allows for no such basis, since the wavefunction has no physical meaning. In the new framework, on the contrary, the wavefunction gains a double meaning: a physical as well as a statistical one, corresponding to the description of single particles (single elements in Bohm’s words) and ensembles of particles. The argument developed in the present paper will be that this double meaning is responsible for some of the most puzzling results in quantum theory. To see, where this double meaning comes from, let me briefly sketch the development of the theoretical framework, for a more thorough view please refer to the original paper .

## II Theoretical foundations

That the energy of a particle depends on its intrinsic frequency $`\omega `$ is the basis of Planck’s quantum hypothesis, thus:

$$E=\mathrm{}\omega $$
(3)
For photons, the frequency is equal to the frequency of its electromagnetic $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ fields. For massive particles like electrons there is no such connection, one either has to refer to de Broglie’s harmony of phases , or seek a solution in terms of intrinsic and rotational components of motion (e.g. in ). However, if the wave equation describes the intrinsic density of mass distribution $`\rho =\rho (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, oscillating with the characteristic frequency $`\omega `$, then the total energy of the electron is split into two distinct components :

$$E=\mathrm{}\omega =:m_eu^2E_{QT}=E_K=\frac{m_e}{2}u^2E_F=\frac{m_e}{2}u^2$$
(4)
where $`u`$ is the velocity, $`m_e`$ the mass, and $`E_{QT}=E_K`$ the kinetic energy of the electron, equaling the expression in quantum theory. $`E_F`$, the field energy results from the intrinsic wave features of electron motion. While the latter is, initially, purely hypothetical, it can be justified, a posteriori, by calculating the solutions to Schrödinger’s equation under the condition that $`E_F`$ in QT is generally undefined. From the time-independent equation:

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_e}^2+V\right)\psi =E\psi $$
(5)
and in a plane wave basis set the undefined field component of electron energy leads to an uncertainty in the range of the wavevector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, and the consequence of this uncertainty can be expressed in Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P\mathrm{\Delta }X\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}$$
(6)
If the field energy $`E_F`$ is described by an intrinsic scalar field $`\varphi _F`$ and vector fields $`\stackrel{}{E}`$, $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ so that:

$$\varphi _F=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{u^2}\stackrel{}{E}^2+\stackrel{}{B}^2\right)E_F=_V𝑑V\varphi _F\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{u}=\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{u}=\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{B}=0$$
(7)
then it can be established that these $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ fields comply with the Maxwell equations . Please note that the shape of the particles or their volume do not enter the picture, they remain completely undefined. In addition, all the conventional Planck and de Broglie relations are valid, although the latter refer to phase velocity rather than group velocity. Based on these intrinsic features the physical meaning of the wavefunction is that the square of its real part $`\mathrm{}^2(\psi )`$, for a single particle, is proportional to its density of mass $`\rho `$. The statistical meaning is different for electrons and photons, since only the electron has an undefined intrinsic energy component.

In the following we shall simplify the model by assuming that the density of mass of any single particle is constant for a specific type (electron, photon), and described by $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$. The undefined field component of energy $`E_F`$ shall be accounted for by a range of particle energies rather than its development with time. The model treated in the next sections is therefore a static account of an essentially dynamical problem. However, as will be seen presently, this simplified account is sufficient to shed new light on some of the most interesting problems in measurement theory. The statistics in measurement processes result from the following unknown variables:

* Photons: unknown phase, unknown amplitude of wavefunction, unknown number of particles.
* Electrons: unknown phase, unknown amplitude of wavefunction, unknown intrinsic energy, unknown number of particles.

## III Quantum ensemble of free electrons

Due to periodic wave functions, the intrinsic potential at a moment $`t`$ can take any value, and the wave vector of the problem therefore is not exactly determined, but covers the whole range from $`k^2=0`$ to $`k^2=\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}E_T`$, where $`E_T=\mathrm{}\omega `$. Consider a point $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, where the external potential vanishes $`V(\stackrel{}{r})=0`$. Due to the disregard for intrinsic potentials the Schrödinger equation at this location applies for all wavelets described by:

$$\stackrel{}{k}^2(\stackrel{}{r})+\stackrel{}{k}_i^2(t)=\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}E_T0\stackrel{}{k}_i^2(t)\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}E_T$$
(8)
Here $`\stackrel{}{k}_i^2(t)`$ shall denote the intrinsic potential, not accounted for in QM. $`E_T`$ is the total energy of the particle. The two variables are given by:

$$E_T=mu^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\stackrel{}{k}_i^2(t)=\varphi _i(t)V_p$$
(9)
where $`u`$ again is the velocity and $`V_P`$ the volume of a particle. The quantum ensemble shall be the integral over allowed wave states. Then the wave function $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r})`$ can be written as:

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}_0^{k_0}d^3k\chi _0(\stackrel{}{k})e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}k_0=\sqrt{\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}E_T}$$
(10)
Using a Fourier transformation the amplitudes of the ensemble are:

$$\chi _0(\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}d^3r\psi (\stackrel{}{r})e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}$$
(11)
In this case an ensemble of electrons is described by identical solutions of the Schrödinger equation, although in QT the mathematical representation seems to refer to one particle and one particle only. Bohm’s puzzlement with the individual system, which is in fact an ensemble of systems then is quite justified.

## IV Quantum ensemble in external potentials

An even more interesting consequence of the same feature is observed in external potentials. The external potential at a point $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ has two effects: the range of allowed wavelets and therefore the quantum ensemble will be changed, and the internal properties of single wavelets will be altered. If the potential at $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ equals $`V(\stackrel{}{r})`$, the allowed $`k`$–values will comply with:

$$k^2(\stackrel{}{r})+k_i^2(t)=\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(E_TV(\stackrel{}{r})\right)0\stackrel{}{k}_i^2(t)\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}$$
(12)
$$\left(E_TV(\stackrel{}{r})\right)k_1^2=\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}(E_TV(\stackrel{}{r}))E_T=mu^2$$
(13)
For reasons of consistency the potential $`V(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is double the potential if only kinetic properties are considered. The range of allowed $`k`$–values in this case depends on the energy $`E_T`$ of a single particle as well as the potential applied. There are two distinct cases: $`E_TV(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is either a positive or a negative value, corresponding to wavelets in a potential or to exponential decay of single waves.

For $`E_TV(\stackrel{}{r})>0`$ the potential can either be a positive or a negative value, leading to an enhancement or a reduction of the quantum ensemble of valid solutions. The general solution for both cases is then:

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}_0^{k_1}d^3k\chi _0(\stackrel{}{k})e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}k_1=\sqrt{\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}(E_T\pm |V(\stackrel{}{r})|)}E_T=mu^2$$
(14)
The range of individual wavelets defines, as in the case of a vanishing external potential, an ensemble of particles, which comply with the differential Schrödinger equation. Any integration of the equation therefore also contains a – hidden – manifold of individual wavelets. A positive potential essentially limits the number of individual waves contained in the ensemble, because it diminishes the range of $`k`$. A negative potential has the opposite effect: the number of waves in the ensemble is increased, and their statistical weight in the whole system is equally higher. Fig. 1 displays the quantum ensembles for different external potentials.

For energies $`E_T<V(\stackrel{}{r})`$ the mathematical formalism of Schrödinger’s equation allows for solutions with a negative square of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, equivalent to an exponential decay of single wavelets:

$$k^2(\stackrel{}{r})+k_i^2(t)=\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(E_TV(\stackrel{}{r})\right)00\stackrel{}{k}_i^2(t)\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(E_TV(\stackrel{}{r})\right)$$
(15)
$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}_0^{k_1}d^3k\chi _0(\stackrel{}{k})e^{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}k_1=\sqrt{\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}(V(\stackrel{}{r})E_T)}E_T=mu^2$$
(16)
The question in this case concerns not so much the mathematical formalism but the physical validity. Considering, that electrodynamics is a description of intrinsic properties of single particles, applicable to photons as well as electrons, the results of electrodynamics in different media should also have relevance for the wave properties of single particles. And considering, furthermore, that an exponential decay into a medium at a boundary is one type of solution, the same must generally hold for single wavelets. It is a basically classical solution to boundary value problems and, so far, no specific feature of a quantum system.

## V Wave function normalization

We have not yet defined the amplitude $`\chi _0(\stackrel{}{k})`$ of single components in the quantum ensemble. This can be done by requiring single wavelets to comply with the mass relations of particles. Since:

$$\chi ^{}(\stackrel{}{k})\chi (\stackrel{}{k}^{})=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\chi _0(\stackrel{}{k})\chi _0(\stackrel{}{k}^{})e^{i\stackrel{}{r}(\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{k})}$$
(17)
an integration over infinite space yields the result:

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}d^3r\chi ^{}(\stackrel{}{k})\chi (\stackrel{}{k}^{})=\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})\chi _0(\stackrel{}{k})\chi _0(\stackrel{}{k}^{})m=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}d^3r|\chi (\stackrel{}{k})|^2=\chi _0^2(\stackrel{}{k})$$
(18)
Using this amplitude the square of the wave function $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r})`$ in different external potentials can be calculated.

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d^3r|\psi (\stackrel{}{r})|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle d^3r_0^kd^3kd^3k^{}e^{i\stackrel{}{r}(\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{k})}}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`m{\displaystyle _0^k}d^3kd^3k^{}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi m}{3}}k^3`$ (20)
If we consider a system, where the potential $`V=V(\stackrel{}{r})`$, the wavefunction will depend, via the normalization condition, on the potentials in all parts of this system. And if we formalize two space-like separated events within a single system in QT (there is no way to avoid this in any experiment aimed at proving or refuting non-locality), these events are no longer logically (or physically) separate: non-locality is therefore an inherent conceptual feature of quantum theory.

## VI Boundary conditions

One of the easiest examples in quantum theory, which suffices to demonstrate the effect of boundary conditions, is the square potential well. We take a one dimensional potential well, the external potentials described by:

$$V=0|x|x_0V=V_0|x|x_0$$
(21)
To solve the problem we have two consider the behavior of single members of the quantum ensemble as well as the behavior of the whole ensemble. The limiting $`k`$ values can again be inferred from the solution of the one–dimensional Schrödinger equation, they will be for $`E_T<V_0`$:

$`k_0^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}}E_T|x|x_0`$ (22)
$`k_0^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}}(V_0E_T)|x|x_0`$ (23)
For incident, reflected and penetrating waves, the three components of the wave are a wave of positive and a wave of negative propagation in the region $`|x|<x_0`$, and a decaying component in the region $`|x|>x_0`$. Considering individual members of the ensemble, the lowest $`k`$ value should correspond to maximum decay in the potential, while the member with maximum total energy should display maximum penetration. The relation between an arbitrary wave vector $`k_1`$ and its corresponding member $`k_2`$ must therefore be:

$$k_1^2+k_2^2=\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}V_0$$
(24)
The wave functions in the three separate regions shall be described by standard solutions. Accounting for the boundary conditions for steady transition of the particle wave the coefficients can be determined and the solution for an individual wave is therefore, equivalent to the solution in quantum theory :

$$\chi _0e^{k_2x}xx_0$$
(25)
$$\chi (x)=\chi _0e^{k_2x_0}\frac{\mathrm{cos}k_1x}{\mathrm{cos}k_1x_0}|x|x_0$$
(26)
$$\chi _0e^{k_2x}xx_0$$
(27)
The normalization condition an ensemble member yields the amplitude of the particle wave:

$`\chi _0(k_1,k_2)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{mk_2}{1+k_2x_0}}}e^{k_2x_0}\mathrm{cos}k_1x_0`$ (28)
And the total ensemble can equally be calculated by integrating over the full range of allowed $`k`$ values.

