text:
# Prevalence of Milnor Attractors and Chaotic Itinerancy in ’High’-dimensional Dynamical Systems

## 1 Introduction

High-dimensional dynamical systems often have many attractors. Indeed, such systems with multiple attractors have been discussed to be relevant to biological memory, information processing, and differentiation of cell types. There, to make connection with problems in biological networks, stability of attractors against external perturbation, switching among attractors by external operation, and spontaneous itinerancy over several lower dimensional states are important. In the present paper, we survey a universal aspect with regards to these points.

One of the simplest model for such high-dimensional dynamical systems is globally coupled dynamical systems. In particular, “globally coupled map” (GCM) consisting of chaotic elements  has been extensively studied, as a simple prototype model. A standard model for such GCM is given by

$$x_{n+1}(i)=(1ϵ)f(x_n(i))+\frac{ϵ}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}f(x_n(j))$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is a discrete time step and $`i`$ is the index of an element ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ = system size), and $`f(x)=1ax^2`$. The model is just a mean-field-theory-type extension of coupled map lattices (CML).

Through the average interaction, elements are tended to oscillate synchronously, while chaotic instability leads to destruction of the coherence. When the former tendency wins, all elements oscillate coherently, while elements are completely desynchronized in the limit of strong chaotic instability. Between these cases, elements split into clusters in which they oscillate coherently. Here a cluster is defined as a set of elements in which $`x(i)=x(j)`$. Attractors in GCM are classified by the number of synchronized clusters $`k`$ and the number of elements for each cluster $`N_i`$. Each attractor is coded by the clustering condition $`[k,(N_1,N_2,\mathrm{},N_k)]`$.

As has been studied extensively, the following phases appear successively with the increase of nonlinearity in the system ($`a`$ in the above logistic map case) :

(i) Coherent phase; (ii) Ordered phase; (iii) Partially ordered phase; (iv) Desynchronized phase:

In (i), a completely synchronized attractor ($`k=1`$) exists, while all attractors consist of few ($`k=o(N)`$) clusters in (ii). In (iii), attractors with a variety of clusterings coexist, while most of them have many clusters ($`k=O(N)`$). Elements are completely desynchronized, i.e., $`k=N`$ for all (typically single) attractors in (iv). The above clustering behaviors have universally been confirmed in a variety of systems (see also ).

In the partially ordered (PO) phase, there are a variety of attractors with a different number of clusters, and a different way of partitions $`[N_1,N_2,\mathrm{},N_k]`$. In this phase, there are a variety of partitions as attractors. As an example, we measured the fluctuation of the partitions, using the probability $`Y`$ that two elements fall on the same cluster. In the PO phase, this $`Y`$ value varies by attractors, and furthermore, the variation remains finite even in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$ . In other words, there is no ’typical’ attractor in the thermodynamic limit. This is similar with the ’non-self-averaging’ in Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model in spin glass.

## 2 Attractor Strength and Milnor Attractors

In the partially ordered (PO) phase and also in some part of ordered phase, there coexist a variety of attractors depending on the partition. To study the stability of an attractor against perturbation, we introduce the return probability $`P(\sigma )`$, defined as follows: Take an orbit point $`\{x(i)\}`$ of an attractor in an $`N`$-dimensional phase space, and perturb the point to $`x(i)+\frac{\sigma }{2}rnd_i`$, where $`rnd_i`$ is a random number taken from $`[1,1]`$, uncorrelated for all elements $`i`$. Check if this perturbed point returns to the original attractor via the original deterministic dynamics (1). By sampling over random perturbations and the time of the application of perturbation, the return probability $`P(\sigma )`$ is defined as (# of returns )$`/`$ (# of perturbation trials). As a simple index for robustness of an attractor, it is useful to define $`\sigma _c`$ as the largest $`\sigma `$ such that $`P(\sigma )=1`$. This index measures what we call the strength of an attractor.

The strength $`\sigma _c`$ gives a minimum distance between the orbit of an attractor and its basin boundary. Note that $`\sigma _c`$ can be small, even if the basin volume is large, if the attractor is located near the basin boundary.

In contrast with our naive expectation from the concept of an attractor, we have often observed ‘attractors’ with $`\sigma _c=0`$, i.e., $`P(+0)lim_{\delta 0}P(\delta )<1`$. If $`\sigma _c=0`$ holds for a given state, it cannot be an “attractor” in the sense with asymptotic stability, since some tiny perturbations kick the orbit out of the “attractor”. The attractors with $`\sigma _c=0`$ are called Milnor attractors. In other words, Milnor attractor is defined as an attractor that is unstable by some perturbations of arbitrarily small size, but globally attracts orbital points. (Originally, Milnor proposed to include all states with the basin of attraction of a positive Lebesgue measure, into the definition of an attractor. Accordingly, attractors by his definition include also the usual attractor with asymptotic stability. Here we call Milnor attractor, only if it does not belong to the latter. If this Milnor attractor is chaotic, the basin is considered to be riddled . This is the case for the present GCM model.) Since it is not asymptotically stable, one might, at first sight, think that it is rather special, and appears only at a critical point like the crisis in the logistic map. To our surprise, the Milnor attractors are rather commonly observed around the border between the ordered and partially ordered phases in our GCM (see Fig.2). Attractors with $`\sigma _c=0`$ often have a large basin volume, which sometimes occupy almost 100 % of the total phase space.

With regards to the basin volume of Milnor attractors, the change of the behavior of the GCM (1) with the increase of the parameter $`a`$ is summarized as follows: a few attractors with small numbers of clusters; $``$ increase of the number of attractors with stable and Milnor attractors coexisting; $``$ decrease of the number of attractors with some remaining Milnor attractors with large basin fractions; $``$ only a single or a few stable attractors with complete de-synchronization remain. Milnor attractors no longer exist.

Then, why is the basin volume of Milnor attractors so large for some parameter regimes? To answer the question, robustness of global attraction is a key. Note there are a large number of attractors at the border between O and PO. Most of the attractors lose the stability around the parameter regime successively. When the stability of an attractor is lost, there appears a set of points in the vicinity of the attractor, that are kicked out of it through the temporal evolution, while the global attraction still remains. This is a reason why fragile attractors are dominant around the PO phase. In Fig.2, we have plotted the sum of basin volume rates for all the Milnor attractors. Dominance of Milnor (fragile) attractors is clearly seen.

Attractors are often near the crisis point and lose or gain the stability at many parameter values in the PO phase. Furthermore, the stability of an attractor often shows sensitive dependence on the parameter. It is interesting to see how $`P(+0)`$ and basin volume change with the parameter $`a`$, when an attractor loses asymptotic stability. As shown in , the basin volume of an attractor often has a peak when the it loses the stability and then decreases slowly as $`P(+0)`$ gets smaller than unity, where the attractor becomes a Milnor one. Although the local attraction gets weaker as $`P(+0)`$ is smaller than 1, the global attraction remains. It is also noted that if $`P(+0)`$ equals 1 or not often sensitively depends on the parameter $`a`$, while the basin volume shows smooth dependence on the parameter. The basin volume reflects on global attraction, while the $`P(+0)`$ depends on local structure in the phase space with regards to collision of an attractor and its basin boundary. This is the reason why the former has a smooth dependence of the parameter, in contrast to the latter.

remark

Coexistence of attractors with different degrees of stability makes us expect that noise is relevant to the choice of the attractor the GCM settles to. One might then suspect that such Milnor attractors must be weak against noise. Indeed, by a very weak noise with the amplitude $`\sigma `$, an orbit at a Milnor attractor is kicked away, and if the orbit is reached to one of attractors with $`\sigma _c>\sigma `$, it never comes back to the Milnor attractor. In spite of this instability, however, an orbit kicked out from a Milnor attractor is often found to stay in the vicinity of it, under a relatively large noise. The orbit comes back to the original Milnor attractor before it is kicked away to other attractors with $`\sigma _c>\sigma `$. Furthermore, by a larger noise, orbits sometimes are more attracted to Milnor attractors. Such attraction is possible, since Milnor attractors here have global attraction in the phase space, in spite of their local instability.

## 3 Magic Number $`7\pm 2`$ in Dynamical Systems?

Milnor attractors can exist in low dimensional dynamical systems like a two-dimensional map as well. When changing the parameter of a dynamical system, the basin boundary of an attractor may move until, for a specific value of the parameter, the basin boundary touches the attractor. Then, if the attractor has a positive measure of initial conditions forming the basin of attraction, it becomes a Milnor attractor. Generally speaking, however, the above situation occurs only for very specific parameter values, and it is not naively expected that the Milnor attractors exist with a positive measure in the parameter space.

However, as was shown in the last section, Milnor attractors are found to be rather prevalent, occurring not only for specific isolated parameter values. Such dominance of Milnor attractors is often found in high-dimensional dynamical systems, for example coupled maps with 10 degrees of freedom or so. Then, the question we address now is why can there be so many Milnor attractors in a “high-dimensional” dynamical system, and what number of degrees of freedom is sufficient for constituting such ‘high’ dimensionality.

We computed the average basin fraction of Milnor attractors over the parameter interval $`1.55<a<1.72`$. In Fig.3, this fraction is plotted as a function of the number of degrees of freedom $`N`$. The increase of the average basin fraction of Milnor attractors with $`N`$ is clearly visible for $`N(510)`$, while it levels off for $`N>10`$. Indeed, such increase of Milnor attractors with the degrees of freedom $`510`$ seems to be universal in a partially ordered phase in globally coupled chaotic system. (Here, the degree of freedoms we use in the present paper is the number of units that has orbital instability. For example, if we choose a coupled system of $`N`$ Lorenz equations, the degrees we mention is not $`3N`$, but $`N`$.)

Now we discuss a possible reason how the dominance of Milnor attractors appears. In a system with identical elements, due to the symmetry, there are at least $`M(N_1,N_2,\mathrm{},N_k)=\frac{N!}{_{i=1}^kN_i!}_{\mathrm{oversetsof}N_i=N_j}\frac{1}{m_{\mathrm{}}!}`$ attractors for each clustering condition, where $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the number of clusters with the same value $`N_j`$. Then, a combinatorial explosion in the number of attractors can be expected when many of the clustering conditions are allowed as attractors. For example, the permutation of $`N`$ elements leads to $`(N1)!`$ possibilities and one might expect the number of attractors to be of this order. On the other hand, the phase space volume in a coupled system expands only exponentially with $`N`$. Typically the combinatorial explosion outruns the exponential increase around $`N(510)`$. (For example compare $`2^N`$ and $`(N1)!`$. The latter surpasses the former at $`N=6`$.) Hence, the attractors crowd in the phase space and the stability of each attractor may be lost.

However, this argument seems to be incorrect. We have computed the number of attractors and compared with the basin fraction of Milnor attractors. As has been shown, the dominance of the Milnor attractors is not necessarily observed when the number of attractors is high. With increasing $`a`$, the fraction remains large even when the number of attractors has already decreased substantially. Since the basin volume of each of the attractors is far from being equal, the explosion in the number of attractors does not necessarily mean that the basin volume for each and every attractor should be very small. Indeed, according to our numerical results, for the parameter region where the Milnor attractors dominate, the number of Milnor attractors is not so high and the basin fraction of only a few Milnor attractors occupies almost all of phase space.

In the above sequence, the dominance of the Milnor attractors is observed when many attractors have disappeared. Therefore, we can revise the first explanation on the dominance by replacing the combinatorial explosion in the number of attractors themselves by the combinatorial explosion in the number of basin boundaries that separate the attractors. For the parameter region where many attractors start to disappear, there remain basin boundary points separating such (collapsed) attractors and the remaining attractors.

Now, we need to discuss how the distance between an attractor and its basin boundary changes with $`N`$. Consider a one-dimensional phase space, and a basin boundary that separates the regions of $`x(1)>x^{}`$ and $`x(1)<x^{}`$, while the attractor in concern exists at around $`x(1)=x_A<x^{}`$, and the neighboring one at around $`x(1)=x_B>x^{}`$. Now consider a region of $`N`$-dimensional phase space $`x_A<x(i)<x_B`$. If the region is partitioned by (basin) boundaries at $`x(i)=x^{}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{}N`$, it is partitioned into $`2^N`$ units. Since this partition is just a direct product of the original partition by $`x(1)=x^{}`$, the distance between each attractor and the basin boundary does not change with $`N`$. (For example, consider the extreme case that $`N`$ identical maps are uncoupled ($`ϵ=0`$).)

