text:
# References

1. The quotient conditions.

The $`P_{}=N/R`$ sector of the discrete light–cone quantization of uncompactified M–theory is given by the supersymmetric quantum mechanics of $`U(N)`$ matrices. In temporal gauge, the action reads

$$S=\frac{1}{2R}𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left(\dot{X}^\mu \dot{X}_\mu +\underset{\mu >\nu }{}[X^\mu ,X^\nu ]^2+i\mathrm{\Theta }^T\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Theta }^T\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu [X^\mu ,\mathrm{\Theta }]\right),$$
(1)
where $`\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{},9`$. The compactification of M(atrix) theory  as a model for M–theory  has been studied in . In  it has been treated using noncommutative geometry . These investigations apply to the $`d`$–dimensional torus $`T^d`$, and have been further dealt with from various viewpoints in . These structures are also relevant in noncommutative string and gauge theories . Let $`e_{ij}`$, $`i,j=1,2`$, generate a 2-dimensional lattice in $`R^2`$. In compactifying M(atrix) theory on the torus $`T^2`$ determined by this lattice one introduces unitary operators $`𝒰_1`$ and $`𝒰_2`$, defined on the covering space $`R^2`$ of $`T^2`$, such that

$`𝒰_i^1X_j𝒰_i`$ $`=`$ $`X_j+2\pi e_{ij},i,j=1,2,`$ (2)
$`𝒰_i^1X_a𝒰_i`$ $`=`$ $`X_a,a=3,\mathrm{},9`$ (3)
$`𝒰_i^1\mathrm{\Theta }𝒰_i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }.`$ (4)
By consistency the operators $`𝒰_1`$ and $`𝒰_2`$ commute, up to a constant phase:

$$𝒰_1𝒰_2=e^{2\pi i\theta }𝒰_2𝒰_1.$$
(5)
In this paper we extend Eqs.(4)(5) to the case of compact Riemann surfaces of genus $`g>1`$. This is a first step towards the compactification of M(atrix) theory on a Riemann surface. The explicit solutions and their supersymmetry properties will be considered elsewhere.

A Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of genus $`g>1`$ is constructed as the quotient $`H/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`H`$ is the upper half–plane, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, is a Fuchsian group acting on $`H`$ as

$$\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ c\end{array}\begin{array}{cc}b& \\ d& \end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma },\gamma z=\frac{az+b}{cz+d}.$$
(6)
In the absence of elliptic and parabolic generators, the $`2g`$ Fuchsian generators $`\gamma _j`$ satisfy

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(\gamma _{2j1}\gamma _{2j}\gamma _{2j1}^1\gamma _{2j}^1\right)=I.$$
(7)
Inspired by M(atrix) theory, let us promote the complex coordinate $`z=x+iy`$ to an $`N\times N`$ complex matrix $`Z=X+iY`$, with $`X=X^{}`$ and $`Y=Y^{}`$. This would suggest defining fractional linear transformations of $`Z`$ through conjugation $`𝒰Z𝒰^1=(aZ+bI)(cZ+dI)^1`$. However, taking the trace we see that this construction cannot be implemented for finite $`N`$. Thus we will consider some suitable modification. For the moment note that requiring the $`𝒰_k`$ to represent the $`\gamma _k`$ gives

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(𝒰_{2k1}𝒰_{2k}𝒰_{2k1}^1𝒰_{2k}^1\right)=e^{2\pi i\theta }I,$$
(8)
which generalizes the relation of the noncommutative torus (5).

2. The noncommutative torus revisited.

In order to compactify in higher genus it is necessary to extract some general guidelines from the case of the torus. In $`g=1`$ the fundamental group is Abelian. This implies that the associated differential generators commute, i.e. $`[_1,_2]=0`$, so it makes sense to apply the Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff (BCH) formula when computing the phase $`e^{2\pi i\theta }`$. On the contrary, the fundamental group of negatively curved Riemann surfaces is nonabelian, and the BCH formula is not useful. The derivation of the phase in $`g=1`$ by means of techniques alternative to the BCH formula will be the key point to solving the problem in $`g>1`$.

Mimicking the case of $`g=1`$, one expects the building blocks for the solution to the quotient conditions in $`g>1`$ to have the form $`e^{_n_n^{}}`$ or $`e^{i(_n+_n^{})}`$, for some gauged $`\mathrm{sl}_2(R)`$ operators $`_n`$ to be determined. We will show that finding such $`_n`$ is closely connected with the computation of the phase without using the BCH formula. In $`g=1`$ the BCH formula is useful, as the commutator between covariant derivatives can be a constant. On the contrary, in $`g>1`$, the $`_n`$ will be a sort of gauged $`\mathrm{sl}_2(R)`$ generators, and $`[_n,_m]`$ can never be a c–number.

The solution to the quotient conditions in $`g=1`$ is expressed in terms of the exponential of covariant derivatives $`_k`$, $`k=1,2`$, so apparently we should use both $`e^{_n_n^{}}`$ and $`e^{i(_n+_n^{})}`$ when passing to $`g>1`$. While the exponential $`e^_k`$ will generate translations, the operator $`e^{_n_n^{}}`$ will produce $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$ transformations. As the latter are real, we are forced to discard $`e^{i(_n+_n^{})}`$ and to use $`e^{_n_n^{}}`$ only. This fact is strictly related to the nonabelian nature of the group $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

Let us consider the operators

$$𝒰_k=e^{\lambda _k(_k+iA_k)},\lambda _kR,k=1,2,$$
(9)
We also introduce the functions $`F_k(x_1,x_2)`$ defined by

$$𝒰_k=F_ke^{\lambda _k_k}F_k^1,k=1,2.$$
(10)
The identity $`Af(B)A^1=f(ABA^1)`$ and Eq.(10) give $`(_k+iA_k)F_k=0`$. Also note that $`e^{\lambda _k_k}F_k^1(\{x_k\})=F_k^1(\{x_j+\delta _{jk}\lambda _k\})e^{\lambda _k_k}`$. Therefore, defining $`G_k(x_1,x_2)`$ by

$$𝒰_k=G_ke^{\lambda _k_k},k=1,2,$$
(11)
we conclude that

$$F_k(\{x_j+\delta _{jk}\lambda _k\})=G_k^1(\{x_j\})F_k(\{x_j\}).$$
(12)
The unitary operators $`𝒰_k`$ can be used to derive the phase of Eq.(5). First we note that pulling the derivatives to the right we get

$$𝒰_1𝒰_2𝒰_1^1𝒰_2^1=F_1e^{\lambda _1_1}F_1^1F_2e^{\lambda _2_2}F_2^1F_1e^{\lambda _1_1}F_1^1F_2e^{\lambda _2_2}F_2^1$$

$$=F_1(x_1,x_2)F_1^1(x_1+\lambda _1,x_2)F_2(x_1+\lambda _1,x_2)F_2^1(x_1+\lambda _1,x_2+\lambda _2)$$

$$\times F_1(x_1+\lambda _1,x_2+\lambda _2)F_1^1(x_1,x_2+\lambda _2)F_2(x_1,x_2+\lambda _2)F_2^1(x_1,x_2).$$
(13)
Let us consider the curvature of $`A=A_1dx_1+A_2dx_2`$

$$F=dA=(_1A_2_2A_1)dx_1dx_2=F_{12}dx_1dx_2.$$
(14)
The constant–curvature connection is the unique possible choice to get a constant phase, so we set $`F_{12}=2\pi \theta `$. To be explicit we pick the gauge $`A_1=\pi \theta x_2`$, $`A_2=\pi \theta x_1`$, so that $`𝒰_1=e^{i\pi \lambda _1\theta x_2}e^{\lambda _1_1}`$, $`𝒰_2=e^{i\pi \lambda _2\theta x_1}e^{\lambda _2_2}`$, and

$$G_1=e^{i\pi \lambda _1\theta x_2}=e^{i\lambda _1A_1},G_2=e^{i\pi \lambda _2\theta x_1}=e^{i\lambda _2A_2},$$
(15)
so Eq.(12) reads

$$F_1(x_1+\lambda _1,x_2)=e^{i\pi \lambda _1\theta x_2}F_1(x_1,x_2),F_2(x_1,x_2+\lambda _2)=e^{i\pi \lambda _2\theta x_1}F_2(x_1,x_2).$$
(16)
The solution is $`F_1=e^{i\pi \theta x_1x_2}f_1(x_2)`$, $`F_2=e^{i\pi \theta x_1x_2}f_2(x_1)`$, with $`f_1`$ ($`f_2`$) an arbitrary function of $`x_2`$ ($`x_1`$). Substituting this into (13) we get Eq.(5), as we would using BCH.

From (11)(15) one would understand that the connection in (9) can be simply pulled to the left. However, this is the case only if one chooses a particular gauge, as in general we have $`e^{\lambda _k(_k+iA_k)}e^{i\lambda _kA_k}e^{\lambda _k_k}`$. Indeed, under the gauge transformation $`A_kA_k+_k\chi `$, we have

$$e^{\lambda _k(_k+iA_k+i_k\chi )}=e^{i\chi }e^{\lambda _k(_k+iA_k)}e^{i\chi }=e^{i\chi (\{x_j+\delta _{jk}\lambda _j\})i\chi (\{x_j\})}e^{\lambda _k(_k+iA_k)},$$
(17)
whereas under a gauge transformation, $`e^{i\lambda _kA_k}e^{\lambda _k_k}`$ is multiplied by $`e^{i\lambda _k\chi (\{x_j\})}`$. It is easily seen that the correct expression is

$$e^{\lambda _k(_k+iA_k)}=e^{i_{x_k}^{x_k+\lambda _k}𝑑a_kA_k}e^{\lambda _k_k},$$
(18)
where in the integrand one has $`A_1(a_1,x_2)`$ if $`k=1`$ and $`A_2(x_1,a_2)`$ if $`k=2`$. In (18) we used a shorthand notation; the integration limits should be written more precisely as $`_{\{x_j\}}^{\{x_j+\delta _{jk}\lambda _j\}}`$. In particular, the contour is easily recognized as the path joining $`x_k`$ and $`x_k+\lambda _k`$ along the line with $`x_{jk}`$ fixed. Since on the torus we can choose the zero curvature metric, straight lines correspond to geodesics of the metric. Thus, the above contour is the geodesic joining $`\{x_j\}`$ with $`\{x_j+\delta _{jk}\lambda _k\}`$. A direct check of Eq.(18) is that

$$e^{\lambda _k(_k+iA_k)}=e^{i_{x_k^0}^{x_k}𝑑a_kA_k}e^{\lambda _k_k}e^{i_{x_k^0}^{x_k}𝑑a_kA_k}=e^{i_{x_k}^{x_k+\lambda _k}𝑑a_kA_k}e^{\lambda _k_k},$$
(19)
where we used the property that $`_k_{x_{k0}}^{x_k}𝑑a_kA_k=A_k(x_1,x_2)`$. This is a distinguished feature due to the flatness of the torus that does not hold in $`g>1`$. However, we redefine the contour integral for the torus in a way which easily generalizes to higher genus, namely,

The contour integral is along the geodesic, with respect to the constant curvature metric, joining the points with coordinates $`\{x_j\}`$ and $`\{x_j+\delta _{jk}\lambda _k\}`$.

Due to the fact that along the integration contour either $`dx_1=0`$ or $`dx_2=0`$, we can replace $`da_kA_k`$ with $`A`$:

$$𝒰_k=e^{\lambda _k(_k+iA_k)}=e^{i_{x_k^0}^{x_k}A}e^{\lambda _k_k}e^{i_{x_k^0}^{x_k}A}=e^{i_{x_k}^{x_k+\lambda _k}A}e^{\lambda _k_k},$$
(20)
so that $`F_k=e^{i_{x_k^0}^{x_k}A}`$. Even if on the torus the $`F_k`$ are not essential, we introduced them as their higher–genus analog will lead to a new class of functions. By Stokes’ theorem

$$𝒰_1𝒰_2𝒰_1^1𝒰_2^1=$$

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[i_{(x_1,x_2)}^{(x_1+\lambda _1,x_2)}A+i_{(x_1+\lambda _1,x_2)}^{(x_1+\lambda _1,x_2+\lambda _2)}A+i_{(x_1+\lambda _1,x_2+\lambda _2)}^{(x_1,x_2+\lambda _2)}A+i_{(x_1,x_2+\lambda _2)}^{(x_1,x_2)}A\right]$$

$$=\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{}A\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{}F\right)=e^{2\pi i\lambda _1\lambda _2\theta },$$
(21)
where $``$ is a fundamental domain for the torus. Note that $`\lambda _1\lambda _2`$ is the area of the torus. Normalizing the area to $`1`$, we get Eq.(5).

