text:
# Topological defect system in 𝑂(𝑛) symmetric time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau model

## I Introduction

The importance of the role of time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) model in understanding a variety of problems in physics is clear. The study of the growth kinetics of systems subjected to rapid temperature quenches has recently been extended to include systems with more complex order parameter symmetries. In particular there has been progress on the study of the $`n`$-dimensional vector model with nonconserved Langevin dynamics. An interface description and numerical simulations of a TDGL equation were used to investigate the intra-surface kinetics of phase ordering on toroidal and corrugated surfaces. Two-dimensional $`XY`$ models with resistively-shunted junction (RSJ) dynamics and TDGL dynamics were simulated and it was verified that the vortex responses can be well described by the Minnhagen phenomenology for both types of dynamics.

In recent years, much work has been done on the topological defects in the TDGL model. In certain cosmological and phase ordering problems key questions involve an understanding of the evolution and correlation among defects like vortices, monopoles, domain walls, etc. In studying such objects in field theory questions arise as to how one can define quantities like the density of topological defects and an associated velocity field. Liu and Mazenko have discussed the problem, but unfortunately, for the lack of a powerful method, the topological properties of these systems are not very clear, some important topological information has been lost, also the unified theory of describing the topological properties of all defect system in TDGL model is not established yet.

In our previous work, we discussed how one could use the $`\varphi `$-mapping topological current theory to study the topological structure of the point defects in phase-ordering systems. We deduced a topological current of point-defect system in terms of the order parameter field in the context of a $`d`$-dimensional $`O(n)`$ symmetric TDGL model, where $`d`$ is the spatial dimensionality. Using the expression of the topological current, for point defects ($`n=d`$), the point-defect velocity field was identified, the topological structure and the topological charges of the point-defect system were studied, also the branch process of the point defects was discussed systematically. This analysis will be extended here to the case of arbitrary dimensional defect system in TDGL model where $`n=dk`$, i.e. to study the case for all $`nd`$.

In this paper, in the light of $`\varphi `$–mapping topological current theory, a useful method which plays a important role in studying the topological invariants and the topological structures of physical systems, we will investigate the topological quantization and the branch process of arbitrary dimensional topological defects in $`O(n)`$ symmetric TDGL model. We will show that the topological defects are generated from the zero points of the order parameter field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$, and their topological charges are quantized in terms of the Hopf indices and Brouwer degrees of $`\varphi `$-mapping under the condition that the zero points of field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ are regular points. While at the critical points of the order parameter field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$, i.e. the limit points and bifurcation points, there exist branch processes, the topological current of defect bifurcates and the topological defects split or merge at such point, this means that the topological defects system is unstable at these points.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we investigate the topological structure of the defect system in TDGL model and give the expression of the defect velocity field. In section 3, we will point out that the topological charges of these defects are the Winding numbers which are determined by the Hopf indices and the Brouwer degrees of the $`\varphi `$–mapping. In section 4, we study the branch process of the defect topological current at the limit points, bifurcation points and higher degenerated points systematically by virtue of the $`\varphi `$–mapping theory and the implicit function theorem.

## II Topological structure of the defect system in TDGl model

We consider a TDGL model for an $`n`$-component order parameter $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=(\varphi ^1(\stackrel{}{r},t),\mathrm{},\varphi ^n(\stackrel{}{r},t))`$ in $`d`$-spatial dimensions ($`dn=k`$) governed by the Langevin equation

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{\varphi }}{t}=\stackrel{}{K}\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\delta F}{\delta \stackrel{}{\varphi }}+\stackrel{}{\eta }$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a kinetic coefficient and $`\stackrel{}{\eta }`$ is a thermal noise which is related to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by fluctuation-dissipation theorem. $`F`$ is a Ginzburg-Landau effective free energy assumed to be of the form

$$F=d^dr[\frac{1}{2}c(\stackrel{}{\varphi })^2+V(\stackrel{}{\varphi })]$$
(2)
where $`c>0`$ and the potential $`V`$ is assumed to be of the degenerate double-well form. This model is to be supplemented by random, uncorrelated, initial conditions. We assume that there is a rapid temperature quench from a high temperature to zero temperature where the noise $`\stackrel{}{\eta }`$ in (1) can be set to zero. In the scalar case ($`n=1`$) such system order through the growth of domains separated by sharp walls. As time evolves these domains coarsen and order grows to progressively longer length scales. In the case of systems with continuous symmetry ($`n>1`$) the disordering elements will depend on $`n`$ and spatial dimensionality $`d`$. Thus, for example, for $`n=d`$ one has point defects (vortices and monopoles),for $`n=d1`$ one has vortex line or string-like defects while for $`n=dk`$ one has $`k`$-dimensional topological defect objects. For $`n>d`$ there are no stable singular topological objects.

As is well known, the $`n`$-component order parameter field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ determines the defect properties of the system, and it can be looked upon as a smooth mapping between the $`(d+1)`$-dimensional space-time $`X`$ and the $`n`$-dimensional Euclidean space $`R^n`$ as $`\varphi :XR^n`$. By analogy with the discussion in our previous work, from this $`\varphi `$-mapping, one can deduce a topological tensor current as

$`j^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{A(S^{n1})(n1)!}}ϵ^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k\mu _{k+1}\mathrm{}\mu _d}ϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}_{\mu _{k+1}}n^{a_1}_{\mu _{k+2}}n^{a_2}\mathrm{}_{\mu _d}n^{a_n},`$

$$\mu _0,\mathrm{},\mu _d=0,1,\mathrm{},d,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n=1,\mathrm{},n$$
(3)
to describe the $`k`$-dimensional topological defects in TDGL model, and the density tensor of the topological defect system is defined as $`\rho ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}=j^{0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}`$. In this expression, $`_\mu `$ stands for $`/x^\mu `$, $`A(S^{n1})=2\pi ^{n/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(n/2)`$ is the area of $`(n1)`$–dimensional unit sphere $`S^{n1}`$ and $`n^a(x)`$ is the direction field of the $`n`$–component order parameter field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$

$$n^a(x)=\frac{\varphi ^a(x)}{\varphi (x)},\varphi (x)=\sqrt{\varphi ^a(x)\varphi ^a(x)}$$
(4)
with $`n^a(x)n^a(x)=1`$. It is obviously that $`n^a(x)`$ is a section of the sphere bundle $`S(X)`$ and it can be looked upon as a map of $`X`$ onto a $`(n1)`$–dimensional unit sphere $`S^{n1}`$ in order parameter space. Clearly, the zero points of the order parameter field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)`$ are just the singular points of the unit vector $`n^a(x)`$. It is easy to see that $`j^{\mu _0\mathrm{}\mu _k}`$ are completely antisymmetric, and from the formulas above, we conclude that there exists a conservative equation of the topological tensor current in (3)

$`_{\mu _i}j^{\mu _0\mathrm{}\mu _k}=0,i=0,\mathrm{},k,`$

and from which we have

$`_t\rho ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}+_\mu j^{\mu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}=0`$

which is just the continuity equation satisfied by $`\rho ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}`$.

In the following, we will investigate the intrinsic structure of the generalized topological current $`j^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}`$ by making use of the $`\varphi `$–mapping method. From (4), we have

$`_\mu n^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi }}_\mu \varphi ^a+\varphi ^a_\mu ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi }}),{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi ^a}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi }})={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^a}{\varphi ^3}}`$

which should be looked upon as generalized functions. Due to these expressions the generalized topological current (3) can be rewritten as

$`j^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}`$ $`=`$ $`C_nϵ^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k\mu _{k+1}\mathrm{}\mu _d}ϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}`$ (5)
$``$ $`_{\mu _{k+1}}\varphi ^a\mathrm{}_{\mu _d}\varphi ^{a_n}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi ^a}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi ^{a_1}}}(G_n(\varphi )),`$ (6)
where $`C_m`$ is a constant

$`C_n=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{A(S^{n1})(n2)(n1)!},& n>2\\ \frac{1}{2\pi },& n=2\end{array},`$

and $`G_n(\varphi )`$ is a Green function

$`G_n(\varphi )=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\varphi ^{n2}}& ,& n>2\\ \mathrm{ln}\varphi & ,& n=2\end{array}.`$

Defining general Jacobians $`J^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}(\frac{\varphi }{x})`$ as following

$`ϵ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}J^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{x}})=ϵ^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k\mu _{k+1}\mathrm{}\mu _d}_{\mu _{k+1}}\varphi ^{a_1}_{\mu _{k+2}}\varphi ^{a_2}\mathrm{}_{\mu _d}\varphi ^{a_n}`$

and by making use of the $`n`$–dimensional Laplacian Green function relation in $`\varphi `$–space

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi (G_n(\varphi ))={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^{n/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{2}1)}}\delta (\stackrel{}{\varphi })`$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi =(\frac{^2}{\varphi ^a\varphi ^a})`$ is the $`n`$–dimensional Laplacian operator in $`\varphi `$–space, we do obtain the $`\delta `$–function structure of the defect topological current rigorously

$$j^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}=\delta (\stackrel{}{\varphi })J^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}(\frac{\varphi }{x}).$$
(7)
This expression involves the total defect information of the system in TDGL model and it indicates that all the defects are located at the zero points of the order parameter field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)`$. It must be pointed out that, comparing to similar expressions in other papers, the results in (7) is gotten theoretically in a natural way. From this expression, the density tensor of $`j^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}`$ is also changed into a compact form

$`\rho ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}=j^{0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}=\delta (\stackrel{}{\varphi })D^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{x}}),`$

where $`D^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}(\frac{\varphi }{x})=J^{0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}(\frac{\varphi }{x})`$. We find that $`j^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}0`$, $`\rho ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}0`$ only when $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=0`$, which is just the singularity of $`j^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}`$. In detail, the Kernel of the $`\varphi `$–mapping is the singularities of the topological tensor current $`j^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}`$ in $`X`$, i.e. the inner structure of the topological tensor current is labeled by the zeroes of $`\varphi `$-mapping. We think that this is the essential of the topological tensor current theory and $`\varphi `$–mapping is the key to study this theory.

From the above discussions, we see that the kernel of $`\varphi `$–mapping plays an important role in the topological tensor current theory, so we are focused on the zero points of $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ and will search for the solutions of the equations $`\varphi ^a(x)=0`$ $`(a=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ by means of the implicit function theorem. These points are topological singularities in the orientation of the order parameter field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)`$.