On the other hand, consider a boundary given by some condition for $`(x(1),\mathrm{},x(N))`$, represented by a (possibly very complex) hyperplane $`C(x(1),\mathrm{},x(N))=0`$. In the present system with global (all-to-all) couplings, many of the permutational changes of $`x(i)`$ in the condition also give basin boundaries. Generally, the condition for the basin can also have clustering $`(N_1,\mathrm{},N_k)`$, since the attractors are clustered as such. Then the condition obtained by the permutation of $`C(x(1),\mathrm{},x(N))=0`$ gives a basin boundary also (or one can say that $`C(x(1),\mathrm{},x(N))=0`$ itself satisfies such permutational symmetry). Then, the basin boundary has $`M(N_1,\mathrm{},N_k)`$ segments transformed into each other by the permutations. The number of such segments of the boundaries increases combinatorially with $`N`$. Roughly speaking, the sum of $`M(N_1,\mathrm{},N_k)`$ increases in the order of $`(N1)!`$, when a variety of clusterings is allowed for the boundary. Now the $`N`$-dimensional phase space region is partitioned by $`O(N1)!)`$ basin boundary segments. Recalling that the distance between an attractor and the basin boundary remains at the same order for the partition of the order of $`2^N`$, the distance should decrease if $`(N1)!`$ is larger than $`2^N`$. Since for $`N>5`$, the former increases drastically faster than the latter, the distance should decrease drastically for $`N>5`$. Then for $`N>5`$, the probability that a basin boundary touches with an attractor itself will be increased. Since this argument is applied for any attractors and their basin boundary characterized by complex clusterings having combinatorially large $`M(N_1,\mathrm{},N_k)`$, the probability that an attractor touches its basin boundary is drastically amplified for $`N>5`$. Although this explanation may be rather rough, it gives a hint to why Milnor attractors are so dominant for $`N\stackrel{>}{}(510)`$. We surmise that this is the reason why Milnor attractors are dominant in our model at $`(1.641.67)`$ when $`N\stackrel{>}{}(510)`$.

Since the above discussion is based mainly on simple combinatorial arguments, it is expected that the dominance of Milnor attractors for $`N\stackrel{>}{}(510)`$ may be rather common at some parameter region in high dimensional dynamical systems. It is interesting that pulse-coupled oscillators with global coupling also show the prevalence of Milnor attractors for $`N5`$ .

One might expect that permutational symmetry us necessary for the prevalence of Milnor attractors. For example, in the GCM (1), the permutation symmetry arising from identical elements leads to a combinatorial explosion in the number of attractors. Then, one may wonder whether the prevalence of Milnor attractors is possible only for such highly symmetric systems. We have therefore studied a GCM with heterogeneous parameters. Although the fraction seems to be smaller than in the homogeneous case, Milnor attractors are again observed and their basin volume is rather large for some parameter region. As in the symmetric case, the basin fraction of Milnor attractors increases around $`N(510)`$.

Note that even though complete synchronization between two elements is lost, clusterings as with regards to the phase relationships can exist. (As for such phase synchronization of chaotic elements see ). Indeed, there are two groups when considering the oscillations of phases as large-small-large… and small-large-small…, that are preserved in time for many attractors. Furthermore, finer preserved phase relationships can also exist. Similarly, it is natural to expect an explosion in the number of the basin boundary points for some parameter regime. Accordingly the argument on the dominance of Milnor attractors for a homogeneous GCM can be applied here to some degree as well.

It is also interesting to note that in Hamiltonian dynamical systems, agreement with thermodynamic behavior is often observed only for degrees of freedom higher than $`510`$. Considering the combinatorial complexity woven by all the possible Arnold webs (that hence may be termed “Arnold spaghetti”), the entire phase space volume that expands only exponentially with the number of degrees of freedom may be covered by webs, resulting in uniformly chaotic behavior. If this argument holds, the degrees of freedom required for thermodynamic behavior can also be discussed in a similar manner.

## 4 Chaotic Itinerancy

In the PO phase, orbits often make itinerancy over several ordered states with partial synchronization of elements, through highly chaotic states. This dynamics, called chaotic itinerancy (CI), is a novel universal class in high-dimensional dynamical systems. In the CI, an orbit successively itinerates over such “attractor-ruins”, ordered motion with some coherence among elements. The motion at “attractor-ruins” is quasi-stationary. For example, if the effective degrees of freedom is two, the elements split into two groups, in each of which elements oscillate almost coherently. The system is in the vicinity of a two-clustered state, which, however, is not a stable attractor, but keeps attraction to its vicinity globally within the phase space. After staying at an attractor-ruin, an orbit eventually exits from it. This exit arises from orbital instability. In the above example, the synchronization among the two groups is increased. Then, as is straightforwardly seen in the model equation (1), the dynamics are approximately given by $`x_{n+1}=f(x_n)`$, which has stronger orbital instability than a clustered state. With this instability the state enters into a high-dimensional chaotic motion without clear coherence. (Here it is interesting to note that the effective degrees of freedom decreases before it goes to a high-dimensional state). This high-dimensional state is again quasi-stationary, although there are some holes connecting to the attractor-ruins from it. Once the orbit is trapped at a hole, it is suddenly attracted to one of attractor ruins, i.e., ordered states with low-dimensional dynamics.

This CI dynamics has independently been found in a model of neural dynamics by Tsuda , optical turbulence , and in GCM. It provides an example of successive changes of relationships among elements.

There seem to be several types of “chaotic itinerancy” covered by this general definition for it. It can roughly be classified according to the degree of correlation between the ordered states visited successively. The correlation is high if the paths for the transitions between the ordered states are narrow, and the probabilities for visiting the next ordered state are rather low. On the other hand, the correlation is low when the memory of the previous sate is lost due to high-dimensional chaos during the transition.

Still, the systems with chaotic itinerancy studied so far commonly have a small number of positive Lyapunov exponents and many exponents close to zero. As a result, the dimension of the global attractor is high, while the path in the phase space is restricted.

Note that the Milnor attractors satisfy the condition of the above ordered states constituting chaotic itinerancy. Some Milnor attractors we have found keep global attraction, which is consistent with the observation that the attraction to ordered states in chaotic itinerancy occurs globally from a high-dimensional chaotic state. Attraction of an orbit to precisely a given attractor requires infinite time, and before the orbit is really settled to a given Milnor attractor, it may be kicked away. Then, the long-term dynamics can be constructed as the successive alternations to the attraction to, and escapes from, Milnor attractors. If the attraction to robust attractors from a given Milnor attractor is not possible, the long-term dynamics with the noise strength $`+0`$ is represented by successive transitions over Milnor attractors. Then the dynamics is represented by transition matrix over among Milnor attractors. This matrix is generally asymmetric: often, there is a connection from a Milnor attractor A to a Milnor attractor B, but not from B to A. The total dynamics is represented by the motion over a network, given by a set of directed graphs over Milnor attractors. In general, the ‘ordered states’ in CI may not be exactly Milnor attractors but can be weakly destabilized states from Milnor attractors. Still, the attribution of CI to Milnor attractor network dynamics is expected to work as one ideal limit.

remark

Computability of chaotic itinerancy has a serious problem, since switching process over Milnor attractor network in the noiseless case may differ from that of the case with the limit of noise $`+0`$, or from that obtained by a digital computer with a finite precision. For example, once the digits of two variable $`x(i)=x(j)`$ agree down to the lowest bit, the values never split again, even though the state with the synchronization of the two elements may be unstable. As long as digital computation is adopted, it is always possible that an orbit is trapped to such unstable state. (See , for one technique to resolve this numerical problem).

In each event of switching, which Milnor attractor is visited next after the departure from a Milnor attractor may depend on the precision, or on any small amount of noise. Here it may be interesting to note that there are similar statistical features between (Milnor attractor) dynamics with a riddled basin and undecidable dynamics of a universal Turing-machine.

## 5 Relevance to Neural Networks

When one considers (static) memory in terms of dynamical systems, it is often adopted that each memory is assigned into an attractor. Here, a system with many attractors is desirable as such system. Then, existence of Milnor attractors may lead us to suspect the correspondence between a (robust) attractor and memory.

Here, it may be interesting to recall that the term magic number $`7\pm 2`$ was originally coined in psychology . It was found that the number of chunks (items) that is memorized in short term memory is limited to $`7\pm 2`$. Indeed with this number $`7\pm 2`$, the fraction of basins for Milnor attractors increases. Since possible explanation is based only on combinatorial arguments, this ‘magic number $`510`$’ in dynamical systems does not strongly depend on the choice of specific models. Then, it may be interesting to discuss a possible connection of it with the original magic number $`7\pm 2`$ in psychology. (see also  for a pioneering approach to this problem from a viewpoint of chaotic dynamics). To memorize $`k`$ chunks of information including their order (e.g., a phone number of $`k`$ digits) within a dynamical system, it is natural to assign each memorized state to an attractor of a $`k`$-dimensional dynamical system (unless rather elaborate mechanisms are assumed). In this $`k`$ dimensional phase space, a combinatorial variety of attractors has to be presumed in order to assure a sufficient variety of memories. Then, if our argument so far is applied to the system, Milnor attractors may be dominant for $`k>(510)`$. If this is the case, the state represented by a Milnor attractor may be kicked out by tiny perturbations. Thus robust memory may not be possible for information that contains more than $`7\pm 2`$ chunks. Possibly, this argument can also be applied to other systems that adopt attractors as memory, including most neural networks.

(Of course, the present argument should mainly be applied to systems with all-to-all couplings, or to highly connected network systems. If the connections are hierarchically ordered, the number of memory items can be increased. The often adopted module structure is relevant for this purpose.)

This argument does not necessarily imply that Milnor attractors are irrelevant to cognitive processes. For a dynamical system to work as a memory, some mechanism to write down and read it out is necessary. If the memory is given in a robust attractor, its information processing is not so easy, instead of its stability. Milnor attractors may provide dynamic memory  allowing for interface between outside and inside, external inputs and internal representation. In a Milnor attractor, some structure is preserved, while it is dynamically connected with different attractors. Also, it can be switched to different memory by any small inputs. The connection to other attractors is neither one-to-one nor random. It is highly structured with some constraints.

Searches with chaos itinerating over attractor ruins has been discussed in with a support in an experiment on the olfactory bulb. Freeman, through his experiments, proposed that the chaotic dynamics corresponds to a searching state for a variety of memories, represented by attractors , while evidence from human scalp EEG showing chaotic itinerancy is also suggested.

We note that the Milnor attractors in our GCM model provide a candidate for such a searching state, because of connection to a variety of stronger attractors which possibly play the role of rigidly memorized states. Stability of Milnor attractors by some noisy inputs also supports this correspondence.

acknowledgments

The work is partially supported by Grant-in-Aids for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture of Japan (11CE2006).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In our previous paper  we have presented the arguments in favour of that the Kaluza-Klein picture of the world has been been observed for a long time in the experiments at very low energies where the nucleon-nucleon dynamics has been studied. Actually, we have shown that the structure of proton-proton total cross section at very low energies has a clear signature of the existence of the extra dimensions: It was found that geniusly simple formula for KK excitations provided by Kaluza-Klein approach accurately described the experimentally observed irregularities in the spectrum of mass of the diproton system. Surely, this was a very nice fact and, certainly, it was not an accidental coincidence.

The central point of Kaluza-Klein approach is related to the existence of a new fundamental scale characterizing a size of compact internal extra space. The detailed study of the structure for the proton-proton total cross section at very low energies allowed us to calculate this scale. It turned out the fundamental scale has a clear physical meaning: This scale corresponds to the scale of distances where the strong Yukawa forces in strength come down to the electromagnetic forces. We have shown that the Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations built by the calculated fundamental scale was in a good correspondence with the experimentally observed picture of irregularities in the mass spectrum of diproton system. However, it’s clear that Kaluza-Klein scenario predict the same KK excitations in the proton-antiproton system as well, and this is a very nontrivial fact. That is why, it was intriguing for us to find an experimental confirmation of this fact. We have performed an analysis of experimental data on mass spectrum of the resonance states of proton-antiproton system above elastic threshold and compared them with Kaluza-Klein picture. The results of this analysis have been presented here.

## 2 Kaluza-Klein picture and KK excitations in two-nucleon system

It is well known that the basic idea of the Kaluza-Klein scenario may be applied to any model in Quantum Field Theory (see for the details e.g. the excellent review articles  and many references therein). As example, let us consider the simplest case of (4+d)-dimensional model of scalar field with the action

$$S=d^{4+d}z\sqrt{𝒢}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(_M\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2\frac{m^2}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{G_{(4+d)}}{4!}\mathrm{\Phi }^4\right],$$
(1)
where $`𝒢=det|𝒢_{MN}|`$, $`𝒢_{MN}`$ is the metric on $`_{(4+d)}=M_4\times K_d`$, $`M_4`$ is pseudo-Euclidean Minkowski space-time, $`K_d`$ is a compact internal $`d`$-dimensional space with the characteristic size $`R`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{K_d}`$ be the Laplace operator on the internal space $`K_d`$, and $`Y_n(y)`$ are ortho-normalized eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{K_d}Y_n(y)=\frac{\lambda _n}{R^2}Y_n(y),$$
(2)
and $`n`$ is a (multi)index labeling the eigenvalue $`\lambda _n`$ of the eigenfunction $`Y_n(y)`$. $`d`$-dimensional torus $`T^d`$ with equal radii $`R`$ is an especially simple example of the compact internal space of extra dimensions $`K_d`$. The eigenfunctions and eigenvalues in this special case look like

$$Y_n(y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V_d}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{m=1}{\overset{d}{}}n_my^m/R\right),$$
(3)
$$\lambda _n=|n|^2,|n|^2=n_1^2+n_2^2+\mathrm{}n_d^2,n=(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_d),\mathrm{}n_m\mathrm{},$$

where $`n_m`$ are integer numbers, $`V_d=(2\pi R)^d`$ is the volume of the torus.

