text:
# Mona Lisa - ineffable smile of quantum mechanics

## Abstract

The portrait of Mona Lisa is scrutinized with reference to quantum mechanics. The elements of different expressions are firstly recognized on her face. The contradictory details are then classified in two pictures that, undoubtedly representing distinct moods, confirm dichotomous character of the original. Consecutive discussion has lead to conclusion that the mysterious state Mona Lisa is in actually is coherent mixture - superposition, of cheerfulness and sadness.

State of the physical system is among the most important concepts of quantum mechanics. Being the primitive concept of the theory, it is usually left undefined. However, by state we mean a list of some relevant characteristics of the system in question. More or less exact information about the quantities pertaining to the system are on this list, telling us how it is prepared. For operational reasons, state of the quantum mechanical system is represented by some vector of the Hilbert space. Precisely, rays represent states, while quantities are represented by the Hermitian operators acting in this Hilbert space of states.

The spectral decomposition of the Hermitian operator, in the simplest possible case when the spectrum is discrete and nondegenerate, reads:

$$\widehat{A}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_i|a_ia_i|,$$
(1)
where $`N`$ is dimension of Hilbert space. In this expression we have used Dirac notation: $`|a_ia_i|`$ is the projector on the vector $`|a_i`$ \- a formal representative of the state. The real numbers $`a_i`$, being the eigenvalues - characteristic values, of the operator $`\widehat{A}`$, represent possible numerical realizations of some quantity (which is represented above by $`\widehat{A}`$). Here, we are interested only in one quantity - observable, and to each of its quantitative realizations $`a_i`$ there corresponds appropriate state of the system described by $`|a_i`$ and projector $`|a_ia_i|`$.

Measurement is a process of acquisition of knowledge about the value of some observable and about the state of the system. Measurements are performed by some specially designed and, usually complicated physical systems - apparatus. They interact with measured systems and, on the other side, display numbers as results. And as the result of particular measurement of $`\widehat{A}`$, one can get only some eigenvalue $`a_i`$. Apparatus, or part of it, has to be classical mechanical system. Otherwise, observer would not be able to obtain understandable information about the value of measured quantity, which would be against the purpose of apparatus.

In classical theory, when one performs the same experiment on equally prepared systems whose state is completely known, one always obtains the same results, i.e., there is no probability argument. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is essentially probabilistic theory. Probability is intrinsic characteristic of this theory since there are situations when one performs the same experiment on equally prepared systems in completely known state and obtains different outcomes. In such cases, it is impossible to predict which $`a_i`$ will result from particular measurement. Knowledge of $`|\psi `$ enables prediction of probability of finding system in the state $`|a_i`$ only. It is given by:

$$\psi |a_ia_i|\psi =\mathrm{Tr}(|\psi \psi ||a_ia_i|),$$
(2)
where, according to the Dirac notation, $`|`$ stands for the scalar product of involved vectors. This a priori calculated probability matches with the relative frequency of $`a_i`$ (number of occurrences of this event divided by the total number of performed measurements) if the number of performed experiments tends to infinity. The set of equal, but independent systems used in these experiments are called ensemble. More on the formalism of quantum mechanics one can find in \[1-2\].

In case when the system is in state $`|\psi |a_i`$, while $`\widehat{A}`$ is being measured, more than one outcome will happen due to nonvanishing probability. On the other hand, these probabilities are unavoidable, they do not follow from some observers fault or imperfection of instruments. Their existence is not due to the subjective, but to objective reasons.

Of course, as in classical mechanics, observer can be somewhat ignorant regarding the state of quantum system. In this way additional probability argument is being introduced into play. But, this incomplete information probability is avoidable in principle, so it has to be distinguished from the above-discussed one.

Formalism of quantum mechanics enables accurate reflection of all possibilities when the preparation of a system is under question. Firstly, concepts of pure and mixed states are distinguished. Pure state is the one that is completely known and for which ensemble of systems cannot be divided into subsets of differently prepared systems. Otherwise, if we are not in position to control precisely preparation of systems or ensemble splits into inequivalent subensembles, we are talking about mixed state. Secondly, in order to enlighten difference between these types, instead of vectors, operators are used to represent states. Then, pure state is given by projector, e. g., $`|\psi \psi |`$. It is obviously in one-to-one correspondence with $`|\psi `$. In case of mixed or impure state we know probability distribution over pure states: we know that there is probability $`w_1`$ that system is in $`|\psi _1\psi _1|`$, $`w_2`$ that it is in $`|\psi _2\psi _2|`$ and so on. Standard notation for mixed state is $`\widehat{\rho }=_{j=1}^nw_j|\psi _j\psi _j|`$, ($`nN`$). Of course, for probabilities (weights) $`w_j`$ it holds $`_{j=1}^nw_j=1`$. If the operator is idempotent($`\widehat{\rho }^2=\widehat{\rho }`$) then the corresponding state is pure while, otherwise, it is mixed.

For our purpose, it is interesting to distinguish coherent from noncoherent mixtures. Despite of its name, coherent mixture is pure state, while noncoherent mixture is proper mixed state. Difference is best seen on concrete example. Coherent mixture of, say $`|a_1`$ and $`|a_2`$ is $`|\psi =_{i=1}^2c_i|a_i`$ or, in the operator form, it is given by:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}c_ic_j^{}|a_ia_j|.$$
(3)
Noncoherent mixture of the same states is:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}w_i|a_ia_i|.$$
(4)
Former state is pure and latter is not. Purity of coherent mixture rests on presence of the so-called off-diagonal, $`ij`$, elements. Due to these terms, operator (3) is projector (idempotent). All systems in the ensemble represented by (3) are in the same state - $`|\psi `$. For (4) situation is different; fraction of the ensemble, equal to $`w_1`$, is in $`|a_i`$ and the rest is in $`|a_2`$. Coefficients $`c_i`$, appearing in (3), are probability amplitudes, while $`w_i`$ of (4) are probabilities of appropriate states. Probability to obtain $`a_i`$, when system is in state (3), is $`c_ic_i^{}`$, while for (4) this probability is $`w_i`$ (these two probabilities might be equal for particular choice of $`c_i`$ and $`w_i`$). Occurrence of $`|a_i`$ in case of coherent mixture is confirmation of intrinsic probability and since this state is assumed to be linear combination of the eigenstates of measured observable, i.e., $`|\psi =_{i=1}^Nc_i|a_i`$, one finds that intrinsic probability of quantum mechanics is closely related to the superposition principle.

It could be said that, according to the superposition principle, if $`|a_i`$ are allowed states of quantum system, then such is every linear combination $`|\psi =_{i=1}^Nc_i|a_i`$ where, of course, choice of $`c_i`$ ensures that $`|\psi `$ has the norm equal to one ($`\psi |\psi =1`$). When system is in state $`_{i=1}^Nc_i|a_i`$, it is not in one of $`|a_i`$, while, in some sense, it occupies all those states for which $`c_i0`$. This is, perhaps, the most intriguing feature of quantum mechanics; so to say, something can be here and there simultaneously, without being here or being there exactly.

There are many experiments in quantum mechanics demonstrating this strange existence. Without going into technical details, let us describe double-slit experiment in brief. It shows that some micro system behaves like a wave during undisturbed propagation along the interference device. Namely, by repeating the experiment many times, as an accumulated result observer gets so-called interference pattern. Its undulating character indicates that each system from the ensemble went through both slits simultaneously, i. e., that systems were in state $`_{i=1}^2c_i|a_i`$ during propagation. (Vector $`|a_1`$ means ‘system went through the first slit’ and vector $`|a_2`$ means ‘system went through the second slit’.)

It is possible to construct slightly different experimental settings for which each system passes through only one slit, despite of that both are at disposal. System behaves like a particle then being localized in a very small region around one of the slits. As was mentioned above, it is impossible to predict through which of the slits system will go. Measurement of path gives the answer to that question in particular case. But, this measurement, on the other hand, destroys interference pattern - it causes collapse of state: state (3) that describes correctly ensemble before the measurement changes into state (4) after the measurement.

Collapse or reduction of state is another novelty of quantum mechanics closely related to superposition of states. It is discontinuous change of state and occurs when quantum system interacts with classical one (measuring device) and that in case when state of measured system is superposition of the eigenstates of measured observable. Reduction is transition from coherent to noncoherent mixture of involved states. Potential existence of superposed properties before the collapse become actual after it; before the collapse all systems of the ensemble are in the same state, afterwards ensemble splits into subensembles of systems in different states. Thorough analysis of the collapse one can find in .

Superposition as a typical quantum phenomenon is hard to understand because we are familiar with classical objects, not quantum, and our minds operate according to the classical logic. If some particle like system of our everyday experience can be in one of $`|a_i`$, then that is all, it certainly cannot be in some superposition of these states. With waves of classical world we do not have intuitive problems since for these collective phenomena we have not noticed some sort of spontaneous collapse. That is, our problems with superposition come from the fact that reality of both $`|a_i`$’s and their linear combinations have to be treated on equal footing. We are faced with particle like objects, for which $`|a_i`$’s can be observed and not their linear combinations and waves to which only $`|a_i`$’s in linear combination could be attached, but neither of them can appear separately.

How to understand superposition of states when the world we live in is the world of macroscopic objects for which this concept does not apply? How, then, to feel the novelty brought by quantum mechanics? Is it possible to find some instructive example without invoking physics of micro systems; example that will demonstrate superposition and related topics in a way understandable even to inexpert? These and similar questions can be summarized in the following one: can fundamental elements of quantum mechanics be found out of physics?

The answer could be, we believe, affirmative. Optimism is based on that there is the whole world of symbols. It is true that, as macroscopic material objects, they behave according to the laws of classical mechanics, but their meaning need not to be constrained by this theory. They could be organized in a way that corresponds to quantum logic. This would be difficult, but it is not impossible. The art offers great many possibilities for doing that since there are no limits on its expressive power. The piece of art can lead us to some well organized world which has nothing in common with the one of our everyday experience.

What we shall try to show here is that this has already been done. Precisely, we shall try to show that expression of Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci , Fig. 1, the famous smile, actually is superposition of two different expressions. But, before going into detailed elaboration, few remarks are in order.

First of all, and this is a commonplace, Leonardo was extremely gifted person with extraordinary skills. Because of his aesthetic sensibility, deep providence and patience in work, due to the investigations in anatomy and awareness of laws of nature, especially optics, it is impossible that Mona Lisa’s expression and the whole painting, is accidental or consequence of uncontrolled gesture. It is result of precise intention and tremendous effort.

Second remark is that Leonardo was interested in combining things, about which one can find beautiful lines in the novel Resurrected Gods by Dimitry Sergeyevich Merezhkowsky. Juxtaposition of different or contradictory entities, as it is well known, rises tension or confrontation among them. So, the piece of art gets new quality; object is no longer static and stable, it is in latent motion, has a sort of vitality.

Finally, let us stress that we are not interested here in whom, if any, was a person that posed for Leonardo. (Some believe that picture is a kind of self-portrait since Gioconda has the artists scull.) We are not interested in why Mona Lisa has such expression as well. (Doctor Filippo Surano believes that Mona Lisa suffered from bruxism - an unconscious habit of grinding the teeth; so the reason for smile is in compulsive gnashing of teeth. On the other hand, Janusz Walek , in order to prove that the smile is in accordance with the contemporary manners, quotes Agnolo Firenzuola who advised women of Gioconda’s time how to smile in charming way.) We only want to address the question why Mona Lisa’s smile is mysterious.