Suppose that the vector field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)`$ possesses $`l`$ zeroes, according to the implicit function theorem, when the zeroes are regular points of $`\varphi `$–mapping at which the rank of the Jacobian matrix $`[_\mu \varphi ^a]`$ is $`n`$, the solutions of $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=0`$ can be expressed parameterizedly by

$$x^\mu =z_i^\mu (t,u^1,\mathrm{},u^k),i=1,\mathrm{},l,$$
(8)
where the subscript $`i`$ represents the $`i`$–th solution and the parameters $`u^I`$ ($`I=1,\mathrm{},k`$), combining with the time parameter $`t`$, span a $`(k+1)`$–dimensional subspace which is called the $`i`$–th singular subspace $`N_i`$ in the space-time $`X`$ corresponding to the $`\varphi `$–mapping. These singular subspaces $`N_i`$ are just the world volumes of the topological defects, the parameters $`u^I`$ play the role of the spatial parameters of the topological defects. For each singular subspace $`N_i`$, we can define a normal subspace $`M_i`$ in $`X`$ which is spanned by the parameters $`v^A`$ ($`A=1,\mathrm{},n`$), and the intersection point of $`M_i`$ and $`N_i`$ is denoted by $`p_i`$ which can be expressed parameterizedly by $`v^A=p_i^A`$. In fact, in the words of differential topology, $`M_i`$ is transversal to $`N_i`$ at the point $`p_i`$. By virtue of the implicit function theorem at the regular point $`p_i`$, it should be held true that the Jacobian matrices $`J(\frac{\varphi }{v})`$ satisfies $`J(\frac{\varphi }{v})=\frac{D(\varphi ^1,\mathrm{},\varphi ^n)}{D(v^1,\mathrm{},v^n)}0`$.

On the other hand, putting the solutions (8) into $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)`$, we have $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(z_i)0`$, from this expression, and since we expect the instantaneous velocity to be orthogonal to the local orientation of the topological defects, we can define the velocity via

$$J^{\mu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}=v^{[\mu }D^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k]},$$
(9)
that is, the topological current and the density tensor should satisfy

$$j^{\mu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}=v^{[\mu }\rho ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k]}.$$
(10)
This expression for the velocity can be used to find the defect velocity distribution in the case of phase-ordering kinetics for a non-conserved order parameter. It is very useful because it avoid the problem of having to specify the positions of the topological defects explicitly. The positions are implicitly determined by the zeros of the order parameter field. The general expression with $`J^{\mu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}(\varphi /x)`$ should be useful in looking at the motion of the topological defects in TDGL model in the presence of external fields beyond a growth kinetics context.

If we restrict the discussion to the simplest case of point defects ($`n=d`$), the corresponding topological current is reduced to $`j^\mu =\delta (\varphi )J^\mu (\varphi /x)`$, and Eq.(10) can be put into a conventional form $`j^\mu =v^\mu \rho `$ with $`v^\mu `$ taking the expression of $`v^\mu =J^\mu (\varphi /x)/D(\varphi /x)`$. Also, the string in TDGl model, which was discussed by Mazenko, is a special case for $`n=d1`$ in our theory.

## III Topological quantization of the defect charges in TDGL model

In the following, we will investigate the topological charges of the topological defects and their quantization. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ be a neighborhood of $`p_i`$ on $`M_i`$ with boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ satisfying $`p_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_j=\mathrm{}`$. Then the generalized winding number $`W_i`$ of $`n^a(x)`$ at $`p_i`$ can be defined by the Gauss map $`n:\mathrm{\Sigma }_iS^{n1}`$

$$W_i=\frac{1}{A(S^{n1})(n1)!}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}n^{}(ϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}n^{a_1}dn^{a_2}\mathrm{}dn^{a_n})$$
(11)
where $`n^{}`$ denotes the pull back of map $`n`$. The generalized winding numbers is a topological invariant and is also called the degree of Gauss map. It means that, when the point $`v^A`$ covers $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ once, the unit vector $`n^a`$ will cover a region $`n[\mathrm{\Sigma }_i]`$ whose area is $`W_i`$ times of $`A(S^{n1})`$, i.e. the unit vector $`n^a`$ will cover the unit sphere $`S^{n1}`$ for $`W_i`$ times. Using the Stokes’ theorem in exterior differential form and duplicating the above process, we get the compact form of $`W_i`$

$$W_i=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}\delta (\stackrel{}{\varphi })J(\frac{\varphi }{v})d^nv.$$
(12)
By analogy with the procedure of deducing $`\delta (f(x))`$, since

$$\delta (\stackrel{}{\varphi })=\{\begin{array}{cc}+\mathrm{},& for\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)=0\\ 0,& for\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)0\end{array}=\{\begin{array}{cc}+\mathrm{},& forxN_i\\ 0,& forxN_i\end{array},$$
(13)
we can expand the $`\delta `$–function $`\delta (\stackrel{}{\varphi })`$ as

$$\delta (\stackrel{}{\varphi })=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}c_i\delta (N_i),$$
(14)
where the coefficients $`c_i`$ must be positive, i.e. $`c_i=c_i`$. $`\delta (N_i)`$ is the $`\delta `$–function in space-time $`X`$ on a submanifold $`N_i`$

$$\delta (N_i)=_{N_i}\delta ^n(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{z}_i(t,u^1,\mathrm{},u^k))𝑑td^ku.$$
(15)
Substituting (14) into (12), and calculating the integral, we get the expression of $`c_i`$

$$c_i=\frac{\beta _i}{J(\frac{\varphi }{v})_{p_i}}=\frac{\beta _i\eta _i}{J(\frac{\varphi }{v})_{p_i}},$$
(16)
where $`\beta _i=|W_i|`$ is a positive integer called the Hopf index of $`\varphi `$-mapping on $`M_i,`$ it means that when the point $`v`$ covers the neighborhood of the zero point $`p_i`$ once, the function $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ covers the corresponding region in $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$-space $`\beta _i`$ times, and $`\eta _i=signJ(\frac{\varphi }{v})_{p_i}=\pm 1`$ is the Brouwer degree of $`\varphi `$-mapping. Substituting this expression of $`c_i`$ and (14) into (7), we gain the total expansion of the topological current

$`j^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _i\eta _i}{J(\frac{\varphi }{v})|_{p_i}}}\delta (N_i)J^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{x}}).`$

or in terms of parameters $`y^A^{^{}}=(t,v^1,\mathrm{},v^n,u^1,\mathrm{},u^k)`$

$$j^{A_0^{^{}}A_1^{^{}}\mathrm{}A_k^{^{}}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}\frac{\beta _i\eta _i}{J(\frac{\varphi }{v})|_{p_i}}\delta (N_i)J^{A_0^{^{}}A_1^{^{}}\mathrm{}A_k^{^{}}}(\frac{\varphi }{y}).$$
(17)
From the above equation, we conclude that the inner structure of $`j^{\mu _0\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}`$ or $`j^{A_0^{^{}}A_1^{^{}}\mathrm{}A_k^{^{}}}`$ is labeled by the total expansion of $`\delta (\stackrel{}{\varphi })`$, and it just represents $`l`$ $`(k)`$-dimensional topological defects with topological charges $`g_i=\beta _i\eta _i`$ moving in the $`(d+1)`$–dimensional space-time $`X`$. The $`(k+1)`$-dimensional singular subspaces $`N_i(i=1,\mathrm{}l)`$ are their world sheets in the space-time. Mazenko and Halperin also got similar results for the case of point-like defects and line defects, but unfortunately, they did not consider the case $`\beta _i1`$. In fact, what they lost sight of is just the most important topological information for the charge of topological defects. In detail, the Hopf indices $`\beta _i`$ characterize the absolute values of the topological charges of these defects and the Brouwer degrees $`\eta _i=+1`$ correspond to defects while $`\eta _i=1`$ to antidefects. Furthermore, they did not discuss what will happen when $`\eta _i`$ is indefinite, which we will study in detail in section 4.

## IV The branch process of the topological current

With the discussion mentioned above, we know that the results in the above section are obtained straightly from the topological view point under the condition $`J(\varphi /v)|_{p_i}0`$, i.e. at the regular points of the order parameter field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$. When the condition fails, i.e. the Brouwer degree $`\eta _i`$ are indefinite, there should exist some kind of branch processes in the topological current of the topological defect system in TDGL model. In what follows, we will study the case when $`J(\varphi /v)|_{p_i}=0`$. It often happens when the zero points of field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ include some branch points, which lead to the bifurcation of the topological current.

In this section, we will discuss the branch processes of these topological defects. In order to simplify our study, let the spatial parameters $`u^I`$ be fixed, i.e. to choose a fixed point on the topological defect. In this case, the Jacobian matrices $`J^{A_0^{^{}}A_1^{^{}}\mathrm{}A_k^{^{}}}(\frac{\varphi }{y})`$ are reduced to

$`J^{AI_1\mathrm{}I_k}({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{y}})J^A({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{y}}),J^{ABI_1\mathrm{}I_{k1}}({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{y}})=0,J^{(n+1)\mathrm{}d}({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{y}})=J({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{v}}),`$

$$A,B=0,1,\mathrm{},n,I_j=n+1,\mathrm{},d,$$
(18)
for $`y^A=v^A(An),y^0=t,y^{n+I}=u^I(I1)`$. The branch points are determined by the $`n+1`$ equations

$$\varphi ^a(t,v^1,\mathrm{},v^n,\stackrel{}{u})=0,a=1,\mathrm{},n$$
(19)
and

$$\varphi ^{n+1}(t,v^1,\mathrm{},v^n,\stackrel{}{u})J(\frac{\varphi }{v})=0$$
(20)
for the fixed $`\stackrel{}{u}`$. and they are denoted as $`(t^{},p_i)`$. In $`\varphi `$–mapping theory usually there are two kinds of branch points, namely the limit points and bifurcation points, satisfying

$$J^1(\frac{\varphi }{y})|_{(t^{},p_i)}0$$
(21)
and

$$J^1(\frac{\varphi }{y})|_{(t^{},p_i)}=0,$$
(22)
respectively. In the following, we assume that the branch points $`(t^{},p_i)`$ of $`\varphi `$–mapping have been found.