We now show that the only possible connection leading to a constant value of $`_{}A`$ is the one with constant curvature. In order to denote the dependence on the basepoint of the domain we use the notation $`_{x_1x_2}`$. Independence from $`(x_1,x_2)`$ means that

$$_{_{x_1x_2}}F=_{_{x_1^{}x_2^{}}}F,$$
(22)
for any $`(x_1^{},x_2^{})R^2`$. Any point in $`R^2`$ can be obtained by a translation $`(x_1,x_2)(x_1^{},x_2^{})=\mu (x_1,x_2)(x_1+b_1,x_2+b_2)`$. Noticing that $`_{x_1^{}x_2^{}}=\mu _{x_1x_2}`$, we see that Eq.(22) is satisfied only if the curvature two–form $`F`$ is invariant under arbitrary translations of $`(x_1,x_2)`$. This fixes $`F`$ to be a constant two–form.

The above investigation captures the essence of the construction in $`g=1`$, somehow extracting it from its specific context. This is very useful to reformulate the problem of deriving a projective unitary representation of the fundamental group of a class of manifolds which is much more general than the torus. We can say that in order to get a projective unitary representation of the fundamental group of a given manifold $``$ by means of operators acting on the space $`L^2()`$, we should consider the previous well–defined guidelines.

3. Projective unitary representation of $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ on $`L^2(H)`$.

We now apply the above general analysis to the case of higher genus Riemann surfaces. We start by first considering a unitary representation of $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ realized on $`L^2(H)`$ (the analog of $`e^{\lambda _k_k}`$). For $`n=1,0,1`$ and $`e_n(z)=z^{n+1}`$ let us set $`\mathrm{}_n=e_n(z)_z`$. Define

$$L_n=e_n^{1/2}\mathrm{}_ne_n^{1/2}=e_n\left(_z+\frac{1}{2}\frac{e_n^{}}{e_n}\right).$$
(23)
They satisfy the $`\mathrm{sl}_2(R)`$ algebra

$$[L_m,L_n]=(nm)L_{m+n},[\overline{L}_m,L_n]=0,[L_n,f]=z^{n+1}_zf.$$
(24)
For $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},2g`$, consider the operators

$$T_k=e^{\lambda _1^{(k)}(L_1+\overline{L}_1)}e^{\lambda _0^{(k)}(L_0+\overline{L}_0)}e^{\lambda _1^{(k)}(L_1+\overline{L}_1)},$$
(25)
with the $`\lambda _n^{(k)}`$ picked such that

$$T_kzT_k^1=\gamma _kz=\frac{a_kz+b_k}{c_kz+d_k},$$
(26)
so that by (7)

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(T_{2k1}T_{2k}T_{2k1}^1T_{2k}^1\right)=I.$$
(27)
On $`L^2(H)`$ we have the scalar product $`\varphi |\psi =_H𝑑\nu \overline{\varphi }\psi `$, with $`d\nu (z)=idzd\overline{z}/2=dxdy`$. One can check that the $`T_k`$ provide a unitary representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

For any function $`F`$ satisfying $`|F|=1`$, we define the operators

$$_n^{(F)}=F(z,\overline{z})L_nF^1(z,\overline{z})=e_n\left(_z+\frac{1}{2}\frac{e_n^{}}{e_n}_z\mathrm{ln}F(z,\overline{z})\right),$$
(28)
which also satisfy the algebra (24). Its adjoint is given by

$$_n^{(F)}=F\overline{e_n^{1/2}}_{\overline{z}}\overline{e_n^{1/2}}F^1=\overline{}_n^{(F^1)}.$$
(29)
We now observe that the operators

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{(F)}=_n^{(F)}_n^{(F)}=_n^{(F)}+\overline{}_n^{(F^1)},$$
(30)
enjoy the fundamental property that both their chiral components are gauged in the same way by the function $`F`$, that is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{(F)}=F(L_n+\overline{L}_n)F^1,$$
(31)
while also satisfying the $`\mathrm{sl}_2(R)`$ algebra:

$$[\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^{(F)},\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{(F)}]=(nm)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+n}^{(F)},[\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{(F)},f]=(z^{n+1}_z+\overline{z}^{n+1}_{\overline{z}})f.$$
(32)
Furthermore, since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{(F)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{(F)}`$, the operators $`e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{(F)}}=Fe^{L_n+\overline{L}_n}F^1`$ are unitary.

Let $`b`$ be a real number, and $`A`$ a Hermitean connection to be identified presently. Set

$$𝒰_k=e^{ib_z^{\gamma _kz}A}T_k,$$
(33)
where the integration contour is taken to be the Poincaré geodesic connecting $`z`$ and $`\gamma _kz`$. As the gauging functions introduced in (28) we will take the $`F_k(z,\overline{z})`$ solutions of the equation $`F_kT_kF_k^1=e^{ib_z^{\gamma _kz}A}T_k`$, that is

$$F_k(\gamma _kz,\gamma _k\overline{z})=e^{ib_z^{\gamma _kz}A}F_k(z,\overline{z}).$$
(34)
With the choice (34) for $`F_k`$, (31) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,k}^{(F)}=F_k(L_n+\overline{L}_n)F_k^1=z^{n+1}\left(_z+\frac{n+1}{2z}_z\mathrm{ln}F_k\right)+\overline{z}^{n+1}\left(_{\overline{z}}+\frac{n+1}{2\overline{z}}_{\overline{z}}\mathrm{ln}F_k\right).$$
(35)
The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,k}^{(F)}`$ satisfy the algebra

$$[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m,j}^{(F)},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,k}^{(F)}]=(nm)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+n,j}^{(F)}+F_k^1|e_n|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,k}^{(F)}|e_n|^1F_kF_j^1|e_m|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m,j}^{(F)}|e_m|^1F_j(\mathrm{ln}F_j\mathrm{ln}F_k),$$

$$[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,k}^{(F)},f]=(z^{n+1}_z+\overline{z}^{n+1}_{\overline{z}})f.$$
(36)
Upon exponentiating $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,k}^{(F)}`$ one finds

$$𝒰_k=e^{\lambda _1^{(k)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,k}^{(F)}}e^{\lambda _0^{(k)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0,k}^{(F)}}e^{\lambda _1^{(k)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,k}^{(F)}},$$
(37)
that is, the $`𝒰_k`$ are unitary, and

$$𝒰_k^1=T_k^1e^{ib_z^{\gamma _kz}A}=e^{ib_{\gamma _k^1z}^zA}T_k^1.$$
(38)
It is immediate to see that the $`𝒰_k`$ defined in (33) satisfy (8) for a certain value of $`\theta `$:111The differential representation of $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$ acts in reverse order with respect to the one by matrices.

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(𝒰_{2k1}𝒰_{2k}𝒰_{2k1}^{}𝒰_{2k}^{}\right)=e^{ib_z^{\gamma _1z}A}T_1e^{ib_z^{\gamma _2z}A}T_2e^{ib_{\gamma _1^1z}^zA}T_1^1e^{ib_{\gamma _2^1z}^zA}T_2^1\mathrm{}$$

$$=\mathrm{exp}\left[ib\left(_z^{\gamma _1z}+_{\gamma _1z}^{\gamma _2\gamma _1z}+_{\gamma _2\gamma _1z}^{\gamma _1^1\gamma _2\gamma _1z}+_{\gamma _1^1\gamma _2\gamma _1z}^{\gamma _2^1\gamma _1^1\gamma _2\gamma _1z}+\mathrm{}\right)A\right]\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(T_{2k1}T_{2k}T_{2k1}^1T_{2k}^1\right)$$

$$=e^{ib__zA},$$
(39)
where $`_z=\{z,\gamma _1z,\gamma _2\gamma _1z,\gamma _1^1\gamma _2\gamma _1z,\mathrm{}\}`$ is a fundamental domain for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The basepoint $`z`$, plus the action of the Fuchsian generators on it, determine $`_z`$, as the vertices are joined by geodesics.

For (39) to provide a projective unitary representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`__z𝑑A`$ should be $`z`$–independent. Changing $`z`$ to $`z^{}`$ can be expressed as $`zz^{}=\mu z`$ for some $`\mu \mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$. Then $`_z_{\mu z}=\{\mu z,\gamma _1\mu z,\gamma _2\gamma _1\mu z,\gamma _1^1\gamma _2\gamma _1\mu z,\mathrm{}\}`$. Now consider $`_z\mu _z=\{\mu z,\mu \gamma _1z,\mu \gamma _2\gamma _1z,\mu \gamma _1^1\gamma _2\gamma _1z,\mathrm{}\}`$. The congruence $`\mu _z_{\mu z}`$ follows from two facts: that the vertices are joined by geodesics, and that $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$ maps geodesics into geodesics. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is defined up to conjugation, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }\mu ^1`$, if $`\mu _z`$ is a fundamental domain, so is $`_{\mu z}`$. Thus, to have $`z`$–independence we need $`\mu \mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$

$$__z𝑑A=_{_{\mu z}}𝑑A=_{\mu _z}𝑑A=_{}𝑑A.$$
(40)
This fixes the (1,1)–form $`dA`$ to be $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$–invariant. It is well known that the Poincaré form is the unique $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$–invariant (1,1)–form, up to an overall constant factor. This is a particular case of a more general fact . The Poincaré metric $`ds^2=y^2|dz|^2=2g_{z\overline{z}}|dz|^2=e^\phi |dz|^2`$ has curvature $`R=g^{z\overline{z}}_z_{\overline{z}}\mathrm{ln}g_{z\overline{z}}=1`$, so that $`_{}𝑑\nu e^\phi =2\pi \chi (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, where $`\chi (\mathrm{\Sigma })=22g`$ is the Euler characteristic. As the Poincaré (1,1)–form is $`dA=e^\phi d\nu `$, this uniquely determines the gauge field to be

$$A=A_zdz+A_{\overline{z}}d\overline{z}=\frac{dx}{y},$$
(41)
modulo gauge transformations. Using $`_{}A=_{}𝑑A`$ we finally have that (39) becomes

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(𝒰_{2k1}𝒰_{2k}𝒰_{2k1}^{}𝒰_{2k}^{}\right)=e^{2\pi ib\chi (\mathrm{\Sigma })}.$$
(42)
4. Nonabelian gauge fields.

Up to now we considered the case in which the connection is Abelian. However, it is easy to extend our construction to the nonabelian case in which the gauge group $`U(1)`$ is replaced by $`U(N)`$. The operators $`𝒰_k`$ now become

$$𝒰_k=Pe^{ib_z^{\gamma _kz}A}T_k,$$
(43)
where the $`T_k`$ are the same as before, times the $`N\times N`$ identity matrix. Eq.(39) is replaced by

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(𝒰_{2k1}𝒰_{2k}𝒰_{2k1}^{}𝒰_{2k}^{}\right)=Pe^{ib__zA}.$$
(44)
Given an integral along a closed contour $`\sigma _z`$ with basepoint $`z`$, the path–ordered exponentials for a connection $`A`$ and its gauge transform $`A^U=U^1AU+U^1dU`$ are related by

$$Pe^{i_{\sigma _z}A}=U(z)Pe^{i_{\sigma _z}A^U}U^1(z)=U(z)Pe^{i_{\sigma _z}𝑑\sigma ^\mu _0^1𝑑ss\sigma ^\nu U^1(s\sigma )F_{\nu \mu }(s\sigma )U(s\sigma )}U^1(z).$$
(45)
Applying this to (44), we see that the only possibility to get a coordinate–independent phase is for the curvature (1,1)–form $`F=dA+[A,A]/2`$ to be the identity matrix in the gauge indices times a (1,1)–form $`\eta `$, that is $`F=\eta I`$. It follows that

$$Pe^{ib_{}A}=e^{ib_{}F}.$$
(46)
This is only a necessary condition for coordinate–independence. However, this is the same as the Abelian case so that $`\eta `$ should be proportional to the Poincaré (1,1)–form.

Denoting by $`E`$ the vector bundle on which $`A`$ is defined, we have $`k=\mathrm{deg}(E)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{tr}_{}F`$. Set $`\mu (E)=k/N`$ so that $`_{}F=2\pi \mu (E)I`$ and $`\eta =\frac{\mu (E)}{\chi (\mathrm{\Sigma })}e^\phi d\nu `$, i.e.

$$F=2\pi \mu (E)\omega I,$$
(47)
where $`\omega =\left(e^\phi /_{}𝑑\nu e^\phi \right)d\nu `$. Thus, by (46) we have that Eq.(44) becomes

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(𝒰_{2k1}𝒰_{2k}𝒰_{2k1}^{}𝒰_{2k}^{}\right)=e^{2\pi ib\mu (E)}I,$$
(48)
which provides a projective unitary representation of $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ on $`L^2(H,C^N)`$.