The whole collection of various impressions regarding Mona Lisa’s smile one can find in . There is quotation of Théophile Gautier’s opinion: ‘. . . but the expression, wise, deep, velvety, full of promise, attracts you irresistibly and intoxicates you . . .’ Ernst Hans Gombrich  continues by saying that ‘What strikes us first is the amazing degree to which Lisa looks alive . . . Like a living being, she seems to change before our eyes and to look a little different every time we come back to her. . . . Sometimes she seems to mock at us, and then again we seem to catch something like sadness in her smile. All this sounds rather mysterious and so it is, . . . ’ This is in accordance with Giorgio Vasari’s description, given in Lives of the Artists: ‘The eyes have the brightness and moisture of the living ones. . . . The opening of the mouth, . . . , seemed not to be colored, but to be living flesh. . . . The picture is considered the most splendid work, nearly alive.’ Neuroscientist Margaret Livingstone confirms this by claiming that the viewer sees Mona Lisa’s face as constantly changing, it has a ‘flickering quality - with smile present and smile gone - which occurs as people move their eyes around Mona Lisa’s face.’ Roy McMullen  explains this by claiming that ‘ . . . the Mona Lisa is certainly a very undecided sort of creation . . . the painting is self-contradictory not only in its details but also in its message: the ambiguity is both a part of the subject and in a sense the whole of it.’

Enigmatic, mysterious and incomprehensible are often used epithets of Gioconda’s remarkable portrait and her opaque, vague or simply ineffable smile. Abandoning oneself, spectator goes through perplexing transformation of impressions. Sensation that she is smiling is instantaneously repelled by her melancholy; cheerfulness becomes sadness and vice versa. Mona Lisa irritates us for she is changing moods and this perpetual change is what makes us to believe that she is alive. On the other hand, if observer scrutinizes details, then striking dissimilarity among elements indicating Gioconda’s feelings appears. One can classify them in distinguished sets: one pertaining to smiling, cheerful Mona Lisa, one reflecting melancholy or disappointment and one containing elements that connect previous producing complete and realistic face.

For example, there is a shadow at the right corner of Gioconda’s mouth, oriented downwards and suggesting sadness, see Fig. 2. Beside it, there is a dark area on the right cheek starting from the end of the lips and going upwards at some angle. This, of course, designates cheerful mood. So, these two shades certainly have opposite effects on spectator and the picture is full of such narrative pieces. Instead of enumerating them, let us point out that Leonardo has linked these contradictory elements in a kind of dark and long strip. It consists of these shades at the ends and a hardly noticeable spot that is approximately at the same horizontal level as the mouth, being at its right. Purpose of this spot is to integrate signs of unequal meaning in an indivisible entity, making smooth transition among them without belonging completely to any of these two.

One can proceed in this way by analyzing picture piece by piece: shadow above her left eye designate sorrow, lightened region between temple and left eye lifts up the cheek giving contribution to the opposite impression etc. We believe that much better than listing cheerful and cheerless elements, is to present visually final result. This is done by Fig. 3. On one side, all details spoiling the impression that Gioconda is sad are covered, while, at the other side, excluded are those that disturb us in seeing her cheerfulness. (Needless to say, covering the original with white squares was the only intervention taken.) Like damaged frescos, these faces, we believe, offer enough material necessary for their understandings. First one shows Mona Lisa in a state of calm contemplation on some unhappy events. This is confirmed almost immediately, just after our imagination straightforwardly interpolates residual pieces. The other one shows her plain or maybe malicious smile; certainly, there is no dolor in her eyes at this picture.

Before discussing these pictures from the point of view of physics, let us comment original and try to explain how it was possible to incorporate two distinguished expressions into single portrait. In Leonardo’s own words, given in one of his recommendations to painters , ‘. . . laughing and weeping, . . . are very similar in the motion of mouth, the cheeks, the shutting of the eyebrows and the space between them . . . ’ So, for the great master, it was not a priori impossible to combine even mutually exclusive emotions. But, this similarity could only be necessary, definitively not sufficient for designing such combination. Since Leonardo studied anatomy with both artistic and scientific intention, he was capable to create the most adequate face. (For instance, there are claims that Mona Lisa had swellings on lower jaw, which strongly influenced distribution of shades on her cheeks.) Then comes his treatment of light and shadow. As stressed in , Leonardo avoided above all light which casts a dark shadow. He preferred so-called diffuse light - the one that comes from many sources, which are usually of low intensity. What is more important, according to Kenneth Clark, for Leonardo shadow was an adjunct of form. This means that delicate modifications of shape with purpose of introducing and then balancing discrepancies could be accomplished with a proper use of light and shadow. Closely connected to this is the manner in which the painting has been executed. In  it is said about this that ‘If the outlines are not quite so firmly drawn, if the form is left a little vague, as though disappearing into shadow, . . . impression of dryness and stiffness will be avoided. This is Leonardo’s famous invention, which Italians call sfumato - the blurred outline and mellowed colors that allow one form to merge with another and always leave something to our imagination.’ And further ‘. . . . what we call its expression rests mainly in two features: the corners of the mouth and the corners of the eyes. Now it Are precisely these parts which Leonardo has left deliberately indistinct, by letting them merge into a soft shadow. That is why we are never quite certain in which mood Mona Lisa is really looking at us.’

Regarding quantum mechanics and its terminology, system under investigation is a female face. Measured observable is the mood of portrayed person. Among many of its eigenstates, we are here interested only in two of them, say sadness and cheerfulness. (Perhaps one can find more adequate terms to name the appropriate moods of Mona Lisa, but that is not important here for their purpose is just to refer to the pictures given in Fig. 3.) How it looks like when the system is in one or the other of these eigenstates we have tried to demonstrate by Fig. 3. To be precise, there given pictures only indicate what are Gioconda’s pure states of sadness and cheerfulness. However, we find them sufficiently suggestive - after few moments our imagination provides complete image. (It would be hard task to finish them because it has to be done in a manner that imitates Leonardo’s, i. e., it demands skills which present author does not possess. Therefore, we ignore the fact that complete and incomplete pictures of the same face might be taken as different systems.)

When the ensemble of systems is in one of the eigenstates of the measured observable, then one always obtains the same result after measuring that observable. Exactly this happens with pictures of Fig. 3. Namely, if the first picture is under consideration, one has the impression that Mona Lisa is sad while looking at the second one always leads to the same conclusion - Mona Lisa is smiling. In each of these two cases, ensemble consists of the picture we are looking at, perceiving it dozens of times in a second. At one instant we notice some detail on the picture and conclude that she is in particular mood, then we look again, notice some other detail, make the same conclusion and so on. Looking at the picture is nothing else but repetition of measurement and the absence of doubt about the expressions at the end means that there are no deviations, i. e., all results of observations coincide.

Since these two pictures have been extracted from the original, it is plausible that the Gioconda’s portrait is dichotomous. Her disquieting smile is a mixture of two pure states and the question is whether it is coherent or noncoherent one. We shall try to convince the reader that it is coherent mixture - superposition. For that purpose, we firstly have to propose some criterion or procedure how to distinguish coherent from noncoherent mixture of the same states. (It is futile to try to measure some other observable, which does not commute with the considered one. All our sensual perceptions mutually commute; otherwise, it would be ease to understand quantum mechanics.)

Difference between coherent and noncoherent mixtures is in that the former are pure states, while the latter are not. For every pure state - vector of the Hilbert space, there is one vector orthogonal to it if the space is two-dimensional. This is not the case for mixed states in such spaces. So, the procedure how to distinguish mentioned mixtures could be the following: is it possible to find state that is orthogonal to considered one or not? Here, this reads: is it possible to imagine, or perhaps paint, portrait with expression opposite to the Mona Lisa’s, where opposite means as opposite as are those given in Fig. 3. We believe that the answer is affirmative. It is possible, but its realization demands artist of talent and skills comparable to Leonardo’s.

That mysteriously crying Gioconda would be as provocative as is the original since there would be some happiness in her dolorous eyes. And this would be the only similarity; her undecided expression would not be in any respect close to the Mona Lisa’s, on the contrary.

However, since this way of convincing the reader that portrait shows superposition of two moods rests on hardly feasible process, let us propose the other one. As mentioned above, formal difference between coherent and noncoherent mixture of the same states is in presence of so-called off-diagonal terms in the former state. Due to them, this state is idempotent, i. e., pure. So, if Mona Lisa’s expression is coherent mixture, then there should be some off-diagonal elements.

What could be those off-diagonal elements? In order to answer this question, let us start with Fig. 3. The pictures of this figure undoubtedly display certain well-known moods. This means that these pictures present Mona Lisa’s pure states: first one shows Mona Lisa in the pure state of sadness, say $`|a_1`$, while the other shows her in the pure state of cheerfulness, say $`|a_2`$. To have a portrait showing some pure state presumes that all its narrative elements are in adequate position. Therefore, all details of the first picture are in state $`|a_1`$, while those of the second are in $`|a_2`$ or, in the operator form, $`|a_1a_1|`$ and $`|a_2a_2|`$, respectively. So, diagonal elements are details of the portrait that undoubtedly designate certain emotion or mood. Then, off-diagonal elements $`|a_1a_2|`$ and $`|a_2a_1|`$ can only be those details of the portrait that somehow reflect two moods, those that are at one side related to the first and at the other side to the second mood or those that connects parts of opposite meaning. And Mona Lisa’s portrait contain such two-sided details, e. g., mentioned dark spot beside the mouth.

All items of Leonardo’s painting that are between signs of explicit cheerfulness and explicit sadness are examples of these off-diagonal elements. Connecting opposite, $`|a_ia_j|`$ ($`ij`$) details make Gioconda’s expression smooth, they provide continuous flow from parts of one to those of the other mood. Due to them, Mona Lisa is in pure state. We take her portrait as realistic just because of these off-diagonal elements; they make her expression somehow compact, persistent or impenetrable.

Mona Lisa is in pure state that is unusual combination of cheerfulness and sadness, i. e., her state is coherent mixture or superposition of cheerfulness and sadness - it is (3) and not (4). Without $`|a_ia_j|`$ ($`ij`$) elements, Mona Lisa’s portrait would be collection of unrelated dissonant pieces with noticeable discontinuity among them. It would not be irresistible at all; no one would be confused or irritated by such senseless assemblage. Literally, it would be noncoherent mixture. (It is easy to make such picture by gluing together pieces of two photos of the same person in different moods.)

Finally, if one has agreed that Gioconda’s portrait is superposition of two states, then one might wonder what happens when we look at her. If we do it unintentionally, at one instant we notice some suggestive detail and make conclusion about her mood. That is, we find result of measurement. At next moment, we repeat observation and make new conclusion and so on. We notice different parts of the picture randomly, so our impression varies; it is unpredictable what shall draw our attention at particular moment. In this way her expression is being projected either to cheerful or cheerless state, depending on what we have just seen. While we look at her, Mona Lisa’s expression spontaneously collapses from (3) into one of two possible states - to watch her means to make measurement of her mood and this causes reduction of the state she is in. States like (4) in adequate way summarize our opinions about which we may say that more often we find Gioconda clearly smiling than being sad, so $`w_1<w_2`$. With state such is (4) we can represent ensemble of our impressions and what is astonishing is that, in the aggregate, we end with Mona Lisa in mixed state (noncoherent mixture) despite of the fact that we are confronted with static object.