### A The branch process at the limit point

We first discuss the branch process at the limit point satisfying the condition (21). In order to use the theorem of implicit function to study the branch process of topological defects at the limit point, we use the Jacobian $`J^1(\frac{\varphi }{y})`$ instead of $`J(\frac{\varphi }{v})`$ to discuss the problem. In fact, this means that we have replaced the parameter $`t`$ by $`v^1`$. Then, taking account of the condition(21) and using the implicit function theorem, we have an unique solution of the equations (19) in the neighborhood of the limit point $`(t^{},p_i)`$

$$t=t(v^1,\stackrel{}{u}),v^i=v^i(v^1,\stackrel{}{u}),i=2,3,\mathrm{},n$$
(23)
with $`t^{}=t(p_i^1,\stackrel{}{u})`$. In order to show the behavior of the defects at the limit points, we will investigate the Taylor expansion of (23) in the neighborhood of $`(t^{},p_i)`$. In the present case, from (21) and (20), we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dv^1}{dt}}|_{(t^{},p_i)}={\displaystyle \frac{J^1(\frac{\varphi }{y})}{J(\frac{\varphi }{v})}}|_{(t^{},p_i)}=\mathrm{},`$

i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dv^1}}|_{(t^{},p_i)}=0.`$

Therefore, the Taylor expansion of (23) at the point $`(t^{},p_i)`$ gives

$$tt^{}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2t}{(dv^1)^2}|_{(t^{},p_i)}(v^1p_i^1)^2$$
(24)
which is a parabola in the $`v^1`$$`t`$ plane. From (24), we can obtain the two solutions $`v_{(1)}^1(t,\stackrel{}{u})`$ and $`v_{(2)}^1(t,\stackrel{}{u})`$, which give the branch solutions of the system (19) at the limit point. If $`\frac{d^2t}{(dv^1)^2}|_{(t^{},p_i)}>0`$, we have the branch solutions for $`t>t^{}`$ (Fig 1(a)), otherwise, we have the branch solutions for $`t<t^{}`$ (Fig 1(b)). The former is related to the creation of defect and antidefect in pair at the limit points, and the latter to the annihilation of the topological defects, since the topological current of topological defects is identically conserved, the topological quantum numbers of these two generated topological defects must be opposite at the limit point, i.e. $`\beta _1\eta _1+\beta _2\eta _2=0`$.

### B The branch process at the bifurcation point

In the following, let us consider the case (22), in which the restrictions of the system (19) at the bifurcation point $`(t^{},p_i)`$ are

$$J(\frac{\varphi }{v})|_{(t^{},p_i)}=0,J^1(\frac{\varphi }{y})|_{(t^{},p_i)}=0.$$
(25)
These two restrictive conditions will lead to an important fact that the dependency relationship between $`t`$ and $`v^1`$ is not unique in the neighborhood of the bifurcation point $`(t^{},p_i).`$ In fact, we have

$$\frac{dv^1}{dt}|_{(t^{},p_i)}=\frac{J^1(\frac{\varphi }{y})}{J(\frac{\varphi }{v})}|_{(t^{},p_i)}$$
(26)
which under the restraint (25) directly shows that the tangential direction of the integral curve of equation (26) is indefinite at the point $`(t^{},p_i)`$. Hence, (26) does not satisfy the conditions of the existence and uniqueness theorem of the solution of a differential equation. This is why the very point $`(t^{},\stackrel{}{z}_i)`$ is called the bifurcation point of the system (19).

As we have mentioned above, at the bifurcation point $`(t^{},p_i)`$, the rank of the Jacobian matrix $`[\frac{\varphi }{v}]`$ is smaller than $`n`$. For the aim of searching for the different directions of all branch curves at the bifurcation point, we firstly consider the rank of the Jacobian matrix $`[\frac{\varphi }{v}]`$ is $`n1`$. The case of a more smaller rank will be discussed in next subsection. Let $`J_1(\frac{\varphi }{v})=[\varphi _A^a](a=1,\mathrm{},n1;A=2,\mathrm{},n)`$ be one of the $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ submatrix of the Jacobian matrix $`[\frac{\varphi }{v}]`$ with $`detJ_1(\frac{\varphi }{v})0`$ at the point $`(t^{},p_i)`$ (otherwise, we have to rearrange the equations of (19)), where $`\varphi _A^a`$ stands for $`(\varphi ^a/v^A)`$. By means of the implicit function theorem we obtain one and only one functional relationship in the neighborhood of the bifurcation point $`(t^{},p_i)`$

$$v^A=f^A(v^1,t,\stackrel{}{u}),A=2,3,\mathrm{},n.$$
(27)
We denote the partial derivatives as $`f_1^A=\frac{v^A}{v^1}`$, $`f_t^A=\frac{v^A}{t}`$, $`f_{11}^A=\frac{^2v^A}{(v^1)^2}`$, $`f_{1t}^A=\frac{^2v^A}{v^1t}`$, $`f_{tt}^A=\frac{^2v^A}{t^2}`$. From (19) and (27), we have for $`a=1,\mathrm{},n1`$

$`\varphi ^a=\varphi ^a(v^1,f^2(v^1,t,\stackrel{}{u}),\mathrm{},f^n(v^1,t,\stackrel{}{u}),t,\stackrel{}{u})0`$

which gives

$$\underset{A=2}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\varphi ^a}{v^A}f_1^A=\frac{\varphi ^a}{v^1},a=1,\mathrm{},n1$$
(28)
$$\underset{A=2}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\varphi ^a}{v^A}f_t^A=\frac{\varphi ^a}{t},a=1,\mathrm{},n1.$$
(29)
By differentiating (28) and (29) with respect to $`v^1`$ and $`t`$, and applying the Gaussian elimination method, we can find the second order derivatives $`f_{11}^A`$, $`f_{1t}^A`$ and $`f_{tt}^A`$. The above discussions do not matter to the last component $`\varphi ^n(v^1,\mathrm{},v^n,t,\stackrel{}{u})`$. In order to find the different values of $`dv^1/dt`$ at the bifurcation point, let us investigate the Taylor expansion of $`\varphi ^n(v^1,\mathrm{},v^n,t,\stackrel{}{u})`$ in the neighborhood of $`(t^{},p_i)`$. Substituting (27) into $`\varphi ^n(v^1,\mathrm{},v^n,t,\stackrel{}{u})`$, we get the function of two variables $`v^1`$ and $`t`$

$$F(t,v^1,\stackrel{}{u})=\varphi ^m(v^1,f^2(v^1,t,\stackrel{}{u}),\mathrm{},f^m(v^1,t,\stackrel{}{u}),t,\stackrel{}{u})$$
(30)
which according to (19) must vanish at the bifurcation point

$$F(t^{},p_i)=0.$$
(31)
From (30), we can calculate the first order partial derivatives of $`F(t,v^1,\stackrel{}{u})`$ with respect to $`v^1`$ and $`t`$ respectively at the bifurcation point $`(t^{},p_i)`$

$$\frac{F}{v^1}=\varphi _1^n+\underset{A=2}{\overset{n}{}}\varphi _A^nf_1^A,\frac{F}{t}=\varphi _t^n+\underset{A=2}{\overset{n}{}}\varphi _A^nf_t^A.$$
(32)
By making use of (28) and (29), with the Cramer’s rule, the first equation of (25) is expressed as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{v^1}}detJ_1({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{v}})|_{(t^{},p_i)}=0.`$

Since $`detJ_1(\frac{\varphi }{v})|_{(t^{},p_i)}0`$, the above equation leads to

$$\frac{F}{v^1}|_{(t^{},p_i)}=0.$$
(33)
With the same reasons, we can prove that

$$\frac{F}{t}|_{(t^{},p_i)}=0.$$
(34)
The second order partial derivatives of the function $`F(t,v^1,\stackrel{}{u})`$ are easily to find out from (32) which at $`(t^{},p_i)`$ are denoted by

$$A=\frac{^2F}{(v^1)^2}_{(t^{},p_i)},B=\frac{^2F}{v^1t}_{(t^{},p_i)},C=\frac{^2F}{t^2}_{(t^{},p_i)}.$$
(35)
Then, by virtue of (31), (33), (34) and (35), the Taylor expansion of $`F(t,v^1,\stackrel{}{u})`$ in the neighborhood of the bifurcation point $`(t^{},p_i)`$ gives

$$A(v^1p_i^1)^2+2B(v^1p_i^1)(tt^{})+C(tt^{})^2=0.$$
(36)
Dividing (36) by $`(v^1p_i^1)^2`$ or $`(tt^{})^2`$, and taking the limit $`tt^{}`$ as well as $`v^1p_i^1`$ respectively, we get two equations

$$A(\frac{dv^1}{dt})^2+2B\frac{dv^1}{dt}+C=0.$$
(37)
and

$$C(\frac{dt}{dv^1})^2+2B\frac{dt}{dv^1}+A=0.$$
(38)
So we get the different directions of the branch curves at the bifurcation point from the solutions of (37) or (38). There are four possible cases:

Firstly, $`A0,`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4(B^2AC)>0`$, from Eq. (37) we get two different solutions: $`dv^1/dt_{1,2}=(B\pm \sqrt{B^2AC})/A`$, which is shown in Fig. 2, where two topological defects meet and then depart at the bifurcation point. Secondly, $`A0,\mathrm{\Delta }=4(B^2AC)=0`$, there is only one solution: $`dv^1/dt=B/A`$, which includes three important cases: (a) two topological defects tangentially collide at the bifurcation point (Fig 3(a)); (b) two topological defects merge into one topological defect at the bifurcation point (Fig 3(b)); (c) one topological defect splits into two topological defects at the bifurcation point (Fig 3(c)). Thirdly, $`A=0,C0,`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4(B^2AC)>0`$, from Eq. (38) we have $`dt/dv^1=0`$ and $`2B/C`$. There are two important cases: (i) One topological defect splits into three topological defects at the bifurcation point (Fig 4(a)); (ii) Three topological defects merge into one at the bifurcation point (Fig 4(b)). Finally, $`A=C=0`$, Eqs. (37) and (38) give respectively $`dv^1/dt=0`$ and $`dt/dv^1=0`$. This case is obvious as in Fig. 5, which is similar to the third situation.

In order to determine the branches directions of the remainder variables, we will use the relations simply

$`dv^A=f_1^Adv^1+f_t^Adt,A=2,3,\mathrm{},n`$

where the partial derivative coefficients $`f_1^A`$ and $`f_t^A`$ have given in (28) and (29). Then, respectively

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dv^A}{dv^1}}=f_1^A+f_t^A{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dv^1}}`$

or

$$\frac{dv^A}{dt}=f_1^A\frac{dv^1}{dt}+f_t^A.$$
(39)
where partial derivative coefficients $`f_1^A`$ and $`f_t^A`$ are given by (28) and (29). From this relations we find that the values of $`dv^A/dt`$ at the bifurcation point $`(t^{},z_i)`$ are also possibly different because (38) may give different values of $`dv^1/dt`$.

