text:
# Coherent and Squeezed States in Shape Invariant Potentials Obtained from the Master Function

## 1 Introduction

Coherent states, known as the closest states to classical ones, play an important role in many different contexts of the theoretical and experimental physics, specially quantum optics and multiparticle dynamics. Schrodinger first discovered the coherent states of the harmonic oscillator potential in $`1926`$  and much work has been done since then on their properties and applications. The coherent states have also been found in systems with the Lie group symmety . Recently, coherent states have been found in special Hamiltonians . These coherent states are called minimum uncertainty coherent states(MUCS). In coherent states the standard deviation of $`x`$ and $`p`$ are equal and their product is minimum over these states. There are also quantum states where, though we have minimum uncertainty for the standard deviation of coordinate and momentum, they are not equal any more; these states are called squeezed states. These quantum states are as important as coherent ones and their generation play an important role in many different branch of physics and communication engineering. Nieto and his colleagues have developed an interesting algorithm for the generation of the coherent and squeezed states for special potential, where the product of the standard deviation generalized Harmonic phase variable $`X_c`$ and $`P_c`$ are minimum over these states. Here in this article following the algorithm of reference  we obtain these coherent and squeezed states for all the shape invariant potential obtained from the master function of reference . The Hamiltonians of the reference are the special cases of the most general shape invariant Hamiltonian to be treated in this paper and the result thus obtained in this work, are in good agreement with those of thier reference in these few special cases.

This paper is organized as follows. In section II we explain very briefly the shape invariant potential obtained from the master functions. In section III first we show that the generalized Harmonic variable $`X_c`$ of reference  is linear function of the $`x`$ coordinate of orthogonal function and $`P_c`$ the generalized Harmonic momentum is proportional to master function. In section IV following the reference , we obtain the raising and lowering operator of these potentials. In section V we obtain the most general minimum uncertainty states for the general potential obtained from the master function. For particular choice of even master and weight function together with the symmetric interval we can obtain even or odd minimum uncertainty coherent (squeezed)states or well known Schrodinger-Cat state. It is also shown that the ground state of the Hamiltonian is one of the MUCS of the system. Eigenstates of Annihilation operators namlely the generalization of annihilation operators coherent states(AOCS) is derived in section VI. Here in this section it is shown that in general the minimum uncertainty states are different from AOCS ones. Section VII devoted to investigate the time evolution of the Minimum Uncertainty states. Here in this section it is shown that, the time evolution of the generlized quantum phase coordinates is almost similar to the time evolution of the phase coordinates of the qunantum oscillator except for the appearance of the constant phase $`\omega _0`$ and also the Hamiltonian depenence of the frequency $`\omega _H`$. The paper ended with a brief conclusion.

## 2 The Shape InvariantPotentials Obtained From the Master function

According to references  by introducing the master function $`A(x)`$ as a polynomial of at most second order one can define a non-negative weight function $`W(x)`$ in the interval $`[a,b]`$ such that the expression $`\frac{1}{W(x)}\frac{d}{dx}(A(x)W(x))`$ be a polynomial of at most first order and the function $`A(x)W(x)`$ to vanish at the ends of the interval. Now we can define second order differential operator $`L=\frac{1}{W(x)}\frac{d}{dx}A(x)W(x)\frac{d}{dx}`$ with the following properties:
1) $`L`$ is a self-adjoint linear operator.
2) $`L`$ transforms a given polynomial of order $`m`$ to another polynomial of order $`m`$ at most.
3) The expression $`\frac{1}{W(x)}(\frac{d}{dx})^^n(A^^n(x)W(x))`$ is a polynomial of order at most $`n`$, which is indeed Rodrigues formula for the classical orthogonal polynomials.
4) The polynomials

$$\varphi _n(x)=\frac{a_n}{W(x)}(\frac{d}{dx})^^n(A^^n(x)W(x))$$

are orthogonal with respect to the weight function $`W(x)`$ in the interval $`[a,b]`$ as defined above, and one can find $`a_n`$ simply by comparing the coefficient of highest power of $`\varphi _n(x)`$ with those of the traditionally defined special orthogonal polynomials.
5) The polynomials $`\varphi _n(x)`$ are eigenfunctions of operator $`L`$, and therefore satisfy the following second order linear differential equation

$$\frac{1}{W(x)}\frac{d}{dx}(A(x)W(x)\frac{d}{dx}\varphi _n(x))=\gamma _n\varphi _n(x).$$
(2-1)
In order the differential $`Eq.(21)`$ have polynomial solution of degree $`n`$, $`\gamma _n`$ must be given by

$$\gamma _n=n(\frac{(A(x)W(x))^{}}{W(x)})^{}\frac{n(n1)}{2}A^{\prime \prime }(x).$$

Thus, the general form of the differential equation is as follows

$$A(x)\varphi _n^{\prime \prime }(x)+\frac{(A(x)W(x))^{}}{W(x)}\varphi _n^{}(x)[n(\frac{(A(x)W(x))^{}}{W(x)})^{}+\frac{n(n1)}{2}A^{\prime \prime }(x)]\varphi _n(x)=0.$$
(2-2)
By differentiating the differential Eq.$`(22)`$ $`m`$ times and then multiplying it by $`(1)^^mA^{\frac{m}{2}}(x)`$ we get the following associated differential equation

$$A(x)\varphi _{_{n,m}}^{\prime \prime }(x)+\frac{(A(x)W(x))^{}}{W(x)}\varphi _{_{n,m}}^{}(x)+[\frac{1}{2}(n^2+nm^2)A^{\prime \prime }(x)+(mn)(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}$$

$$\frac{m^2}{4}\frac{(A^{}(x))^^2}{A(x)}\frac{m}{2}\frac{A^{}(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)}]\varphi _{_{n,m}}(x)=0$$
(2-3)
where

$$\varphi _{_{n,m}}(x)=(1)^^mA^{\frac{m}{2}}(x)(\frac{d}{dx})^^m\varphi __n(x).$$

Now, changing the variable $`\frac{dx}{d\xi }=\sqrt{A(x)}`$ in associated differential equations of Eq.$`(23)`$ and defining the new function $`\psi _n^m(\xi )=A^{\frac{1}{4}}(x)W^{\frac{1}{2}}(x)\varphi _{n,m}(x)`$ we obtain the Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{d^2}{d\xi ^2}\psi _n^m(\xi )+V_m(x(\xi ))\psi _n^m(\xi )=E(n,m)\psi _n^m(\xi ),m=0,1,2,\mathrm{},n,$$
(2-4)
where the most general shape invariant potential is

$$V_m(x)=W^2(x)+\frac{d}{d\xi }W(x)=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}\frac{2m1}{4}A^{\prime \prime }(x)+\frac{1}{4A(x)}(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^2+$$

$$\frac{m}{2}\frac{A^{}(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)}+\frac{4m^21}{16}\frac{A^2(x)}{A(x)},$$
(2-5)
and prime stands for derivative with respect to $`x`$. The spectrum $`E(n,m)`$ is

$$E(n,m)=(nm+1)[(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}+\frac{1}{2}(n+m)A^{\prime \prime }(x)].$$
(2-6)
## 3 Generalized Harmonic Phase space variables $`X_c`$ and $`P_c`$

Following the prescription of references  in a one dimensional hamiltonian:

$$H=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{d\xi }{dt})^2+V_m(x(\xi )),$$
(3-1)
with $`V_m(x(\xi ))`$ given in Eq.$`(25)`$, the classical paths of constant energy around the minimum points of the potential form closed paths in the phase space $`(\xi ,P_\xi )`$. Therefore, there is an injective canonical map from the phase space $`(\xi ,P_\xi )`$ into the new phase space $`(X_c,P_c)`$ , such that the closed constant energy paths turn into elliptic constant energy paths. Hence, in the phase space $`\xi P_\xi `$ the time dependence of these closed paths can be written as

$$X_c=A(E)\mathrm{sin}\omega _c(E)t,$$
(3-2)
$$P_c=mA(E)\omega _c(E)\mathrm{cos}\omega _c(E)t.$$

From the constancy of the hamiltonian, Eq.$`(31)`$, along the paths we have

$$t+t_0=\frac{d\xi }{\sqrt{\frac{2}{m}(EV_m(x(\xi ))}}.$$

By changing the variable $`\frac{dx}{\sqrt{A(x)}}=d\xi `$, we get

$$t+t_0=\sqrt{\frac{m}{2}}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{A(x)(EV_m(x))}}.$$
(3-3)
Inserting the expression $`(25)`$ for $`V_m(x)`$ and considering the fact that $`A(x)`$ is at most second order and $`A(x)\frac{d\mathrm{log}W(x)}{dx}`$ is at most first order, one can show that the expression $`A(x)(EV_m(x))`$ is quadratic. Hence, integrating Eq.$`(35)`$ we obtain

$$x+\frac{\eta _2}{2\eta _1}=\sqrt{(\frac{\eta _2}{2\eta _1})^2\frac{\eta _3}{\eta _1}}\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{\frac{2\eta _1}{m}}(t+t_0)$$
(3-4)
with

$$\eta _1=\frac{1}{2}A^{\prime \prime }(E\gamma +\frac{2m1}{4}A^{\prime \prime })+\frac{12m}{4}A^{\prime \prime }(\frac{AW^{}}{W})^{}\frac{1}{4}(\frac{AW^{}}{W})^{}\frac{4m^21}{16}(\frac{AW^{}}{W})^{}$$

$$\eta _2=A^{}(0)(E\gamma +\frac{2m1}{4}A^{\prime \prime })+\frac{1}{2}A^{}(0)(\frac{AW^{}}{W})^{}\frac{1}{2}(\frac{AW^{}}{W})^{}(\frac{AW^{}}{W})(0)\frac{m}{2}(A^{\prime \prime }(0)+A^{}(0))\frac{AW^{}}{W})(0)$$

$$\eta _3=A(0)(E\gamma +\frac{2m1}{4}A^{\prime \prime })+\frac{1}{2}A(0)(\frac{AW^{}}{W})^{}\frac{1}{4}(\frac{AW^{}}{W}(0))^2\frac{m}{2}A^{}(0)(\frac{AW^{}}{W})(0)\frac{4m^21}{16}(A^{}(0))^2.$$
(3-5)
Comparing the relations $`(32)`$ and $`(36)`$ we have

$$X_c=x_0(x+\frac{\eta _2}{2\eta _1})$$

$$\omega _c=\sqrt{\frac{2\eta _1}{m}}$$

$$A(E)=x_0\sqrt{(\frac{\eta _2}{2\eta _1})^2\frac{\eta _3}{\eta _1}},$$
(3-6)
where $`x_0`$ and $`t_0`$ are arbitrary constants of integration. Also $`\gamma `$ is a constant which is added to the potential $`V_m(x(\xi ))`$ for convenience. Similarly, for the momentum $`P_c=m\frac{dX_c}{dt}`$ we have

$$P_c=mx_0\frac{dx}{dt}=x_0m\frac{d\xi }{dt}\frac{dx}{d\xi }=x_0mP_\xi \sqrt{A(x)}.$$
(3-7)
The quantum operators corresponding to $`X_c`$ and $`P_c`$, denoted by $`\widehat{X}`$ and $`\widehat{P}`$, are defined as following according to :

$$\widehat{X}=X_c(x)=x_0(x+\frac{\eta _2}{2\eta _1})$$

$$\widehat{P}=\frac{1}{2i}(X_c^{}p+pX_c^{}).$$

Making a change variable from $`\xi `$ to $`x`$, we get

$$\widehat{P}=\frac{p_0}{2i}(A(x)\frac{d}{dx}+\frac{d}{dx}A(x))$$

where $`x_0`$ and $`p_0`$ are arbitrary constants.