Our attempt to avoid these reductions results in puzzle. If we try to catch Gioconda’s real mood without rushing into conclusion, we notice $`|a_1a_1|`$, then $`|a_1a_2|`$ leads us to $`|a_2a_2|`$ and $`|a_2a_1|`$ takes us back. Instead to conquer her, we do not know what to think about her at all; by trying to comprehend her expression in toto, we actually discover state (3). And we are less satisfied with it than with changeable impression since we are unable even to entitle this state. What we see is not just beyond our experience, this expression is graspable in its true meaning, it evades our final judgment leaving us in confusion. And what we have to do is not to look for trivial resolution of the problem, with experience of Mona Lisa’s smile we should transcend limits of our cognitive power.

To conclude, enigmatic smile of Mona Lisa shows that, beside the classical logic, the underlying logical structure of quantum mechanics can be implemented in creating the piece of art as well. It is an example of superposition of two different states. Leonardo’s masterpiece is a visual illustration of coherent mixture (3), it could be an emblem of these mixtures. On the other hand, the only way to understand entirely Mona Lisa’s expression and our consecutive impressions is by referring to quantum mechanics. If we do not employ subtle formalism of this theory, it seems to be impossible to find convincing and full explanation of our mental journey. Since our minds operate according to classical logic, just described processes are normal reactions; we have to simplify her expression by projecting it to well known ones or we shall be driven along the Möbius strip.


format: text

text:
# LONG RANGE INTERACTION YIELDS A NEW KIND OF PHASE TRANSITION

thanks: Permanent address.

## Abstract

DNA denaturation, wetting in two dimensions, depinning of a flux line, and other problems map onto a phase transition with effective long range interaction. It yields giant non-universal critical indexes, arbitrarily large macroscopic correlation length and fluctuations at a finite distance from the critical temperature. In the vicinity of this region the Gibbs distribution is invalid, and thermodynamics must be calculated from the first principles. There are no fluctuations above the critical temperature.

Thermal unbinding (melting, coiling, denaturation) of a double-stranded DNA molecule is biologically important and physically unique. It yields a phase transition in a one-dimensional system Poland and Scheraga (1966). The system is extraordinary long - the total length of a single mammalian DNA is $`1.8m`$, it consists of $`5`$ billion nucleotide base pairs. Their sequence is related to genetic information, yet statistically it is close to a random one Azbel’ (1995). The fraction of unbound base pairs as a function of temperature (“the DNA melting curve”) is proportional to DNA light absorption at about $`260nm`$. DNA denaturation maps onto a variety of other problems: the binding transition of a polymer onto another polymer, a membrane, or an interface Fisher (1984); wetting in two dimensions Forgas et al. (1986); depinning of a flux line from a columnar defect in type-II superconductors Nelson and Vinokur (1993); localization of a copolymer at a two-fluid interface Carel et al. (1989). DNA denaturation has been extensively studied for nearly four decades Poland and Scheraga (1966); Azbel’ (1995); Fisher (1984); Forgas et al. (1986); Nelson and Vinokur (1993); Carel et al. (1989); Wartell and Benight (1985); Azbel’ (1973); Tang and Chaté (2001); Kafri et al. (2000); Fisher (1999); Carlon et al. (2002). Yet, some features of this transition were overlooked. Start with its physics and model. DNA nucleotide base pairs (adenine - thymine AT, guanine - cytosine GC) are large (“mesoscopic”) organic molecules. Their unbinding releases few thousand degrees of freedom. The corresponding entropy is $`sk_B`$ per site Wartell and Benight (1985) ($`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`s10`$). So, while the binding (hydrogen) energy of DNA strands is $`3000^{}K`$, DNA melts at a relatively low room temperature ($`300^{}K`$), i.e. in the vicinity of the ground state. The Poland-Scheraga model Poland and Scheraga (1966) of DNA melting introduces the fusible AT and refractory binding energies $`E_1=sk_BT_1`$ and $`E_2=sk_BT_2`$ correspondingly ($`T_1<T_2`$), the boundary energy $`J`$ per bound segment ($`J3000^{}K`$ accounts for an incomplete unbinding at the boundaries), and the loop entropy $`ck_B\mathrm{ln}L`$ per an unbound segment ($`L`$ is the total number of nucleotide pairs there). The value of the constant $`c`$ may vary Poland and Scheraga (1966); Wartell and Benight (1985); Kafri et al. (2000); Fisher (1999); Carlon et al. (2002) from $`1.5`$ to slightly higher than $`2`$. Thus, at the temperature $`T`$, Poland-Scheraga Hamiltonian $`E_{lLx}`$ of the adjacent bound and melted segments is related to the length $`l`$ and the GC concentration $`x`$ in the former and to the length $`L`$ in the latter. Calculated from the energy $`sk_BT`$ per site of a completely melted DNA ($`T`$ is the temperature),

$$\begin{array}{cc}& E_{lLx}=sk_Bl\delta T+J+ck_BT\mathrm{ln}Lsk_Bl(\overline{x}x)\mathrm{\Delta }T.\hfill \\ & \delta T=T\overline{T},\overline{T}=T_1\overline{x}+T_2(1\overline{x}),\mathrm{\Delta }T=T_2T_1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`\overline{x}`$ is the AT concentration at an entire DNA. Parameters $`\overline{T}310K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T40K`$ depend on the DNA solution Wartell and Benight (1985). The Poland-Scheraga model (1) allows for a straightforward calculation of the homopolymer thermodynamics. The calculation yields macroscopic fluctuations. I prove that heterogeneity just renormalizes the interaction parameters $`c`$ and $`J`$. The renormalization depends on temperature and heterogeneity. This implies an unusual non-universal transition, which invalidates the Gibbs distribution in its close, yet macroscopic vicinity. Start with the well known case of a homopolymer Poland and Scheraga (1966); Fisher (1984); Wartell and Benight (1985); Azbel’ (1973). There $`x=\overline{x}`$, the last term in Eq. (1) is missing, and $`E_{lLx}=E(l,L)`$ depends on $`l`$ and $`L`$ only. Then an entire Hamiltonian $`H=_nE(l^{(n)},L^{(n)})`$ describes an ideal gas of the pairs $`(l^{(n)},L^{(n)})`$. It relates the free energy $`f`$ per site to the normalization condition for the Gibbs probability $`p_{lL}`$ of given $`l`$ and $`L`$:

$$p_{lL}=[\mathrm{exp}(l+L)\varphi E(l,L)/k_BT];\underset{l,L=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_{lL}=1,\varphi =f/k_BT$$
(2)
When $`\varphi \mathrm{exp}(J/k_BT)`$, Eqs. (1,2) yield

$$_1^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(L\varphi )L^{1c_1}𝑑L=(\varphi +\tau )\mathrm{exp}(J/k_B\overline{T});\tau =s\delta T/\overline{T};c_1=c1$$
(3a)
Consistent with the Landau-Peierls theorem for the Hamiltonian (1), when $`c_1>1`$, Eq. (3a) yields phase transition. Then, by Eq. (2), $`\varphi 0`$ does not allow for any excitations of a completely melted polymer. This is specific for the Hamiltonian which depends on $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ only — when $`L=\mathrm{}`$, any excitation implies an infinite energy increase. Dependence on $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ yields other unusual implications also. Transition is non-universal - its critical indexes depend on $`c_1`$. Immediately below the critical temperature Poland and Scheraga (1966); Fisher (1984); Wartell and Benight (1985); Azbel’ (1973) $`T_c`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \varphi =\theta \text{if}c_1>1;\varphi \theta \mathrm{ln}\theta \text{if}c_1=1;\varphi \theta ^{1/c_1}\text{if}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}>c_1>0\hfill \\ & \theta =(T_cT)/(T_c\overline{T});\tau _c=(T_c\overline{T})/\overline{T}=(1/sc_1)\mathrm{exp}(J/k_BT);\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
As anticipated, the critical $`c_1=0`$, while $`J/k_BTT/\mathrm{\Delta }Ts10`$ implies, by Eq. (3), a very narrow width of the transition $`(T_c\overline{T})/\overline{T}10^5`$ (i.e. $`T_c\overline{T}10^3K`$ ), and its very close proximity to the ground state melting temperature $`\overline{T}`$. Once the free energy (3) is known, the Gibbs probability (2) allows one to calculate any thermodynamic averages and fluctuations. The average (denoted by a bar) relative number $`\overline{\omega }=\overline{l/L}`$ of the bounded sites, which is measured via light absorption, the average length $`\overline{L}`$ of a melted segment, and their relative mean squared fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega /\overline{\omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L/\overline{L}`$ are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \overline{\omega }c_1\mathrm{exp}(J/k_BT)1;\mathrm{\Delta }\omega /\overline{\omega }1\hfill \\ & \overline{L}1\text{if}c_1>1;\overline{L}\varphi ^{c_11}\text{if}c_1<1\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }L/\overline{L}1\text{if}c_1>2;\mathrm{\Delta }L/\overline{L}\varphi ^{0.5c_11}\text{if}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}>c_1>1;\mathrm{\Delta }L/\overline{L}\varphi ^{0.5c_1}\text{if}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}>c_1>0\hfill \end{array}$$
(4a)
Thus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega /\overline{\omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L/\overline{L}`$ are never small, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }L/\overline{L}\mathrm{}`$ when $`TT_c`$ and $`c_1<2`$. A more physically meaningful fluctuation is
$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\omega /\overline{\omega }\overline{|\omega \overline{\omega }|}/\overline{\omega }\overline{\omega }^{c_1}1;\mathrm{\Delta }^{}L/\overline{L}\overline{|L\overline{L}|}/\overline{L}1$$
(4b)
It demonstrates, in particular, that a characteristic $`|L\overline{L}|\overline{L}`$ implies a characteristic $`|\mathrm{ln}L\mathrm{ln}\overline{L}|1`$ i.e., $`\mathrm{ln}\overline{L}`$ when $`c_1<1`$ and $`\overline{L}\mathrm{}`$.

Consider heterogeneous DNA. When temperature increases from $`\overline{T}`$ to $`\overline{T}+\delta T`$, the Poland-Scheraga Hamiltonian (1) complements the energy increase of an “average” bounded segment (the first three terms) with the energy decrease of a refractory bounded segment (the last term). I prove that in the vicinity of the DNA melting temperature, the last term may be replaced with its thermodynamic average for given lengths of the successive bound and unbound segments. (Such replacement is equivalent to an unusual mean field approximation, which becomes accurate at the phase transition and which technically reduces to a constrained summation in the partition function). The resulting Hamiltonian describes a homopolymer with the renormalized loop entropy. The renormalization, and thus the phase transition singularity it determines, are non-universal and depend on the DNA parameters.