### C The branch process at the higher degenerated point

In the following, let us discuss the branch process at a higher degenerated point. In the above subsection, we have analyzed the case that the rank of the Jacobian matrix $`[\varphi /v]`$ of the equation (20) is $`n1`$. In this section, we consider the case that the rank of the Jacobian matrix is $`n2`$ (for the case that the rank of the matrix $`[\varphi /v]`$ is lower than $`n2`$, the discussion is in the same way). Let the $`(n2)\times (n2)`$ submatrix $`J_2(\frac{\varphi }{v})`$ of the Jacobian matrix $`[\varphi /v]`$ be

$`J_2({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{v}})=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\varphi _3^1& \varphi _4^1& \mathrm{}& \varphi _n^1\\ \varphi _3^2& \varphi _4^2& \mathrm{}& \varphi _n^2\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \varphi _3^{n2}& \varphi _4^{n2}& \mathrm{}& \varphi _n^{n2}\end{array}\right)`$

and suppose that $`detJ_2(\frac{\varphi }{v})|_{(t^{},p_i)}0.`$ With the same reasons of obtaining (27), we can have the function relations

$$v^A=f^A(v^1,v^2,t,\stackrel{}{u}),A=3,4,\mathrm{},n.$$
(40)
For the partial derivatives $`f_1^A`$, $`f_2^A`$ and $`f_t^A`$, we can easily derive the system similar to the equations (28) and (29), in which the three terms at the right hand of can be figured out at the same time. In order to determine the 2–order partial derivatives $`f_{11}^A`$, $`f_{12}^A`$, $`f_{1t}^A`$, $`f_{22}^A`$, $`f_{2t}^A`$ and $`f_{tt}^A`$, we can use the method similar to the above mentioned. Substituting the relations (40) into the last two equations of the system (19), we have the following two equations with respect to the arguments $`v^1,v^2,t,\stackrel{}{u}`$

$$\{\begin{array}{c}F_1(v^1,v^2,t,\stackrel{}{u})=\varphi ^{n1}(v^1,v^2,f^3(v^1,v^2,t,\stackrel{}{u}),\mathrm{},f^n(v^1,v^2,t,\stackrel{}{u}),t,\stackrel{}{u})=0\hfill \\ F_2(v^1,v^2,t,\stackrel{}{u})=\varphi ^n(v^1,v^2,f^3(v^1,v^2,t,\stackrel{}{u}),\mathrm{},f^n(v^1,v^2,t,\stackrel{}{u}),t,\stackrel{}{u})=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
Calculating the partial derivatives of the function $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ with respect to $`v^1`$, $`v^2`$ and $`t`$, taking notice of (40) and using six similar expressions to (33) and (34), i.e.

$$\frac{F_j}{v^1}_{(t^{},p_i)}=0,\frac{F_j}{v^2}_{(t^{},p_i)}=0,\frac{F_j}{t}_{(t^{},p_i)}=0,j=1,2,$$
(42)
we have the following forms of Taylor expressions of $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ in the neighborhood of $`(t^{},p_i)`$

$`F_j(v^1,v^2,t,\stackrel{}{u})A_{j1}(v^1p_i^1)^2+A_{j2}(v^1p_i^1)(v^2p_i^2)+A_{j3}(v^1p_i^1)`$

$`(tt^{})+A_{j4}(v^2p_i^2)^2+A_{j5}(v^2p_i^2)(tt^{})+A_{j6}(tt^{})^2=0`$

$$j=1,2.$$
(43)
In the case of $`A_{j1}0,A_{j4}0`$, by dividing (43) by $`(tt^{})^2`$ and taking the limit $`tt^{}`$, we obtain two quadratic equations of $`\frac{dv^1}{dt}`$ and $`\frac{dv^2}{dt}`$

$$A_{j1}(\frac{dv^1}{dt})^2+A_{j2}\frac{dv^1}{dt}\frac{dv^2}{dt}+A_{j3}\frac{dv^1}{dt}+A_{j4}(\frac{dv^2}{dt})^2+A_{j5}\frac{dv^2}{dt}+A_{j6}=0$$
(44)
$`j=1,2.`$

Eliminating the variable $`dv^1/dt`$, we obtain a equation of $`dv^2/dt`$ in the form of a determinant

$$\left|\begin{array}{cccc}A_{11}& A_{12}Q+A_{23}& A_{14}Q^2+A_{15}Q+A_{16}& 0\\ 0& A_{11}& A_{12}Q+A_{13}& A_{14}Q^2+A_{15}Q+A_{16}\\ A_{21}& A_{22}Q+A_{23}& A_{24}Q^2+A_{25}Q+A_{26}& 0\\ 0& A_{21}& A_{22}Q+A_{23}& A_{24}Q^2+A_{25}Q+A_{26}\end{array}\right|=0$$
(45)
where $`Q=dv^2/dt`$, which is a $`4th`$ order equation of $`dv^2/dt`$

$$a_0(\frac{dv^2}{dt})^4+a_1(\frac{dv^2}{dt})^3+a_2(\frac{dv^2}{dt})^2+a_3(\frac{dv^2}{dt})+a_4=0.$$
(46)
Therefore we get different directions at the higher degenerated point corresponding to different branch curves. The number of different branch curves is four at most. If the degree of degeneracy of the matrix $`[\frac{\varphi }{v}]`$ is more higher, i.e. the rank of the matrix $`[\frac{\varphi }{v}]`$ is more lower than the present $`(n2)`$ case, the procedure of deduction will be more complicate. In general supposing the rank of the matrix $`[\frac{\varphi }{x}]`$ be $`(ns)`$, the number of the possible different directions of the branch curves is $`2^s`$ at most.

At the end of this section, we conclude that there exist crucial cases of branch processes in our theory of topological defect system in TDGL model. This means that a topological defect, at the bifurcation point, may split into several (for instance $`m`$) topological defects along different branch curves with different charges. Since the topological current is a conserved current, the total quantum number of the splitting topological defects must precisely equal to the topological charge of the original defect i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\beta _{i_j}\eta _{i_j}=\beta _i\eta _i`$

for fixed $`i`$. This can be looked upon as the topological reason of the defect splitting. Here we should point out that such splitting is a stochastic process, the sole restriction of this process is just the conservation of the topological charge of the topological defects during this splitting process. Of course, the topological charge of each splitting defects is an integer.

## Acknowledgment

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of K. C. Wong Education Foundation, Hong Kong. The author is also gratefully indebted to Prof. Y. S. Duan for his warm-hearted helps and useful discussion.

## Figures’ Captions

Fig. 1. (a) The creation of two topological defects. (b) Two topological defects annihilate in collision at the limit point.

Fig. 2. Two topological defects collide with different directions of motion at the bifurcation point.

Fig. 3. Topological defects have the same direction of motion. (a) Two topological defects tangentially collide at the bifurcation point. (b) Two topological defects merge into one topological defect at the bifurcation point. (c) One topological defect splits into two topological defects at the bifurcation point.

Fig. 4. (a) One topological defect splits into three topological defects at the bifurcation point. (b) Three topological defects merge into one topological defect at the bifurcation point.

Fig. 5. This case is similar to Fig. 4. (a) Three topological defects merge into one topological defect at the bifurcation point. (b) One topological defect splits into three topological defects at the bifurcation point.


format: text

text:
# Transport with three-particle interaction

## I Introduction

The equation of state of nuclear matter is known to saturate at the density of $`n_0=0.16`$fm-3 with a binding energy of $`16`$MeV. Refined two-particle calculations using Bruckner theory  and beyond  are not crossing the “Coester line” in that they lead to binding energies and/or densities above the saturation ones. Only density dependent Skyrme parameterizations originally introduced by Skyrme , three-particle interactions  or relativistic treatments  can reproduce the correct binding energy and saturation density of nuclear matter. The Skyrme parameterizations are derived from an effective three-particle interaction . This leads to a nonlinear density dependence in the effective three - particle part which is responsible for saturation. The importance of three-particle collisions in nuclear matter transport has been demonstrated, e.g. in . The density dependence deviating from that arising by three-body contact interaction has been introduced and compared with experiments in .

The relativistic approach on the other hand yields immediately the correct saturation with two - particle exchange interactions. This has been traced down to the nonlinear density dependence of scalar density and consequently nonlinear mean fields  which leads to a density contribution to the binding energy of $`(n/n_0)^{8/3}`$. Higher order effects have been shown to lead to a $`(n/n_0)^{3.4}`$ dependence, see  and citations therein. Therefore the physics of the saturation mechanism is certainly a nontrivial density dependence of the mean field. Though the Skyrme interaction has been overwhelmingly successful and the evidence of saturation by three-particle interaction , it is puzzling that a transport theory with three-particle contact interaction has not been formulated. In this paper we will derive the corresponding kinetic equation using nonequilibrium Green’s function and we will show that the three-body interaction term leads to a $`(n/n_0)^{10/3}`$ contribution to the binding energy.

The transport theory including three - particle interactions seems to be of wider interest e.g. in  it has been found that the three-body interactions have a measurable influence on thermodynamic properties of fluids in equilibrium. The description of nonequilibrium in nuclear matter is mostly based on the Boltzmann (BUU) equation which uses the Skyrme parameterization to determine the mean field and drift side of the kinetic equation. The collisional integral is then calculated with a cross section which arises from different theoretical impact. In addition one usually neglects the three-particle collision integral. These hybrid models have worked quite successfully despite their weak rigour in microscopic foundation.

In this paper the transport equation will be derived for two- and three - particle contact interactions. We will see that a natural density dependent mean field appears, in agreement with variational methods. Further we will obtain, on the same ground, density dependent cross sections. This has the advantage that we can derive a BUU equation which has the same microscopic impact on the drift and collisional side. Finally the three -particle collision integral appears naturally from this treatment. From balance equations we will derive the density dependent energy which gives the equation of state.