## 4 Raising And Lowering Operators

In the algorithm of generation of the minimum uncertainty states of the hamiltonian $`\frac{d^2}{d\xi ^2}+V_m(x(\xi ))`$, the raising and lowering operators of its discrete eigenstates $`\psi _n^m`$, play an important role. These operators are denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{n,m}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{n,m}`$ respectively. To obtain them, following the refernce , first we factorize the differential equation $`(23)`$ in a shape invariant form as:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}B(n,m)A(n,m)\varphi _{_{n,m}}(x)=E(n,m)\varphi _{_{n,m}}(x)& \\ A(n,m)B(n,m)\varphi _{_{n1,m}}(x)=E(n,m)\varphi _{_{n1,m}}(x).& \end{array}$$
(4-1)
From the equations $`(41)`$ it is straightforward to derive the following recursion relations

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}B(n,m)\varphi _{_{n1,m}}(x)=\mu _{m,n}\varphi _{_{n,m}}(x)& \\ A(n,m)\varphi _{_{n,m}}(x)=\frac{E(n,m)}{\mu _{m,n}}\varphi _{_{n1,m}}(x),& \end{array}$$
(4-2)
where $`E(n,m)`$, $`B(n,m)`$ and $`A(n,m)`$ are given by

$$E(n,m)=$$

$$\frac{[(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}\frac{AW^{}}{W}(0)+n^^2A^{\prime \prime }(x)A^{}(0)+(2nm)(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}A^{}(0)+mA^{\prime \prime }(x)\frac{AW^{}}{W}(0)]^^2}{4[(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}+nA^{\prime \prime }(x)]^^2}$$

$$\frac{1}{4}(\frac{AW^{}}{W}(0))^^2(nm)(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}A(0)\frac{1}{4}m^^2(A^{}(0))^^2\frac{1}{2}mA^{}(0)(\frac{AW^{}}{W})(0)$$

$$\frac{1}{2}(n^^2m^^2)A^{\prime \prime }(x)A(0)$$

$$B(n,m)=A(x)\frac{d}{dx}((\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}+\frac{1}{2}nA^{\prime \prime }(x))x$$

$$\frac{2(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}\frac{AW^{}}{W}(0)+n^^2A^{\prime \prime }(x)A^{}(0)+(2nm)(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}A^{}(0)+(m+n)A^{\prime \prime }(x)\frac{AW^{}}{W}(0)}{2[(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}+nA^{\prime \prime }(x)]}$$

$`A(n,m)=A(x)\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{2}nA^{\prime \prime }(x)x`$

$$\frac{n^^2A^{\prime \prime }(x)A^{}(0)+(2nm)(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}A^{}(0)+(mn)A^{\prime \prime }(x)\frac{AW^{}}{W}(0)}{2[(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}+nA^{\prime \prime }(x)]}.$$
(4-3)
In order to evaluate $`\mu _{n,m}`$, it is sufficient to divide both sides of Eq.$`(42)`$ by $`(A(x))^{\frac{m}{2}}`$ and compare the coefficients of the highest degree terms of boths sides, resulting in

$$\mu _{n,m}=[\frac{1}{2}A^{\prime \prime }(x)(n1)((\frac{AW^{}}{W})^{}+\frac{1}{2}nA^{\prime \prime })].$$
(4-4)
From $`\psi _n^m(\xi )=A^{\frac{1}{4}}W^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi _{n,m}`$, it follows that $`\widehat{A}_{n,m}`$ and $`\widehat{B}_{n,m}`$, that is

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{A}_{n,m}=A^{\frac{1}{4}}W^{\frac{1}{2}}A_{n,m}A^{\frac{1}{4}}W^{\frac{1}{2}}& \\ \stackrel{~}{B}_{n,m}=A^{\frac{1}{4}}W^{\frac{1}{2}}B_{n,m}A^{\frac{1}{4}}W^{\frac{1}{2}}& \end{array}$$
(4-5)
are the required raising and lowering operators of the wave functions, that is, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{B}_{n,m}\psi _{n1}^m(\xi )=\mu _{n,m}\psi _n^m(\xi )& \\ \stackrel{~}{A}_{n,m}\psi _n^m(\xi )=\frac{E(n,m)}{\mu _{n,m}}\psi _{n1}^m(\xi ).& \end{array}$$
(4-6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{n,m}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{n,m}`$ are

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=A(x)\frac{d}{dx}(\frac{1}{2}nA^{\prime \prime }(x)+\frac{1}{4}A^{\prime \prime }(x)+\frac{1}{2}(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{})x$$

$$\frac{1}{2}A^{}(0)\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)}(0)$$

$$\frac{n^2A^{\prime \prime }(x)A^{}(0)+(2nm)A1A^{}(0)+(mn)A^{\prime \prime }(x)C}{2(A1+nA^{\prime \prime }(x))}$$

$$\stackrel{~}{B}=A(x)\frac{d}{dx}(\frac{1}{2}nA^{\prime \prime }(x)+(\frac{AW^{}}{W(x)})^{}(\frac{1}{2}\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}\frac{1}{4}A^{\prime \prime }(x))x$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}A^{}(0)+\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)}(0)$$

$$\frac{2A1C+n^2A^{\prime \prime }(x)A^{}(0)+(2nm)A1A^{}(0)+(m+n)A^{\prime \prime }(x)C}{2(A1+nA^{\prime \prime }(x))}$$
(4-7)
with

$$A1=(\frac{AW^{}}{W(x)})^{}$$

$$C=\frac{AW^{}}{W}(0).$$

The raising and lowering operators of the one dimensional shape invariant potentials, obtained from the master function, and also all other necessary information in constructing their minimum uncertainty state are given in Table I. The Hermitian quantum operators associated with the generalized Harmonic quantum phase variables $`\widehat{X}`$ and $`\widehat{P}`$ can be expressed in terms of the operators $`\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and their Hermitian conjugates as

$$\widehat{X}=x_0[\stackrel{~}{A}+\stackrel{~}{A}^{}+\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{B}^{}]$$

$$\widehat{P}=\frac{p_0}{2i}[\stackrel{~}{A}+\stackrel{~}{B}^{}(\stackrel{~}{A}^{}+\stackrel{~}{B})],$$
(4-8)
where $`\stackrel{~}{A}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{}`$, the Hermitian conjugate of the raising and lowering operators are

$$\stackrel{~}{A}^{}=(\frac{f_1f_3A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3})\stackrel{~}{A}+(\frac{2f_1A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3})\stackrel{~}{B}+$$

$$\frac{(f_2A^{}(0))(f_1+f_3)(f_1A^{\prime \prime }(x))(f_2+f_4)+\frac{1}{2}(f_2f_4)(f_1+f_3)\frac{1}{2}(f_1f_3)(f_2+f_4)}{f_1+f_3}$$

$$\stackrel{~}{B}^{}=(\frac{2f_3+A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3})\stackrel{~}{A}+(\frac{f_3f_1+A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3})\stackrel{~}{B}+$$

$$\frac{(f_4+A^{}(0))(f_1+f_3)(f_3+A^{\prime \prime }(x))(f_2+f_4)+\frac{1}{2}(f_1f_3)(f_2+f_4)\frac{1}{2}(f_2f_4)(f_1+f_3)}{f_1+f_3}$$

with $`f_1,f_2,f_3`$ and $`f_4`$:

$$f_1=\frac{1}{2}A^{\prime \prime }(x)\frac{1}{2}(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}\frac{1}{4}A^{\prime \prime }(x),$$

$$f_2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)}(0)\frac{1}{4}A^{}(0)\frac{n^2A^{\prime \prime }(x)A^{}(0)+(2nm)(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}A^{}(0)+(mn)A^{\prime \prime }(x)C}{2((\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}+nA^{\prime \prime }(x))},$$

$$f_3=\frac{1}{2}\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)}(0)\frac{1}{2}A^{\prime \prime }(x)+\frac{1}{4}A^{\prime \prime }(x),$$

and

$$f_4=\frac{1}{2}\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)}(0)+\frac{1}{4}A^{}(0)$$

$$\frac{n^2A^{\prime \prime }(x)A^{}(0)+(2nm)(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}A^{}(0)+(m+n)A^{\prime \prime }(x)C+2(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}C}{2((\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}+nA^{\prime \prime }(x))}.$$
(4-9)
Generally speaking, the number $`n`$ should not appear anywhere and it must be replaced by the Hamiltonian. This is done by expressing $`n`$ in terms of $`E(n,m)`$ and replacing $`E(n,m)`$ by the Hamiltonian. Since the set of eigenfunctions $`\psi _n^m`$ are complete and we can expand every function in our Hilbert space in terms of them, therefore it is sufficient to consider the effect of the operators on these base. Therefore, in order not to make things too complicated, we do not bother to replace $`n`$ in terms of Hamiltonian, as in reference, except for the operators $`\widehat{X}`$ and $`\widehat{P}`$ which are going to be functions of the Hamiltonian.

## 5 The Most General Minimum Uncertainty States

The coherent and squeezed states are generally the minimum uncertainty states of general harmonic phase variables $`\widehat{X}`$ and $`\widehat{P}`$, which can be obtained by solving the eigenfunction equation of the operators $`\widehat{X}+i\frac{<G>}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}\widehat{P}`$ , that is, we solve

$$(\widehat{X}+i\frac{<G>}{2(\delta p)^2}\widehat{P})\psi _{MUCS}=C\psi _{MUCS}$$
(5-1)
where $`G`$ is proportional to the commutation of $`\widehat{X}`$ and $`\widehat{P}`$ as $`[\widehat{X},\widehat{P}]=iG`$, and where $`C=<\widehat{X}>+i\frac{<G>}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}<\widehat{P}>`$.

In order to solve the Eq.$`(51)`$, we expand $`\psi _{MUCS}`$ in terms of $`\psi _n^m`$, the eigenstate of Schrodinger equation $`(24)`$,

$$\psi _{MUCS}=\underset{j=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_j\psi _j^m(x).$$
(5-2)
Inserting the above expansion in Eq.$`(51)`$ and using the independence of the eigenstates $`\psi _j^m`$, we get a recursion relation between the coefficients $`a_j`$. This is possible if we know how the adjoint operators $`\stackrel{~}{A}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{}`$ act over $`\psi _j^m`$ by writing them in terms of the raising and lowering operators $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{A}^{}=(\frac{f_1f_3A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3})\stackrel{~}{A}+(\frac{2f_1A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3})\stackrel{~}{B}+$$

$$\frac{(f_2A^{}(0))(f_1+f_3)(f_1A^{\prime \prime }(x))(f_2+f_4)+\frac{1}{2}(f_2f_4)(f_1+f_3)\frac{1}{2}(f_1f_3)(f_2+f_4)}{f_1+f_3}$$

$$\stackrel{~}{B}^{}=(\frac{2f_3+A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3})\stackrel{~}{A}+(\frac{f_3f_1+A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3})\stackrel{~}{B}+$$

$$\frac{(f_4+A^{}(0))(f_1+f_3)(f_3+A^{\prime \prime }(x))(f_2+f_4)+\frac{1}{2}(f_1f_3)(f_2+f_4)\frac{1}{2}(f_2f_4)(f_1+f_3)}{f_1+f_3}$$

Therefore, the most general quantum harmonic phase coordinate $`\widehat{X}`$ and momentum $`\widehat{P}`$, given in Eq.$`(51)`$, can be expressed in terms of the raising and lowering operators.

$$\widehat{X}=2x_0(\stackrel{~}{A}+\stackrel{~}{B})$$

$$\frac{2i}{p_0}\widehat{P}=\frac{4f_3+2A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3}\stackrel{~}{A}+\frac{4f_1+2A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3}\stackrel{~}{B}+$$

$$\frac{2(f_1+f_3)(f_4f_2)+2(f_2+f_4)(f_1f_3)+2A^{}(0)(f_1+f_3)2A^{\prime \prime }(x)(f_2+f_4)}{f_1+f_3}$$

Substituting the operators $`\widehat{X}`$ and $`\widehat{P}`$, written only in terms of the raising and lowering operators as above, in Eq.$`(51)`$ and using the expansion of $`\psi _{MUCS}(x)`$ in terms of $`\psi _n^m(x)`$, we obtain the following recursion relation for $`a_{n+m}`$:

$$a_{n+m+1}=\frac{1}{2x_0+\frac{p_0<G>}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}\frac{4f_3+2A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3}}\frac{\mu _{n+1,m}}{E(n+1,m)}\times $$

$$[(C\frac{p_0<G>}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}g)a_{n+m}(2x_0\frac{p_0<G>}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}\frac{4f_12A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3})\mu _{n,m}a_{n+m1}].$$
(5-3)
where

$$g=\frac{2(f_1+f_3)(f_4f_2)+2(f_2+f_4)(f_1f_3)+2A^{}(0)(f_1+f_3)2A^{\prime \prime }(x)(f_2+f_4)}{f_1+f_3}.$$