To reduce the multidimensional theory to the effective four-dimensional one we wright a harmonic expansion for the multidimensional field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)=\underset{n}{}\varphi ^{(n)}(x)Y_n(y).$$
(4)
The coefficients $`\varphi ^{(n)}(x)`$ of the harmonic expansion (4) are called Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations or KK modes, and they usually include the zero-mode $`\varphi ^{(0)}(x)`$, corresponding to $`n=0`$ and the eigenvalue $`\lambda _0=0`$. Substitution of the KK mode expansion into action (1) and integration over the internal space $`K_d`$ gives

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\{\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \varphi ^{(0)}\right)^2\frac{m^2}{2}(\varphi ^{(0)})^2+\frac{g}{4!}(\varphi ^{(0)})^4+$$
(5)
$$+\underset{n0}{}[\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \varphi ^{(n)}\right)\left(^\mu \varphi ^{(n)}\right)^{}\frac{m_n^2}{2}\varphi ^{(n)}\varphi ^{(n)}]+\frac{g}{4!}(\varphi ^{(0)})^2\underset{n0}{}\varphi ^{(n)}\varphi ^{(n)}\}+\mathrm{}.$$

For the masses of the KK modes one obtains

$$m_n^2=m^2+\frac{\lambda _n}{R^2},$$
(6)
and the coupling constant $`g`$ of the four-dimensional theory is related to the coupling constant $`G_{(4+d)}`$ of the initial multidimensional theory by the equation

$$g=\frac{G_{(4+d)}}{V_d},$$
(7)
where $`V_d`$ is the volume of the compact internal space of extra dimensions $`K_d`$. The fundamental coupling constant $`G_{(4+d)}`$ has dimension $`[\text{mass}]^d`$. So, the four-dimensional coupling constant $`g`$ is dimensionless one as it should be. Eqs. (6,7) represent the basic relations of Kaluza-Klein scenario. Similar relations take place for other types of multidimensional quantum field theoretical models. From four-dimensional point of view we can interpret each KK mode as a particle with the mass $`m_n`$ given by Eq. (6). We see that in according with Kaluza-Klein scenario any multidimensional field contains an infinite set of KK modes, i.e. an infinite set of four-dimensional particles with increasing masses, which is called the Kaluza-Klein tower. Therefore, an experimental observation of series KK excitations with a characteristic spectrum of the form (6) would be an evidence of the existence of extra dimensions.

As it was mentioned above in Introduction we have applied the main issues of Kaluza-Klein approach to our analysis of the structure of proton-proton total cross section at very low energies and calculated the fundamental scale (size) $`R`$ of the compact internal extra space. One obtained by this way

$$\frac{1}{R}=41.481\text{MeV}\text{or}R=24.1GeV^1=\mathrm{4.75\hspace{0.17em}10}^{13}\text{cm}.$$
(8)
After that we have built the Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations by the formula

$$M_n=2\sqrt{m_p^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}},(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{})$$
(9)
and compared it with the observed irregularities in the spectrum of mass of the diproton system. The result of the comparison has been presented in Table 2 of ref. . Now we would like to include in this table the experimental data on mass spectrum of the resonance states of proton-antiproton system above elastic threshold taking into account that Kaluza-Klein scenario predict $`M_n^{pp}=M_n^{p\overline{p}}`$. The extended version of Table 2 from ref.  is shown here in Table 1.

We have used Review of Particle Physics  and recent review article of Crystal Barrel Collaboration  where the experimental data on mass spectrum of the resonance states of proton-antiproton system above elastic threshold have been extracted from. As it is seen from Table 1, the nucleon-nucleon dynamics at low energies provides a quite remarkable confirmation of Kaluza-Klein picture. Moreover, Kaluza-Klein scenario predict a special sort of (super)symmetry between fermionic (dibaryon) and bosonic states, which is very nontrivial fact, and Table 1 contains an experimental confirmation of this fact as well.

Actually, we also see that there are an empty cells, especially $`M_{21}`$, $`M_{23}`$, $`M_{25}`$, $`M_{27}`$$`M_{33}`$, $`M_{35}`$, $`M_{36}`$, in the Table. In this respect we would like to request nuclear and particle physicists-experimenters to search missing two-nucleon states to fill the empty cells. We very hope that it would be possible to make it in the near future. For a convenience we also present here all possible of the calculated two-nucleon KK excitations with account of proton-neutron mass difference. There are all collected in Table 2, which may serve as a guide for the experimenters.

It should be stressed that we have not seen proton-antiproton resonances in the structure of proton-antiproton total cross section at low energies. This fact could be explained by crossing properties of the amplitudes. The crossing structure of the amplitudes is such as to result to suppression of nucleon-nucleon KK excitations in proton-antiproton channel and vice versa there is their enhancement in proton-proton channel.

## 3 Conclusion

In this note we have presented additional arguments in favour of Kaluza and Klein picture of the world. We have shown that geniusly simple formula (9) provided by Kaluza-Klein approach gives an excellent description for the mass spectrum of two-nucleon system. It has also been established that the experimental data obtained at low energies where the nucleon-nucleon dynamics has been studied reveal a special sort of (super)symmetry between fermionic (dibaryon) and bosonic states predicted by Kaluza-Klein scenario. Of course it would be very desirable to state new experiments such as e.g. to fill an empty cells in Table 1 (like in Mendeleev Table!), and we hope this is a quite promising subject of investigations in particle and nuclear physics.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The classical Lobachevsky space $`𝐋^3`$ can be identified with 3d hyperboloid

$$𝐋^3=\{x_0^2x_1^2x_2^2x_3^2=1,x_0>0\},$$
(1.1)
equipped with the hyperbolic metric. It can be represented as the set of the second order positive definite Hermitian matrices

$$x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x_0x_1& x_2ix_3\\ x_2+ix_3& x_0+x_1\end{array}\right),detx=1.$$

It means that $`𝐋^3`$ is the quotient space $`SU_2\backslash SL_2()`$. In this way the classical Lobachevsky space is a particular example of the symmetric spaces.

We introduce the horospheric coordinates $`(H,z,\overline{z})`$ on $`𝐋^3`$

$$\{\begin{array}{c}x_0=\frac{1}{2}(|z|^2H+H+H^1),\hfill \\ x_1=\frac{1}{2}(|z|^2H+HH^1),\hfill \\ x_2=\frac{1}{2}H(z+\overline{z}),\hfill \\ x_3=\frac{i}{2}H(z\overline{z}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the Laplace-Beltrami operator on $`𝐋^3`$ corresponding to the metric that comes from the embedding (1.1). In the horospheric coordinates it has the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{2}H^2\frac{^2}{H^2}+\frac{3}{2}H\frac{}{H}+2H^2\frac{^2}{\overline{z}z}.$$
(1.2)
Consider the equation

$$\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{1}{4}\right)F_\nu (\overline{z},H,z)=\frac{\nu ^2}{4}F_\nu (\overline{z},H,z),\nu 0.$$
(1.3)
The non-negative solutions of this equation are described in the following way. Let

$$𝐂^3=\{x_0^2x_1^2x_2^2x_3^2=0,x_0>0\}.$$

be the upper pole of the cone. It can be identified with the Hermitian matrices with $`detx=0`$ and $`x_00`$. The horospheric coordinates $`(\alpha ,\xi ,\overline{\xi })`$ on $`𝐂^3`$ take the form

$$\{\begin{array}{c}x_0=\frac{1}{2}\alpha (|\xi |^2+1),\hfill \\ x_1=\frac{1}{2}\alpha (1|\xi |^2),\hfill \\ x_2=\frac{\alpha }{2}(\xi +\overline{\xi }),\hfill \\ x_3=\frac{i\alpha }{2}(\xi \overline{\xi }).\hfill \end{array}$$

We identify the absolute $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ of $`𝐋^3`$ with the section $`\alpha =const`$ of $`𝐂^3`$ completed with the point $`(z=\mathrm{})`$. Then solutions of (1.3) can be represented as the Poisson integral

$$F_\nu (\overline{z},H,z)=_\mathrm{\Xi }𝒫(\overline{\xi }\overline{z},H,\xi z)𝑑\mu (\xi ,\overline{\xi }),$$
(1.4)
where

$$𝒫(\overline{\xi }\overline{z},H,\xi z)=(\{(H^1+|z\xi |^2H)^{\nu 1}$$
(1.5)
is the Poisson kernel and $`d\mu (\xi ,\overline{\xi })=\varphi (\xi ,\overline{\xi })d\xi \overline{\xi }`$ is a Borel distribution $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. The classical theorem states that:
i. non-negative solutions exist for $`\nu 0`$ and have the representation (1.4);
ii. $`\varphi (\xi ,\overline{\xi })`$ is uniquely reconstructed from $`F_\nu (\overline{z},H,z)`$.

This theorem was generalized by Karpelevich and Furstenberg on arbitrary symmetric spaces of the non-compact type .

We investigate an analog of this representation for a family of non-commutative Lobachevsky spaces constructed in Ref. . We use also another form of (1.4). Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (\overline{s},H,s)`$ be the Fourier transform of $`F_\nu (\overline{z},H,z)`$ with respect to $`(\overline{z},z)`$. It satisfies the ordinary differential equation

$$\left(\frac{1}{4}H^2\frac{d^2}{dH^2}+\frac{3}{4}H\frac{d}{dH}H^2\overline{s}s+\frac{1}{4}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (\overline{s},H,s)=\frac{\nu ^2}{4}\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (\overline{s},H,s).$$
(1.6)
The solutions to (1.6) decreasing for $`H0`$ are the functions

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (\overline{s},H,s)=\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +1)}H^1K_\nu (2\sqrt{\overline{s}s}H^1)(\overline{s}s)^{\frac{\nu }{2}}\psi (\overline{s},s),$$
(1.7)
where $`K_\nu `$ is the Bessel-Macdonald function, and $`\psi _\nu (\overline{s},s)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\varphi (\xi ,\overline{\xi })`$.

The family of the non-commutative Lobachevsky spaces depends on the deformation parameter $`0<q<1`$ and $`\delta =0,1,2`$. The classical (commutative) limit corresponds to $`q=1`$. The discrete parameter $`\delta `$ is responsible for the form of the Laplace-Beltrami operator. Our results only partly reproduce the classical situation. We just construct an analog of the both representations (1.4) and (1.7) for a space of functions on the non-commutative absolute and its Fourier dual. In the limit $`q1`$ we come to (1.4) and (1.7). Some kernels on the unit disc were considered in Ref.

## 2  Non-commutative Lobachevsky spaces (NLS).

1. General definition.

The description of NLS is based on an analog of the horospheric coordinates. Let $`𝐋_{\delta ,q}`$ be an associative $``$-algebra over $``$ with the unit and three generators

$$(z^{},H,z),H^{}=H,(z)^{}=z^{},$$

and the commutation relations depending on two parameters $`q(0,1)`$ and $`\delta =0,1,2`$

$$Hz=q^\delta zH,z^{}H=q^\delta Hz^{},z^{}z=q^{22\delta }zz^{}q^\delta (1q^2)H^2.$$
(2.1)
To eliminate the ambiguities related to the non-commutativity we consider only the ordered monomials putting $`z^{}`$ on the left side, $`z`$ on the right side and keeping $`H`$ in the middle of the monomials:

$$w(m,k,n)=(z^{})^mH^kz^n.$$

The symbol $`f(z^{},H,z)`$ denotes that all monomials are ordered

$$f(z^{},H,z)=\underset{m,k,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{m,k,n}(z^{})^mH^kz^n,a_{m,k,n}.$$

For technical reasons we consider another type of the generators $`x=Hz,x^{}=z^{}H`$. They satisfy the commutation relations

$$Hx=q^\delta xH,x^{}H=q^\delta Hx^{},x^{}x=q^2xx^{}+q^\delta (1q^2).$$
(2.2)
$$f(x^{},H,x)=\underset{m,k,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{m,k,n}\stackrel{~}{w}(m,k,n),(c_{m,k,n}),$$
(2.3)
$$\stackrel{~}{w}(m,k,n)=(x^{})^mH^kx^n.$$

In the definition of $`𝐋_{\delta ,q}`$ we assume that (2.3) are the formal series. We also consider the ”self-conjugate” monomials such as $`H^\nu `$ and $`(x^{}x)^\nu `$, where $`\nu >0`$.

