format: text

text:
# A Model of Quantum Field Theory with Inter Source

## I Introduction

It is impossible for us to find convergent stationary solution from free Schrödinger equation or free field equation. But if we put an inter source which moves together with the outside field, we can get solution converged as $`\frac{1}{r}e^{mr}`$ from this new free field equation. This inter source is confined in very small region and particle-like. The solution is not unique, and we can separate the solution into tow parts. The first part satisfies usual field equation and has the usual form $`e^{ip^\mu x_\mu }`$. Because of this, although we changed field equation and Lagrangian, the Quantum Field Theory survived in this model. But very different from the first part of solution, the second part looks like $`\frac{1}{r}e^{mr}`$. We can see this part is totally momentum and energy free, and also, we cannot increase or decrease its’ momentum and energy. This is why we haven’t found it before. The second part of field same to be hidden behind the first part, like ”Hidden Variables”.

Since we changed field equation, we have to rewrite the field Lagrangian to give the new field equation, and the second part of field along with the inter source can contribute a negative propagator which can cancel the quadratic divergence.

In Sec. 2, we rewrite free field equation, and get convergent solutions. We also calculate the total electromagnetic energy of a charge in this model and we will see it is finite. In Sec. 3, we write down the Lagrangian which can give us the new field equation. In Sec. 4, we will see that the second part of field contribute nothing but a negative propagator when we calculate cross-section. In Sec.5, we discuss new description of wave-particle duality in this model different from the statistical description.

## II Convergent solution of free field equation with inter source

By adding an inter source to free field equation, we get new field equation and we will see the solution of the equation is converged to the source and electromagnetic energy of a charge is finite.

The usual free field equation of Dirac, Scalar and Maxwell particles are:

$`(\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}_\mu +m)\psi (x)=0`$ (1)
$`(\mathrm{}+\mu ^2)\varphi (x)=0`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{}A_\mu (x)=0`$ (3)
the solutions of this equations are

$`\psi (x)={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,p}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m}{E_pV}}}(a_p\mu _{p\alpha }e^{ip^\mu x_\mu }+b_p^+\mu _{p\alpha }^ce^{ip^\mu x_\mu })`$ (4)
$`\varphi (x)={\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega _pV}}}(a_pe^{ip^\mu x_\mu }+a_p^+e^{ip^\mu x_\mu })`$ (5)
$`A_\mu (x)={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{e}_k^\lambda }{\sqrt{2\omega _kV}}}(a_k^\lambda e^{ikx}+a_k^{\lambda +}e^{ikx})`$ (6)
Now we put an inter source and equations become

$`(\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}_\mu +m_2)\psi (x)=f_1(x)`$ (7)
$`(\mathrm{}+\mu _2^2)\varphi (x)=f_2(x)`$ (8)
$`(\mathrm{}+\overline{\mu }_2^2)A_\mu (x)=f_{3\mu }(x)`$ (9)
where $`m_2`$, $`\mu _2^2`$ are not necessarily equal to m, $`\mu ^2`$, and $`\overline{\mu }_2^2`$ is not necessarily equal to 0.

To separate the solutions into two parts, we rewrite the equations (8),(9) (10) as

$`(\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}_\mu +m)\psi _1(x)(\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}_\mu +m_2)\psi _2(x)=f_1(x)`$ (10)
$`(\mathrm{}+\mu ^2)\varphi _1(x)(\mathrm{}+\mu _2^2)\varphi _2(x)=f_2(x)`$ (11)
$`(\mathrm{})A_{1\mu }(x)(\mathrm{}+\overline{\mu }_2^2)A_{2\mu }(x)=f_{3\mu }(x)`$ (12)
where $`\psi _1(x)`$, $`\varphi _1(x)`$, $`A_{1\mu }(x)`$ obey the equation (1), (2), (3), and same as (4), (5), (6). We write first part and second part with different sign because we hope to get a negative propagator.
We don’t know the exactly structure of source, like a string or brane? We assume it is confined in very small region, and to such kind of source, $`\psi _2(x)`$, $`\varphi _2(x)`$, $`A_{2\mu }(x)`$ have solutions:

$`\psi _2(x)=a_1\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}e^{m_2r}`$ (13)
$`\varphi _2(x)=a_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}e^{\mu _2r}`$ (14)
$`A_{2\mu }(x)=a_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}e^{\overline{\mu }_2r}`$ (15)
where r should be greater than the dimensions of inter source.
We can see $`\psi _2(x)`$, $`\varphi _2(x)`$, $`A_{2\mu }(x)`$ don’t take energy or momentum. $`\psi _2(x)`$, $`\varphi _2(x)`$, and $`A_{2\mu }(x)`$ act as ”manifold” of $`\psi _1(x)`$, $`\varphi _1(x)`$, $`A_{1\mu }(x)`$. So on the edge of $`\psi _2(x)`$, $`\varphi _2(x)`$, and $`A_{2\mu }(x)`$, where $`\psi _2(x)`$, $`\varphi _2(x)`$, and $`A_{2\mu }(x)`$ approach to zero, $`\psi _1(x)`$, $`\varphi _1(x)`$, and $`A_{1\mu }(x)`$ should also disappear. Let’s define at r$``$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$, $`\psi _1(x)`$, $`\varphi _1(x)`$, $`A_{1\mu }(x)`$ equal to zero.
We write (10), (11), (12) as another way

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{a}=1,2}{}}(\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}_\mu +m_{\stackrel{~}{a}})\psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)2(\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}_\mu +m_2)\psi _2(x)=f_1(x)`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{a}=1,2}{}}(\mathrm{}+\mu _{\stackrel{~}{a}}^2)\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)2(\mathrm{}+\mu _2^2)\varphi _2(x)=f_2(x)`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{a}=1,2}{}}(\mathrm{}+\overline{\mu }_{\stackrel{~}{a}}^2)A_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu }(x)2(\mathrm{}+\overline{\mu }_2^2)A_{2\mu }(x)=f_{3\mu }(x)`$ (18)
where $`m_1=m`$, $`\mu _1^2=\mu ^2`$, $`\overline{\mu }_1^2=0`$

From (4) and at r$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`\psi _1(x)=0`$, the electric field of a free charge e is

$`\stackrel{}{E}={\displaystyle \frac{e\stackrel{}{r}}{4\pi \epsilon r^3}}r\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$
and

$`\stackrel{}{E}={\displaystyle \frac{e\stackrel{}{r}}{4\pi \epsilon \mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3}}r<\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ (19)
It’s consistent with Coulomb’s Law $`\stackrel{}{E}=\frac{e\stackrel{}{r}}{4\pi \epsilon r^3}`$ at r$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, and $`\stackrel{}{E}=0`$ at r=0.

The total Electromagnetic energy of a free charge e is

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{30\pi ^2\epsilon ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}}`$ (20)
## III Lagrangian

In this part we write down the Lagrangian which can give equation (16), (17), (18).

To free Scalar, Dirac and Maxwell fields, the Lagrangian becomes

$`L_0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)(\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}_\mu +m_{\stackrel{~}{a}})\psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)+2\overline{\psi }_2(x)(\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}_\mu +m_2)\psi _2(x)`$ (27)
$`+\overline{f}_1(x)\psi _2(x)+\overline{\psi }_2(x)f_1(x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[_\mu \varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)^\mu \varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)+\mu _{\stackrel{~}{a}}^2\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)]+[_\mu \varphi _2(x)^\mu \varphi _2(x)+\mu _2^2\varphi _2^2(x)]`$
$`+f_2(x)\varphi _2(x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\stackrel{~}{a}}^{\mu \nu }(x)F_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu \nu }(x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_2^{\mu \nu }F_{2\mu \nu }+\overline{\mu }_2^2A_{2\mu }(x)A_2^\mu (x)`$
$`+f_{3\mu }(x)A_2^\mu (x)`$
where

$`F_{1\mu \nu }=_\mu A_{1\nu }_\nu A_{1\mu }`$ (28)
$`F_{2\mu \nu }=_\mu A_{2\nu }_\nu A_{2\mu }`$ (29)
Approximately, we write $`f_1(x)c_1\psi _2(x)`$,$`f_2(x)c_2\varphi _2(x)`$, $`f_{3\mu }(x)c_3A_{2\mu }(x)`$, then (21) can be written as

$`L_0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)(\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}_\mu +m_{\stackrel{~}{a}})\psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)+2\overline{\psi }_2(x)(\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}_\mu +m_2)\psi _2(x)`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[_\mu \varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)^\mu \varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)+\mu _{\stackrel{~}{a}}^2\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)]+[_\mu \varphi _2(x)^\mu \varphi _2(x)+\mu _2^2\varphi _2^2(x)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\stackrel{~}{a}}^{\mu \nu }(x)F_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu \nu }(x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_2^{\mu \nu }F_{2\mu \nu }+\overline{\mu }_2^2A_{2\mu }(x)A_2^\mu (x)`$
here we replace $`m_2m_22c_1,\mu _2^2\mu _2^22c_2,\overline{\mu }_2^2\overline{\mu }_2^2c_3`$.
And the interaction term of Dirac and Maxwell fields becomes

$`L_I=\overline{\psi }_{\stackrel{~}{a}}^\mu \psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}A_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu }`$ (34)
The usual $`U(1)\times SU(2)_L`$ gauge invariant Lagrangian density for Leptons  is

$`L=L_1+L_2+L_3`$ (35)
where

$`L_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_{\mu \nu }^aW^{a\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$ (36)
$`L_2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\gamma ^\mu D_\mu R\overline{L}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\gamma ^\mu D_\mu L`$ (37)
$`L_3`$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu \varphi ^+D^\mu \varphi m^2\varphi ^+\varphi \lambda (\varphi ^+\varphi )^2`$ (39)
$`Ge(\overline{L}\varphi R+\overline{R}\varphi ^+L)`$
where

$`W_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu W_\nu ^a_\nu W_\mu ^a+gf^{abc}W_\mu ^bW_\nu ^c`$ (40)
$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu B_\nu _\nu B_\mu `$ (41)
$`D_\mu R`$ $`=`$ $`(_\mu +ig^{}B_\mu )R`$ (42)
$`D_\mu L`$ $`=`$ $`[_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g^{}B_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g\sigma _iW_\mu ^i]L`$ (43)
$`D_\mu \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`[_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g\sigma _iW_\mu ^i{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g^{}B_\mu ]\varphi `$ (44)
Now considering the dynamics of source, the total Lagrangian density for Leptons becomes