In principle, by iterating the recursion relation (5-3) we can determine $`a_{n+m}`$ in terms of $`a_0`$ and $`a_{m+1}`$. In general, due to the appearance of $`a_{n+m}`$ and $`a_{n+m1}`$ on the right hand side of this recursion relation, we are not able to obtain a closed form for the coefficient $`a_{n+m}`$ in terms of $`a_m`$ and $`a_{m+1}`$. Note that, by an appropriate choice of the parameters appearing in MUCS, as e.g. taking such as the averge of the quantum phase coordinates, the average of the commutator of the quatum phase coordinates or the squeezing percentage that is the ratio standard deviations, $`(2x_0\frac{p_0<G>}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}\frac{4f_12A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3})`$ vanishes. We iterate

$$\frac{a_{n+m+1}}{a_{n+m}}=\frac{(C\frac{p_0<G>}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}g)}{2x_0+\frac{p_0<G>}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}\frac{4f_3+2A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3}}\frac{\mu _{n+1,m}}{E(n+1,m)}$$

to obtain $`a_{n+m}`$ only in terms of $`a_m`$:

$$\frac{a_{n+m}}{a_m}=k_0^n\underset{j=m}{\overset{n+m}{}}\frac{\mu _j}{E(j)}$$
(5-4)
with

$$k_0=\frac{(C\frac{p_0<G>}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}g)}{2x_0+\frac{p_0<G>}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}\frac{4f_3+2A^{\prime \prime }(x)}{f_1+f_3}}.$$

Substituting the coefficient $`a_{n+m}`$, given in Eq.$`(54)`$, into the expansion $`\psi _{MUCS}`$, we get

$$\psi _{MUCS}=\underset{n=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_mk_0^n\underset{j=m}{\overset{n+m}{}}\frac{\mu _j}{E(j)}\psi _n^m.$$
(5-5)
In the rest of this section we investigate some important special cases:

a- For $`A(x)=1`$ we get the harmonic oscillator with eigenfunction

$$\psi _n(x)=e^{\frac{\alpha x^2}{4}}H_n(x)$$

and the coherent states yield

$$\psi _{MUCS}(x)=e^{txt^2/2}$$

, where $`t=\frac{k_0}{\alpha }`$.

b- $`A(x)=x,\beta =1,m=0,and\alpha =\lambda +\frac{1}{2}`$ lead to

$$\psi _n(x)=x^{\frac{\alpha +1/2}{2}}e^{x/2}n!L_n^\alpha (x)$$

and the coherent states yield

$$\psi _{MUCS}(x)=x^{\frac{\alpha +1/2}{2}}e^{x/2}I_{\lambda +1/2}(2\sqrt{k_0x}),$$

in agreement with reference.

c- $`A(x)=x(1x),\alpha =\beta =0,m=1/2\lambda ,andn=n+\lambda 1/2`$ lead to

$$\psi _n(x)=\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}(t)}P_{n+\lambda 1/2}^{1/2\lambda }(\mathrm{sin}(t))$$

and the coherent states yield

$$\psi _{MUCS}(x)=$$

in agreement with reference.

d- $`A(x)=1+x^2,\alpha =1/2,and\beta =0,`$ lead to

$$\psi _n(x)=P_{m1}^n(\mathrm{tanh}(t))$$

and the coherent states yield

$$\psi _{MUCS}(x)=$$

in agreement with reference.

e- $`A(x)=x^2,\beta =1,\lambda =n\alpha /2`$ lead

$$\psi _n(x)=x^{\frac{\alpha +1}{2}}e^{x/2}L_n^{\alpha 1}(x)$$

and the coherent states yield

$$\psi _{MUCS}(x)=$$

in agreement with reference. If the coeffient of $`a_n`$ in the recursion relation (5-3) vanishes, that is for:

$$C=\frac{p_0<G>}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}g$$

we encounter another interesting special case. This is again possible by an appropriate choice of the parameters of MUCS. In this case the MUCS can consist only of the odd or even associative orthogonal polynomials. In particular, if we choose even master function together with the corresponding even weight function, then the associative orthogonal function will be even for even $`n+m`$ and will be odd for odd $`n+m`$, provided that we choose a symmetric interval,that is $`[a,a]`$. Therefore, MUCS is either even or odd known as even or odd coherent (squeezed) states in the special case of the harmonic Hamiltonian (Schrodinger-Cat states) . Finally we can choose the parameters of MUCS such that the coefficients of $`a_{n+m}`$ and $`a_{n+m1}`$ on the right hand side of the recursion (5-3) become null. This means that in the expansion of MUCS, given in (5-2), only the ground state of the Hamiltonian will remain, that is, the ground state of the system belongs to its MUCS ensemble. At the end of this section it should be remined that, eventhough the closed form of MUCS is only available in seldom special case. But this is not a serious prblem, since one can iterate the recursion relation (5-3) numerically, to calculate the MUCS and related average quantities over these states which is under separate investigation.

## 6 Eigenstates of Annihilation Operators

It is well-known that the coherent states of harmonic oscillators are eigenstates of the annihilation operator $`a`$, that is, we have

$$a\alpha >=\alpha \alpha >.$$

Here we try to generalize this idea to the general shape invariant potentials ($`V_m(x(\xi ))`$). This is possible if we can find the eigenstate of annihilation operator ($`A\alpha >=\alpha \alpha >`$) associated with these potentials. Here in this section, by multiplying the annihilation operator by an appropriate function of Hamiltonian and using the result of reference , we get a closed form for their eigenstates. Denoting the eigenstates of the annihilation operator $`A`$ by $`\psi _{AOCS}(\beta _0,x)`$, we have the following eigen-equation

$$F(g^1(H))A\psi _{AOCS}(\beta _0,x)=\beta _0\psi _{AOCS}(\beta _0,x),$$

where $`F(g^1(H))`$ is an arbitrary function of Hamiltonian which is to be determined below. Expanding $`\psi _{AOCS}(\beta _0,x)`$ in terms of the associated orthogonal functions $`\varphi _{n,m}(x)`$ and using the relation

$$F(g^1(H))A\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n\varphi _{n,m}=\beta _0\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n\varphi _{n,m},$$

we get the following recursion relation

$$C_{n+1}\frac{F(n+1)E(n+1,m)}{\mu _{n+1,m}}=\beta _0C_n.$$
(6-1)
Substituting for $`\mu _{n+1,m}`$ we get

$$\frac{C_{n+1}}{C_n}=\beta _0\frac{\frac{1}{2}nA^{\prime \prime }(x)B_0}{E(n+1,m)F(n+1)}\frac{a_n}{a_{n+1}}$$

with

$$B_0=\frac{1}{2}(n+1)A^{\prime \prime }(x)+(\frac{A(x)W^{}(x)}{W(x)})^{}.$$

By defining $`F(g^1(H))`$ as

$$F(n+1)=\frac{(n+1)(\frac{1}{2}nA^{\prime \prime }(x)B_0)}{E(n+1,m)}$$

we can solve the recursive relation $`(61)`$ if we choose $`C_n=\frac{\lambda ^n}{n!a_n}`$ and $`\lambda =\beta _0`$. Substituting these in the expansion of $`\psi _{AOCS}(\beta _0,x)`$ we get

$$\psi _{AOCS}(\beta _0,x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\beta _0^n}{n!a_n}\varphi _{n,m}.$$

Now, using the result of reference  we obtain

$$\psi _{AOCS}(\beta _0,x)=(1)^m(A(x))^{\frac{m}{2}}(\frac{d}{dx})^m(\frac{W(z)}{W(x)}\frac{dz}{dx})$$

with $`z=x+tA(z)`$. From the result thus obtained it is clear that in general, the $`\psi _{AOCS}`$ states are different from the corresponding $`\psi _{MUCS}`$ states and they only coincide in the case of harmonioc oscillator. To see their difference more explicitly, using the result of reference, we give in the rest of this section some of the $`\psi _{AOCS}`$ states.

I-The choice of $`A(x)=x,\beta =1,m=0,\alpha =\lambda +\frac{1}{2}`$ leeds

$$\psi _n(x)=x^{\frac{\alpha +1/2}{2}}e^{x/2}n!L_n^\alpha (x)$$

and the using coherent states

$$\psi _{MUCS}(x)=x^{\frac{\alpha +1/2}{2}}e^{x/2}I_{\lambda +1/2}(2\sqrt{k_0x})$$

which is in agreement with reference.

II-The choice of $`A(x)=x(1x),\alpha =\beta =0,m=1/2\lambda ,n=n+\lambda 1/2`$ leeds

$$\psi _n(x)=\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}(t)}P_{n+\lambda 1/2}^{1/2\lambda }(\mathrm{sin}(t))$$

and the using coherent states

$$\psi _{MUCS}(x)=$$

which is in agreement with reference.

III-The choice of $`A(x)=1+x^2,\alpha =1/2,\beta =0,`$ leeds

$$\psi _n(x)=P_{m1}^n(\mathrm{tanh}(t))$$

and the using coherent states

$$\psi _{MUCS}(x)=$$

which is in agreement with reference.

IV-The choice of $`A(x)=x^2,\beta =1,\lambda =n\alpha /2`$ leeds

$$\psi _n(x)=x^{\frac{\alpha +1}{2}}e^{x/2}L_n^{\alpha 1}(x)$$

and the using coherent states

$$\psi _{MUCS}(x)=$$

which is in agreement with reference.

## 7 Time Evolution of the Minimum Uncertainty States

In this section we investigate the time evolution of the generalized Harmonic quantum phase variable $`\widehat{X}`$ and $`\widehat{P}`$. Since they do not have any explicit time dependence, thus their time dependence can be written as

$$\widehat{X}(t)=e^{\frac{iHt}{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{X}e^{\frac{iHt}{\mathrm{}}},$$
(7-1a)
$$\widehat{P}(t)=e^{\frac{iHt}{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{P}e^{\frac{iHt}{\mathrm{}}},$$
(7-1b)
which follows from the Heisenberg equations of motion

$$\dot{\widehat{X}}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\widehat{X},H]=\frac{\widehat{P}}{m}$$

$$\dot{\widehat{P}}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\widehat{P},H]=\widehat{X}B_1(H)+i\widehat{P}B_0$$

with $`B_1(H)`$ and $`B_0`$ defined as:

$$B_0=\frac{1}{2m}\mathrm{}A^{\prime \prime }(x)$$

$$B_1=A^{\prime \prime }(H\gamma +\frac{2m1}{4}A^{\prime \prime })+\frac{12m}{2}A^{\prime \prime }(\frac{AW^{}}{W})^{}\frac{1}{2}((\frac{AW^{}}{W})^{})^2\frac{4m^21}{8}A^{\prime \prime }.$$