We define the non-commutative cone $`𝐂_q`$ as the associative \*-algebra with the unit and the three generators

$$(\zeta ^{},\alpha ,\zeta ),\alpha ^{}=\alpha ,(\zeta )^{}=\zeta ^{}$$

that satisfy the commutation relations

$$\alpha \zeta =\zeta \alpha ,\zeta ^{}\alpha =\alpha \zeta ^{},\zeta ^{}\zeta =q^2\zeta \zeta ^{}.$$
(2.4)
Since $`\alpha `$ commutes with $`\zeta ^{},\zeta `$ we can define the quantum absolute $`\mathrm{\Xi }_q`$ as the associative \*-algebra generated by $`(\zeta ^{},\zeta ,1)`$

$$f(\zeta ^{},\zeta )=\underset{m,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_{m,n}(\zeta ^{})^m\zeta ^n,(b_{m,n}).$$
(2.5)
We formulate the conditions on the coefficients in next Section.

2. Quantum Lorentz groups.

As in the classical case the NLS are related to the quantum Lorentz group. We consider here the quantum deformation of the universal enveloping algebra $`𝒰_q(\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ $`(0<q1)`$ and describe a twisted two parameter family $`𝒰_q^{(r,s)}(\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ .

We start with a pair of the standard $`𝒰_q(\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ Hopf algebra. The first one is generated by $`A,B,C,D`$ and the unit with the relations

$$AD=DA=1,AB=qBA,BD=qDB,$$
(2.6)
$$AC=q^1CA,CD=q^1DC,[B,C]=\frac{1}{qq^1}(A^2D^2).$$

There is a copy of this algebra $`𝒰_q^{}(\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ generated by $`A^{},B^{},C^{},D^{}`$ with the relations following from (2.6). The star generators commute with $`A,B,C,D`$. This algebra is the Hopf algebras with the coproduct

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(A)=AA,$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(B)=(A^{})^rAB+BD(A^{})^s,$$
(2.7)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(C)=(A^{})^rAC+CD(A^{})^s,$$

with the counit

$$\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

and the antipode

$$S\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}D& q^1(A^{})^{rs}B\\ q(A^{})^{sr}C& A\end{array}\right).$$

There is the Casimir element in $`𝒰_q^{(r,s)}(\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ commuting with any $`u𝒰_q^{r,s}(\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ .

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_q:=\frac{(q^1+q)(A^2+A^2)4}{2(q^1q)^2}+\frac{1}{2}(BC+CB).$$
(2.8)
In what follows we put $`r=0`$.

It was proven in Ref.  that $`𝐋_{\delta ,q}`$ is a right $`𝒰_q^{(0,s)}(\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$-module. The right actions of $`A,B,C,A^{}`$ on generators $`z^{},H,z`$ take the form

$$w(m,k,n).A=q^{n+\frac{k}{2}}w(m,k,n),w(m,k,n).A^{}=q^{\frac{(1\delta )(2m+k)}{s}}w(m,k,n),$$

$$w(m,k,n).B=q^{n+\frac{k+1}{2}}\frac{1q^{2n}}{1q^2}w(m,k,n1),$$
(2.9)
$$w(m,k,n).C=q^{n\frac{3(k1)}{2}+\delta (k1)}\frac{1q^{2m}}{1q^2}w(m1,k2,n)q^{n+\frac{k+3}{2}}\frac{1q^{2n2k}}{1q^2}w(m,k,n+1),$$

and it follows from (2.8) (2.9) that

$$w(m,k,n).\mathrm{\Omega }_q=q^{k+1}\frac{(1q^{k+1})^2}{(1q^2)^2}w(m,k,n)+$$

$$+q^{(\delta 1)(k1)}\frac{(1q^{2m})(1q^{2n})}{(1q^2)^2}w(m1,k2,n1).$$
(2.10)
or

$$f.\mathrm{\Omega }_q=\frac{q^1f(q^1x^{},q^1H,q^1x)+qf(qx^{},qH,qx)}{(1q^2)^2}$$

$$(1q^2)^2q^{\delta 1}_x^{}_xf(q^1x^{},q^{\delta 1}H,q^1x).$$

Note, that when $`q1\mathrm{\Omega }_q\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (1.2).

It follows from (2.2), (2.9), and (2.10) that the actions of $`A,B,C,A^{}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{w}(m,k,n)=(x^{})^mH^kx^n`$ have the form

$$\stackrel{~}{w}(m,k,n).A=q^{\frac{m+kn}{2}}\stackrel{~}{w}(m,k,n),\stackrel{~}{w}(m,k,n).A^{}=q^{\frac{(1\delta )(m+k+n)}{s}}\stackrel{~}{w}(m,k,n),$$

$$\stackrel{~}{w}(m,k,n).B=q^{\frac{m+kn+1}{2}\delta (n1)}\frac{1q^{2n}}{1q^2}\stackrel{~}{w}(m,k+1,n1),$$

$$\stackrel{~}{w}(m,k,n).C=q^{\frac{(3m+3k+n3)}{2}+\delta (k+n)}\frac{1q^{2m}}{1q^2}\stackrel{~}{w}(m1,k1,n)+$$

$$+q^{\frac{3m+3k+n3}{2}+\delta n}\frac{1q^{2m+2k}}{1q^2}\stackrel{~}{w}(m,k1,n+1),$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{w}(m,k,n).\mathrm{\Omega }_q=q^{mkn+1}\frac{(1q^{m+k+n+1})^2}{(1q^2)^2}\stackrel{~}{w}(m,k,n)+$$

$$+q^{mkn+1+\delta (k+1)}\frac{(1q^{2m})(1q^{2n})}{(1q^2)^2}\stackrel{~}{w}(m1,k,n1).$$
(2.11)
The non-commutative cone $`𝐂_q`$ is also the right module. We define the actions of $`A,B,C,A^{}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{v}(m,k,n)=(\zeta ^{})^m\alpha ^k\zeta ^n`$ that compatible with the coproduct in $`𝒰_q^{(0,s)}(\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$

$$v(m,k,n).A=q^{\frac{m+kn}{2}}v(m,k,n),v(m,k,n).A^{}=q^{\frac{m+k+n}{s}}v(m,k,n),$$

$$v(m,k,n).B=q^{\frac{m+kn+1}{2}}\frac{1q^{2n}}{1q^2}v(m,k+1,n1),$$

$$v(m,k,n).C=q^{\frac{3m+3k+n3}{2}}\frac{1q^{2m+2k}}{1q^2}v(m,k1,n+1),$$

and

$$v(m,k,n).\mathrm{\Omega }_q=q^{mkn+1}\frac{(1q^{m+k+n+1})^2}{(1q^2)^2}v(m,k,n)+$$

$$+q^{mkn+1}\frac{(1q^{2m})(1q^{2n})}{(1q^2)^2}v(m1,k,n1).$$
(2.12)
It follows from (2.12) that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_q`$ acts on $`v(m,k,n)`$ in the same way as on $`w(m,k,n)`$ for $`\delta =0`$ and $`\alpha `$ playing the role of $`H`$.

## 3 The $`q`$-Fourier transform and the functional spaces

Consider the algebra $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}_q`$ generated by $`(\xi ^{},\xi )`$ with the commutation relation

$$\xi \xi ^{}=q^2\xi ^{}\xi $$
(3.1)
and the formal series

$$\psi (\xi ^{},\xi )=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{m,n}(\xi ^{})^m\xi ^n.$$
(3.2)
Let $`L`$ be the map of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}_q`$ to the space of functions on the two-dimensional lattice $`C()`$

$$L:\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}_qC()$$
(3.3)
$$L(\psi )=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{m,n}q^{2mk}q^{2nl}=\psi _{k,l},$$
(3.4)
and $`𝐊`$ be the algebra of the functions (3.2) such that the series (3.4) converge absolutely for any $`k,l`$.

###### Definition 3.1

The factor space $`\widehat{𝐊}=𝐊/\mathrm{ker}L`$ is called the skeleton space and $`L`$ (3.3) is the skeleton map.

In what follows we deal with the skeleton space only. We can define the skeleton space in the one-dimensional case as well.

###### Definition 3.2

$`\psi \widehat{𝐊}`$ (3.2) is a finite function if $`\psi _{k,l}=0`$ for any $`k<K`$ or $`l<L`$ and $`K,L`$ are some positive integers.

Let $`𝒦`$ be the subalgebra of finite functions from $`𝐊`$. Define the $`q`$-Fourier transform on $`𝒦`$

$$(^1\psi )(\zeta ^{},\zeta )=\varphi (\zeta ^{},\zeta )=\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Theta }_0^2}d_{q^2}\xi ^{}d_{q^2}\xi \psi (\xi ^{},\xi ),𝐄(q^2\xi ^{}\zeta ^{})𝐄(q^2\xi \zeta ).$$
(3.5)
where the integral is the Jackson integral (A.8) and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ is determined by (A.5). The $`q^2`$-integral is well defined because $`\psi (\zeta ^{},\zeta )𝒦`$. The inversion formula has the form

$$(\varphi )(\xi ^{},\xi )=\psi (\xi ^{},\xi )=d_{q^2}\zeta ^{}𝐞(\xi ^{}\zeta ^{})\varphi (\zeta ^{},\zeta )𝐞(\xi \zeta )d_{q^2}\zeta .$$
(3.6)
Let $`𝒵`$ be the image (3.5) of $`𝒦`$. It follows from the last relation and (3.1) that $`(\zeta ^{},\zeta )`$ can be identified with the absolute generators (2.4), and therefore $`𝒵`$ is a subalgebra of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_q`$.

###### Proposition 3.1

The maps

$$^1:𝒵𝒵,$$

$$^1:𝒦𝒦$$

are the identity maps on $`𝒦`$ and $`𝒵`$ correspondingly.

Proof. For brevity we consider the one-dimensional case. To prove Proposition we consider the value of the Fourier transform on the $`q^2`$-lattice and show that

$$^1(\psi (q^{2n}))=\psi (q^{2n}),$$
(3.7)
$$^1(\varphi (q^{2n}))=\varphi (q^{2n}).$$
(3.8)
Consider the first relation

$$^1(\psi (\xi ))=\frac{1q^2}{2\mathrm{\Theta }_0}𝐞(\xi \zeta )d_{q^2}u\psi (u)𝐄(q^2u\zeta )d_{q^2}\zeta =$$

$$\frac{1q^2}{2\mathrm{\Theta }_0}q^{2n}d_{q^2}u\psi (u)𝐞(\xi \zeta )𝐄(q^2u\zeta )d_{q^2}\zeta .$$

It follows from Lemma A.1 that we come to (3.7). (3.8) is proving just in the same way.

Now we construct the Fourier transform on $`𝐋_{\delta ,q}`$ with respect to the ”horospheric” generators $`(x^{},x)`$ in the similar way as above. Let $`f(x^{},H,x)`$ be an element from $`𝐋_{\delta ,q}`$ (2.3), such that the inverse Fourier integral

$$^1(f)(y^{},H,y)=\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Theta }_0^2}d_{q^2}x^{}f(x^{},H,x)𝐄(q^2y^{}x^{})𝐄(q^2yx)d_{q^2}x$$
(3.9)
is well defined. We preserve the notion $`𝐋_{\delta ,q}`$ for the space of these functions and define the algebra

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐋}_{\delta ,q}=^1(𝐋_{\delta ,q})$$
(3.10)
with the generators $`(y^{},H,y)`$ and the commutation relations

$$yH=Hy,y^{}H=Hy^{},$$
(3.11)
$$yy^{}=q^2y^{}y[1+q^\delta (q^21)y^{}y]^1.$$

The direct Fourier transform takes the form

$$(g)(x^{},H,x)=𝐞(y^{}x^{})d_{q^2}y^{}g(y^{},H,y)d_{q^2}y𝐞(yx).$$
(3.12)
Then as before

$$^1=Id\text{on}𝐋_{\delta ,q},^1=Id\text{on}\stackrel{~}{𝐋}_{\delta ,q}.$$

Let $`\nu 0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒲}_\nu `$ be the space of functions with a fixed singularity. It is constructed by means of a pair elements $`g_1,g_2\stackrel{~}{𝐋}_{\delta ,q}`$ as follows

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒲}_\nu =\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g_1(y^{},H,y)+(y^{})^\nu g_2(y^{},H,y)y^\nu & \mathrm{if}& \nu n,\hfill \\ \hfill g_1(y^{},H,y)+\mathrm{ln}y^{}g_2(y^{},H,y)+g_2(y^{},H,y)\mathrm{ln}y& \mathrm{if}& \nu =n.\hfill \end{array}\right\}$$
(3.13)
We define $`𝒲_\nu `$ as the image of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒲}_\nu `$ by the Fourier transform (3.12)

$$𝒲_\nu =(\stackrel{~}{𝒲}_\nu ).$$
(3.14)
## 4 The Poisson kernel

The Poisson kernel is the element of the algebra $`𝐋_{q,\delta }\mathrm{\Xi }_q`$ determined by the series

$$𝒫_\nu ((x^{}11\zeta ^{}),H,(1x\zeta 1))=$$
(4.1)
$$=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^k\frac{(q^{2\nu +2},q^2)_k}{(q^2,q^2)_k}q^{(2\nu \delta 2\delta )k}(x^{}11\zeta ^{})^kH^{\nu +1}(\zeta 1+1x)^k.$$

Let

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_q^\nu =\mathrm{\Omega }_qq^{\nu +2}\left(\frac{1q^\nu }{1q^2}\right)Id.$$

and $`F_\nu (x^{},H,x)𝐋_{q,\delta }`$ be a solution to the equation

$$F_\nu (x^{},H,x).\mathrm{\Omega }_q^\nu =0.$$
(4.2)
We can formulate now our main result.