5. Hochschild cohomology and gauge lengths.

A basic object is the gauge length function $`d_A(z,w)=_z^wA`$, where the contour integral is along the Poincaré geodesic connecting $`z`$ and $`w`$. In the Abelian case

$$d_A(z,w)=_{\mathrm{Re}z}^{\mathrm{Re}w}\frac{dx}{y}=i\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z\overline{w}}{w\overline{z}}\right),$$
(49)
which is equal to the angle $`\alpha _{zw}`$ spanned by the arc of geodesic connecting $`z`$ and $`w`$. Observe that the gauge length of the geodesic connecting two punctures, i.e. two points on the real line, is $`\pi `$. This is to be compared with the usual divergence of the Poincaré distance. Under a $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$–transformation $`\mu `$, we have ($`\mu _x_x\mu x`$)

$$d_A(\mu z,\mu w)=d_A(z,w)\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu _z\overline{\mu }_w}{\overline{\mu }_z\mu _w}\right).$$
(50)
Therefore, the gauge length of an $`n`$–gon

$$d_A^{(n)}(\{z_k\})=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_A(z_k,z_{k+1})=\pi (n2)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _k,$$
(51)
where $`z_{n+1}z_1`$, $`n3`$, and $`\alpha _k`$ are the internal angles, is $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$–invariant.

We now show that the length of the triangle is proportional to the Hochschild 2–cocycle of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The Fuchsian generators $`\gamma _k\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are projectively represented by means of unitary operators $`𝒰_k`$ acting on $`L^2(H)`$. The product $`\gamma _k\gamma _j`$ is represented by $`𝒰_{jk}`$, which equals $`𝒰_j𝒰_k`$ up to a phase:

$$𝒰_j𝒰_k=e^{2\pi i\theta (j,k)}𝒰_{jk}.$$
(52)
Associativity implies

$$\theta (j,k)+\theta (jk,l)=\theta (j,kl)+\theta (k,l).$$
(53)
We can easily determine $`\theta (j,k)`$:

$$𝒰_j𝒰_k=\mathrm{exp}\left(ib_z^{\gamma _jz}A+ib_{\gamma _jz}^{\gamma _k\gamma _jz}Aib_z^{\gamma _k\gamma _jz}A\right)𝒰_{jk}=\mathrm{exp}\left(ib_{\tau _{jk}}A\right)𝒰_{jk},$$
(54)
where $`\tau _{jk}`$ denotes the geodesic triangle with vertices $`z`$, $`\gamma _jz`$ and $`\gamma _k\gamma _jz`$. This identifies $`\theta (j,k)`$ as the gauge length of the perimeter of the geodesic triangle $`\tau _{jk}`$ times $`b/2\pi `$. By Stokes’ theorem this is the Poincaré area of the triangle. One can check that $`\theta (j,k)`$ in fact satisfies (53). This phase has been considered in different contexts, such as the quantum Hall effect on $`H`$  and Berezin’s quantization of $`H`$ and Von Neumann algebras .

The information on the compactification of M(atrix) theory is encoded in the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`H`$, plus a projective representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The latter amounts to the choice of a phase. Physically inequivalent choices of $`\theta (j,k)`$ turn out to be in one–to–one correspondence with elements in the 2nd Hochschild cohomology group of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which is $`U(1)`$. Hence $`\theta =b\chi (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is the unique parameter for this compactification ($`\theta =b\mu (E)`$ in the general case).

The Poincaré metric is $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$ invariant whereas $`A`$ is not. So the equality $`_{}A=_{}F`$ should be a consequence of the fact that the variation of $`A`$ under a $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$ transformation, $`z\mu z=(az+b)/(cz+d)`$, corresponds to a total derivative. In fact we have

$$\mathrm{PSL}_2(R):Ai\frac{d\mu z+d\mu \overline{z}}{\mu z\mu \overline{z}}=Ai_z\mathrm{ln}(cz+d)dz+i_{\overline{z}}\mathrm{ln}(c\overline{z}+d)d\overline{z}.$$
(55)
Since $`cz+d`$ has no zeroes, we have that $`\mathrm{ln}(cz+d)`$ is a genuine function on $`H`$. It follows that $`i_z\mathrm{ln}(cz+d)dz+i_{\overline{z}}\mathrm{ln}(c\overline{z}+d)d\overline{z}`$, can be written as an external derivative so that Eq.(55) becomes

$$\mathrm{PSL}_2(R):AA+d\mathrm{ln}(\mu _z/\overline{\mu }_z)^{\frac{i}{2}},$$
(56)
where $`\mu _z_z\mu z`$. So a $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$–transformation of $`A`$ is equivalent to a gauge transformation. Under $`AA+d\chi `$ we have $`_z^wA_z^wA+\chi (w)\chi (z)`$, which for $`\chi (z)=\mathrm{ln}(\mu _z/\overline{\mu }_z)^{\frac{i}{2}}`$, becomes

$$_z^wA_z^wA+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\overline{\mu }_z\mu _w}{\mu _z\overline{\mu }_w}.$$
(57)
6. Preautomorphic forms.

Another reason why the gauge–length function is important is that it also appears in the definition (34) of the $`F_k`$. The latter functions, which apparently never appeared in the literature before, are of particular interest. By (34) and (49),

$$F_k(\gamma _kz,\gamma _k\overline{z})=\left(\frac{\gamma _kz\overline{z}}{z\gamma _k\overline{z}}\right)^bF_k(z,\overline{z}).$$
(58)
Since under a $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(R)`$ transformation the factor $`(w\overline{z})/(z\overline{w})`$ gets transformed by a factor which is typical of automorphic forms, we call the $`F_k`$ preautomorphic forms. Eq.(34) indicates that finding the most general solution to (58) is a problem in geodesic analysis. In the case of the inversion $`\gamma _kz=1/z`$ and $`b`$ an even integer, a solution to (58) is $`F_k=\left(z/\overline{z}\right)^{\frac{b}{2}}`$. By (49) $`F_k=\left(z/\overline{z}\right)^{\frac{b}{2}}`$ is related to the $`A`$–length of the geodesic connecting $`z`$ and $`0`$:

$$e^{\frac{i}{2}b_z^0A}=F_k(z,\overline{z})=\left(\frac{z}{\overline{z}}\right)^{\frac{b}{2}}.$$
(59)
An interesting formal solution to (58) is

$$F_k(z,\overline{z})=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{\gamma _k^jz\gamma _k^{j1}\overline{z}}{\gamma _k^{j1}z\gamma _k^j\overline{z}}\right)^b.$$
(60)
Consider the uniformizing map $`J_H:H\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which enjoys the property $`J_H(\gamma z)=J_H(z)`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then another solution to (58) is given by $`G(J_H,\overline{J}_H)F_k`$, where $`G`$ is an arbitrary function of the uniformizing map. We should require $`|G|=1`$ for $`|F_k|=1`$.

7. Relation with Donaldson’s approach to stable bundles.

We now present some facts about projective, unitary representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the theory of holomorphic vector bundles . Let $`E\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a holomorphic vector bundle over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of rank $`N`$ and degree $`k`$. The bundle $`E`$ is called stable if the inequality $`\mu (E^{})<\mu (E)`$ holds for every proper holomorphic subbundle $`E^{}E`$. We may take $`N<k0`$. We will further assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains a unique primitive elliptic element $`\gamma _0`$ of order $`N`$ ($`i.e.`$, $`\gamma _0^N=I`$), with fixed point $`z_0H`$ that projects to $`x_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Given the branching order $`N`$ of $`\gamma _0`$, let $`\rho :\mathrm{\Gamma }U(N)`$ be an irreducible unitary representation. It is said admissible if $`\rho (\gamma _0)=e^{2\pi ik/N}I`$. Putting the elliptic element on the right–hand side, and setting $`\rho _k\rho (\gamma _k)`$, (7) becomes

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(\rho _{2j1}\rho _{2j}\rho _{2j1}^1\rho _{2j}^1\right)=e^{2\pi ik/N}I.$$
(61)
On the trivial bundle $`H\times C^NH`$ there is an action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$: $`(z,v)(\gamma z,\rho (\gamma )v)`$. This defines the quotient bundle

$$H\times C^N/\mathrm{\Gamma }H/\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(62)
Any admissible representation determines a holomorphic vector bundle $`E_\rho \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of rank $`N`$ and degree $`k`$. When $`k=0`$, $`E_\rho `$ is simply the quotient bundle (62) of $`H\times C^NH`$. The Narasimhan–Seshadri (NS) theorem  now states that a holomorphic vector bundle $`E`$ over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of rank $`N`$ and degree $`k`$ is stable if and only if it is isomorphic to a bundle $`E_\rho `$, where $`\rho `$ is an admissible representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Moreover, the bundles $`E_{\rho _1}`$ and $`E_{\rho _2}`$ are isomorphic if and only if the representations $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are equivalent.

A differential–geometric approach to stability has been given by Donaldson . Fix a Hermitean metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, for example the Poincaré metric, normalized so that the area of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ equals 1. Let us denote by $`\omega `$ its associated (1,1)–form. A holomorphic bundle $`E`$ is stable if and only if there exists on $`E`$ a metric connection $`A_D`$ with central curvature $`F_D=2\pi i\mu (E)\omega I`$; such a connection $`A_D`$ is unique.

The unitary projective representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we constructed above have a uniquely defined gauge field whose curvature is proportional to the volume form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. With respect to the representation considered by NS, we note that NS introduced an elliptic point to produce the phase, while in our case the latter arises from the gauge length. Our construction is directly connected with Donaldson’s approach as $`F=iF_D`$, where $`F`$ is the curvature (47). The main difference is that our operators are unitary differential operators on $`L^2(H,C^N)`$ instead of unitary matrices on $`C^N`$. This allowed us to obtain a non–trivial phase also in the Abelian case.

It is however possible to understand the formal relation between our operators and those of NS. To see this we consider the adjoint representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`\mathrm{End}C^N`$,

$$\mathrm{Ad}\rho (\gamma )Z=\rho (\gamma )Z\rho ^1(\gamma ),$$
(63)
where $`Z\mathrm{End}C^N`$ is understood as an $`N\times N`$ matrix. Let us also consider the trivial bundle $`H\times \mathrm{End}C^NH`$. The action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`(z,Z)(\gamma z,\mathrm{Ad}\rho (\gamma )Z)`$ defines the quotient bundle

$$H\times \mathrm{End}C^N/\mathrm{\Gamma }H/\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(64)
Then the idea is to consider a vector bundle $`E^{}`$ in the double scaling limit $`N^{}\mathrm{}`$, $`k^{}\mathrm{}`$, with $`\mu (E^{})=k^{}/N^{}`$ fixed, that is $`\mu (E^{})=b\mu (E)`$. In this limit, fixing a basis in $`L^2(H,C^N)`$, the matrix elements of our operators can be identified with those of $`\rho (\gamma )`$.