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x|\psi (x)|^2`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dx[\theta (x_0x){\displaystyle _0^{k_0}}dk_1\chi _0^2(k_1)e^{2k_1x_0}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(k_1x)}{\mathrm{cos}^2(k_1x_0)}}+`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`\theta (xx_0){\displaystyle _0^{k_0^{}}}dk_2\chi _0^2(k_2)e^{2k_2x}]`$ (30)
The amplitude $`\chi _0(k)`$ must finally be renormalized, and the square of the wave function then describes the probability distribution of the whole ensemble. The procedure described is similar to the standard procedure in quantum theory, although in this model $`k`$ space is not unlimited, the cutoff is determined by the energy $`E_T`$. The structure of the ensembles in different environments provides a means to analyze the interplay between physical aspects (the intrinsic properties of single electrons) and statistical ones (the way quantum theory contains a hidden ensemble of single electrons).

## VII Spreading of a wave–packet

The effect is a common source of irritation, and concepts have been put forth to eliminate it in a modified version of quantum theory (see, for example, Mackinnon , or the GRW model ). In a one dimensional model the development of an amplitude $`\widehat{\psi }(k)`$ is described by the integral:

$$\psi (x,t)=𝑑ke^{i(kx\omega t)}\widehat{\psi }(k)$$
(31)
Two initial distributions are calculated: a Gaussian distribution, with a wave function centered around a value $`x_0=0`$ at $`t=0`$, and an ensemble with exactly defined energies (such an ensemble can be obtained by energy measurements, as shown further down):

$$\psi _1(x,t=0)=e^{\frac{x^2}{b^2}+ik_0x}\psi _2(x,t=0)=e^{ik_0x}$$
(32)
The evaluation of the integral yields:

$`\widehat{\psi }_1(k)={\displaystyle 𝑑x\psi _1(x,0)e^{ikx}}=e^{(kk_0)^2b^2/2}`$ (33)
$`\widehat{\psi }_2(k)={\displaystyle 𝑑x\psi _2(x,0)e^{ikx}}=\delta (kk_0)`$ (34)
The square of the two wave functions at $`t>0`$ is consequently:

$$\left|\psi _1(x,t>0)\right|^2=\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{}^2t^2}{m^2b^4}\right)^1\mathrm{exp}\left[b^2\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{}^2t^2}{m^2b^4}\right)^2\left(x\frac{\mathrm{}k_0}{m}t\right)^2\right]$$
(35)
$$\left|\psi _2(x,t>0)\right|^2=1$$
(36)
The development of the two ensembles is shown in Fig. 2. As it is possible to decompose an arbitrary distribution of initial $`k`$ values in Gaussian distributions, the result holds quite generally. There are two possibilities to account for this feature: (i) Either the restructuring is referred to some potential not covered by field theories, in this case we would have to recur to Bohm’s quantum potential . (ii) The initial conditions contain an assumption which affects the physical properties of particles. In the single particle case (see section II), where $`[\mathrm{}\psi (x)]^2\rho (x)\varphi (x)`$, an inhomogeneous distribution like $`\psi _1(x,0)`$ gives rise to an intrinsic potential $`\varphi (x)`$, described by:

$$\psi _1(x,0)=\psi _0e^{ik_0x}\psi _0=e^{x^2/2b^2}\varphi (x,0)=\psi _0^2=e^{x^2/b^2}$$
(37)
And the system is therefore not, as implied by the mathematical formulations, free of forces, but will experience a force along the direction $`x`$:

$$F_x=\frac{\varphi }{x}=\frac{2x}{b^2}e^{x^2/b^2}$$
(38)
Along this line of reasoning we may reconsider the question of quantum ensembles from the viewpoint of intrinsic potentials and forces. The most general form of a wave function is given by the integral:

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=d^3k\psi _{0,\stackrel{}{k}}(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{k})e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}$$
(39)
The potentials due to the qualities of the amplitude are then responsible for intrinsic energy components in addition to the purely periodic fields of a plane wave. They are:

$$\varphi _i(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{k})=u^2\left|\psi _{0,\stackrel{}{k}}(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{k})\right|^2=\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{m^2}\left|\psi _{0,\stackrel{}{k}}(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{k})\right|^2$$
(40)
The forces within the propagating wave are either periodic – the total energy density of the plane wave is constant –, or they are forces due to the properties of the amplitude. These forces will be:

$$\stackrel{}{F}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{m^2}\left[\psi _{0,\stackrel{}{k}}^{}\psi _{0,\stackrel{}{k}}+\psi _{0,\stackrel{}{k}}\psi _{0,\stackrel{}{k}}^{}\right]$$
(41)
A stable state of the system can only be expected, if these forces vanish. The equilibrium condition for a system of particles described as plane waves is therefore:

$$\psi _{0,\stackrel{}{k}}^{}\psi _{0,\stackrel{}{k}}+\psi _{0,\stackrel{}{k}}\psi _{0,\stackrel{}{k}}^{}=0$$
(42)
The two ensembles defined, the ensemble with exact energies as well as the quantum ensemble (equal amplitude of all partial waves), comply with this condition since in both cases the amplitudes $`\psi _{0,\stackrel{}{k}}`$ do not depend on $`\stackrel{}{r}`$. But the distribution used for the calculation of the spreading wave packet is incompatible with this condition.

## VIII Collapse of the wave function

In his rather fundamental and comprehensive analysis of measurement processes in quantum theory Ballentine  proceeded from two mutually exclusive statements on the quality of the state concept, i.e. that (i) a pure state provides a complete and exhaustive description of an individual system, and (ii) a pure (or mixed) state describes the statistical properties of an ensemble of similarly prepared systems. The subsequent analysis of measurement processes proved that  any interpretation of the type (i) …is untenable.

If the state vector of a system, or the wave function in QT were an exhaustive information about the system, the logical problems seem indeed severe if not unsurmountable. The situation changes, though, if one concedes that the quantum mechanical description does not provide a full account of physical variables. To a greater or lesser extent all the proposed modifications of QT to account for the measurement problems, cited in the introduction, use this feature. As a simple example of the reduction of the wave function in a measurement process we consider a retarding field analyzer frequently employed in LEED (low energy electron diffraction) measurements. A retarding field analyzer is a positive potential, assumed rectangular for simplicity, which selects only electrons above a certain energy threshold. We equally assume, that the electrons initially are free, their energy shall be given by a value $`E_k`$ (see Fig. 3). From a strictly causal point of view, the electrons below an exactly defined threshold value $`E_{rfa}<E_k`$ cannot pass the filter and the number of electrons after the filter is therefore reduced to single particles with an energy above the threshold value. As the calculation in quantum theory integrates over all possible particle states at a given location $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, and since the range of allowed $`k`$–values depends on the level of kinetic energy, the total density $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$ at any location before the analyzer will be:

$$\rho (\stackrel{}{r})=\psi ^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=_0^{k_0}d^3k\chi ^{}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{r})\chi (\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{r})k_0^2=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}E_k$$
(43)
while after the analyzer the wave function will be limited to states with energy values higher than the threshold:

$$\rho ^{}(\stackrel{}{r})=\psi ^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\psi ^{}(\stackrel{}{r})=_{k_1}^{k_0}d^3k\chi ^{}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{r})\chi (\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{r})k_1^2=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}(E_kE_{rfa})$$
(44)
Clearly the quantum ensemble has been reduced. The measurement of particle energies by retarding fields therefore leads to a reduction of the statistical ensemble, but in a causal and deterministic manner. The ensemble wave function is reduced due to the removal, in an equally causal and deterministic way, of partial waves. It should be noted that the collapse of the wave function in real space cannot, presently, be treated within the same model.

## IX The quantum eraser

The polarization of the intrinsic fields is decisive for interference measurements as can be demonstrated by an analysis of quantum eraser phenomena. In this case the which–path information of the photon is said to preclude interference. Conventionally, the measurement is formalized as follows . The amplitude of an incident photon of horizontal polarization is split coherently in two separate beams, described by the quantum state vector ($`1`$ denotes the first, $`2`$ the second of the two paths)

$$\psi _{12}^0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\psi _{1,H}+\psi _{2,H}\right)$$
(45)
The square of $`\psi `$, or the probability density in this case contains an interference term $`\psi _{1,H}^{}\psi _{2,H}`$:

$`|\psi _{12}^0|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|\psi _{1,H}|^2+|\psi _{2,H}|^2+\psi _{1,H}^{}\psi _{2,H}+\psi _{2,H}^{}\psi _{1,H}\right)`$

If a polarization rotator changing the polarization of the beam to vertical (V) orientation is placed in path 1, the interference pattern is no longer observable, and the measurement yields random results for the local probability density on the measurement screen. In quantum theory the result is referred to the orthogonality of the two states $`H`$, and $`V`$, and the state vector of the photon described by:

$$\psi _{12}^1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\psi _{1,V}+\psi _{2,H}\right)|\psi _{12}^1|^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(|\psi _1|^2+|\psi _2|^2\right)$$
(46)
The result can be changed by inserting a diagonal polarizer into the path of the recombined beams, in this case the wave function and probability density will again show interference effects: the which–path information, connected to the polarization of the two separate beams is said to have been ”erased”.

$$\psi _{12}^2=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\left(\psi _1+\psi _2\right)\left(\psi _V+\psi _H\right)|\psi _{12}^2|^2=\frac{1}{4}\left(|\psi _1|^2+|\psi _2|^2+2\mathrm{}\left[\psi _1^{}\psi _2\right]\right)$$
(47)
In the context of intrinsic properties and polarizations of intrinsic fields, since the intensity of electromagnetic radiation is described by the electromagnetic potential $`\varphi _{em}`$ (for a general description the field vectors are assumed complex):

$$\varphi _{em}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{c^2}|\stackrel{}{E}|^2+|\stackrel{}{B}|^2\right)$$
(48)
If the beam of horizontal polarization (direction $`x`$) is split into two separate beams, the electric and magnetic fields after recombination will be:

$$\stackrel{}{E}_{12}^0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(E_1\stackrel{}{e}_x+E_2\stackrel{}{e}_x\right)\stackrel{}{B}_{12}^0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(B_1\stackrel{}{e}_y+B_2\stackrel{}{e}_y\right)$$
(49)
where the fields $`E_2,B_2`$ contain the phase information $`e^{i\phi }`$. The intensity measured after recombination will consequently contain interference terms:

$$\varphi _{em}^0=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{c^2}|E_1|^2+|B_1|^2\right)\left(1+cos\phi \right)$$
(50)
A polarization rotator in path 1 changes the polarization of the electric and magnetic fields to $`\stackrel{}{e}_y`$ and $`\stackrel{}{e}_x`$ respectively, and the intensity after recombination is then not affected by the phase $`\phi `$:

$$\stackrel{}{E}_{12}^1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(E_1\stackrel{}{e}_y+E_2\stackrel{}{e}_x\right)\stackrel{}{B}_{12}^1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(B_1\stackrel{}{e}_x+B_2\stackrel{}{e}_y\right)$$
(51)
$$\varphi _{em}^1=\left(\frac{1}{c^2}|E_1|^2+|B_1|^2\right)$$
(52)
If the recombined beam is passing through a diagonal polarizer (plane of polarization in $`xy`$–direction), the electromagnetic fields after polarization are:

$$\stackrel{}{E}_{12}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(E_1\stackrel{}{e}_{xy}+E_2\stackrel{}{e}_{xy}\right)\stackrel{}{B}_{12}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(B_1\stackrel{}{e}_{yx}+B_2\stackrel{}{e}_{yx}\right)$$
(53)
And the intensity of the beam shows again the interference pattern of the phase $`\phi `$:

$$\varphi _{em}^2=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{1}{c^2}|E_1|^2+|B_1|^2\right)\left(1+cos\phi \right)$$
(54)
Mathematically, the description by way of intrinsic potentials and polarizations yields the same result as the conventional calculation in quantum theory. However, the interesting aspect of the effect is its interpretation. While in the conventional framework the which–path information (and its relation to the conception of complementarity) is seen as the ultimate reason for the experimental results, it is, in the new theory, the intrinsic information due to the electromagnetic fields and their vector features, which are held responsible.