Now, using the Baker-Hausdorf formula in Eq.$`(71a)`$, we can calulate $`\widehat{X}(t)`$ :

$$\widehat{X}(t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\frac{it}{\mathrm{}})^n\frac{1}{n!}X_n$$

with

$$X_n=\widehat{X}f_n(H)+\widehat{P}g_n(H)$$
(7-2)
By iterating the following recursion relations

$$f_{n+1}(H)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}B_1(H)g_n(H)$$
(7-3)
$$g_{n+1}(H)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}(\frac{1}{m}f_n(H)+(iB_0)g_n(H))$$
(7-4)
with

we get the following expression for the function $`g_n(H)`$

$$g_n(H)=Ar_+^n+Br_{}^n$$

where $`r_{},r_+,A`$ and $`B`$ are

$$r_+=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}B_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\sqrt{B_0^24B_1(H)/m}=\mathrm{}\omega _0+\mathrm{}\omega _H$$

$$r_{}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}B_0\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\sqrt{B_0^24B_1(H)/m}=\mathrm{}\omega _0\mathrm{}\omega _H$$

$$A=B=\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2m\omega _H}$$

with $`\omega _0`$ and $`\omega _H`$ defined as

$$\omega _0=B_0/2\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\omega _H=\sqrt{B_0^24B_1(H)/m}/2,$$

respectively. Substituting the result thus obtained for $`g_n(H)`$ in (7-4a) we can determine $`f_n(H)`$.
Now, inserting all these in (7-3), we obtain the closed form for $`\widehat{X}(t)`$ and $`\widehat{P}(t)`$ as follows:

$$\widehat{X}(t)=\widehat{X}e^{i\omega _0t}[\mathrm{cos}(\omega _Ht)i\frac{\omega _0}{\omega _H}\mathrm{sin}(\omega _Ht)]$$

$$+\widehat{P}e^{i\omega _0t}2\frac{\omega _0}{\omega _H}\mathrm{sin}(\omega _Ht)$$
(7-5)
Starting from the formula (7-1b) and performing some calculation which is similar to the above calculation, we will obtain

$$\widehat{P}(t)=\widehat{P}e^{i\omega _0t}[\mathrm{cos}(\omega _Ht)+i\frac{\omega _0}{\omega _H}\mathrm{sin}(\omega _Ht)]$$

$$+\widehat{X}e^{i\omega _0t}(2\frac{\omega _0}{\omega _H})\mathrm{sin}(\omega _Ht)$$
(7-6)
Again the result thus obatained are in agreement with refernces for the special caes provided that we insert the corresponding eigen value of the operators of eigen frequency $`\omega _H`$, given in Table I. The time dependence of the generlized quantum phase coordinates given in (7-5) and (7-6) is almost similar to the time evolution of the phase coordinates of the qunantum oscillator except for the appearance of the $`\omega _0`$ and also the energy depenence of the $`\omega _H`$. We see that in case of the general shape invarint hamiltonian the frequency is a hamiltonian dependent operator and it is only constant in special case of oscillator.

## 8 CONCLUSION

In this paper a general algorithm has been given for the generation of the minimum uncertainty coherent and squeezed states in some one-dimensional hamiltonians with shape invariant potential, obtained from the master function. It looks like that the shape invariance symmetry of these hamiltonian might be the reason for the observation the MUCS. Since Solvability of these quantum systems are mainly due to the existance of this symmetry . But this not the only reason , Actually the main role belongs the existence of the lowering and raising operators or ladder ones , which map different energy eigenstates of a given hamiltonian into each other. As quoted in the introduction, the coherent and squeezed states generated by harmonic oscillator have already play such an importantat role in different branches of physics. Definetly the MUCS have been generated in refrence  and here will soon play very important role in almost all branches of physics. Therefore, it deserve to find all other hamiltonian which can generate MUCS, which is under investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We wish to thank Dr. S. K. A. Seyed Yagoobi for his careful reading the article and for his constructive comments.


format: text

text:
# Narrow Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies and the Evolution of Galaxies & Active Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

Years after their discovery (Osterbrock & Pogge 1985) the NLS1s have attracted attention of the AGN community at least partly due to their peculiar X-ray properties. The NLS1s are Seyfert 1 galaxies with relatively narrow widths of permitted optical emission lines (full width at half maximum (FWHM)$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$2000 km/s), strong optical FeII/H$`\beta `$ ratio, weak \[OIII\] emission, and as such were found to occupy one extreme end of the Boroson & Green (1992) “eigenvector 1”. An extremely strong anti-correlation was found between soft X-ray spectral slopes and H$`\beta `$ FWHM in Seyfert 1s (Boller, Brandt & Fink 1996) and quasars (Laor et al. 1997) meaning that a relation between the lines and continuum exists. Eigenvector 1 was later found (Brandt & Boller 1998) to correlate strongly with the soft X-ray power-law slope. Since the soft X-rays are formed in the vicinity of the central black hole, eigenvector 1 has probably a more fundamental physical meaning.

NLS1s, as a class, show peculiar continuum properties as well. They have very steep soft X-ray slopes ($`<\alpha >=2.13,F_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$, while for “normal” Sy1s $`<\alpha >=1.34\pm 0.03`$) and sometimes show rapid large amplitude variability. The hard X-ray spectra are steep as well (Brandt, Mathur & Elvis 1997). In the optical and UV range, most of NLS1s show a weak “big blue bump” (BBB), which is most likely due to the shift of the BBB (sometimes out of the optical/UV range) towards higher energies. The high energy tail of the BBB is apparent as the unusually strong and steep soft X-ray excess. NLS1s also show strong IR emission and some high polarization.

Many continuum properties of the NLS1s can be explained in terms of high accretion rate compared to the Eddington limit (ṁ = Ṁ/ṀEdd) and so, a small black hole (BH) mass for a given luminosity. The high accretion rate explanation for the X-ray properties of NLS1s was first proposed by Pounds, Done & Osborne (1995), in analogy with Galactic BH candidates whose soft X-ray spectra become steep in their high state. The narrow widths of the emission lines can be explained if the Broad Line Region (BLR) scales as L1/2 and emission line clouds are virialized around the small mass BH (Laor et al. 1997). As an alternative, Wandel (1997) has argued that the continuum, with steeper X-ray slope, has stronger ionizing power, and hence the BLR is formed at a larger distance from the center. The resulting smaller velocity dispersion produces narrower lines. In general there is a reasonable consensus that large ṁ is the cause of the observed peculiar properties of NLS1 (an alternative being a pole-on view). A natural question to ask as a next step would be “what determines the accretion rate in an active galaxy?” Is it the age?

## 2 Are NLS1s the Active Galaxies in the making?

Here we present a number of arguments in support of our proposal that NLS1 might be Active Galaxies in early phase of their evolution.
1). Smaller BH mass. As per the well known correlation of Magorrian et al. (1998) smaller mass BHs reside in galaxies with smaller spheroids. Since NLS1s have relatively smaller mass BHs compared to normal Seyferts, the spheroids of their host galaxies might be smaller (see also Laor, 1998). Indeed, in the compilation of Wandel (1999), the NLS1 galaxy NGC4051 has the smallest black hole to bulge mass ratio. An accreting BH would also grow in mass with time \[the Salpeter time scale of growth is determined by t$`{}_{s}{}^{}=3\times 10^7(L_{Edd}/L_B)\eta _{0.1}`$ yr. where $`\eta _{0.1}`$ is the radiative efficiency in the units of 0.1 (see Fabian 1999)\]. Since NLS1 accrete at close to Eddington limit, their BHs would grow faster. So, smaller BHs in NLS1s are likely to be younger as well.

2). Super-solar gas phase metallicities. There are a couple of lines of evidence to suggest that NLS1s may have super-solar gas phase metallicities. One comes from the study of high ionization emission lines. Wills et al. (1999) found that the strength of NV $`\lambda 1240`$ emission line was systematically larger while the strength of the CIV $`\lambda 1549`$ was systematically smaller in AGN with narrow emission lines. The NV/CIV ratio serves as an abundance indicator as shown by Hamann & Ferland (1993). So, the NLS1s may have large nitrogen abundance. Absorption lines, being insensitive to density, serve as better indicators of metallicities. In the narrow line AGN PG1404+226, Ulrich et al. (1999) found that while the strengths of Ly$`\alpha `$ and CIV absorption lines were in reasonable agreement with those expected from the ionized X-ray absorber (See Mathur 1997 for X/UV absorber models), the NV absorption line was significantly stronger. This observation, again, can be understood in terms of high nitrogen abundance in this narrow line AGN (Mathur & Komossa, 2000).

Large nitrogen abundance is obtained when overall metallicities are high with N$`/`$H $``$ (Z$`/`$Z)2 where Z is the solar abundance. Nitrogen is preferentially enhanced because of secondary CNO nucleosynthesis (see Hamann & Ferland 1999, HF99, for details on AGN metallicities). Thus the observations of emission as well as absorption lines in NLS1s imply super-solar gas phase metallicities. The strength of the fluorescent Fe-K alpha line in some NLS1s is also indicative of super-solar abundance (Fabian 1999).

Such metal enrichment is possible when the initial mass function of star formation is flat, favorable for high mass star formation, and the evolution is fast. Such a star formation scenario is likely to be present in deep potential wells like galactic nuclei and protogalactic clumps (HF99). Moreover, high metallicities are achieved while consuming less gas (HF99). The NLS1s may then represent that early phase in galactic evolution when rapid star formation is taking place in the nucleus.

3). IR brightness. Many NLS1s are observed to be bright in the infra-red (Moran, Halpern, & Helfand 1996). Young, star forming galaxies are also bright IR sources. It is possible that a part of the nuclear IR flux is from a nuclear star burst.

4) Analogy with high redshift quasars. In $`\mathrm{\S }3`$ we argue that NLS1s are analogous to very high redshift quasars. High redshift (z$`>`$4) quasars are believed to quasars in the early phase of evolution compared to the $`z1`$ quasars. By analogy, NLS1s may as well be in the early evolutionary phase compared to the normal Seyfert galaxies.111We note that Grupe (1996) has also argued that the age since an AGN was born might be the underlying reason for some NLS1-type correlations he has studied.

## 3 Are NLS1s low redshift analogues of high redshift quasars?

That the AGN phenomenon was so much stronger at z$``$ 2–3 than today has long elicited the suspicion that there is a connection between the youth of a galaxy and the likelihood that an AGN forms inside it. The question then naturally arises, “what are the local counterparts to the young galaxies in early universe, in which local AGN may live?” (see, e.g, Krolik 1999). A standard answer to this question is “Starburst galaxies”. Heckman (1999) has argued that starburst galaxies are the low redshift analogues of Lyman break galaxies at high redshift. Similarly, we ask, what are the low redshift analogues of high redshift (z$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_>}{^{}}`$4) quasars? We propose that they might be NLS1s.

It is interesting to note the similarity of the properties of NLS1s with high redshift (z$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_>}{^{}}`$4) quasars.

1) Hamann & Ferland (1993) found high metallicities in high redshift quasars (Z$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_>}{^{}}`$Z at z$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_>}{^{}}`$4). Large metallicities in NLS1s may make them low redshift, low luminosity analogues of high redshift quasars.

2). NLS1s and BALQSOs. Similarities between the observed properties of low ionization Broad Absorption Lines Quasars (BALQSOs) and NLS1s have been reported in the literature (e.g. Lawrence et al. 1997, Leighly et al. 1997). Both these classes show strong FeII$`\lambda 4570`$ and AlIII$`\lambda 1857`$ and weak CIV$`\lambda 1549`$ and \[OIII\]$`5007`$ emission lines. Their continua are red in the optical and strong in the IR. Evidence of relativistic outflow is also reported in three NLS1s (Leighly et al. 1997). If these two classes are indeed related (Brandt 1999), then NLS1, at least those those with some evidence of outflow, might be low redshift, low luminosity cousins of BALQSOs. BALQSOs are tentatively identified with that phase in quasar evolution when the matter around the nuclear BH is being blown away, and a quasar emerges (see, e.g. Fabian 1999). NLS1s may then represent a similar early evolutionary phase at low redshift.

3). Optical spectra of a sample of z$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_>}{^{}}`$4 quasars revealed that their emission lines are typically narrower than the low redshift quasars (FWHM $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$2000 km/s, Shields & Hamann 1997). The normal explanation of this observation is that these are type 2 quasars, where the broad emission lines are obscured from our line of sight. Alternatively, these high z quasars might be true “narrow” broad line objects.

4) We note here another interesting connection with high redshift. As discussed in $`\mathrm{\S }1`$, NLS1s have strong FeII emission lines. Quasars Q0014+813 and Q0636+680 at redshifts z=3.398 and z=3.195 respectively, were observed to have very strong FeII emission (Elston, Thompson, & Hill 1994). Are they also highly accreting objects at early evolutionary phase? Note also the narrow UV emission lines (FWHM $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$2150 km s-1) in the ultra strong UV FeII emitter Q2226-3905 (Graham, Clowes, & Campusano, 1996).