###### Proposition 4.1

For any $`\varphi 𝒵`$ on the absolute $`\mathrm{\Xi }_q`$
$``$ The function

$$F_\nu (x^{},H,x)=(𝒫_\nu \varphi )(x^{},H,x),$$
(4.3)
is a solution to the equation (4.2);
$``$ $`F_\nu (x^{},H,x)𝒲_\nu `$ (3.14).

Here the convolution is defined as

$$(𝒫_\nu \varphi )(x^{},H,x)=d_{q^2}\zeta ^{}𝒫_\nu ((x^{}11\zeta ^{}),H,(\zeta 1+1x))\varphi (\zeta ^{},\zeta )d_{q^2}\zeta .$$
(4.4)
We postpone the proof of this statement to last Section and formulate here some intermediate steps.

Let $`\sigma `$ be the involution $`\sigma f(x^{},H,x)=f(x^{},H,x)`$.

###### Proposition 4.2

The Poisson kernel has the integral representation

$$𝒫_\nu (x^{},H,x)=\sigma (Q_\nu ),$$
(4.5)
where

$$Q_\nu (y^{},H,y)=$$
(4.6)
$$=\frac{1+q}{2\mathrm{\Theta }_0^2}\frac{q^{\nu ^2+\nu +\delta (\frac{1}{2}\nu ^2+\nu )}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^2}(\nu +1)}(y^{})^{\frac{\nu }{2}}H^{\frac{\nu }{2}}K_\nu ^{(2)}(2(y^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}y^{\frac{1}{2}}q^\delta (1q^2);q^2)HH^{\frac{\nu }{2}}y^{\frac{\nu }{2}},$$

$`K_\nu ^{(2)}`$ is the $`q^2`$-Bessel-Macdonald function of kind $`2`$ , and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^2}(\nu +1)`$ is the
$`q^2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function (A.3).

Consider the Fourier transform of the left hand side (4.2)

$$\sigma ^1(f.\mathrm{\Omega }_q^\nu )=\sigma ^1(f).\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_q^\nu ,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_q^\nu =^1\mathrm{\Omega }_q^\nu .$$

For $`\sigma ^1(f)=g(y^{},H,y)`$ we have the equation $`g(y^{},H,y).\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_q^\nu =0`$, or

$$q^1g(q^1y^{},qH,q^1y)(q^\nu +q^\nu )g(y^{},H,y)+qg(qy^{},q^1H,qy)=$$

$$=(1q^2)^2q^{\delta +1}y^{}g(qy^{},q^{\delta 1}H,qy)y.$$
(4.7)
The $`q^2`$-Fourier transform of the $`q^2`$-Poisson kernel satisfies (4.7)

$$Q_\nu (y^{},H,y).\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_q^\nu =0.$$
(4.8)
The statement is verified directly using the series representation of the $`q^2`$-Bessel-Macdonald function.

###### Proposition 4.3

If $`g(y^{},H,y)`$ is a solution of (4.7), then the product
$`g(y^{},H,y)\psi (\alpha y^{},\alpha y)`$ is a solution to the same equation for any function $`\psi (\alpha y^{},\alpha y)`$.

Let

$$𝒬_\nu (y^{},H,y;\xi ^{},\xi )=Q_\nu (y^{},H,y)\delta (y^{}11\xi ^{},y11\xi ).$$
(4.9)
Here delta-function is the kernel of the integral transform $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}_q\stackrel{~}{𝐋}_{\delta ,q}`$

$$h(y^{},y)=d_{q^2}\xi ^{}h(\xi ^{},\xi )\delta (y^{}11\xi ^{},y11\xi )d_{q^2}\xi .$$

Thereby, the multiplication by $`Q_\nu `$ carries out this map.

###### Proposition 4.4

The operator of multiplication on $`Q_\nu (y^{},H,y)`$ transforms the space $`𝒦`$ into the space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒲}_\nu `$.

We illustrate our construction by the following commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(\psi 𝒦,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}_q)& \stackrel{^1}{}& (\varphi 𝒵,\mathrm{\Xi }_q)\\ Q_\nu \times & & 𝒫_\nu \\ (\stackrel{~}{𝒲}_\nu ,\stackrel{~}{𝐋}_{\delta ,q})& \stackrel{\sigma }{}& (F_\nu 𝒲_\nu ,𝐋_{\delta ,q})\end{array}$$

It means that one can start with a finite function $`\psi 𝒦`$ and then come to the solution $`F_\nu `$ by one of the two possible ways.

## 5 The $`q^2`$-Fourier transform of spherical symmetric functions

###### Definition 5.1

A function $`f𝐋_{\delta ,q}`$ is spherical symmetric if it depends on the product of $`x^{}x`$

$$f(x^{},H,x)=\underset{l,k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{l,k}(x^{})^lH^kx^l.$$
(5.1)
Any ordered element from $`𝐋_{\delta ,q}`$ can be represented in the form

$$f(x^{},H,x)=\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(x^{})^r\varphi _r(x^{},H,x)+\varphi _0(x^{},H,x)+\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi _r(x^{},H,x)x^r,$$
(5.2)
where $`\varphi _r(x^{},H,x)`$ are spherically symmetric.

Consider the inverse Fourier transform of the spherical symmetric function (5.1)

$$^1f=g(y^{},H,y)=\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Theta }_0^2}d_{q^2}x^{}𝐄(q^2y^{}x^{})f(x^{},H,x)𝐄(q^2yx)d_{q^2}x.$$

Using (A.2) we obtain

$$g(y^{},H,y)=$$

$$=\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Theta }_0^2}(1q^2)\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{2n}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^m(1q^2)^{2m}q^{2m(m+1)}q^{2nm}}{(q^2,q^2)_m^2}(y^{})^m\underset{l,k}{}c_{lk}q^{2nl}H^ky^m=$$

$$=\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Theta }_0^2}(1q^2)\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{2n}J_0^{(2)}(2(y^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}y^{\frac{1}{2}}q^nq(1q^2);q^2)\underset{l,k}{}c_{lk}q^{2nl}H^k,$$

where $`J_0^{(2)}`$ is the $`q^2`$-Bessel function of kind 2 . Using (A.10) the last expression can be rewritten as the integral

$$(^1f)(y^{},H,y)=\frac{1+q}{4\mathrm{\Theta }_0^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}J_0^{(2)}(2(y^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}y^{\frac{1}{2}}q(1q^2)\rho ;q^2)\underset{l,k}{}c_{lk}\rho ^{2l}H^{k2}\rho d_q\rho $$
(5.3)
$$=\frac{1+q}{4\mathrm{\Theta }_0^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}J_0^{(2)}(2(y^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}y^{\frac{1}{2}}q(1q^2)\rho ;q^2)f(x^{},H,x)|_{x^{}=\rho ,x=\rho }\rho d_q\rho .$$

The inversion formula has the form

$$(g)=f(x^{},H,x)=$$
(5.4)
$$=(1+q)_0^{\mathrm{}}J_0^{(1)}(2(x^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}x^{\frac{1}{2}}(1q^2)r;q^2)\underset{l,k}{}b_{lk}r^{2l}H^krd_qr$$

$$=(1+q)_0^{\mathrm{}}J_0^{(1)}(2(x^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}x^{\frac{1}{2}}(1q^2)r;q^2)g(y^{},H,y)|_{y^{}=r,y=r}rd_qr.$$

Here $`J_0^{(1)}`$ is the $`q^2`$-Bessel function of kind 1 .

## 6 Proofs

1. Proof of 4.2.

Consider the power series

$$𝒫_\nu (x^{},H,x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^k\frac{(q^{2\nu +2},q^2)_k}{(q^2,q^2)_k}q^{(2\nu \delta 2\delta )k}(x^{})^kH^{\nu +1}x^k.$$
(6.1)
and find its Fourier transform $`Q_\nu (y^{},H,y)`$ as the function from $`\stackrel{~}{𝐋}_{\delta ,q}`$. Since $`𝒫_\nu (x^{},H,x)`$ is the spherically symmetric we have, following (5.3)

$$Q_\nu (y^{},H,y)=\frac{1+q}{4\mathrm{\Theta }_0^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}J_0^{(2)}(2(y^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}y^{\frac{1}{2}}q(1q^2)\rho ;q^2)\underset{k}{}a_kq^{(2\nu \delta 2\delta )k}\rho ^{2k}H^{\nu +1}\rho d_q\rho ,$$

where $`a_k=\frac{(1)^k(q^{2\nu _2},q^2)_k}{(q^2,q^2)_k}`$. On the other hand one can find that

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_kq^{(2\nu \delta 2\delta )k}\rho ^{2k}=\frac{(q^{(2+\nu )(2\delta )}\rho ^2,q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(q^{2(2+\nu )\delta }\rho ^2,q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(6.2)
Hence,

$$Q_\nu (y^{},H,y)=\frac{1+q}{4\mathrm{\Theta }_0^2}\times $$

$$\times _0^{\mathrm{}}\rho \frac{(q^{(2+\nu )(2\delta )}\rho ^2,q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(q^{2(2+\nu )\delta }\rho ^2,q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}H^{\nu +1}J_0^{(2)}(2(y^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}y^{\frac{1}{2}}q(1q^2)\rho ;q^2)d\rho .$$

It follows from Ref.  that the last expression is the integral representation of the $`q^2`$-Bessel-Macdonald function, i.e.

$$Q_\nu (y^{},H,y)=B(y^{})^{\frac{\nu }{2}}H^{\frac{\nu }{2}}K_\nu ^{(2)}(2(y^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}y^{\frac{1}{2}}q^\delta (1q^2);q^2)HH^{\frac{\nu }{2}}y^{\frac{\nu }{2}}.$$
(6.3)
To calculate $`B`$ we restrict the integral to the common kernel $`y^{}=0,y=0`$. Then we obtain

$$\frac{1+q}{4\mathrm{\Theta }_0^2}d_q\rho ^2\frac{(q^{(2+\nu )(2\delta )}\rho ^2,q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(q^{2(2+\nu )\delta }\rho ^2,q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}=B\frac{1}{2}q^{\nu ^2+\nu \delta (\frac{1}{2}\nu ^2+\nu )}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^2}(\nu ).$$

Now we calculate the integral in the right side. Note that

$$_{\rho ^2}E_{q^2}(a\rho ^2)=\frac{a}{1q^2}E_{q^2}(aq^2\rho ^2),_{\rho ^2}e_{q^2}(b\rho ^2)=\frac{b}{1q^2}e_{q^2}(b\rho ^2).$$

Hence

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}d_q\rho ^2e_{q^2}(q^{2(2+\nu )\delta }\rho ^2)E_{q^2}(q^{(2+\nu )(2\delta )}\rho ^2)=$$

$$=(1q^2)q^{2(2+\nu )(2\delta )}_0^{\mathrm{}}d_q\rho ^2_{\rho ^2}E_{q^2}(q^{(2+\nu )(2\delta )2}\rho ^2)e_{q^2}(q^{2(2+\nu )\delta }\rho ^2)=$$

$$=(1q^2)[\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{q^{(2+\nu )(2\delta )2m},q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{q^{2(2+\nu )\delta 2m},q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}1]$$

$$=(1q^2)q^{2(2+\nu )(2\delta )}_0^{\mathrm{}}d_q\rho ^2E_{q^2}(q^{(2+\nu )(2\delta )}\rho ^2)_{\rho ^2}e_{q^2}(q^{2(2+\nu )\delta }\rho ^2)=$$

$$=(1q^2)+q^{2\nu }_0^{\mathrm{}}d_q\rho ^2_{\rho ^2}E_{q^2}(q^{(2+\nu )(2\delta )}\rho ^2)e_{q^2}(q^{2(2+\nu )\delta }\rho ^2).$$

Then we have

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}d_q\rho ^2e_{q^2}(q^{2(2+\nu )\delta }\rho ^2)E_{q^2}(q^{(2+\nu )(2\delta )}\rho ^2)=\frac{1q^2}{1q^{2\nu }}.$$

It implies that

$$B=\frac{1+q}{2\mathrm{\Theta }_0^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^2}(\nu +1)}q^{\nu ^2+\nu +\delta (\frac{1}{2}\nu ^2+\nu )}$$
(6.4)
and the representation (4.6).