$`L=\stackrel{~}{L}_1+\stackrel{~}{L}_2+\stackrel{~}{L}_3`$ (45)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{L}_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu \nu }^aW_{\stackrel{~}{a}}^{a\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu \nu }F_{\stackrel{~}{a}}^{\mu \nu }`$ (49)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu W_{2\nu }^a_\nu W_{2\mu }^a)(^\mu W_2^{a\nu }^\nu W_2^{a\mu })`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu B_{2\nu }_\nu B_{2\mu })(^\mu B_2^\nu ^\nu B_2^\mu )`$
$`+M_{2wab}W_{2\mu }^aW_2^{b\mu }+M_{2B}B_{2\mu }B_2^\mu `$
$`\stackrel{~}{L}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}_{\stackrel{~}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\gamma ^\mu D_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu }R_{\stackrel{~}{a}}\overline{L}_{\stackrel{~}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\gamma ^\mu D_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu }L_{\stackrel{~}{a}}`$ (53)
$`+2\overline{R}_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\gamma ^\mu _\mu R_2+2\overline{L}_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\gamma ^\mu _\mu L_2`$
$`+m_{2e}(e_{2L}^+e_{2R}+e_{2R}^+e_{2L})`$
$`+P(\nu _2)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{L}_3`$ $`=`$ $`D_{1\mu }\varphi _1^+D_1^\mu \varphi _1m_1^2\varphi _1^+\varphi _1\lambda (\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}^+\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}})^2`$ (56)
$`Ge(\overline{L}_1\varphi _1R_1+\overline{R}_1\varphi _1^+L_1)`$
$`+_\mu \varphi _2^+^\mu \varphi _2+m_2^2\varphi _2^+\varphi _2`$
where

$`W_{1\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu W_{1\nu }^a_\nu W_{1\mu }^a+gf^{abc}W_{1\mu }^bW_{1\nu }^c`$ (57)
$`W_{2\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu W_{2\nu }^a_\nu W_{2\mu }^a+gf^{abc}W_{2\mu }^bW_{2\nu }^c`$ (58)
$`F_{1\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu B_{1\nu }_\nu B_{1\mu }`$ (59)
$`F_{2\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu B_{2\nu }_\nu B_{2\mu }`$ (60)
$`D_{1\mu }R_1`$ $`=`$ $`(_\mu +ig^{}B_{1\mu })R_1`$ (61)
$`D_{2\mu }R_2`$ $`=`$ $`(_\mu +ig^{}B_{2\mu })R_2`$ (62)
$`D_{1\mu }L_1`$ $`=`$ $`[_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g^{}B_{1\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g\sigma _iW_{1\mu }^i]L_1`$ (63)
$`D_{2\mu }L_2`$ $`=`$ $`[_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g^{}B_{2\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g\sigma _iW_{2\mu }^i]L_2`$ (64)
$`D_{1\mu }\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`[_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g\sigma _iW_{1\mu }^i{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g^{}B_{1\mu }]\varphi _1`$ (65)
where under U(1) and $`SU(2)_L`$ transformation, $`W_2\mu ,B_{2\mu },R_2,L_2,\varphi _2`$ are invariants.
$`P(\nu _2)`$ is the term to give $`\nu _2`$ mass. One of possibilities is

$`P(\nu _2)=m_{2\nu }(\overline{\nu }_{2L}\nu _{2R}+\overline{\nu }_{2R}\nu _{2L})`$ (66)
that means, although possibly $`\nu _{1R}`$ doesn’t exist, $`\nu _{2R}`$ does.
To quarks, the usual Lagrangian density is

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}\overline{\psi }_i({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\gamma ^\mu D_\mu +m_i)\psi _i`$ (67)
now including the inter source, the Lagrangian becomes

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu \nu }^aF_{\stackrel{~}{a}}^{a\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}\overline{\psi }_{\stackrel{~}{a}i}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\gamma ^\mu D_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu }+m_{\stackrel{~}{a}i})\psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}i}`$ (71)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu A_{2\nu }^a_\nu A_{2\mu }^a)(^\mu A_2^{a\nu }^\nu A_2^{a\mu })`$
$`+\overline{m}_2^2A_{2\mu }^aA_2^{a\mu }`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}\overline{\psi }_{2i}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m_{2i})\psi _{2i}`$
## IV S-Matrix

In Section 2, we separate Scalar,Dirac, Maxwell field into two parts (4),(5),(6) and (13),(14),(15). The first part, (4),(5), (6), like $`e^{ip^\mu x_\mu }`$, is same as usual free quantum field. And the second part, (13),(14),(15), like $`\frac{1}{r}e^{mr}`$, doesn’t take energy and momentum. Because of this property, the second part will contribute nothing but an negative propagator when we calculate cross-section.
Because of Inter-source, the S-Matrix can be written as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`<\psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}1}(x_1)\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }_{\stackrel{~}{a}1}(y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}1}(z_1)\mathrm{}|\psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}1}^{}(x_1^{})\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }_{\stackrel{~}{a}1}^{}(y_1^{})\mathrm{}\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}1}^{}(z_1^{})\mathrm{}>`$ (72)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1\mathrm{}𝑑x_1^{}\mathrm{}𝑑y_1\mathrm{}𝑑y_1^{}\mathrm{}𝑑z_1\mathrm{}𝑑z_1^{}\mathrm{}<\psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}1}(x_1)\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }_{\stackrel{~}{a}1}(y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}1}(z_1)\mathrm{}|}`$ (75)
$`\psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}1}(x_1)\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }_{\stackrel{~}{a}1}(y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}1}(z_1)\mathrm{}R\psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}1}^{}(x_1^{})\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }_{\stackrel{~}{a}1}^{}(y_1^{})\mathrm{}\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}1}^{}(z_1^{})\mathrm{}`$
$`|\psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}1}^{}(x_1^{})\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }_{\stackrel{~}{a}1}^{}(y_1^{})\mathrm{}\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}1}^{}(z_1^{})\mathrm{}>`$
But because of the Inter-source, $`|\psi _2>,|\varphi _2>,|A_{2\mu }>`$ cannot take energy or momentum, and also we cannot increase or decrease their energy or momentum, so we can write

$`\psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}|\psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}>`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _1|\psi _1>+\psi _2|\psi _2>`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`\psi _1|\psi _1>`$ (77)
$`\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}|\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}>`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1|\varphi _1>+\varphi _2|\varphi _2>`$ (78)
$`=`$ $`\varphi _1|\varphi _1>`$ (79)
$`A_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu }|A_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu }>`$ $`=`$ $`A_{1\mu }|A_{1\mu }>+A_{2\mu }|A_{2\mu }>`$ (80)
$`=`$ $`A_{1\mu }|A_{1\mu }>`$ (81)
then S-Matrix becomes

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1\mathrm{}𝑑x_1^{}\mathrm{}𝑑y_1\mathrm{}𝑑y_1^{}\mathrm{}𝑑z_1\mathrm{}𝑑z_1^{}\mathrm{}<\psi _{11}(x_1)\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }_{11}(y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _{11}(z_1)\mathrm{}|\psi _{11}(x_1)\mathrm{}\psi _{11}(y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _{11}(z_1)\mathrm{}}`$ (83)
$`R\psi _{11}^{}(x_1^{})\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }_{11}(y_1^{})\mathrm{}\varphi _{11}^{}(z_1^{})\mathrm{}|\psi _{11}^{}(x_1^{})\mathrm{}\psi _{11}^{}(y_1^{})\mathrm{}\varphi _{11}^{}(z_1^{})\mathrm{}>`$
But $`\psi _2,\varphi _2,A_{2\mu }`$ can contribute an negative propagator to S-Matrix.

$`S(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`i<0|T(\overline{\psi }_{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)\psi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(y))|0>`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`i<0|T(\overline{\psi }_1(x)\psi _1(y))|0>+i<0|T(\overline{\psi }_2(x)\psi _2(y))|0>`$ (85)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`i<0|T(\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(x)\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{a}}(y))|0>`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`i<0|T(\varphi _1(x)\varphi _1(y))|0>+i<0|T(\varphi _2(x)\varphi _2(y))|0>`$ (87)
$`D_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`i<0|T(A_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu }(x)A_{\stackrel{~}{a}\nu }(y))|0>`$ (88)
$`=`$ $`i<0|T(A_{1\mu }(x)A_{1\nu }(y))|0>+i<0|T(A_{2\mu }(x)A_{2\nu }(y))|0>`$ (89)
From the Lagrangian(23), to first order, we can get

$`S^0(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma p+m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma p+m_2}}`$ (90)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^0(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2+\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2+\mu _2^2}}`$ (91)
$`D_{\mu \nu }^0(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{\mu \nu }}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{\mu \nu }}{k^2+\overline{\mu }_2^2}}`$ (92)
where $`m_2,\mu _2^2,\overline{\mu }_2^2`$ should be very big.

When we calculate tree graph, because $`m_2,\mu _2^2,\overline{\mu }_2^2`$ are very big, the second term of (58),(59),(60) are very small, but when we calculate loop graph, they can cancel quadratic divergence.
In the same way we can write the propagator of gauge field

$`D_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`i<0|T(A_{\stackrel{~}{a}\mu }^\alpha (x)A_{\stackrel{~}{a}\nu }^\beta (y))|0>`$ (93)
$`=`$ $`i<0|T(A_{1\mu }^\alpha (x)A_{1\nu }^\beta (y))|0>+i<0|T(A_{2\mu }^\alpha (x)A_{2\nu }^\beta (y))|0>`$ (94)
From Lagrangian (49), to first order and Feynman gauge, the propagator becomes

$`D_{\mu \nu }^{0\alpha \beta }(k)={\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{\mu \nu }}{k^2}}\delta ^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{\mu \nu }}{k^2+\overline{m}^2}}\delta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ (95)
where $`\overline{m}^2`$ should also be very big.

## V Wave-Particle Duality

We assume every real particle has an inter source. Because the source is confined in a very small region, as assumed, particle has an inter core which make it particle-like. On the other hand, the quantum field, outside its inter source, can move like wave and make it wavelike. So, here, we give a new description of wave-particle duality.


text:
# Module categories over representations of 𝑆𝐿_𝑞(2) and graphs

## 1. Introduction

Let $`q`$ be a root of unity of even order $`N>4`$. Let $`𝒞_q`$ be the corresponding fusion category of representations of the quantum group $`SL_q(2)`$. It is known (see \[Oc\],\[KO\] and references therein) that indecomposable semisimple module categories over $`𝒞_q`$ correspond to the ADE Dynkin diagrams with Coxeter number $`h=N/2`$. This fact may be viewed as the “quantum McKay’s correspondence”. More specifically, the module categories in question may be viewed as “quantum finite subgroups in $`SL_q(2)`$”, by analogy with finite subgroups of $`SL(2)`$, which define module categories over $`\mathrm{Rep}(SL(2))`$ and are parametrized by the ADE affine Dynkin diagrams by virtue of the classical McKay’s correspondence.

In this paper, we generalize this picture to the case of any nonzero complex number $`q`$, not equal to $`\pm i`$. Namely, let $`q`$ be such a number. If $`q=\pm 1`$ or $`q`$ is not a root of unity, let $`𝒞_q`$ denote the category of representations of the quantum group $`SL_q(2)`$. If $`q`$ is a root of unity such that $`q^41`$, we let $`𝒞_q`$ denote the fusion category attached to the quantum group $`SL_q(2)`$. We classify indecomposable semisimple module categories over $`𝒞_q`$ with finitely many simple objects. It turns out that such module categories are parametrized by connected graphs equipped with bilinear forms satisfying some relations. In the case when $`q`$ is a root of unity of even order $`N>4`$, this easily yields the classification of \[Oc\],\[KO\]; so in particular we obtain a very simple proof of the result of \[KO\], which does not involve vertex algebras and conformal inclusions (in fact, this proof is close to the original approach of \[Oc\]).