8. Noncommutative uniformization.

Let us now introduce two copies of the upper half–plane, one with coordinates $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$, the other with coordinates $`w`$ and $`\overline{w}`$. While the coordinates $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$ are reserved to the operators $`𝒰_k`$ we introduced previously, we reserve $`w`$ and $`\overline{w}`$ to construct a new set of operators. We now introduce noncommutative coordinates expressed in terms of the covariant derivatives

$$W=_w+iA_w,\overline{W}=_{\overline{w}}+iA_{\overline{w}},$$
(65)
with $`A_w=A_{\overline{w}}=1/(2\mathrm{Im}w)`$, so that $`[W,\overline{W}]=iF_{w\overline{w}}`$, where $`F_{w\overline{w}}=i/[2(\mathrm{Im}w)^2]`$. Let us consider the following realization of the $`\mathrm{sl}_2(R)`$ algebra:

$$\widehat{L}_1=w,\widehat{L}_0=\frac{1}{2}(w_w+_ww),\widehat{L}_1=_ww_w.$$
(66)
We then define the unitary operators

$$\widehat{T}_k=e^{\lambda _1^{(k)}(\widehat{L}_1+\overline{\widehat{L}}_1)}e^{\lambda _0^{(k)}(\widehat{L}_0+\overline{\widehat{L}}_0)}e^{\lambda _1^{(k)}(\widehat{L}_1+\overline{\widehat{L}}_1)},$$
(67)
where the $`\lambda _n^{(k)}`$ are as in (25). Set $`𝒱_k=\widehat{T}_k𝒰_k`$. Since the $`\widehat{T}_k`$ satisfy (27), it follows that the $`𝒱_k`$ satisfy (48), times the $`N\times N`$ identity matrix, and

$$𝒱_k_w𝒱_k^1=\widehat{T}_k_w\widehat{T}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=\frac{a_k_w+b_k}{c_k_w+d_k}.$$
(68)
Setting $`W=G_wG^1`$, i.e. $`G=(w\overline{w})^2`$, and using $`Af(B)A^1=f(ABA^1)`$, we see that

$$𝒱_kW𝒱_k^1=\widehat{T}_kW\widehat{T}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=G(\stackrel{~}{w})\widehat{T}_k_w\widehat{T}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}G^1(\stackrel{~}{w}),$$
(69)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{w}=\widehat{T}_kw\widehat{T}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=e^{\lambda _0^{(k)}}+2\lambda _1^{(k)}(\widehat{L}_0\lambda _1^{(k)}w)\lambda _1^{(k)2}e^{\lambda _0^{(k)}}(\widehat{L}_1+2\lambda _1^{(k)}\widehat{L}_0\lambda _1^{(k)2}w),$$
(70)
and by (68)

$$𝒱_kW𝒱_k^1=\widehat{T}_kW\widehat{T}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=\frac{a_k\stackrel{~}{W}+b_k}{c_k\stackrel{~}{W}+d_k},$$
(71)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{W}=_w+G(\stackrel{~}{w})[_wG^1(\stackrel{~}{w})],$$
(72)
which differs from $`W`$ by the connection term. Eq.(71) can be seen as representing the noncommutative analog of uniformization.

9. $`C^{}`$–algebra.

By a natural generalization of the $`n`$–dimensional noncommutative torus, one defines a noncommutative Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta `$ in $`g>1`$ to be an associative algebra with involution having unitary generators $`𝒰_k`$ obeying the relation (42). Such an algebra is a $`C^{}`$–algebra, as it admits a faithful unitary representation on $`L^2(H,C^N)`$ whose image is norm–closed. Relation (42) is also satisfied by the $`𝒱_k`$. However, while the $`𝒰_k`$ act on the commuting coordinates $`z,\overline{z}`$, the $`𝒱_k`$ act on the operators $`W`$ and $`\overline{W}`$. The latter, factorized by the action of the $`𝒱_k`$ in (71), can be pictorially identified with a sort of noncommutative coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta `$.

Each $`\gamma I`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be uniquely expressed as a positive power of a primitive element $`p\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, primitive meaning that $`p`$ is not a positive power of any other $`p^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . Let $`𝒱_p`$ be the representative of $`p`$. Any $`𝒱C^{}`$ can be written as

$$𝒱=\underset{p\{prim\}}{}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n^{(p)}𝒱_p^n+c_0I,$$
(73)
for certain coefficients $`c_n^{(p)}`$, $`c_0`$. A trace can be defined as $`\mathrm{tr}𝒱=c_0`$.

In the case of the torus one can connect the $`C^{}`$–algebras of $`U(1)`$ and $`U(N)`$. To see this one can use ’t Hooft’s clock and shift matrices $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$, which satisfy $`V_1V_2=e^{2\pi i\frac{M}{N}}V_2V_1`$. The $`U(N)`$ $`C^{}`$–algebra is constructed in terms of the $`V_k`$ and of the unitary operators representing the $`U(1)`$ $`C^{}`$–algebra. Morita equivalence is an isomorphism between the two. In higher genus, the analog of the $`V_k`$ is the $`U(N)`$ representation $`\rho (\gamma )`$ considered above. One can obtain a $`U(N)`$ projective unitary differential representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by taking $`𝒱_k\rho (\gamma _k)`$, with $`𝒱_k`$ Abelian. This nonabelian representation should be compared with the one obtained by the nonabelian $`𝒱_k`$ constructed above. In this framework it should be possible to understand a possible higher–genus analog of the Morita equivalence.

The isomorphism of the $`C^{}`$–algebras is a direct consequence of an underlying equivalence between the $`U(1)`$ and $`U(N)`$ connection. The $`z`$–independence of the phase requires $`F`$ to be the identity matrix in the gauge indices. This in turn is deeply related to the uniqueness of the connection we found. The latter is related to the uniqueness of the NS connection. We conclude that Morita equivalence in higher genus is intimately related to the NS theorem.

Our operators correspond to the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit of projective unitary representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. These operators may be useful in studying the moduli space of M(atrix) string theory . They also play a role in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit of QCD as considered in .

Finally, let us note that an alternative proposal of noncommutative Riemann surfaces and $`C^{}`$–algebras has been considered in .

Acknowledgments. It is a pleasure to thank D. Bellisai, D. Bigatti, M. Bochicchio, G. Bonelli, L. Bonora, U. Bruzzo, R. Casalbuoni, G. Fiore, L. Griguolo, P.M. Ho, S. Kobayashi, I. Kra, G. Landi, K. Lechner, F. Lizzi, P.A. Marchetti, B. Maskit, F. Rădulescu, D. Sorokin, W. Taylor, M. Tonin and R. Zucchini for comments and interesting discussions. G.B. is supported in part by a D.O.E. cooperative agreement DE-FC02-94ER40818 and by an INFN “Bruno Rossi” Fellowship. J.M.I. is supported by an INFN fellowship. J.M.I., M.M. and P.P. are partially supported by the European Commission TMR program ERBFMRX-CT96-0045.


format: text

text:
# THEORY OF COMPLEX SCATTERING LENGTHS

## Abstract

We derive a generalized Low equation for the T-matrix appropriate for complex atom-molecule interaction. The properties of this new equation at very low energies are studied and the complex scattering length and effective range are derived.

The recent realization of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) of ultracold atoms with the accompanying upsurge of theoretical activities have rekindled interest in low energy collisions of atoms and molecules. The subsequent proposals for the creation of ultracold molecular \[1-5\] and hybrid atomic-molecular BEC  intensified the above mentioned interest Of particular importance in the above recent developments is the idea of decay of the condensates. In a series of papers, Dalgarno and collaborators \[8-12\] have looked into the idea of using a complex scattering length to represent the low-energy atom-molecule scattering. Implicit in this is the multichannel nature of the collision process: an atom hits a vibrationally excited molecule at extremely low energies. The open inelastic channels are those where the molecule is excited into lower vibrational states. In this sense one has a depletion of the elastic channel. In Ref. , the quenching of $`H_2`$ molecules in collisions with $`H`$ was considered. It was found that, the inelastic cross-sections and the corresponding depletion rate coefficients were very large for high vibrational levels of $`H_2`$.

In the above studies, the following form of low-energy S-wave scattering amplitude is used

$$f\left(k\right)=\frac{1}{g\left(k^2\right)i\text{ }k}\text{ ,}$$
(1)
where k is the wave number related to the center of mass energy of the colliding partners, $`E`$, by $`\frac{\mathrm{}k^2}{2\mu }=E`$, with $`\mu `$ being the reduced mass of the system. The function $`g\left(k^2\right)`$ is even in $`k`$ and is given by the effective range formula.

$$g\left(k^2\right)=\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{2}r_ok^2\text{ ,}$$
(2)
where a is the scattering length and $`r_{}`$ the effective range, both directly related to the interaction. When applied to atom-molecule scattering at very low energies, with the molecules suffering inelastic transitions to lower vibrational states, the scattering length a is taken to be complex, $`a=\alpha i\beta `$, with $`\beta `$ related to the total inelastic cross-section.

The question we raise here is the validity of Eq. (1) with a and eventually $`r_{}`$ taken as complex in the case of the elastic scattering with strong coupling to inelastic channels. Of course, an equivalent one-channel description of the elastic scattering can be formulated with the introduction of an appropriate complex optical potential as described by Feshbach . It is therefore legitimate to inquire about the validity of Eq. $`\left(1\right)`$, originally obtained for real potential, if a complex interaction is used . The general structure of the low energy scattering amplitude is also of potentially fundamental importance to very low energy matter interferometry. This method for the obtention of $`f`$ for molecule-molecule scattering has been quite successful at room temperatures . Extension to very low temperatures of this method seems natural and would welcome studies of the type reported here.

For the above purpose, it is useful to summarize the elegant derivation of Eq. $`\left(1\right)`$ given by Weinberg . If we denote the interaction by $`V`$ and the free Green’s function by $`G_o^{(+)}\left(E\right)=\left(EH_o+i\epsilon \right)^1`$, then the T-matrix given by the Lippmann-Schwinger equation $`T^{(+)}=V+VG_o^{(+)}T^{(+)}`$, can be written as $`T^{(+)}=V+VG^{(+)}V`$, with the full Green’s function $`G^{(+)}=\left(E+i\epsilon H_oV\right)^1`$. Using the spectral expansion of $`G^{(+)}`$, with the complete set of bound and scattering states $`\{|B,|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(+)}\}`$, we obtain the Low-equation

$$\stackrel{}{k}\left|T^{(+)}\left(E\right)\right|\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{k}\left|V\right|\stackrel{}{k}+\underset{B}{}\frac{\stackrel{}{k}\left|V\right|BB\left|V\right|\stackrel{}{k}}{E+E_B}+d\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime }\frac{T_{\stackrel{}{k}k^{\prime \prime }}^{(+)}\left(E_k\right)\left(T_{\stackrel{}{k}k}^{(+)}\left(E_k\right)\right)^{}}{EE_{k^{\prime \prime }}+i\epsilon }\text{ .}$$
(3)
At very low energies relevant for BEC, we seek a solution $`T_{\stackrel{}{k}k}\left(E\right)T\left(E\right)`$ and writing $`\stackrel{}{k}\left|V\right|\stackrel{}{k}=`$ $`\overline{V}`$ we have

$$t^{(+)}\left(E\right)=\overline{V}+\underset{B}{}\frac{\left|g_B\right|^2}{E+E_B}+𝑑\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime }\frac{\left|t^{(+)}\left(E_{k^{\prime \prime }}\right)\right|^2}{EE_{k^{\prime \prime }}+i\epsilon }\text{ .}$$
(4)
Calculating now $`t^{(+)}\left(E\right)^1t^{()}\left(E\right)^1`$, we find

$$t^{(+)}\left(E\right)^1t^{()}\left(E\right)^1=\frac{t^{()}\left(E\right)t^{(+)}\left(E\right)}{t^{()}\left(E\right)\text{ }t^{(+)}\left(E\right)}\text{ .}$$
(5)
Since $`t^{()}\left(E\right)=T\left(Ei\epsilon \right)=\left(T^{(+)}\left(E+i\epsilon \right)\right)^{}`$, if $`V`$ is real, we have $`t^{(+)}\left(E\right)^1t^{()}\left(E\right)^1=2ik`$ $`2\pi \frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}^2}`$ which is just the discontinuity across the positive energy cut in the complex energy plane. Besides the poles in $`t`$, $`\left(\text{zeros in }\left(t\right)^1\right)`$, the only other terms in $`\left(t^{(+)}\right)^1`$ are entire functions of $`WE+i\epsilon `$. Accordingly, with the identification$`f=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}^2}t`$, Eq. (1) follows.