2. Proof of 4.3

Consider the equation (4.7) for the product $`g(y^{},H,y)\psi (\alpha y^{},\alpha y)`$. Note that $`\alpha `$ plays the role of $`H`$ and the action of the generators is the same as for $`\delta =0`$ (compare (2.11) and (2.12)). In this way we have

$$q^1g(q^1y^{},qH,q^1y)\psi (q\alpha q^1y^{},q\alpha q^1y)(q^\nu +q^\nu )g(y^{},H,y)\psi (\alpha y^{},\alpha y)+$$

$$qg(qy^{},q^1H,qy)\psi (q^1\alpha qy^{},q^1\alpha qy)=$$

$$(1q^2)^2q^{\delta +1}y^{}g(qy^{},q^{\delta 1}H,qy)\psi (q^1\alpha qy^{},q^1\alpha qy)y.$$

3. Proof of 4.4

We can extract the series expansion for $`K_\nu ^{(2)}`$ from the series expansion of $`I_\nu ^{(2)}`$ and $`I_\nu ^{(2)}`$ for $`\nu n`$ . It gives us the following expansion

$$Q_\nu =\frac{(1+q)(1q^2)}{4\mathrm{\Theta }^2(1q^{2\nu })}q^{2\nu }\times $$

$$\times [\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{q^{2l(l\nu )}(1q^2)^{2l}}{(q^2,q^2)_l(q^{2\nu +2},q^2)_l}q^{\delta l(\nu +2)}(y^{})^lH^{\nu +1}y^l$$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^2}(1\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^2}(1+\nu )}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{q^{2l(l+\nu )}(1q^2)^{2l}}{(q^2,q^2)_l(q^{2\nu +2},q^2)_l}q^{\delta l(\nu +2)}(y^{})^{\nu +l}H^{\nu +1}y^{\nu +l}]=$$

$$=\mathrm{\Psi }_1+(y^{})^\nu \mathrm{\Psi }_2y^\nu .$$

The functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ are multipliers in $`𝒦`$ and we come to the statement of Proposition for $`\nu `$.

Using the expression of $`K_n^{(2)}`$  it can be proved similarly that $`Q_n`$ has the logarithmic singularity (3.13).

4. Proof of 4.1

Let $`\varphi =\psi `$. Remind that $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ depend on $`\alpha `$ (see n.4). Taking into account (4.1)

$$𝒫_\nu =[𝐞(\zeta ^{}y^{})Q_\nu (y^{},H,y)𝐞(y\zeta )],$$

we have

$$\sigma ^1(𝒫_\nu \varphi )=\sigma ^1([𝐞(\zeta ^{}y^{})Q_\nu (y^{},H,y)𝐞(y\zeta )]^1\psi )=$$

$$\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Theta }^2}d_{q^2}u^{}Q_\nu (u^{},H,u)d_{q^2}ud_{q^2}v^{}\psi (v^{},\alpha ,v)d_{q^2}vd_{q^2}x^{}𝐄(q^2x^{}y^{})𝐞(x^{}u^{})\times $$

$$\times 𝐞(ux)𝐄(q^2yx)d_{q^2}x\times $$

$$\times d_{q^2}\zeta ^{}𝐞((1\zeta ^{})u^{})𝐄(q^2v^{}(\zeta ^{}1))𝐄(q^2(1\zeta )v)𝐞(u(\zeta 1))d_{q^2}\zeta .$$

It follows from Lemma A.1 that

$$𝐞(ux)𝐄(q^2yx)d_{q^2}x=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{2\mathrm{\Theta }_0}{1q^2}\hfill & \mathrm{for}& \hfill u=y\\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{for}& \hfill uy\end{array}$$

and

$$𝐄(q^2(1\xi )v)𝐞(u(\zeta 1)d_{q^2}\zeta =$$

$$=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{2\mathrm{\Theta }_0)}{1q^2}\hfill & \mathrm{for}& \hfill u1=1v\\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{for}& \hfill u11v\end{array}$$

Hence

$$\sigma (𝒫_\nu \varphi )=Q_\nu (y^{},H,y)\psi (y^{},\alpha ,y).$$

## Appendix A. $`q`$-relations

We assume that $`|q|<1`$. Let us recall some notations . We consider the $`q^2`$-exponentials

$$e_{q^2}(z)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^n}{(q^2,q^2)_n}=\frac{1}{(z,q^2)_{\mathrm{}}},|z|<1,$$
(A.1)
$$E_{q^2}(z)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{q^{n(n1)}z^n}{(q^2,q^2)_n}=(z,q^2)_{\mathrm{}},$$
(A.2)
and $`q^2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^2}(\nu )=\frac{(q^2,q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(q^{2\nu },q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}(1q^2)^{1\nu }.$$
(A.3)
Introduce the notion of the $`q^2`$-exponentials defined on a tensor product

$$𝐞(y\zeta )=e_{q^2}(i(1q^2)(y\zeta )),𝐄(y\zeta )=E_{q^2}(i(1q^2)(y\zeta )).$$
(A.4)
Consider

$$𝐐(z,q)=(1q^2)\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{zq^{2m}+z^1q^{2m}}$$

and let

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_0=𝐐(1q^2,q).$$
(A.5)
Let $`𝒜=C[z,z^1]`$ be the algebra of formal Laurent series. The $`q^2`$-derivative of a function $`f(z)𝒜`$ is defined as follows

$$_zf(z)=(f(z)f(q^2z))\frac{z^1}{1q^2}.$$
(A.6)
The functions (A.4) satisfy conditions:

$$_\xi 𝐄(y\zeta )=(y1)𝐄(q^2y\zeta ),$$

$$_y𝐄(y\zeta )=(1\zeta )𝐄(q^2y\zeta ),$$

$$_\zeta 𝐞(y\zeta )=(y1)𝐞(y\zeta ),$$

$$_y𝐞(y\zeta )=(1\zeta )𝐞(y\zeta ).$$
(A.7)
The $`q^2`$-integral (Jackson integral ) is defined to be the following map $`I_{q^2}`$ of the algebra $`𝒜`$ into the space of formal numerical series:

$$I_{q^2}f=d_{q^2}zf(z)=(1q^2)\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{2m}[f(q^{2m})+f(q^{2m})].$$
(A.8)
It follows from this definition that

$$I_{q^2}_zf(z)=0.$$
(A.9)
If the series in right side of (A.8) is nonconvergent (A.9) is a regularization of nonconvergent $`q^2`$-integral.

We need also another type of the Jackson integral

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}d_qxf(x)=(1q^2)\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^mf(q^m).$$
(A.10)
The function $`f(z)`$ is absolutely $`q^2`$-integrable if the series

$$\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{2m}[|f(q^{2m})|+|f(q^{2m})|]$$

converges.

Lemma A.1

$$𝐄(q^2y\zeta )𝐞(u\zeta )d_{q^2}\zeta =\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{2}{1q^2}\mathrm{\Theta }_0u^1\hfill & \mathrm{if}& y=u\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{if}& yu,\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.11)
$$d_{q^2}y𝐄(q^2y\xi )𝐞(y\zeta )=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{2}{1q^2}\mathrm{\Theta }_0\xi ^1\hfill & \mathrm{if}& \zeta =\xi \hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{if}& \zeta \xi ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.12)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ determined by (A.5).

Proof. It follows from (A.7) that

$$_\zeta [𝐄(y\zeta )𝐞(u\zeta )]=i((yu)1)𝐄(q^2y\zeta )𝐞(u\zeta ).$$

Hence, if $`yu`$, then

$$(yu)𝐄(q^2y\zeta )𝐞(u\zeta )d_{q^2}\zeta =_\zeta [𝐄(y\zeta )𝐞(u\zeta )]d_{q^2}\zeta =0$$

in accordance with the definition of the $`q^2`$-integral.

If $`y=u`$, then

$$𝐄(q^2u\zeta )𝐞(u\zeta )d_{q^2}\zeta =u^1𝐄(q^2\zeta )𝐞(\zeta )d_{q^2}\zeta =$$

$$=u^1(1q^2)\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{2m}\left[\frac{(i(1q^2)q^{2m+2},q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(i(1q^2)q^{2m},q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}+\frac{(i(1q^2)q^{2m+2},q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(i(1q^2)q^{2m},q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}\right]=$$

$$=u^1(1q^2)\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{2m}\left(\frac{1}{1+i(1q^2)q^{2m}}+\frac{1}{1i(1q^2)q^{2m}}\right)=$$

$$=u^12\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(1q^2)^1q^{2m}+(1q^2)q^{2m}}=u^1\frac{2}{1q^2}\mathrm{\Theta }_0$$

(see (A.5)).

(A.12) is proving in just the same way.


text:
# Electronic Enhancements in the Detection of Gravitational Waves by Metallic Antennae

## 1 Introduction

Weber gravitational wave antennae are designed to weakly convert gravitational waves into acoustic vibrations. The damping of acoustic vibrations ultimately heat the detector accounting for the energy lost by the incident gravitational disturbance. The total cross section for the absorption of the gravitational wave is (of course) very small due to the weak nature of the gravitational forces. If $`g`$ denotes an incident graviton which is converted into a phonon $`\varphi `$, then the first stage of graviton absorption is thought to involve the conversion

$$g\varphi .$$
(1)
In the second stage of absorption, the phonon decays. In metallic samples (such as Aluminum) at not too high a temperature, the dominant mode of decay of the phonon is into an electron-hole pair

$$\varphi e^{}+e^+.$$
(2)
The decay in Eq.(2) is known to be true in virtue of experimental work on sound wave attenuation in metals. The final electronic excited states are described in terms of an effective “electronic viscosity”. Taking Eqs.(1) and (2) together, one finds that the gravitational wave decays into electronic particle hole pairs via the process

$$g\varphi e^{}+e^+$$
(3)
wherein the acoustic phonon $`\varphi `$ enters into the absorption process as a virtual (resonant) intermediate state. Also possible is the direct conversion of the graviton into an electron hole pair

$$ge^{}+e^+.$$
(4)
At first glance, it might appear that the electron-graviton coupling would be much weaker than the phonon-graviton coupling since the mass of the vibrating nuclei is much larger than the mass of the electrons. However, as will be discussed in detail below, the graviton couples into the pressure and not directly into the energy density. The spatial (pressure) part of the space-time stress tensor $`T_{ij}=P_{ij}`$ directly couples into a gravitational wave while the time (energy density) part of the space-time stress tensor $`T_{00}=ϵ`$ couples into the Newtonian part of gravity.

The electron contribution to an earthly (ordinary) condensed matter pressure tensor $`P_{ij}`$ dominates the nuclei contribution. The absorption rate of gravitational disturbances are considerably enhanced by the large kinetic energy and high density of final electronic states. A similar view has been discussed in some previous work. Nevertheless, the conventional wisdom is that the nature of the acoustic wave decay rate has little to do with the total absorption rate of the gravitational wave, provided that the former is much larger than the latter . Our purpose is to exhibit the flaw in the above conventional argument by providing a counter example. The fact that the electrons dominate the coupling to both the phonons and the gravitons considerably enhances the total cross section in metallic antennae (such as Aluminum).

In Sec.2, the gravitational wave propagator will be discussed. It will be shown that the “self energy” part of the propagator (as a fourth rank tensor “stress to strain ratio”) can be viewed as a dynamical elastic tensor Young’s modulus for distorting space-time. In Sec.3, the gravitational wave will be treated as a weak curvature strain on a flat space-time background. The dynamical elastic moduli of metallic antennae will be explored. In Sec.4, the amplitude for scattering a gravitational wave off a metallic antenna will be computed in the mass quadrupole approximation. For solid metals, the final total cross section will be described in terms of the dynamical Lamé elastic coefficient $`\mu `$. In Sec.5, the microscopic quantum mechanical expression for the gravitational wave total cross section will be exhibited. The mathematical derivations rely on the Kubo formulae (in condensed matter physics) for the transport coefficients associated with phonon damping. In Sec.6, the dispersion relations for the dynamical elastic coefficients will be discussed. The results will be applied to the subtracted dispersion relations for the dynamic Lamé coefficient and the viscosity. The electronic viscosity enhancement of the elastic Lamé coefficient will be explicitly exhibited. In Sec.7, the Feynman diagrams for the absorption of a graviton will be explored and the enhancement of the absorption due to electronic coupling will be computed. In the concluding Sec. 8, we present a brief summary of our results as well as directions for future work.

## 2 Gravitational Propagators

In relativity one considers (in general) a background curved space-time metric for the local proper time interval

$$c^2d\tau ^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu $$
(5)
which arises from a solution of the Einstein field equations

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=\left(\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}\right)T_{\mu \nu }.$$
(6)
Upon varying by $`\delta T_{\mu \nu }`$ the “stress” applied to space-time

$$T_{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }+\delta T_{\mu \nu }$$
(7)
one finds a response in the distortion (i.e. “strain” $`(1/2)\delta g_{\mu \nu }`$) of space-time by requiring a neighboring solution to Eq.(6); i.e.

$$g_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }+\delta g_{\mu \nu }.$$
(8)
The response in the strain due to the application of a stress defines the gravitational wave propagator $`D_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }`$ via

$$\delta g_{\mu \nu }(x)=D_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }(x,x^{})\delta T^{\lambda \sigma }(x^{})𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{}$$
(9)
wherein $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=\sqrt{g}d^4x`$.