Physics of DNA melting was elucidated in Ref. Azbel’, 1973. (All following statements are later accurately verified). The segments, rich in the fusible AT, melt first, while the richest in the refractory GC melt last. When $`c>1`$ in Eq. (1), bounded segments completely vanish at a finite critical temperature $`T_c`$. There $`L\mathrm{}`$ and the effective boundary energy $`(J+ck_BT\mathrm{ln}L)\mathrm{}`$ if $`c<2`$. Then, the excitation energy also $`\mathrm{}`$, DNA approaches its ground state, fluctuations of $`l`$ and $`x`$ vanish, and the length of a ground state (i.e. sufficiently refractory) bounded segment is Azbel’ (1973) $`\mathrm{ln}L\mathrm{}`$, to compensate the effective boundary energy in Eq. (1). Sufficiently close to $`T_c`$, $`l`$ exceeds any finite correlation length, and the probability $`w(l,x)`$ of a given $`x`$ at such $`l`$ is Gaussian. Since fluctuations of $`l`$ and $`x`$ vanish at $`T_c`$, it is $``$ the thermodynamic probability $`l/L`$ of a bounded site. So, $`l`$ and $`x`$ yield $`L(l,x)l/w(l,x)`$. Thus, physics of DNA melting suggests, and further calculation verifies, that the values of $`l`$ and $`Ll`$ at a given temperature determine the corresponding value of $`x`$ according to $`w(l,x)l/L`$. The Gaussian $`w`$ implies $`\sqrt{l}(\overline{x}x)\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}[1/w(l,x)]}1`$ where the factor in $`wl/L`$ may be disregarded with negligible error. Thus, $`\overline{x}x`$ in Eq. (1) may be replaced with its thermodynamic average according to

$$l/L=(l/2\pi D^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(u^2);u^2=l(\overline{x}x)^2/2D^2;D^2=\overline{x}(1\overline{x})$$
(5a)
In fact, large $`J/k_BTT/\mathrm{\Delta }Ts10`$ allow for Eq. (5a) already slightly above $`\overline{T}`$. Equation (1), complemented with the unusual mean field approximation (5a) for $`x`$, yield the renormalized Hamiltonian $`E^{}(l,L)`$, which depends on the variables $`l`$ and $`L`$ only. In the leading (in $`l/L1`$) approximation it equals

$$E^{}(l,L)=slk_B\delta T+J+ck_BT\mathrm{ln}Lsk_BD\mathrm{\Delta }T\sqrt{2l\mathrm{ln}L}.$$
(5)
The last refractory term accounts for the thermodynamic average of $`x`$ for given values of $`l`$, $`L`$, $`\overline{x}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ in the Poland-Scheraga model for a heteropolymer. The Hamiltonian (5) describes a“renormalized” homopolymer, and Eq. (2), where $`E(l,L)`$ is replaced with $`E^{}(l,L)`$, yields its exact free energy. The knowledge of the free energy allows one to calculate all averages and their fluctuations, to estimate the accuracy of the crucial approximation (5a), to prove that its inaccuracy vanishes at the phase transition, and thus Eq. (5) accurately determines transition singularities. It also presents an exactly solvable model of a heteropolymer and DNA. The competition in Eq. (5) of the energy increase and decrease, correspondingly in the “average” first and last “refractory” terms, yields a high and relatively narrow $`E^{}(l,L)`$ minimum at the ground state $`l=l_m=0.5(D\mathrm{\Delta }T/\delta T)^2\mathrm{ln}L`$ (which is indeed $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ as stated earlier). The expansion of $`E^{}(l,L)`$ in $`(ll_m)`$ non-universally decreases the factor $`c`$ in the loop entropy by $`s(D\mathrm{\Delta }T)^2/2T\delta T`$, and Eq. (2), with $`E`$ replaced with the expanded $`E^{}`$, after a straightforward calculation, yields

$$_1^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{ln}L)^{1/2}L^{1\delta }\mathrm{exp}(\varphi L)𝑑L=M$$
(6)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta & =c_1\gamma ;\gamma =s(D\mathrm{\Delta }T)^2/2\overline{T}\delta T;\hfill \\ \hfill M& =\pi ^{1/2}(2c_1)^{3/2}(sD\mathrm{\Delta }T/\overline{T})^2\mathrm{exp}(J/k_B\overline{T})1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
Note that the left hand side of Eq. (6) depends on $`\varphi `$ and $`\delta `$ only. Thus, Eq. (6) reduces five dimensionless parameters $`(J/T`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$, $`T/\overline{T}`$, $`\overline{x}`$, $`c`$), which determine $`\varphi `$ in a non-renormalized case, to two parameters ($`\delta `$ and $`M`$). When $`c_1<1`$ and $`\varphi \tau _c\tau `$, Eq. (6) maps onto Eq. (3a), where $`c_1`$ is renormalized into the temperature dependent $`\delta `$ (which, unlike $`c_1`$, may be of any sign and which dominates the temperature dependence in the vicinity of the phase transition). By Eq. (6), $`\varphi 0`$. Since $`c_1>0`$ Poland and Scheraga (1966); Wartell and Benight (1985); Kafri et al. (2000); Fisher (1999); Carlon et al. (2002), $`\varphi =0`$ is achieved (as stated) at finite temperature $`T=T_c`$. There

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \delta (T_c)=\delta _c=c_1\theta ^{},\theta ^{}=(2\pi ^2)^{1/3}(\overline{T}/sD\mathrm{\Delta }T)^{4/3}\mathrm{exp}(2J/3k_B\overline{T})\hfill \\ & \delta T_c/\overline{T}(s/2c_1)(D\mathrm{\Delta }T/\overline{T})^2,\delta T_cT_c\overline{T}\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
Note that, by Eq. (8), $`\delta T_c3^{}K`$. When $`T_cT\delta T_c`$, then $`\delta =c_1(\theta ^{}\theta `$), where $`\theta =(T_cT)/\delta T_c`$ is the relative distance to the critical temperature. By Eq. (4b), $`\delta 1`$ implies $`\delta \mathrm{ln}L\delta \mathrm{ln}\overline{L}`$, and thus verifies the derivation of Eq. (5). At $`T_c`$, by Eq. (8), $`\delta _c0.01`$, i.e. it is very close to the critical $`c_1=0cf`$ Eq. (3). By Eq. (6), $`L1/\varphi \mathrm{}`$ when $`TT_c`$. This, and $`ll_m\mathrm{ln}L`$ verify all previous estimates. When $`\delta `$, $`\varphi 1`$, asymptotics in Eq. (6), where $`M1`$, yield an unusual non-universal singularity:

$`\varphi [(3\theta /4\pi ^{1/2}\theta ^{})\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}(\theta ^{}/\theta )}]^{1/c_1\theta ^{}};\text{when}\theta \theta ^{}`$ (9a)
$`\varphi [(2\theta ^{}/\pi \theta )\sqrt[3]{\mathrm{ln}(\theta /\theta ^{})}]^{3/2c_1\theta };\text{when}\theta ^{}\theta 1`$ (9b)
Consider the implications of Eqs. (79b). In natural DNA $`J/k_B\overline{T}\overline{T}/\mathrm{\Delta }T10`$, $`D1/2`$, $`c_11`$. So, in the immediate vicinity of $`T_c`$, where $`\theta <\theta ^{}0.01`$, the order of the transition, by Eq. (9a), is $`1/c_1\theta ^{}100`$, i.e. giant. The order is non-universal, it depends on the DNA parameters $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$, $`\overline{x}`$. The values of $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ depend on the ligands and their concentrations in the DNA solutions Wartell and Benight (1985); Azbel’ (1973), which may be manipulated experimentally. Non-universality in Eqs. (9a, 9b) is related to the competition of the refractory and loop entropy terms in Eq. (5), which renormalizes the loop entropy, and thus the singularity. The width of the transition is very small, yet macroscopic. The crossover from Eq. (9b) to Eq. (9a) occurs when $`(T_cT)/T_c10^4`$. Then $`T_cT0.01K`$ (cf $`\delta T_c=T_c\overline{T}3K)`$. In the approximation of Eq. (6), the probability density $`P_L`$ of a given $`L`$ is $`P_L=M^1(\mathrm{ln}L)^{1/2}L^{1\delta }\mathrm{exp}(\varphi L)`$. So, by Eqs. (6, 9b), $`\overline{L}1/\varphi \mathrm{exp}[1/(T_cT)]`$ exponentially increases to $`\overline{L}10^{40}`$ at the crossover. Thus, even in a solution with $`10^{22}`$ DNA nucleotide base pairs, all DNA molecules completely unbind in the interval (9b). So, at a small, yet macroscopic distance $`0.01K`$ from $`T_c`$, the effective long range interaction exceeds any macroscopic size of the system. The system can no more be divided into weakly interacting subsystems, thus the Gibbs distribution is invalid, and thermodynamics must be calculated from the first principles. The fraction of bounded sites is correspondingly small there, and the observably quantity is the temperature of complete melting of a finite DNA. If its length is $`N`$, then $`\overline{L}=N`$ at the temperature $`T_N`$, where

$$\theta _N=(T_cT_N)/T_c1/\mathrm{ln}N.$$
(10)
The mean fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _N`$ of $`\theta _N`$ may be estimated from $`\overline{L}(\theta _N+\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _N)\overline{L}(\theta _N)=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}L(\theta _N)`$. Similar to Eq. (4b), $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}L\overline{L}`$ and thus 111If DNA is not closed, then an unbounded segment at a free DNA end does not yield the loop entropy. This should be accounted for at the final stages of unbinding of an open-ended (rather than closed as assumed in the Poland-Scheraga model) DNA.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _N/\theta _N1/\mathrm{ln}N.$$
(11)
Such fluctuation is macroscopic and easily observable. In DNA this situation is related to mesoscopic size of base pairs (which yields large $`J/k_BTs10`$, thus small $`\theta ^{}`$), and to DNA heterogeneity. By Eq. (6), heterogeneity effectively replaces fixed $`c_1`$ with $`\delta `$. The latter decreases to $`\delta _c1`$ (at $`T=T_c`$) and scales the transition order with $`1/\delta _c`$ in Eq. (9a) and with $`1/\delta `$ in Eq. (9b). This may be characteristic of any sufficiently strong long range interaction.

By Eq. (10), natural DNA always yields $`\theta \theta ^{}`$, i.e. the essential singularity (9b) in $`\theta T_cT`$. (This was predicted in ref. Azbel’ (1973)). By Eq. (8), it proceeds in the interval $`T_cT0.01T_c3K`$. Sufficiently close to $`\overline{T}`$, the length $`\overline{L}`$ may reach the correlation length of the sequence. Then the distribution $`w(l,x)`$ becomes non-Gaussian. This alters Eq. (5) and the melting curve $`\varphi (T)`$.

Below $`\overline{T}`$ DNA is mostly bounded, and only anomalously fusible segments melt. Their probability yields the equation which replaces Eq. (5). Their melting proceeds in an entire interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. Until sufficiently high temperatures, when the number of segments, which melt nearly simultaneously, becomes large, the DNA melting curve exhibits their successive melting. It is explicitly seen in experiments Wartell and Benight (1985); Azbel’ (1973). Thus, in a general case there are three distinctly different temperature intervals: $`\theta ^{}0.01`$, i.e. $`T_cT0.03K`$; $`\theta 1`$, i.e. $`T_cT3K`$; and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T40K`$.

A giant order transition (9a) may be observed only when the total number $`N`$ of base pairs is much larger than $`\overline{L}`$ at the crossover to Eq. (9b). This implies $`\mathrm{ln}N>1/\theta ^{}`$. Since, by Eq. (8), $`\theta ^{}0.005D^{4/3}`$, so $`D`$ must be $`<0.03(\mathrm{ln}N)^{3/4}`$. On the other hand, the derivation of Eq. (6) implied the large renormalized term. At the crossover this means $`D>0.03`$. In the interval $`0.03<D<0.03(\mathrm{ln}N)^{3/4}`$ non-universality of the giant critical index in Eq. (9a) may be studied (e.g., via its dependence on $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$, which changes together with the concentration of solvents in DNA solution Wartell and Benight (1985)).