All these similarities point towards NLS1s being low redshift, low luminosity analogues of high redshift quasars.

## 4 Do NLS1s reside in rejuvenated galaxies?

In the previous section we have argued that NLS1s may represent an early phase in AGN evolution. Whether they reside in young galaxies is a separate question and a step further. That young galaxies are gas rich is helpful; they would have the large reservoir of gas necessary to sustain the close to Eddington rate accretion in NLS1s. But do we have any evidence that they indeed reside in young galaxies? There is no published systematic study of the properties of the host galaxies of NLS1s. However, some of the NLS1s are originally from Zwicky (e.g. I Zw 1) and Markarian (e.g. Mrk 766) sample of galaxies implying that they are blue. While the blue color might be due to big blue bumps in the active nuclei, as in normal Seyfert galaxies, NLS1s have weak blue bumps ($`\mathrm{\S }1`$) and so the blue colors might be a result of actively star forming galaxies. Some NLS1s are IRAS galaxies (e.g. IRAS 13349+2438), infra-red bright, and star forming. Using the catalogs of galaxies RC3 (de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991) and UGC (Nilson, 1973) we looked into the morphology of a small sample of NLS1s with X-ray absorption features and found information on seven of them. Three were found to be compact (I Zw 1, Mrk 507, and Mrk 1298), two with signatures of inner ring (NGC 4051 and Ark 564), and three with nuclear bars (NGC 4051, Mrk 776 and Ark 564). These are signatures of recent activity, most likely due to galaxy- galaxy interactions or mergers. In this scenario the galaxies are newly formed, or rejuvanated.

That NLS1s reside in young galaxies is also consistent with the hypothesis that the formation and evolution of galaxies and their active nuclei is intimately related (Rees 1997, Fabian 1999, Granato et al. 1999, Haehnett & Koffmann 1999). In this scenario, the process of formation of a massive BH and the active nucleus is the very process of galaxy formation. The active nucleus and the galaxy evolve together, with BH accreting matter and the galaxy making stars. At one stage the winds from the active nucleus blow away the matter surrounding it and a quasar emerges. This is not only the end of active evolution of the quasar but that of the galaxy as well, which is evacuated of its interstellar medium. The quasar then shines as long as there is fuel in the accretion disk (Fabian 1999). In this scenario, high redshift quasars represent early stage of galaxy evolution, BALQSOs at z$`2`$ represent the stage when the gas is being blown away and z$`1`$ quasars would be the passively evolving population. Massive ellipticals found today might be the dead remnants of what were once quasars.

The quasar phenomenon may thus be a result of galaxy formation due to primordial density fluctuations. At low redshift, when new galaxies are formed due to interactions or mergers, similar evolution may take place. As argued above, the NLS1s may represent a crucial early phase. (In our scenario, the accretion rate ṁ is large in the early stages of evolution and reduces later on. This is opposite to the proposal by Wandel (1999) in which ṁ increases with time.)

In fact, there might be some NLS1s with a star burst component (see $`\mathrm{\S }2`$). Soft X-ray spectra of NLS1 are steep and often variable. However, Page et al. (1999) report that while the power-law component in the NLS1 Mrk 766 varied, the thermal black-body component did not. This component might well be due to a nuclear starburst. Note also the strong CO emission in the prototype NLS1 I Zw 1 (Barvainis, Alloin & Antonucci 1989). Schinnerer, Eckart & Tacconi (1998) mapped I Zw 1 in Co and found a circumnuclear ring of diameter 1.8 kpc. The authors found strong evidence for a nuclear starburst. There is also a companion to I Zw 1, supporting an interpretation of starburst due to interaction. Similarly, AGN activity is known to exist in star burst galaxies (see Heckman 1999 for a review). Dennefeld et al. (1999) report observations of narrow optical emission lines in a sample of IR selected starburst galaxies.

## 5 Observational Tests

Here we propose several observations that could test the ideas presented above. (1) Emission line properties of high redshift quasars: Objects in the Shields & Hamann sample, for example, were selected on the basis of their colors, in particular very red B$``$R which results when Ly$`\alpha `$ is redshifted into the R band. This could lead to a selection bias in favor of objects with narrow, peaky profiles (Shields & Hamann 1997). It would be important to remove such selection bias before we can conclude that z$`>4`$ quasars have narrow emission lines. A broader wavelength coverage with more than just two bands would be useful. The “drop-out” technique (Steidel et al. 1995) used for finding Lyman break galaxies would be another way to remove emission line bias. (2) X-ray properties of high redshift quasar: Only about a dozen z$`>4`$ quasars are detected in X-rays (see the latest update by Kaspi, Brandt & Schneider, 2000). However, X-ray spectra of z$`>4`$ quasars are still not available. It will be interesting to see if they are steep, and highly variable like those of NLS1s. We will be studying X-ray spectra of radio-loud as well as radio quiet z$`>4`$ quasars with XMM. (3) Morphology and environment of NLS1s: Are NLS1s preferentially found in younger galaxies and/or in more disturbed environments? A systematic study of host galaxy properties of a well defined sample of NLS1s is needed. (4) Search for starburst components in NLS1s: Evidence for the starburst–NLS1 connection ($`\mathrm{\S }4`$) is suggestive, but not yet statistically sound. Do the nuclear components of starburst galaxies show narrow emission lines? Do NLS1s show evidence of a starburst component more often than normal Seyferts? Spectroscopic as well as high resolution imaging observations would help towards establishing the connection between the two.

## 6 On the correlation of FeII strength and X-ray spectral slope

While photoionization models reproduce the properties of optical and UV emission lines observed in AGN spectra with reasonable success, the case of FeII lines is different. Wills, Netzer & Wills (1985) found that standard photoionization models cannot explain the strength of the the observed FeII lines in AGN. Collin-Souffrin and collaborators (1988) as well as Kwan (1984) advocated that collisional ionization would be important in the production of FeII. Collin (1999) has again shown that strong FeII emission cannot be produced by photoionization with any set of parameters, and even by making iron abundance reasonably super-solar. The importance and necessity of collisional ionization of iron was, however, not appreciated at least in part due to the observed correlation between FeII$`\lambda 4570`$ equivalent width and the soft X-ray energy index (Wilkes, Elvis & McHardy, 1987, Shastri et al. 1993). Standard photoionization models for the line emission from the broad line regions of quasars (Krolik 1988) imply a close link between the energy index of the ionizing X-ray continuum and the strength of emission lines. So the Wilkes et al. and Shastri et al. correlation was interpreted as a result of photoionization. Note, however, that the correlation is in in the opposite sense to that predicted by the standard photoionization model in which FeII emission is generated deep within the cloud and thus is sensitive to harder X-rays. NLS1s may provide us with the clue to understand this observed, conflicting trend as discussed below.

As discussed in $`\mathrm{\S }1`$, there is a general consensus that large accretion rate, Ṁ/ṀEdd, is the likely driver of the many observed properties of NLS1s. Large strength of FeII emission may then be linked to the large accretion rate. In a model by Kwan et al. (1995) FeII line emission is produced in an accretion disk. The accretion disks with larger accretion rate may simply have more mass to produce stronger FeII. Thus we argue that the observed correlation of FeII strength and soft X-ray slope is a consequence of the correlation with the accretion rate and support collisional ionization as the origin.

## 7 Conclusions

We have argued that NLS1s are likely to be AGN in the making and reside in rejuvenated galaxies. As such they represent a crucial early phase in the evolution of galaxies and active galaxies. What we need now is a systematic study of host galaxy properties of a well defined sample of NLS1s and their comparison with the hosts of normal Seyferts. Some evidence presented above is based on a small number of objects and generalization may not be appropriate. Studies at high redshift also suffer from selection effects. Understanding and correcting for them is crucial in establishing the analogy with NLS1s on firm footing. X-ray spectra of high redshift radio-quiet quasars will provide an addition piece of information towards this goal. It would of great interest to find out whether star burst galaxies are parent population of NLS1s.

## Acknowledgments

I thought about NLS1s and their place in the cosmic “big picture” while preparing my talk for the NLS1 workshop at Bad Honnef, Germany. I am grateful to Th. Boller and the organizing committee for inviting me to the workshop “Observational and theoretical progress in the study of Narrow Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies”.

It is my pleasure to thank F. Hamann, C. Reynolds, D. Weinberg, A. Pradhan, R. Pogge, B. Peterson, M. Elvis, B. Ryden and P. Osmer for useful discussions and encouragement, and the referee Niel Brandt for useful comments.

This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Support through NASA grant NAG5-3249 (LTSA) is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# From cool pions to the chiral phase transition

## Abstract

Using the ideas of effective field theory and dimensional reduction, we relate the parameters of two low energy models of QCD: the $`O(N)`$ nonlinear sigma model in $`D=3+1`$, which describes the dynamics of cool pions, and the $`O(N)`$ Heisenberg magnet in $`D=3+0`$, which is commonly argued to reproduce the correct critical behaviour of the chiral phase transition. As a result, we obtain a generalized expression for the finite temperature pion decay constant which reproduces, in certain limits, the available expressions in the literature.

The thermodynamic properties of the low energy dynamics of QCD can be apropriately described in terms of different $`O(N)`$ $`\sigma `$ models, deppending on whether or not we are close to the critical temperature $`T_c150`$ Mev. At low temperatures, the only degrees of freedom which are excited are pions. One may then use the results of chiral perturbation theory, which in its lowest order (very lowest energies) is just the nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model. In fact, as first pointed out by Weinberg , a suitable effective field theory involving Goldstone fields automatically generates transition amplitudes which obey the low energy theorems of current algebra and PCAC. The interaction among the Goldstone bosons is described by an effective Lagrangian, which is invariant under global chiral transformations. Near the critical temperature, on the other hand, it has been demonstrated that the long wavelength fluctuation modes of the massless $`N_f=2`$ QCD belong to the same universality class of the $`O(4)`$ Heisenberg magnet in three spatial dimensions . The reasoning behind this proposal is based on counting the light degrees of freedom. The transition region is dominated by the longitudinal and transverse fluctuations of the order parameter, the $`\sigma `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ fields, which go soft at the transition temperature. Being bosonic, $`\sigma `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ have zero frequency Matsubara modes, $`\omega _n=0`$, which turn to be the only relevant degrees of freedom in the scaling region. The fermions themselves, even if they are massless at zero temperature, do not influence the nature of the phase transition at finite temperature.

Before proceeding, however, we should mention that although this is a very intuitive scenario, there still is some divergence concerning the nature of the critical properties of massless $`N_f=2`$ QCD. For example, when one uses lattice simulation to analyse the critical behavior of the order parameter (the $`q\overline{q}`$ condensate), for which universality arguments suggest

$$q\overline{q}\left|(TT_c)/T_c\right|^{0.38\pm 0.01},$$
(1)
one concludes that lattice data is indeed consistent with the $`O(4)`$ spin system . Conversely, when one tries to check universality arguments by looking at the behavior of global thermodynamical quantities, such as the specific heat, one finds that, while in the $`O(4)`$ spin system the singular contribution of the soft modes vanishes at the critical point, lattice data for the $`N_f=2`$ QCD actually show a huge peak in the specific heat around $`T_c`$. As pointed out by Shuriak , this certainly mean that near criticality many new degrees of freedom become available or are significantly changed. This discrepancy may be understood if we remember that, while critical correlation functions are dominated by the long wavelength fluctuation modes, global thermodynamical quantities, such as the free energy or the specific heat, receive contribution from all energy modes. In fact, in any asymptotically free theory, like QCD, the effect of raising the temperature is to populate the weakly coupled higher energy modes . In this sense, corrections to a free gas should fall with the temperature. The $`n=0`$ mode makes only a perturbatively small contribution and all other higher modes must be considered. The conclusion is that global thermodynamic quantities simply cannot be calculated using classical statistical mechanics.