## II Three - particle Kadanoff and Baym equation

We consider a Hamilton system with the Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}a_i^+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2m}}a_i`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}a_i^+a_j^+a_ia_jV_2(i,j)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}a_i^+a_j^+a_k^+a_ia_ja_kV_3(i,j,k)`$
where $`a_i^+,a_i`$ are creation and annihilation operators with cumulative variables $`i=(x_i,t_i,\mathrm{})`$. We assume the potential is contact - like as

$`V_2(i,j)`$ $`=`$ $`t_0\delta (ij)`$ (4)
$`V_3(i,j,k)`$ $`=`$ $`t_3\delta (ij)\delta (ik).`$ (5)
The Heisenberg equations of motion for the annihilation operators read

$`i\mathrm{}_{t_1}a_1`$ $`=`$ $`[a_1,H]`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2_1^2}{2m}}a_1+{\displaystyle \underset{2}{}}V(1,2)a_2^+a_1a_2`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{23}{}}V(1,2,3)a_2^+a_3^+a_1a_2a_3.`$
From this we get the equation of motion for the causal Green function $`G(1,2)=\frac{1}{i}<Ta_1^+a_2>`$ with the time ordering $`T`$ and the average taken about the nonequilibrium density operator

$`(i\mathrm{}_{t_1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2_1^2}{2m}})G(1,1^{})=\delta (11^{})`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle d2V(1,2)G_2(1,2,1^{},2^+)}`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d2d3V(1,2,3)G_3(1,2,3,1^{},2^+,3^+)}`$ (11)
$`\delta (11^{}){\displaystyle 𝑑x_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{HF}(x_1,x_2,t)G(x_2,t,x_1,t)}`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle d2(\mathrm{\Sigma }(1,2)G(2,1^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }^>(1,2)G^<(2,1^{}))}`$ (13)
where the $`1^+`$ denotes the space - time point $`1=(x_1,t_1+ϵ)`$ with a time infinitesimally larger than $`1`$. This equation is enclosed in the standard manner introducing the self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We have split the mean field parts $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{HF}`$ including exchange and have introduced for the rest the self energy on the Keldysh contour. This is equivalent to the weakening of initial correlations. The correlation functions are $`G^<(1,2)=<a_2^+a_1>`$ and $`G^>(1,2)=<a_1a_2^+>`$ respectively and their equation of motion follows from (13) in the form of the known Kadanoff and Baym equation

$`i(G_0^1G^<G^<G_0^1)=\mathrm{\Sigma }^RG^<G^<\mathrm{\Sigma }^A`$ (14)
where one takes advantage of the retarded and advanced functions $`G^{R/A}=i\theta [\pm (t_1t_2)](G^>G^<)`$ and understands products as integration over inner variables.

### A Mean field parts

We first calculate the mean field parts. These parts come from the first order interaction diagrams of figure 1. To this end we use the two- and three- particle Green function in lowest order approximation seen in figure 2.

Introducing these diagrams into figure 1, one obtains for contact interaction (5)

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{HF}}(1,1^{})=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{g\pm 1}{g}}t_0n(1)+{\displaystyle \frac{(g\pm 1)(g\pm 2)}{2g^2}}t_3n(1)^2\right]\delta (11^{})`$ (15)
(16)
where we have used the fact that the density is $`n(1)=G^<(1,1)/g`$. Here and in the following we write the upper sign for Bosons and the lower sign for Fermions. The result (16) is the known Skyrme mean field expression in nuclear matter for $`g=4`$. It resembles an effective density dependent two-particle interaction arising from three-particle contact interaction. As a consistency check we see that for $`g=2`$ degenerated Fermionic system, like spin -1/2 Fermions, no three-body term appears. Pauli-blocking forbids two particles to meet at the same point with equal quantum numbers which one would have for three - particle contact interaction and degeneracy of $`g=2`$.

### B Kinetic equation

For the kinetic equation we need as the lowest order approximation the next diagrams of figure 2 including one interaction line. While there are different expansion techniques at hand  we will perform here a scheme as close as possible to the causal Green’s function including all exchanges which are presented in figure 2. This will give us the advantage that we can consider all diagrams which differ by exchange of outgoing lines as equal. To this aim we introduce the abbreviated symmetrized Green’s function with respect to incoming lines in figure 3.

The expansion of the three -body Green’s function is given in figure 5. Besides the three -particle interaction potential we have to consider all possible single line interactions between two incoming lines. This is shortened by the introduction of the symmetrized Green function in figure 3 and the vertices of figure 4.

Since we can also have nontrivial combinations of two incoming lines and one free line for the three - body Green function we have introduced an auxiliary two - body Green function $`G_2^\mathrm{s}`$ which is defined in figure 5. Please note that the exchange of outgoing lines does not lead to distinguished diagrams. The two - particle Green function is then given by figure 5. Introducing now this expansion into the definition of self energy in figure 1 we obtain the 4 diagrams of figure 6. All other combinations lead either to disconnected diagrams or to equivalent ones by interchanging outgoing lines. Here the seemingly disconnected diagrams for $`G_3^1`$ in figure 5 lead together with the corresponding diagrams from $`G_2^1`$ to the vertex in front of $`G_2^s`$ of figure 6.

The enclosing diagram about the auxiliary Green function $`G_2^s`$ is given in figure 7. Please denote that here the seemingly disconnected diagrams of figure 5 vanish. We have used again the fact that the interchange of outgoing lines does not lead to distinguished diagrams.

Inserting figure 7 in figure 6 we obtain the final result for the self energy in the Born approximation

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(1,1^{})=(g\pm 1)[t_0^2`$ (17)
$`+(g\pm 2)(4t_0^2+6t_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{n(1)n(1^{})}{g^2}}+5t_0t_3({\displaystyle \frac{n(1)}{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n(1^{})}{g}}))]`$ (18)
$`\times G^<(1,1^{})^2G^>(1^{}1)`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g\pm 1)(g\pm 2)t_3^2G^<(1,1^{})^3G^>(1^{}1)^2.`$ (20)
Note that all interactions vanish for the fermionic case $`g=1`$ since the Pauli-principle does not allow contact interaction in this case. For $`g=2`$ only the two - particle interactions survive for fermions as one expects from the Pauli principle. That the result is symmetric in the densities at the two time-space points needs no further comment.

From the self energy we can write down the Kadanoff and Baym equation (14) in closed form. If we employ standard gradient expansion and convert the equation (14) into an equation for the pole part of the Green’s function we obtain the final kinetic equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}f_1(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_1}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}f_1(t){\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\sigma ^{\mathrm{HF}}(t){\displaystyle \frac{}{p_1}}f_1(t)`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp_2dp_1^{}dp_2^{}}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^6}T_2^2\delta (p_1+p_2p_1^{}p_2^{})}`$ (22)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑\tau \mathrm{cos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}(E_1+E_2E_1^{}E_2^{})(t\tau )\right]`$ (23)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{f_1^{}(\tau )f_2^{}(\tau )\overline{f}_1(\tau )\overline{f}_2(\tau )f_1(\tau )f_2(\tau )\overline{f}_1^{}(\tau )\overline{f}_2^{}(\tau )\right\}`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp_2dp_3dp_1^{}dp_2^{}dp_3^{}}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^{12}}T_3^2\delta (p_1+p_2+p_3p_1^{}p_2^{}p_3^{})}`$ (25)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑\tau \mathrm{cos}\left[(E_1+E_2+E_3E_1^{}E_2^{}E_3^{}){\displaystyle \frac{t\tau }{\mathrm{}}}\right]`$ (27)
$`\times \{f_1^{}(\tau )f_2^{}(\tau )f_3^{}(\tau )\overline{f}_1(\tau )\overline{f}_2(\tau )\overline{f}_3(\tau )`$
$``$ $`f_1(\tau )f_2(\tau )f_3(\tau )\overline{f}_1^{}(\tau )\overline{f}_2^{}(\tau )\overline{f}_3^{}(\tau )\}`$ (28)
with $`\overline{f}=1f`$, and the particle dispersion $`E=p^2/2m+\sigma ^{\mathrm{HF}}`$. The quasiparticle distribution functions are normalized to the density as $`g\frac{dp}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}f(p)=n`$. For the sake of simplicity we have suppressed the notation of centre of mass space dependence. Neglecting the retardation in the distribution functions and taking $`t_0\mathrm{}`$ gives the standard Boltzmann two- and three- particle collision integrals.

The introduced two - and three- particle T-matrices are read off from (20) as first Born approximation

$`T_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\pm 1}{g^2}}[t_0^2`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`(g\pm 2)(4t_0^2+6t_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{n(1)n(1^{})}{g^2}}+5t_0t_3({\displaystyle \frac{n(1)}{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n(1^{})}{g}}))]`$ (31)
$`T_3^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g\pm 1}{g^3}}(g\pm 2)t_3^2.`$ (32)
The reader is remind that we have generally to sum over collision partners and to average over the outgoing products. While the summation is already taken into account explicitly in the diagrammatic approach above we had to divide by $`g^2`$ and $`g^3`$ for the two- and three - particle outgoing collision partners respectively. An effective cross section can be defined in the usual way and read up to constants

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _2}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $``$ $`T_2^2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}\left[9t_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}t_3^2n^2+5t_0t_3n\right]`$ (35)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{27}{16}}\left[(t_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}t_3n)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}t_3n(t_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}t_3n)\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _3}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $``$ $`T_3^2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{64}}t_3^2.`$ (36)
If one compares this with the effective two- particle cross section derived in  one sees that it differs by the last two terms of (36) proportional to $`t_3`$. This is due to the fact that the underlying three - particle process is taken into account explicitly here while in  an effective two - particle kinetic theory has been developed. Obviously we have to face a partial cancellation between three - and two - particle collisions. This will become explicit in the discussion of correlation energies. We will see that the two - and three - particle correlation energies indeed cancel partially concerning the $`t_3`$ terms.

The ratio of the effective cross sections are for the case of nuclear matter ($`g=4`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _2}{d\sigma _3}}={\displaystyle \frac{T_2^2}{T_3^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\left[9{\displaystyle \frac{t_0^2}{t_3^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}n^2+5{\displaystyle \frac{t_0}{t_3}}n\right].`$ (37)
This could serve as the measure of relative importance of the corresponding collision processes, but we prefer to discuss this later in terms of dispersed energy by the two- and three- particle collision integrals since this includes also the Pauli blocking.

We would like to point out that we have fulfilled our task and have derived a kinetic equation where the drift as well as the collision integral follows from the same microscopic impact. The drift represents a Skyrme mean field and the collision side shows a two - and three - particle collision integral where the cross sections are calculated from the same parameters as the mean field.