Presented theory may be numerically tested. Once the ground state is accurately determined analytically Azbel’ (1973), computer simulations allow for the study of its fluctuations.

The approach is applicable to other problems also.

To summarize. DNA unbinding with temperature proceeds from piecewise melting of fusible domains, to essential singularity, to giant ($`1/\theta ^{}>100`$) order phase transition. The latter may be observed when the AT or GC concentration is between $`0.03`$ and $`0.03(\mathrm{ln}N)^{3/4}`$, where $`N`$ is the total number of nucleotide pairs. In the vicinity of complete melting the Gibbs distribution is invalid, and thermodynamics must be calculated from the first principles.

###### Acknowledgements.

Financial support from A. von Humboldt award and the J. and R. Meyerhoff chair is appreciated.


text:
# Gauge Theories on the Light-Front

## I Introduction

One of the challenges of relativistic quantum field theory is to compute the wavefunctions of bound states such as the amplitudes which determine the quark and gluon substructure of hadrons in quantum chromodynamics. In light-front quantization Dirac:cp , one fixes the initial boundary conditions of a composite system as its constituents are intercepted by a single light-wave evaluated on the hyperplane $`x^+=t+z/c`$. The light-front quantization of QCD provides a frame-independent, quantum-mechanical representation of a hadron at the amplitude level, capable of encoding its multi-quark, hidden-color and gluon momentum, helicity, and flavor correlations in the form of universal process-independent and frame-independent hadron wavefunctions Brodsky:1997de . Remarkably, quantum fluctuations of the vacuum are absent if one uses light-front time to quantize the system, so that matrix elements such as the electromagnetic form factors only depend on the currents of the constituents described by the light-cone wavefunctions. The degrees of freedom associated with vacuum phenomena such as spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Higgs model have their counterpart in light-front $`k^+=0`$ zero modes of the fields.

In Dirac’s “Front Form” Dirac:cp , the generator of light-front time translations is $`P^{}=i\frac{}{\tau }.`$ Boundary conditions are set on the transverse plane labelled by $`x_{}`$ and $`x^{}=zct`$. Given the Lagrangian of a quantum field theory, $`P^{}`$ can be constructed as an operator on the Fock basis, the eigenstates of the free theory. Since each particle in the Fock basis is on its mass shell, $`k^{}k^0k^3=\frac{k_{}^2+m^2}{k^+},`$ and its energy $`k^0=\frac{1}{2}(k^++k^{})`$ is positive, only particles with positive momenta $`k^+k^0+k^30`$ can occur in the Fock basis. Since the total plus momentum $`P^+=_nk_n^+`$ is conserved, the light-cone vacuum cannot have any particle content.

The Heisenberg equation on the light-front is

$$H_{LC}|\mathrm{\Psi }=M^2|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(1)
The operator $`H_{LC}=P^+P^{}P_{}^2,`$ the “light-cone Hamiltonian”, is frame-independent. This can in principle be solved by diagonalizing the matrix $`n|H_{LC}|m`$ on the free Fock basis: Brodsky:1997de

$$\underset{m}{}n|H_{LC}|mm|\psi =M^2n|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(2)
The eigenvalues $`\{M^2\}`$ of $`H_{LC}=H_{LC}^0+V_{LC}`$ give the squared invariant masses of the bound and continuum spectrum of the theory. The light-front Fock space is the eigenstates of the free light-front Hamiltonian; i.e., it is a Hilbert space of non-interacting quarks and gluons, each of which satisfy $`k^2=m^2`$ and $`k^{}=\frac{m^2+k_{}^2}{k^+}0.`$ The projections $`\{n|\mathrm{\Psi }\}`$ of the eigensolution on the $`n`$-particle Fock states provide the light-front wavefunctions. Thus solving a quantum field theory is equivalent to solving a coupled many-body quantum mechanical problem:

$$\left[M^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{m^2+k_{}^2}{x_i}\right]\psi _n=\underset{n^{}}{}n|V_{LC}|n^{}\psi _n^{}$$
(3)
where the convolution and sum is understood over the Fock number, transverse momenta, plus momenta, and helicity of the intermediate states. Light-front wavefunctions are also related to momentum-space Bethe-Salpeter wavefunctions by integrating over the relative momenta $`k^{}=k^0k^z`$ since this projects out the dynamics at $`x^+=0.`$

The light-front quantization of gauge theory can be most conveniently carried out in the light-cone gauge $`A^+=A^0+A^z=0`$. In this gauge the $`A^{}`$ field becomes a dependent degree of freedom, and it can be eliminated from the Hamiltonian in favor of a set of specific instantaneous light-front time interactions. In fact in $`QCD(1+1)`$ theory, this instantaneous interaction provides the confining linear $`x^{}`$ interaction between quarks. In $`3+1`$ dimensions, the transverse field $`A^{}`$ propagates massless spin-one gluon quanta with polarization vectors Lepage:1980fj  which satisfy both the gauge condition $`ϵ_\lambda ^+=0`$ and the Lorentz condition $`kϵ=0`$.

LF quantization is especially useful for quantum chromodynamics, since it provides a rigorous extension of many-body quantum mechanics to relativistic bound states: the quark, and gluon momenta and spin correlations of a hadron become encoded in the form of universal process-independent, Lorentz-invariant wavefunctions bro . For example, the eigensolution of a meson in QCD, projected on the eigenstates $`\{|n\}`$ of the free Hamiltonian $`H_{LC}^{QCD}(g=0)`$ at fixed $`\tau =tz/c`$ with the same global quantum numbers, has the expansion:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_M;P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{},\lambda =`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n2,\lambda _i}{}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^n\frac{d^2k_idx_i}{\sqrt{x_i}16\pi ^3}}`$
$`\times 16\pi ^3\delta \left(1{\displaystyle \underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}}x_j\right)\delta ^{(2)}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{n}{}}}\stackrel{}{k}_{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ (4)
$`\times |n;x_iP^+,x_i\stackrel{}{P}_{}+\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i\psi _{n/M}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i).`$
The set of light-front Fock state wavefunctions $`\{\psi _{n/M}\}`$ represent the ensemble of quark and gluon states possible when the meson is intercepted at the light-front. The light-front momentum fractions $`x_i=k_i^+/P_\pi ^+=(k^0+k_i^z)/(P^0+P^z)`$ with $`_{i=1}^nx_i=1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ with $`_{i=1}^n\stackrel{}{k}_i=\stackrel{}{0}_{}`$ represent the relative momentum coordinates of the QCD constituents and are independent of the total momentum of the state.

Remarkably, the scalar light-front wavefunctions $`\psi _{n/p}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i)`$ are independent of the proton’s momentum $`P^+=P^0+P^z`$, and $`P_{}`$. (The light-cone spinors and polarization vectors multiplying $`\psi _{n/p}`$ are functions of the absolute coordinates.) Thus once one has solved for the light-front wavefunctions, one can compute hadron matrix elements of currents between hadronic states of arbitrary momentum. The actual physical transverse momenta are $`\stackrel{}{p}_i=x_i\stackrel{}{P}_{}+\stackrel{}{k}_i.`$ The $`\lambda _i`$ label the light-front spin $`S^z`$ projections of the quarks and gluons along the quantization $`z`$ direction. The spinors of the light-front formalism automatically incorporate the Melosh-Wigner rotation. The physical gluon polarization vectors $`ϵ^\mu (k,\lambda =\pm 1)`$ are specified in light-cone gauge by the conditions $`kϵ=0,\eta ϵ=ϵ^+=0.`$ The parton degrees of freedom are thus all physical; there are no ghost or negative metric states.

## II Properties of Light-Front Wavefunctions

An important feature of the light-front formalism is that the projection $`J_z`$ of the total is kinematical and conserved. Each light-front Fock state component thus satisfies the angular momentum sum rule: $`J^z=_{i=1}^nS_i^z+_{j=1}^{n1}l_j^z.`$ The summation over $`S_i^z`$ represents the contribution of the intrinsic spins of the $`n`$ Fock state constituents. The summation over orbital angular momenta

$$l_j^z=\mathrm{i}\left(k_j^1\frac{}{k_j^2}k_j^2\frac{}{k_j^1}\right)$$
(5)
derives from the $`n1`$ relative momenta. This excludes the contribution to the orbital angular momentum due to the motion of the center of mass, which is not an intrinsic property of the hadron. The numerator structure of the light-front wavefunctions is in large part determined by the angular momentum constraints. Thus wavefunctions generated by perturbation theory provide a template for the numerator structure of nonperturbative light-front wavefunctions.

Dae Sung Hwang, Bo-Qiang Ma, Ivan Schmidt, and I Brodsky:2001ii  have shown that the light-front wavefunctions generated by the radiative corrections to the electron in QED provide a simple system for understanding the spin and angular momentum decomposition of relativistic systems. This perturbative model also illustrates the interconnections between Fock states of different particle number. The model is patterned after the quantum structure which occurs in the one-loop Schwinger $`\alpha /2\pi `$ correction to the electron magnetic moment Brodsky:1980zm . In effect, we can represent a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ system as a composite of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ fermion and spin-one vector boson. A similar model has been used to illustrate the matrix elements and evolution of light-front helicity and orbital angular momentum operators Harindranath:1999ve . This representation of a composite system is particularly useful because it is based on two constituents but yet is totally relativistic. We can then explicitly compute the form factors $`F_1(q^2)`$ and $`F_2(q^2)`$ of the electromagnetic current and the various contributions to the form factors $`A(q^2)`$ and $`B(q^2)`$ of the energy-momentum tensor.

Recently Ji, Ma, and Yuan Ji:2003fw  have derived perturbative QCD counting rules for light-front wavefunctions with general values of orbital angular momentum which constrain their form at large transverse momentum.

## III Applications of Light-Front Wavefunctions

Matrix elements of spacelike currents such as spacelike electromagnetic form factors have an exact representation in terms of simple overlaps of the light-front wavefunctions in momentum space with the same $`x_i`$ and unchanged parton number $`n`$ Drell:1970km ; West:1970av ; Brodsky:1980zm . The Pauli form factor and anomalous moment are spin-flip matrix elements of $`j^+`$ and thus connect states with $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_z=1.`$ Thus, these quantities are nonzero only if there is nonzero orbital angular momentum of the quarks in the proton. The Dirac form factor is diagonal in $`L_z`$ and is typically dominated at high $`Q^2`$ by highest states with the highest orbital angular momentum.

The formulas for electroweak current matrix elements of $`j^+`$ can be easily extended to the $`T^{++}`$ coupling of gravitons. In, fact, one can show that the anomalous gravito-magnetic moment $`B(0)`$, analogous to $`F_2(0)`$ in electromagnetic current interactions, vanishes identically for any system, composite or elementary Brodsky:2001ii . This important feature, which follows in general from the equivalence principle Okun ; Ji:1996kb ; Ji:1997ek ; Ji:1997nm ; Teryaev:1999su , is obeyed explicitly in the light-front formalism Brodsky:2001ii .