## X Interaction–free measurements

An interaction–free measurement, which is based on a thought experiment by Renninger , provides information about the existence of an object in a closed system without necessarily interacting with this object. The essentials of such a measurement, recently undertaken by Kwiat et al. , can be seen in Fig. 4. Interaction free measurements, usually performed with down–converted photons, are interesting due to two features: the wave function of the system and consequently system energy is changed, even if no interaction occurs. And the results are seemingly incompatible with classical field theories, because the trajectories of single particles through the measurement apparatus can be identified.

The first feature was modeled by Dicke  using a modified Heisenberg microscope and calculating the state vectors of photons and a non–interacting atom in first order perturbation theory. The result of Dicke’s calculation seemed to prove that even interaction free measurements correlate with an exchange of virtual photons or, in Dicke’s words: The apparent lack of interaction between the atom and the electromagnetic field is only illusionary. On the statistical basis developed in this paper, the result must be modified. The local modification of ensemble ranges means, in this context, that an interaction free measurement corresponds to a different ensemble, i.e. an ensemble which has zero probability in the range, where an interacting particle is appreciable. It is therefore the limitation imposed, the change of boundary conditions, which is the ultimate reason for the change of the wave function. And if this local range affects system energy like in Dicke’s model of an harmonic oscillator in a magnetic field , then the energy of the system changes.

The second feature of interaction free measurements, the assertion by Kwiat et al.  that ”complementary is essential” to the experimental results achieved, requires a critical analysis. What the argument indicates, is the impossibility for a single photon in the interferometer to trigger the bomb and detector D2 (see Fig. 4). But as detection efficiency is only two percent, about 98 % of the incident energy (triggering a detector by one of the down–converted photons) is not accounted for. And in this case the argument of complementarity as well as the whole argumentation of interaction–free measurements seems questionable.

## XI Conclusion

We have shown in this paper that the intrinsic energy component plays a substantial role in the resolution of some of the most important paradoxes in quantum theory. In particular we found that: (i) the spreading of a wave packet is due to a peculiar choice of initial conditions which, in the present model, are physically problematic. (ii) The collapse of the wavefunction in $`k`$-space is due to a removal of partial waves from the full ensemble during the measuring process. (iii) The quantum eraser can be seen as an example, where the polarizations of intrinsic fields become decisive. (iv) And interaction-free measurements are not paradoxical, if the local extension of an ensemble is considered.

## Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the Österreichische Forschungsgemeinschaft for their generous support to attend the Wigner Symposium.


format: text

text:
# On the Intersection of Two Plane Curves

## 1. Introduction and Statement of Results

The following question was raised and partially answered by Geng Xu in \[X\].

###### Question 1.1.

Let $`D`$ be a general degree $`d`$ curve in $`^2`$. What is the minimal number $`i(d,m)`$ of points in the set-theoretical intersection $`CD`$ for any degree $`m`$ irreducible curve $`C`$ (suppose that $`C`$ and $`D`$ meet properly)?

This problem is related to a conjecture of Kobayashi and Zaidenberg which states that for a sufficiently general curve $`D^2`$ of degree $`d5`$, as general in the sense that $`D`$ lies in $`|𝒪_^2(d)|^{d(d+3)/2}`$ with countably many closed proper subvarieties removed, the affine variety $`^2\backslash D`$ is hyperbolic. One necessary condition for $`^2\backslash D`$ being hyperbolic is that there is no rational curve $`C^2`$ meeting $`D`$ set-theoretically at fewer than three points; otherwise, there is going to be a nonconstant holomorphic map $`C\backslash (CD)^2\backslash D`$. This property of $`^2\backslash D`$ was called “algebraic hyperbolic” in \[DSW\].

###### Definition 1.1.

A quasi-projective variety is called algebraic hyperbolic if it does not contain a curve whose normalization is an elliptic curve or a rational curve with two points removed, i.e., $`^1\backslash \{p,q\}^{}Spec[x,x^1]`$.

Obviously, hyperbolicity implies algebraic hyperbolicity for smooth quasi-projective varieties.

Using an elegant deformation-theoretical argument, Xu proved the following \[X, Theorem 1\].

###### Theorem 1.1 (Xu).

For $`d3`$, $`\mathrm{min}_{m>0}i(d,m)=d2`$.

He thus concluded that every curve $`C^2`$ meets $`D`$ at no less than three distinct points and hence $`^2\backslash D`$ is algebraic hyperbolic for a sufficiently general curve $`D`$ of degree $`d5`$. This bound is sharp for $`m=1`$ and it is achieved by a bitangent or flex line to $`D`$.

The purpose of this paper is two-fold. First, we will try to sharpen his bound with both $`d`$ and $`m`$ fixed. Second, we will try to extend his result to other surfaces.

By dimension count, one may expect that $`i(d,m)=dmr_{d,m}`$ where $`r_{d,m}`$ is the dimension of the linear series cut out on $`D`$ by all curves of degree $`m`$, namely, $`r_{d,m}=m(m+3)/2`$ for $`m<d`$ and $`r_{d,m}=dm(d1)(d2)/2`$ for $`md`$. However, this is simply false for $`md3`$ by the following construction.

Let $`L`$ be a bitangent (or flex) line to $`D`$. Since $`D`$ is general, $`L`$ meets $`D`$ at $`d2`$ distinct points. Let $`L(X,Y,Z)`$ and $`D(X,Y,Z)`$ be the homogeneous defining equations of $`L`$ and $`D`$, respectively. Then for any degree $`md`$ homogeneous polynomial $`G(X,Y,Z)`$, $`L^m(X,Y,Z)+D(X,Y,Z)G(X,Y,Z)=0`$ defines a degree $`m`$ curve $`C`$ which meets $`D`$ at $`d2`$ points, which are the intersections between $`L`$ and $`D`$. If we choose $`G(X,Y,Z)`$ general enough, $`C`$ is irreducible and actually smooth. Hence, by Xu’s result, $`i(d,m)=d2`$ for $`md3`$.

Nevertheless, we think that $`i(d,m)`$ has the expected value for $`d>m`$, i.e.,

###### Conjecture 1.1.

For $`d>m`$ and $`d3`$, $`i(d,m)=dmr_{d,m}`$.

Although we cannot prove the above conjecture, we have the following estimate for $`i(d,m)`$ when $`m<d`$.

###### Theorem 1.2.

For $`d>m`$,

$$i(d,m)\mathrm{min}(dm\frac{m(m+3)}{2},2dm2m^22).$$

An easy corollary of the above theorem is the following

###### Corollary 1.1.

For $`2d3m2`$ and $`d3`$, $`i(d,m)=dmm(m+3)/2`$, i.e., Conjecture 1.1 holds for $`2d3m2`$. In particular, it holds for $`m4`$.

In order to formulate Kobayashi type conjectures on surfaces other than $`^2`$, we need to study Question 1.1 in the following general setting.

###### Question 1.2.

Let $`S`$ be a smooth surface and let $`L`$ and $`M`$ be two line bundles on $`S`$. Let $`D`$ be a general member of $`|L|`$. What is the minimal number $`i(L,M)`$ of points in the set-theoretical intersection $`CD`$ for any irreducible curve $`C|M|`$ (suppose that $`C`$ and $`D`$ meet properly)?

We will work on rational ruled surfaces, although our method can be extended to other surfaces. By convention, let $`𝔽_n`$ be the rational ruled surface given by $`(𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(n))`$ over $`^1`$ and let $`C`$ and $`F`$ be the zero section and the fiber of $`𝔽_n^1`$, i.e., $`C^2=n`$, $`CF=1`$ and $`F^2=0`$. We have the following lower bound for $`i(L,M)`$ with $`L`$ ample.

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`L=𝒪(aC+bF)`$ be an ample line bundle on $`𝔽_n`$ with $`a2`$ and $`b2`$. Then $`\mathrm{min}_Mi(L,M)=\mathrm{min}(a1,ban,bn1)`$, where $`M`$ runs over all line bundles with irreducible general global sections.

It follows immediately from Theorem 1.3 that every curve on $`𝔽_n`$ meets $`D`$ at no less than three distinct points for a sufficiently general $`D|aC+bF|`$ with $`a4`$ and $`b\mathrm{max}(4+n,3+an)`$. Therefore

###### Corollary 1.2.

For a sufficiently general curve $`D|aC+bF|`$ on $`𝔽_n`$ with $`a4`$ and $`b\mathrm{max}(4+n,3+an)`$, the complement $`𝔽_n\backslash D`$ is algebraic hyperbolic.

Notice that the bound in Theorem 1.3 can be achieved by a curve in $`|C|`$ or $`|F|`$, which is necessarily a rational curve. So the lower bounds for $`a`$ and $`b`$ in the above corollary cannot be improved.

This enables us to formulate Kobayashi conjecture on $`𝔽_n`$.

###### Conjecture 1.2 (Kobayashi Conjecture on Rational Ruled Surfaces).

For a sufficiently general curve $`D|aC+bF|`$ on $`𝔽_n`$ with $`a4`$ and $`b\mathrm{max}(4+n,3+an)`$, the complement $`𝔽_n\backslash D`$ is hyperbolic.

The organization of this paper is as follows. Theorem 1.2 and 1.3 will be proved in the next two sections, respectively. At the end of the third section, we will also discuss some related problems.

Throughout this paper we work exclusively over the field of complex numbers $``$.

Acknowledgments. I am very grateful to M. Green, who introduced me to the subject of hyperbolic geometry and Kobayashi Conjecture, and to C. Hacon for helpful conversations.

## 2. Proof of Theorem 1.2

Let $`W_\delta |𝒪(m)|\times |𝒪(d)|`$ be the incidence correspondence defined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill W_\delta =\{& (C,D):C|𝒪(m)|\text{ is irreducible},D|𝒪(d)|\text{ is smooth},\hfill \\ & \text{and }C\text{ and }D\text{ meet set-theoretically at }\delta \text{ points}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Our proof of Theorem 1.2 is carried out by estimating the dimension of $`W_\delta `$ and show that $`dimW_\delta <dim|𝒪(d)|`$ if $`\delta <dmm(m+3)/2`$ and $`\delta <2dm2m^22`$ and hence it cannot dominate $`|𝒪(d)|`$ in this case.