In this brief report we will not enter into the above discussion but rather study further the relation between the parameters of the two effective models for the low energy dynamics of QCD, from the point of view of effective field theory and dimensional reduction. This will be done with the aid of a ($`3+1`$)-dimensional $`O(N)`$ linear $`\sigma `$ model which will serve as a link between the above two effective models. Let us begin by considering the Lagrangian density

$$(\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x))=\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \varphi ^a)^2+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\varphi ^a\varphi ^a+\frac{\lambda }{4}(\varphi ^a\varphi ^a)^2,$$
(2)
which describes the long distance properties of a Heisenberg ferromagnet, where $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)`$ is a $`N`$-component real massive scalar field playing the role of a slowly varying order parameter. In the ordered phase ($`\mu <\mu _c`$), the field has a nonvanishing expectation value

$$\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)=M^2(\mu ,\lambda )=\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda },$$
(3)
breaking spontaneously the $`O(N)`$ rotational symmetry to $`O(N1)`$ invariance. In order to consistently quantize the theory a prefered direction in the internal space must be choosen. This choice is completely arbitrary, and for our purposes it will be convenient to choose the direction of the unitary $`N`$-component field $`\widehat{\varphi }(x)\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)/|\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)|`$. This can be implemented by the following change of variables in the functional integral

$$\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)=\rho (x)\widehat{\varphi }(x),$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{\varphi }(x)\widehat{\varphi }(x)=1`$ by construction. In terms of the new variables $`\rho (x)`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }(x)`$, the functional integral becomes

$$Z=\rho ^{N1}(x)𝒟\rho (x)𝒟\widehat{\varphi }(x)e^{S(\rho ,\widehat{\varphi })},$$
(5)
with

$`S(\rho ,\widehat{\varphi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^4x\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho ^2(x)\left(_\mu \widehat{\varphi ^a}(x)\right)^2`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_\mu \rho (x)\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2\rho ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda \rho ^4\}.`$ (7)
The theory has a natural UV cutoff, namely the meson mass $`M`$ defined by (3). We can then perform integration over the $`\rho (x)`$ field in order to generate an effective local action $`S_{eff}(\widehat{\varphi })`$ for the long wavelength fluctuations of $`\widehat{\varphi }`$

$$e^{S_{eff}(\widehat{\varphi })}=\rho ^{N1}(x)𝒟\rho (x)e^{S(\rho ,\widehat{\varphi })}.$$
(8)
Although it is generally not possible to compute this integral exactly, due to the $`\rho `$ quartic self-interaction, one can nevertheless compute it perturbatively. Indeed, since $`M^2(\mu ,\lambda )=\mu ^2/\lambda `$ is the vacuum expectation value of the field $`\rho `$, we can write

$$\rho (x)=M+\rho ^{}(x),$$
(9)
where $`\rho ^{}`$ are fluctuations of the $`\rho `$ field around $`M`$. In terms of the new variable $`\rho ^{}`$ the action (7) reads

$`S(\rho ^{},\widehat{\varphi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^4x\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[M^2+2M\rho ^{}+\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}](_\mu \widehat{\varphi ^a}(x))^2`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \rho ^{}(x))^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}[M+\rho ^{}]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}[M+\rho ^{}]^4\}.`$ (11)
The zeroth order in a perturbative expansion of the above effective field theory is obtained by neglecting all $`\rho ^{}`$. As a result we obtain, after the identification $`M^2=f_\pi ^2`$, the expression

$$S_{eff}^0(\widehat{\varphi })=f_\pi ^2\mathrm{d}^4x\frac{1}{2}\left[_\mu \widehat{\varphi ^a}(x)\right]^2,$$
(12)
which is simply the action of a nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model. It must be emphasized that loop corrections coming from the $`\rho ^{}`$ integration renormalize the coeficient $`f_\pi ^2(\mu ,\lambda )`$ in front of (12) . Additional $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ interactions can be expanded in local terms, provided we are exploring momenta much smaller than any mass scale in the problem. In this sense, we conclude that the nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model completely describes the long distance properties of a Heisenberg ferromagnet at low temperature.

Let us now turn to the other extreme. Near the critical temperature it is the long wavelength fluctuation modes of QCD which dominates the scaling behavior of correlation functions. Thus, roughly speaking, at least these correlation functions should be described by statistical mechanics. In terms of the discrete frequency sum of finite temperature quantum field theory, this means that one needs to retain only the zero-frequency components of the fields. Keeping only these zero-frequency modes yields a field theory in a lower dimension with temperature dependent renormalized coupling constants. The reduced theory is an effective theory for the zero modes of the original fields and can be explicitly obtained from the original theory by integrating out the nonzero Matsubara frequencies of all fields, bosons and/or fermions.

Dimensional reduction of the $`O(N)`$ invariant linear $`\sigma `$ model was performed in , to one-loop order, using a modified minimal subtraction scheme at zero momenta and $`T_00`$. It was shown that, from the Lagrangian density (2), integration over nonstatic modes (nonzero Matsubara frequencies) give a dimensionally reduced effective free energy of the Landau-Ginzburg type for the bosonic zero mode $`\varphi _0`$, $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)=(\varphi _0(x),0,\mathrm{},0)`$,

$$F(\varphi _0)=\mathrm{d}^3𝐱\left\{\frac{1}{2}(_i\varphi _0)^2+\frac{1}{2}\mu _R^2\varphi _0^2+\frac{\lambda _RT}{4}\varphi _0^4\right\},$$
(13)
with all possible nonrenormalizable interaction terms supressed by the temperature . In the above expression, $`\mu _R`$ and $`\lambda _R`$ are the thermally renormalized mass and coupling constant given by

$$\mu _R^2=\mu ^2+(N+2)\left\{\frac{\lambda (T^2T_0^2)}{12}\frac{\lambda \mu ^2}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)\right\}$$
(14)
and

$$\lambda _R=\lambda \frac{(N+8)}{6}\frac{\lambda ^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right).$$
(15)
From the above expressions it is clear that at long distances the only effect of the nonstatic modes is to set the scale of the coupling constants to be the temeprature. The dependence of both $`\mu _R`$ and $`\lambda _R`$ on the choice of the thermal renormalization point $`T_0`$ is controlled by a homogeneous renormalization group equation

$$\left(T_0\frac{}{T_0}+\beta _{T_0}\frac{}{\lambda }+\gamma _{T_0}\mu ^2\frac{}{\mu ^2}\right)F(\varphi _0)=0,$$
(16)
with renormalization group functions

$$\beta _{T_0}=\frac{(N+8)}{6}\frac{\lambda ^2}{16\pi ^2}$$
(17)
and

$$\gamma _{T_0}=(N+2)\left[\frac{\lambda T_0^2}{12\mu ^2}+\frac{\lambda }{16\pi ^2}\right],$$
(18)
in accordance to .

Let us now define, in analogy to eq. (3), the quantity

$$f_\pi ^2(T,T_0)=\frac{\mu _R^2}{\lambda _R},$$
(19)
which relates the parameters of the two low energy models of QCD, namely $`f_\pi ^2`$ in (12) and $`\mu _R`$ and $`\lambda _R`$ in (13). It is not difficult to see that at $`T_0=0`$, and neglecting all the logarithms, expression (19) exactly reproduces the result of Bochkarev and Kapusta  for the finite temperature pion decay constant ***There should be no reason to worry about the limit $`T_0=0`$ in expressions (14) and (15). If we had adopted a renormalization prescription based on subtractions at $`T_0=0`$ the logarithms in expressions (14) and (15) would be naturaly replaced by $`\mathrm{ln}(T/\sqrt{\mu })`$ .

$$f_\pi ^2(T,T_0=0)f_\pi ^2(T)=f_\pi ^2\left[1\frac{N+2}{12}\frac{T^2}{f_\pi ^2}\right].$$
(20)
We shall now give a physical interpretation to the quantity $`f_\pi ^2(T,T_0)`$. At zero temperature, $`f_\pi 93`$ Mev and is connected to the matrix elements of the axial vector current $`𝒜_\mu `$ by $`<0|𝒜_\mu ^a|\pi ^b(p)>=if_\pi p_\mu \delta ^{ab}`$, where the upper index in $`𝒜_\mu ^a`$ is related to isospin. At finite temperatures, on the other hand, it has been recently proposed by Bochkarev and Kapusta , using standard linear response theory, that the quantity $`f_\pi ^2(T)`$ would measure the strength of the coupling of the Goldstone bosons to the longitudinal part of the axial spectral density for $`𝒜_\mu `$, in the limit of zero external momentum. Alternatively, it was further suggested in  that $`f_\pi ^2(T,0)/f_\pi ^2`$ would give the percentual of (or the probability of finding) Goldstone excitations in the ground state. For this reason, it is possible to speak about a finite temperature phase transition in the system described by (12), associated to the complete decoupling of the Goldstone bosons from the ground state, which happens at a critical temperature

$$T_c^2=\frac{12}{N+2}f_\pi ^2.$$
(21)
Following the above discussion, we are then lead to give similar interpretation for the quantity $`f_\pi ^2(T,T_0)/f_\pi ^2`$ as measuring the percentual of (or the probability of finding) Goldstone excitations between the ground state and the state corresponding to $`T_0`$. This is in fact evident from (14) and (15) from which we obtain $`f_\pi ^2(T,T_0=T)=f_\pi ^2`$, $`T`$. This trivially states that the percentual of Goldstone excitations between the ground state and the state corresponding to $`T_0=T`$ is unity (or $`100\%`$), as expected. In this sense, we conclude that expression (19) generalizes the results of  by allowing us to have access to the dynamics of the Goldstone system in a wide energy region, ranging from the ground state $`T_0=0`$ to the state corresponding to $`T_0=T`$.

Expression (19) also reveals the existence of a critical line of second order phase transitions defined by

$$f_\pi ^2(T_c,T_0)=0.$$
(22)
In fact, by solving the above equation for $`T_c`$ we obtain, neglecting all the logarigthms,

$$T_c^2(T_0)=\frac{12}{N+2}f_\pi ^2+T_0^2,$$
(23)
which is consistent with the result (21) for $`T_0=0`$. That $`T_c^2(T_0)`$ is a monotonic growing function of $`T_0`$ should not be surprising. It simply means that it is more and more likely to find excitations populating higher energy states, than in the ground state.

We have obtained an expression for the finite temperature pion decay constant which somehow generalizes the results of . We believe that our expression (19) may be useful in studies in which one is interested in computing transition amplitudes between arbitrary energy states, other than the ground state. In fact, since the pion contribution to correlation functions must depend on the probability of the system to be in a given energy state, the quantity (19) will act as a weight in computing correlation functions.

The author is indebted with A. P. C. Malbouisson and N. F. Svaiter for inumerous discussions and comments in early stages of this work. FAPERJ is also acknowledged for finantial support.


text:
# Conductivity sum rule; comparison of coherent and incoherent c-axis coupling

## Abstract

We calculate the $`c`$-axis kinetic energy difference between normal and superconducting state for coherent and for incoherent interlayer coupling between CuO2 planes. For coherent coupling the ratio of the missing conductivity spectral weight to the superfluid density is equal to one and there is no violation of the conventional sum rule, but for the incoherent case we find it is always greater than one whatever the nature of the impurity potential may be. To model more explicitly YBa2Cu3O7-x around optimum doping, which is found to obey the sum rule, we consider a plane-chain model and show that the sum rule still applies. A violation of the sum rule of either sign is found even for coherent coupling when the in-plane density of electronic states depends on energy on a scale of the order of the gap.

It has been proposed that the interlayer coupling along the $`c`$ axis of a high transition temperature $`(T_c)`$ superconductor is incoherent, and the electronic kinetic energy along the $`c`$ axis changes when the system enters the superconducting state. Recently, Basov et al. have reported that there is a significant discrepancy between the superfluid density $`\rho _s`$ and the spectral weight missing from the real part of the $`c`$-axis conductivity $`N_nN_s=8_{0^+}^{\omega _c}𝑑\omega \left[\sigma _{1c}^n(\omega )\sigma _{1c}^s(\omega )\right]`$, where $`\omega _c`$ is a cutoff frequency of the order of a bandwidth, in several high-$`T_c`$ cuprate superconductors such as optimally doped Tl2Ba2Cu6+x (Tl$`2201`$). This implies that the conventional sum rule of Ferrel, Grover and Tinkham (FGT) is violated. However, the spectral discrepancy becomes vanishing for YBa2Cu3O6.85 and disappears for the optimally doped YBa2Cu3O6.95 (YBCO) crystal with $`T_c93K`$ as the $`c`$-axis response become more coherent with increasing oxygen content. Basov et al. also pointed out that there is no such discrepancy in the in-plane response for any cuprate. Moreover, for over-doped Tl$`2201`$, the sum rule discrepancy vanishes and a Drude-like peak develops in the conductivity for $`T>T_c`$. Theses observations, therefore, suggest that for coherent interlayer coupling in the cuprate superconductors the conventional sum rule is obeyed.