The light-front Fock representation is specially advantageous in the study of exclusive $`B`$ decays. For example, we can write down an exact frame-independent representation of decay matrix elements such as $`BD\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ from the overlap of $`n^{}=n`$ parton conserving wavefunctions and the overlap of $`n^{}=n2`$ from the annihilation of a quark-antiquark pair in the initial wavefunction Brodsky:1999hn . The off-diagonal $`n+1n1`$ contributions give a new perspective for the physics of $`B`$-decays. A semileptonic decay involves not only matrix elements where a quark changes flavor, but also a contribution where the leptonic pair is created from the annihilation of a $`q\overline{q^{}}`$ pair within the Fock states of the initial $`B`$ wavefunction. The semileptonic decay thus can occur from the annihilation of a nonvalence quark-antiquark pair in the initial hadron.

The “handbag” contribution to the leading-twist off-forward parton distributions measured in deeply virtual Compton scattering has a similar light-front wavefunction representation as overlap integrals of light-front wavefunctions Brodsky:2000xy ; Diehl:2000xz .

The distribution amplitudes $`\varphi (x_i,Q)`$ which appear in factorization formulae for hard exclusive processes are the valence LF Fock wavefunctions integrated over the relative transverse momenta up to the resolution scale $`Q`$ Lepage:1980fj . These quantities specify how a hadron shares its longitudinal momentum among its valence quarks; they control virtually all exclusive processes involving a hard scale $`Q`$, including form factors, Compton scattering and photoproduction at large momentum transfer, as well as the decay of a heavy hadron into specific final states Beneke:1999br ; Keum:2000ph .

The quark and gluon probability distributions $`q_i(x,Q)`$ and $`g(x,Q)`$ of a hadron can be computed from the absolute squares of the light-front wavefunctions, integrated over the transverse momentum. All helicity distributions are thus encoded in terms of the light-front wavefunctions. The DGLAP evolution of the structure functions can be derived from the high $`k_{}`$ properties of the light-front wavefunctions. Thus given the light-front wavefunctions, one can compute Lepage:1980fj  all of the leading twist helicity and transversity distributions measured in polarized deep inelastic lepton scattering. Similarly, the transversity distributions and off-diagonal helicity convolutions are defined as a density matrix of the light-front wavefunctions.

However, it is not true that the leading-twist structure functions $`F_i(x,Q^2)`$ measured in deep inelastic lepton scattering are identical to the quark and gluon distributions. For example, it is usually assumed, following the parton model, that the $`F_2`$ structure function measured in neutral current deep inelastic lepton scattering is at leading order in $`1/Q^2`$ simply $`F_2(x,Q^2)=_qe_q^2xq(x,Q^2)`$, where $`x=x_{bj}=Q^2/2pq`$ and $`q(x,Q)`$ can be computed from the absolute square of the proton’s light-front wavefunction. Recent work by Hoyer, Marchal, Peigne, Sannino, and myself shows that this standard identification is wrong Brodsky:2002ue . Gluon exchange between the fast, outgoing partons and the target spectators, which is usually assumed to be an irrelevant gauge artifact, actually affects the leading-twist structure functions in a profound way. The diffractive scattering of the fast outgoing quarks on spectators in the target in turn causes shadowing in the DIS cross section. Thus the depletion of the nuclear structure functions is not intrinsic to the wave function of the nucleus, but is a coherent effect arising from the destructive interference of diffractive channels induced by final-state interactions. Thus the shadowing corrections related to the Gribov-Glauber mechanism, the interference effects of leading twist diffractive processes in nuclei are separate effects in deep inelastic scattering, are not computable from the bound state wavefunctions of the target nucleon or nucleus. Similarly, the effective pomeron distribution of a hadron is not derived from its light-front wavefunction and thus is not a universal property.

Measurements from the HERMES and SMC collaborations show a remarkably large single-spin asymmetry in semi-inclusive pion leptoproduction $`\gamma ^{}(q)p\pi X`$ when the proton is polarized normal to the photon-to-pion production plane. Recently, Hwang, Schmidt, and I Brodsky:2002cx  have shown that final-state interactions from gluon exchange between the outgoing quark and the target spectator system lead to single-spin asymmetries in deep inelastic lepton-proton scattering at leading twist in perturbative QCD; i.e., the rescattering corrections are not power-law suppressed at large photon virtuality $`Q^2`$ at fixed $`x_{bj}`$. The existence of such single-spin asymmetries requires a phase difference between two amplitudes coupling the proton target with $`J_p^z=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ to the same final-state, the same amplitudes which are necessary to produce a nonzero proton anomalous magnetic moment. The single-spin asymmetry which arises from such final-state interactions does not factorize into a product of distribution function and fragmentation function, and it is not related to the transversity distribution $`\delta q(x,Q)`$ which correlates transversely polarized quarks with the spin of the transversely polarized target nucleon. These effects highlight the unexpected importance of final- and initial-state interactions in QCD observables—they lead to leading-twist single-spin asymmetries, diffraction, and nuclear shadowing, phenomena not included in the wavefunction of the target.

## IV Measurements of Light-Front Wavefunctions

It is possible to measure the light-front wavefunctions of a relativistic hadron by diffractively dissociating it into jets in high-energy hadron-nucleus collisions such as $`\pi A\mathrm{jetjetA}^{}.`$ Only the configurations of the incident hadron which have small transverse size and minimal color dipole moments can traverse the nucleus with minimal interactions and leave it intact. The forward diffractive amplitude is thus coherent over the entire nuclear volume and proportional to nuclear number $`A`$. The fractional momentum distribution of the jets is correlated with the valence quarks’ light-cone momentum fractions $`x_i.`$ Ashery:1999nq ; Bertsch:1981py ; Frankfurt:1993it ; Frankfurt:2000tq . The QCD mechanisms for hard diffractive dissociation can be more complicated in the case of proton targets. A review and references is given in Ref. Brodsky:2002st .

The fact that Fock states of a hadron with small particle number and small impact separation have small color dipole moments and weak hadronic interactions is a remarkable manifestation of the gauge structure of QCD. It is the basis for the predictions for “color transparency” in hard quasi-exclusive Brodsky:1988xz ; Frankfurt:1988nt  and diffractive reactions Bertsch:1981py ; Frankfurt:1993it ; Frankfurt:2000tq . The E791 experiment at FermiLab has verified the nuclear number scaling predictions and have thus provided a remarkable confirmation of this consequence of QCD color transparency Ashery:1999nq . The new EVA spectrometer experiment E850 at Brookhaven has also reported striking effects of color transparency in quasi-elastic proton-proton scattering in nuclei Leksanov:2001ui .

The CLEO collaboration Gronberg:1997fj  has verified the scaling and angular predictions for the photon-meson to meson form factor $`F_{\gamma \pi ^0}(q^2)`$ which is measured in $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^0`$ reactions. The results are in close agreement with the scaling and normalization of the PQCD predictions Brodsky:1981rp , provided that the pion distribution amplitude $`\varphi _\pi (x,Q)`$ is close to the $`x(1x)`$ form, the asymptotic solution to the evolution equation. The pion light-front momentum distribution measured in diffractive dijet production in pion-nucleus collisions by the E791 experiment Ashery:1999nq  has a similar form Ashery:2003cd . Data Aihara:qk  for $`\gamma \gamma \pi ^+\pi ^++K^+K^{}`$ at $`W=\sqrt{s}>2.5`$ GeV are also in agreement with the perturbative QCD predictions. Moreover, the angular distribution shows the expected transition to the predicted QCD form as $`W`$ is raised. A compilation of the two-photon data has been given by Whalley Whalley:2001mk . Measurements of the reaction $`\gamma \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ are highly sensitive to the shape of the pion distribution amplitude. The perturbative QCD predictions Brodsky:1981rp  for this channel contrast strongly with model predictions based on the QCD Compton handbag diagram Diehl:2001fv .

## V Higher Particle-Number Fock States

The light-front Fock state expansion of a hadron contains fluctuations with an arbitrary number of quark and gluon partons. The higher Fock states of the light hadrons describe the sea quark structure of the deep inelastic structure functions, including “intrinsic” strangeness and charm fluctuations specific to the hadron’s structure rather than gluon substructure Brodsky:1980pb ; Brodsky:1981se . The maximal contribution of an intrinsic heavy quark occurs at $`x_Qm_Q/_im_{}`$ where $`m_{}=\sqrt{m^2+k_{}^2}`$; i.e. at large $`x_Q`$, since this minimizes the invariant mass $`_n^2`$. The measurements of the charm structure function by the EMC experiment are consistent with intrinsic charm at large $`x`$ in the nucleon with a probability of order $`0.6\pm 0.3\%`$ Harris:1996jx  which is consistent with the recent estimates based on instanton fluctuations Franz:2000ee . Franz, Polyakov, and Goeke have analyzed the properties of the intrinsic heavy-quark fluctuations in hadrons using the operator-product expansion Franz:2000ee . For example, the light-cone momentum fraction carried by intrinsic heavy quarks in the proton $`x_{Q\overline{Q}}`$ as measured by the $`T^{++}`$ component of the energy-momentum tensor is related in the heavy-quark limit to the forward matrix element $`p|\text{tr}_c(G^{+\alpha }G^{+\beta }G_{\alpha \beta })/m_Q^2|p,`$ where $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ is the gauge field strength tensor. Diagrammatically, this can be described as a heavy quark loop in the proton self-energy with four gluons attached to the light, valence quarks. Since the non-Abelian commutator $`[A_\alpha ,A_\beta ]`$ is involved, the heavy quark pairs in the proton wavefunction are necessarily in a color-octet state. It follows from dimensional analysis that the momentum fraction carried by the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair scales as $`k_{}^2/m_Q^2`$ where $`k_{}`$ is the typical momentum in the hadron wave function. In contrast, in the case of Abelian theories, the contribution of an intrinsic, heavy lepton pair to the bound state’s structure first appears in $`O(1/m_L^4)`$.

The presence of intrinsic charm quarks in the $`B`$ wave function provides new mechanisms for $`B`$ decays. For example, Chang and Hou have considered the production of final states with three charmed quarks such as $`BJ/\psi D\pi `$ and $`BJ/\psi D^{}`$ Chang:2001iy ; these final states are difficult to realize in the valence model, yet they occur naturally when the $`b`$ quark of the intrinsic charm Fock state $`|b\overline{u}c\overline{c}`$ decays via $`bc\overline{u}d`$. Susan Gardner and I have shown that the presence of intrinsic charm in the hadrons’ light-front wave functions, even at a few percent level, provides new, competitive decay mechanisms for $`B`$ decays which are nominally CKM-suppressed Brodsky:2001yt . Similarly, Karliner and I Brodsky:1997fj  have shown that the transition $`J/\psi \rho \pi `$ can occur by the rearrangement of the $`c\overline{c}`$ from the $`J/\psi `$ into the $`|q\overline{q}c\overline{c}`$ intrinsic charm Fock state of the $`\rho `$ or $`\pi `$. On the other hand, the overlap rearrangement integral in the decay $`\psi ^{}\rho \pi `$ will be suppressed since the intrinsic charm Fock state radial wavefunction of the light hadrons will evidently not have nodes in its radial wavefunction. This observation provides a natural explanation of the long-standing puzzle Brodsky:1987bb  why the $`J/\psi `$ decays prominently to two-body pseudoscalar-vector final states, breaking hadron helicity conservation Brodsky:1981kj , whereas the $`\psi ^{}`$ does not.