Let $`\pi :W_\delta |𝒪(m)|`$ be the projection of $`W_\delta `$ to $`|𝒪(m)|`$ and let $`C`$ be a general point of $`\pi (W_\delta )`$ (by a general point, we mean a general point of an irreducible component of $`\pi (W_\delta )`$).

Let $`\pi _C`$ be the fiber of $`\pi :W_\delta |𝒪(m)|`$ over $`C`$ and let $`(C,D)`$ be a general point on $`\pi (C)`$. There exists a series of blowups of $`^2`$ such that the proper transforms $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ of $`C`$ and $`D`$ meet at smooth points on both curves (since we assume that $`D`$ is smooth, we only have to resolve the singularities of $`C`$ where $`D`$ passes through). Let $`\stackrel{~}{^2}`$ be the resulting blowup of $`^2`$ and $`E_i`$ ($`1i\alpha )`$ be the exceptional divisors. Suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{C}|𝒪(mH_{i=1}^\alpha r_iE_i)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}|𝒪(dH_{i=1}^\alpha E_i)|`$, where $`r_i>1`$ and $`H`$ is the pull-back of the hyperplane divisor of $`^2`$.

Suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ meet at points $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_\beta `$ with multiplicities $`m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_\beta `$, respectively, where $`\beta \delta \alpha +\beta `$. Then by a deformation-theoretical argument, the tangent space $`T_{\pi _C,(C,D)}`$ of $`\pi _C`$ at $`(C,D)`$ is contained in

$$\begin{array}{cc}& H^0(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}(dH\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}E_i)𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}(m_j1)p_j))\hfill \\ & =H^0(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}((dm)H+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)E_i)𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}p_j)).\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence by Riemann-Roch

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill dim\pi _C& h^0(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}((dm)H+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)E_i+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}p_j))\hfill \\ & =\frac{d(d+3)}{2}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)+\beta dm\hfill \\ & +h^0(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}((m3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)E_i)𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}p_j)).\hfill \end{array}$$

It is not hard to see that

(2.1)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& h^0(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}((m3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)E_i)𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}p_j))\hfill \\ & h^0(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}((m3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)E_i)𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}p_j))\hfill \\ & +\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}\frac{(r_i1)(r_i2)}{2}.\hfill \end{array}$$

This can be shown by the following argument.

We further blow up $`\stackrel{~}{^2}`$ at points $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_\beta `$ with corresponding exceptional divisors $`F_1,F_2,\mathrm{},F_\beta `$. We still denote the resulting surface by $`\stackrel{~}{^2}`$ and the proper transforms of $`C`$ and $`D`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$. We have the following exact sequence on $`\stackrel{~}{^2}`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& H^0((md3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i2)E_i)\hfill \\ & H^0((m3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)E_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}F_j)\hfill \\ & H^0(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}((m3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)E_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}F_j))\hfill \\ & H^1((md3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i2)E_i).\hfill \end{array}$$

Obviously, $`h^0((md3)H_{i=1}^\alpha (r_i2)E_i)=0`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}& h^2((md3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i2)E_i)\hfill \\ & =h^0((dm)H+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)E_i+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}F_j)\hfill \\ & =\frac{(dm)(dm+3)}{2}+1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence by Riemann-Roch,

$$h^1((md3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i2)E_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}\frac{(r_i1)(r_i2)}{2}.$$

Therefore

(2.2)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& h^0(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}((m3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)E_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}F_j))\hfill \\ & h^0((m3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)E_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}F_j)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}\frac{(r_i1)(r_i2)}{2}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Similarly, we have

(2.3)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& h^0(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}((m3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)E_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}F_j))\hfill \\ & =h^0((m3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)E_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}F_j).\hfill \end{array}$$

Combining (2.2) and (2.3), we obtain (2.1). Therefore

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill dim\pi _C& \frac{d(d+3)}{2}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}\frac{r_i(r_i1)}{2}+\beta dm\hfill \\ & +h^0(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}((m3)H\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(r_i1)E_i)𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}p_j))\hfill \\ & =\frac{d(d+3)}{2}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}\frac{r_i(r_i1)}{2}+\beta dm+h^0(\omega _{\stackrel{~}{C}}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}p_j))\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\omega _{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ is the dualizing sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$.

By Clifford’s theorem (see for example \[ACGH, pp. 107-8\]), we have either

$$h^0(\omega _{\stackrel{~}{C}}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}p_j))=0$$

or

$$h^0(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{\beta }{}}p_j))\beta /2+1.$$

Hence correspondingly, we have either

$$dim\pi _C\frac{d(d+3)}{2}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}\frac{r_i(r_i1)}{2}+\beta dm$$

or

$$dim\pi _C\frac{d(d+3)}{2}+\frac{\beta }{2}dm+\frac{(m1)(m2)}{2}.$$

Since $`C`$ is a general member of $`\pi (W_\delta )`$ and $`C`$ has singularities with multiplicities $`r_i`$ ($`1i\alpha `$), by Zariski’s theorem on the deformation of planary curve singularities \[Z\], we have

$$dim\pi (W_\delta )\frac{m(m+3)}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}\frac{r_i(r_i1)}{2}.$$

And hence we have either

$$dimW_\delta \frac{d(d+3)}{2}+\beta dm+\frac{m(m+3)}{2}$$

or

$$dimW_\delta \frac{d(d+3)}{2}+\frac{\beta }{2}dm+m^2+1\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}\frac{r_i(r_i1)}{2}.$$

Therefore, if $`W_\delta `$ dominates $`|𝒪(d)|`$, we necessarily have

$$\delta \beta \mathrm{min}(dm\frac{m(m+1)}{2},2(dmm^21)).$$

This finishes the proof of Theorem 1.2.

## 3. Intersections of Two Curves on Rational Ruled Surfaces

Our approach to Theorem 1.3 is different from that of Xu’s. A key ingredient of Xu’s proof of Theorem 1.1 is a map from the deformation space of the pair $`(D,E)`$, where $`D|𝒪_^2(d)|`$ and $`E|𝒪_^2(m)|`$ meet at no less than $`s`$ distinct points, to the cohomology group of a sheaf over $`D`$. More specifically, let $`(Z_0,Z_1,Z_2)`$ be generic homogeneous coordinates of $`^2`$ and let $`F_0H^0(𝒪_^2(d))`$ and $`G_0H^0(𝒪_^2(m))`$ be the defining equations of $`D`$ and $`E`$. A first order deformation of $`(D,E)`$ is given by $`F_1H^0(𝒪_^2(d))`$ and $`G_1H^0(𝒪_^2(m))`$ such that the curves $`\{F_0+tF_1=0\}`$ and $`\{G_0+tG_1=0\}`$ meet at no less than $`s`$ points over the ring $`[t]/(t^2)`$. It is observed by Xu that \[X, Lemma 1\]

(3.1)
$$\frac{F_0}{Z_i}G_1\frac{G_0}{Z_i}F_1H^0(D,𝒪_D(d+m1)𝒪_D(\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}(\mu _j1)p_j))$$

for $`i=0,1,2`$, where $`D`$ and $`E`$ meet at $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_s`$ with multiplicities $`\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _s`$, respectively.

The relation (3.1) forms the basis of Xu’s proof of Theorem 1.1. If we were to prove Theorem 1.3 following Xu’s line of argument, we would have to come up with a relation similar to (3.1) on $`𝔽_n`$, which we are unable to do. So we find that Xu’s analysis, though ingenious on its own, is hard, if not impossible, to carry out on surfaces other than $`^2`$. Therefore, we will adopt a different approach to Theorem 1.3, which is based upon degeneration and induction.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a disk parameterized by $`t`$ and let $`Y𝔽_n\times \mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a pencil of curves in $`|aC+bF|`$ whose central fiber $`Y_0=G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is reducible with two components $`G|(a1)C+(bn1)F|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1|C+(n+1)F|`$. Let $`X𝔽_n\times \mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a family of curves on $`𝔽_n`$ whose general fiber $`X_t`$ ($`t0`$) meets $`Y_t`$ at $`s`$ distinct points (a base change may be needed to ensure the existence of $`X`$). If $`X_0`$ meets $`Y_0`$ properly, we may deduce $`s\mathrm{min}(a1,ban,bn1)`$ by the induction hypothesis that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\#}(X_0G)& \mathrm{min}(a2,ban1,bn2)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{min}(a1,ban,bn1)1\hfill \end{array}$$

and by the fact that $`\mathrm{\#}(X_0\mathrm{\Gamma })1`$, where we use the notation $`\mathrm{\#}(AB)`$ to denote the number of points in the set-theoretical intersection $`AB`$ between the two curves $`A`$ and $`B`$. Of course, some care has to be taken to make sure that $`X_0`$ meets $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at at least one point outside of $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (see below). Unfortunately, $`X_0`$ may very well contain $`G`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a component. So we have to regard $`|𝒪_{Y_0}(X_0)|`$ as the limit linear series $`lim_{t0}|𝒪_{Y_t}(X_t)|`$ and, correspondingly, $`Y_0X_0`$ as the limit of the section $`Y_tX_t`$ in $`|𝒪_{Y_t}(X_t)|`$. For an introduction to the theory of limit linear series, please see, for example, \[E-H\] or \[H, Chap. 5\].

For the purpose of induction, we will prove Theorem 1.3 in the following slightly more general form.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`L=𝒪(aC+bF)`$ be an ample line bundle on $`𝔽_n`$ with $`a2`$ and $`b2`$. Then for a sufficiently general curve $`D|L|`$,

1. $`\mathrm{\#}(DE)\mathrm{min}(a1,ban,bn1)`$ for any curve $`E𝔽_n`$ that meets $`D`$ properly;
2. in addition, there exists a set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D`$ consisting of countably many points on $`D`$ such that if $`\mathrm{\#}(DE)=\mathrm{min}(a1,ban,bn1)`$ for some $`E`$, $`(DE)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

We prove Proposition 3.1 by induction on $`\mathrm{min}(a1,ban,bn1)`$.

If $`\mathrm{min}(a1,ban,bn1)=1`$, we only need to verify the second part of the proposition. Notice that $`D`$ has genus $`g(D)=1+\frac{1}{2}(a2)(ban)+\frac{1}{2}a(bn2)1`$. If $`D`$ meets $`E`$ at a single $`p`$ for some $`E`$, $`𝒪_D(\mu p)=𝒪_D(E)`$, where $`\mu =DE`$. If we fix the divisor class of $`E`$, there are only finitely many points $`p`$ with this property since $`g(D)1`$. Therefore, there are only countably many points $`p`$ such that $`DE=\{p\}`$ for some $`E`$.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{min}(a1,ban,bn1)2`$. Notice that $`𝒪((a1)C+(bn1)F)`$ is ample under this assumption.

Let $`X,Y,G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be defined as before. Suppose that $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ meet at points $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l`$, where $`l=a+bn2`$. Let $`M=𝒪(X_t)`$ be the line bundle associated to $`X_t`$.

Let $`\sigma _t|𝒪_{Y_t}(X_t)|`$ be the section cut out by $`X_t`$ on $`Y_t`$ and let $`\sigma _0=lim_{t0}\sigma _t`$. Let $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sigma _0|_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\sigma _G=\sigma _0|_G`$ be the restrictions of $`\sigma _0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`G`$, respectively. Then $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a section in

$$|𝒪_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu (p_1+p_2+\mathrm{}+p_l))M|=|𝒪_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu G)M|$$

and $`\sigma _G`$ is a section in

$$|𝒪_G(\mu (p_1+p_2+\mathrm{}+p_l))M|=|𝒪_G(\mu \mathrm{\Gamma })M|$$

where $`\mu `$ is an integer and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\sigma _G`$ are cut out by sections in $`|𝒪(\mu G)M|`$ and $`|𝒪(\mu \mathrm{\Gamma })M|`$, respectively.