In this paper, we consider both coherent and incoherent $`c`$-axis coupling between CuO2 planes. For the coherent case we find that the superfluid density remains equal to the missing optical spectral weight; in other words, it does not violate the FGT sum rule. The $`c`$-axis kinetic energies in the normal and superconducting state have the same value. For incoherent $`c`$-axis coupling the ratio of the missing area to the superfluid density is always larger than one in disagreement with some recent experiments. In YBCO the CuO chains play an important role in the electrodynamics and at the optimal doping a plane-chain model  is needed to be complete. Here we use this model to investigate the $`c`$-axis conductivity sum rule. An algebraic calculation of the electronic kinetic energies is complicated and a numerical calculation is required although it can be reduced a lot in a special case, in which only the leading order in perturbation theory is kept. This case is particularly interesting because it has been shown to exhibit a pseudogap in the $`c`$-axis conductivity. Finally, we discuss the possibility that the FGT sum rule is violated in the plane-plane case when the in-plane density of states depends on energy even for coherent case.

The Hamiltonian $`H`$ for a cuprate superconductor with coherent $`c`$-axis coupling is $`H=H_0+H_c`$, where $`H_0`$ describes a $`d`$-wave superconductor in a plane and $`H_c=_{i\sigma }t_{}\left[c_{i1\sigma }^+c_{i2\sigma }+c_{i2\sigma }^+c_{i1\sigma }\right]`$ is a coherent interlayer coupling due to the overlap of electronic wave functions which is represented by $`t_{}`$; therefore, by coherent coupling we mean a tight binding like coupling along the $`c`$ axis. It will not be necessary to treat $`t_{}`$ as a constant in what follows. It can depend on an angle in the plane. For incoherent coupling the Hamiltonian is $`H_c^{}=_{i\sigma }V_i\left[c_{i1\sigma }^+c_{i2\sigma }+c_{i2\sigma }^+c_{i1\sigma }\right]`$, where $`V_i`$ is an impurity scattering potential, so that impurity scattering mediates the $`c`$-axis hopping and an impurity average is implied.

In the presence of an external vector potential $`A_z`$, $`H_c`$ is modified to $`H_c(A_z)`$ by the phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(ieA_z)`$ for $`c_{i1\sigma }^+c_{i2\sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(ieA_z)`$ for $`c_{i2\sigma }^+c_{i1\sigma }`$. For the response to an external field, $`H_c(A_z)`$ is expanded up to second order of $`A_z`$ to obtain the current $`j_c=\delta H_c(A_z)/\delta A_z=j_p+j_d`$, where $`j_p=ied_{i\sigma }t_{}\left[c_{i1\sigma }^+c_{i2\sigma }c_{i2\sigma }^+c_{i1\sigma }\right]`$ and $`j_d=e^2d^2H_cA_z`$ with $`d`$ the interlayer spacing. In linear response theory, $`j_c=\left[\mathrm{\Pi }+e^2d^2H_c\right]A_z`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the current-current correlation function associated with $`j_p`$ and $`H_c`$ is the perturbation of $`j_d`$ due to $`H_c`$. The conductivity $`\sigma _c(𝐪,\omega )`$ is given by

$$\sigma _c(𝐪,\omega )=\frac{i}{\omega }\left[\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega )e^2d^2H_c\right].$$
(1)
In the Matsubara formalism,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega )=2(ed)^2T\underset{\omega ^{}}{}\underset{𝐤}{}t_{}^2\text{T}\text{r}\left[\widehat{\tau }_0\widehat{G}(𝐤,\omega ^{})\widehat{\tau }_0\widehat{G}(𝐤,\omega ^{}+\omega )\right],$$
(2)
and

$$H_c=2T\underset{\omega }{}\underset{𝐤}{}t_{}^2\text{T}\text{r}\left[\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}(𝐤,\omega )\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}(𝐤,\omega )\right],$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{\tau }_i`$ is the Pauli matrix in the spin space, and $`\widehat{G}(𝐤,\omega )`$ is the Green’s function in Nambu representation, namely, $`\widehat{G}(𝐤,\omega )=(i\omega \widehat{\tau }_0+\xi _𝐤\widehat{\tau }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\tau _1)/(\omega ^2+\xi _𝐤^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2)`$ wiht $`\xi _𝐤`$ the in-plane energy and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ the gap which has $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry in the cuprates.

The $`c`$-axis conductivity sum rule of the system is

$$\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \sigma _{1c}(\omega )=e^2d^2H_c.$$
(4)
We use the unit such that $`\mathrm{}=c=k_B=1`$ and set the volume of the system to be unity. From the sum rule, the superfluid density $`\rho _s`$ can be written as

$$\rho _s=8_{0^+}^{\omega _c}𝑑\omega \left[\sigma _{1c}^n(\omega )\sigma _{1c}^s(\omega )\right]4\pi e^2d^2\left[H_c^sH_c^n\right],$$
(5)
where $`\omega _c`$ is the cutoff frequency for interband transitions that $`H_c`$ does not account for.

Since the difference between the superfluid density and the missing spectral weight is proportional to the kinetic energy difference between normal and superconducting state as seen in Eq. (5), it is necessary to calculate $`H_c^sH_c^n`$ to see if the FGT sum rule is violated by coherent $`c`$-axis coupling. For the normal state,

$$H_c^n=4T\underset{\omega }{}\underset{𝐤}{}t_{}^2G_0(𝐤,\omega )^2,$$
(6)
where $`G_0(𝐤,\omega )`$ is a normal state Green’s function and $`t_{}`$ may depend on $`k_z`$ and $`\varphi =\mathrm{tan}^1(k_y/k_x)`$. We assume a cylindrical Fermi surface with $`\xi =k^2/2m\mu `$, where $`\mu `$ is a chemical potential in the plane, and a $`d`$-wave gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=\mathrm{\Delta }(T)\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _k`$. Then, we obtain

$`H_c^n`$ $`=4{\displaystyle \underset{k_z}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }t_{}^2_{\omega _c}^{\omega _c}𝑑\xi N(\xi )\frac{f(\xi )}{\xi }}`$ (8)
$`=4N(0){\displaystyle \underset{k_z}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }t_{}^2\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\omega _c}{2T})},`$
where the integration range is limited by $`\omega _c`$, and the density of states, $`N(\xi )`$, is approximated by a constant value $`N(0)`$ around the Fermi energy. Later, we will discuss the effect of $`N(\xi )`$ on $`H_c`$ and will note the possibility that the FGT sum rule may be violated even for coherent $`c`$-axis coupling. Since $`f(\xi )/\xi =\delta (\xi )`$ at zero temperature ($`T=0`$), $`H_c^n`$ turns out to be $`4N(0)_{k_z}𝑑\varphi /(2\pi )t_{}^2`$. For a superconducting state with superconducting Green’s functions $`G(𝐤,\omega )`$ and $`F(𝐤,\omega )`$,

$`H_c^s`$ $`=4T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}t_{}^2\left[G(𝐤,\omega )^2F(𝐤,\omega )^2\right]`$ (11)
$`=4T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_z}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }t_{}^2_{\omega _c}^{\omega _c}𝑑\xi N(\xi )\frac{\omega ^2\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}{(\omega ^2+\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2)^2}}`$
$`=4N(0){\displaystyle \underset{k_z}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }t_{}^2\frac{\omega _c}{\sqrt{\omega _c^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}}\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\sqrt{\omega _c^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}}{2T})}.`$
The difference between $`H_c^s`$ and $`H_c^n`$ is of the order of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }(T)/\omega _c)^2`$; therefore, coherent $`c`$-axis coupling does not violate the FGT sum rule as long as $`\omega _c>>\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ even if $`t_{}`$ depends on $`\varphi `$. Note that the difference is largest at $`T=0`$ and vanishes as $`TT_c`$.

The calculations for incoherent (impurity mediated) $`c`$-axis coupling proceed in the same way as before. Note that in this case $`j_p=ied_{i\sigma }V_i\left[c_{i1\sigma }^+c_{i2\sigma }c_{i2\sigma }^+c_{i1\sigma }\right]`$ and $`j_d=e^2d^2H_c^{}A_z`$, and an impurity configuration average is required. We derive the normalized missing spectral weight $`(N_nN_s)/\rho _s`$ under assumption of a constant density of states and show that it is greater than one.

The penetration depth $`\lambda _c`$ can be calculated in two ways. Based on the Kramers-Kronig relation for the conductivity, we obtain $`\lambda _c`$, namely, $`1/4\pi \lambda _c^2=lim_{\omega 0}[\omega \text{I}\text{m}\sigma _c(0,\omega )]`$. Alternatively, using Eq.(5) we can also calculate $`\lambda _c(=1/\sqrt{\rho _s})`$. Equate these two expressions of $`\lambda _c`$, then after integration over energy we arrive the formula as follows:

$$\frac{(N_nN_s)}{\rho _s}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\underset{\omega }{}𝑑\varphi _k𝑑\varphi _p|V(\varphi _k,\varphi _p)|^2\left[1\frac{\omega ^2}{\sqrt{\omega ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2}\sqrt{\omega ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2}}\right]}{_\omega 𝑑\varphi _k𝑑\varphi _p|V(\varphi _k,\varphi _p)|^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_k}{\sqrt{\omega ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}{\sqrt{\omega ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2}}}.$$
(12)
The second term in Eq. (12) can easily be shown to be bigger than one half whatever the angular dependence of the impurity potential $`V(\varphi _k,\varphi _p)`$ may be. Thus the normalized missing spectral weight is always greater than one. In a simple model of impurity scattering, for which $`|V(\varphi _k,\varphi _p)|^2=|V_0|^2+|V_1|^2\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _p\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _k`$, we found that $`(N_nN_s)/\rho _s1.58`$. This incoherent coupling model, therefore, does not agree with recent findings. The sum rule is one for YBCO around optimum doping indicating coherent $`c`$-axis coupling and less than one for the underdoped case. To treat YBCO around optimum doping more realistically we need to include the complications introduced by existence of the chains along the $`b`$ axis.

Penetration depth ($`\lambda _{a(b)}`$) experiments  in YBCO have shown that both $`\lambda _a`$ and $`\lambda _b`$ are linear $`T`$ at a low temperature and that a considerable amount of the condensate resides on the chains. To treat this case we need to consider a plane-chain coupling model.  We assume the hybridization of Fermi surfaces between plane and chain arising through coherent coupling. For simplicity we also assume the gap in the chain has a $`d`$-wave symmetry and its magnitude is of the order of that in the plane. The Hamiltonian for a coupled plane-chain system is $`H=_𝐤\widehat{C}_𝐤^+\widehat{h}_𝐤\widehat{C}_𝐤`$, where $`\widehat{C}_𝐤^+=(C_{1𝐤}^+,C_{1𝐤},C_{2𝐤}^+,C_{2𝐤})`$ and

$$\widehat{h}_𝐤=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\xi _{1𝐤}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{1𝐤}& t(k_z)& 0\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{1𝐤}& \xi _{1𝐤}& 0& t(k_z)\\ t(k_z)& 0& \xi _{2𝐤}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{2𝐤}\\ 0& t(k_z)& \mathrm{\Delta }_{2𝐤}& \xi _{2𝐤}\end{array}\right)$$
(13)
where $`t(k_z)=t_0\mathrm{cos}(k_zd/2)`$ for coherent coupling between plane and chain, $`\xi _{1(2)}`$ is the energy dispersion in the plane (chain), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1(2)}`$ is a gap of the plane (chain). We point out here that the conclusion we make later does not depends on the simple form of $`t(k_z)`$, and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1(2)}`$ and $`\xi _{1(2)}`$ depend only on $`k_x`$ and $`k_y`$.