A striking property of our classification is that while all connected graphs do appear, trees appear only for special values of $`q`$, namely such that $`qq^1`$ is an eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix that admits an eigenvector with nonvanishing entries. Thus we discover somewhat unexpected “combinatorial” peculiarities of $`SL_q(2)`$ at algebraic special values of $`q`$ which are not roots of unity.

On the contrary, we show that graphs with cycles appear for generic $`q`$ (or, equivalently, over $`\overline{(q)}`$). This explains why the only finite subgroups of $`SL(2)`$ which admit a continuous quantum deformation (into subgroups of $`SL_q(2)`$) are $`/n`$: for them, the corresponding affine Dynkin graph has a cycle (type $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{n1}`$), while for other cases (types $`\stackrel{~}{D}_n,\stackrel{~}{E}_n`$), this graph is a tree.

Acknowledgments. We are pleased to thank Dan Spielman for providing reference \[F\]. The research of P.E. was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS-9988796, and was done in part for the Clay Mathematics Institute. The research of V.O. was supported by the NSF grant DMS-0098830.

## 2. Main equation

### 2.1. Quantum $`SL(2)`$

We will work over the field $``$ of complex numbers. Let $`q`$ be a nonzero number, $`q^21`$. Recall (see e.g. \[K\]) that the Hopf algebra $`SL_q(2)`$ is defined by generators $`a,b,c,d`$ and relations:

$$ba=qab,db=qbd,ca=qac,dc=qcd,bc=cb,$$

$$adda=(q^1q)bc,adq^1bc=1,$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right),$$

$$\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),S\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}d& qb\\ q^1c& a\end{array}\right).$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ denote the tensor category of finite dimensional comodules over $`SL_q(2)`$.

Let $`\mathrm{𝟏}\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ denote the unit object and let $`V\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ be a two dimensional comodule $`V`$ with the basis $`x,y`$ and the coaction given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_V\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\end{array}\right).$$

The following well known property of the object $`V`$ will be crucial for us:

The object $`V\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ is selfdual, moreover for any isomorphism $`\varphi :VV^{}`$ the composition

$`(1)`$
$$\mathrm{𝟏}\stackrel{coev_V}{}VV^{}\stackrel{\varphi \varphi ^1}{}V^{}V\stackrel{ev_V}{}\mathrm{𝟏}$$

equals to $`(q+q^1)\text{id}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

Indeed, let $`\delta _x,\delta _yV^{}`$ be the dual basis to $`x,yV`$. By the definition

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_V^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta _x\\ \delta _y\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}d& q^1c\\ qb& a\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta _x\\ \delta _y\end{array}\right).$$

It is easy to check that the map $`\varphi (x)=\delta _y,\varphi (y)=q\delta _x`$ is an isomorphism of comodules. Finally, the composition in (1) equals to

$$1x\delta _x+y\delta _y\delta _y(q^1y)+(q\delta _x)xq^1q.$$

Note that since $`V\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ is irreducible, the isomosphism $`\varphi `$ is unique up to scaling, (so composition (1) equals $`(q+q^1)\text{id}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ for any $`\varphi `$). From now on we fix a choice of such isomorphism.

Equivalently, we can replace the isomorphism $`\varphi `$ by two maps

$$\alpha :=(\text{id}_V\varphi ^1)coev_V:\mathrm{𝟏}VV,\beta :=ev_V(\varphi \text{id}_V):VV\mathrm{𝟏}$$

such that:

1) The compositions $`V\stackrel{\alpha \text{id}_V}{}VVV\stackrel{\text{id}_V\beta }{}V`$ and $`V\stackrel{\text{id}_V\alpha }{}VVV\stackrel{\beta \text{id}_V}{}V`$ both equal to $`\text{id}_V:VV`$.

2) The composition $`\mathrm{𝟏}\stackrel{\alpha }{}VV\stackrel{\beta }{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ equals to $`(q+q^1)\text{id}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

Indeed, the map $`\varphi `$ can be reconstructed from the pair $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ as the composition $`V\stackrel{\text{id}_Vcoev_V}{}VVV^{}\stackrel{\beta \text{id}_V^{}}{}V^{}`$.

### 2.2. Turaev’s construction: the generic case

Recall that in the case when $`q`$ is not a root of unity or $`q=\pm 1`$ the category $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ is semisimple and we have a unique isomorphism of the Grothendieck rings (as based rings) $`\text{Gr}(\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q)\text{Gr}(\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_1)=\text{Gr}(\text{Rep}(SL(2))`$, see e.g. \[K\]. In other words, the category $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ has exactly one simple comodule in each dimension and tensor products of simple comodules are decomposed in the same way as for $`SL(2)`$.

In Chapter XII of \[T\] V. Turaev gave a topological construction of the category $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$. We reformulate his results in the following way:

###### Theorem 2.1.

(\[T\]) Assume that $`q`$ is not a root of unity or $`q=\pm 1`$. The triple $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q,V,\varphi )`$ has the following universal property: let $`𝒟`$ be an abelian monoidal category, let $`W𝒟`$ be a right rigid object and $`\mathrm{\Phi }:WW^{}`$ be an isomorphism such that the composition morphism

$`(2)`$
$$\mathrm{𝟏}\stackrel{coev_W}{}WW^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^1}{}W^{}W\stackrel{ev_W}{}\mathrm{𝟏}$$

equals to $`(q+q^1)\text{id}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Then there exists a unique tensor functor $`F:\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q𝒟`$ such that $`F(V)=W`$ and $`F(\mathrm{\Phi })=\varphi `$.

Sketch of proof. We will freely use the notation from Chapter XII of \[T\]. Let $`\overline{\alpha }=(\text{id}_W\mathrm{\Phi }^1)coev_W:\mathrm{𝟏}WW,\overline{\beta }:=ev_W(\mathrm{\Phi }\text{id}_W):WW\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Obviously, the morphisms $`\overline{\alpha }`$ and $`\overline{\beta }`$ induce the homomorphisms $`E_{k,l}\text{Hom}(W^k,W^l)`$ compatible with the compositions (here $`E_{k,l}`$ are the skein modules, \[T\] XII.1.1). In particular, for $`k=l`$ we get the homomorphism $`E_k\text{End}(W^k)`$ where $`E_k=E_{k,k}`$ is the Temperley-Lieb algebra. Let $`f_kE_k`$ be the Jones-Wenzl projectors (see \[T\] XII.4.1). Set $`a=\sqrt{q}`$ and recall that Turaev defined the category $`𝒱(a)`$ (see \[T\] XII.6) objects of which are sequences $`(j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_l)_0^l`$. Define the functor $`\stackrel{~}{F}:𝒱(a)𝒟`$ by $`F((j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_l))=\text{Im}(f_{j_1}f_{j_2}\mathrm{}f_{j_l})W^{(j_1+j_2+\mathrm{}+j_l)}`$ and endow it with the obvious tensor structure; since the morphisms in the category $`𝒱(a)`$ are defined in terms of the skein modules, the functor $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is well defined on morphisms. Let us apply this construction to the case $`𝒟=\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q,W=V,\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi `$. We get the functor $`\stackrel{~}{F}_q:𝒱(a)\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$. The calculations in \[T\] XII.8 show that the functor $`\stackrel{~}{F}_q`$ is an equivalence of categories. Thus we can set $`F=\stackrel{~}{F}\stackrel{~}{F}_q^1`$ and the Theorem is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.2.

(i) One can require from $`𝒟`$ to be only a Karoubian category, that is an additive category where any projector has an image.

(ii) Theorem 2.1 implies immediately that the categories $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_{q^1}`$ are equivalent. Of course this is well known. Another fact of a similar kind is the following. Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^\pm \stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ be the full subcategories with objects which are direct sums of odd/even dimensional simple comodules depending on $`\pm `$. Clearly, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q=\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^+\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^{}`$. Moreover, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^+\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^+\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^+`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^+\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^+\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^+`$. In other words, the category $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ is $`/2`$graded. Now one can twist the associativity isomorphism in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ by changing the sign of the associativity isomorphism $`(XY)ZX(YZ)`$ when $`X,Y,Z\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^{}`$. Let us denote the category twisted in such a way by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^{tw}`$. It follows from Theorem 2.1 that the category $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q^{tw}`$ is equivalent to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$. This is also well known; moreover both facts above remain true when $`q`$ is a root of unity.

(iii) One should be very careful with universal properties of tensor categories: for example the universal category with an object $`X`$ such that $`XX=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ does not exist. We expect that when $`q`$ is a root of unity the universal abelian category in a sense of Theorem 2.1 does not exist. In contrast the universal Karoubian category clearly exists (it coincides with Karoubian envelope of the skein category from \[T\] XII.2) and coincides with the category of tilting modules $`𝒯_q\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ (this is a consequence of the quantized Schur-Weyl duality, see \[D\]).

(iv) One can restate Theorem 2.1 in the following way: the tensor functors $`F:\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q𝒟`$ are in the one to one correspondence with objects $`W𝒟`$ together with an isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:WW^{}`$ such that the composition (2) equals to $`qq^1`$.

### 2.3. Turaev’s construction: the roots of unity case

In the case when $`q`$ is a root of unity of order $`N3`$ the category $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ is not semisimple, see \[K\]. Let $`𝒯_q`$ denote the full additive (nonabelian) subcategory of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ whose objects are direct summands of $`V^n`$; clearly the subcategory $`𝒯_q`$ is closed under the tensor product (the category $`𝒯_q`$ is the category of tilting modules, see e.g. \[BK\]). It is well known that the additive subcategory $`_q`$ of $`𝒯_q`$ generated by indecomposable modules of zero quantum dimension is a tensor ideal and thus the quotient $`𝒞_q=𝒯_q/_q`$ is a well defined semisimple tensor category, see \[BK\]. The object $`V\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q`$ can be considered as an object of $`𝒞_q`$ and for the isomorphism $`\varphi :VV^{}`$ the composition (2) equals to $`qq^1`$. But the universal property of the category $`𝒞_q`$ is a little bit more delicate. Let $`𝒟`$ be an abelian monoidal category, $`W𝒟`$ be a right rigid object and $`\mathrm{\Phi }:WW^{}`$ be an isomorphism such that the composition (2) equals to $`qq^1`$. In the same way as in the discussion of Theorem 2.1 we have homomorphisms $`E_{k,l}\text{Hom}(W^k,W^l)`$ where $`E_{k,l}`$ are the skein modules. Set $`N_{}=N`$ if $`N`$ is odd and $`N_{}=N/2`$ if $`N`$ is even. Recall that the last Jones-Wenzl idempotent which is possible to define is $`f_{N_{}1}`$, see \[T\] XII.4.3.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Assume that $`q`$ is a root of unity of order $`N3`$. The triple $`(𝒞_q,V,\varphi )`$ has the following universal property: let $`𝒟`$ be an abelian monoidal category, let $`W𝒟`$ be a right rigid object and $`\mathrm{\Phi }:WW^{}`$ be an isomorphism such that the composition morphism

$`(2)`$
$$\mathrm{𝟏}\stackrel{coev_W}{}WW^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^1}{}W^{}W\stackrel{ev_W}{}\mathrm{𝟏}$$

equals to $`(q+q^1)\text{id}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. In addition let us assume that the image of $`f_{N_{}1}`$ in $`\text{Hom}(W^{N_{}1},W^{N_{}1})`$ is zero. Then there exists a unique tensor functor $`F:𝒞_q𝒟`$ such that $`F(V)=W`$ and $`F(\mathrm{\Phi })=\varphi `$.

In other words, the tensor functors $`F:𝒞_q𝒟`$ are in bijection with objects $`W𝒟`$ together with an isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:WW^{}`$ such that the composition (2) equals to $`qq^1`$ and the image of $`f_{N_{}1}`$ in $`\text{Hom}(W^{N_{}1},W^{N_{}1})`$ is zero.

Remarks on proof. As it is explained in Remark 2.2 (iii) we have a unique tensor functor $`F:𝒯_q𝒟`$ such that $`F(V)=W`$ and $`F(\mathrm{\Phi })=\varphi `$. So one just needs to check that this functor maps $`_q`$ to zero. But it is well known (see e.g. \[BK\]) that the tensor ideal $`_q`$ is generated by $`\text{Im}(f_{N_{}1})`$ in a sense that any object of $`_q`$ is isomorphic to a direct summand of $`\text{Im}(f_{N_{}1})T`$ where $`T𝒯_q`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.4.

In \[T\] only the case of even $`N`$ is considered. We note that the construction of \[T\] works without any change for odd $`N`$ as well. The only difference is that the resulting semisimple category is not modular.

### 2.4. Main equation

Define

$$𝒞_q=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q\hfill & \text{if}q\text{is not a root of unity or}q=\pm 1;\hfill \\ 𝒯_q/_q\hfill & \text{if}q\text{is a root of unity},q\pm 1.\hfill \end{array}$$

The aim of this note is to classify the semisimple module categories with finitely many simple objects over the category $`𝒞_q`$. Here is our main result:

###### Theorem 2.5.

(i) Assume that $`q`$ is not a root of unity or $`q=\pm 1`$. The semisimple module categories with finitely many simple objects over the category $`𝒞_q`$ are classified by the following data:

1) A finite set $`I`$;

2) A collection of finite dimensional vector spaces $`V_{ij}`$, $`i,jI`$;

3) A collection of nondegenerate bilinear forms $`E_{ij}:V_{ij}V_{ji}`$,

subject to the following condition: for each $`iI`$ we have

$`(3)`$
$$\underset{jI}{}\text{Tr}(E_{ij}(E_{ji}^t)^1)=qq^1.$$

###### Proof.

Let $``$ be a semisimple module category over $`𝒞_q`$ with finitely many simple objects. Let $`I`$ be the set of the isomorphism classes of simple objects in $``$. The structure of module category on $``$ is the same as the tensor functor $`F:𝒞_q\text{Fun}(,)`$ where $`\text{Fun}(,)`$ is the category of additive functors from $``$ to itself, see \[O\]. Recall that the category $`\text{Fun}(,)`$ is identified with the category of $`I\times I`$graded vector spaces with obvious “matrix” tensor product. By Remark 2.2 (iv) the functors $`F:𝒞_q\text{Fun}(,)`$ are bijective to the objects $`\overline{V}=(V_{ij})\text{Fun}(,)`$ together with an isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\overline{V}\overline{V}^{}=(V_{ji}^{})`$ (equivalently, this is a collection of nondegenerate bilinear forms $`E_{ij}:V_{ij}V_{ji}`$) such that the morphism (2) equals to $`qq^1`$. It is obvious that the last condition is equivalent to the condition (3). The theorem is proved. ∎

## 3. Solutions of the main equation

### 3.1. Deformations

Let us fix a finite set $`I`$, the numbers $`a_{ij}=dimV_{ij}=dimV_{ji}`$ and try to analyze the corresponding solutions of the main equation. It is convenient to represent these data as a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(I,\{a_{ij}\})`$ with the set of vertices $`I`$ and $`a_{ij}`$ edges joining the vertices $`i`$ and $`j`$ (the matrix $`A=(a_{ij})`$ is the adjacency matrix of this graph). We are going to classify the graphs with respect to the deformation behavior of solutions of the main equation. If we fix the vector spaces $`V_{ij}`$ of dimensions $`a_{ij}`$, the set of solutions of equation (3) is clearly an affine algebraic variety $`𝔐`$. The group $`G=_{i,j}GL(V_{ij})`$ acts naturally on $`𝔐`$. Since we are interested in the solutions of the main equation only up to isomorphism we define the set of solutions of the main equation to be the set $`𝔐/G`$ of orbits of $`G`$ on $`𝔐`$. In general $`𝔐/G`$ has no structure of an algebraic variety; so let $`𝔐//G`$ denote the quotient in the sense of the invariant theory, that is $`𝔐//G`$ is the set of closed $`G`$orbits on $`𝔐`$. Now $`𝔐//G`$ has a structure of an algebraic variety; we will see that the natural map $`𝔐/G𝔐//G`$ is finite to one and is one to one on an open nonempty subset of $`𝔐//G`$. Thus we define the dimension of the set of solutions of the main equation to be equal to the dimension of the variety $`𝔐//G`$. In such situation we will say that $`𝔐/G`$ is a moduli space (even if it is not an algebraic variety).

###### Definition 3.1.

(i) We will say that a graph is super-rigid if the main equation (3) admits only finitely many solutions for finitely many values of $`q`$ and no solutions for other values of $`q`$.

(ii) We will say that a graph is rigid if the main equation (3) admits only finitely many solutions for all but finitely many values of $`q`$.

(iii) We will say that a graph is non-rigid if it is not rigid.

###### Remark 3.2.

One says that a graph is strictly rigid if the main equation admits only finitely many solutions for all values of $`q`$. We will see later that the graph is rigid. On the other hand it is easy to see that it is not strictly rigid: for $`q+q^1=1`$ it admits infinitely many solutions of the main equation.

If a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a disjoint union of two subgraphs, the cooresponding module category over $`𝒞_q`$ is clearly a direct sum of module subcategories corresponding to the subgraphs. Thus from now on we will study only connected graphs. For a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we define its underlying simply laced graph as a graph $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ with the same set of vertices and the vertices $`ij`$ are joined by exactly one edge if $`v_{ij}0`$ and are not joined otherwise (in particular $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ has no self-loops).

For a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(I,\{a_{ij}\})`$ we define the generalized number of cycles $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ by formula

$$L(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}a_{ij}+\underset{i}{}[\frac{a_{ii}}{2}]|I|+1$$

where $`[]`$ denotes the integer part. Note that in a case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has no self-loops $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is just the number of loops in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We will see later that the number $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is the expected dimension (that is, the difference of the number of variables and the number of equations) of the set of solutions of the main equation. Moreover, we will see that $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ coincides with (properly understood) dimension of the set of solutions of the main equation.

###### Definition 3.3.

(i) A connected graph is called a generalized tree if $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })=0`$.

(ii) A connected graph is called a 1-loop graph if $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })=1`$.

###### Remark 3.4.

(i) A connected graph is a generalized tree if $`a_{ij}1`$ and its underlying simply laced graph is a tree (note that the possibility $`a_{ii}0`$ is allowed).

(ii) A connected graph is a 1-loop graph if either $`a_{ij}1`$ and its underlying simply laced graph has exactly $`|I|`$ edges or its underlying simply laced graph is a tree, $`a_{ij}3`$, $`a_{ij}2`$ for exactly one pair of vertices $`i,j`$ and $`a_{ij}=3`$ implies $`i=j`$.

###### Theorem 3.5.

(i) For any graph there exists a solution of the main equation with some $`q\pm i`$.

(ii) A connected graph is super-rigid iff it is a generalized tree.

(iii) A connected graph is rigid but not super-rigid iff it is a 1-loop graph.

###### Proof.

1) A quadruple $`(V_{ij},V_{ji},E_{ij},E_{ji})`$ consisting of two vector spaces $`V_{ij},V_{ji}`$ and two nondegenerate bilinear forms $`E_{ij}:V_{ij}V_{ji}`$ and $`E_{ji}:V_{ji}V_{ij}`$ is isomorphic to the quadruple $`(V_{ij},V_{ij}^{},,,S,)`$ where $`,:V_{ij}V_{ij}^{}`$ is the canonical pairing and $`S:V_{ij}V_{ij}`$ is an invertible linear operator; two such quadruples are isomorphic if and only if the corresponding operators $`S`$ have the same Jordan form. Thus the moduli space $`𝒬(a_{ij})`$ of such quadruples with $`dim(V_{ij})=dim(V_{ji})=a_{ij}`$ has dimension $`a_{ij}`$. The image of the map $`𝒬(a_{ij})𝔸^2`$, $`x=\text{Tr}(E_{ij}(E_{ji}^t)^1),y=\text{Tr}(E_{ji}(E_{ij}^t)^1)`$ depends on $`a_{ij}`$: if $`a_{ij}=1`$ this is the hyperbola $`xy=1`$; if $`a_{ij}=2`$ this is $`(𝔸^2\{xy=0\})(0,0)`$; if $`a_{ij}3`$ this is $`𝔸^2`$.

2) Recall here the classification of nondegenerate bilinear forms, see \[B\], 5.6: any pair $`(V,E)`$ consisting of a vector space $`V`$ and nondegenerate bilinear form $`E:VV`$ is up to isomorphism uniquely determined by the operator $`S_E=E(E^t)^1:V^{}V^{}`$; the operator $`S_E`$ is conjugated to $`S_E^1`$ and moreover the number of Jordan cells of size $`k`$ with eigenvalue $`(1)^k`$ is even. Thus the moduli space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}(a)`$ of such pairs with $`dim(V)=a`$ has dimension $`[a/2]`$ (in the same sense as before); the image of the map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}(a)𝔸^1`$, $`(V,E)\text{Tr}(E(E^t)^1)`$ is just the point $`1`$ for $`a=1`$ and the entire $`𝔸^1`$ for $`a2`$.

Thus we see that $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is really the expected dimension of the set of solutions of the main equation. It is clear that the actual dimension of the set of solutions of the main equation is greater or equal to $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ if this set is nonempty..

Now let us show that for any choice of the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ there exists a solution of the main equation. Let $`(r_i)_{iI}`$ be an eigenvector of the matrix $`A=(a_{ij})`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ and such that $`_{iI}r_i0`$ (such eigenvector exists, for example one can take the Frobenius-Perron eigenvector). Now choose bilinear forms $`E_{ij}`$ in such a way that $`\text{Tr}(E_{ij}(E_{ji}^t)^1)=a_{ij}r_j/r_i`$ (this is possible in view of the remarks above). It is clear that in this way we get a solution of the main equation with $`\lambda =qq^1`$. If $`\lambda `$ is the Frobenius-Perron eigenvalue we have $`\lambda >0`$ and thus $`q\pm i`$. Thus (i) is proved.

Now assume that the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not a generalized tree. Thus either $`a_{i_0j_0}2`$ for some $`i_0,j_0I`$, or our graph contains a cycle of length $`M3`$.

Case 1: $`i_0=j_0`$. Consider the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{A}(u)=(\stackrel{~}{a}_{ij})`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{ij}=a_{ij}`$ except $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{i_0i_0}=u`$. For real positive $`u`$ the Frobenius-Perron eigenvalue of the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{A}(u)`$ depends nontrivially on $`u`$ since $`\text{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{A}(u))=u+\text{Tr}(A)a_{i_0i_0}`$. Thus for generic $`u`$ the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{A}(u)`$ has an eigenvector $`(r_i(u))_{iI}`$ with $`_{iI}r_i0`$ and with an eigenvalue $`\lambda (u)`$ depending nontrivially on $`u`$. Thus $`\lambda (u)`$ takes all values from $``$ except finitely many. Now a choice of $`E_{ij}`$ such that $`\text{Tr}(E_{ij}(E_{ji}^t)^1)=\stackrel{~}{a}_{ij}(u)r_j(u)/r_i(u)`$ (this choice is possible by 1) and 2) above) gives a solution of the main equation with $`qq^1=\lambda (u)`$. Thus our graph is not super-rigid.

Case 2: $`i_0j_0`$. In this case consider the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{A}(u)=(\stackrel{~}{a}_{ij})`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{ij}=a_{ij}`$ except $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{i_0j_0}=u`$. Since $`\text{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{A}(u)^2)`$ depends on $`u`$ nontrivially the same arguments as above show that our graph is not super-rigid.

Case 3: the graph has a cycle of length $`M3`$. Let $`(i_0,j_0)`$ be an edge from the cycle. Consider the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{A}(u)=(\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij})`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}=A_{ij}`$ except $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{i_0j_0}=u`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{j_0i_0}=u^1`$. Now $`\text{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{A}(u)^M)`$ depends on $`u`$ nontrivially and our graph is not super-rigid.

Now we are going to prove that a generalized tree is super-rigid.

###### Definition 3.6.

An eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ of the matrix $`A=(a_{ij})`$ is called nondegenerate if there exists a $`\lambda `$eigenvector $`(r_i)_{iI}`$ such that $`_{iI}r_i0`$.

The following lemma is well known in graph theory, see \[F\]. We give a proof for the reader’s convenience.

###### Lemma 3.7.

(i) For any matrix $`A`$ with nonnegative integer entries there exists a nondegenerate eigenvalue.

(ii) If $`A`$ corresponds to a generalized tree then a nondegenerate eigenvalue has multiplicity 1.

###### Proof.

(i) The Frobenius-Perron eigenvalue (and its Galois conjugates) is always nondegenerate.

(ii) Let $`\lambda `$ be an eigenvalue of the matrix $`A`$. We are going to prove that an $`\lambda `$eigenvector $`(r_i)_{iI}`$ with $`_{iI}r_i0`$ is unique up to proportionality if it exists. This would imply the statement of Lemma since a small perturbation preserves the property $`_{iI}r_i0`$.

The vector $`(r_i)_{iI}`$ satisfies

$$\underset{ij,a_{ij}=1}{}r_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}\lambda r_j& \text{if}a_{jj}=0,\\ (\lambda 1)r_j& \text{if}a_{jj}=1,\end{array}$$

(the sum is over all edges of the underlying simply laced graph with vertex $`j`$). Let us introduce new variables parametrized by the oriented edges of the underlying simply laced graph, $`y_{ij}=r_i/r_j`$. These variables satisfy

$`(4)`$
$$y_{ij}y_{ji}=1,\underset{ij,a_{ij}=1}{}y_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\lambda & \text{if}a_{jj}=0,\\ \lambda 1& \text{if}a_{jj}=1.\end{array}$$

Now the result is a consequence of the following

Sublemma. For any choice of $`(\lambda _j)_{jI}`$ the system of equations

$`(5)`$
$$y_{ij}y_{ji}=1,\underset{ij,a_{ij}=1}{}y_{ij}=\lambda _j$$

has at most one solution.

Proof of Sublemma. The proof is by induction in $`|I|`$. Choose a vertex $`j_0`$ of valency 1 of the underlying simply laced graph (which is a tree). Then there is only one variable $`y_{ij_0}`$ and it is uniquely defined from the equation $`y_{ij_0}=_{ij_0,a_{ij_0}=1}y_{ij_0}=\lambda _{j_0}.`$ Then the variable $`y_{j_0i}=1/y_{ij_0}`$ is also uniquely defined and all other variables satisfy the system of equations of the same form with smaller $`|I|`$. The Sublemma and the Lemma are proved. ∎

Observe that in the case of a generalized tree the main equation has exactly the form of system (4). Thus it is obvious that the only possible values of $`\lambda `$ are the nondegenerate eigenvalues of $`A`$. So the Sublemma implies that a generalized tree is super-rigid. Thus (ii) is proved.

Now we claim that for any graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the dimension of the space of solutions of the main equation is exactly $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Indeed, let us choose a spanning tree $`T`$ of the underlying simply laced graph $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. Now let us choose any values of parameters attached to all edges not belonging to $`T`$; in particular for any edge $`ij`$ from $`T`$ choose any values of $`a_{ij}1`$ eigenvalues of the matrix $`S`$ (see 1) above). Thus we have chosen $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ parameters. Now the main equation reduces to the system of the shape (5) for the rest of parameters (we have one parameter for each edge of the tree $`T`$). Now the Sublemma implies that we have only finitely many solutions for these parameters. Henceforth we see that the expected dimension $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ coincides with the actual dimension (understood as it is explained above) of the set of solutions of the main equation.

Now it is clear that if a graph is a 1-loop graph if and only if it is rigid (indeed, the set of solutions of the main equation has dimension 1 and it maps dominantly under the projection to the variable $`q`$). The Theorem is proved. ∎

###### Corollary 3.8.

For any value of $`|I|`$ there are only finitely many rigid (and hence super-rigid) graphs.

Recall that the ultraspherical polynomials $`P_n(x)`$ are defined recursively by

$$P_1(x)=1,P_2(x)=x,P_{n+2}(x)=xP_{n+1}(x)P_n(x),n1.$$

It is a classical fact that the classes of simple objects in $`\text{Gr}(𝒞_q)`$ are given by $`P_n([V])`$, see e.g. \[K\].

###### Corollary 3.9.

Let $`A`$ be an indecomposable symmetric matrix with nonnegative entries. Then either $`P_n(A)=0`$ for some $`n`$ (all such matrices are explicitly known and are classified by ADET graphs, see below) or $`P_n(A)`$ has nonnegative entries for all $`n`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\lambda `$ be the Frobenius-Perron eigenvalue of $`A`$. All indecomposable matrices with $`\lambda <2`$ are classified and it is well known that for such matrices $`P_n(A)=0`$ for some $`n`$, see e. g. \[EK\]. Hence we can assume that $`\lambda 2`$. Then the construction from the proof of Theorem 3.5 gives us a module category over $`𝒞_q`$ with $`q+q^1=\lambda `$ (and thus $`q`$ is not a root of unity) where the object $`V`$ is represented by the vector space valued matrix of dimension $`A`$. Since $`P_n(A)`$ gives an action of some object in $`𝒞_q`$, it is nonnegative. ∎

Consider the case $`q=1`$. In this case $`𝒞_1\text{Rep}(SL(2))`$. Any finite subgroup $`GSL(2)`$ gives rise to a module category $`\text{Rep}(G)`$ over $`\text{Rep}(SL(2))`$. As it is known from the McKay correspondence, the corresponding graph is then an affine ADE Dynkin diagram. Observe that the graphs of type $`\stackrel{~}{D}_n,\stackrel{~}{E}_n`$ are super-rigid while the graph of type $`\stackrel{~}{A}_n`$ is just rigid. This explains the fact that among finite subgroups of $`SL(2)`$ only the cyclic subgroups corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{A}_n`$ admit a continuos deformation in the “quantum” direction.

### 3.2. Examples

In this section we will assume that $`q`$ is not a root of unity. Recall that the module categories over $`𝒞`$ with one simple object are the same as fiber functors ($`=`$ tensor functors $`𝒞\text{Vec}`$). We see from Theorem 2.5 that the fiber functors on $`𝒞_q`$ are classified by a vector space $`V`$ and a bilinear form $`E:VV`$ such that $`\text{Tr}(E(E^t)^1)=qq^1`$. This is exactly the result of J. Bichon, see \[Bi\] who classified all Hopf algebras $`H`$ such that the category of comodules over $`H`$ is tensor equivalent to $`𝒞_q`$. Thus our Theorem 2.5 can be considered as a generalization of Bichon’s result: we classify all weak Hopf algebras $`H`$ such that the category of comodules over $`H`$ is tensor equivalent to $`𝒞_q`$.

Observe that a graph with one vertex is rigid iff $`dim(V)3`$ and is super-rigid iff $`dim(V)=1`$ (the last case gives $`q`$ which is a primitive root of unity of order 3). Here is a list of rigid graphs with $`|I|=2`$ (we wrote possible values of $`q+q^1`$ over the super-rigid graphs):

Now we are going to discuss the case of super-rigid graphs. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(I,\{a_{ij}\})`$ be a generalized tree. We have the following consequence of Lemma 3.7:

###### Proposition 3.10.

A solution of the main equation (3) for a generalized tree exists if and only if $`qq^1`$ is a nondegenerate eigenvalue of $`A=(a_{ij})`$. In such a case the solution is unique.

Observe that since an eigenvalue of symmetric matrix is real we have

###### Corollary 3.11.

If the category $`𝒞_q`$ has a module category corresponding to a super-rigid graph then either $`|q|=1`$ or $`q`$ is real.

We present here a few examples. Here is a list of generalized trees with $`4`$ vertices; under any graph we wrote possible values of $`\lambda =qq^1`$ or an algebraic equation for $`\lambda `$; we omitted all values of $`q`$ being a root of unity (thus some graphs are omitted too; see the next subsection for them).

### 3.3. The roots of unity case

In this case we recover the Ocneanu-Kirillov-Ostrik classification of the module categories over $`𝒞_q`$ (the quantum “McKay correspondence”), see \[Oc\], \[KO\], \[O\]. Let $`q`$ be a root of unity of order $`N3`$. Recall here that the irreducible based modules over the based ring $`\text{Gr}(𝒞_q)`$ are classified by the ADET Dynkin diagrams with the Coxeter number $`N_{}`$, see \[DZ\], \[EK\]. In the pictures below the subscript is the number of vertices and $`h`$ is the Coxeter number:

###### Theorem 3.12.

Let $`q`$ be a primitive root of unity of order $`N3`$.

(i) Assume that $`N`$ is even. The indecomposable module categories over the category $`𝒞_q`$ are classified by the ADE Dynkin diagrams with the Coxeter number $`N_{}=N/2`$.

(ii) Assume that $`N`$ is odd. The indecomposable module categories over the category $`𝒞_q`$ are classified by the ADET Dynkin diagrams with the Coxeter number $`N_{}=N`$.