Suppose that $`𝒪(\mu \mathrm{\Gamma })M`$ is nontrivial. Then by induction hypothesis $`\sigma _G`$ vanishes at no less than $`\mathrm{min}(a2,ban1,bn2)`$ distinct points. If $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vanishes at at least one point other than $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l`$, we are done; if not, we have either $`𝒪(\mu G)M`$ is trivial and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is nowhere vanishing or $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ only vanishes at $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l`$.

If $`𝒪(\mu G)M`$ is trivial and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is nowhere vanishing, then for any two points among $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l`$, say $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$, the ratio $`\sigma _G(p_1)/\sigma _G(p_2)`$ is uniquely determined by the choice of the pencil $`Y`$. Actually we have the following very explicit relation

(3.2)
$$\frac{\sigma _G(p_1)}{\sigma _G(p_2)}=\left(\frac{f(p_1)}{f(p_2)}\right)^\mu $$

where $`f|L|`$ is the section which cuts out a general member $`Y_t`$ of the pencil $`Y`$. If $`\sigma _G`$ vanishes at more than $`\mathrm{min}(a2,ban1,bn2)`$ distinct points, there is nothing to prove; otherwise, $`\sigma _G`$ vanishes at exactly $`\mathrm{min}(a2,ban1,bn2)`$ distinct points. Then by induction hypothesis, there are only countably many possible choices of $`\sigma _G`$. However, by (3.2), the ratio $`\sigma _G(p_1)/\sigma _G(p_2)`$ can be made into an arbitrary complex value by a choice of $`f`$ (and thus a choice of the pencil $`Y`$). Contradiction.

If $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ only vanishes at $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l`$, since we have already taken care of the case that $`𝒪(\mu G)M`$ is trivial and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is nowhere vanishing, we may assume that $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vanishes at at least one point among $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l`$, say $`p_1`$. Then $`\sigma _G`$ must vanish at $`p_1`$ as well. Again, if $`\sigma _G`$ vanishes at more than $`\mathrm{min}(a2,ban1,bn2)`$ distinct points, there is nothing to prove; otherwise, $`\sigma _G`$ vanishes at exactly $`\mathrm{min}(a2,ban1,bn2)`$ distinct points. By induction hypothesis, $`p_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_G`$. But if we choose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generically, $`p_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_G`$. Contradiction.

Now suppose that $`𝒪(\mu \mathrm{\Gamma })M`$ is trivial. If $`\sigma _G=0`$, then $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vanishes at $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l`$ and $`l=a+bn2>\mathrm{min}(a1,ban,bn1)`$; we are done. Otherwise, $`\sigma _G`$ is no where vanishing. The ratio $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_i)/\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_j)`$ for any two points $`p_i`$ and $`p_j`$ among $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l`$, just as in (3.2), is uniquely determined by the choice of $`Y`$ and is given by

(3.3)
$$\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_i)}{\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_j)}=\left(\frac{f(p_i)}{f(p_j)}\right)^\mu .$$

The rational map $`|L|^{l1}`$ by sending $`f|L|`$ to

(3.4)
$$(f^\mu (p_1),f^\mu (p_2),\mathrm{},f^\mu (p_l))$$

is dominant due to the facts that $`H^0(𝔽_n,L)`$ surjects onto $`H^0(\mathrm{\Gamma },L)`$ and $`L𝒪_\mathrm{\Gamma }(_{ij}p_i)`$ is base point free on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for each $`1jl`$. On the other hand, the space

$$\{\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }|\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{ vanishes at less than }l1\text{ distinct points}\}$$

has dimension $`l2`$ and hence cannot dominate $`^{l1}`$. So $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vanishes at at least $`l1>\mathrm{min}(a1,ban,bn1)`$ distinct points for a general choice of $`f`$ by (3.3).

This finishes the proof of the first part of the proposition.

Suppose that $`\sigma _0`$ vanishes at exactly $`\mathrm{min}(a1,ban,bn1)`$ distinct points. This can happen only when $`𝒪(\mu \mathrm{\Gamma })M`$ is nontrivial.

Suppose that $`\sigma _G`$ vanishes at exactly $`\mathrm{min}(a2,ban1,bn2)`$ distinct points. Our previous argument shows that $`\sigma _G`$ does not vanish at $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l`$ for a general choice of $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must vanish at a single point $`p\{p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l\}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\#}(G\mathrm{\Gamma })2`$, the natural map from $`Y_0\backslash \{p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l\}`$ to $`Pic(Y_0)`$ is injective. So $`p`$ is determined up to finitely many possibilities by $`M`$ and the vanishing locus of $`\sigma _G`$. By induction, the vanishing locus of $`\sigma _G`$ is contained in some countable set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_G`$ depending only on $`G`$. So the vanishing locus of $`\sigma _0`$ is also contained in some countable set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{G\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ depending only on $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Suppose that $`\sigma _G`$ vanishes at exactly $`\mathrm{min}(a1,ban,bn1)`$ distinct points and suppose that there is a one-parameter family of $`\sigma _0(u)`$ with this property, where $`\sigma _0(u)`$ is parameterized by $`uU`$ for some irreducible curve $`U`$.

Suppose that $`𝒪(\mu G)M`$ is trivial. There exists $`u_0U`$ such that $`\sigma _G(u_0)`$ vanishes at $`p_1`$. Since $`𝒪(\mu G)M`$ is trivial, $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }(u_0)=0`$ and hence $`\sigma _G(u_0)`$ vanishes at $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l`$. But $`l>\mathrm{min}(a1,ban,bn1)`$. Contradiction.

Suppose that $`𝒪(\mu G)M`$ is nontrivial. Then $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)`$ vanishes at at least one point among $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l`$, say $`p_1`$. Hence $`\sigma _G(u)`$ vanishes at $`p_1`$ for all $`uU`$. As $`u`$ varies, another vanishing point of $`\sigma _G(u)`$ will approach $`p_1`$. So there exists $`u_0U`$ such that $`\sigma _G(u_0)`$ vanishes at $`\mathrm{min}(a2,ban1,bn2)`$ distinct points and among them vanishes at a general point $`p_1`$. Again this is impossible by induction. Contradiction.

This finishes the proof of Proposition 3.1.

The degeneration method we used can be applied to surfaces other than rational ruled surfaces. For example, we can give an alternative proof of Xu’s Theorem 1.1 by degenerating a degree $`d`$ curve to a union of a degree $`d1`$ curve and a line and arguing by induction.

###### A proof of Xu’s Theorem 1.1 via degeneration.

As in the case of Proposition 3.1, we need to add a clause to the theorem for the purpose of induction, i.e., we will prove the following statement by induction on $`d`$.

For a sufficiently general curve $`D`$ of degree $`d3`$ in $`^2`$, $`\mathrm{\#}(DE)d2`$ for any curve $`E^2`$ that meets $`D`$ properly. In addition, there exists a set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D`$ of countably many points on $`D`$ such that if $`\mathrm{\#}(DE)=d2`$ for some $`E`$, $`(DE)\mathrm{\Sigma }_D`$.

Let $`Y^2\times \mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a pencil of degree $`d`$ curves whose central fiber $`Y_0=G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the union of a curve $`G`$ of degree $`d1`$ and a line $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and let $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l\}`$ where $`l=d1`$.

Let $`X,M,\sigma _t,\sigma _0,\sigma _G,\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mu `$ be defined as before. Almost nothing in the argument of Proposition 3.1 needs changing except in the case that $`𝒪(\mu \mathrm{\Gamma })M`$ is trivial and $`\sigma _G`$ is nowhere vanishing. In this case, following our previous argument, we can show that $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vanishes at no less than $`l1`$ points. The difference is that now we have $`l1=d2`$ and we have to verify that there are only finitely many $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that vanishes at exactly $`l1`$ distinct points. This is more or less obvious because the map from $`|L|`$ to $`^{l1}`$ given by (3.4) is dominant and the space

$$\{\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }|\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{ vanishes at exactly }l1\text{ distinct points}\}$$

has dimension $`l1`$. ∎

Our degeneration method also works for Del Pezzo surfaces.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{^2}`$ be the blowup of $`^2`$ at $`2r6`$ general points and let $`L_1,L_2,\mathrm{},L_k,\mathrm{}`$ be all the smooth rational curves on $`\stackrel{~}{^2}`$ with self-intersection $`1`$. Let $`L`$ be an ample line bundle on $`\stackrel{~}{^2}`$. Then for a sufficiently general curve $`D|L|`$,

1. $`\mathrm{\#}(DE)\mathrm{min}_k(DL_k)`$ for any curve $`E\stackrel{~}{^2}`$ that meets $`D`$ properly;
2. in addition, there exists a set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D`$ of countably many points on $`D`$ such that if $`\mathrm{\#}(DE)=\mathrm{min}_k(DL_k)`$ for some $`E`$, $`(DE)\mathrm{\Sigma }_D`$.

Therefore, for a sufficiently general curve $`D|L|`$ with $`\mathrm{min}_k(DL_k)3`$, the complement $`\stackrel{~}{^2}\backslash D`$ is algebraic hyperbolic.

###### Proof.

Let $`K_{\stackrel{~}{^2}}`$ be the canonical divisor of $`\stackrel{~}{^2}`$. We argue by induction on $`\mathrm{min}_k(DL_k)`$.

For $`\mathrm{min}_k(DL_k)=1`$, we need to verify that $`g(D)1`$, which is more or less obvious.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{min}_k(DL_k)2`$. Let $`Y^2\times \mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a pencil of curves in $`|L|`$ whose central fiber $`Y_0=G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a union of $`G\left|L𝒪(K_{\stackrel{~}{^2}})\right|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left|K_{\stackrel{~}{^2}}\right|`$ and let $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_l\}`$.

Let $`X,M,\sigma _t,\sigma _0,\sigma _G,\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mu `$ be defined as before. Again, the same argument for Proposition 3.1 goes through. We need only to check the following facts, all of which are routine exercises.

1. $`l>\mathrm{min}_k(DL_k)`$.
2. $`H^0(\stackrel{~}{^2},L)`$ surjects onto $`H^0(\mathrm{\Gamma },L)`$ and

$$L𝒪_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\underset{ij}{}p_i)=𝒪_\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_{\stackrel{~}{^2}})𝒪_\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_j)$$

is base point free on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for each $`1jl`$. Hence the map from $`|L|`$ to $`^{l1}`$ given by (3.4) is dominant.
3. In the case that $`𝒪(\mu \mathrm{\Gamma })M`$ is trivial and $`\sigma _G`$ is nowhere vanishing, we can prove that $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vanishes at no less than $`l1`$ distinct points as before. But actually, we can do better here since the space

$$\{\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }|\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{ vanishes at less than }l\text{ distinct points}\}$$

has dimension $`l2`$ due to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is elliptic instead of rational. Therefore, $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vanishes at no less than $`l`$ distinct points.

When we go up in dimension, however, some essential difficulties present themselves. For example, in $`^3`$, fix a sufficient general surface $`S`$ of degree $`d`$ and it is expected that any curve meets $`S`$ at no less than $`d4`$ distinct points \[X, Question 2\]. Let $`Y`$ be a pencil of degree $`d`$ surfaces whose central fiber is a union of a degree $`d1`$ surface and a plane and let $`X`$ be family of curves in $`^3`$ meeting $`Y`$ fiberwise. To carry out the argument as in dimension two, we need to take the limit $`X_tY_t`$ as an element in $`A_0(Y_t)`$, the 0-dimension Chow ring of $`Y_t`$. Of course, we do not know how to do this at present.


text:
# Determinant of a new fermionic action on a lattice - (II)

## I introduction

As is well known the lattice formulation of fermions has extra physical particles or breaks the chiral symmetry. This is unavoidable under a few plausible assumptions . Several methods have been proposed to deal with this difficulty. Wilson’s formulation , which is one of the most popular schemes, eliminates the unwanted particles with an additional term which vanishes in the naive continuum limit. However, this formulation sacrifices the chiral symmetry. An alternative scheme is the staggered fermion formulation proposed by Kogut and Susskind . This scheme preserves the discrete chiral symmetry and in this point the staggered fermion has an advantage over the Wilson fermion. But, the staggered formulation describes a theory with $`2^{\frac{1+D}{2}}`$ degenerate quark flavours ($`2^{1+D}`$ components) in $`(1+D)`$ dimensions, while there is no restriction on the flavour number in the Wilson formulation. Recently, it has been shown that lattice fermionic actions with the Ginsparg-Wilson relation  have an exact chiral symmetry and are free from restriction on the flavour number. But, these actions cannot be ”ultralocal” , which makes numerical simulations complicated.

In the recent papers , we proposed a new type of fermionic action on a $`(1+D)`$-dimensional lattice. The action is ultralocal and has discrete chiral symmetry. On the Euclidean lattice the minimal number of fermion components is $`2^D`$, which should be compared with $`2^{1+D}`$ of the staggered fermion. When dynamical fermions are included, the numerical feasibility relies on the reality and positivity of the fermion determinant. In the previous paper  we investigated, analytically and numerically, the fermion determinant of our new action in the $`(1+1)`$-dimensional U(1) lattice gauge theory. We showed the reality of our fermion determinant under the condition fixing the global phase of link variables along the temporal direction. By a similar discussion to the U(1) gauge group, we could also find the reality and the positivity of our fermion determinant in the $`(1+1)`$-dimensional SU(N) lattice gauge theory.

In this paper we analytically show that our fermion determinant with the SU(2) gauge fields is real and positive in $`(1+D)`$ dimensions. We also comment on the numerical results of the fermion determinant in the $`(1+D)`$-dimensional SU(3) gauge fields, and discuss the effectiveness of our new action for SU(2) and SU(3) lattice gauge theories.

## II new fermionic action

In the recent paper , we proposed a new fermionic action on the Euclidean lattice. Though the action keeps the discrete chiral symmetry like the staggered fermion action, the fermion field has $`2^D`$ components in $`(1+D)`$ dimensions. In this section we briefly sketch our formalism for later convenience.

The action can be written with a fermion matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as

$`S_f={\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\psi _n^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{nm}\psi _m,`$ (1)
where the summation is over lattice points and spinor indices, and our fermion matrix is defined by

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1S_0^{}U_E.`$ (2)
Here $`U_E`$ is the Euclidean time evolution operator and $`S_\mu `$ is the unit shift operator defined by

$`S_\mu \psi (x^0,x^1,\mathrm{},x^\mu ,\mathrm{},x^D)=\psi (x^0,x^1,\mathrm{},x^\mu +1,\mathrm{},x^D)(\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},D).`$ (3)
We require that the propagator has no extra poles and find that $`U_E`$ has the form

$`U_E=1{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_E}{2}}\left\{iX_i\left(S_iS_i^{}\right)+\left(1Y_i\right)\left(S_i2+S_i^{}\right)\right\},`$ (4)
where $`r_E`$ is the ratio of the temporal lattice constant to the spatial one. The spinor matrices $`X`$’s and $`Y`$’s should satisfy the following algebra:

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\{X_i,X_j\}& =& {\displaystyle \frac{2}{r_E}}\delta _{ij},\hfill \\ \{X_i,Y_j\}& =& 0,\hfill \\ \{Y_i,Y_j\}& =& 2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_E}}\delta _{ij}+1\right),\hfill \end{array}`$ (8)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ run from $`1`$ to $`D`$. The matrix $`2(\delta _{ij}/r_E+1)`$ is positive definite for any positive $`r_E`$, therefore $`X`$’s and $`Y`$’s can be assumed hermitian,

$`X_i^{}=X_i,Y_i^{}=Y_i.`$ (9)
The matrices $`X`$’s and $`Y`$’s can be expressed by the Clifford algebra:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_n,\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\}=2\delta _{nm}(n,m=1,\mathrm{},2D)`$ (10)
in several ways. One is

$`X_i=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_E}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,Y_i={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{D}{}}}\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D+j},`$ (11)
as was used in the previous paper. Another one is

$`X_i=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_E}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,Y_i=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_E}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D+i}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D+1},`$ (12)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D+1}`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D+1}=(i)^D\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D}.`$ (13)
The latter is more convenient than the former for later use. The dimension of the irreducible representation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s is $`2^D`$ and accordingly $`\psi `$ has $`2^D`$ components.

The interaction of the fermion with gauge fields is introduced by replacing the unit shift operators by covariant ones:

$`S_\mu S_\mu (x)U_{x,x+\widehat{\mu }}S_\mu ,`$ (14)
where $`\widehat{\mu }`$ is the unit vector along the $`\mu `$’th direction, and $`U_{x,y}`$ is a link variable connecting sites $`x`$ and $`y`$.

The fermion matrix Eq.(2) and the time evolution operator Eq.(4) become

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=1S_0^{}(x)U_E(x),`$ (15)
and

$`U_E(x)=1{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_E}{2}}\left\{iX_i\left(S_i(x)S_i^{}(x)\right)+\left(1Y_i\right)\left(S_i(x)2+S_i^{}(x)\right)\right\}.`$ (16)
## III fermion determinant for SU(2) case

In this section we analytically study the determinant of our fermion matrix in SU(2) gauge fields.

First, in the $`(1+1)`$-dimensional case, the complex conjugation of $`U_E(x)`$ is

$`U_E^{}(x)=1{\displaystyle \frac{r_E}{2}}\left\{iX_1^{}\left(S_1^{}(x)+S_1^{^{}}(x)\right)+\left(1Y_1^{}\right)\left(S_1^{}(x)2+S_1^{^{}}(x)\right)\right\},`$ (17)
where we can write

$`S_1(x)=\alpha _0(x)\text{1}+i{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\alpha _i(x)\tau _i,`$ (18)
since the link variables in $`S_1(x)`$ are SU(2) gauge group elements. Here $`\alpha _0(x)`$ and $`\alpha _i(x)`$ are real and depend on lattice points and $`\tau _{1,2,3}`$ are the Pauli-matrices:

$`\tau _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\tau _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\tau _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (25)
Then we have

$`S_1(x)\tau _2=\tau _2S_1^{}(x).`$ (26)
By the same discussion for other unit shift operators $`S_0^{}`$ and $`S_1^{}`$, we also have

$`S_0^{}(x)\tau _2=\tau _2S_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(x),S_1^{}(x)\tau _2=\tau _2S_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(x).`$ (27)
If we can find the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X_1^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }& =& \mathrm{\Gamma }X_1,\hfill \\ \hfill Y_1^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }& =& \mathrm{\Gamma }Y_1,\hfill \end{array}`$ (30)
it is easily shown that

$`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _2\right)\left(S_0^{}(x)U_E(x)\right)^{}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _2\right)=S_0^{}(x)U_E(x).`$ (31)
For example, we make the following choice:

$`X_1=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_E}}}\tau _1,Y_1=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_E}}}\tau _2+\tau _3,`$ (32)
the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acting on two components fermi fields defined by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\tau _3`$ (33)
satisfies Eq.(30). The Eq.(31) implies that if $`\lambda `$ is some eigenvalue of our fermion matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$, then $`\lambda ^{}`$ is an eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(x)`$ and thus also of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$. Therefore eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ are either real or come in complex conjugate pairs. From the above discussion we can prove the reality of our fermion determinant for the SU(2) gauge groups.

Next we show its positivity. We define

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _2\right)K,`$ (34)
where $`K`$ is complex-conjugation operator. We find

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\left(\tau _3\tau _2\right)K\left(\tau _3\tau _2\right)K=\left(\tau _3\tau _2\right)\left(\tau _3(\tau _2)\right)=1,`$ (35)
and from the relation Eq.(31) we can show

$`[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)]=0.`$ (36)
For a real eigenvalue $`\lambda _R`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ and the eigenvector $`v_R`$ for this eigenvalue, from Eq.(36) we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}v_R=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)v_R=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\lambda _Rv_R=\lambda _R\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}v_R.`$ (37)
Suppose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}v_R=cv_R`$, then we find

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}v_R=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}cv_R=c^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}v_R=\left|c\right|^2v_R,`$ (38)
which is inconsistent with Eq.(35), so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}v_R`$ is different eigenvector for the same eigenvalue. Therefore the eigenvalues on real axis are degenerate in pairs and the determinant of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ is positive.

The above proof of the positivity of our fermion determinant for the SU(2) group can be expanded to higher dimensions. We can make a fundamental representation for the Clifford algebra with $`2D`$ elements $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ ($`n=1,\mathrm{},2D`$) using direct products of the Pauli-matrices:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_1& =& \tau _1\underset{D1}{\underset{}{\tau _3\mathrm{}\tau _3}}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_2& =& \text{1}\tau _1\underset{D2}{\underset{}{\tau _3\mathrm{}\tau _3}}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}& & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_i& =& \underset{i1}{\underset{}{\text{1}\mathrm{}\text{1}}}\tau _1\underset{Di}{\underset{}{\tau _3\mathrm{}\tau _3}}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}& & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_D& =& \underset{D1}{\underset{}{\text{1}\mathrm{}\text{1}}}\tau _1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{D+1}& =& \tau _2\underset{D1}{\underset{}{\tau _3\mathrm{}\tau _3}}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{D+2}& =& \text{1}\tau _2\underset{D2}{\underset{}{\tau _3\mathrm{}\tau _3}}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}& & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{D+i}& =& \underset{i1}{\underset{}{\text{1}\mathrm{}\text{1}}}\tau _2\underset{Di}{\underset{}{\tau _3\mathrm{}\tau _3}}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}& & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D}& =& \underset{D1}{\underset{}{\text{1}\mathrm{}\text{1}}}\tau _2\hfill \end{array}`$ (51)
where $`i`$ runs from $`1`$ to $`D`$. It can be easily checked that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$’s satisfy the relation

$`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\}=2\delta _{nm}(n,m=1,\mathrm{},2D).`$ (52)
Moreover, we can see that the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is real and the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D+i}`$ is pure imaginary:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D+i}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D+i}(i=1,\mathrm{},D).`$ (53)
From the anti-commutation relation, we find the hermite matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D+1}`$ which anti-commutes with all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$’s:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D+1}`$ $`=`$ $`(i)^D\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D}`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`\tau _3\tau _3\mathrm{}\tau _3.`$ (55)
Clearly, the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D+1}`$ is hermitian and the square of this matrix is equal to the unit matrix. Thus, we have

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D+1}& =& \mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D+i}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D+1}& =& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{D+i}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (58)
In $`(1+D)`$ dimensions, the relation Eq.(30) is rewritten as follows:

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X_i^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }& =& \mathrm{\Gamma }X_i,\hfill \\ \hfill Y_i^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }& =& \mathrm{\Gamma }Y_i.\hfill \end{array}`$ (61)
Then, for the representation of Eq.(12),

$`X_i=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_E}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,Y_i=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_E}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D+i}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D+1},`$ (62)
we find

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2D+1}.`$ (63)
Since the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ always consist of complex conjugate pairs and degenerated ones on real axis, we conclude the determinant of our fermion matrix is positive in SU(2) gauge fields in any dimensions.

Now we show a numerical evidence. Fig.1 shows the spectrum of our fermion matrix in a typical background configuration of link variables for SU(2) gauge group in $`(1+2)`$ dimensions. We find that their distribution is symmetric with respect to the real axis as expected. Similarly in $`(1+3)`$ dimensions we can numerically confirm the symmetry with respect to the real axis, and the positivity of the determinant.

## IV discussion and summary

In the previous paper  we reported analytical and numerical results on the fermion determinant of our new action in $`(1+1)`$ dimensions. In the case of U(1) gauge group, we were faced with the problem of convergence in numerical simulations. The cause of the poorness of the convergence is that the summation of the $`det(1S_0^{}(x)U_E(x))=det(1e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }}\stackrel{~}{S}_0^{}(x)U_E(x))`$ over arbitrary phase angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is canceled out accidentally. The element $`e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ comes from the one sided time difference operator $`S_0^{}(x)`$ with $`\theta _0(x)`$ replaced by $`\theta _0(x)+\mathrm{\Theta }`$, i.e. $`S_0^{}(x)=e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }}\stackrel{~}{S}_0^{}(x)`$, where $`\theta _0(x)`$ is defined by $`U_{x,x+\widehat{0}}=e^{i\theta _0(x)}`$ . Therefore we must have control of the phase angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in order to get good convergence in the $`(1+1)`$-dimensional U(1) gauge theory. In fact we analytically showed that our fermion determinant is real for all configurations and positive for most configurations under the T-condition ($`\theta _0(x)=0`$), which corresponds to the temporal gauge condition on the infinite lattice, or the GT-condition ($`_x\theta _0(x)=n\pi `$ : $`n=\text{even}`$), which is achieved by a gauge transformation on the infinite lattice. It was also verified numerically. On the other hand we got good convergence without any conditions in $`(1+1)`$-dimensional SU(N) case, because the element like $`e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ does not belong to the SU(N) group.

The above discussion is applicable to higher dimensions to a certain extent. In SU(2) group our fermion determinant is analytically shown real and positive in any dimensions. In Fig.2(a) we give the numerical evidence that the determinant is real and positive in $`(1+2)`$ dimensions. In the case of SU(3) group, we cannot prove the reality of the determinant. But from Fig.2(b) we see that the distribution of the determinant is concentrated near the real axis without any conditions and the phase angle of the determinant is small. We have obtained similar results in $`(1+3)`$ dimensions. When the phase angle of the fermion determinant is small enough, we can neglect the phase factor and make use of $`|det\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)|`$ instead of $`det\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$. In the above numerical simulations link variables are updated by the Metropolis method and determinants are calculated by the LU decomposition. So there are no systematic errors in the determinants.

In conclusion, we believe that our new fermionic action is a profitable formulation for the numerical simulations of SU(2) and SU(3) lattice gauge theory.


text:
# Semiinfinite cohomology of Tate Lie algebras

## 1. Introduction.

This note is a natural extension of the final part in \[Ar\] where a natural homological construction for graded Lie algebra semiinfinite cohomology and a natural explanation for the phenomenon of the critical cocycle was found. Here we propose a variant of the construction that works in the Tate Lie algebra case. Note that the standard complex for the computation of the Tate Lie algebra semiinfinite cohomology was written down by Beilinson and Drinfeld in \[BD\] and probably by some physicists. Still the construction was rather an indirect one and was not formulated in terms similar to the ones in \[Ar\]. In this note we spell out the construction of the complex in terms of some kind of quadratic-linear Koszul duality rather than Conformal Field Theory.

Let us say a few words about the contents of the note. In the second section we recall the notion of a differential graded Lie algebra with a curvature. We show that the standard Chevalley complex for computation of the Lie algebra cohomology can be modified in such a way that it still exists in this exotic case.

In the third section we recall a construction of an analogue of the Chevalley cohomological complex for a left module over a Lie algebroid $`A`$ over a commutative algebra $`R`$. Then we combine the setup from the previous section with the described one and obtain a picture consisting of a graded supercommutative algebra with a derivation, a graded (super) Lie algebroid over the algebra carrying an extension of the derivation of the basic algebra and finaly an analogue of curvature that “corrects” the fact that both derivations do not satisfy the constraint $`d^2=0`$. We construct an analogue of the cohomological Chevalley complex with coefficients in a left CDG-module over the differential graded Lie algebroid with curvature (CDG Lie algebroid).

In the fourth section we show that the standard complex for semiinfinite cohomology in the Tate Lie algebra case is a particular example of the described situation. Namely for a Tate Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ with a compact Lie subalgebra $`𝔟`$ we consider the graded supercommutative algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}((𝔤/𝔟)^{})`$ and a graded Lie algebroid $`𝔟\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}((𝔤/𝔟)^{})`$ over it. We show that the components of the Lie bracket in $`𝔤`$ provide the derivations and the curvature.

Finally we show that for a discrete module $`M^{\mathrm{}}`$ over the extension of $`𝔤`$ with the help of the cricical cocycle of $`𝔤`$ the space $`M^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔤/𝔟)`$ carries a structure of a left CDG module over the above CDG Lie algebroid and that for this CDG-module the standard Chevalley complex from the third section coincides with the semiinfinite complex of $`𝔤`$ with coefficients in $`M^{\mathrm{}}`$.

In order to simplify the exposition we never use the language of derived categories in the note but rather work with concrete complexes.

## 2. Toy example.

The material of this section is based on a partly unpublished construction of A.Polishchuk and L.Positselsky (still see \[P\]).

We begin with the case of a differential graded Lie superalgebra with a curvature. The standard complex appearing in the case seems to be more understandable.

Let $`A=A_k`$ be a graded Lie algebra and $`d:A_kA_{k+1}`$ be a derivation of $`A`$ of order $`1`$. Note that at this point we do not put the constraint $`d^2=0`$. Instead we require an additional part of the data — an element $`hA_2`$ such that $`d^2(a)=[h,a]`$ for any $`aA`$ and $`d(h)=0`$.

### 2.1.

Definition: The data $`(A,d,h)`$ described above are called the differential graded Lie superalgebra with curvature or, for short, the CDG Lie algebra.

By definition a left (resp. a right) CDG-module over a CDG Lie algebra $`A`$ is a graded left (resp. right) module $`M=M_k`$ over the Lie algebra $`A`$ with the differential $`d:M_kM_{k+1}`$ satisfying the Leibnitz rule such that $`d^2(m)=hm`$ (resp. $`d^2(m)=mh`$) for any $`mM`$.

Denote the category of left (resp. right) CDG $`A`$-modules by $`CDG\mathrm{-}A\mathrm{-}\mathrm{mod}`$ (resp. $`CDG\mathrm{-}\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{-}A`$.

### 2.2. Construction of the standard complex.

For $`M^{}CDG\mathrm{-}A\mathrm{-}\mathrm{mod}`$ consider the bigraded vector space $`C^{}(A,M^{})`$ as follows: $`C^{}(A,M^{})=\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(A),M^{})`$, here the first grading comes from the number of wedges in the exterior product and

$$C^k(A,M^{})=\underset{p+q=k}{}\mathrm{Hom}((\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(A))_p,M^q).$$

Consider the two differentials on the bigraded vector space. The first one of the grading $`(1,0)`$ is the usual Chevalley differential:

$$(d_1f)(a_1\mathrm{}a_m)=\underset{i}{}(1)^if(a_1\mathrm{}da_i\mathrm{}a_m)+d_M^{}f(a_1\mathrm{}a_m)$$

$$+\underset{i}{}(1)^ia_i^M^{}f(a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_i\mathrm{}a_m)+\underset{i<j}{}(1)^{i+j}f([a_i,a_j]a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_i\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_j\mathrm{}a_m).$$

The second differential of the grading $`(1,2)`$ is given by the formula that uses the curvature $`h`$:

$$(d_2f)(a_1\mathrm{}a_{m1})=f(ha_1\mathrm{}a_{m1}).$$

Consider the total grading on the bigraded space.

#### 2.2.1.

Lemma: The differential $`d=d_1+d_2`$ satisfies $`d^2=0`$.

Proof. The corresponding calculation repeats the one of Polishchuk and Positselsky. ∎

## 3. Standard complex for a CDG Lie algebroid.

### 3.1. Chevalley complex of a Lie algebroid.

Let $`R`$ be a commutative algebra, and let $`A`$ be a Lie algebroid over $`R`$, i.e. $`A`$ is a $`R`$-module carrying a Lie algebra structure over the base field and acting on $`R`$ by derivations such that $`[a,rb]=a(r)b+r[a,b]`$ for any $`a,bA`$ and $`rR`$.

By definition a $`A`$-module is a $`R`$-module $`M`$ with the Lie action of $`A`$ satisfying the constraint $`a(rm)=r(am)+(a(r))m`$ for any $`aA`$, $`rR`$ and $`mM`$.

#### 3.1.1.

For a left $`A`$-module $`M`$ consider the graded vector space $`C^{}(A,M)`$ as follows:

$$C^{}(A,M)=\underset{𝑘}{}C^k(A,M),C^k(A,M)=\mathrm{Hom}_R(\mathrm{\Lambda }_R^k(A),M)$$

We endow the graded vector space with the differential as follows:

$$(df)(a_1\mathrm{}a_m)=+\underset{i}{}(1)^ia_i^Mf(a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_i\mathrm{}a_m)$$

$$+\underset{i<j}{}(1)^{i+j}f([a_i,a_j]a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_i\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_j\mathrm{}a_m).$$

Lemma:

* The differential in the complex is well defined.
* The differential satisfies $`d^2=0`$.

Proof. (i) Let us perform a calculation showing that the differential $`d:C^kC^{k+1}`$ is well defined for $`k=1`$, the general case is quite similar. Note that

$$df(ra_1a_2)=ra_1f(a_2)a_2f(ra_1)f([ra_1,a_2])=ra_1f(a_2)a_2rf(a_1)+rf([a_1,a_2])+a_2(r)f(a_1)$$

$$=ra_1f(a_2)ra_2f(a_1)+rf([a_1,a_2])=df(a_1ra_2).$$

(ii) The calculation does not differ from the usual Lie algebra case. ∎

#### 3.1.2.

Remark: Note that there is no such standard complex for a right $`A`$-module $`M`$.

The constructed complex is called the (cohomological) Chevalley complex of the Lie algebroid $`A`$ with coefficients in the left $`A`$-module $`M`$.