The Hamiltonian of the plane-chain coupling model is also decomposed into two parts, $`H=H_0+H_c`$. $`H_0`$ is for the superconductivity in the plane-chain coupling system and its eigenvalues can be reduced to $`\pm E_\pm =\pm \sqrt{ϵ_\pm ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}`$, where $`ϵ_\pm `$ are normal state energy dispersions $`ϵ_\pm =(\xi _1+\xi _2)/2\pm \sqrt{(\xi _1\xi _2)^2/4+t(k_z)^2}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1𝐤}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{2𝐤}=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ for simplicity. Extensive work on this Hamiltonian can be found in Ref.

In order to calculate the linear response of the system to the external electromagnetic field, we modify $`H_c`$ with the phase factor mentioned before and follow the same procedure to derive the current $`j_c=j_p+j_d`$. Then, we obtain

$$j_p=\frac{edt_0}{2}\underset{𝐤}{}\mathrm{sin}(k_zd/2)\widehat{C}_𝐤^+\widehat{\sigma }_1\widehat{\tau }_0\widehat{C}_𝐤,$$
(14)
where $`d/2`$ is the distance between a plane and a chain and $`\widehat{\sigma }_1`$ is a Pauli matrix in the plane-chain space, and $`j_d=e^2(d/2)^2H_cA_z`$, where $`H_c=_𝐤t(k_z)\widehat{C}_𝐤^+\widehat{\sigma }_1\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{C}_𝐤.`$ The $`c`$-axis conductivity for $`𝐪=0`$, $`\sigma _c(0,\omega )`$, of the sysyem is also derived to be $`\sigma _c(0,\omega )=(i/\omega )\left[\mathrm{\Pi }(0,\omega )e^2(d/2)^2H_c\right]`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(0,\omega )=(edt_0/2)^2T\underset{\omega ^{}}{}\underset{𝐤}{}\mathrm{sin}^2(k_zd/2)\text{T}\text{r}\left[\widehat{\sigma }_1\widehat{\tau }_0\widehat{G}(𝐤,\omega ^{})\widehat{\sigma }_1\widehat{\tau }_0\widehat{G}(𝐤,\omega ^{}+\omega )\right],$$
(15)
and

$$H_c=t_0^2T\underset{\omega }{}\underset{𝐤}{}\mathrm{cos}^2(k_zd/2)\text{T}\text{r}\left[\widehat{\sigma }_1\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}(𝐤,\omega )\widehat{\sigma }_1\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}(𝐤,\omega )\right],$$
(16)
with $`\widehat{G}(𝐤,\tau )=𝒯[\widehat{C}_𝐤(\tau )\widehat{C}_𝐤^+(0)]`$, which is a $`(4\times 4)`$ matrix. The Green’s function $`\widehat{G}(𝐤,\omega )`$ is given by $`\widehat{G}(𝐤,\omega )=(i\omega \widehat{h}_𝐤)^1`$. We emphasize that the Hamiltonian in this model is quite different from the usual macroscopic tunneling Hamiltonian, for which, for example, $`\widehat{G}_{13}(𝐤,\tau )=𝒯[C_{1𝐤}(\tau )C_{2𝐤}^+(0)]`$ is not allowed because each layer is independent (as is the case for the previous coupling model); however, it is possible in the present model because of the hybridization through the chain between the two Fermi surfaces of plane and chain. Introducing a unitary matrix $`U`$ which diagonalizes $`\widehat{h}_𝐤`$, one can show $`\widehat{G}_{ij}(𝐤,\omega )=_{m=1}^4U_{im}U_{mj}^+/(i\omega E_m)`$, where $`E_m=\pm E_\pm `$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1𝐤}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{2𝐤}`$.

$`H_c`$ becomes complicated and the energy dispersion in the chain is quite different from that in the plane so that a numerical calculation is required to see if the difference between $`H_c^s`$ and $`H_c^n`$ is negligible. However, since $`t_0`$ in Eq. (16) is assumed small we may expand $`H_c`$ in terms of $`t_0`$ and keep only the leading order, which is $`t_0^2`$. This case includes only interband Hamiltonian but is still very interesting as it can exhibit a $`c`$-axis pseudogap. In this approximation with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1𝐤}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{2𝐤}=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ and for $`\mu ^{}=\mu `$ as a special case, $`H_c^s`$ becomes

$$H_c^s=4T\underset{\omega }{}\underset{𝐤}{}t(k_z)^2\frac{\omega ^2\xi _1\xi _2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}{(\omega ^2+\xi _1^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2)(\omega ^2+\xi _2^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2)}.$$
(17)
Note that $`H_c^s`$ in Eq. (17) is almost same as $`H_c^s`$ in Eq. (11) for the simple coherent coupling case except that now $`\xi _1\xi _2`$ and $`d/2`$ appears rather than $`d`$ in $`t(k_z)`$. One, therefore, may expect that $`\delta H_c`$ will vanish to order $`(\mathrm{\Delta }(T)/\omega _c)^2`$. It is obvious that $`\delta H_c`$ is identically zero along the nodal lines, and $`\delta H_c`$ is largest along the anti-nodal directions. Since $`\xi _1=k^2/2m\mu `$ and $`\xi _2=k_y^2/2m\mu `$, we introduce $`\xi =\xi _1`$, then $`\xi _2=\xi \mathrm{sin}(\varphi )^2\mu \mathrm{cos}(\varphi )^2`$. If $`\varphi =\pi /2`$, then $`\xi _2=\xi `$; therefore, it can be seen that $`\delta H_c_{\varphi =\pi /2}`$ is of the order of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }/\omega _c)^2`$. For $`\varphi =0`$, $`\xi _2=\mu `$ and it can be shown that

$`H_c_{\varphi =0}^s`$ $`2N(0){\displaystyle \underset{k_z}{}}t_{}^2{\displaystyle _{\omega _c}^{\omega _c}}d\xi [{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\xi ^2\mu ^2}}\mathrm{tanh}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2T}})`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{(\xi ^2\mu ^2)\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\mathrm{tanh}({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{2T}})].`$
Now, the leading order of $`\delta H_c_{\varphi =0}`$ changes to $`(\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu )^2`$. It is possible to show that for an arbitrary $`\varphi `$, as long as $`\mu `$ and $`\omega _c>>\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\delta H_c_\varphi `$ is negligible, and consequently, the FGT sum rule is not violated in the plane-chain coupling model.

In a numerical calculation for the general case without the above simplification, we have computed $`\delta H_c/H_c^s`$, which is the fractional change in kinetic energy. We have taken $`\xi _2=k_y^2/2m\mu ^{}`$ for the chain energy dispersion, where $`\mu ^{}`$ is a chemical potential in the chain. For simplicity, we also assume $`\mu ^{}=\mu `$. It has been shown that $`\mu ^{}\mu (<<\mu )`$ may correspond to the pseudogap seen in the $`c`$-axis response of over-doped YBCO; however, it makes no difference in the numerical evaluation of $`\delta H_c/H_c^s`$. We choose $`T=12K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)=20`$meV, $`t_0=2`$meV, $`\mu =500`$ meV and $`\omega _c=400`$meV. We found that $`\delta H_c/H_c^s`$ becomes more negligible as we increase the summation range of the Matsubara frequency $`\omega `$. For $`|\omega |200\pi T`$, $`\delta H_c/H_c^s8.8\times 10^3`$, and for $`|\omega |2000\pi T`$, $`\delta H_c/H_c^s5.4\times 10^3`$.

One may consider a plane-plane coupling through a chain. In order to investigate the $`c`$-axis kinetic energy for such a coupling, one needs to replace $`\xi _2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ with $`\xi _1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, respectively. For the hopping amplitude, $`t(k_z)`$ can be simply changed to $`t(k_z)^2`$ because the plane-chain and chain-plane distances are the same and equal to $`d/2`$. Then, one can algebraically show that $`\delta H_c`$ is as negligible as before. It is also possible to see that $`\delta H_c`$ has a symmetry with respect to $`\xi _1\xi _2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$; in other words, $`\delta H_c`$ for the chain-plane coupling is the same as that for the plane-chain coupling. Therefore, it implies that $`\delta H_c`$ along the $`c`$ axis is conserved for coherent coupling.

So far we have taken the density of states as a constant: $`N(\xi )=N(0)`$ $`(\omega _c\xi \omega _c)`$ and concluded that the difference of the $`c`$-axis electronic kinetic energies between normal and supercondcuting state is negligible. Now we would like to consider the effect of $`N(\xi )`$ on the sum rule when it is a function of $`\xi `$ to illustrate possible changes. If it varies strongly with $`\xi `$, it clearly cannot be approximated by $`N(0)`$. We taylor-expand $`N(\xi )`$ up to $`\xi ^2`$ near $`\xi =0`$. Then, $`N(\xi )=N(0)+\xi N(\xi )/\xi |_0+(\xi /2)^2^2N(\xi )/\xi ^2|_0`$. At $`T=0`$, $`H_c^n`$ of Eq. (8) does not change; however, Eq. (11) for $`H_c^s`$ changes due to $`(\xi /2)^2N\mathrm{"}(0)`$, where $`N\mathrm{"}(0)=^2N(\xi )/\xi ^2|_0`$. Assuming $`t_{}`$ in Eqs. (8) and (11) does not depend on $`\varphi `$, we obtain

$$\delta H_c/H_c^n(8N(0))^1N\mathrm{"}(0)\mathrm{\Delta }(0)^2\mathrm{ln}(\omega _c/\mathrm{\Delta }(0)).$$
(20)
Note that this correction can have either sign depending on the sign of the second derivative. For $`N\mathrm{"}(0)/N(0)1/\omega _c^2`$, $`\delta H_c/H_c^nx^{1.65}`$, where $`x=\omega _c/\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$, because $`\mathrm{ln}(x)/x^2x^{1.65}`$ when $`x>>1`$. If $`N\mathrm{"}(0)/N(0)1/(\mathrm{\Delta }(0)\omega _c)`$, then $`\delta H_c/H_c^nx^{0.65}`$; thus, $`\delta H_c`$ is considerable. For this to be the case $`N\mathrm{"}(0)`$ needs to exhibit variation on an energy scale of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ rather than $`\omega _c`$. In a realistic model a Taylor expansion about $`\xi =0`$ may not be accurate but our calculations serve to illustrate the main point. Violation of the FGT sum rule of either sign can result from an energy dependence in the in-plane electronic density of states $`N(\xi )`$. The exact amount depends on details and cannot be known without a specific knowledge of the band structure involved. In-plane dynamics gets reflected in $`c`$-axis properties.

For coherent interlayer coupling between CuO2 planes the superfluid density is equal to the missing optical weight; the FGT sum rule is satisfied. This applies even in more realistic model for YBCO around optimum doping such as the plane-chain model with two atoms per unit cell. On the other hand incoherent $`c`$-axis coupling mediated through impurity scattering gives a sum rule which is always larger than one and is in disagreement with experiment. To get the sum rule to be less than one as is observed in underdoped YBCO and other systems such as optimally doped Tl2201, it may be necessary to go to more exotic non-Fermi liquid pseudogap model for the in-plane motion as discussed recently by Ioffe and Millis. Their arguments however do not apply to optimally doped Tl2201 because this system does not show a pseudogap. Their pseudogap argument that leads to the cancellation of $`G(𝐤,\omega )`$ and $`G_0(𝐤,\omega )`$ contribution to the ratio of missing area to superfluid density making it one half instead of one for the preformed pair model was made for coherent c-axis coupling, but we find it also applies to the incoherent case. Another interesting model for the in-plane dynamics is the ”mode” model of Norman et al. introduced from consideration of ARPES data. In more conventional models a sum rule violation of either sign can also be obtained if there is a strong energy dependence to the density of states near the Fermi surface on the scale of a few times the gap.

W.K. is grateful to N. D. Whelan and C. Kallin for useful discussions and J.P.C. to D. Basov for discussions. This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIAR).