format: text

text:
# References

hep-th/0302224

SNBNCBS-2003

HAMILTONIAN AND LAGRANGIAN
DYNAMICS IN A NONCOMMUTATIVE SPACE

R.P.MALIK *** E-mail address: malik@boson.bose.res.in

S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences,

Block-JD, Sector-III, Salt Lake, Calcutta-700 098, India

Abstract: We discuss the dynamics of a particular two-dimensional (2D) physical system in the four dimensional (4D) (non-)commutative phase space by exploiting the consistent Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formalisms based on the symplectic structures defined on the 4D (non-)commutative cotangent manifolds. The noncommutativity exists equivalently in the coordinate or the momentum planes embedded in the 4D cotangent manifolds. The signature of this noncommutativity is reflected in the derivation of the first-order Lagrangians where we exploit the most general form of the Legendre transformation defined on the (non-)commutative (co-)tangent manifolds. The second-order Lagrangian, defined on the 4D tangent manifold, turns out to be the same irrespective of the noncommutativity present in the 4D cotangent manifolds for the discussion of the Hamiltonian formulation. A connection with the noncommutativity of the dynamics, associated with the quantum groups on the $`q`$-deformed 4D cotangent manifolds, is also pointed out.

Keywords: Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms; (non-)commutative (co-)tangent
manifolds; symplectic structures; quantum groups

PACS numbers: 11.10.Nx; 03.65.-w; 04.60.-d; 02.20.-a

1 Introduction

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the study of noncommutative geometry because of its very neat and natural appearance in the context of brane configurations related to the dynamics of string theory and matrix model of the M-theory \[1-3\]. It has been demonstrated that, in a certain specific limit, the whole string dynamics can be described by the minimally coupled gauge theory on a noncommutative space . Even the experimental test for the existence of such kind of noncommutativity has been proposed where the synchrotron radiation has been incorporated in the experimental set up in a very specific way . In such kinds of experimental proposals, it has been argued that only the quantum mechanical approximations are good enough to shed some light on the existence of the noncommutativity . This is why a whole lot of studies have gone into the understanding of quantum mechanics of some physical systems on the noncommutative spaces (see, e.g., \[7-10\] and references therein for details). In particular, the motion of the charged particles in the 2D plane, under the influence of a constant perpendicular magnetic field, has been studied extensively because of the fact that the noncommutativity appears in this problem (i.e. Landau problem) quite naturally \[7-10\].

In the present scenario of the frontier research in the realm of high energy physics (in particular, connected with the string theory), the noncommutative (NC) effects are presumed to show up only at very high energy scale (perhaps, very near to the Planck scale). One can observe, however, the physical consequences of these NC effects in the low energy effective actions for the physically interesting systems. Equivalently, on the other hand, one can construct the low energy effective actions for the above physical systems by exploiting the basic ideas behind the NC geometry that are supposed to be the benchmarks of physics at very high energy scale. In the latter category, mention can be made of a couple of interesting examples such as the NC Chern-Simons theory  and the NC extension of the standard model . One of the most interesting physical system that encompasses the NC structure in its folds at low energy scale is the 2D Landau problem. The purpose of our present paper is to study, systematically, the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation of the 2D Landau problem based on the symplectic structures defined on the 4D cotangent manifolds. We lay emphasis on the classical equations of motion for the charged particle moving on a 2D plane under the influence of a harmonic oscillator potential and a constant magnetic field perpendicular to this 2D plane. We demonstrate that there exist three consistent first-order Lagrangians (FOLs) and three Hamiltonians that lead to the same classical equations of motion when we exploit the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion and the Hamilton’s equations of motion using (i) the canonical Poisson brackets (PBs), and (ii) the nontrivial (noncommutative) Poisson brackets. The nontrivial noncommutativity is found to be equivalently present either in the coordinate plane or in the momentum plane, embedded in the 4D cotangent manifold. The FOLs are defined and derived by the most general form of the Legendre transformations which exploit the above symplectic structures (see, e.g.,  for details). It is interesting to point out the fact that the second-order Lagrangian $`L^{(s)}(x,\dot{x})`$, defined in the 4D tangent manifold, turns out to be the same for all the three consistent FOLs and the Hamiltonians. In fact, the signature of the NC structure, present in the PBs, disappears in the derivation of the second-order Lagrangian (SOL) for the system under consideration. This happens, perhaps, because of the fact that the Hamiltonians (and the corresponding PBs) are connected with one-another due to a special class of transformations (see, e.g., (3.5) and (3.6) below) on the phase variables under which the sum of the areas of the phase space remains unchanged. Furthermore, we have shown that these special class of transformations are not exactly the canonical transformations because the form of the basic canonical PBs does not remain form invariant. In particular, the brackets equivalently defined in the 2D coordinate or momentum plane do change their form (under the above transformations) which is the root cause of the presence of NC structures in the theory. In the framework of quantum groups, we demonstrate and establish that the above (phase space) area preserving transformations correspond to the $`SL_{q,q^1}(2)`$ invariant transformations on the phase variables defined on the 4D $`q`$-deformed cotangent manifolds. The consistency of the above transformations with the structure of the $`q`$-deformed PBs, however, puts a restriction $`q^2=1`$ on the deformation parameter. This requirement, in turn, allows only the presence of exact canonical transformations for the phase variables in the framework of transformations generated by the quantum groups.

The contents of our present paper are organized as follows. In section 2, we discuss the canonical brackets and show that the classical dynamical equations of motion for the charged particles on the 2D plane (moving under the influence of a constant perpendicular magnetic field) can be derived from a canonical Hamiltonian. Section 3 is devoted to the discussion of the nontrivial NC brackets which are exploited in the derivation of the same classical dynamical equations from another set of a couple of Hamiltonians. In this section, we also discuss about the special kind of transformations on the phase space variables that connect the (non-)trivial PBs as well as the Hamiltonian functions. We deal with the noncommutativity associated with the quantum groups in section 4 and show its connection with the NC structures associated with the PBs, discussed in the previous sections. Finally, in section 5, we concisely summarize our results and make some concluding remarks.

2 Canonical brackets: Hamiltonian and Lagrangian dynamics

We start off with the following Hamiltonian, describing the motion of the charged particles in a 2D plane under the influence of a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator potential, as  We adopt here the summation convention where all the repeated Latin indices $`i,j,k\mathrm{}..=1,2`$ in the coordinate and/or momentum space and $`A,B,C\mathrm{}..=1,2,3,4`$ in the momentum phase (i.e. cotangent) space are summed over. The antisymmetric Levi-Civita tensor $`\epsilon _{ij}`$ is chosen such that $`\epsilon _{12}=+1=\epsilon ^{12}`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_1=\frac{1}{2}p_ip_i+\frac{1}{2}\left(\omega ^2+\frac{k^2}{4}\right)x_ix_i\frac{k}{2}\epsilon _{ij}x_ip_j,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`(x_i,p_i)`$ (with $`i=1,2`$) are the canonically conjugate position and momenta variables for the charged particles with individual charge $`e`$ and $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the harmonic oscillations. The constant $`k=\frac{e}{c}`$ is connected with the charge $`e`$, the speed of light $`c`$ and the magnetic field $``$ perpendicular to the 2D plane of oscillation. Here the mass of the particle has been set equal to one for the sake of simplicity of all the later calculations. The dynamical equation of motion for this physical system

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\ddot{x}_i=\omega ^2x_i+k\epsilon _{ij}\dot{x}_j,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2.2)`$
can be derived from the above Hamiltonian by exploiting the following canonical Poisson brackets (PBs) among the conjugate variables

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{x_i,p_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=\delta _{ij},\{x_i,x_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=0,\{p_i,p_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=0.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2.3)`$
With the help of the above canonical brackets (2.3), the canonical symplectic structures on the 4D cotangent manifold, for the Hamiltonian (2.1), can be defined as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Omega }^{AB}(1)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}(1)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2.4)`$
where the entry $`(1)`$ in the parenthesis of the symplectic structures $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{AB}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}`$ stand for the subscript of the Hamiltonian in (2.1) and the notation $`z^A=(z^1,z^2,z^3,z^4)(x_1,x_2,p_1,p_2)`$ has been introduced in the definition of the matrix form of the symplectic structure as given below

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Omega }^{AB}(1)=\text{Matrix}\left(\{z^A,z^B\}_{(PB)}\right),\mathrm{\Omega }^{AB}\mathrm{\Omega }_{BC}=\delta _C^A=\mathrm{\Omega }_{CM}\mathrm{\Omega }^{MA}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2.5)`$
The most general form of the PB between two dynamical variables $`f(z),g(z)`$ in the momentum phase (i.e. cotangent) space can be defined as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{f(z),g(z)\}_{(PB)}=\mathrm{\Omega }^{AB}_Af(z)_Bg(z),_A=\frac{}{z^A}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2.6)`$
In general, the symplectic structures in (2.4) and/or (2.5) can be functions of the phase variables $`z^A`$. In such a situation, the most general form of the Legendre transformation (which leads to the derivation of the first-order Lagrangian $`L^{(f)}`$) is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L^{(f)}(z,\dot{z})=z^A\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{AB}(z)\dot{z}^BH(z),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2.7)`$
where the general form of the covariant symplectic structure $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}(z)`$ is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}(z)=_0^1𝑑\alpha \alpha \mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha z).\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2.8)`$
For our case of canonical symplectic structures (listed in (2.4) and satisfying (2.5)), the above formula yields $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{AB}(1)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}(1)`$. The first-order Lagrangian (modulo some total derivatives w.r.t. time), for our discussion, is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L_1^{(f)}(z,\dot{z})\hfill & =& \frac{1}{2}z^A\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}(1)\dot{z}^BH_1(z),\hfill \\ & & p_i\dot{x}_i\frac{1}{2}p_ip_i\frac{1}{2}\left(\omega ^2+\frac{1}{4}k^2\right)x_ix_i+\frac{1}{2}k\epsilon _{ij}x_ip_j.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.9)`$
The equations of motion, emerging from the above FOL (2.9), are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{x}_i=p_i+\frac{k}{2}\epsilon _{ij}x_j,\dot{p}_i=\left(\omega ^2+\frac{1}{4}k^2\right)x_i+\frac{1}{2}k\epsilon _{ij}p_j.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2.10)`$
Combined together, the equations of motion (2.10) imply our starting equation of motion (2.2) that was derived from the Hamiltonian (2.1) by exploiting the canonical PBs of (2.3).

Now, inserting the equations of motions derived from FOL (2.9) into itself, we obtain the following second-order Lagrangian

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L^{(s)}(x,\dot{x})=\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}_i\dot{x}_i+\frac{k}{2}\epsilon _{ij}x_i\dot{x}_j\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2x_ix_i.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2.11)`$
A couple of comments are in order which would turn out to be quite handy for our further discussions in the later sections. First and foremost, the Euler-Lagrange equation of motion, emerging from (2.11), is nothing but our starting equation of motion (2.2). Second, the canonical momentum $`p_i`$ defined from the above SOL in (2.11)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}p_i=\frac{L^{(s)}(x,\dot{x})}{\dot{x}_i}=\dot{x}_i\frac{k}{2}\epsilon _{ij}x_j,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2.12)`$
turns out to be the same as the one derived from the Hamilton’s equations of motion by exploiting the Hamiltonian function (2.1).

3 Nontrivial brackets: Hamiltonian and Lagrangian dynamics

Keeping the dynamical evolution ($`\ddot{x}_i=\omega ^2x_i+k\epsilon _{ij}\dot{x}_j`$) of the system intact, it is straightforward to check that the following new Hamiltonians

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_2=\frac{1}{2}P_iP_i+\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2x_ix_i,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.1)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_3=\frac{1}{2}p_ip_i+\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2X_iX_i,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.2)`$
expressed in terms of the phase variables $`(x_i,P_i)`$ and ($`X_i,p_i`$) lead to our starting equation of motion (2.2) if we exploit the following nontrivial PBs in the phase space

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{x_i,x_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=0,\{x_i,P_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=\delta _{ij},\{P_i,P_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=k\epsilon _{ij},\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.3)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{X_i,X_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=\frac{k}{\omega ^2}\epsilon _{ij},\{X_i,p_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=\delta _{ij},\{p_i,p_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=0.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.4)`$
Here the new phase variables $`(x_i,P_i)`$ and $`(X_i,p_i)`$ parametrize the transformed versions of the cotangent manifolds that are obtained by exploiting a certain specific types of transformation on the original phase variables $`(x_i,p_i)`$ (which earlier described the original cotangent manifold). Furthermore, it is evident that the brackets in (3.3) and (3.4) are defined for the Hamiltonians in (3.1) and (3.2), respectively.

As far as the the nontrivial PBs in (3.3) and (3.4) are concerned, the noteworthy points, at this stage, are as follows. First, it is interesting to pin-point that the PB between the co-ordinates and momenta variables remain the same in the canonical brackets (2.3) as well as the nontrivial brackets (3.3) and (3.4) even though, as is clear, a certain specific types of transformation have been performed on the original phase space variables $`(x_i,p_i)`$ to make them the new pairs of variables $`(x_i,P_i)`$ and $`(X_i,p_i)`$, respectively. Second, for the Hamiltonian (3.1), it is the momenta variables $`P_i`$ (describing a momentum plane in the transformed cotangent manifold) that are required to be noncommutative (vis-à-vis the brackets in (2.3)) for the dynamical equations of motion (2.2) to remain intact. Third, it is the coordinates $`X_i`$ (defining a coordinate plane in the transformed cotangent manifold) that are required to possess noncommutative nature (vis-à-vis the brackets in (2.3)) for the starting equation of motion (2.2) to remain unchanged. Fourth, it can be checked that the following specific transformations on the phase variables

$$\begin{array}{ccc}p_iP_i=p_i+\frac{k}{2}\epsilon _{ij}x_j,x_iX_i=x_i,H_1(z)H_1^{}(z)=H_2(z),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.5)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}p_iP_i=p_i,x_iX_i=x_i\frac{k}{2\omega ^2}\epsilon _{ij}p_j,\stackrel{~}{H}_1(z)\stackrel{~}{H}_1^{}(z)=H_3(z),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.6)`$
relate $`H_1(z)`$ to $`H_2(z)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1(z)`$ to $`H_3(z)`$ where (i) the phase variables $`z`$’s come in different guises for the different types of Hamiltonian, and (ii) the Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1(z)`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{H}_1(z)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{4}\frac{k^2}{\omega ^2}\right)p_ip_i+\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2x_ix_i\frac{k}{2}\epsilon _{ij}x_ip_j,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.7)`$
is obtained from $`H_1(z)`$ by the following canonical transformations  A comment on this by an anonymous theoretical physicist is gratefully acknowledged.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & x_iX_i=\omega ^1p_i,p_iP_i=\omega x_i,\hfill \\ & & \{X_i,P_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=\delta _{ij},\{X_i,X_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=\{P_i,P_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.8)`$
which show that $`H_1(z)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1(z)`$ are canonically equivalent. Fifth, the transformations in (3.5) and (3.6) imply the noncommutativity present in (3.3) and (3.4). Sixth, the canonical equivalence of $`H_1(z)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1(z)`$ demonstrates that the noncommutativity of (3.3) and (3.4) are equivalent too. Seventh, it is obvious that, under the above transformations, the sum of the area elements in the momentum phase (cotangent) space remain invariant (i.e. $`dX_idP_i=dx_idp_i`$) for the transformations in (3.5) and (3.6).

With the nontrivial brackets defined in (3.3), it can be seen that the analogues of the symplectic structures in (2.4) (and satisfying (2.5)) for the transformed cotangent manifold are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Omega }^{AB}(2)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& k\\ 0& 1& k& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}(2)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& k& 1& 0\\ k& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.9)`$
where the notation $`z^A=(z^1,z^2,z^3,z^4)=(x_1,x_2,P_1,P_2)`$ and the definitions of (2.5) have been taken into account. In terms of the covariant symplectic structure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}(2)`$, defined on the transformed cotangent manifold, we obtain the following FOL (modulo some total derivatives w.r.t. time) for the case under consideration; namely,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L_2^{(f)}(z,\dot{z})\hfill & =& \frac{1}{2}z^A\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}(2)\dot{z}^BH_2(z),\hfill \\ & & P_i\dot{x}_i+\frac{1}{2}k\epsilon _{ij}x_i\dot{x}_j\frac{1}{2}P_iP_i\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2x_ix_i.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.10)`$
The following equations of motion emerge from the above FOL

$$\begin{array}{ccc}P_i=\dot{x}_i,\dot{P}_i=\omega ^2x_i+k\epsilon _{ij}\dot{x}_j,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.11)`$
which, ultimately, lead to the derivation of the dynamical equation of motion (2.2), we started with. It will be noticed that the above equations of motion (3.11) are quite different in appearance from their counterparts in (2.10) which have been derived from the FOL $`L_{(1)}^f`$. Now, exploiting (3.11), it is straightforward to check that the SOL (which emerges from the FOL in (3.10)) is exactly the same as (2.11).

Now let us concentrate on the nontrivial brackets defined in (3.4). Here the analogues of the symplectic structures in (2.4) (that satisfy (2.5)) are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Omega }^{AB}(3)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& (k/\omega ^2)& 1& 0\\ (k/\omega ^2)& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}(3)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& (k/\omega ^2)\\ 0& 1& (k/\omega ^2)& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.12)`$
where the notation $`z^A=(z^1,z^2,z^3,z^4)=(X_1,X_2,p_1,p_2)`$ has been chosen in the analogues of the definitions (2.5) for the case under consideration. With the help of the covariant symplectic structure in (3.12), one can obtain the FOL $`L_3^{(f)}`$ (modulo some total derivatives w.r.t. time) as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L_3^{(f)}(z,\dot{z})\hfill & =& \frac{1}{2}z^A\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}(3)\dot{z}^BH_3(z),\hfill \\ & & p_i\dot{X}_i+\frac{k}{2\omega ^2}\epsilon _{ij}p_i\dot{p}_j\frac{1}{2}p_ip_i\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2X_iX_i.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.13)`$
The above Lagrangian leads to the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion that are first-order in time derivative on $`X_i`$ and $`p_i`$. These $`\dot{X}_i`$ and $`\dot{p}_i`$ are intertwined together in one equation as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{X}_i=p_i\frac{k}{\omega ^2}\epsilon _{ij}\dot{p}_j,\dot{p}_i=\omega ^2X_i.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.14)`$
Combined together, the above equations of motion lead to the derivation of the same dynamical equations of motion (i.e. $`\ddot{X}_i=\omega ^2X_i+k\epsilon _{ij}\dot{X}_j`$) as we started with in (2.2). It will be noticed that even though the equations of motion are expressed, ultimately, in $`X_i,\dot{X}_i,\ddot{X}_i`$ (which are different from $`x_i,\dot{x}_i,\ddot{x}_i`$ in (2.2)), the evolution of the dynamics of the physical system w.r.t. time is the same as in (2.2). It is very interesting to check that the SOL (that emerges from the FOL (3.13)) has exactly the same appearance as the one in (2.11), albeit expressed in terms of $`X_i`$ and $`\dot{X}_i`$.

A few comments are in order as far as the transformations (3.5) and (3.6) of the phase variables (defining the transformed cotangent space) are concerned. It should be noticed that, unlike transformations (3.8), these transformations are not exactly canonical in nature even though they preserve the invariance of the sum of the area elements in the cotangent manifold. To be precise, it should be noted that, for a transformation $`(x_i,p_i)(X_i,P_i)`$, to be canonical , the following basic PBs defined in the transformed cotangent manifold

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{X_i,P_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=\delta _{ij},\{X_i,X_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=0,\{P_i,P_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=0,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.15)`$
should retain their form. Here the superscripts on the brackets denote the definition of the PBs w.r.t. the original phase variables $`(x_i,p_i)`$. It is straightforward to check that the above brackets are not preserved under the transformations (3.5) and (3.6) if we exploit the basic PBs defined in (2.3). Thus, the latter transformations are a very special class of transformations in the phase space which are not canonical in nature per se but they preserve the sum of the areas in the phase space.

4 Deformed $`q`$-brackets: connection with quantum groups

In this section, we briefly recapitulate some of the key and pertinent points of our earlier works  on the consistent construction of the dynamics in the noncommutative phase space where the noncommutativity (i.e. $`q`$-deformation) was introduced in the $`q`$-deformed $`2N`$ dimensional cotangent manifold corresponding to a given $`N`$-dimensional configuration manifold. In our present context (where we are discussing a 2D physical system), the following relationships among the phase variables $`(x_i,p_i)`$ (with $`i=1,2`$) on the 4D cotangent manifold

$$\begin{array}{ccc}x_ix_j=x_jx_i,p_ip_j=p_jp_i,x_ip_j=qp_jx_i,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.1)`$
play a very crucial and decisive role in our whole discussion of the dynamics. In fact, the above $`q`$-deformation is chosen in the phase space so that the quantum group invariance and the ordinary rotational invariance can be maintained together §§§ This deformation can be easily generalized to the $`2N`$-dimensional Minkowski cotangent manifolds for the dynamical discussion of a physical relativistic system where the quantum group invariance and Lorentz invariance are respected together for any arbitrary ordering of the spacetime indices . for any arbitrary ordering of the indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ (see, e.g.,  for details). We shall concentrate here on the following general transformations on the phase variables $`(x_i,p_i)`$ defined on the 4D $`q`$-deformed cotangent manifold

$$\begin{array}{ccc}x_iX_i=Ax_i+Bp_i,p_iP_i=Cx_i+Dp_i.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.2)`$
In the above, the original phase variables $`(x_i,p_i)`$ and the transformed sets of the phase variables $`(X_i,P_i)`$ are assumed to commute with the elements $`A,B,C,D`$ of a $`2\times 2`$ matrix corresponding to the quantum group $`GL_{q,p}(2)`$. Here the deformation parameters $`q,p`$ are the non-zero complex numbers (i.e. $`q,p𝒞/\{0\}`$) corresponding to the most general quantum group deformation of the ordinary general linear group $`GL(2)`$ of $`2\times 2`$ nonsingular matrices. In fact, the elements of the quantum group $`GL_{q,p}(2)`$ obey (see, e.g.,  for details)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & AB=pBA,AC=qCA,BC=(q/p)CB,BD=qDB,\hfill \\ & & CD=pDC,ADDA=(pq^1)BC=(qp^1)CB.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.3)`$
It can be checked that the relationships in (4.1) remain form-invariant under the general transformations (4.2) only for the choice $`pq=1`$. In other words, the $`q`$-deformation (4.1) in the 4D cotangent manifold remains form-invariant under the transformations generated by the quantum group $`GL_{q,q^1}(2)`$. It should be noted that these transformations are different from the transformations generated by the single parameter $`q`$-deformed quantum group $`GL_q(2)`$. In fact, the latter is the limiting case of $`GL_{q,p}(2)`$ when $`q=p`$. Under the restriction $`pq=1`$, the relations (4.3) yield the following braiding relationships among the rows and columns

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & AB=q^1BA,AC=qCA,BC=q^2CB,\hfill \\ & & BD=qDB,CD=q^1DC,AD=DA.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.4)`$
At this stage, it is important to note that it is the individual pairs of the original phase variables $`(x_i,p_i)`$ (with $`i=1,2`$) that change to the transformed phase variables $`(X_i,P_i)`$ (with $`i=1,2`$) under the quantum group $`GL_{q,q^1}(2)`$. Thus, for our present discussion, there are two sets of quantum groups $`GL_{q,q^1}(2)`$ which are responsible for the transformations of the original two pairs of phase variables $`(x_1,p_1)`$ and $`(x_2,p_2)`$ in (4.2). This statement can be mathematically expressed, in the matrix form, as given below

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left(\begin{array}{c}x_1\\ p_1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}X_1\\ P_1\end{array}\right)\hfill & =& \left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x_1\\ p_1\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \left(\begin{array}{c}x_2\\ p_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}X_2\\ P_2\end{array}\right)\hfill & =& \left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x_2\\ p_2\end{array}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.5)`$
where $`A,B,C,D`$ are the elements of the quantum group $`GL_{q,q^1}(2)`$ that satisfy (4.4).

Now the stage is set for establishing the connection between the noncommutativity discussed in the previous sections and the noncommutativity due to the quantum groups in the present section. As argued in the paragraph after (3.4), one of the key as well as crucial features of the transformations in (3.5) and (3.6) is the invariance of the sum of the phase space areas. In the language of the $`GL_{q,q^1}(2)`$ invariant differential geometry defined on the 4D cotangent manifold (see, e.g.,  for details), this statement can be mathematically captured in the following wedge products and their transformations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(dx_idx_i)\hfill & & (dX_idX_i)=0,(dp_idp_i)(dP_idP_i)=0,\hfill \\ (dx_idp_i)\hfill & & (dX_idP_i)=(ADq^1BC)(dx_idp_i),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.6)`$
where, in addition to (4.4), we have used the following relationships

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(dx_idx_i)=0,(dp_idp_i)=0,(dx_idp_i)=q(dp_idx_i).\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.7)`$
This shows that, for the area preserving phase space transformations in (4.6), we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}ADq^1BC=ADqCB=DAq^1BC=DAqCB=1,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.8)`$
which is nothing but setting the $`q`$-determinant (see, e.g.,  for details) of the $`2\times 2`$ $`GL_{q,q^1}(2)`$ matrix equal to one. In more sophisticated language, the requirement of the area preserving phase transformations in (4.5) entails upon the quantum group $`GL_{q,q^1}(2)`$ to become $`SL_{q,q^1}(2)`$ as the $`q`$-determinant $`ADq^1BC=1`$. From the point of view of the structure of the PBs defined in the canonical form (cf. (2.3)) and the nontrivial forms (3.3) and (3.4), it can be seen that the crucial common feature is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{x_i,p_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=\delta _{ij},\{x_i,P_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=\delta _{ij},\{X_i,p_j\}_{(PB)}^{(x,p)}=\delta _{ij}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.9)`$
In other words, the PBs between the original canonically conjugate variables $`(x_i,p_i)`$ and the transformed phase variables $`(X_i,p_i)`$ and $`(x_i,P_j)`$ remain unchanged. For the same to remain sacrosanct even in the case of quantum group transformations in (4.5) (or (4.2)), it can be seen that the following condition

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{X_i,P_j\}_{(PB)}^{(q)}=\left(ADqBC\right)\delta _{ij}\{X_i,P_j\}_{(PB)}^{(q)}=\delta _{ij},\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.10)`$
has to be satisfied. In the derivation of the above, we have exploited the following $`q`$-deformed basic Poisson brackets for the phase variables $`(x_i,p_i)`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{x_i,p_j\}_{(PB)}^{(q)}=\delta _{ij},\{p_i,x_j\}_{(PB)}^{(q)}=q\delta _{ij},\{p_i,p_j\}_{(PB)}^{(q)}=\{x_i,x_j\}_{(PB)}^{(q)}=0,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.11)`$
which crucially depend on the choice of the symplectic structures on the $`q`$-deformed 4D cotangent manifold. In our earlier work , we have chosen the following