###### Proof.

It is clear that any module category $``$ over $`𝒞_q`$ gives rise to a based module $`\text{Gr}()`$ over $`\text{Gr}(𝒞_q)`$. Such based modules were classified in \[DZ\], \[EK\] and the answer is given precisely by ADET Dynkin diagrams with the Coxeter number $`N_{}`$. Conversely, we know that any generalized tree with nondegenerate eigenvalue $`q+q^1`$ gives rise to a unique module category over $`𝒯_q`$. It is well known that the class of the object $`\text{Im}(f_{N_{}1})`$ in $`\text{Gr}(\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_q)`$ is given by $`P_N_{}([V])`$, see e.g. \[BK\] (recall that $`P_N_{}`$ is an ultraspherical polynomial). On the other hand in $`\text{Gr}(𝒞_q)`$ we have the relation $`P_N_{}([V])=0`$, see loc. cit. Thus we can apply Theorem 2.3. Observe that $`qq^1`$ is a nondegenerate eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix of the corresponding graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in all cases except when $`N`$ is even and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T_n`$ (actually in all cases $`qq^1`$ is Galois conjugate to the Frobenius-Perron eigenvalue). Thus by Proposition 3.10 we have a unique solution of the main equation. The Theorem is proved. ∎


text:
# General Criterion for the existence of Supertube and BIon in Curved Target Space

## Abstract

The supertube and BIon spike solutions are examined in a general curved target space. The criteria for the existence of these solutions are explicitly derived. Also the equation which the general BIon solution should satisfy is derived.

Although there are many kinds of bound states, considerable attention has recently been paid to the supertube, which is a bound state of D2-brane, F-string, and D0-brane. The supertube is a BPS object and preserves $`(1/4)`$ of supersymmetry. It is supported against collapse by the Poynting angular momentum which is generated by the worldvolume electromagnetic fields.

The physical implications for the upper bound of angular momentum have been investigated on the supergravity side and from an $`AdS`$/CFT setting. From the viewpoint of supergravity the maximum angular momentum is related to a global violation of causality. From the $`AdS/CFT`$ viewpoint it is related to the maximum size of the particle which is a ‘blown-up’ version of the massless particle via Myers’ effect. Other aspects of the maximal angular momentum have been summarized in Ref..

The supertube has recently found further generalizations, and its T-dual, TST-dual, and M-theoretical variants have been constructed. The interesting feature is that supersymmetry is not broken, although the shape of the cross section is arbitrary. This property has been re-examined in the context of M-theory, which yields a unified description for the supertube, D-Helix, and supercurve in terms of M-Ribbons. Another interesting aspect of the supertube is the fact that it can be deformed into a D2-anti-D2 system, which has been explored in the context of Matrix theory and abelian Born-Infeld theory. From this aspect the supertube can be understood as a miraculous separation of D2-anti-D2 branes. The D2-anti-D2 configuration has also been extended to the spherical sphere§§§In $`S^2`$ topology we cannot usually define the electromagnetic fields smoothly due to the poles. Thus, one has to ignore the problem arising from the topology in this case. and D3-branes.

Here we consider general criteria for the existence of the supertube and BIon solutions in a curved target space. This was initially motivated from the observation that we cannot find any explicit reason in the original paper why a flat target space should be essential in forming the supertube. In the following we derive this criterion explicitly, and also an equation which the general BIon solution would have to satisfy. Thus our aim is to obtain supertube-like and BIon-like solutions in curved spacetime. To this end we use a simple observation valid in flat spacetime. As a starting point let us recall the energy density for the supertube given in Ref. (setting $`2\pi \alpha ^{}=1`$ and $`2\pi g_s=1`$)

$$_{ST}=\frac{1}{R}\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Pi }^2+R^2)(B^2+R^2+R^2R_x^2)},$$
(1)
where $`R_x_xR`$ and we chose $`_\phi R=0`$ for simplicity. Of course, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the conjugate momentum of the electric field, and $`B`$ is the worldvolume magnetic field. If $`R_x=0`$, the energy density simply reduces to

$$_{ST}=\frac{1}{R}\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Pi }^2+R^2)(B^2+R^2)}.$$
(2)
It is instructive to re-express $`_{ST}`$ in the following form with inequality:

$$_{ST}=\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Pi }+B)^2+\left(\frac{B}{R}\mathrm{\Pi }R\right)^2}\mathrm{\Pi }+B.$$
(3)
With Eq.(3) one can easily understand that the inequality (3) is saturated by the condition $`R^2=\mathrm{\Pi }B`$, and the corresponding BPS energy of the supertube is $`_{ST}^{BPS}=\mathrm{\Pi }+B`$. Since the supertube does not carry D2-brane charge, it can be regarded as a ‘blown-up’ form of the type IIA superstring which carries D0-brane charge. Furthermore, Ref. has shown that this configuration preserves $`(1/4)`$-supersymmetry.

Ref. has also obtained the BIon spike solution which also preserves $`(1/4)`$-supersymmetry. We first demonstrate how the BIon solution can be reproduced from using a simple inequality. When $`R_x0`$, the energy density (1) cannot be expressed in a form, from which an inequality can easily be constructed. This difficulty is overcome if we impose the condition $`B=bRR_x`$. In this case the energy density (1) can be expressed as follows:

$$_{ST}=\sqrt{\left(\mathrm{\Pi }+\frac{\sqrt{1+b^2}}{b}B\right)^2+\left(\frac{\frac{\sqrt{1+b^2}}{b}B}{R}\mathrm{\Pi }R\right)^2}\mathrm{\Pi }+\frac{\sqrt{1+b^2}}{b}B.$$
(4)
One should note that this is not a BPS-type inequality because the r.h.s of Eq.(4) is dependent on $`R`$ via the magnetic field. In spite of this, however, we can show that this inequality gives a BIon spike solution at the saturation point.

The inequality is saturated for $`R^2=\sqrt{1+b^2}B\mathrm{\Pi }/b`$, and the corresponding energy density is

$$_{ST}^{MBPS}=\mathrm{\Pi }+\frac{\sqrt{1+b^2}}{b}B,$$
(5)
where $`MBPS`$ stands for modified BPS. The first term in $`_{ST}^{MBPS}`$ is interpreted as a contribution from the F-string and the second term as a contribution from the D2-anti-D2 system. Although we obtained $`_{ST}^{MBPS}`$ as a saturation condition of the inequality, we cannot guarantee that the configuration we obtained is a classical solution in view of the $`R`$-dependence of the r.h.s. of Eq.(4). Thus, we should check this explicitly by using the equations of motion. It is a simple matter to show that the saturation condition $`R^2=\sqrt{1+b^2}B\mathrm{\Pi }/b`$ with $`B=bRR_x`$ yields

$$R=Ce^{\frac{x}{E_0}},E_0=\mathrm{\Pi }\sqrt{1+b^2},$$
(6)
which is nothing but the BIon spike solution. This means, the inequality (4) also solves the equations of motion.

We use this simple observation to construct supertube-like and BIon-like solutions in the curved target spacetime. For this we consider the usual D2-worldvolume Lagrangian $`=\sqrt{det(g+F)}`$ in target space (conventions as stated above)

$$ds^2=W_1(R)dT^2+W_3(R)dX^2+W_2(R)dR^2+W_4(R)R^2d\mathrm{\Phi }^2+ds^2(E^6),$$
(7)
where $`W_1(R)`$, $`W_2(R)`$, $`W_3(R)`$, and $`W_4(R)`$ are arbitrary functions of $`R`$. We first consider the case of $`W_3=W_4=1`$ for simplicity. We describe the result for the case with arbitrary $`W_3`$ and $`W_4`$ at the end of the paper.

Defining the worldvolume coordinates $`(t,x,\phi )`$ as

$$t=T,x=X,\phi =\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(8)
and choosing the BI 2-form field strength as

$$F=Edtdx+Bdxd\phi ,$$
(9)
it is straightforward to compute the Lagrangian $``$

$$_1=\sqrt{(R^2+W_2R_\phi ^2)(W_1E^2)+W_1B^2+W_1W_2R_x^2R^2}$$
(10)
where $`R_\xi =_\xi R`$. We note the factor $`W_1E^2`$ in the square root of Eq.(10). If we start with a flat target space, i.e. $`W_1=W_2=1`$, the critical electric field would be $`E=1`$, which indicates that the velocity of the helix of Ref. is the velocity of light. Thus, the factor $`W_1E^2`$ indicates that the velocity of light is changed to $`\sqrt{W_1}`$ in this background. This can also be realized directly from the target spacetime metric (7).

The conjugate momentum of the electric field $`E`$, is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{}{E}=\frac{R^2E}{_1},$$
(11)
and Eq.(11) enables us to re-express the electric field $`E`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`B`$:

$$E=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{R}\sqrt{\frac{W_1[R^2+B^2+W_2R_x^2R^2]}{\mathrm{\Pi }^2+R^2}}.$$
(12)
Eq.(12) allows us to rewrite the energy density in the well-known form

$$_W=\mathrm{\Pi }E+_1=\frac{1}{R}\sqrt{W_1(\mathrm{\Pi }^2+R^2)(R^2+B^2+W_2R_x^2R^2)}.$$
(13)
We now consider first the case $`R_x=0`$, which corresponds to the case of the supertube in the flat spacetime background. In this case the energy density becomes

$`_W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\sqrt{W_1(\mathrm{\Pi }^2+R^2)(B^2+R^2)}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{W_1(\mathrm{\Pi }+B)^2+W_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{R}}\mathrm{\Pi }R\right)^2}\sqrt{W_1}(\mathrm{\Pi }+B).`$ (15)
It is interesting to note that the energy density $`_W`$ is always expressible as an inequality regardless of $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$. Thus, the inequality (14) is saturated at

$$R^2=\mathrm{\Pi }B$$
(16)
and the corresponding energy density becomes

$$_W^{MBPS}=\sqrt{W_1}(\mathrm{\Pi }+B).$$
(17)
The saturation condition (16) forces $`E`$ in Eq.(12) to assume its critical value $`E=\sqrt{W_1}`$, as expected. The factor $`\sqrt{W_1}`$ in Eq.(17) is part of $`\sqrt{g}`$, which is necessary for the definition of volume (or surface) element in the curved spacetime.

Although we have obtained the configurations $`R^2=\mathrm{\Pi }B`$ and $`E=\sqrt{W_1}`$, we should check whether these solve the classical equations of motion or not, because the saturation of the inequality (14) alone does not guarantee this in view of the $`R`$-dependence of the r.h.s. of (14) via $`W_1`$. The equations of motion or constraints with respect to the gauge potentials are

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{x}=\frac{H}{x}=\frac{H}{\phi }=0,$$
(18)
where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{R^2E}{_1},H=\frac{W_1B}{_1}.$$
(19)
One can easily show that our configurations solve these equations (18) if and only if $`W_1=const`$. Thus the existence of the supertube-like solution requires the time-time component of the metric to be equal to that of flat space. Later we will show that these configurations preserve $`(1/4)`$-supersymmetry like the flat spacetime supertube. We point out that verifying that a constraint like $`H/x=0`$ in Eq.(18) is satisfied can be done by evaluating the variation of $`_W`$ of Eq. (13) for $`BRR_x`$. The latter propotionality requires precisely this constraint. Ref. mentions only the first constraint, the Gauss law.