### 3.2. CDG-algebroids.

Now let $`R=_kR_k`$ be a graded supercommutative algebra and let $`A=A_k`$ be a graded super Lie algebroid over $`R`$. Suppose also there are a super derivation $`d_R`$ on $`R`$ of degree $`1`$ and a super derivation $`d_A`$ of the Lie superalgebra $`A`$ also of degree $`1`$ satisfying Leibnitz rule with respect one to another. Again we put the constraint $`d^2=0`$ on neither of the derivations. Instead of that we fix the choice of an element $`hA_2`$ such that $`d_A^2(a)=[h,a]`$ and $`d_R^2(r)=h(r)`$.

#### 3.2.1.

Definition: The data $`(A,R,d_A,d_R,h)`$ are called the differential graded Lie algebroid with curvature or, for short, a CDG Lie algebroid.

The notion of a left (resp. right) CDG-module over a CDG algebroid is a natural combination of the previous definitions and we do not spell it out explicitly. The category of left (resp. right) CDG-modules ovea a CDG-algebroid $`A`$ is denoted by $`CDG\mathrm{-}A\mathrm{-}\mathrm{mod}`$ (resp. $`CDG\mathrm{-}\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{-}A`$.

### 3.3. Standard complex for a CDG Lie algebroid.

Now we sort of put togeather definitions of the standard complexes given in 2.2 and 3.1.1. For $`M^{}CDG\mathrm{-}A\mathrm{-}\mathrm{mod}`$ consider the bigraded vector space $`C^{}(A,M^{})`$ as follows: $`C^{}(A,M^{})=\mathrm{Hom}_R(\mathrm{\Lambda }_R^{}(A),M^{})`$, here the first grading comes from the number of wedges in the exterior product and

$$C^k(A,M^{})=\mathrm{Hom}_R^k((\mathrm{\Lambda }_R^{}(A)),M^{})$$

in the graded $`\mathrm{Hom}`$ sense. Consider the two differentials on the bigraded vector space. The first one of the grading $`(1,0)`$ is the usual Chevalley differential like in 3.1.1:

$$(d_1f)(a_1\mathrm{}a_m)=\underset{i}{}(1)^if(a_1\mathrm{}da_i\mathrm{}a_m)+d_M^{}f(a_1\mathrm{}a_m)$$

$$+\underset{i}{}(1)^ia_i^M^{}f(a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_i\mathrm{}a_m)+\underset{i<j}{}(1)^{i+j}f([a_i,a_j]a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_i\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_j\mathrm{}a_m).$$

The second differential of the grading $`(1,2)`$ is again given by the formula that uses the curvature $`h`$:

$$(d_2f)(a_1\mathrm{}a_{m1})=f(ha_1\mathrm{}a_{m1}).$$

Consider the total grading on the bigraded space.

#### 3.3.1.

Lemma:

* The differential $`d_1`$ is well defined and its square equals zero.
* The differential $`d_2`$ is well defined and its square equals zero.
* The differential $`d=d_1+d_2`$ satisfies $`d^2=0`$.

Proof. (i) Follows from Lemma 3.1.1. (ii) Follows from the obvious fact that $`hh=0\mathrm{\Lambda }_R^2(A)`$. (iii) Repeats the proof of Lemma 2.2.1. ∎

The obtained complex is called the (cohomological) Chevalley complex of the CDG Lie algebroid $`A`$ with coefficients in the left CDG $`A`$-module $`M`$.

## 4. Semiinfiite cohomology via CDG Lie algebroids.

In this section we show that the standard complex for the computation of semiinfinite cohomology of a discrete module over a Tate Lie algebra coincides with the Chevalley complex of the form 3.3.1 for a certain CDG Lie algebroid and a certain left module over it.

### 4.1. Tate Lie algebras.

Recall that a Tate space is a complete topological vector space having a base of neighbourhoods of $`0`$ consisting of commensurable vector spaces(i.e., $`dimU_1/(U_1U_2)<\mathrm{}`$ for any $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$ from this base).

Recall also that a c-lattice in a Tate space $`V`$ is an open bounded subspace and a d-lattice $`LV`$ is a discrete subspace such that there exists a c-lattice $`P`$ with $`L+P=V`$. Note that the quotient of a Tate space by a c-lattice (resp. by a d-lattice) is discrete (resp. compact) in its natural topology. It is known that there is a natural duality on the category of Tate spaces and that $`V^{}\stackrel{~}{}V`$ for any Tate space V.

Recall also that by definition a Tate Lie algebra is a Tate vector space equipped with a Lie algebra structure continuous in the Tate topology.

### 4.2. Construction pf the CDG Lie algebroid.

Let $`𝔤`$ be a Tate Lie algebra with a subalgebra $`𝔟𝔤`$ that is a c-lattice In particular the space $`𝔠:=𝔤/𝔟`$ is discrete and its dual space is compact. Choose a section of the projection $`𝔤𝔠`$. Thus we fix a noncanonical decomposition $`𝔤=𝔟𝔠`$ and the Lie algebra structure on $`𝔤`$ is provided by the following collection of maps:

$$\mu _𝔟:𝔟𝔟𝔟,\mu _1:𝔟𝔠𝔠,\mu _𝔠:𝔠𝔠𝔠,\mu _2:𝔟𝔠𝔟,h^{}:𝔠𝔠𝔟.$$

The existence of $`h^{}`$ means exactly that $`𝔠`$ is not a Lie subalgebra in $`𝔤`$. The construction below is parallel to the one in \[Ar\].

#### 4.2.1.

First consider the graded supercommutative algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔠^{})`$ or rather its Tate completion denoted in the same way. So as a vector spase it is Tate dual to the discrete coalgebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔠)`$. Consider the derivation $`d_R`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔠^{})`$ of degree one generated by the map dual to $`\mu _𝔠`$ and extended to the whole algebra by Leibnitz rule and by continuocity.

Next consider the graded Lie algebra $`𝔟\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔠^{})`$ where the tensor product is understood in the completed sense so that the whole space is Tate dual to the discrete space $`𝔟^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔠)`$. The commutator map in the above Lie algebra is generated by the one on $`𝔟`$ and by the action of $`𝔟`$ on the space $`𝔠^{}=(𝔤/𝔟)^{}`$.

Denote the graded Lie algebra (resp. the graded supercommutative algebra) above by $`A`$ (resp. by $`R`$). Evidently $`A`$ is a $`R`$-module, moreover there is a natural adjoint action of $`A`$ on $`R`$. Lemma: $`A`$ is a graded Lie algebroid over the graded supercommutative algebra $`R`$. ∎

#### 4.2.2. Construction of the CDG Lie algebroid structure on $`(A,R)`$.

We extend the derivation of $`R`$ constructed above to the derivation of $`A`$. Namely consider the map $`𝔟𝔟𝔠^{}`$ dual to $`\mu _2`$. Denote the map by $`d_𝔟`$. Extend the sum of $`d_𝔟`$ and $`d_R`$ to the whole Lie algebra $`A`$ by Leibnitz rule and by continuocity. Denote the obtained derivation by $`d_A`$. Finally consider the element $`hA_2=𝔟\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔠^{})`$ corresponding to the component $`h^{}`$ of the bracket in $`𝔤`$.

#### 4.2.3.

Proposition: The data $`(A,R,d_A,d_R,h)`$ form a CDG Lie algebroid. ∎

### 4.3. Construction of the standard semiinfinite complex.

First note that for any compact $`𝔤`$-module $`M`$ the (completed) tensor product $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔠^{})`$ has a natural structure of a left CDG-module over the CDG algebroid $`(A,\mathrm{})`$ constructed in the previous subsection.

#### 4.3.1. Construction of the right CDG-module.

Now fix a discrete $`𝔤`$-module $`M`$ and consider the graded space $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔠)`$. Lemma: The graded space $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔠)`$ has a natural structure of the right CDG-module over the CDG Lie algebroid $`(A,\mathrm{})`$.∎

#### 4.3.2.

Here we come to the crucial point explaining the phenomenon of the critical cocycle in the semiinfinite cohomology of Tate Lie algebras. What we would like to do is to consider the standard complex of the CDG Lie algebroid $`(A,R,\mathrm{})`$ with coefficients in $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔠)`$. Yet as noted in 3.1.2 there is no naive way to do it. Somehow we have to make $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔠)`$ into a left CDG-module over our CDG Lie algebroid.

Happily the answer how to do this is known at least in the graded Lie algebra case. The idea works for Tate Lie algebra semiinfinite cohomology as well.

#### 4.3.3. Critical cocycle of $`𝔤`$.

It is known that the Lie algebra of continuous endomorphisms of $`𝔤`$ (and of any other Tate vector space as well) has a remarkable class in $`H^2`$ and the choice of the decomposition $`𝔤=𝔟𝔠`$ fixes its representative in the space of cocycles called the critical 2-cocycle and denoted by $`\omega _0`$. The adjoint action of $`𝔤`$ on itself provides the inverse image of the class denoted by $`\omega _0^𝔤`$ and called the critical 2-cocycle of $`𝔤`$.

Denote by $`𝔤^{\mathrm{}}`$ the central extension of $`𝔤`$ with the help of this cocycle. Note that $`𝔤^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a Tate Lie algebra with a fixed vector space decomposition $`𝔤=𝔟𝔠K`$, where $`K`$ denotes the central element.

#### 4.3.4.

Consider the CDG Lie algebroid $`(\stackrel{~}{A}^{\mathrm{}},R^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{})`$ obtained from the pair $`𝔟K𝔤^{\mathrm{}}`$ by our main construction. Note that the algebra $`R^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{}R=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔠^{})`$ and that the element $`K`$ is central in $`\stackrel{~}{A}^{\mathrm{}}`$. Denote by $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ the quotient of $`\stackrel{~}{A}^{\mathrm{}}`$ by $`K1`$. Proposition: The CDG Lie algebroid $`(A^{\mathrm{}},R^{\mathrm{}},d_A^{\mathrm{}},d_R^{\mathrm{}},h^{\mathrm{}})`$ is isomorphic to the the CDG Lie algebroid $`(A,R,d_A,d_R,h)^{\mathrm{opp}}`$. ∎Remark: In particular for any discrete $`𝔤^{\mathrm{}}`$-module $`M^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that the central element $`K`$ acts on it by $`1`$ the right $`(A^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{})`$ CDG-module $`M\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔠)`$ becomes a left CDG-module over the CDG Lie algebroid $`(A,\mathrm{})`$.

#### 4.3.5.

Definition: For a discrete $`𝔤^{\mathrm{}}`$-module $`M^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that the central element $`K`$ acts on it by $`1`$ the complex

$$C^{}(A,M^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝔠))=\mathrm{Hom}_R(\mathrm{\Lambda }_R^{}(A),M^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔠))$$

is called the standard semiinfinite complex with coefficients in $`M^{\mathrm{}}`$ and is denoted by $`C^{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}+}(𝔤,M^{\mathrm{}})`$.

#### 4.3.6.

Theorem:

* For a discrete $`𝔤^{\mathrm{}}`$-module $`M^{\mathrm{}}`$ as above the graded vector space $`C^{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}+}(𝔤,M^{\mathrm{}})`$ is isomorphic to the graded vector space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔟^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝔤/𝔟)M^{\mathrm{}}`$.
* The cohomology of the complex $`C^{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}+}(𝔤,M^{\mathrm{}})`$ coincides with the semiinfinite cohomology of the Tate Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ with coefficients in the discrete module $`M^{\mathrm{}}`$ defined in \[BD\]. ∎