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Omega }^{AB}(q)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ q& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& q& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}(q)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& q^1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& q^1\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right).\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.12)`$
It is now unequivocally clear that the requirement of the equality and consistency between (4.9) and (4.10) imposes the following restriction on the elements of the $`GL_{q,q^1}(2)`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}ADqBC=ADq^3CB=DAqBC=DAq^3CB=1.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.13)`$
This shows that, for a theory in which the canonical brackets (4.9) and the area preserving transformations (i.e., $`dX_idP_i=dx_idp_i`$) are respected together, we obtain a restriction $`q^2=1`$ on the deformation parameter. This condition emerges from the equality of (4.8) and (4.13). With the $`q`$-brackets defined in (4.11), it is straightforward to check (using the $`q`$-commutation relations (4.4)) that the following brackets, defined in the 2D coordinate as well as the momentum plane of the 4D q-deformed cotangent manifold, are true; namely,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{X_i,X_j\}_{(PB)}^{(q)}\hfill & =& (ABqBA)\delta _{ij}(1q^2)AB\delta _{ij},\hfill \\ \{P_i,P_j\}_{(PB)}^{(q)}\hfill & =& (CDqDC)\delta _{ij}(1q^2)CD\delta _{ij}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.14)`$
These $`q`$-brackets turn out to be zero for $`q^2=1`$. Thus, it is clear that the NC structure in the 2D coordinate as well as momentum planes (cf. (3.3) and (3.4)) does not exist for our quantum group considerations if we require the consistency between the $`q`$-deformed PBs and the area preserving $`SL_{q,q^1}(2)`$ invariant phase space transformations. Hence, it is obvious that for $`q^2=1`$, the quantum group considerations allow the phase space transformations that are exactly canonical in nature.

5 Conclusions

In the present investigation, we have established (i) a connection between the canonical PBs and the nontrivial NC brackets, and (ii) the relation between the canonical Hamiltonian and the nontrivial Hamiltonians. These connections emerge because of the existence of a special class of symmetry transformations (cf. (3.5) and (3.6)) on the phase variables that preserves the sum of the areas on the (un-)transformed cotangent manifolds. This symmetry transformation is, however, shown not to be exactly canonical in nature unlike the canonical transformations of (3.8) which leave the canonical brackets form-invariant. As far as the dynamics on the 4D tangent manifold is concerned, it remains unaffected by the NC structures present in the PBs equivalently defined on the 2D coordinate or momentum planes that are embedded in the 4D cotangent manifolds. This fact is captured in the appearance of the second-order Lagrangian $`L^{(s)}(x,\dot{x})`$ which remains unchanged irrespective of the noncommutativity present in the PBs defined on the 4D cotangent manifold. The above cited “sum of the area preserving transformation” is also reflected in the realm of quantum group transformations on the phase variables where the transformations, generated by $`GL_{q,q^1}(2)`$, are restricted to become the transformations corresponding to the quantum group $`SL_{q,q^1}(2)`$. The requirement of the consistency of the above transformations with the structure of the $`q`$-deformed PBs, however, puts a restriction $`q^2=1`$ on the deformation parameter. It is interesting to point out that, in a completely different context, exactly the same restriction (i.e. $`q=\pm 1`$)) has been shown to exist for the requirement of equivalence between the gauge- and reparametrization invariances for a $`q`$-deformed relativistic (super-)particle moving in an undeformed $`D`$-dimensional target space .


text:
# Competitive stochastic noises in coherently driven two-level atoms and quantum interference

## 1 Introduction

Quantum interference is one of the most intriguing phenomena of quantum mechanics. Over the past decade several effects in atom-light interaction have been predicted and demonstrated experimentally, which have their origin in quantum interference . Some characteristic examples are reduction and cancellation of absorption  and spontaneous emission , and narrow resonances in fluorescence .

A prerequisite of quantum interference between the transition channels is the existence of some stable time correlation of the atomic system under consideration. This time correlation is usually achieved by coherent coupling of atomic levels in multilevel systems. Noises on the other hand usually destroy all correlations in the system. Under special circumstances, however, even the incoherent perturbation can be responsible for the quantum interference . In a recent paper , a system of two-level atoms strongly driven by a coherent light field and perturbed by collisional noise was analyzed by the quantum-trajectory method . It was shown that collisional noise can unexpectedly create phase correlation between the neighboring atomic dressed states. This phase correlation is responsible for quantum interference between dressed state transition channels, resulting in anomalous modifications of the resonance fluorescence spectra found experimentally earlier .

Another typical example of a stochastic perturbation of a system of coherently driven two-level atoms is the phase noise of the laser field. The effect of the linewidth of the driving laser on the spectrum has been widely investigated in the literature , but no quantum interference effects have been found. In reference , however, it is suggested that an interference phenomenon similar to that induced by collisional noise can appear due to a large phase noise of the driving laser field. The consideration presented there is valid only in the case when the correlation between the atomic density matrix and the phase noise can be neglected. The assumption is rather unphysical and it is not valid, for instance, for Gaussian noise.

In this paper we present the detailed analysis of a system of coherently driven two level atoms, when both collisional and phase noises are present. We carry out the complete quantum-trajectory simulation of the system, which reveals the underlying physical processes in quantum interference phenomena.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 the model describing the system is introduced, and the master equation is constructed for the atomic density operator as a set of ordinary differential equations. In section 3 the resonance fluorescence spectrum is obtained. In section 4 the quantum-trajectory analysis of the problem is carried out. Based on this, quantum interference effects are discussed in the case when both collisional and phase noises are present. Section 5 summarizes our results.

## 2 The model

Let us consider a system of two-level atoms driven by a coherent laser field, incoherently perturbed by elastic, dephasing collisions of the atoms. Furthermore let us assume, that the driving laser field has a finite bandwidth due to its phase noise. We use the following notation: $`\omega _a(t)`$ is the fluctuating atomic transition frequency describing the stochastic perturbation due to collisions, $`\phi (t)`$ is the randomly varying laser phase, $`\omega _L`$ is the frequency of the laser, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Rabi frequency, while $`S^z`$, $`S^+`$, $`S^{}`$ are the atomic operators defined on the ground state ($`|g`$) – excited state ($`|e`$) basis:

$$S^z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/2& 0\\ 0& 1/2\end{array}\right),S^+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),S^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
The functions $`\omega _a(t)`$ and $`\phi (t)`$ are supposed to describe Gaussian noise:

$$\omega _a(t)=\omega _a+\delta \omega _a(t),$$
(2)
$$\delta \omega _a(t)\delta \omega _a(t^{})=2\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta (tt^{}),$$
(3)
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{dt}}\phi (t)=\vartheta (t),$$
(4)
$$\vartheta (t)\vartheta (t^{})=2L\delta (tt^{}),$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`L`$ stand for the magnitude of the corresponding stochastic noises. The phase noise and the noise in the atomic resonance frequency are independent, $`\delta \omega _a(t)\vartheta (t^{})=0`$. Under such circumstances, the atomic Hamiltonian, in the interaction picture and rotating wave approximation, is of the form

$$H=\mathrm{}(\omega _a(t)\omega _L)S^z+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{i\phi (t)}S^{}+S^+e^{i\phi (t)}).$$
(6)
We remark, that the interaction picture is defined via the noiseless interaction-free Hamiltonian

$$H_0=\mathrm{}\omega _a^{(g)}|gg|+\mathrm{}\omega _a^{(e)}|ee|,$$
(7)
where $`\omega _a^{(g)}`$ and $`\omega _a^{(e)}`$ are the original (thus the mean value) frequencies of the ground state and excited state of the atom. The noise due to collision is taken into account in the interaction part of the Hamiltonian.

The master equation describing the time evolution of the system is of the form

$$\dot{\rho }=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[H,\rho ]+(\rho )_{\mathrm{sp}},$$
(8)
where the linear term

$$(\rho )_{\mathrm{sp}}=\gamma (\frac{1}{2}(S^+S^{}\rho +\rho S^+S^{})+S^{}\rho S^+)$$
(9)
describes the spontaneous emission and $`\gamma `$ is the natural linewidth.

The master equation (8) is equivalent to the following stochastical differential equations for the matrix elements of the density operator, written on the ground state ($`|g`$) – excited state ($`|e`$) basis:

$`\dot{\rho }_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{i\phi (t)}\rho _{ge}e^{i\phi (t)}\rho _{eg})2\gamma \rho _{ee},`$ (10)
$`\dot{\rho }_{eg}`$ $`=`$ $`i(\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta \omega (t))\rho _{eg}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\mathrm{\Omega }e^{i\phi (t)}(\rho _{ee}\rho _{gg})`$ (11)
$`\gamma \rho _{eg},`$
$`\dot{\rho }_{ge}`$ $`=`$ $`i(\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta \omega (t))\rho _{ge}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\mathrm{\Omega }e^{i\phi (t)}(\rho _{ee}\rho _{gg})`$ (12)
$`\gamma \rho _{ge},`$
$`\dot{\rho }_{gg}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{i\phi (t)}\rho _{ge}e^{i\phi (t)}\rho _{eg})+2\gamma \rho _{ee},`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega _a\omega _L`$ is the detuning of the laser from the atomic resonance frequency. The stochastic differential equations can be reduced to ordinary differential equations by using the theory of multiplicative stochastic processes . We summarize the main steps of this method briefly. The first step is to introduce new variables in the form $`\chi _1=\rho _{eg},\chi _2=\rho _{ge}e^{2i\phi },\chi _3=\rho _{gg}e^{i\phi },\chi _4=\rho _{ee}e^{i\phi }`$. The differential equation system in these new variables is linear and does not contain the variable $`\phi (t)`$ explicitly, only its time-derivative $`\vartheta (t)`$:

$$\dot{\chi _i}=\underset{j}{}M_{ij}\chi _j+F_{ij}(t)\chi _j,$$
(14)
where

$$M=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}i\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma & 0& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }\\ 0& i\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma & \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }\\ \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& 0& 2\gamma \\ \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& 0& 2\gamma \end{array}\right],$$
(15)
$$F(t)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}i\delta \omega _a(t)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 2i\vartheta (t)i\delta \omega _a(t)& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i\vartheta (t)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& i\vartheta (t)\end{array}\right].$$
(16)
According to the theory of multiplicative stochastic processes the equation for the ensemble averages can be written as

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{dt}}\chi _i=\underset{j}{}\left(M_{ij}+\underset{k}{}Q_{ikkj}\right)\chi _j,$$
(17)
where $`Q_{ijkl}`$ is defined by $`F_{ij}(t)F_{kl}(t^{})=2Q_{ijkl}\delta (tt^{})`$. The quantity $`Q_{ijkl}`$ has the following form in our case:

$$Q_{ijkl}=\delta _{ij}\delta _{kl}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }& \mathrm{\Gamma }& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }& 4L+\mathrm{\Gamma }& L& L\\ 0& 2L& L& L\\ 0& 2L& L& L\end{array}\right]_{ik},$$
(18)
leading to

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{dt}}\chi _i=\underset{j}{}N_{ij}\chi _j$$
(19)
where

$$N=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}i\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma & 0& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }\\ 0& i\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma 4L\mathrm{\Gamma }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }\\ \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& L& 2\gamma \\ \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& 0& L2\gamma \end{array}\right].$$
(20)
Equations for the ensemble averages of $`\chi _1^{}=\rho _{eg}e^{i\phi (t)}`$, $`\chi _2^{}=\rho _{ge}e^{i\phi (t)}`$, $`\chi _3^{}=\rho _{gg}`$, $`\chi _4^{}=\rho _{ee}`$ and $`\chi _1^{\prime \prime }=\rho _{eg}e^{2i\phi (t)}`$, $`\chi _2^{\prime \prime }=\rho _{ge}`$, $`\chi _3^{\prime \prime }=\rho _{gg}e^{i\phi (t)}`$, $`\chi _4^{\prime \prime }=\rho _{ee}e^{i\phi (t)}`$ can be obtained similarly, resulting in

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{dt}}}\chi _i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_{ij}^{}\chi _j^{}`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{dt}}}\chi _i^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_{ij}^{\prime \prime }\chi _j^{\prime \prime },`$ (22)
where

$$N^{}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}i\mathrm{\Delta }L\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma & 0& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }\\ 0& i\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma L\mathrm{\Gamma }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }\\ \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& 0& 2\gamma \\ \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& 0& 2\gamma \end{array}\right]$$
(23)
and

$$N^{\prime \prime }=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}i\mathrm{\Delta }4L\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma & 0& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }\\ 0& i\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }\\ \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& L& 2\gamma \\ \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& \frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }& 0& L2\gamma \end{array}\right].$$
(24)
The linear differential equation system composed from equations (19), (21), and (22) completely describes the time evolution of the ensemble averages $`\rho _{gg}`$, $`\rho _{eg}`$, $`\rho _{ge}`$, and $`\rho _{ee}`$.

## 3 The resonance fluorescence spectrum

In the dipole approximation, the resonance fluorescence spectrum $`S(\omega )`$ can be calculated as the real part of the two-time correlation function defined as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^N(\omega )=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega \tau )S^+(t+\tau )S^{}(t)𝑑\tau .$$
(25)
Double brackets denote quantum mechanical and stochastical averaging. The two-time average $`S^+(t+\tau )S^{}(t)`$ can be expressed by one-time averages using the quantum regression theorem:

$$S^+(t+\tau )S^{}(t)=\left[e^{N^{\prime \prime }\tau }\right]_{22}\chi _1^{}(t)+\left[e^{N^{\prime \prime }\tau }\right]_{24}\chi _4^{}(t).$$
(26)
After some calculation one can obtain the correlation function:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^N(\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{4\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }^{}}\frac{p_1(\omega )p_2(\omega )\gamma f(\omega )p_2(\omega )+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{p_1(\omega )p_2(\omega )p_3(\omega )+\mathrm{\Omega }^2p_4(\omega )},$$
(27)
where

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }+L+\gamma }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }+L+\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2\gamma }},`$
$`p_1(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega +L+2\gamma ,`$
$`p_2(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega i\mathrm{\Delta }+4L+\mathrm{\Gamma }+\gamma ,`$
$`p_3(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega +i\mathrm{\Delta }+\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma },`$
$`p_4(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega +2L+\mathrm{\Gamma }+\gamma ,`$
$`f(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }+L+\gamma }}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma }{i\omega +L}}\right).`$
Equation (27), in certain limits, coincides with the spectra described hitherto. Specifically, when there is no detuning, the following cases can be distinguished. In the absence of both phase noise and collisions (when $`L\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }`$), it yields the familiar Mollow-triplet . In the case of increasing phase noise and the absence of collisions, the spectrum will be of a Gaussian shape in the high noise limit . Increasing collision rate in the absence of phase noise, the Mollow triplet turns into a doublet structure. In the high collision rate limit one obtains a spectrum with a narrow dip at zero frequency that has its origin in quantum interference .

The main advantage of the description presented here is that it enables us to investigate the limit of high collision rate and high phase noise *simultaneously*. In the case of large phase noise, there is no dip in the spectrum. Therefore one expects that phase noise demolishes the quantum interference induced by collisions which is, according to reference , the reason behind the appearance of the dip. Our intention is to examine how robust this interference, introduced in fact by a separate noise process, is against the competing phase noise.

The resonance fluorescence spectrum in the case of the high collision rate case is shown in figure 1 at different phase noise parameters, illustrating the disappearance of the dip.

All parameters given in the figures are accessible experimentally: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be easily adjusted by appropriate buffer gas pressure, while $`L`$ can be also be tailored by manipulating the laser cavity, such as, e.g. in .

It can be noticed, that the dip disappears at $`L/\mathrm{\Omega }2`$, a relatively intense phase noise. This suggests, that the quantum interference is indeed robust against phase noise, which will be explained in what follows.

## 4 Quantum-trajectory analysis of the interference

The stochastically induced quantum interference in coherently driven two-level system can be analyzed with the aid of quantum-trajectory method. This method is capable of revealing time correlations between the states of the atom involved in the interfering transition channels, which are the prerequisites of quantum interference. Quantum-trajectory methods are based on the simulation of quantum trajectories, which are individual realizations of the evolution of the system conditioned on particular sequence of observed events. By tracking the time evolution of a single quantum-trajectory, the time correlations can be revealed.

An analysis based on quantum-trajectory method was presented for the phase noise free case in reference . A similar analysis will be carried out here: the quantum-trajectory method of reference  will be applied for simulating the time evolution of the system in argument, and phase noise will also be taken into account.

In this system, a single quantum-trajectory evolves coherently according to the Hamiltonian

$$H_{\mathrm{coll}}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }S^z+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{i\phi (t)}S^{}+S^+e^{i\phi (t)}),$$
(28)
interrupted by incoherent gedanken quantum measurements due to collisional noise events and spontaneous emission represented by the operators $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}S^z`$ and $`C_\gamma =\sqrt{\gamma }S^{}`$. The simulated master equation has the form

$`\dot{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}[H_{\mathrm{coll}},\rho ]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(C_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}C_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\rho +\rho C_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}C_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})+C_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\rho C_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(C_\gamma ^{}C_\gamma ^{}\rho +\rho C_\gamma ^{}C_\gamma ^{})+C_\gamma ^{}\rho C_\gamma ^{},`$
that is equivalent to the master equation (8). The evolution of the density operator of the system is obtained by averaging the density operators of the individual quantum trajectories. The resulting density operator is the solution of the master equation (8).

The accuracy of the simulation is limited by two factors: the length $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ of the time step and the number $`N`$ of the simulated quantum trajectories. $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ should be much less than the characteristic time of any process in the system. $`N`$ should be large enough to obtain the right ensemble averages for the density operator at the given stochastic noise magnitude. In our simulations $`N`$ was approximately $`510^5`$.

In order to verify the validity of our calculations, we have also derived the spectra from the numerical results. The results obtained were equal to those obtainable analytically.

For the further considerations, it is convenient to introduce the dressed-state basis in which the Hamiltonian in (6) is diagonal in the absence of noise:

$`|1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }|g+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }|e`$ (30)
$`|2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }|g+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }|e`$ (31)
where

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right).$$

An atomic state can be expanded as

$$|\psi =c_1e^{i\phi _1}|1+c_2e^{i\phi _2}|2$$

in this basis, where $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$, $`\phi _1`$, $`\phi _2`$ are real numbers. The phase difference and phase sum for the particular state may then be defined as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\phi _1\phi _2,`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\phi _1+\phi _2.`$ (33)
The phase difference can be calculated straightforwardly from a single quantum-trajectory. It was shown in reference , that in the lack of phase noise, the collisional noise can unexpectedly create phase correlation between the neighboring atomic dressed states. This is the underlying physical process that makes the quantum interference possible, which leads to a narrow dip in the spectrum. It is then natural to ask whether phase noise destroys the phase correlation.

The behavior of the phase difference (32) for different settings of the noise parameters are shown in figures 2-5. One can observe, that in the lack of both noise processes (figure 2) the distribution of phase difference shows no structure: the time evolution of the phase difference is linear due to Rabi oscillations, interrupted only by decays to the ground state due to spontaneous emission. In the case of dominant collisional noise (figure 3), the phase difference tends to stabilize around the values $`0`$ and $`\pi `$. Note the symmetry of the graph originating from the phase flip caused by the operator $`S^z`$ that corresponds to collisional events. The operator $`S^z`$ exchanges the two dressed states at resonance ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$): $`2S^z|1=|2`$ and vica versa. In the high phase noise without collisional noise (figure 4), the phase difference tends to stabilize around the value $`\pi `$ only. The most interesting case from our point of view is, however, the fourth case (figure 5), when both noises are relevant. The structure of the phase distribution is apparently similar to that without the phase noise. From this we can conclude, that the phase correlation created by collisions is indeed not completely destroyed by the phase noise.

Similarly as in Ref. , the phase stabilisation around the $`0`$ and $`\pi `$ phase differences can be characterized explicitly by the time-correlation function of the cosine of the phase difference, defined as

$`C_{\mathrm{cos}}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle _{t=0}^T}(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi (t+\tau )\overline{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi })`$ (34)
$`\times (\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi (t)\overline{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi })dt,`$
depicted in figure 6. The figure shows that the phase noise also leads to phase correlation between the dressed states, moreover, the phase stabilisation persist even when both collisional and phase noises are present in the system. This on the other hand gives rise to another question, namely, what is the real reason of the disappearance of quantum interference.

In order to answer this question, let us transform the Hamiltonian (6) at resonance $`(\mathrm{\Delta }=0)`$ to the dressed state basis:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\delta \omega _a(t)(|12|+|21|)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }((\mathrm{cos}\phi (t)|1i\mathrm{sin}\phi (t)|2)1|+`$ (35)
$`(\mathrm{cos}\phi (t)|2+i\mathrm{sin}\phi (t)|1)2|).`$
It can be seen that the collisional noise $`\delta \omega _a(t)`$ swaps the dressed states without disturbing them. Phase noise generates random rotations in the dressed state basis, mixing the dressed states. This dressed state mixing can be illustrated by the phase sum of the dressed states during the time evolution of a single quantum-trajectory. The phase sum remains constant in collisions that swap the dressed states by the action of $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. But if mixing occurs, the phase sum will not remain constant. The phase sum in case of no phase noise ($`L=0`$) is depicted in figure 7, in case of small phase noise ($`L=0.2`$) it is shown in figure 8. The jumps in the figures correspond to spontaneous emission events.

Keeping in mind the above considerations, we are now ready to explain the noise-induced quantum interference phenomenon in the case when both collisional and phase noises are present. Resonance fluorescence of a strongly-driven two-level atom is emitted in cascade transitions downward the ladder of the dressed-state doublets. Figure 9 shows two adjacent doublets and all possible spontaneous and noise-induced transitions between the dressed-atom states. Double arrows in figure 9 represent transitions between the dressed states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ generated by the collisional noise events. In the high noise regime, for some time intervals the phase difference tends to stabilize not only in the case when either of the noise types are present separately, but also when simultaneously both of them are present.

If phase noise is relatively low and dressed-state mixing due to phase noise can be neglected, the two pairs of emission channels $`|1,n|2,n1|1,n1`$ and $`|1,n|2,n|1,n1`$ (or $`|2,n|1,n|2,n1`$ and $`|2,n|1,n1|2,n1`$) differ exclusively by time ordering between collisional mixing and photon emissions. Photons emitted along these channels are indistinguishable, their destructive interference results in the dip of the fluorescence spectrum. Increasing phase noise mixes the dressed states, thus the two channels degenerate to one channel between two mixed states. Therefore quantum interference disappears. The mixing of channels, however, becomes relevant only in case of relatively high level of phase noise, thus the resonance effect is robust against phase noise.

## 5 Summary

We have analyzed the quantum interference induced by collisions in a system of coherently driven two level atoms, in the presence of phase noise in the driving field. Solving the master equation of the system in argument analytically, we have derived the resonance fluorescence spectra. There is a dip in the spectrum when the collisional noise dominates the Rabi oscillations, in the resonant case. The dip, introduced by the collisional noise, disappears relatively slowly as phase noise appears in the driving field.

In order to understand the physical reason behind the relative robustness of the dip against the phase noise, the underlying quantum interference phenomena have been investigated. A quantum-trajectory simulation has been carried out, enabling us to investigate the phase relations between the dressed states involved in quantum interference phenomena. We have found that the phase noise does not demolish the phase correlations introduced by the collisional noise. Moreover, phase noise, similarly to the collisional noise, is of a dressed-state phase-difference stabilizing nature. On the other hand, it mixes the dressed-state doublets involved in the quantum interference, which deteriorates quantum interference in the high-noise limit.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Research Fund of Hungary under contract No. T034484 and by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research (grant PBZ/KBN/043/PO3/2001). It is also a part of a general program of the National Laboratory of AMO Physics in Torun, Poland. We thank Matyas Koniorczyk for the stimulating discussions.

## References


text:
# A spin-shift relation of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider Hamiltonian of type 𝐶_𝑛

## 1 Introduction

Ruijsenaars-Schneider systems describe one-dimensional $`n`$-particle system with pairwise interaction. In , the authors derived the Hamiltonian for the trigonometric one-particle Ruijsenaars- Schneider system from the Gervais-Neveu-Felder equation. We would like to recall their argument in brief. The Cervais-Neveu-Felder equation has its $`L`$-invariant form:

$$R_{12}(xq^{H_3/2})L_{13}(x)L_{23}(x)=L_{23}(x)L_{13}(x)R_{12}(xq^{H_3/2})$$
(1)
with a subscript $`3`$ denote the quantum space. Let us represent $`L_{13}(x)`$ in the tensor product of the representation $`\rho ^{\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}\rho ^{(j)}`$, where $`\rho ^{(j)}`$ is the spin-$`j`$ representation of $`U_q(sl_2)`$. Taking the trace on the first space, and still restricting this operator to the space of zero-weight vectors, one obtains

$$H_j=q^{x\frac{}{x}}+q^{x\frac{}{x}}\left(1\frac{(q^jq^j)(q^{j+1}q^{j1})}{(xx^1)(q^1xqx^1)}\right)$$
(2)
when $`j`$ is an integer. This is the trigonometric one-particle Ruijsenaars- Schneider Hamiltonian. That is the reason we call $`j`$ the spin of the model insted of the coupling constant of the model. The integrability of the system generated by the Hamiltonian obtained here was solved by using the existence of a spin-shift operator $`D_j`$ which satisfies

$$H_jD_j=D_jH_{j1}.$$
(3)
In recent work , we constructed the spin-shift operator for the trigonometric multi-particle Ruijsenaars-Schneider system in terms of the Dunkl-Cherednik operators.

The purpose of the present paper is to find results analogous to those of  for the root system $`C_n`$. As a consequence we obtain the spin-shift operator in the language of Weyl group.

This Letter is arranged as follows. In Section 2, we review the basic facts of the Dunkl-Cherednik operators and the Ruijsenaars- Schneider Hamiltonian. Following the similar process as in  leads us to obtain the spin-shift relation (Proposition 2) and the explicit form of the spin-shift operator for trigonometric Ruijsenaars- Schneider Hamiltonian of type $`C_n`$ (Theorem 1) in Section 3.

## 2 Dunkl-Cherednik operators

In this section we define the Dunkl-Cherednik operators, which are the key tool for our paper. For details, see references (-).