We turn next to a complex interaction $`VV^{}`$. The completeness relation now reads $`\underset{B}{}|BB|+d\stackrel{}{k}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}\text{ }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_k^{(+)}|`$ where $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}`$ is the dual scattering state which is a solution of the Schrödinger equation with $`V`$ replaced by $`V^{}`$ . Another form of the completeness relation may also be used, $`\underset{B}{}|BB|+d\stackrel{}{k}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\stackrel{}{k}^{()}\text{ }\mathrm{\Psi }_k^{()}|`$,with $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{k}^{()}`$ being the physical scattering state with incoming wave boundary condition $`\left(V^{}\text{,}i\epsilon \right)`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\stackrel{}{k}^{()}`$ its corresponding dual state $`\left(V\text{,}i\epsilon \right)`$. Thus, the full Green’s function now has the spectral form

$$G^{(+)}\left(E\right)=\underset{B}{}\frac{|BB|}{E+E_B}+d\stackrel{}{k}\frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}\text{ }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}|}{EE_k+i\epsilon }\text{ .}$$
(6)
Accordingly, Eq. (3) now reads

$$\stackrel{}{k}\left|T\right|\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{k}\left|V\right|\stackrel{}{k}+\underset{B}{}\frac{\stackrel{}{k}\left|V\right|BB\left|V\right|\stackrel{}{k}}{E+E_B+i\epsilon }+d\stackrel{}{k}\frac{\stackrel{}{k}\left|V\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}\left|V\right|\stackrel{}{k}}{EE_k+i\epsilon }\text{ .}$$
(7)
It is clear that the Low equation, Eq. (3), is not valid anymore. However, as we show below Eq. (1) is still valid, with the appropriate generalization of the real function $`g\left(k^2\right)`$ to a complex one . To see this we analyze the matrix element $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}\left|V\right|\stackrel{}{k}`$. From the $`LS`$ equation for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}|`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}|=\stackrel{}{k}|+\stackrel{}{k}|V\frac{1}{E_kH_{}Vi\epsilon }\stackrel{}{k}|[1+VG^{()}\left(E_k\right)]\text{ .}$$
(8)
Thus $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}\left|V\right|\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{k}\left|\stackrel{~}{T}(E_ki\epsilon )\right|\stackrel{}{k}`$, where the unphysical T-matrix $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{T}=V+VG^{()}V\text{ .}$$
(9)
Accordingly the T-matrix equation, Eq (7), may be written as

$$\stackrel{}{k}\left|T\left(E\right)\right|\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{k}\left|V\right|\stackrel{}{k}+\underset{B}{}\frac{\stackrel{}{k}\left|V\right|BB\left|V\right|\stackrel{}{k}}{E+E_B+i\epsilon }$$
(10)
$$+d\stackrel{}{k}\frac{\stackrel{}{k}\left|T(E)\right|\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}\left|\stackrel{~}{T}(E)\right|\stackrel{}{k}}{EE+i\epsilon }\text{ .}$$
(11)
A similar equation holds for $`\stackrel{}{k}\left|\stackrel{~}{T}\left(E\right)\right|\stackrel{}{k}`$with $`i\epsilon `$ replaced by $`i\epsilon `$. It is interesting at this point to show the relation between the physical T-matrix element $`\stackrel{}{k}\left|T\left(E\right)\right|\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}\left|\stackrel{~}{T}\left(E\right)\right|\stackrel{}{k}`$. This can be done easily following operator manipulations of , and using the relation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}|=\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}|+\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}|\left(VV^{}\right)G^{()}\left(E_k\right)`$, Eq. (8),

$$\stackrel{}{k}\left|\stackrel{~}{T}\left(E\right)\right|\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{k}\left|T\left(E\right)\right|\stackrel{}{k}^{}+d\stackrel{}{k}\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}\left|(VV^{^{}})\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}S_{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}}^1\text{ ,}$$
(12)
where $`S^1`$ is the inverse S-matrix in the elastic channel, $`S_{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}}^1=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\stackrel{}{k}^{()}`$, and the diagonal part of the matrix element $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}\left|\left(VV^{}\right)\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}`$is directly related to the total inelastic scattering cross-section, $`\sigma _{in}`$, viz

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}\left|\left(VV^{}\right)\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}=2i\frac{E}{k}\sigma _{in}\left(E\right)\text{ .}$$
(13)
Eq. (11) explicitly exhibits the connection between $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ and $`T`$ through the absorptive part of the effective interaction.

Now we seek the low energy solution $`\stackrel{}{k}\left|T\right|\stackrel{}{k}t_+\left(E\right)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}\left|\stackrel{~}{T}\right|\stackrel{}{k}t_{}\left(E\right)`$ and following the same steps as Weinberg’s , we find immediately, from Eq. (10), with $`f_\pm =\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}^2}t_\pm `$,

$$f_+^1=g_c\left(k^2\right)ik\text{ ;}$$
(14)
$$f_{}^1=g_c\left(k^2\right)+ik\text{ ,}$$
(15)
where $`g_c\left(k^2\right)`$ is the complex generalization of $`g\left(k^2\right)`$ of Eq. (1).

We turn now to the connection between $`g_c\left(k^2\right)`$ and the low-energy observables. This is most conveniently accomplished by employing the generalized optical theorem

$$\frac{4\pi }{k}Imf_+=\sigma _{el}+\sigma _{in}\text{ ,}$$
(16)
where $`\sigma _{el}`$ is the total elastic scattering cross section $`4\pi \left|f_+\right|^2`$ and $`\sigma _{in}`$ the total inelastic cross-section.

Using (12), we find

$$\frac{Im\text{ }g_c\left(k^2\right)}{\left(Re\text{ }g_c\left(k^2\right)\right)^2+\left(Im\text{ }g_c\left(k^2\right)k\right)^2}=\frac{k}{4\pi }\sigma _{in}\text{ .}$$
(17)
At $`k=0`$, $`g_c\left(0\right)=\frac{1}{a}`$, where a is the complex scattering length written as  $`\alpha i\beta `$. Thus the imaginary part of a, $`\beta `$, is found to be

$$\beta =\frac{\left(k\text{ }\sigma _{in}\right)_{k=0}}{4\pi }\text{ ,}$$
(18)
an expression also derived in Ref. . Eq. (16) clearly implies that $`\sigma _{in}`$ should go as $`k^1`$ as $`k`$ is lowered, in accordance with Wigner’s law.

We go a bit beyond Refs. \[8-12\] and derive a relation between $`\beta `$ and the imaginary part of the effective potential. Since $`\sigma _{in}`$ is given by (for S-wave scattering), Eq. (12)

$$\sigma _{in}=\frac{4\pi }{kE}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|u\left(r\right)\right|^2\left|ImV\text{ }\left(r\right)\right|\text{ }𝑑r\text{ ,}$$
(19)
where $`u\left(r\right)`$ is the S-wave elastic radial wave function, we find

$$\beta =\left[\frac{1}{E}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|u\left(r\right)\right|^2\left|ImV\text{ }\left(r\right)\right|\text{ }𝑑r\right]_{E0}\text{ .}$$
(20)
An equation for the complex effective range, $`r_{}`$, can also be easily derived. Equation (19) is the principle result of this work. It summarizes the following:

1. The coupled-channels calculation aimed to describe the molecular quenching can be recast as an effective one-channel calculation with a complex interaction whose imaginary part account for flux loss.
2. The low-energy behaviour of the scattering amplitude with the complex interaction alluded to above can be conveniently parametrized in terms of complex scattering length and effective range.

The message this work conveys is the potential usefulness of constructing the effective complex (optical) interaction for the scattering of ro-vibrational molecules from atoms at low energies. The calculation of a and $`r_{}`$ from knowledge of this potential can be done in a direct and unambiguous way.

Acknowledgement

Part of this work was done while the author was visiting ITAMP-Harvard. He wishes to thank Prof. Kate Kirby and Dr. H. Sadeghpour for hospitality. He also thanks Drs. N. Balakrishnan and V. Kharchenko for useful discussion.

Partial support form the ITAMP-NSF grant and from FAPESP and CNPq is acknowledged.


text:
# Acceleration-Induced Nonlocal Electrodynamics in Minkowski Spacetime

## 1 Introduction

As pointed out by Einstein , in special relativity theory it is assumed that the rate of a fundamental (“ideal”) clock depends on its instantaneous speed and is not affected by its instantaneous acceleration. This is usually called the “clock hypothesis”; see  for more recent discussions of this assumption. The decay of elementary particles obeys this hypothesis very well as shown by Eisele  for the weak decay of the muon.

If we study electrodynamics, for instance, in an accelerated reference frame (see ), then we have to presuppose corresponding hypotheses for the measurement of the electric and magnetic fields, the electric charge, etc. In this way, we arrive at the hypothesis of locality that has been extensively investigated . Replacing the curved worldline of the accelerated observer by its instantaneous tangent vector is reasonable if the intrinsic spacetime scales of the phenomena under consideration are negligibly small compared to the characteristic acceleration scales that determine the curvature of the worldline; otherwise, the past worldline of the observer must be taken into account. This would then result in a nonlocal electrodynamics for accelerated systems.

Nonlocal constitutive relations have been studied in the *phenomenological* electrodynamics of continuous media for a long time . In basic field theories, form-factor nonlocality has been the subject of extensive investigations. The main problem with such field theoretical approaches has been that they defy quantization. A review of nonlocal quantum field theories and their insurmountable difficulties has been given by Marnelius . The present work is concerned with a benign form of nonlocality that is induced by the acceleration of the observer.

The hypothesis of locality refers directly to acceleration; therefore, one can develop an alternative approach in which the acceleration enters as the decisive quantity. This type of nonlocality, if it refers to time, would involve persistent memory effects. Materials with memory have been extensively studied. However, we are interested in the “material” vacuum – and in this context our paper is devoted to a comparison of two models involving acceleration-induced nonlocality.

## 2 Mashhoon’s model

The observational basis of the special theory of relativity generally involves measuring devices that are accelerated; for instance, static laboratory devices on the Earth participate in its proper rotation. The standard extension of Lorentz invariance to accelerated observers in Minkowski spacetime is based on the hypothesis of locality, namely, the assumption that an accelerated observer is locally equivalent to a momentarily comoving inertial observer. The worldline of an accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime is curved and this curvature depends on the observer’s translational and rotational acceleration scales. The hypothesis of locality is thus reasonable if the curvature of the worldline could be ignored, i.e. if the phenomena under consideration have intrinsic scales that are negligible as compared to the acceleration scales of the observer. The accelerated observer passes through a continuous infinity of hypothetical comoving inertial observers along its worldline; therefore, to go beyond the hypothesis of locality, it appears natural to relate the measurements of an accelerated observer to the class of instantaneous comoving inertial observers.

Consider, for instance, an electromagnetic radiation field $`F_{ij}`$ in an inertial frame and an accelerated observer carrying an orthonormal tetrad frame $`e^i{}_{\alpha }{}^{}(\tau )`$ along its worldline. Here $`\tau `$ is its proper time, the Latin indices $`i`$, $`j`$, $`k`$, …, which run from 0 to 3, refer to spacetime coordinates (holonomic indices), while the Greek indices $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, …, which run from $`\widehat{0}`$ to $`\widehat{3}`$, refer to (anholonomic) frame indices, and we choose the signature $`(+,,,)`$. The hypothesis of locality implies that the field as measured by the observer is the projection of $`F_{ij}`$ upon the frame of the instantaneously comoving inertial observer, i.e.

$$F_{\alpha \beta }(\tau )=F_{ij}e^i{}_{\alpha }{}^{}e_{}^{j}{}_{\beta }{}^{}.$$
(1)
On the other hand, measuring the properties of the radiation field would necessitate finite intervals of time and space that would then involve the curvature of the worldline. The most general linear relationship between the measurements of the accelerated observer and the class of comoving inertial observers consistent with causality is

$$_{\alpha \beta }(\tau )=F_{\alpha \beta }(\tau )+\underset{\tau _0}{\overset{\tau }{}}K_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{\gamma \delta }(\tau ,\tau ^{})F_{\gamma \delta }(\tau ^{})d\tau ^{},$$
(2)
where $`_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the *field actually measured*, $`\tau _0`$ is the instant at which the acceleration begins and the kernel $`K`$ is expected to depend on the acceleration of the observer. A nonlocal theory of accelerated observers has been developed  based on the assumptions that (i) $`K`$ is a convolution-type kernel, i.e. it depends only on $`\tau \tau ^{}`$, and (ii) the radiation field never stands completely still with respect to an accelerated observer. The latter is a generalization of a consequence of Lorentz invariance for inertial observers to all observers.

In the space of continuous functions, the Volterra integral equation (2) provides a unique relationship between $`_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$. It is possible to express (2) as

$$F_{\alpha \beta }(\tau )=_{\alpha \beta }(\tau )+\underset{\tau _0}{\overset{\tau }{}}R_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{\gamma \delta }(\tau ,\tau ^{})_{\gamma \delta }(\tau ^{})d\tau ^{},$$
(3)
where $`R`$ is the resolvent kernel and if $`K`$ is a convolution-type kernel as we have assumed in (i), then so is $`R`$, i.e. $`R=R(\tau \tau ^{})`$. Assumption (ii) then implies that

$$R(\tau )=\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }(\tau +\tau _0)}{d\tau }\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\tau _0),$$
(4)
where $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are $`6\times 6`$ matrices and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is defined by (1) expressed as $`\widehat{F}=\mathrm{\Lambda }F`$ in the six-vector notation. Here $`\widehat{F}`$ denotes the field as referred to the anholonomic frame. This nonlocal theory, which is consistent with all observational data available at present, has been described in detail elsewhere .

Fig.1. The path of an observer in space moving with constant angular velocity around the $`z`$-axis for $`\tau >\tau _0`$.