Next we turn to the case $`R_x0`$. As usual, in this case, it seems to be impossible to express $`_W`$ in Eq.(13) as a form from which the the inequality can be easily constructed. As shown, however, in the previous section, this difficulty can be overcome by imposing the condition satisfying the constraints (18), i.e.

$$B=B_0RR_x.$$
(20)
Then the energy density in Eq.(13) assumes the desired form:

$$_W=\sqrt{W_1\left(\mathrm{\Pi }+\sqrt{1+\frac{W_2}{B_0^2}}B\right)^2+W_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{1+\frac{W_2}{B_0^2}}B}{R}\mathrm{\Pi }R\right)^2}\sqrt{W_1}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }+\sqrt{1+\frac{W_2}{B_0^2}}B\right).$$
(21)
Again this inequality is saturated at

$$R^2=\sqrt{1+\frac{W_2}{B_0^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }B,$$
(22)
and the corresponding energy density is

$$_W^{MBPS}=\sqrt{W_1}\left[\mathrm{\Pi }+\sqrt{1+\frac{W_2}{B_0^2}}B\right].$$
(23)
We note that the saturation condition (22) with (20) also requires $`E`$ in Eq.(12) to be $`E=\sqrt{W_1}`$.

Although we have obtained $`_W^{MBPS}`$, it is not simple to interpret the second term of Eq.(23) for arbitrary $`W_2`$. However, we should note that the expression (21) for $`_W`$ is always possible although $`B_0`$ is not constant but function of $`R`$. Thus, to make a correct interpretation we assume that $`B_0`$ is a function of $`R`$ as $`B_0=B_1\sqrt{W_2}`$. Then the energy density $`_W^{MBPS}`$ assumes the familar form

$$_W^{MBPS}=\sqrt{W_1}\left[\mathrm{\Pi }+\frac{\sqrt{1+B_1^2}}{B_1}B\right],$$
(24)
and the corresponding magnetic field becomes

$$B=B_1\sqrt{W_2}RR_x.$$
(25)
Although all difficulties seem to be removed, there is an additional problem in the general curved background. If $`B_1`$ in Eq.(25) is a constant, the configurations we obtained here do not solve the equations of motion due to the factor $`W_1`$ in front of $`B^2`$ in BI Lagrangian (10). This means we need an additional technique to resolve this difficulty. The only method solving this problem is to re-define $`B_1`$ again as

$$B_1=\frac{b}{\sqrt{(1+b^2)W_1b^2}}$$
(26)
where $`b`$ is some constant. Then, the equation of motion for $`H`$ is automatically solved and the saturated energy density becomes

$$_W^{MBPS}=\sqrt{W_1}\mathrm{\Pi }+\frac{\sqrt{1+b^2}}{b}W_1B.$$
(27)
Of course, the first term in (27) can be interpreted as a contribution from F-strings and the second term as a contribution from the D2-anti-D2 system. Note that the power of $`W_1`$ is different in these contributions. This means, the energy of the D2-anti-D2 system depends nontrivially on the curved spacetime background.

The remaining equations of motion are solved when the equations

$$R_x=\frac{\sqrt{(1+b^2)W_1b^2}}{\mathrm{\Pi }\sqrt{(1+b^2)W_1W_2}}R$$
(28)
and

$$\frac{W_1^{}}{2\sqrt{W_1}}\left[1+\frac{R^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}\left(1\frac{1}{R_x}\right)\right]+\frac{\sqrt{W_1}}{2}W_2^{}R_x(R_x1)=0$$
(29)
are satisfied, where the prime denotes the differentiation with respect to the argument. Eq.(28) is just the Gauss law and yields the usual BIon spike solution in the flat spacetime limit. Eq.(29) is obtained by varying the action (10) with respect to $`R`$. In deriving Eq.(29) we have used Eq.(28) for reasons of simple appearance. Of course, this radial equation is automatically solved in the flat spacetime limit.

Although the BIon-like solution $`R_x`$ can be obtained from Eq.(28) for some particular $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$, it is a different matter whether the solution preserves the expected partial supersymmetry or not. This means the condition for supersymmetry preservation may give another constraint. To examine this, we consider the Killing equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ=ϵ`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a projection matrix appearing in the ‘$`\kappa `$-symmetry’ transformation. Then we obtain two conditions for the preservation of supersymmetry

$`\left[\sqrt{W_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{TX}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}+E\right]ϵ_0=0,`$ (30)
$`\left[\sqrt{W_2}RR_x\mathrm{\Gamma }_{TR\mathrm{\Phi }}+B\mathrm{\Gamma }_T\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}\right]ϵ_0={\displaystyle \frac{_1}{\sqrt{W_1}}}ϵ_0,`$ (31)
where the conventions of Ref. have been used. The first equation of (30) is consistent with our constraint $`E=\pm \sqrt{W_1}`$. However, the second equation of (30) becomes in our case

$$\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{TR\mathrm{\Phi }}+\frac{b}{\sqrt{(1+b^2)W_1b^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_T\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}\right]ϵ_0=\frac{\sqrt{(1+b^2)W_1}}{\sqrt{(1+b^2)W_1b^2}}ϵ_0.$$
(32)
To assign a proper physical meaning the only possible way is to choose $`W_1=1`$, which reduces Eq.(32) to the well-known form $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{TR\mathrm{\Phi }}+b\mathrm{\Gamma }_T\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}})ϵ_0=\sqrt{(1+b^2)}ϵ_0`$. Hence, again we obtained the condition $`W_1=1`$ for the existence of the BIon-like solution.

Thus the supersymmetry condition reduces equation (28) to the simple form

$$R_x=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }\sqrt{(1+b^2)W_2}}R.$$
(33)
Furthermore, the radial equation (29) becomes simply $`W_2^{}R_x(R_x1)=0`$. As we commented in Ref.  the radial equation is not needed to be an equation of motion if one starts with a static theory from the very beginning because in this case $`R`$ is not a dynamical variable. Thus we encounter a somewhat subtle situation. If we do not regard the radial equation as an equation of motion, we have a BIon-like solution obtained by solving Eq.(33), which preserves $`(1/4)`$-supersymmetry. But if we do regard the radial equation as an equation of motion, this fixes either $`W_2=const`$ or $`R_x=1`$. Since in this case the first choice makes spacetime flat, once again, we think, the second choice is the more interesting.

However, this situation is drastically changed when we have arbitrary $`W_i(i=1,2,3,4)`$. In this case the condition for the preservation of the $`(1/4)`$-supersymmetry also generates the constraint $`W_1=1`$. In the case of the supertube, however, the equation of motion yields the further constraint $`W_3=1`$ on the target spacetime. In fact, this is an expected result because we know that the cross section of the supertube can be arbitrary. This means, we have freedom in choosing $`W_2`$ and $`W_4`$. The physical meaning of $`W_3=1`$ is that the axis of the supertube should be straight. This fact has also been confirmed in Ref. from the viewpoint of M-theory.

For the BIon case the equations corresponding to Eqs.(28) and (29) are

$`R_x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{W_3W_4[(1+b^2)W_1b^2]}{(1+b^2)W_1W_2}}}R`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_1^{}}{2\sqrt{W_1W_3}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{W_3W_4}{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}}R^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_x}}\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{W_1}{W_3}}}\left[W_3^{}+R_x(R_x1)\left(W_2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{W_2}{W_4}}W_4^{}\right)\right]=0.`$ (35)
Thus the condition $`W_1=1`$ makes these equations to be more treatable form

$`R_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{W_3W_4}{(1+b^2)W_2}}}R,`$ (36)
$`W_3^{}`$ $`+`$ $`R_x(R_x1)\left(W_2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{W_2}{W_4}}W_4^{}\right)=0.`$ (37)
Although, therefore, we regard the radial constraint as an equation of motion, it cannot fix all of functions $`W_i`$ in this case. Thus, the solution of Eq.(36) for the fixed $`W_2`$, $`W_3`$, and $`W_4`$ is a general BIon spike solution in the curved target space.

Acknowledgement: DKP acknowledges support by the Korea Research Foundation under Grant (KRF-2002-015-CP0063) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Germany). ST acknowledges support from INTAS project INTAS-00-00561.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

An equivalence of “ordinary” (commutative) and noncommutative gauge fields leads to a transformation between them which is known as Seiberg–Witten (SW) map. This permits one to study noncommutative gauge theories in terms of ordinary fields. In fact, in  (S) duality is incorporated into noncommutative Maxwell theory action in terms of ordinary fields after performing SW map. In 4–dimensions if the original theory is noncommutative Maxwell theory where noncommutativity is spatial, its dual theory is a noncommutative gauge theory whose time variable is effectively noncommuting with the other coordinates. This interesting phenomenon is a consequence of the fact that the duality transformation includes 4–dimensional totally antisymmetric tensor.

In 3–dimensions the most extensively studied duality is between Maxwell–Chern–Simons (MCS) theory and self dual theory. It leads to two equivalent descriptions of the dynamics of massive spin–1 field. One of its most known applications is bosonization in 3–dimensions. We wonder what would be the consequences of generalization of this duality to noncommutative MCS theory. In  and  some generalizations of the mentioned duality to noncommutative theories are investigated in terms of noncommuting fields. However, duality can also be studied employing ordinary fields in the spirit of . Although at first sight this can appear to be trivial due to the fact that 3–dimensional noncommutative Chern–Simons (CS) action becomes the usual CS action in terms of SW map, we will show that it gives nontrivial results.

We write 3–dimensional noncommutative MCS action in terms of ordinary gauge fields utilizing SW map. We introduce a parent action in terms of ordinary fields to obtain the dual description. We study the dual action up to the second order in the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta ,`$ when we let only spatial noncommutativity. Once the dual description is obtained it inspires a new noncommutative CS theory in terms of ordinary gauge fields. We discuss equations of motion following from this new action. Moreover, we propose to write it in terms of noncommuting fields as the simplest generalization of abelian CS action. This leads to an explicit transformation between noncommutative and ordinary fields.

## 2 Duality and Noncommutative MCS Theory

It is well known that noncommutativity between coordinates can be introduced in terms of the star product

$$\mathrm{exp}\frac{i\theta ^{\mu \nu }}{2}(\stackrel{}{}_\mu \stackrel{}{}_\nu \stackrel{}{}_\nu \stackrel{}{}_\mu ),$$
(1)
where $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ are antisymmetric constant parameters. Thus, one retains coordinates commuting under the usual product.

Noncommutative MCS theory in 3–dimensions can be defined as

$$S=\widehat{S}_M+\widehat{S}_{CS},$$
(2)
in terms of the noncommutative CS action

$$\widehat{S}_{CS}=\frac{m}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }d^3x\left(\widehat{A}_\mu _\nu \widehat{A}_\rho +\frac{2}{3}\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu \widehat{A}_\rho \right)$$
(3)
and the noncommutative Maxwell theory

$$\widehat{S}_M=\frac{1}{4}d^3x\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }.$$
(4)
We employed the noncommutative field strength:

$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu _\nu \widehat{A}_\mu i\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu +i\widehat{A}_\nu \widehat{A}_\mu .$$
(5)
$`\widehat{A}^\mu `$ are not operators but they are called noncommutative gauge fields in the sense that they take values in noncommutative space.