Let us decompose the stress into a source $`\delta T_{ext}^{\lambda \sigma }`$ external to the antenna and a stress induced in the antenna $`\delta T_{ind}^{\lambda \sigma }`$ by the strain $`(1/2)\delta g_{\mu \nu }`$. In total

$$\delta T^{\lambda \sigma }=\delta T_{ext}^{\lambda \sigma }+\delta T_{ind}^{\lambda \sigma }.$$
(10)
The full propagator describes the response in the strain to an “external” stress

$$\delta g_{\mu \nu }(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }(x,x^{})\delta T_{ext}^{\lambda \sigma }(x^{})𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{},$$
(11)
while the “induced” stress responds to the strain via the elastic response function

$$\delta T_{ind}^{\lambda \sigma }(x^{})=\mathrm{\Pi }^{\lambda \sigma \alpha \beta }(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })\delta g_{\alpha \beta }(x^{\prime \prime })𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }.$$
(12)
We note in passing that Eqs.(9)-(12) imply Dyson’s Eq.(13) below; i.e.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }(x,x^{\prime \prime \prime })`$ $`=`$ $`D_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }(x,x^{\prime \prime \prime })`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle D_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(x,x^{})\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta \xi \eta }(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{\Delta }_{\xi \eta \lambda \sigma }(x^{\prime \prime },x^{\prime \prime \prime })𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }}`$
wherein the dynamic elastic coefficients $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta \xi \eta }`$ play the role of the gravitational wave propagator self energy.

Since the external stress radiates the incoming strain via the relation

$$\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{(in)}(x)=D_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }(x,x^{})\delta T_{ext}^{\lambda \sigma }(x^{})𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{},$$
(14)
it follows from Eqs.(11), (13) and (14) that the gravitational wave scattering equation takes the form

$$\delta g_{\mu \nu }(x)=\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{(in)}(x)+D_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(x,x^{})\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta \lambda \sigma }(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })\delta g_{\lambda \sigma }(x^{\prime \prime })𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }.$$
(15)
In Eq.(15), the total gravitational wave is the sum of an incoming gravitational wave and an “elastic” scattered gravitational wave

$`\delta g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{(in)}(x)+\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{(el)}(x)`$
$`\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{(el)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(x,x^{})\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta \lambda \sigma }(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })\delta g_{\lambda \sigma }(x^{\prime \prime })𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }}.`$ (16)
From the imaginary part of the forward elastic scattering amplitude one may compute the total cross section for the wave to scatter off the antenna. Since the propagator $`D_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ contains the weak gravitational coupling strength $`G`$ to first order, it is sufficient to employ the lowest Born amplitude for the scattered gravitational wave

$$\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{(el,Born)}(x)=D_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(x,x^{})\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta \lambda \sigma }(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })\delta g_{\lambda \sigma }^{(in)}(x^{\prime \prime })𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }.$$
(17)
To compute the scattered wave to lowest order in $`G`$ one needs to know (i) the incoming gravitational wave $`\delta g_{\lambda \sigma }^{(in)}`$, (ii) the dynamic elastic coefficients $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta \lambda \sigma }`$ of the antenna and (iii) the unperturbed (by the antenna) gravitational wave propagator $`D_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$. Let us consider this in more detail.

## 3 Gravitational Wave Antennae

Consider a gravitational wave moving through a flat space-time background in a reference frame in which an antenna is at rest. In the transverse traceless gauge one may describe the gravitational wave by a spatial strain tensor $`u_{ij}(𝐫,t)`$ which enters into the proper time as follows

$`c^2d\tau ^2`$ $`=`$ $`c^2dt^2ds^2`$
$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`|d𝐫|^2+2d𝐫𝐮d𝐫.`$ (18)
The definition of “strain” in terms of the spatial metric in $`ds^2`$ conforms to the standard usage in elasticity theory. In terms of the traceless part of the spatial pressure tensor $`p_{ij}(𝐫,t)`$ in the antenna,

$$𝐩=𝐏\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{𝟏}(tr𝐏),$$
(19)
the gravitational wave equation (with a pressure source) reads

$$\left\{\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{}{t}\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }\right\}𝐮(𝐫,t)=\left(\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}\right)𝐩(𝐫,t).$$
(20)
The general solution of Eq.(20) may be written

$$𝐮(𝐫,t)=𝐮^{(in)}(𝐫,t)+\left(\frac{2G}{c^4}\right)\frac{𝐩(𝐫^{},tR/c)}{R}d^3𝐫^{}$$
(21)
where $`R=|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$. The incoming gravitational wave obeys

$$\left\{\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{}{t}\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }\right\}𝐮^{(in)}(𝐫,t)=0.$$
(22)
For a dynamical elastic antenna, the linear causal response in the pressure $`𝐩`$ to a material spatial strain $`𝐮`$ is described by a non-local (in space and time) expression of the form

$$p_{ij}(𝐫,t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝒢_{ijkl}(𝐫,𝐫^{},\overline{t})u_{kl}(𝐫^{},t\overline{t})𝑑\overline{t}d^3𝐫^{}.$$
(23)
If the strain is turned on at a complex frequency $`\zeta `$ with $`\mathrm{}m\zeta >0`$ and if

$$𝐮(𝐫,t)=\mathrm{}e\left\{e^{i\zeta t}𝐮(𝐫;\zeta )\right\},$$
(24)
then the pressure response

$$𝐩(𝐫,t)=\mathrm{}e\left\{e^{i\zeta t}𝐩(𝐫;\zeta )\right\}$$
(25)
is described by a frequency dependent Young’s modulus $`𝒴`$. The explicit expression for the pressure is

$$p_{ij}(𝐫;\zeta )=𝒴_{ijkl}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\zeta )u_{kl}(𝐫^{};\zeta )d^3𝐫^{}$$
(26)
where the dynamical Young’s modulus obeys

$$𝒴_{ijkl}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\zeta )=_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\zeta t}𝒢_{ijkl}(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)𝑑t.$$
(27)
The scattering equation follows from Eqs.(21) and (24)-(26); It is

$`u_{ij}(𝐫;\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`u_{ij}^{(in)}(𝐫;\zeta )+u_{ij}^{(el)}(𝐫;\zeta )`$
$`u_{ij}^{(el)}(𝐫;\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2G}{c^4}}{\displaystyle \left(\frac{e^{i\zeta R/c}}{R}\right)𝒴_{ijkl}(𝐫^{},𝐫^{\prime \prime };\zeta )u_{kl}(𝐫^{\prime \prime };\zeta )d^3𝐫^{}d^3𝐫^{\prime \prime }}`$ (28)
where $`R=|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$.

Note that Eq.(28) is the flat space-time limit of Eq.(16) in thinly disguised form. Lowest order perturbation in gravitational coupling constant $`G`$ yields

$$u_{ij}^{(el,Born)}(𝐫;\zeta )=\frac{2G}{c^4}\left(\frac{e^{i\zeta R/c}}{R}\right)𝒴_{ijkl}(𝐫^{},𝐫^{\prime \prime };\zeta )u_{kl}^{(in)}(𝐫^{\prime \prime };\zeta )d^3𝐫^{}d^3𝐫^{\prime \prime }$$
(29)
as the flat space-time limit of Eq.(17). Far away from the antenna, the scattered gravitational wave for real frequency obeys

$$u_{ij}^{(el,Born)}(𝐫;\omega )F_{ij}(\omega )\frac{e^{i\omega r/c}}{r}\mathrm{as}r\mathrm{}$$
(30)
where

$$F_{ij}(\omega )=\left(\frac{2G}{c^4}\right)e^{i𝐤_f𝐫}𝒴_{ijkl}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\omega +i0^+)u_{kl}^{(in)}(𝐫^{};\omega )d^3𝐫d^3𝐫^{}$$
(31)
with the outgoing wave vector $`𝐤_f=(\omega 𝐫/cr)=(\omega \widehat{𝐫}/c)`$. If the incoming wave has the form

$$u_{ij}^{(in)}(𝐫;\omega )=(ϵ_{ij})_ie^{i𝐤_i𝐫},$$
(32)
then the elastic scattering amplitude

$$(f|(\omega )|i)=(ϵ_{ij})_f^{}F_{ij}(\omega )$$
(33)
follows from Eq.(31) and (32) to be

$`(f|(\omega )|i)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2G}{c^4}}\right){\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d^3𝐫d^3𝐫^{}\times `$ (34)
$`\left\{e^{i𝐤_f𝐫}(ϵ_{ij})_f^{}𝒴_{ijkl}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\omega +i0^+)(ϵ_{kl})_ie^{i𝐤_i𝐫^{}}\right\}.`$
The total cross section $`\sigma _i`$ for a graviton (in state i) to be absorbed by the antenna is determined by the imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude

$$\sigma _i(\omega )=\left(\frac{4\pi c}{\omega }\right)\mathrm{}m(i|(\omega )|i).$$
(35)
Eqs.(34) and (35) constitute the central result of this section. The total cross section $`\sigma `$ is determined by the dynamical elastic Young’s modulus $`𝒴`$ of the antenna.

## 4 Mass Quadrupole Antennae

If the wavelength of the incident graviton is large on the scale of the size $`L`$ of the antenna,

$$(\omega /c)<<(1/L),$$
(36)
then one may ignore the wave vectors $`𝐤_{i,f}`$ in the integrals of Eq.(34). This constitutes the mass quadrupole approximation. For an antenna of volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and with

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\chi _{ijkl}(\zeta ;\mathrm{\Omega })=_\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Omega }𝒴_{ijkl}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\zeta )d^3𝐫d^3𝐫^{},$$
(37)
the mass quadrupole absorption cross section is

$$\sigma _i(\omega )\left(\frac{8\pi G\mathrm{\Omega }}{c^3\omega }\right)\mathrm{}m\left\{(ϵ_{ij})_i^{}\chi _{ijkl}(\omega +i0^+;\mathrm{\Omega })(ϵ_{kl})_i\right\}.$$
(38)
Averaging over the initial gravitational wave polarizations (i.e. helicity),

$$\sigma (\omega )=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=\pm }{}\sigma _i(\omega ),$$
(39)
and defining the transverse dynamical elastic Lamé coefficient as

$$\mu (\zeta ,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{1}{4}\underset{i^{}=\pm }{}\left\{(ϵ_{ij})_i^{}^{}\chi _{ijkl}(\zeta ;\mathrm{\Omega })(ϵ_{kl})_i^{}\right\}$$
(40)
yields the total cross section

$$\sigma (\omega ,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })=\left(\frac{16\pi G\mathrm{\Omega }}{c^3\omega }\right)\mathrm{}m\mu (\omega +i0^+,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(41)
where $`𝐧`$ denotes a unit vector along the incident propagation direction of the gravitational wave. We note in passing that the dynamical Lamé coefficient $`\mu (\zeta ,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })`$ for a finite volume system may have frequency $`\zeta `$-poles corresponding to both transverse and longitudinal acoustic modes. The reason is that when a transverse sound wave reflects off the boundary surface, a longitudinal sound wave may be produced with finite amplitude and vice-versa.

We now presume that a large antenna can be represented as a poly crystalline “isotropic” elastic system. The absorption cross section shall nevertheless depend on the incident propagation direction of the gravitational wave if the shape of the antenna is not spherical.

The imaginary part of the Lamé coefficient may also be expressed in terms of the real part of the viscosity coefficient according to

$$\mathrm{}m\left\{\mu (\omega +i0^+,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })\right\}=\omega \mathrm{}e\left\{\eta (\omega +i0^+,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })\right\}.$$
(42)
Thus, with the mass of the antenna denoted by $`M=\overline{\rho }\mathrm{\Omega }`$, Eq.(41) reads

$$\sigma (\omega ,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })=\left(\frac{16\pi GM}{c^2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{}e\{\eta (\omega +i0^+,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })\}}{c\overline{\rho }}.$$
(43)
Eq.(43) is the central result of this section. The absorption cross section for a graviton is directly related to the “kinematic viscosity” $`(\eta /\overline{\rho })`$ whose value determines the life time of the converted transverse phonon.