It proves interesting to provide a concrete example of the nonlocal relationship (2). Imagine an observer that moves uniformly in the inertial frame along the $`y`$-axis with speed $`c\beta `$ for $`\tau <\tau _0`$ and for $`\tau \tau _0`$ rotates with uniform angular speed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ about the $`z`$-axis on a circle of radius $`r`$, $`\beta =r\mathrm{\Omega }/c`$, in the $`(x,y)`$-plane, see Fig.1. In this case,

$`e^i_{\widehat{0}}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (1,\beta \mathrm{sin}\phi ,\beta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}),`$
$`e^i_{\widehat{1}}`$ $`=`$ $`(0,\mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}),`$ (5)
$`e^i_{\widehat{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (\beta ,\mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}),`$
$`e^i_{\widehat{3}}`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}),`$
in $`(ct,x,y,z)`$ coordinates with $`\phi =\mathrm{\Omega }(tt_0)=\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }(\tau \tau _0)`$. Here $`\phi `$ is the azimuthal angle in the $`(x,y)`$-plane and $`\gamma `$ is the Lorentz factor. Using six-vector notation,

$$(F_{\alpha \beta })\left[\begin{array}{c}\widehat{𝑬}\\ \widehat{𝑩}\end{array}\right],(_{\alpha \beta })\left[\begin{array}{c}𝓔\\ 𝓑\end{array}\right],$$
(6)
one can show that with respect to the tetrad frame (2)

$`𝓔`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝑬}+{\displaystyle \underset{\tau _0}{\overset{\tau }{}}}\left[𝝎\times \widehat{𝑬}(\tau ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{𝒂}{c}}\times \widehat{𝑩}(\tau ^{})\right]𝑑\tau ^{},`$ (7)
$`𝓑`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝑩}+{\displaystyle \underset{\tau _0}{\overset{\tau }{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝒂}{c}}\times \widehat{𝑬}(\tau ^{})+𝝎\times \widehat{𝑩}(\tau ^{})\right]𝑑\tau ^{},`$ (8)
where $`𝒂`$ is the constant centripetal acceleration of the observer and $`𝝎`$ is its constant angular velocity. These quantities can be expressed with respect to the triad $`e^i_A`$ as $`𝒂=(c\beta \gamma ^2\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$ and $`𝝎=(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\gamma ^2\mathrm{\Omega })`$. For an arbitrary accelerated observer, we expect that the relations analogous to (7) and (8) would be much more complicated.

Imagine now a general congruence of accelerated observers such that relations similar to (2) and (3) hold for each member of the congruence. The requirement that the electromagnetic field $`F_{ij}`$ (or $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$) satisfy Maxwell’s equations would then imply, via (3), that the field $`_{\alpha \beta }`$ would satisfy certain complicated integro-differential equations, which could then be regarded as the nonlocal Maxwell equations for $`_{\alpha \beta }`$. Instead of this system, we give here a different, but analogous, acceleration-induced nonlocal electrodynamics and study some of its main properties.

## 3 Charge & flux electrodynamics with a new nonlocal ansatz

The electrodynamics of charged particles and flux lines, see  and the references cited therein, involves the electromagnetic field strength $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$—that is defined via the Lorentz force law and is directly related to the conservation law of magnetic flux—as well as the electromagnetic excitation $`^{\alpha \beta }`$ that is directly related to the electric charge conservation. The corresponding Maxwell equations are metric-free and in Ricci calculus in arbitary frames read (cf. )

$`_{[\alpha }F_{\beta \gamma ]}C_{[\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{\delta }F_{\gamma ]\delta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (9)
$`_\beta ^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{\beta \gamma }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }_{}^{\gamma \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{\beta \gamma }{}_{}{}^{\beta }_{}^{\alpha \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`𝒥^\alpha .`$ (10)
Here $`𝒥^\alpha `$ is the electric current and the $`C`$’s are the components of the object of anholonomicity:

$$C_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{\gamma }:=2e^i{}_{\alpha }{}^{}e_{}^{j}{}_{\beta }{}^{}_{[i}^{}e_{j]}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }=C_{\beta \alpha }{}_{}{}^{\gamma }.$$
(11)
Ordinarily for vacuum, we would have the constitutive equation

$$^{\alpha \beta }=\sqrt{g}g^{\alpha \mu }g^{\beta \nu }F_{\mu \nu }.$$
(12)
However, this reformulation of electrodynamics allows for much more general constitutive relations between $`^{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$. In particular, it is possible to develop a nonlocal *ansatz* based on a generalization of (12) along the lines suggested by Obukhov and Hehl

$$^{\alpha \beta }(\tau ,\xi )=\sqrt{g}g^{\alpha \mu }g^{\beta \nu }𝒦_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\rho \sigma }(\tau ,\tau ^{},\xi )F_{\rho \sigma }(\tau ^{},\xi )d\tau ^{},$$
(13)
where the kernel $`𝒦`$ corresponds to the response of the medium and $`\xi ^A`$, $`A=1,2,3`$, are the Lagrange coordinates of the medium.

As an alternative to Mashhoon’s model but along the same line of thought, see equation (2), one can develop an acceleration-induced nonlocal constitutive relation in vacuum via equation (13) by using the ansatz,

$`^{\alpha \beta }(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}g^{\alpha \mu }g^{\beta \nu }[F_{\mu \nu }(\tau ).`$ (14)
$`c{\displaystyle \underset{\tau _0}{\overset{\tau }{}}}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\mu }{}_{}{}^{\rho }(\tau \tau ^{})F_{\rho \nu }(\tau ^{})+.\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\nu }{}_{}{}^{\rho }(\tau \tau ^{})F_{\mu \rho }(\tau ^{})]d\tau ^{}],`$
where the integral is over the worldline of an accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime as before. Here the response of the “medium” is simply given by the Levi-Civita connection of the accelerated observer in vacuum and the local constitutive relation (12) is recovered for *inertial* observers.

We recall that in an orthonormal frame the connection is equivalent to the anholonomicity, see :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta \gamma }:=g_{\gamma \delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{\delta }=\frac{1}{2}(C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }+C_{\beta \gamma \alpha }C_{\gamma \alpha \beta })=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \gamma \beta }.$$
(15)
If we invert (15), we find that $`C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\alpha \beta ]\gamma }`$.

In the following, we explore the consequences of the new ansatz (14) for a general accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime.

## 4 The new ansatz and the accelerating and rotating observer

It has been shown in , and the references cited therein, that the orthonormal frame $`e_\alpha `$ of an arbitrary observer with local 3-acceleration $`𝒂`$ and local 3-angular velocity $`𝝎`$ reads

$`e_{\widehat{0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\frac{𝒂}{c^2}\overline{𝒙}}}\left[_{\overline{0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝝎}{c}}\times \overline{𝒙}\right)^{\overline{B}}_{\overline{B}}\right],`$
$`e_A`$ $`=`$ $`_{\overline{A}},`$ (16)
where the barred coordinates are the standard normal coordinates adapted to the worldline of the accelerated observer. The coframe $`\vartheta ^\alpha `$ can be computed by inversion. We find

$`\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒂}{c^2}}\overline{𝒙}\right)dx^{\overline{0}}=Ndx^{\overline{0}},`$
$`\vartheta ^A`$ $`=`$ $`dx^{\overline{A}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝝎}{c}}\times \overline{𝒙}\right)^{\overline{A}}dx^{\overline{0}}=dx^{\overline{A}}+N^{\overline{A}}dx^{\overline{0}}.`$ (17)
In the $`(1+3)`$-decomposition of spacetime, $`N`$ and $`N^{\overline{A}}`$ are known as lapse function and shift vector, respectively. The frame and the coframe are orthonormal. The metric reads as follows:

$`ds^2=\eta _{\alpha \beta }\vartheta ^\alpha \vartheta ^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒂}{c^2}}\overline{𝒙}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝝎}{c}}\times \overline{𝒙}\right)^2\right]\left(dx^{\overline{0}}\right)^2`$ (18)
$`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝝎}{c}}\times \overline{𝒙}\right)_{\overline{A}}dx^{\overline{0}}dx^{\overline{A}}\delta _{\overline{A}\overline{B}}dx^{\overline{A}}dx^{\overline{B}},`$
where $`(𝝎\times \overline{𝒙})_{\overline{A}}=ϵ_{\overline{A}\overline{B}\overline{C}}\omega ^{\overline{B}}x^{\overline{C}}`$, $`𝒂=a^{\overline{A}}e_{\overline{A}}`$, and $`a^{\overline{A}}=e_i{}_{}{}^{\overline{A}}a_{}^{i}`$.

Starting with the coframe, we can read off the connection coefficients (for vanishing torsion) by using Cartan’s first structure equation $`d\vartheta ^\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta {}_{}{}^{\alpha }\vartheta ^\beta `$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta {}_{}{}^{\alpha }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{i}\beta }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }dx^{\overline{i}}`$. By construction, the connection projected in spacelike directions vanishes, since we have spatial Cartesian laboratory coordinates. Thus we are left with the following nonvanishing connection coefficients:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{0}\widehat{0}A}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{0}A\widehat{0}}={\displaystyle \frac{a_A}{c^2}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{0}AB}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{0}BA}=ϵ_{ABC}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^C}{c}}.`$ (19)
The first index in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is holonomic, whereas the second and third indices are anholonomic. If we transform the first index, by means of the frame coefficients $`e^{\overline{i}}_\alpha `$, into an anholonomic one, then we find the totally anholonomic connection coefficients as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{0}\widehat{0}A}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{0}A\widehat{0}}={\displaystyle \frac{a_A/c^2}{1+𝒂\overline{𝒙}/c^2}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{0}AB}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{0}BA}={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{ABC}\omega ^C/c}{1+𝒂\overline{𝒙}/c^2}}.`$ (20)
In general, of course, the translational acceleration $`𝒂`$ and the angular velocity $`𝝎`$ are functions of time.

Let us return to (14). If we study the electric sector of the theory, we find, because of (4),

$$^{\widehat{0}B}(\tau )=\eta ^{\widehat{0}\widehat{0}}\eta ^{BD}\left[F_{\widehat{0}D}(\tau )c_{\tau _0}^\tau \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\widehat{0}}{}_{}{}^{C}F_{CD}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0D}{}_{}{}^{C}F_{\widehat{0}C}^{}\right)𝑑\tau ^{}\right]$$
(21)
or

$$𝑫=𝑬+_{\tau _0}^\tau \left[𝝎(\tau \tau ^{})\times 𝑬(\tau ^{})\frac{𝒂(\tau \tau ^{})}{c}\times 𝑩(\tau ^{})\right]𝑑\tau ^{}.$$
(22)
Similarly, for the magnetic sector, the corresponding relations read

$$\begin{array}{c}^{AB}=\eta ^{AD}\eta ^{BE}[F_{DE}\hfill \\ \hfill c_{\tau _0}^\tau (\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0D}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{0}}F_{\widehat{0}E}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0D}{}_{}{}^{C}F_{CE}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0E}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{0}}F_{D\widehat{0}}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0E}{}_{}{}^{C}F_{DC}^{})d\tau ^{}]\end{array}$$
(23)
or

$$𝑯=𝑩+_{\tau _0}^\tau \left[𝝎(\tau \tau ^{})\times 𝑩(\tau ^{})+\frac{𝒂(\tau \tau ^{})}{c}\times 𝑬(\tau ^{})\right]𝑑\tau ^{},$$
(24)
respectively. Clearly, for constant $`𝒂`$ and $`𝝎`$ our nonlocal relations (22) and (24) are the same as (7) and (8) provided we identify $``$ with $``$, i.e. we postulate that the field actually measured by the accelerated observer is the excitation $``$. This agreement does not extend to the case of *non*uniform acceleration, however, as will be demonstrated in the next section.

## 5 Nonuniform acceleration

To show that the new ansatz (14) is different from Mashhoon’s ansatz (2) for the case of nonuniform acceleration even when we identify $``$ with $``$, we proceed via contradiction. That is, let us assume that $`_{\alpha \beta }=_{\alpha \beta }`$ and hence from (22) and (24)

$$K(\tau )=\left[\begin{array}{cc}K_𝝎& K_𝒂\\ K_𝒂& K_𝝎\end{array}\right],$$
(25)
where $`K_𝝎=𝝎(\tau )𝑰`$ and $`K_𝒂=𝒂(\tau )𝑰/c`$. Here $`I_A`$, $`(I_A)_{BC}=ϵ_{ABC}`$, is a $`3\times 3`$ matrix that is proportional to the operator of infinitesimal rotations about the $`e_A`$-axis. We must now prove that in general $`R(\tau )`$ given by (4) cannot be the resolvent kernel corresponding to $`K(\tau )`$ given by (25).