Let $`V`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional real vector space with the basis $`\{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n\}`$, and a positive definite symmetric bilinear form $`(,):V\times V𝐑`$ defined by $`(ϵ_i,ϵ_j)=\delta _{ij}`$. Let $`R=\{\pm ϵ_i\pm ϵ_j(1i<jn),\pm 2ϵ_i(1in)\}`$ be the root system of type $`C_n`$, $`R^+=\{ϵ_i\pm ϵ_j(1i<jn),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}ϵ_i(1in)\}`$ the set of positive roots, $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\{\alpha _i=ϵ_iϵ_{i+1}(1in1),\alpha _n=2ϵ_n\}`$ the set of simple roots. For every root $`\alpha R`$, define the coroot $`\alpha ^{}:=2\alpha /(\alpha ,\alpha )`$. Denote by $`P=\{\lambda V|(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})𝐙\}`$ the weight lattice. It has a natural basis of fundamental weights $`\omega _i`$ determined by $`(\alpha _j^{},\omega _i)=\delta _{ji}`$. In similar way we define coweight lattice $`P^{}=\{\lambda ^{}V|(\lambda ^{},\alpha _i)𝐙\}`$ and fundamental coweight $`\omega _i^{}`$ determined by $`(\alpha _j,\omega _i^{})=\delta _{ji}`$. As usual we define the highest root $`\theta R`$ by $`\theta \alpha 𝐙_+\alpha _i`$ for all $`\alpha R`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n=𝐐(q)[X^{ϵ_1},\mathrm{},X^{ϵ_n}]`$ be a polynomial ring. For every $`\alpha R`$ denote $`s_\alpha `$ for the reflection with respect to $`\alpha `$ determined by $`s_\alpha (v)=v(v,\alpha )\alpha ^{}`$. The Weyl group $`W=W_{C_n}=s_1,\mathrm{},s_{n1},s_n`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ as $`w.X^\alpha =X^{w(\alpha )}`$.

The set of affine roots is $`\stackrel{~}{R}=\{\alpha +m\delta |\alpha R,m𝐙\}`$, where $`\delta `$ denotes the constant function $`1`$ on $`V`$. The simple roots are $`a_0=\theta +\delta `$ and $`a_i=\alpha _iR`$. We use the same symbols $`s_i(0in)`$ to represent the generator for the corresponding affine Weyl group $`\stackrel{~}{W}=s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_n`$. We note that $`s_0=\tau (\theta ^{})s_\theta `$, where $`\tau (\xi ^{})`$ is defined by $`\tau (\xi ^{})X^\mu =q^{2(\xi ^{},\mu )}X^\mu `$. We define the length $`\mathrm{}(\lambda ^{})`$ of $`\lambda ^{}P^{}`$ as the length $`l`$ of the reduced expression

$$\tau (\lambda ^{})=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_l}.$$
(4)
We write $`\lambda ^{}\mu `$ if $`\mathrm{}(\lambda ^{})<\mathrm{}(\mu ^{})`$. Suppose for every $`\alpha \stackrel{~}{R}`$ we have a variable $`t_\alpha `$ such that $`t_\alpha =t_{w(\alpha )}`$ for every $`w\stackrel{~}{W}`$. Let $`𝐐_t=𝐐(t_\alpha )`$ be the field of rational functions in $`t_\alpha `$. We now introduce the operators

$$T_i=t_{\alpha _i}s_i+(t_{\alpha _i}t_{\alpha _i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\frac{1}{X^{\alpha _i}1}(s_i1)(i=0,\mathrm{},n).$$
(5)
They satisfy the following relations

$`(T_it_{\alpha _i})(T_i+t_{\alpha _i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})=0(i=0,\mathrm{},n),`$ (6)
$`T_iT_j=T_jT_i(|ij|2),`$ (7)
$`T_iT_{i+1}T_i=T_{i+1}T_iT_{i+1}(i=1,\mathrm{},n2),`$ (8)
$`T_iT_{i+1}T_iT_{i+1}=T_{i+1}T_iT_{i+1}T_i(i=0,n1).`$ (9)
This means that they realize the representation of the affine Hecke algebra $`H(\stackrel{~}{W})`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}=𝐐_t(q)[X^{ϵ_1},\mathrm{},X^{ϵ_n}]`$.

The Dunkl-Cherednik operator $`Y^{\omega _i^{}}(i=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ are now defined in terms of the operators $`T_i(i=0,\mathrm{},n)`$ by the expression

$$Y^{\omega _i^{}}:=(T_0T_1\mathrm{}T_{n1}T_nT_{n1}\mathrm{}T_i)^i.$$
(10)
Using the relations (7)-(9), one can show that the Dunkl-Cherednik operators $`Y^{\omega _1^{}},\mathrm{},Y^{\omega _n^{}}`$ commute with each other. Moreover they satisfy the following commutation relations with $`T_i`$.

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}T_iY^\omega ^{}Y^{s_i(\omega ^{})}T_i=(t_{\alpha _i}t_{\alpha _i}^1)Y^\omega ^{},\hfill & \text{if }(\omega ^{},\alpha _i)=1\text{,}\hfill \\ T_iY^\omega ^{}=Y^\omega ^{}T_i,\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
Set $`\widehat{R}=\{\alpha R|(\alpha ,\omega _n^{})=1\}`$. Let $`M(q,t_\alpha )`$ denote the Macdonald difference operator

$$M(q,t_\alpha )=\underset{wW}{}\underset{\alpha \widehat{R}}{}\frac{t_\alpha X^{w(\alpha )}t_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}{X^{w(\alpha )}1}\tau (w(\omega _n^{}))$$
(12)
It is known that the Macdonald difference operators are obtained in terms of the Dunkl-Cherednik operators.

###### Proposition 1

$$\underset{wW}{}Y^{w(\omega _n^{})}|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}^W}=M(q,t_\alpha )$$
(13)
Note that $`O|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}^W}`$ means that the action of the operator $`O`$ is restricted to the $`W`$-invariant space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}^W`$.

We will define the Ruijsenaars-Schneider Hamiltonian of type $`C_n`$ by conjugating the Macdonald difference operator (Equation (12)) by a weight function as follows.

For this purpose we introduce the notation

$$(x;q^2)_l=\underset{i=0}{\overset{l1}{}}(1xq^{2i}).$$
(14)
Note that in terms of this notation the Macdonald difference operator with $`t_\alpha =q^{l_\alpha }`$ can be written as

$$M(q,q^{l_\alpha })=\underset{wW}{}\underset{\alpha R^+}{}\frac{(X^\alpha ;q^2)_{l_\alpha }}{(X^{w(\alpha )};q^2)_{l_\alpha }}\tau (w(\omega _n^{}))$$
(15)
Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^+:=\underset{\alpha R^+}{}(X^\alpha ;q^2)_{l_\alpha }$$
(16)
be the weight function we mentioned above. Consider an operator

$$H_{(l_\alpha )}:=\mathrm{\Delta }^+M(q,q^{l_\alpha })(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)^1,$$
(17)
where $`(l_\alpha )=(l_1,l_2)𝐙_0\times 𝐙_0`$. The nonnegative integers $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ correspond to long root and short root respectively. Now let

$`\widehat{R}_w^+`$ $`=`$ $`w(\widehat{R})R^+,`$
$`\widehat{R}_w^{}`$ $`=`$ $`w(\widehat{R})R^+,`$
then for $`\alpha R^+`$

$$\tau (w(\omega _n^{}))(X^\alpha ;q^2)_{l_\alpha }=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (q^2X^\alpha ;q^2)_{l_\alpha },& \text{for }\alpha \widehat{R}_w^+\hfill \\ \hfill (q^2X^\alpha ;q^2)_{l_\alpha },& \text{for }\alpha \widehat{R}_w^{}\hfill \\ \hfill (X^\alpha ;q^2)_{l_\alpha },& \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore the Equation.(17) is

$$H_{(l_\alpha )}=\underset{wW}{}\underset{\alpha R^+}{}\frac{q^{2l_\alpha }X^{w(\alpha )}1}{X^{w(\alpha )}1}\underset{\beta \widehat{R}_w^+}{}\frac{X^\beta 1}{q^{2l_\beta }X^\beta 1}\underset{\gamma \widehat{R}_w^{}}{}\frac{q^{2l_\gamma 2}X^{w(\gamma )}1}{q^2X^{w(\gamma )}1}\tau (w(\omega _n^{}))$$
(18)
We call the operator $`H_{(l_\alpha )}`$ Ruijsenaars-Schneider Hamiltonian of type $`C_n`$ and $`(l_\alpha )𝐙_0\times 𝐙_0`$ a spin of the model.