One can show that the noncommutative MCS action (2) is invariant under the gauge transformations

$$\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}^\mu =^\mu \widehat{\lambda }+i\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{A}^\mu i\widehat{A}^\mu \widehat{\lambda }.$$
(6)
The equivalence relation between the noncommuting $`\widehat{A}^\mu ,\widehat{\lambda }`$ and the ordinary (commuting) gauge fields and gauge parameter $`A^\mu ,\lambda :`$

$$\widehat{A}^\mu \left(A\right)+\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}^\mu \left(A\right)=\widehat{A}^\mu \left(A+\delta _\lambda A\right),$$
(7)
leads to the SW map. To the first order in $`\theta `$ it is written explicitly as

$$\widehat{A}^\mu =A^\mu \theta ^{\rho \nu }\left(A_\rho _\nu A_\mu \frac{1}{2}A_\rho _\mu A_\nu \right).$$
(8)
When the change of variables which follows from (7) is performed the noncommutative CS action (3) becomes the usual action

$$\widehat{S}_{CS}=\frac{m}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }d^3xA_\mu _\nu A_\rho .$$
(9)
Thus, in terms of the SW map the action (2) can be expressed as

$$S=d^3x\left\{\frac{1}{4}\left[F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+(\theta ,F)\right]+\frac{m}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }A_\mu _\nu A_\rho \right\},$$
(10)
where the $`\theta `$ dependent part can be written as

$$(\theta ,F)L_\theta \left(F\right)+L_{\theta ^2}\left(F\right)+\mathrm{}.$$

$`L_{\theta ^n}`$ is at the nth order in $`\theta .`$ In the following we will use only the first and the second order terms, which can be written as

$`L_\theta \left(F\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\theta _{\mu \nu }F^{\nu \rho }F_{\rho \sigma }F^{\sigma \mu }12\theta _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }F^{\rho \sigma },`$ (11)
$`L_{\theta ^2}\left(F\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\theta _{\nu \mu }F^{\nu \rho }\theta _{\rho \sigma }F^{\sigma \delta }F_{\delta \xi }F^{\xi \mu }+\theta _{\mu \nu }F^{\nu \rho }F_{\rho \sigma }\theta ^{\sigma \delta }F_{\delta \xi }F^{\xi \mu }+\theta _{\mu \nu }F^{\nu \mu }\theta _{\rho \sigma }F^{\sigma \xi }F_{\xi \delta }F^{\delta \rho }`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(\theta _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^2F_{\rho \sigma }F^{\sigma \rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta _{\mu \nu }F^{\nu \rho }\theta _{\rho \sigma }F^{\sigma \mu }F_{\delta \xi }F^{\xi \delta }.`$
Let us introduce the parent action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3x\{ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }B_\mu _\nu A_\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_\mu B^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }A_\mu _\nu A_\rho `$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[L_\theta \left(F\right)+L_{\theta ^2}\left(F\right)+\mathrm{}]\}.`$
Equations of motion with respect to $`B_\mu `$ are

$$B_\mu =ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }^\nu A^\rho .$$

When we substitute $`B^\mu `$ with this in (13) the noncommutative MCS action (10) follows.

On the other hand the equations of motion with respect to $`A_\mu `$

$$_\nu \left[ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }\left(B_\rho mA_\rho \right)\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta }{\delta F_{\nu \mu }}\right]=0,$$
(14)
can be solved for $`A^\mu `$ as

$$A_\mu =\frac{1}{m}B_\mu +\frac{1}{m}b_\mu (\theta ,B).$$
(15)
We defined $`b_\mu (\theta ,B)`$ in terms of the equation

$$b_\mu (\theta ,B)+\frac{1}{4}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }𝒦_\theta ^{\nu \rho }\left(\frac{H}{m}+\frac{h(\theta ,B)}{m}\right)=0,$$
(16)
where $`H=dB,h(\theta ,B)=db(\theta ,B)`$ and

$$𝒦_\theta ^{\mu \nu }\left(F\right)\frac{\delta (\theta ,F)}{\delta F_{\mu \nu }}.$$

Obviously, $`b_\mu (\theta ,B)`$ can be expanded in powers of $`\theta `$ as

$$b^\mu (\theta ,B)=b_\theta ^\mu +b_{\theta ^2}^\mu +\mathrm{}.$$

When we plug the solution (15) into (13) the dual of noncommutative MCS action follows:

$`S_D`$ $`={\displaystyle d^3x}`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_\mu B^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }[B^\mu ^\nu B^\rho +b^\mu (\theta ,B)^\nu b^\rho (\theta ,B)]`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\theta ,{\displaystyle \frac{H}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{h(\theta ,B)}{m}})\}.`$
In the most general case we can add to the solution (15) the term $`_\mu \kappa ,`$ where $`\kappa `$ is an arbitrary function. However, this alters the dual action (17) only up to a surface term which we can drop. Obviously, this is equivalent to choose a vanishing $`\kappa .`$

When the noncommutativity is along the spatial coordinates:

$$\theta ^{ij}=\theta ϵ^{ij},\theta ^{0i}=0,$$
(18)
the first order term (11) can be written as

$$L_\theta \left(F\right)=\theta F_{12}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }.$$
(19)
Now, we can solve (16) to obtain

$`b_\theta ^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{m^2}}\left[H_{\mu \nu }H^{\mu \nu }+2H_{12}H_{12}\right],`$
$`b_\theta ^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\theta }{m^2}}H_{12}H_{02},`$ (20)
$`b_\theta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\theta }{m^2}}H_{12}H_{10}.`$
When we use these in (17) explicit form of the dual action to the second order in $`\theta `$ follows. To the second order in $`\theta `$ (17) can be written as

$`S_{D,\left(2\right)}`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x}`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_\mu B^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }B^\mu ^\nu B^\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}L_\theta \left({\displaystyle \frac{H}{m}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }b_\theta ^\mu ^\nu b_\theta ^\rho `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}L_{\theta ^2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H}{m}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m^2}}\theta _{\mu \nu }\left(H^{\nu \rho }h_{\theta \rho \sigma }H^{\sigma \mu }+2H^{\nu \rho }H_{\rho \sigma }h_\theta ^{\sigma \mu }\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{m^2}}\theta _{\mu \nu }(h_\theta ^{\mu \nu }H_{\rho \sigma }H^{\rho \sigma }+2H^{\mu \nu }h_{\theta \rho \sigma }H^{\rho \sigma })\},`$
where $`h_\theta ^{\mu \nu }=^\mu b_\theta ^\nu ^\nu b_\theta ^\mu .`$

Although, the dual actions (10) and (17) are obtained from the parent action (13), it is not guaranteed that they yield the same partition function. Indeed, we deal only with the classical aspects. Quantum corrections may oblige us to regulate the action (13) , which is not addressed in this work.

## 3  A New Noncommutative CS Theory

When SW map is employed the noncommutative CS action (3) becomes the ordinary CS action (9) . Thus, a noncommutative CS theory formulated in terms of the ordinary gauge fields $`A_\mu `$ and the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ is not available. However, we can utilize the action $`S_D`$ (17) to define a new noncommutative abelian CS theory in terms of the ordinary gauge fields $`B^\mu `$ and the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta _{\mu \nu }:`$

Setting $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$ and dropping the ordinary mass term $`B^2`$ in $`S_D`$ (17) lead to the ordinary abelian CS action:

$$S_{CS}\left[B\right]=\frac{M}{2}d^3xϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }B^\mu ^\nu B^\rho ,$$
(21)
where $`M1/m.`$ We would like to take advantage of this observation to define a new noncommutative abelian CS theory in terms of the ordinary gauge fields $`B^\mu `$ as

$$S_{\mathrm{NCS}}=d^3x\left\{\frac{M}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }\left[B^\mu ^\nu B^\rho +b^\mu (\theta ,B)^\nu b^\rho (\theta ,B)\right]\frac{1}{4}(\theta ,MH+Mh(\theta ,B))\right\},$$
(22)
by dropping the $`B^2`$ term in (17). Obviously, this action is invariant under the abelian gauge transformations $`\delta B_\mu =_\mu \lambda `$ and yields the ordinary CS theory (21) when one sets $`\theta =0.`$

Equations of motion are

$$ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }^\nu (B^\rho +b^\rho (\theta ,B)))4ϵ_{\sigma \nu \rho }^\kappa [G_{\kappa \mu }^\sigma \left(H\right)^\nu b^\rho ]=0,$$
(23)
where we defined

$$\frac{\delta b^\mu (\theta ,B\left(y\right))}{\delta H^{\nu \rho }\left(x\right)}=G_{\nu \rho }^\mu \left(H\right)\delta ^3\left(xy\right).$$
(24)
Observe that the simplest solution of (23) is

$$H^{\mu \nu }=0,$$

which is independent of $`\theta .`$ To the first order in $`\theta `$ the equations of motion (23) get the simple form

$$ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }^\nu \left(B^\rho +b_\theta ^\rho \right)=0.$$
(25)
The SW map (7) expresses the noncommutative gauge fields $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ in terms of the ordinary gauge fields $`A_\mu `$ utilizing the equivalence relation (8). A transformation between noncommutative and ordinary fields can also be derived by assuming an equivalence relation between the action (22) and another one written by introducing some fields $`(B,\theta )`$ taking values in noncommutative space. However, there is no unique choice for the latter action. One should make an assumption about the form of the action in terms of the noncommuting fields $`(B,\theta ).`$ Let us suppose that the action in terms of the noncommutative fields $`(B,\theta )`$, is in the same form as the abelian CS theory:

$$S_{NCS}\frac{M}{2}d^3xϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }^\mu (B,\theta )^\nu ^\rho (B,\theta ).$$
(26)
One can show that there exists a transformation between $`^\mu (B,\theta )`$ and $`B^\mu .`$ Indeed, one can solve for $``$ perturbatively in $`\theta `$. At the first order in $`\theta `$ one should solve

$$ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }B_\theta ^\mu H^{\rho \nu }=L_\theta \left(MH\right),$$
(27)
where $`B_\theta ^\mu =^\mu /\theta |_{\theta =0}.`$ There is not a unique solution. For instance, when the noncommutativity is only spatial (18), a solution is

$$B_\theta ^\mu =\frac{M\theta }{2}H_{21}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }H_{\nu \rho }.$$

Although the assumption (26) is very plausible, in principle one may define some other actions in terms of fields taking values in noncommutative space. Nevertheless, the assumed form of the action (26) is shown to yield a map between the noncommutative gauge fields $`^\mu (B,\theta )`$ and the ordinary ones $`B^\mu `$ which is not the SW map (8). Moreover, the form of the action (26) can be useful to generalize this construction to nonabelian gauge theories.

Acknowledgment: I would like to thank referee for useful comments.