To this end, consider an observer that is accelerated at $`\tau _0=0`$ and note that for kernels of Faltung type in equations (2) and (3) we can write

$$\overline{}=(I+\overline{K})\overline{\widehat{F}}\mathrm{and}\overline{\widehat{F}}=(I+\overline{R})\overline{},$$
(26)
respectively, where $`\overline{f}(s)`$ is the Laplace transform of $`f(\tau )`$ defined by

$$\overline{f}(s):=_0^{\mathrm{}}f(\tau )e^{s\tau }𝑑\tau $$
(27)
and $`I`$ is the unit $`6\times 6`$ matrix. Hence, the relation between $`K`$ and $`R`$ may be expressed as

$$(I+\overline{K})(I+\overline{R})=I.$$
(28)
Fig.2. The acceleration of an observer that is uniformly accelerated only during a finite interval from $`\tau =0`$ to $`\tau =\alpha `$.

Imagine now an observer that is at rest on the $`z`$-axis for $`\mathrm{}<\tau <0`$ and undergoes linear acceleration along the $`z`$-axis at $`\tau =0`$ such that $`a(\tau )=g>0`$ for $`0\tau <\alpha `$ and $`a(\tau )=0`$ for $`\tau \alpha `$ (see Fig. 2). That is, the acceleration is turned off at $`\tau =\alpha `$ and thereafter the observer moves with uniform speed $`c\mathrm{tanh}(g\alpha /c)`$ along the $`z`$-axis to infinity. Thus in (25), $`K_𝝎=0`$ and $`K_𝒂=a(\tau )I_3/c`$. On the other hand, one can show that (4) can be expressed in this case as

$$R(\tau )=a(\tau )\left[\begin{array}{cc}U& V\\ V& U\end{array}\right],$$
(29)
where $`U=J_3\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{\Theta }`$, $`V=I_3\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and $`(J_3)_{AB}=\delta _{AB}\delta _{A3}\delta _{B3}`$. Here we have set $`c=1`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau )=\underset{0}{\overset{\tau }{}}a(\tau )𝑑\tau =\{\begin{array}{cc}g\tau ,\hfill & 0\tau <\alpha ,\hfill \\ g\alpha ,\hfill & \tau \alpha .\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
It is now possible to work out (28) explicitly and conclude that for

$$X(s):=\overline{a(\tau )\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{\Theta }},Y(s):=\overline{a(\tau )\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Theta }},Z(s):=\overline{a(\tau )},$$
(31)
we must have

$$X=YZ,Y=Z(1+X).$$
(32)
These relations imply that

$$Y(s)=\frac{Z(s)}{1Z^2(s)}.$$
(33)
On the other hand, we have

$$Z(s)=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a(\tau )e^{s\tau }𝑑\tau =\frac{g}{s}\left(1e^{\alpha s}\right)$$
(34)
and

$`Y(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a(\tau )\left(e^\mathrm{\Theta }+e^\mathrm{\Theta }\right)e^{s\tau }𝑑\tau `$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{(sg)\alpha }}{sg}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{(s+g)\alpha }}{s+g}}\right].`$
We consider only the region $`s>g`$ in which $`X(s)`$ and $`Y(s)`$ remain finite for $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$. Comparing (35) with

$$\frac{Z}{1Z^2}=\frac{gs(1e^{\alpha s})}{s^2g^2(1e^{\alpha s})^2},$$
(36)
we find that, contrary to (33), they do not agree except in the $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ limit (see Fig.3). Therefore, we conclude that the two models are different if one considers *arbitrary* accelerations.

Fig.3. Plot of the functions $`Y(s)`$ and $`W(s):=Z(s)/[1Z^2(s)]`$ for $`\alpha g=2`$.

## 6 Discussion

If one rewrites Mashhoon’s nonlocal electrodynamics in the framework of charge & flux electrodynamics in vacuum by substituting the generalization of equation (3) for a congruence of accelerated observers in equations (9)–(12), one finds a rather complicated implicit nonlocal constitutive law. The Maxwell equations expressed in terms of the excitations $`(𝑫,𝑯)`$ and field strengths $`(𝑬,𝑩)`$ remain the same, a fact which is significant since otherwise the conservation laws of electric charge and magnetic flux would be violated.

In this paper, we have developed an alternative nonlocal constitutive ansatz within the framework of charge & flux electrodynamics such that the nonlocality is induced by the acceleration of the observer in a similar way as in Mashhoon’s model.

An explicit example of nonuniform acceleration has been used to show that the two nonlocal prescriptions discussed here are in general different.

Acknowledgments: One of the authors (FWH) would like to thank Bahram Mashhoon and the Department of Physics & Astronomy of the University of Missouri-Columbia for the invitation for a two-month stay and for the hospitality extended to him. This stay has been supported by the VW-Foundation of Hannover, Germany. We are grateful to Yuri Obukhov (Moscow) for highly interesting and critical discussions on nonlocal electrodynamics. Thanks are also due to Guillermo Rubilar (Cologne) for helpful correspondence.


text:
# Interface Scaling in the Contact Process

## I Introduction

Scaling and criticality in nonequilibrium systems continue to be of great interest in statistical physics. Among the various classes of systems that have been subject to intensive study are models of growing interfaces , and absorbing-state phase transitions, typified by directed percolation (DP) . Absorbing-state phase transitions have been linked to self-organized criticality (SOC) , as have driven interface models . The latter connection is established by defining a height variable $`h_i(t)`$ at each site of a sandpile model; at each time interval, the height increases by one unit at each active (toppling) site. It turns out that the interface of the Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld model  is described by an Edwards-Wilkinson equation with columnar noise . In view of the connections between absorbing-state phase transitions, SOC, and surface growth, it is of interest to study the dynamics of the interface representation of a simple model in the DP class. Precise results on the scaling properties of the DP interface representation should prove useful when trying to assign interface models (or height representations of other models, such as sandpiles) to universality classes.

In this paper we examine the dynamics of the contact process in dimensions 1 - 3, studying the interface width and the height-height correlation function, as well as the height probability distribution. In Sec. II we define the model and then present a brief discussion of the associated continuum equation, and of a scaling theory. Numerical results are presented in Sec. III. Sec. IV contains a brief summary.

## II Model

The contact process (CP) is a simple particle system (lattice Markov process) exhibiting a phase transition to an absorbing (frozen) state at a critical value of the creation rate . This model belongs to the universality class of directed percolation  and Reggeon field theory , and is pertinent to models of epidemics , catalysis , and damage spreading , among many others. In the CP each site of the hypercubic lattice $`𝒵^d`$ is either vacant or occupied by a particle. Particles are created at vacant sites at rate $`\lambda n/2d`$, where $`n`$ is the number of occupied nearest-neighbors, and are annihilated at unit rate, independent of the surrounding configuration. The order parameter is the particle density $`\rho `$; the vacuum state, $`\rho =0`$, is absorbing. As $`\lambda `$ is increased beyond $`\lambda _c`$, there is a continuous phase transition from the vacuum to an active state; for $`\lambda >\lambda _c`$, $`\rho (\lambda \lambda _c)^\beta `$ in the stationary state. In one dimension, $`\lambda _c3.297848`$.

There are a number of ways (equivalent as regards scaling behavior), of implementing the CP in a simulation algorithm; this work follows the widely used practice of maintaining a list of all occupied sites. In this study the initial condition is always that of all sites occupied. Subsequent events involve selecting (at random) an occupied site x from the $`N_p`$ sites on the list, selecting a process: creation with probability $`p=\lambda /(1+\lambda )`$, annihilation with probability $`1p`$, and, in the case of creation, selecting one of the $`2d`$ nearest neighbors, y, of x. (The creation attempt succeeds if y is vacant). The time increment $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ associated with an event is $`1/N_p`$, where $`N_p`$ is the number of occupied sites immediately prior to the event. A trial ends when all the particles have vanished, or at the first event with time $`t_m`$, a preset maximum time.

The important scaling laws pertinent to the critical contact process on a lattice of $`L^d`$ sites, starting with all sites occupied are: (1) the mean survival time $`\tau L^{\nu _{||}/\nu _{}}`$, and (2) the average particle density decays as a power law, $`\rho (t)t^\theta `$ for $`1<t<\tau `$. (In practice, the power law is found already for $`t2`$.) In one dimension, $`\nu _{||}/\nu _{}1.5808`$ and $`\theta 0.1595`$ .

Occupied sites represent activity, which spreads from site to site. (The absence of any activity corresponds to the absorbing state.) In a growing surface or driven interface, activity corresponds to the motion of the interface. We therefore define the height $`h_i(t)`$ at site $`i`$ as the amount of time (up to time $`t`$) that site $`i`$ has been occupied. In our numerical studies we use a real-valued height (recall that time is not restricted to integer values in our implementation). By keeping a record of the last time $`t_i`$ at which the state of site $`i`$ changed, we are able to evaluate $`h_i(t)`$ at any moment in the simulation. (While the results reported here are for real $`h`$, we find the same scaling properties for integer $`h`$.) The surface $`h_i(t)`$ may be thought of as a driven interface. Since the critical contact process must eventually enter the absorbing state, the interface, in this analogy, will eventually be pinned.

The large-scale properties of the CP and related models such as DP can be described via a field theory (so-called Reggeon field theory) framed in terms of a coarse-grained density $`\rho (𝐱,t)0`$ . Retaining only relevant terms, the stochastic pde for $`\rho (𝐱,t)`$ reads

$$\frac{\rho }{t}=^2\rho a\rho b\rho ^2+\eta (x,t).$$
(1)
Here $`\eta (𝐱,t)`$ is a Gaussian noise with zero mean and autocorrelation

$$\overline{\eta (𝐱,t)\eta (𝐱^{},t^{})}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho (𝐱,t)\delta ^d(𝐱𝐱^{})\delta (tt^{}).$$
(2)
In our continuum description, the height is given by

$$h(𝐱,t)=_0^t𝑑t^{}\rho (𝐱,t^{}).$$
(3)
Integrating Eq. (1) from time zero to time $`t`$, we obtain

$$\frac{h}{t}=^2hahb_0^t\left(\frac{h}{t^{}}\right)^2𝑑t^{}+\zeta (𝐱,t),$$
(4)
with the noise autocorrelation

$$\overline{\zeta (𝐱,t)\zeta (𝐱^{},t^{})}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta ^d(𝐱𝐱^{})h(𝐱,t_<),$$
(5)
where $`t_<\mathrm{min}(t,t^{})`$. Thus the equation governing the height includes a nonlinear memory term and a noise with nonvanishing correlations between different times. This equation does not seem to shed much light on the scaling properties of the interface. Rather, the relation between $`h`$ and the density in the contact process, Eq. (3), yields some properties that are not immediately obvious from Eq. (4), for example, that $`h/t0`$, and that the nonlinear term is relevant for $`d<d_c=4`$. In any event, Eq. (4) does serve to point up some differences between the CP interface and conventional surface-growth models such as the Edwards-Wilkinson  or Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equations . First, the linear “drive” term ($`ah(𝐱,t)`$ with $`a<0`$ in the active regime) is proportional to the local height and so cannot be transformed away. Second, in the active state, the moduli of the last three terms on the r.h.s. of Eq. (4) grow without limit, suggesting that $`^2h`$ does as well, so that the width of the active phase never saturates.

We turn now to a simple scaling analysis of the interface. At its basis lies a scaling hypothesis for the probability density $`p(h;t)`$ of the height $`h`$ (at any lattice site) at time $`t`$: the time-dependence of this density enters only through the mean height $`\overline{h}(t)`$. The conjectured scaling property is

$$p(h;t)=\frac{1}{\overline{h}(t)}𝒫(h/\overline{h}(t)),$$
(6)
where the scaling function $`𝒫0`$ with $`𝒫(u)𝑑u=1`$, and the prefactor guarantees normalization. It follows that the moments of $`h`$ all scale with the mean height, $`\overline{h^n}=\overline{u^n}[\overline{h}(t)]^n`$ with $`\overline{u^n}`$ the $`n`$-th moment $`𝒫`$. In particular, the mean-square width

$$W^2(t,L)=\text{var}(h)[\overline{h}(t)]^2,$$
(7)
if Eq. (6) holds. On the other hand, we have that for times $`t<\tau `$ in the critical contact process,

$$\overline{h}(t)=_0^t𝑑t^{}\rho (t^{})t^{1\theta },$$
(8)
which immediately implies that $`W^2t^{2\beta _W}`$ with $`\beta _W=1\theta `$.

In surface growth studies the crossover time is expected to scale as $`t_\times L^z`$; for a process in the DP universality class, we may write $`z=\nu _{||}/\nu _{}`$ (clearly $`t_\times `$ and $`\tau `$ should scale with the same exponent). Then the roughness exponent $`\alpha `$, defined via $`W^2(t,L)=W_{sat}^2(L)L^{2\alpha }`$ for $`tt_\times `$, is given by the scaling relation $`\alpha =\beta _Wz=(1\theta )\nu _{||}/\nu _{}`$. It is perhaps worth stressing that the expressions relating $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta _W`$ to DP exponents depend on the validity of the scaling hypothesis, Eq. (6), which should be tested. Inserting the known DP exponent values, scaling theory yields $`\alpha 1.3287`$, 0.97, 0.51, and zero for dimensions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In other words, the interface associated with the critical contact process is super-rough in one dimension, and asymptotically flat in $`dd_c=4`$, where $`\theta =1`$.

The family of height-difference correlation functions

$$G_q(r,t)\overline{|h(x,t)h(x+r,t)|^q},$$
(9)
are also much studied in surface growth processes. Starting with a flat interface at $`t=0`$, we expect power-law growth, $`G_qr^{q\alpha _q}`$, for $`r<\xi (t)t^{1/z}`$, the time-dependent correlation length. If $`\alpha _q`$ depends on $`q`$ the interface is said to be multi-affine. For $`r>\xi `$, $`G_q`$ will saturate; in particular, $`G_2`$ should approach $`W^2(t,L)t^{2\beta _W}\xi ^{2\alpha }`$ for $`r\xi `$ and $`tt_\times `$. Since $`\xi `$ is the only length-scale relevant to correlations at short times (i.e., for $`t<t_\times `$, so that the system size $`L`$ does not come into play), it is reasonable to expect the scaling form

$$G_2(r,t)=\xi ^{2\alpha }𝒢(r/\xi ),$$
(10)
where the scaling function $`𝒢(x)x^{2\alpha _2}`$ for small $`x`$ and is constant for large $`x`$. The case $`\alpha _2=\alpha `$ is referred to as “conventional” scaling while $`\alpha _2<\alpha `$ is characterized as “anomalous” scaling .

## III Simulation Results

We determined the square width $`W^2(t,L)`$ for rings of $`L=500`$, 1000, 2000, and 5000 sites, in samples of 2000, 1000, 1000, and 400 trials, respectively. The maximum time ranged from about $`1.6\times 10^5`$ for $`L=500`$ to $`8.8\times 10^6`$ for $`L=5000`$. All simulations were performed at the critical point, $`\lambda _c3.297848`$. In the contact process, interfacial properties can be studied over the full sample, or over a sample restricted to those trials that survive to time $`t`$. When a trial enters the absorbing state, $`W^2`$ naturally remains fixed for all subsequent times, and since all trials do eventually reach the absorbing state in the critical contact process, the interface width saturates for large $`t`$. If we restrict the sample to surviving trials, however, there is no saturation. It is important to note that the same scaling laws apply in either case. (The power-law growth regime, for example, corresponds to times $`<\tau `$, for which all trials still survive.)

Fig. 1 shows a series of snapshots of the interface in a single trial with $`L=200`$, at intervals of 5000 time units. The progressive roughening of the interface, without evidence of saturation, is apparent. Fig. 2 is a scaling plot of the square width, averaged over all trials, i.e., $`W^2(L,t)/L^{2\alpha }`$ versus $`\stackrel{~}{t}t/L^z`$, using the exponents $`\alpha =1.328`$ and $`z=1.5808`$ expected for DP in 1+1 dimensions. There is a near-perfect data collapse for $`\stackrel{~}{t}>10^3`$. The power-law portion of the graph ($`10^3\stackrel{~}{t}0.05`$) yields the growth exponent $`\beta _W=0.839(1)`$, in good agreement with the value $`1\theta =0.8405`$ expected on the basis of the scaling argument. (Figures in parentheses denote statistical uncertainties.) Analysis of the saturation width yields $`W_{sat}^2(L)L^{2\alpha }`$ with $`\alpha =1.325(15)`$.

In Fig. 3 we test the scaling assumption for the height probability distribution $`p(h)`$ by plotting $`t^{0.84}p(h)`$ versus $`h/t^{0.84}`$. (Recall that $`\overline{h}`$ is expected to grow $`t^{1\theta }=t^{0.84}`$.) In this system of $`L=1000`$ sites, there is a near-perfect data collapse, in accord with Eq. (6), for times between 500 and $`10^4`$. For $`t=2\times 10^4`$ we begin to note a departure from scaling, which becomes more pronounced at later times. Note that $`t=2\times 10^4`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{t}=1`$, which is where $`W^2`$ begins to depart noticeably from a power law in Fig. 2. Analysis of $`p(h)`$ for $`L=5000`$ yields similar results. The form of the scaling function for a given reduced time $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ is independent of the system size, as shown in Fig. 4, which compares height probability distributions for systems of 1000 and 5000 sites at times corresponding to the same $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$.

The height-height correlation function $`G_2`$ in a system of 1000 sites is shown in Fig. 5, which is a double-logarithmic plot of $`G_2^{}G_2/t^{2\beta _W}`$ versus $`rr/t^{1/z}`$. There is a perfect data collapse for $`t`$ = 500,…,$`10^4`$ (reduced times $`10^2\stackrel{~}{t}0.2`$), with a power-law portion $`G_2r^{2\alpha _2}`$ with $`\alpha _20.625`$. At later times $`G_2^{}`$ does not collapse, principally because the square width has begun to saturate (it no longer grows $`t^{2\beta _W}`$). The value of $`\alpha _2`$ is insensitive to system size. For $`L=5000`$ we obtain $`\alpha _2=0.623(2)`$ for $`t=2\times 10^5`$, and 0.644 for $`t=5\times 10^5`$. Thus we may, with a high degree of confidence, adopt the estimate $`\alpha _2=0.63(3)`$, clearly much smaller than the roughness exponent $`\alpha =1.33`$ found in the analysis of the square width, indicating that this one-dimensional system exhibits anomalous scaling.

Recently, López argued that anomalous surface roughening is associated with a diverging height gradient . In view of the growing spikes evident in the profiles shown in Fig. 1, this association seems very probable in the present instance. Indeed, the mean-square height gradient

$$s(t)=\overline{(h)^2}.$$
(11)
diverges as a power law (see Fig. 6). We find $`s(t)t^{2\kappa }`$, with $`\kappa =0.439(1)`$ for $`L=1000`$, $`0.4335(4)`$ for $`L=2000`$, and 0.4337(4) for $`L=5000`$; we adopt $`\kappa =0.4336(4)`$ as our best estimate. From López’ analysis, one expects

$$\alpha _q=\alpha z\kappa .$$
(12)
Inserting our result for $`\kappa `$ and the DP values $`\alpha =1.32867(14)`$ and $`z=1.5808(1)`$ in the r.h.s., we obtain $`\alpha _q=0.643(1)`$, in good agreement with the result found from analysis of the correlation function.

We also studied the generalized height-height correlation function $`G_q`$, Eq. (9), for $`q`$ = 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2 and 3, in a system with $`L=1000`$, at $`t=10^4`$, and found that the functions $`[G_q]^{1/q}`$ are identical, and give $`\alpha _q0.62`$. We may therefore conclude that the DP interface is self-affine not multi-affine.

In two dimensions we studied systems of up to 256$`\times `$256 sites at the critical point, $`\lambda _c1.6488`$. The curves for $`W^2`$ again show a good collapse (see Fig. 7), and the derived exponents are in very good agreement with the expected values. Specifically, we find $`\alpha =0.97(1)`$, $`\beta _W=0.550(5)`$, and $`z=1.765(10)`$. Scaling relations combined with known DP exponent values yield $`\alpha =0.970(5)`$ and $`\beta =0.549(2)`$, while current best estimates give $`z=\nu _{||}/\nu _{}=1.766(2)`$ for DP in 2+1 dimensions .

For smaller system sizes we observe a transient in $`W^2`$ and all other measured quantities, which does not appear in one dimension. Anomalous roughening is also seen in two and three dimensions. Fig. 8 shows $`s(t)`$ growing $`t^{2\kappa }`$ with $`\kappa =0.33(1)`$. The height-height correlation function exhibits a good collapse, as shown in Fig. 9; the initial power-law growth yields $`\alpha _2=0.385(5)`$; thus the scaling relation Eq. (12) is well satisfied: $`\alpha _2\alpha +z\kappa =0.00(3)`$.

We determined the interface exponents in three dimensions ($`\lambda _c1.3169`$, system size $`50^3`$ sites, maximum time 104), though to somewhat lower precision, owing to the larger computational demand. The scaling relation yields $`\beta _W=1\delta =0.274(1)`$, while our simulation results for $`W^2`$ give $`\beta _W=0.27(1)`$. In three dimensions we find $`\alpha =0.51(1)`$, $`z=1.90(5)`$, and $`\kappa =0.22(1)`$. Together with Eq. (12), these yield $`\alpha _2=0.09(2)`$. Our results for critical exponents are collected in Table Interface Scaling in the Contact Process.

## IV Summary

Defining an interface representation for the contact process by analogy with similar representations for sandpile models, we verified the expected scaling relation $`\beta _W=1\theta `$ in dimensions 1 - 3, and the scaling property of the height probability distribution in one dimension. The local roughness exponent, $`\alpha _2`$, is smaller than the global value, $`\alpha `$, indicating anomalous surface growth. This anomalous scaling is attended by a diverging local slope, $`s(t)=\overline{(h)^2}t^{2\kappa }`$. Our results for $`\kappa `$ are consistent with the scaling relation Eq. (12) derived by López. There is, on the other hand, no evidence of multi-affinity in this process.

An interesting point is that the process continues to exhibit anomalous scaling for $`d=2`$ and 3, even though $`\alpha <1`$ in these cases. While it was pointed out some time ago that $`\alpha >1`$ implies anomalous growth , the latter appears to be an intrinsic feature of the contact process (and, by extension, of other models in the DP universality class) below $`d_c`$.

Finally, we note that the anomalous roughening analysis introduces two new critical exponents, $`\alpha _2`$ and $`\kappa `$, and only one new scaling relation between them. We therefore have a new independent exponent, $`\kappa `$ for instance, that is not related to the standard DP exponents in any way. A very interesting theoretical task is that of computing $`\kappa `$ in an epsilon expansion around the upper critical dimension $`d_c=4`$. Our guess is that this new anomalous exponent is related to the renormalization of a composite operator not consider so far in the analysis of the Reggeon field theory, but this issue is beyond the scope of this paper, and will be studied elsewhere.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to A. Allbens, J. Krug, J. M. López and J. G. Moreira for helpful comments. This work was supported in part by CNPq, by the European Network Contract ERBFMRXCT980183, and by the Ministerio de Educación, under project DGESEIC, PB97-0842. CAPES is acknowledged for support of computational facilities.

electronic address: dickman@fisica.ufmg.br
electronic address: mamunoz@onsager.ugr.es

FIGURE CAPTIONS

FIG. 1. Interface of the critical contact process in a system of 200 sites, shown at intervals of 5000 time units.

FIG. 2. Scaled mean-square width versus reduced time for system sizes $`L=500`$, 1000, 2000, and 5000.

FIG. 3. Scaling plot of the height probability distribution (unnormalized) for $`L=1000`$ at (from top to bottom on left-hand side) times 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, $`10^4`$, $`2\times 10^4`$, $`5\times 10^4`$, and $`10^5`$.

FIG. 4. Scaling plot of the height probability distributions (unnormalized) for $`L=1000`$ (dashed lines) and $`L=5000`$ (solid lines) at reduced times (from top to bottom on left-hand side) $`\stackrel{~}{t}=0.142`$, 0.71, and 1.42.

FIG. 5. Scaled height-height correlation function versus $`r/t^{1/z}`$ for $`L=1000`$. The topmost curve comprises collapsed data for times 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, and $`10^4`$; below it lie results for $`t=2\times 10^4`$ (solid curve), $`5\times 10^4`$ (dotted curve), and $`10^5`$ (dashed curve).

FIG. 6. Growth of the mean-square gradient $`s(t)=\overline{(h)^2}`$ in systems with $`L=1000`$ (+), 2000 (dashed line), and 5000 (solid line).

FIG. 7. Scaled mean-square width versus reduced time in two dimensions; system sizes $`L=32`$, 64, 128, and 256.

FIG. 8. Growth of the mean-square gradient $`s(t)=\overline{(h)^2}`$ in the two-dimensional system with $`L=256`$.

FIG. 9. Scaled height-height correlation function versus $`r/t^{1/z}`$ for $`L=256`$ in two dimensions. The curves (bottom to top) correspond to $`r=2`$, 4, 8, and 16.