## 3 Spin-Shift relation

We begin with the equation which follows from the commutativity of the Dunkl-Cherednik operators:

$$\underset{wW}{}Y^{w(\omega _n^{})}\underset{\alpha R^+}{}\left(t_\alpha ^1Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}t_\alpha Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\right)=\underset{\alpha R^+}{}\left(t_\alpha ^1Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}t_\alpha Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\right)\underset{wW}{}Y^{w(\omega _n^{})}$$
(19)
###### Proposition 2

Let $`w_0`$ be the longest element of Weyl group $`W`$. Multiplying both sides of Equation (19) by $`w_0`$ from the left, and restricting the operators to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}^W`$, we obtain

$`\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \widehat{R}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\alpha X^{w(\alpha )}t_\alpha ^1}{X^{w(\alpha )}1}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta \widehat{R}_w^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\beta X^\beta t_\beta ^1}{t_\beta ^1X^\beta t_\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2t_\beta ^1X^\beta t_\beta }{q^2t_\beta X^\beta t_\beta ^1}}\tau (w(\omega _n^{}))\right\}`$
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\alpha X^{w(\alpha )}t_\alpha ^1}{X^\alpha 1}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}\mathrm{sgn}(w)w({\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha R^+}{ht(\alpha )i}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\alpha q^{2(i1)}X^\alpha t_\alpha ^1}{q^{2(i1)X^\alpha 1}}}\tau (\rho ^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ^{}\rho ^{}}{}}G_\lambda ^{}\tau (\lambda ^{}))\}`$
$`=\{{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\alpha X^{w(\alpha )}t_\alpha ^1}{X^\alpha 1}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}\mathrm{sgn}(w)w({\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha R^+}{ht(\alpha )i}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\alpha q^{2(i1)}X^\alpha t_\alpha ^1}{q^{2(i1)X^\alpha 1}}}\tau (\rho ^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ^{}\rho ^{}}{}}G_\lambda ^{}\tau (\lambda ^{}))\}`$
$`\times \left\{{\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \widehat{R}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\alpha X^{w(\alpha )}t_\alpha ^1}{X^{w(\alpha )}1}}\tau (w(\omega _n^{}))\right\}`$ (20)
where $`G_\lambda ^{}`$ is come meromorphic function in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}`$.

proof. We can prove the proposition in the same manner as in . We will outline the proof.

Since in $`_{\alpha R^+}(t_\alpha ^1Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}t_\alpha Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}})|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}^W}`$, the term of $`\tau (\rho ^{})`$ appears only from $`Y^\rho ^{}`$ one can calculate the coefficient:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha R^+}{ht(\alpha )i}}{}\frac{t_\alpha q^{2(i1)}t_\alpha ^1X^\alpha }{1q^{2(i1)}X^\alpha }.$$
(21)
Using the identity

$`(T_i+t_{\alpha _i}^1){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}(t_\alpha ^1Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}t_\alpha Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{t_{\alpha _i}^1Y^{\frac{\alpha _i^{}}{2}}t_{\alpha _i}Y^{\frac{\alpha _i^{}}{2}}}{t_{\alpha _i}^1Y^{\frac{\alpha _i^{}}{2}}t_{\alpha _i}Y^{\frac{\alpha _i^{}}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}(t_\alpha ^1Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}t_\alpha Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}})(T_it_{\alpha _i}),`$
which can be shown by a direct calculation, we have

$`s_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{\alpha R^+}\frac{t_\alpha t_\alpha ^1X^\alpha }{1X^\alpha }}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}(t_\alpha ^1Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}t_\alpha Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}})|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}^W}`$ (22)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{\alpha R^+}\frac{t_\alpha t_\alpha ^1X^\alpha }{1X^\alpha }}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}(t_\alpha ^1Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}t_\alpha Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}})|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}^W}`$
Thus this invarinaceness up to $`(\pm 1)`$ with Equation (21) leads to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}(t_\alpha ^1Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}t_\alpha Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}})|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}^W}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\alpha t_\alpha ^1X^\alpha }{1X^\alpha }}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}\mathrm{sgn}(w)w({\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{2n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha R^+}{ht(\alpha )i}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\alpha q^{2(i1)}t_\alpha ^1X^\alpha }{1q^{2(i1)}X^\alpha }}\tau (\rho ^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ^{}\rho ^{}}{}}G_\lambda ^{}\tau (\lambda ^{})),`$
where $`G_\lambda ^{}`$ is some meromorphic function in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}`$. Since $`_{wW}Y^{w(\omega _n^{})}|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}^W}`$ is Weyl invariant, the right hand side of Equation (20) is proved.

Next we step to prove the left hand side of Equation (20). Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ be the Weyl orbit of $`\omega _n^{}`$. Because of the invarianceness up to $`(\pm 1)`$ (Equation (22)), we find that the equation

$`w_0{\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}Y^{w(\omega _n^{})}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}(t^1Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}tY^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}})|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}^W}`$ (24)
$`=w_0{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}(t^1Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}tY^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}){\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}Y^{w(\omega _n^{})}|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}^W}`$
turns to be

$`\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\omega ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{}}C(\omega ^{})\tau (\omega ^{})\right\}w_0{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}(t^1Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}tY^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}})|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}^W}`$ (25)
$`=w_0{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}(t^1Y^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}tY^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}){\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}Y^{w(\omega _n^{})}|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,t}^W}.`$
Now we will determine the coefficients $`C(\omega ^{})`$ as follows. Note that we can write

$`w_0{\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}Y^{w(\omega _n^{})}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \widehat{R}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\alpha X^\alpha t_\alpha ^1}{X^\alpha 1}}\tau (\omega _n^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{\omega ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\{\omega _n^{}\}}{}}A(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)\tau (\omega ^{})S,`$
where $`A(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ and $`S`$ are appropriate coefficients and elements of Weyl group respectively. Substituting Equation (3) to (24), multiplying $`wW`$ to the both sides of (24), and comparing with (25), we can observe that the term of $`C(w(\omega _n^{}))`$ is

$$\underset{\alpha \widehat{R}}{}\frac{t_\alpha X^{w(\alpha )}t_\alpha ^1}{X^{w(\alpha )}1}\underset{\beta \widehat{R}_w^{}}{}\frac{t_\beta X^\beta t_\beta ^1}{t_\beta ^1X^\beta t_\beta }\frac{q^2t_\beta ^1X^\beta t_\beta }{q^2t_\beta X^\beta t_\beta ^1}\tau (w(\omega _n^{})).$$
(27)
Thus the left hand side of Equation (20) is proved. Hence the proof has completed. $`\mathrm{}`$

From Equation (20), one can derive the spin-shift relation. Put $`t_\alpha =q^{l_\alpha }`$, and conjugating by the weight function $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, namely multiplying the both sides of the above equation by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ from the left and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)^1`$ from the right, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{2(l_\alpha +1)}X^{w(\alpha )}1}{q^2X^{w(\alpha )}1}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta \widehat{R}_w^+}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2X^\beta 1}{q^{2(l_\beta +1)}X^\beta 1}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma \widehat{R}_w^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{2l_\gamma }X^{w(\gamma )}1}{X^{w(\gamma )}1}}\tau (w(\omega _n^{}))`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Delta }^+\widehat{D}_{(l_\alpha )}(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)^1=\mathrm{\Delta }^+\widehat{D}_{(l_\alpha )}(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)^1`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{2l_\alpha }X^{w(\alpha )}1}{X^{w(\alpha )}1}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta \widehat{R}_w^+}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{X^\beta 1}{q^{2l_\beta }X^\beta 1}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma \widehat{R}_w^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{2l_\gamma 2}X^{w(\gamma )}1}{q^2X^{w(\gamma )}1}}\tau (w(\omega _n^{})).`$
where

$`\widehat{D}_{(l_\alpha )}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha R^+}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\alpha X^{w(\alpha )}t_\alpha ^1}{X^\alpha 1}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}\mathrm{sgn}(w)w({\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha R^+}{ht(\alpha )i}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\alpha q^{2(i1)}X^\alpha t_\alpha ^1}{q^{2(i1)X^\alpha 1}}}\tau (\rho ^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ^{}\rho ^{}}{}}G_\lambda ^{}\tau (\lambda ^{})).`$
Now we calculate the explicit form of the spin-shift operator

$$D_{(l_\alpha )}=\mathrm{\Delta }^+\widehat{D}_{(l_\alpha )}(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)^1.$$
(29)
Since the action of $`\tau (w(\rho ^{}))`$ to $`(X^{w(\alpha )};q^2)_{l_\alpha }`$ is

$$\tau (w(\rho ^{}))(X^{w(\alpha )};q^2)_{l_\alpha }=(q^{2ht(\alpha )}X^{w(\alpha )};q^2)_{l_\alpha },$$
(30)
we find

$`\tau (w(\rho ^{}))(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)^1`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \widehat{R}_w^+}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{l_\alpha 1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^{2(i+ht(\alpha ))}X^{w(\alpha )}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \widehat{R}_w^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{l_\alpha 1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^{2(iht(\alpha ))}X^{w(\alpha )}}}\tau (w(\rho ^{})).`$
In conclusion we obtain the following result.

###### Theorem 1

The explicit form of the spin-shift operator for the Ruijsenaars-Schneider Hamiltonian of type $`C_n`$ is

$`D_{(l_\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}\mathrm{sgn}(w)({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \widehat{R}_w^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{2l_\alpha }X^\alpha }{1X^\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{2(l_\alpha 1)}X^\alpha }{1q^2X^\alpha }}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha \widehat{R}_w^{}}{s+1ht(w^1(\alpha ))}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{2(l_\alpha +s)}X^\alpha }{1q^{2s}X^\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{2(l_\alpha s1)}X^\alpha }{1q^{2(s+1)}X^\alpha }}\tau (w(\rho ^{}))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ^{}\rho ^{}}{}}G_\lambda ^{}\tau (\lambda ^{})).`$