## III Balance equation

By multiplying the kinetic equation with $`1,p`$ and $`E`$, one obtains the balance for density $`n`$, momentum $`u`$ and energy $``$. Since the collision integrals vanish for density and momentum balance we get the usual balance equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\frac{E}{p}f}=0`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u_i}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{R_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}(p_i\frac{E}{p_j}f+\delta _{ij})}=0`$ (39)
where the mean field energy of the system varies as

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\frac{\delta }{\delta f(p)}\delta f(p)}`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}E\delta f(p)}`$ (41)
such that from (16) follows

$`=<{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2m}}>+{\displaystyle \frac{g\pm 1}{2g}}t_0n^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(g\pm 1)(g\pm 2)}{6g^2}}t_3n^3.`$ (42)
With the help of this quantity the balance of energy density reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}E\frac{E}{p}f}={\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}E_{\mathrm{corr}_2}(t){\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}E_{\mathrm{corr}_3}(t)`$ (43)
with the two-particle correlation energy

$`E_{\mathrm{corr}_2}(t)`$ (45)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle \frac{dp_1dp_2dp_1^{}dp_2^{}}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^9}T_2^2\delta (p_1+p_2p_1^{}p_2^{})}`$ (46)
$`\times \mathrm{sin}\left[(E_1+E_2E_1^{}E_2^{}){\displaystyle \frac{t\tau }{\mathrm{}}}\right]f_1^{}(\tau )f_2^{}(\tau )\overline{f}_1(\tau )\overline{f}_2(\tau )`$ (47)
(48)
and the complete analogous expression for the three particle energy.

Please note that in the balance equations for the density and momentum no correlated density or correlated flux appears. This is due to the Born approximation. For more nontrivial approximations as e.g. the ladder summation these correlated observables appear .

### A Fit to nuclear matter ground state

As one can see, it is not enough to use the mean field parameterization to fit the equation of state as done in most approaches so far. Since the collision integral induces a two - particle and three - particle correlation energy we have to take this into account and have to refit the parameter $`t_0,t_3`$ to the binding properties of nuclear matter. To illustrate this fact let us evaluate the fit without two - and three - particle correlation energy and therefore without collision integrals.

#### 1 Hartree-Fock parameterization

Taking into account only Hartree-Fock mean field correlations (42) the ground state energy for nuclear matter reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{A}}={\displaystyle \frac{}{n}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}ϵ_f+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}t_0n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}t_3n^2.`$ (49)
Then the nuclear binding at $`n_0=0.16`$ fm-3 with an energy of $`E_B=15.68`$MeV is reproduced by the set

$`t_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{15n_0}}(2ϵ_f5E_B)=1026.67\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^3`$ (50)
$`t_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{5n_0^2}}(ϵ_f5E_B)=14625\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{fm}^6`$ (51)
which leads to a compressibility of

$`K=9n^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2E/A}{n^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}t_3n_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}ϵ_f=377\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}.`$ (52)
#### 2 Parameterization with two - and three - particle correlation energy

Now we consider the two - particle correlation energy. From (21) we obtain the total energy

$`+E_{\mathrm{corr}_2}+E_{\mathrm{corr}_3}.`$ (53)
We want to calculate the long time limit which represents the equilibrium value. From the identity $`\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{sin}xtdt=\frac{𝒫}{x}`$ a principle value integration replaces the $`sin`$ term in (48)

$`E_{\mathrm{corr}_2}(\mathrm{})=g{\displaystyle \frac{dp_1dp_2dp_1^{}dp_2^{}}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^9}T_2^2\frac{𝒫}{E_1+E_2E_1^{}E_2^{}}}`$ (54)
$`\times \delta (p_1+p_2p_1^{}p_2^{})f_1^{}f_2^{}\overline{f}_1\overline{f}_2.`$ (55)
For ground state Fermi distributions this expression can be integrated analytically  and we find from (55) the known Galitskii result for the two - particle ground state correlation energy

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{\mathrm{corr}_2}}{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`4ϵ_f{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{log}211}{35}}({\displaystyle \frac{p_fmT_2}{4\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}})^2`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5.7910^5}{\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^2}}n^{4/3}\left[9t_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}t_3^3n^2+5t_3t_0n\right].`$ (57)
As pointed out in  we had to subtract here an infinite value, i.e. the term proportional to $`f_1f_2`$ in (55). This can be understood as renormalization of the contact potential and is formally hidden in $`E_{\mathrm{corr}}(0)`$ when time integrating equation (43). For finite range potentials we have an intrinsic cut-off due to range of interaction and such problems do not occur.

The correlational two - particle energy (57) is always negative for fermionic degeneracies $`2<g<8`$ and for bosonic degeneracy $`g<4`$. Since the leading density goes with $`n^{10/3}`$ it will dominate over the positive kinetic part which goes like $`n^{2/3}`$. We find that for densities around $`3n_0`$ the total energy has a maximum and starts to decrease continuously for higher densities. The maximal energy is changed towards higher values if we now include three \- particle correlations since the latter remain positive and have the same leading density term as the two - particle correlational energy.

The three - particle part reads

$`E_{\mathrm{corr}_3}(\mathrm{})=g{\displaystyle \frac{dp_1dp_2dp_3dp_1^{}dp_2^{}dp_3^{}}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^{15}}T_3^2}`$ (58)
$`\times `$ $`\delta (p_1+p_2+p_3p_1^{}p_2^{}p_3^{})f_1^{}f_2^{}f_3^{}\overline{f}_1\overline{f}_2\overline{f}_3`$ (59)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒫}{E_1+E_2+E_3E_1^{}E_2^{}E_3^{}}}.`$ (60)
The analytic result for the contact potential has not been given in the literature to our knowledge and reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{\mathrm{corr}_3}}{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`4ϵ_f{\displaystyle \frac{9013}{29257713}}({\displaystyle \frac{p_f^4mT_3}{4\pi ^4\mathrm{}^6}})^2`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2.3710^6}{\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^2}}n^{10/3}t_3^2.`$ (62)
This three - particle correlation energy remains positive and has the same leading density behaviour of $`n^{10/3}`$ as the two - particle correlational energy. Since the pre-factor is smaller than the one for the two - particle correlational energy we obtain a maximum at 3 times nuclear density beyond which the two - particle part dominates and the total energy diverges negatively which would mean a collapse of the system. This clearly marks the limit of the Born approximation.

Taking now the correlational energy into account via (53) instead of only the Hartree Fock energy (49) we obtain a fit to the nuclear binding of

$`\stackrel{~}{t}_0`$ $`=`$ $`745.71\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^3`$ (63)
$`\stackrel{~}{t}_3`$ $`=`$ $`8272.8.\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^6`$ (64)
which leads to a compressibility of

$`\stackrel{~}{K}=351\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ (65)
which is somewhat lower than the mean field compressibility of (52). The comparison of the two equation of states with and without two - and three-particle correlations can be seen in figure 8. The inclusion of two - particle correlation energy leads to a maximum at 3 times nuclear density above which the system collapses. The complete result including three particle correlational energy leads to a higher reachable maximum.

### B Importance of three particle collisions

We have seen that the three - particle contact interaction induces in a natural way a density dependence of the two - particle cross section. Additionally we have obtained an explicit three - particle collision integral on the same microscopic footing. We want now to answer the question how important the three - particle collisions are. Therefore we use as a measure the ratio of the two- and three - particle ground state correlation energies, (57) and (62), since this gives the measure of how much energy is maximally dispersed by the corresponding integrals. We obtain

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{E_2}{E_3}}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^551113}{9013}}(112\mathrm{log}2)`$ (66)
$`\times `$ $`\left[9{\displaystyle \frac{t_0^2}{n^2t_3^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}+5{\displaystyle \frac{t_0}{t_3n}}\right].`$ (67)
This ratio is decreasing until it reaches the density

$`n_{\mathrm{min}}={\displaystyle \frac{18t_0}{5t_3}}=0.32\mathrm{fm}^3`$ (68)
where the ratio has the minimum

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{E_2}{E_3}}\right|_{\mathrm{min}}=1.4.`$ (69)
For higher densities the constant value

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{E_2}{E_3}}\right|_{\mathrm{}}=18.3`$ (70)
is approached.

I other words this means that the importance of three particle collisions increase with increasing density up to twice the nuclear density where the correlational energies are nearly equal. For higher densities we have 18 times larger two -particle correlational energies than three -particle ones. At nuclear saturation density this ratio is

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{E_2}{E_3}}\right|_{n_0}=19.2`$ (71)
indicating that the three -particle collisions become important between nuclear density and twice the nuclear density while it can be neglected in the other cases.

## IV Conclusions

For a microscopic two - and three - particle contact interaction consisting of two parameters the Kadanoff and Baym equation of motion is derived. From this a Boltzmann kinetic equation is obtained with drift which turns out to be the known Skyrme Hartree Fock expression while the collision side consists of two - and three - particle collision integrals. The two - particle collision integral contains an explicit density - dependent cross section arising from the three - particle contact interaction. By this way both the drift side as well as collision side is derived from the same microscopic footing and no hybrid assumptions about separate density dependent mean field and cross section is needed.

The correlational energy for the three- and the two - particle part are calculated analytically. Due to the density dependent two - particle collision integral both correlational energies have the same leading power of $`(n/n_0)^{10/3}4`$ in density which shows that both contributions are of the same importance if three - particle interaction has to be considered. This is clearly motivated by the saturation point where non - relativistic two - particle approaches fail to overcome the “Coester line”.

We find that there is a maximum in the energy at 3 times nuclear density if two - and three particle correlational energies are included. Beyond this density the Born approximation fails at least in that the system collapses towards diverging negative energy.

While the two - particle collision cross section has a natural density dependence due to three - particle contact interaction it turns out that the explicit three particle collision integral can be neglected as long as one is below nuclear density. Around twice nuclear density the three particle collision integral has the same importance as the two - particle one since it disperses the same amount of energy. For higher densities the three - particle collision integral is again negligible.

I would like to thank H.S. Köhler and P. Lipavsky for numerous discussions and the LPC for a friendly and hospitable atmosphere. P. Chocian is thanked for reading the manuscript.


text:
# Topological Symmetries

## 1 Introduction

Since Witten’s pioneering work on supersymmetric quantum mechanics , there has been a growing interest in supersymmetry and its applications . The interest in supersymmetry has also motivated the development of various geralizations of supersymmetry. Most notable of these are parasupersymmetries , the $`q`$-deformed supersymmetries  and the fractional supersymmetries .

One of the most intriguing aspects of supersymmetric quantum mechanics is its relationship with the Atiyah-Singer index theorem . This has already been noticed by Witten  in early 1980’s and subsequently led to new proofs of this theorem . Supersymmetric proofs of the index theorem together with Witten’s supersymmetric derivation of the Morse inequalities  and its impact on Floer’s theory  are among the greatest mathematical achievments of supersymmetric quantum mechanics.

The effectiveness of supersymmetry in providing insight into some of the most fundamental results of differential geometry and topology suggests the study of the topological content of various generalizations of supersymmetry. The only known generalization of supersymmetry which exhibits similar topological properties is a certain type of $`p=2`$ parasupersymmetries. The topological properties of $`p=2`$ parasupersymmetry (PSUSY) has been extensively studied in Refs. .

The purpose of the present article is to introduce a generalization of supersymmetry (SUSY) which shares its topological properties. We shall term such a symmetry a topological quantum mechanical symmetry or simply topological symmetry (TS).

The first step towards such a generalization is to recall the basic properties of the $`N=1`$ supersymmetric quantum mechanics.111We use the terminology in which $`N`$ is half of the number of Hermitian generators. What we call $`N=1`$ SUSY sometimes is referred to as the $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY where $`𝒩`$ is the number of Hermitian SUSY generators.

$`N=1`$ supersymmetric quantum mechanics is specified by a $`ZZ_2`$-graded Hilbert space $`=_+_{}`$ and the superalgebra

$`[H,𝒬]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{𝒬,𝒬^{}\},`$ (2)
$`𝒬^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3)
where $`H`$ and $`𝒬`$ are the Hamiltonian and the generator of the supersymmetry, respectively. The $`ZZ_2`$-grading of the Hilbert space is implemented using a chirality or parity operator $`\tau :`$ satisfying

$`\tau ^2`$ $`=`$ $`1,\tau ^{}=\tau ,`$ (4)
$`[\tau ,H]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (5)
$`\{\tau ,𝒬\}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (6)
The subspaces $`_+`$ and $`_{}`$ are identified with the eigenspaces of $`\tau `$,

$$_\pm :=\{|\psi |\tau |\psi =\pm |\psi \}.$$
(7)
The elements of $`_\pm `$ are said to have definite parity $`\pm `$. An operator $`O`$ acting on $``$ is said to have definite parity $`+`$ or $``$, if it commutes or anticommutes with $`\tau `$, respectively.

It is well-known that using Eqs. (1) – (3) one can obtain the degeneracy structure of a general $`N=1`$ supersymmetric system . These systems have a nonnegative spectrum and the eigenspaces corresponding to positive eigenvalues are spanned by pairs of eigenvectors of opposite parity. This particular degeneracy structure of supersymmetric systems is sufficient to show the topological invariance of the Witten index:

$`\mathrm{index}_\mathrm{W}:=n_0^+n_0^{},`$ (8)
$`n_0^\pm :=\mathrm{number}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{zero}\mathrm{energy}\mathrm{states}\mathrm{with}\mathrm{parity}\pm .`$ (9)
The degeneracy structure is obtained from the algebraic structure. Therefore, the situation may be described by the following diagram.

$$\mathrm{algebraic}\mathrm{structure}\mathrm{degeneracy}\mathrm{structure}\mathrm{topological}\mathrm{invariants}$$
(10)
The same analysis is valid for the case of the $`p=2`$ PSUSY studied in Refs. .

The idea pursued in this article is to reverse the first arrow in (10). More specifically, we wish to

* find and postulate the type of degeneracy structures which lead to topological invariants such as the Witten index, and
* obtain the algebraic structure of symmetries which support this type of degeneracy structures.

## 2 Topological Symmetries and Their Invariants

* Definition 1: Let $`m_+`$ and $`m_{}`$ be two positive integers. Then a quantum mechanical symmetry is called a $`ZZ_2`$-graded topological symmetry (TS) of type $`(m_+,m_{})`$, if the following conditions are fulfilled.

+ The Hilbert space is $`ZZ_2`$-graded. The $`ZZ_2`$-grading is achieved via a parity operator $`\tau `$ satisfying Eqs. (4), i.e., $`=_+_{}`$ where $`_\pm `$ are given by Eq. (7).
    + The energy spectrum of the system is nonnegative.
    + There is an energy eigenbasis consisting of definite parity state vectors, i.e., Eq. (5) holds.
    + For every positive energy eigenvalue E, there exists a positive integer $`\lambda _E`$ such that $`E`$ is $`m_E:=\lambda _E(m_{}+m_+)`$ fold degenerate. Furthermore, the corresponding eigenspace is spanned by $`\lambda _Em_{}`$ negative parity eigenvectors and $`\lambda _Em_+`$ positive parity eigenvectors.

Clearly, SUSY is an example of TS of type $`(1,1)`$. Therefore, TSs are generalizations of the SUSY.

* Definition 2: A $`ZZ_2`$-graded topological symmetry is said to be uniform, if for all $`E>0`$, $`\lambda _E=1`$.

Given the above definition of a $`ZZ_2`$-graded uniform topological symmetry (UTS), we can easily prove the following theorem.

* Theorem: Consider a $`ZZ_2`$-graded UTS of type $`(m_{},m_+)`$ and let $`n_0^\pm `$ denote the number of zero energy eigenstates of the system with parity $`\pm `$. Then the quantity

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{(m_+,m_{})}:=m_{}n_0^+m_+n_0^{}$$
(11)
is a topological invariant, i.e., it is invariant under the continuous changes of the quantum system222These include continuous changes of the Hamiltonian and the boundary conditions. that do not destroy the UTS.
* Proof: Suppose that under a continuous change of the system a zero energy state vector with positive parity is elevated to a positive energy level. This positive energy level must have $`m_+`$ positive parity states and $`m_{}`$ negative parity states. Hence, the initial zero energy state must be accompanied by $`(m_+1)`$ positive parity zero energy eigenstates and $`m_{}`$ negative parity zero energy eigenstates. This implies that after the change $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(m_+,m_{})}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{(m_+,m_{})}^{\mathrm{after}}=m_{}(n_0^+m_+)m_+(n_0^{}m_{})=m_{}n_0^+m_+n_0^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(m_+,m_{})}^{\mathrm{before}}.$$

Every possible change of the zero energy states is a combination of this particular change and its converse. Therefore, in general $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(m_+,m_{})}`$ remains invariant. $`\mathrm{}`$

The same proof is valid for the case of nonuniform $`ZZ_2`$-graded TSs. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(m_+,m_{})}`$ is a topological invariant for any $`ZZ_2`$-graded TS.

We shall next provide the basic framework for addressing the characterization problem for TSs. In this paper we shall only consider the uniform TSs. But our method applies to nonuniform TSs as well.

We shall demand TSs to have symmetry generators $`𝒬_a`$ (with $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$) which have negative parity. In particular, we shall only consider the $`N=1`$ UTSs where the label $`a=1`$ can be dropped. In this case, Eq. (6) is valid.

Next we introduce the Hermitian symmetry generators,

$$Q_1:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(𝒬+𝒬^{}),\mathrm{and}Q_2=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(𝒬𝒬^{}).$$
(12)
In view of Eqs. (1), (4), (6) and (12), we have

$`[H,Q_i]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (13)
$`\{\tau ,Q_i\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (14)
where $`i\{1,2\}`$.

We can use Eq. (5) to construct an orthonormal basis of the Hilbert space in which $`H`$ and $`\tau `$ are diagonal. Our strategy will be to use the information on the degeneracy structure of the energy eigenspaces and Eqs. (4), (13), and (14) to obtain matrix representations of $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ in the energy eigenspaces $`_E`$ with eigenvalue $`E>0`$. We shall denote the representation of an operator $`O`$ in the eigenspace $`_E`$ by $`O^E`$. Clearly for the Hamiltonian $`H`$, we have $`H^E=EI_m`$, where $`I_m`$ is the $`m\times m`$ identity matrix and $`m:=m_++m_{}`$. Finally, we shall try to use these representations to obtain the most general algebraic relations satisfied by $`𝒬`$ and $`H`$.

## 3 Uniform Topological Symmetries of Type $`(1,1)`$

For the $`ZZ_2`$-graded TS of type $`(1,1)`$, the positive energy levels are doubly degenerate ($`m=2`$). In a basis that diagonalizes $`H`$ and $`\tau `$, we have (up to a permutation of the basis vectors)

$$\tau ^E=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
where $`E>0`$ and we have used Eqs. (4). Next let us note that $`Q_i^E`$ are $`2\times 2`$ Hermitian matrices satisfying (14). These conditions are sufficient to conclude that

$$Q_1^E=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mu ^{}\\ \mu & 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}Q_2^E=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \nu ^{}\\ \nu & 0\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ are complex numbers.

Using the matrix representations (15) and (16), we can easily compute

$`𝒬^E`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(Q_1^E+iQ_2^E)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mu ^{}+i\nu ^{}\\ \mu +i\nu & 0\end{array}\right),`$ (19)
$`(Q_1^E)^2`$ $`=`$ $`|\mu |^2I_2,`$ (20)
$`(Q_2^E)^2`$ $`=`$ $`|\nu |^2I_2,`$ (21)
$`(𝒬^E)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[|\mu |^2|\nu |^2+i(\mu \nu ^{}+\mu ^{}\nu )\right]I_2=det(𝒬^E)I_2,`$ (22)
where ‘$`det`$’ stands for ‘determinant’. Next we introduce the Hermitian operators $`M`$, $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ which commute with $`H`$ and have the following representations in $`_E`$ with $`E>0`$.

$$M^E=|\mu |^2I_2,K_1^E=(|\mu |^2|\nu |^2)I_2,K_2^E=(\mu \nu ^{}+\mu ^{}\nu )I_2.$$
(23)
In view of Eqs. (20) – (23), $`M^E`$, $`K^E`$, and $`K_i^E`$ commute with $`Q_i^E,𝒬^E`$ and $`\tau ^E`$. Generalizaing these equations to operator identities, we find

$`[M,Q_i]=[K_j,Q_i]=[M,K_j]=0,`$ (24)
$`Q_1^2=M,`$ (25)
$`Q_2^2=MK_1,`$ (26)
$`\{Q_1,Q_2\}=K_2.`$ (27)
We can also express Eqs. (24) – (27) in terms of $`𝒬`$. This yields

$`[M,𝒬]=[K,𝒬]=[M,K]=0,`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{𝒬,𝒬^{}\}=M{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(K+K^{}),`$ (29)
$`𝒬^2=K,`$ (30)
where $`K:=(K_1+iK_2)/2`$.

Next let us note that under a linear transformations of the form:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Q_1& & \stackrel{~}{Q}_1:=aQ_1+bQ_2,\\ Q_2& & \stackrel{~}{Q}_2:=cQ_1+dQ_2,\end{array}$$
(31)
the algebra (24) – (27) is left form-invariant.333Here the coefficients $`a,b,c`$ and $`d`$ are assumed to be Hermitian operators commuting with $`H`$, $`Q_i`$, $`K_i`$ and $`M`$. More specifically, the transformed generators $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i`$ satisfy the same algebra provided that the operators $`M`$ and $`K_i`$ are transformed according to

$`M`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{M}:=(a^2+b^2)Mb^2K_1+abK_2,`$ (32)
$`K_1`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{K}_1:=(a^2+b^2c^2d^2)M+(d^2b^2)K_1+(abcd)K_2,`$ (33)
$`K_2`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{K}_2:=2(ac+bd)M2bdK_1+(ad+bc)K_2.`$ (34)
This observation may be used to find a new set of negative parity symmetry generators $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i`$ which would satisfy the algebra (24) – (27) with $`K_i`$ set to zero. The most general linear transformations (31) for which $`\stackrel{~}{K}_1=\stackrel{~}{K}_2=0`$ are the ones satisfying (either of)

$$\frac{a+ic}{b+id}=\frac{K_2}{2M}\pm i\sqrt{1\frac{K_1}{M}\frac{K_2^2}{4M^2}}.$$
(35)
Using the energy eigenbasis in which Eqs. (23) hold, we can show that indeed the terms inside the square root in (35) add up to a positive operator.444Strictly speaking most of the conclusions drawn in this article are based on the information obtained from the restriction of the relevant operators to $`_0`$. We will however suppose that the same results are generally valid in $``$. This is consistent with the fact that we have not given the representations of $`M`$ and $`K_i`$ in $`_0`$. This is a necessary condition for the corresponding linear transformation to be invertible.

The above analysis shows that without loss of generality we can set $`K=0`$ in Eqs. (28) – (30). This yields

$`[M,𝒬]=0,`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{𝒬,𝒬^{}\}=M,`$ (37)
$`𝒬^2=0.`$ (38)
Since $`M`$ has the same degeneracy structure as the Hamiltonian (at least in $`_0`$), we can write $`H`$ as a function of $`M`$. In particular, we can identify $`H`$ with $`M`$, in which case the algebra (36) – (38) reduces to the superalgebra (1) – (3). Therefore, the algebra of the $`ZZ_2`$-graded UTS of type $`(1,1)`$ is the same as the algebra of SUSY. The above analysis may be viewed as a derivation of the superalgebra (1) – (3) from a set of basic principles, i.e., the definition of the $`ZZ_2`$-graded UTS of type $`(1,1)`$.

## 4 Uniform Topological Symmetry of Type $`(2,1)`$

For the $`ZZ_2`$-graded UTS of type $`(2,1)`$, the positive energy levels are triply degenerate ($`m=3`$). We will again work in a basis in which $`H`$ and $`\tau `$ are diagonal. Restricting to an eigenspace $`_E`$ of $`H`$ with $`E>0`$ and enforcing Eqs. (4) and (14), we can easily show that (up to permutations of the basis vectors of $`_E`$)

$`\tau ^E=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),Q_1^E=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \mu _1^{}\\ 0& 0& \mu _2^{}\\ \mu _1& \mu _2& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (45)
$`Q_2^E=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \nu _1^{}\\ 0& 0& \nu _2^{}\\ \nu _1& \nu _2& 0\end{array}\right),𝒬^E={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \mu _1^{}+i\nu _1^{}\\ 0& 0& \mu _2^{}+i\nu _2^{}\\ \mu _1+i\nu _1& \mu _2+i\nu _2& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (52)
Now in order to obtain the most general algebraic identities satisfied by these matrices we appeal to the Cayley-Hamilton theorem . This theorem states that any $`m\times m`$ matrix $`A`$ satisfies its characteristic equation, $`P_A(x)=0`$, where $`P_A(x)`$ is the characteristic polynomial for $`A`$. It is not difficult to show that the characteristic polynomial for a $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`A`$ of the form

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \alpha \\ 0& 0& \beta \\ \gamma & \delta & 0\end{array}\right)$$

is given by $`P_A(x)=x^3(\alpha \gamma +\beta \delta )x`$. Using this equation and the identity $`P_A(A)=0`$ for $`Q_1^E`$, $`Q_2^E`$ and $`𝒬^E`$, we find

$`(Q_1^E)^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}|\mu _j|^2Q_1^E,`$ (53)
$`(Q_2^E)^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}|\nu _j|^2Q_2^E,`$ (54)
$`(𝒬^E)^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}[|\mu _j|^2|\nu _j|^2+i(\mu _j\nu _j^{}+\mu _j^{}\nu _j)]𝒬^E.`$ (55)
Next we introduce the Hermitian operators $`M`$, $`K_1`$, and $`K_2`$ which commute with $`H`$ and have the following matrix representations in $`_E`$ with $`E>0`$.

$`M^E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}|\mu _j|^2I_3,`$ (56)
$`K_1^E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(|\mu _j|^2|\nu _j|^2)I_3,`$ (57)
$`K_2^E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(\mu _j\nu _j^{}+\mu _j^{}\nu _j)I_3.`$ (58)
Now setting $`K:=(K_1+iK_2)/2`$ and making use of Eqs. (56) – (58), we can generalize Eqs. (53) – (55) to the operator relations

$`Q_1^3`$ $`=`$ $`MQ_1,`$ (59)
$`Q_2^3`$ $`=`$ $`(MK_1)Q_2,`$ (60)
$`𝒬^3`$ $`=`$ $`K𝒬.`$ (61)
Eqs. (56) – (58) also suggest that the operators $`M`$ and $`K_i`$ commute among themselves and with $`Q_i`$. Furthermore, we can rewrite Eq. (61) in terms of $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$. Simplifying the resulting equation using Eqs. (59) and (60) we obtain the following general algebra

$`[M,Q_i]=[M,K_i]=[K_i,Q_j]=0,`$ (62)
$`Q_1^3=MQ_1,`$ (63)
$`Q_2^3=(MK_1)Q_2,`$ (64)
$`Q_2Q_1Q_2+\{Q_1,Q_2^2\}=(MK_1)Q_1+K_2Q_2,`$ (65)
$`Q_1Q_2Q_1+\{Q_2,Q_1^2\}=MQ_2+K_2Q_1.`$ (66)
We can show by direct computation that this algebra remains form-invariant under linear transformations (31) of $`Q_i`$. More remarkable is the fact that under such a transformation the operators $`M`$ and $`K_i`$ transform according to the same relations as in the case of UTS of type $`(1,1)`$, namely Eqs. (32) – (34). Therefore, we can always transform to a new set of symmetry generators for which $`K_i=0`$. Setting $`K_i=0`$ in Eqs. (62) – (66) and rewriting these equations in terms of $`𝒬`$, we find

$`[M,𝒬]=0,`$ (67)
$`\{𝒬^2,𝒬^{}\}+𝒬𝒬^{}𝒬=2M𝒬,`$ (68)
$`𝒬^3=0.`$ (69)
The operator $`M`$ has the same degeneracy structure as the Hamiltonian. Therefore, we can identify $`H`$ with a function of $`M`$. In particular, we can set $`H=M/2`$. In this case the algebra (67) – (69) becomes identical to the algebra of $`p=2`$ parasupersymmetry . In other words, the algebra of the $`ZZ_2`$-graded UTS of type $`(2,1)`$ is precisely the algebra of the $`p=2`$ parasupersymmetry (of Rubakov and Spiridonov ). Again, the above analysis may be viewed as a derivation of the algebra of $`p=2`$ parasupersymmetry from a set of basic principles, i.e., the definition of the $`ZZ_2`$-graded UTS of type $`(2,1)`$.

As shown in Ref. , the algebra (67) – (69) does not imply the degeneracy structure of type $`(2,1)`$ UTS. Therefore, the type $`(2,1)`$ $`ZZ_2`$-graded UTSs belong to a special class of symmetries whose generator $`𝒬`$ satisfies Eqs. (67) – (69). A method for constructing the corresponding moduli spaces is given in Ref. .

## 5 Conclusion

In this article we have introduced a general notion of a topological symmetry. We have provided a simple framework for the study of the $`ZZ_2`$-graded topological symmetries. We showed that the algebras of the $`ZZ_2`$-graded UTS of order $`(1,1)`$ and $`(2,1)`$ are essentially the algebras of supersymmetric quantum mechanics and $`p=2`$ parasupersymmetric quantum mechanics, respectively.

By construction, topological symmetries involve a class of integer-valued topological invariants $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(m_+,m_{})}`$. These are the analogues of the Witten index of supersymmetry and the parasupersymmetric topological invariant . The physical interpretation of these invariants is that they are a measure of the existence of zero-energy ground states. For the known cases, the latter is an indication of the exactness of symmetry. The mathematical interpretation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(m_+,m_{})}`$ is not quite clear. For the known cases they are related to the analytic indices of Fredholm operators . The general case requires a detailed study of the algebraic structure of general topological symmetries. The algebras of $`ZZ_2`$-graded TS of arbitrary type $`(m_+,m_{})`$ are currently under investigation.

Finally, one can easily generalize the definition of the $`ZZ_2`$-graded topological symmetry of type $`(m_+,m_{})`$ to a $`ZZ_n`$-graded topological symmetry of type $`(m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_n)`$. Such a system will have states with definite ‘color’ taking values in $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. The spectrum will be nonnegative. The positive energy eigenvalues $`E`$ will be $`m_E=\lambda _E_{\mathrm{}=1}^nm_{\mathrm{}}`$ fold degenerate. The energy eigenspaces with positive eigenvalue will all have $`\lambda _Em_1`$ states of color $`1`$, $`\lambda _Em_2`$ states of color $`2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`\lambda _Em_n`$ states of color $`n`$. One may try to define topological invariants for these more general topological symmetries. For example for a $`ZZ_3`$-graded TS of type $`(1,1,1)`$, one can introduce the invariant $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1,1,1)}=(n_0^{(1)}n_0^{(2)})^2+(n_0^{(2)}n_0^{(3)})^2+(n_0^{(3)}n_0^{(1)})^2`$, where $`n_0^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is the number of zero energy states of color $`\mathrm{}`$. The basic properties of $`ZZ_n`$-graded topological symmetries will be explored in .