## 5 Microscopic Expressions

If one writes the microscopic dynamical Young’s modulus as

$$𝒴_{ijkl}(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{};\zeta )=𝒴_{ijkl}(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{};0)i\zeta _{ijkl}(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{};\zeta ),$$
(44)
then the Kubo formula for the non-local (in space) and frequency dependent viscosity response function is given by

$$_{ijkl}(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{};\zeta )=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_0^\beta \left\{_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\zeta t}p_{kl}(𝐫^{},i\lambda )p_{ij}(𝐫,t)𝑑t\right\}𝑑\lambda ,$$
(45)
where

$$\beta =\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{k_BT}\right).$$
(46)
The viscosity is then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\eta (\zeta ,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{1}{4}\underset{i^{}=\pm }{}\left\{_\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Omega }(ϵ_{ij})_i^{}^{}_{ijkl}(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{};\zeta )(ϵ_{kl})_i^{}d^3𝐫d^3𝐫^{}\right\}$$
(47)
From Eqs.(19), (45) and (47) it follows that the pressure integral

$$𝐏d^3𝐫=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}𝑑iv𝑑iv𝐏d^3𝐫.$$
(48)
is of central importance. Eq.(48) follows from twice integrating by parts. On the other hand, we have from conservation of mass

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+div𝐉=0$$
(49)
and from conservation of momentum

$$\frac{𝐉}{t}+div𝐏=0$$
(50)
that

$$\frac{^2\rho }{t^2}=divdiv𝐏.$$
(51)
From Eqs.(48) and (51) it follows that

$$𝐏(𝐫,t)d^3𝐫=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d}{dt}\right)^2\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}\rho (𝐫,t)d^3𝐫.$$
(52)
For the problem at hand, the mass quadrupole of the antenna may be defined as

$$𝐃(t)=_\mathrm{\Omega }\left(3\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}r^2\mathrm{𝟏}\right)\rho (𝐫,t)d^3𝐫.$$
(53)
From Eqs.(19), (52) and (53) it follows that

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }𝐩(𝐫,t)d^3𝐫=\frac{1}{6}\ddot{𝐃}(t),$$
(54)
while Eqs.(45) and (54) imply

$`h_{ijkl}(\zeta ,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}_{ijkl}(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{};\zeta )d^3𝐫d^3𝐫^{}`$ (55)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle _0^\beta }\left\{{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{i\zeta t}\ddot{D}_{kl}(i\lambda )\ddot{D}_{ij}(t)𝑑t\right\}𝑑\lambda .`$
Finally, from Eqs.(47) and (55) it follows that

$$\eta (\zeta ,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{1}{4}\underset{i^{}=\pm }{}(ϵ_{ij})_i^{}^{}h_{ijkl}(\zeta ,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })(ϵ_{kl})_i^{}.$$
(56)
Eqs.(53), (55) and (56) yield a rigorously exact microscopic expression (to lowest order in G) for the total gravitational wave cross section in Eq.(43).

## 6 Dispersion Relations and Sum Rules

The viscosity coefficient obeys the analytic dispersion relation

$$\eta (\zeta ,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })=\left(\frac{2i\zeta }{\pi }\right)_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{}e\{\eta (\omega +i0^+,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })\}d\omega }{\omega ^2\zeta ^2}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{}m\zeta >0.$$
(57)
With a finite viscosity $`\eta (0,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and shear modulus $`\mu (0,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the full dynamical Lamé coefficient reads

$$\mu (\zeta ,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })=\mu (0,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })i\zeta \eta (\zeta ,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(58)
In the limit $`|\zeta |\mathrm{}`$, Eqs.(57) and (58) imply

$$\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}e\{\eta (\omega +i0^+,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })\}𝑑\omega =\left(\mu (\mathrm{},𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })\mu (0,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })\right).$$
(59)
The microscopic evaluation of the sum rule follows from Eqs.(55), (56) and (59) via an equal time commutator

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mu (\mathrm{},𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })\mu (0,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{i^{}=\pm }{}}\mathrm{}e{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}(ϵ_{ij})_i^{}^{}h_{ijkl}(\omega +i0^+,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })(ϵ_{kl})_i^{}𝑑\omega `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{}e\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{i^{}=\pm }{}}(ϵ_{ij})_i^{}^{}[\ddot{D}_{ij},\dot{D}_{kl}](ϵ_{kl})_i^{}\right\}.`$
From Eq.(53) the mass quadrupole quantum operator may be written as

$$D_{ij}=\underset{a}{}M_a\left(3r_{ai}r_{aj}\delta _{ij}r_a^2\right).$$
(61)
wherein $`M_a`$ is the mass and $`𝐫_a`$ is the position of the $`a^{th}`$ particle in the gravitational antenna. These particles include both the electrons and the nuclei in the condensed matter. If we employ the Hamiltonian $`H=K+U`$ which is the sum of the kinetic energy $`K`$ and the potential energy $`U`$, i.e.

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_a^2}{2M_a}}\right)+U(\mathrm{},𝐫_a,\mathrm{})`$ (62)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_a^2}{2M_a}}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}u_{ab}(r_{ab}),`$
then the time rate of change of the quadrupole operator in Eq.(61) reads

$$\dot{D}_{ij}=\underset{a}{}\left\{3(r_{ai}p_{aj}+p_{ai}r_{aj})\delta _{ij}(𝐫_a𝐩_a+𝐩_a𝐫_a)\right\}.$$
(63)
Similarly,

$`\ddot{D}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{6p_{ai}p_{aj}}{M_a}}\right)+3(r_{ai}f_{aj}+r_{aj}f_{ai})\right\}`$ (64)
$`2\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_a^2}{M_a}}\right)+(𝐫_a𝐟_a)\right\},`$
where for the case of two particle potentials

$$\dot{𝐩}_a=𝐟_a=_aU=_a\underset{ba}{}u_{ab}(r_{ab}).$$
(65)
The equal time commutation relations are computed employing

$$[p_{ai},r_{bj}]=i\mathrm{}\delta _{ab}\delta _{ij}.$$
(66)
A very tedious computation employing Eqs.(60)-(66) yields the sum rule

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}e\overline{\eta }(\omega +i0^+;\mathrm{\Omega })𝑑\omega `$ (67)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left\{10K+4{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}r_{ab}u_{ab}^{}(r_{ab})+{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}r_{ab}^2u_{ab}^{\prime \prime }(r_{ab})\right\},`$
where $`\overline{\eta }(\zeta ;\mathrm{\Omega })`$ represents a spherical average over $`𝐧`$ in $`\eta (\zeta ,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })`$. For the case of a model Hamiltonian for which the potentials are completely described by Coulomb’s law,

$$U=e^2\underset{a<b}{}\frac{z_az_b}{r_{ab}},$$
(68)
Eqs.(67) and (68) imply

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mu }=\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}e\overline{\eta }(\omega +i0^+;\mathrm{\Omega })𝑑\omega =\left(\frac{10K2U}{15\mathrm{\Omega }}\right).$$
(69)
From the virial theorem for a collection of particles (electrons and nuclei) interacting with pure Coulomb potentials, the thermodynamic pressure obeys

$$P=\left(\frac{2K+U}{3\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }ϵ+K}{3\mathrm{\Omega }}\right),$$
(70)
while the energy per unit volume

$$ϵ=\frac{K+U}{\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(71)
Eqs.(69)-(71) imply

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mu }=\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}e\overline{\eta }(\omega +i0^+;\mathrm{\Omega })𝑑\omega =\left(\frac{36P14ϵ}{15}\right).$$
(72)
Eqs.(70)-(72) imply that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mu }=\left(\frac{14}{15}\right)\overline{t}\left(\frac{2}{5}\right)P,$$
(73)
where the kinetic energy per unit volume

$$\overline{t}=K/\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(74)
For pressures of the order of one atmosphere (or less) one finds that $`\overline{t}>>P`$. Thus

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mu }}{\overline{\mu }}\left(\frac{14\overline{t}}{15\rho v_s^2}\right)$$
(75)
wherein $`\rho `$ and $`v_s`$ represent, respectively, the mass density and the shear sound wave velocity. Note that the dynamic Lamé coefficient $`\mu (\zeta ,𝐧;\mathrm{\Omega })`$ contains $`\zeta `$-poles at modes determined by both the longitudinal and transverse acoustic phonons. Nevertheless, the zero frequency static Lamé coefficient $`\overline{\mu }=\rho v_s^2`$ depends only on the shear (transverse) wave sound velocity $`v_s`$.

The mean kinetic energy per unit volume is dominated by the electrons. If $`n`$ represents the number of electrons per unit volume, then a Thomas-Fermi uniform electron distribution estimate of the kinetic energy per unit volume of the electrons reads

$$\overline{t}\left(\frac{3(3\pi ^2)^{2/3}}{10}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2n^{5/3}}{m}\right).$$
(76)
For example, an Aluminum atom has $`Z=13`$ electrons and an atomic weight of $`A=27`$ so that the number of electrons per unit volume is given by $`n=(Z\rho /A\widehat{M})`$. Here, $`\widehat{M}`$ is the atomic mass unit. Thus, we find the estimate

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mu }}{\overline{\mu }}\right)84(\mathrm{Aluminum}).$$
(77)
The electronic contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mu }`$ to the dynamic Lamé coefficient leads to an electronic renormalization of the conversion of a graviton into a phonon as will be discussed directly below.

## 7 Enhancement Factor for Graviton Absorption

The Feynman diagrams for the physical processes here considered are shown in Fig.1. The absorption rates are controlled by the material viscosity $`\eta `$ which for a metal (at reasonably low temperatures) is determined by the motions of the electrons. (i) If there is one graviton inside of a very large material object of volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then the transition rate per unit time for a low frequency graviton to be absorbed is equal to the flux per unit time per unit area times the cross section; i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_g=\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\left(\frac{c\overline{\sigma }(\omega )}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)$$
(78)
which, in virtue of Eq.(43), reads

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_g=\left(\frac{16\pi G}{c^2}\right)\eta \mathrm{for}ge^{}+e^+.$$
(79)
(ii) Similarly, the absorption of a phonon is also controlled by the material transverse and bulk viscosities, respectively, $`\eta `$ and $`\eta _b`$. For a phonon with wave vector $`𝐤`$ the transition per unit time for absorption by the material is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi (longitudinal)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤|^2}{\rho }}\right)\left(\eta _b+{\displaystyle \frac{4\eta }{3}}\right)\mathrm{for}\varphi e^{}+e^+,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi (transverse)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤|^2}{\rho }}\right)\eta \mathrm{for}\varphi e^{}+e^+.`$ (80)
(iii) In gravitational wave antennae the absorption of a graviton takes place through the intermediate conversion of a resonant phonon via

$$g\varphi e^{}+e^+.$$
(81)
The matrix element for the conversion $`g\varphi `$ is described by the Hamiltonian

$$H^{}(g,\varphi )=2\overline{\mu }(𝐬:𝐮)d^3𝐫,$$
(82)
where (in the antenna) $`𝐬`$ is the strain due to the phonon and $`𝐮`$ is the strain due to the graviton. Eq.(82) describes the graviton conversions into both longitudinal and transverse phonons. Nevertheless, only the Lamé coefficient $`\mu `$ enters into the coupling. The reason is that the graviton is purely transverse and traceless no matter which kind of phonon it produces. (iv) An electronic enhancement of the graviton to resonant phonon conversion process arises from the electron loop process shown in Fig.(1); i.e. the one loop conversion process

$$g[e^{}e^+]\varphi $$
(83)
determines the coupling strength renormalization

$$\overline{\mu }\overline{\mu }+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mu },$$
(84)
wherein $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mu }`$ has been evaluated in Eq.(75).

Since the absorption rate for gravitons is computed from the absolute value squared of the matrix element, the central point of this work is finally evident. The enhancement of the graviton to resonant phonon detection process via electronic loop viscosity is given by

$$=\left|\frac{\overline{\mu }+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mu }}{\overline{\mu }}\right|^2.$$
(85)
For the case of an Aluminum gravitational wave antenna, Eqs.(77) and (85) imply a large electronic induced detection enhancement; It is

$$7.2\times 10^3(\mathrm{Aluminum}).$$
(86)
Such an enhancement allows for the experimental feasibility of detecting gravitational radiation from sources within our own galaxy.

## 8 Conclusions

In this work, we have considered in detail the dynamical response produced in a metallic Weber bar by a gravitational wave. Our treatment differs from all previous analyses in several major aspects. First, departing from tradition, we follow the Einstein equations so that a (transverse, traceless) gravitational wave is directly coupled to the (transverse, traceless) part of the pressure. Secondly, observing that in a metal (at not too high a temperature) electrons (not the phonons) provide the bulk of the pressure. Previous estimates of the couplings based on direct graviton to resonant phonon conversions need a major revision. In fact, we find that the electron-hole pair loop contributions significantly renormalize the relevant couplings. We have computed this using a Thomas-Fermi model with uniform electron density to estimate the average kinetic energy per unit volume of the electrons. The enhancement factor is found in this way to be $`7\times 10^3`$. The true factor is likely to be somewhat higher since the assumption of uniform electron density underestimates the kinetic energy of the localized core electrons.

Our results can be employed to explain the solution to a theoretical problem raised by experimental observations with the room temperature resonant detectors of the Maryland and Rome groups during the SN1987A. At this time the Rome and Maryland detectors showed signals with energy of about 100 K correlated with the observation of the neutrino detectors Mont Blanc, Kamiokande, Baksan and IMB. Using the previous cross-section, a $`100K`$ signal requires the total conversion into gravitational waves of about one thousand solar masses. This would be impossible for an original star mass of $`M20M_{sun}`$. However, with the renormalized detection cross section of this work, each $`100K`$ signal requires just one tenth of a solar mass (still high but energetically possible) yielding important information on collapse mechanisms. Also the rennormalized cross-section yields a sensible astrophysical interpretation of the recent result concerning experimental coincidences between the cryogenic resonant detectors Explorer (CERN) and Nautilus (Frascati).

We thankfully acknowledge useful comments, discussions and correspondences on the subject matter of this paper with Professors N. Cabibbo, E. Coccia, A. Degasperis, V. Ferrari, G. Immirzi, F. Palumbo and S. Weinberg.