## VI Light-Front Quantization of QCD

Quantum field theories are usually quantized at fixed “instant” time $`t`$. The resulting Hamiltonian theory is complicated by the dynamical nature of the vacuum state and the fact that relativistic boosts are not kinematical but involve interactions. The calculation of even the simplest current matrix elements requires the computation of amplitudes where the current interacts with particles resulting from the fluctuations of the vacuum. All of these problems are dramatically alleviated when one quantizes quantum field theories at fixed light-cone time $`\tau .`$ A review of the development of light-front quantization of QCD and other quantum field theories is given in Ref. Brodsky:1997de .

Prem Srivastava and I Srivastava:2000cf  have presented a new systematic study of light-front-quantized gauge theory in light-cone gauge using a Dyson-Wick S-matrix expansion based on light-front-time-ordered products. The Dirac bracket method is used to identify the independent field degrees of freedom Ditman . In our analysis one imposes the light-cone gauge condition as a linear constraint using a Lagrange multiplier, rather than a quadratic form. We then find that the LF-quantized free gauge theory simultaneously satisfies the covariant gauge condition $`A=0`$ as an operator condition as well as the LC gauge condition. The gluon propagator has the form

$$0|T(A_{}^{a}{}_{\mu }{}^{}(x)A_{}^{b}{}_{\nu }{}^{}(0))|0=\frac{i\delta ^{ab}}{(2\pi )^4}d^4ke^{ikx}\frac{D_{\mu \nu }(k)}{k^2+iϵ}$$
(6)
where we have defined

$$D_{\mu \nu }(k)=D_{\nu \mu }(k)=g_{\mu \nu }+\frac{n_\mu k_\nu +n_\nu k_\mu }{(nk)}\frac{k^2}{(nk)^2}n_\mu n_\nu .$$
(7)
Here $`n_\mu `$ is a null four-vector, gauge direction, whose components are chosen to be $`n_\mu =\delta _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{+}`$, $`n^\mu =\delta _{}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{}`$. Note also

$`D_{\mu \lambda }(k)D_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\nu }{}^{}(k)=D_\mu (k)D_{}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`D_{\mu \nu }(k),`$ (8)
$`k^\mu D_{\mu \nu }(k)=0,n^\mu D_{\mu \nu }(k)`$ $``$ $`D_\nu (k)=0,`$
$`D_{\lambda \mu }(q)D^{\mu \nu }(k)D_{\nu \rho }(q^{})`$ $`=`$ $`D_{\lambda \mu }(q)D^{\mu \rho }(q^{}).`$
The gauge field propagator $`iD_{\mu \nu }(k)/(k^2+iϵ)`$ is transverse not only to the gauge direction $`n_\mu `$ but also to $`k_\mu `$, i.e., it is doubly-transverse. Thus $`D`$ represents the polarization sum over physical propagating modes. The last term proportional to $`n_\mu n_\nu `$ in the gauge propagator does not appear in the usual formulations of light-cone gauge. However, in tree graph calculations it cancels against instantaneous gluon exchange contributions.

The remarkable properties of (the projector) $`D_{\nu \mu }`$ greatly simplifies the computations of loop amplitudes. For example, the coupling of gluons to propagators carrying high momenta is automatic. In the case of tree graphs, the term proportional to $`n_\mu n_\nu `$ cancels against the instantaneous gluon exchange term. However, in the case of loop diagrams, the separation needs to be maintained so that one can identify the correct one-particle-irreducible contributions. The absence of collinear divergences in irreducible diagrams in the light-cone gauge greatly simplifies the leading-twist factorization of soft and hard gluonic corrections in high momentum transfer inclusive and exclusive reactions Lepage:1980fj  since the numerators associated with the gluon coupling only have transverse components.

The interaction Hamiltonian of QCD in light-cone gauge can be derived by systematically applying the Dirac bracket method to identify the independent fields Srivastava:2000cf . It contains the usual Dirac interactions between the quarks and gluons, the three-point and four-point gluon non-Abelian interactions plus instantaneous light-front-time gluon exchange and quark exchange contributions

$`_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`g\overline{\psi }^i\gamma ^\mu A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{ij}\psi ^j`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}(_\mu A_{}^{a}{}_{\nu }{}^{}_\nu A_{}^{a}{}_{\mu }{}^{})A^{b\mu }A^{c\nu }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}f^{abc}f^{ade}A_{b\mu }A^{d\mu }A_{c\nu }A^{e\nu }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}\overline{\psi }^i\gamma ^+(\gamma ^{^{}}A_{^{}})^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i_{}}}(\gamma ^{}A_{})^{jk}\psi ^k`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}j_{}^{+}{}_{a}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(_{})^2}}j_{}^{+}{}_{a}{}^{}`$
where

$$j_{}^{+}{}_{a}{}^{}=\overline{\psi }^i\gamma ^+(t_a)^{ij}\psi ^j+f_{abc}(_{}A_{b\mu })A^{c\mu }.$$
(10)
The renormalization constants in the non-Abelian theory have been shown Srivastava:2000cf  to satisfy the identity $`Z_1=Z_3`$ at one-loop order, as expected in a theory with only physical gauge degrees of freedom. The renormalization factors in the light-cone gauge are independent of the reference direction $`n^\mu `$. The QCD $`\beta `$ function computed in the noncovariant LC gauge agrees with the conventional theory result gross ; polit . Dimensional regularization and the Mandelstam-Leibbrandt prescription Mandelstam:1982cb ; Leibbrandt:1987qv ; Bassetto:1984dq  for LC gauge were used to define the Feynman loop integrations Bassetto:1996ph . There are no Faddeev-Popov or Gupta-Bleuler ghost terms.

The running coupling constant and QCD $`\beta `$ function have also been computed at one loop in the doubly-transverse light-cone gauge Srivastava:2000cf . It is also possible to effectively quantize QCD using light-front methods in covariant Feynman gauge Srivastava:2000gi .

It is well-known that the light-cone gauge itself is not completely defined until one specifies a prescription for the poles of the gauge propagator at $`nk=0.`$ The Mandelstam-Liebbrandt prescription has the advantage of preserving causality and analyticity, as well as leading to proofs of the renormalizability and unitarity of Yang-Mills theories Bassetto:1991ue . The ghosts which appear in association with the Mandelstam-Liebbrandt prescription from the single poles have vanishing residue in absorptive parts, and thus do not disturb the unitarity of the theory.

A remarkable advantage of light-front quantization is that the vacuum state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ of the full QCD Hamiltonian evidently coincides with the free vacuum. The light-front vacuum is effectively trivial if the interaction Hamiltonian applied to the perturbative vacuum is zero. Note that all particles in the Hilbert space have positive energy $`k^0=\frac{1}{2}(k^++k^{})`$, and thus positive light-front $`k^\pm `$. Since the plus momenta $`k_i^+`$ is conserved by the interactions, the perturbative vacuum can only couple to states with particles in which all $`k_i^+`$ = 0; i.e., so called zero-mode states. Bassetto and collaborators Bassetto:1999tm  have shown that the computation of the spectrum of $`QCD(1+1)`$ in equal time quantization requires constructing the full spectrum of non perturbative contributions (instantons). In contrast, in the light-front quantization of gauge theory, where the $`k^+=0`$ singularity of the instantaneous interaction is defined by a simple infrared regularization, one obtains the correct spectrum of $`QCD(1+1)`$ without any need for vacuum-related contributions.

Zero modes of auxiliary fields are necessary to distinguish the theta-vacua of massless QED(1+1) Yamawaki:1998cy ; McCartor:2000yy ; Srivastava:1999et , or to represent a theory in the presence of static external boundary conditions or other constraints. Zero-modes provide the light-front representation of spontaneous symmetry breaking in scalar theories Pinsky:1994yi .

## VII Light-Front Quantization of the Standard Model

Prem Srivastava and I have also shown how light-front quantization can be applied to the Glashow, Weinberg and Salam (GWS) model of electroweak interactions based on the nonabelian gauge group $`SU(2)_W\times U(1)_Y`$ gws . This theory contains a nonabelian Higgs sector which triggers spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB). A convenient way of implementing SSB and the (tree level) Higgs mechanism in the front form theory was developed earlier by Srivastava pre4 ; pre5 ; pre6 . One separates the quantum fluctuation fields from the corresponding dynamical bosonic condensate  (or zero-longitudinal-momentum-mode) variables, before applying the Dirac procedure in order to construct the Hamiltonian formulation. The canonical quantization of LC gauge GWS electroweak theory in the front form can be derived by using the Dirac procedure to construct a self-consistent LF Hamiltonian theory. This leads to an attractive new formulation of the Standard Model of the strong and electroweak interactions which does not break the physical vacuum and has well-controlled ultraviolet behavior. The only ghosts which appear in the formalism are the $`nk=0`$ modes of the gauge field associated with regulating the light-cone gauge prescription. The massive gauge field propagator has good asymptotic behavior in accordance with a renormalizable theory, and the massive would-be Goldstone fields can be taken as physical degrees of freedom.

For example, consider the Abelian Higgs model. The interaction Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+|D_\mu \varphi |^2V(\varphi ^{}\varphi )$$
(11)
where

$$D_\mu =_\mu +ieA_\mu ,$$
(12)
and

$$V(\varphi )=\mu ^2\varphi ^{}\varphi +\lambda (\varphi ^{}\varphi )^2,$$
(13)
with $`\mu ^2<0,\lambda >0.`$ The complex scalar field $`\varphi `$ is decomposed as

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}v+\phi (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[v+h(x)+i\eta (x)]$$
(14)
where $`v`$ is the $`k^+=0`$ zero mode determined by the minimum of the potential: $`v^2=\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda }`$, $`h(x)`$ is the dynamical Higgs field, and $`\eta (x)`$ is the Nambu-Goldstone field. The quantization procedure determines $`A=MR`$, the ’t Hooft condition. One can now eliminate the zero mode component of the Higgs field $`v`$ which gives masses for the fundamental quantized fields. The $`A_{}`$ field then has mass $`M=ev`$ and the Higgs field acquires mass $`m_h^2=2\lambda v^2=2\mu ^2.`$

A new aspect of LF quantization, is that the third polarization of the quantized massive vector field $`A^\mu `$ with four momentum $`k^\mu `$ has the form $`E_\mu ^{(3)}=n_\mu M/nk`$. Since $`n^2=0`$, this non-transverse polarization vector has zero norm. However, when one includes the constrained interactions of the Goldstone particle, the effective longitudinal polarization vector of a produced vector particle is $`E_{\mathrm{eff}\mu }^{(3)}=E_\mu ^{(3)}k_\mu kE^{(3)}/k^2`$ which is identical to the usual polarization vector of a massive vector with norm $`E_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(3)}E_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(3)}=1`$. Thus, unlike the conventional quantization of the Standard Model, the Goldstone particle only provides part of the physical longitudinal mode of the electroweak particles.

In the LC gauge LF framework, the free massive gauge fields in the electroweak theory satisfy simultaneously the ’t Hooft conditions as an operator equation. The sum over the three physical polarizations is given by $`K_{\mu \nu }`$

$`K_{\mu \nu }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha )}{}}E_\mu ^{(\alpha )}E_\nu ^{(\alpha )}=D_{\mu \nu }(k)+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{(k^+)^2}}n_\mu n_\nu `$
$`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{n_\mu k_\nu +n_\nu k_\mu }{(nk)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k^2M^2)}{(nk)^2}}n_\mu n_\nu `$
which satisfies: $`k^\mu K_{\mu \nu }(k)=(M^2/k^+)n_\nu `$ and $`k^\mu k^\nu K_{\mu \nu }(k)=M^2`$. The free propagator of the massive gauge field $`A_\mu `$ is

$`0|T\left(A_\mu (x)A_\nu (y)\right)|0=`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4k\frac{K_{\mu \nu }(k)}{(k^2M^2+iϵ)}e^{ik(xy)}}.`$
It does not have the bad high energy behavior found in the (Proca) propagator in the unitary gauge formulation, where the would-be Nambu-Goldstone boson is gauged away.

In the limit of vanishing mass of the vector boson, the gauge field propagator goes over to the doubly transverse gauge, ($`n^\mu D_{\mu \nu }(k)=k^\mu D_{\mu \nu }(k)=0`$), the propagator found Srivastava:2000cf  in QCD. The numerator of the gauge propagator $`K_{\mu \nu }(k)`$ also has important simplifying properties, similar to the ones associated with the projector $`D_{\mu \nu }(k)`$. The transverse polarization vectors for massive or massless vector boson may be taken to be $`E_{()}^\mu (k)D_{}^\mu (k),`$ whereas the non-transverse third one in the massive case is found to be parallel to the LC gauge direction $`E_\mu ^{(3)}(k)=(M/k^+)n_\mu `$. Its projection along the direction transverse to $`k_\mu `$ shares the spacelike vector property carried by $`E_{()}^\mu (k)`$. The Goldstone boson or electroweak equivalence theorem becomes transparent in the LF formulation.

The interaction Hamiltonian for the Abelian Higgs model in LC gauge $`A^+=0`$, is found to be

$``$ $`_{int}=_{int}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`eMA_\mu A^\mu h{\displaystyle \frac{em_h^2}{2M}}(\eta ^2+h^2)h`$
$`+`$ $`e(h_\mu \eta \eta _\mu h)A^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}(h^2+\eta ^2)A_\mu A^\mu `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\eta ^2+h^2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{}}}j^+\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{}}}j^+\right)`$
where $`j_\mu =(h_\mu \eta \eta _\mu h)`$. The last term here is the additional quartic instantaneous interaction in the LF theory quantized in the LC gauge No new instantaneous cubic interaction terms are introduced. The massive gauge field, when the mass is generated by the Higgs mechanism, is described in our LC gauge framework by the independent fields $`A_{}`$ and $`\eta `$; the component $`A^{}`$ is a dependent field.

The interaction Hamiltonian of the Standard Model can be written in a compact form by retaining the dependent components $`A^{}`$ and $`\psi _{}`$ in the formulation. Its form closely resembles the interaction Hamiltonian of covariant theory, except for the presence of additional instantaneous four-point interactions. The resulting Dyson-Wick perturbation theory expansion based on equal-LF-time ordering has also been constructed, allowing one to perform higher-order computations in a straightforward fashion.

The singularities in the noncovariant pieces of the field propagators may be defined using the causal ML prescription for $`1/k^+`$ when we employ dimensional regularization, as was shown in our earlier work on QCD. The power-counting rules in LC gauge then become similar to those found in covariant gauge theory.

Spontaneous symmetry breaking is thus implemented in a novel way when one quantizes the Standard Model at fixed light-front time $`\tau =x^+.`$ In the general case, the Higgs field $`\varphi _i(x)`$ can be separated into two components:

$$\varphi _i(\tau ,x^{},\stackrel{}{x}_{})=\omega _i(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x}_{})+\phi (\tau ,x^{},\stackrel{}{x}_{}),$$
(18)
where $`\omega _i`$ is a classical $`k^+=0`$ zero-mode field and $`\phi `$ is the dynamical quantized field. Here $`i`$ is the weak-isospin index. The zero-mode component is determined by solving the Euler-Lagrange tree-level condition:

$$V_i^{}(\omega )_{}_{}\omega _i=0.$$
(19)
A nonzero value for $`\omega _i`$ corresponds to spontaneous symmetry breaking. The nonzero $`\omega _i`$ couples to the gauge boson and Fermi fields through the Yukawa interactions of the Standard Model. It can then be eliminated from the theory in favor of mass terms for the fundamental matter fields in the effective theory. The resulting masses are identical to those of the usual Higgs implementation of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Standard Model.

The generators of isospin rotations are defined from the dynamical Higgs fields:

$$G_a=i𝑑x^{}𝑑x^{}(_{}\phi )_i(t_a)_{ij}\phi _j.$$
(20)
Note that the weak-isospin charges and the currents corresponding to $`G_a`$ are not conserved if the zero mode $`\omega _i`$ is nonzero since the cross terms in $`\phi ,`$ and $`\omega `$ are missing. Thus $`[H_{LF},G_a]0.`$ Nevertheless, the charges annihilate the vacuum: $`G_a|0>_{LF}=0,`$ since the dynamical fields $`\phi _i`$ have no support on the LF vacuum, and all quanta have positive $`k^+.`$ Thus the LF vacuum remains equal to the perturbative vacuum; it is unaffected by the occurrence of spontaneous symmetry breaking.

In effect one can interpret the $`k^+=0`$ zero mode field $`\omega _i`$ as an $`x^{}`$-independent external field, analogous to an applied constant electric or magnetic field in atomic physics. In this interpretation, the zero mode is a remnant of a Higgs field which persists from early cosmology; the LF vacuum however remains unchanged and unbroken.

## VIII Discretized Light-Front Quantization

If one imposes periodic boundary conditions in $`x^{}=t+z/c`$, then the plus momenta become discrete: $`k_i^+=\frac{2\pi }{L}n_i,P^+=\frac{2\pi }{L}K`$, where $`_in_i=K`$ Maskawa:1975ky ; Pauli:1985pv . For a given “harmonic resolution” $`K`$, there are only a finite number of ways positive integers $`n_i`$ can sum to a positive integer $`K`$. Thus at a given $`K`$, the dimension of the resulting light-front Fock state representation of the bound state is rendered finite without violating Lorentz invariance. The eigensolutions of a quantum field theory, both the bound states and continuum solutions, can then be found by numerically diagonalizing a frame-independent light-front Hamiltonian $`H_{LC}`$ on a finite and discrete momentum-space Fock basis. Solving a quantum field theory at fixed light-front time $`\tau `$ thus can be formulated as a relativistic extension of Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics. The continuum limit is reached for $`K\mathrm{}.`$ This formulation of the non-perturbative light-front quantization problem is called “discretized light-cone quantization” (DLCQ) Pauli:1985pv . The method preserves the frame-independence of the Front form.

The DLCQ method has been used extensively for solving one-space and one-time theories Brodsky:1997de , including applications to supersymmetric quantum field theories Matsumura:1995kw  and specific tests of the Maldacena conjecture Hiller:2001mh . There has been progress in systematically developing the computation and renormalization methods needed to make DLCQ viable for QCD in physical spacetime. For example, John Hiller, Gary McCartor, and I Brodsky:2001ja ; Brodsky:2001tp ; Brodsky:2002tp  have shown how DLCQ can be used to solve 3+1 theories despite the large numbers of degrees of freedom needed to enumerate the Fock basis. A key feature of our work is the introduction of Pauli Villars fields to regulate the UV divergences and perform renormalization while preserving the frame-independence of the theory. A recent application of DLCQ to a 3+1 quantum field theory with Yukawa interactions is given in Ref. Brodsky:2001ja . One can also define a truncated theory by eliminating the higher Fock states in favor of an effective potential Pauli:2001vi ; Pauli:2001np ; Frederico:2002vs . Spontaneous symmetry breaking and other nonperturbative effects associated with the instant-time vacuum are hidden in dynamical or constrained zero modes on the light-front. An introduction is given in Refs. McCartor:hj ; Yamawaki:1998cy . A review of DLCQ and its applications is given in Ref. Brodsky:1997de .

The pion distribution amplitude has been computed using a combination of the discretized DLCQ method for the $`x^{}`$ and $`x^+`$ light-front coordinates with a spatial lattice Bardeen:1979xx ; Dalley:2001gj ; Dalley:1998bj ; Burkardt:2001mf  in the transverse directions. A finite lattice spacing $`a`$ can be used by choosing the parameters of the effective theory in a region of renormalization group stability to respect the required gauge, Poincaré, chiral, and continuum symmetries.

Dyson-Schwinger models Hecht:2000xa  of hadronic Bethe-Salpeter wavefunctions can also be used to predict light-front wavefunctions and hadron distribution amplitudes by integrating over the relative $`k^{}`$ momentum.

## IX A Light-Front Event Amplitude Generator

The light-front formalism can be used as an “event amplitude generator” for high energy physics reactions where each particle’s final state is completely labelled in momentum, helicity, and phase. The application of the light-front time evolution operator $`P^{}`$ to an initial state systematically generates the tree and virtual loop graphs of the $`T`$-matrix in light-front time-ordered perturbation theory in light-cone gauge. Given the interactions of the light-front interaction Hamiltonian, any amplitude in QCD and the electroweak theory can be computed. For example, this method can be used to automatically compute the tree diagram hard amplitudes $`T_H`$ needed to for computing hard scattering amplitudes such as the deuteron form factor or $`pp`$ elastic scattering.

At higher orders, loop integrals only involve integrations over the momenta of physical quanta and physical phase space $`d^2k_idk_i^+`$. Renormalized amplitudes can be explicitly constructed by subtracting from the divergent loops amplitudes with nearly identical integrands corresponding to the contribution of the relevant mass and coupling counter terms (the “alternating denominator method”) Brodsky:1973kb . The natural renormalization scheme to use for defining the coupling in the event amplitude generator is a physical effective charge such as the pinch scheme Cornwall:1989gv . The argument of the coupling is then unambiguous Brodsky:1994eh . The DLCQ boundary conditions can be used to discretize the phase space and limit the number of contributing intermediate states without violating Lorentz invariance. Since one avoids dimensional regularization and nonphysical ghost degrees of freedom, this method of generating events at the amplitude level could provide a simple but powerful tool for simulating events both in QCD and the Standard Model. Alternatively, one can construct the $`T`$matrix for scattering in QCD using light-front quantization and the event amplitude generator; one can then probe its spectrum by finding zeros of the resolvant.

## Acknowledgments

Work supported by the Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC03-76SF00515. This talk is in large part based on collaborations with the late Professor Prem Srivastava, the outstanding theorist from the Universidade do Estado de Rio de Janeiro and a key innovator of the light-front formalism. I thank Professor Beatriz Gay Ducati and the other organizers of this meeting for their outstanding hospitality in Brazil.


text:
# Fluctuation superconductivity limited noise in a transition-edge sensor

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work has been supported by the Academy of Finland under the Finnish Centre of Excellence Programme 2000-2005 (Project No. 44875, Nuclear and Condensed Matter Programme at JYFL), and by the Finnish ANTARES Space Research Programme under the High energy Astrophysics and Space astronomy (HESA) consortium. The work of HFCH and WBT is financially supported by the Dutch organisation for scientific research (NWO). The authors gratefully acknowledge K. Hansen, N. Kopnin and H. Seppä for their comments.

## Figure legends

1. a) The measured $`I(V)`$ characteristics of the CorTES at different external magnetic fields denoted by the different symbols. The sensor itself is shielded by the Nb ground plane, and the $`I(V)`$ curve is not affected by the field. The Nb bias lines, however, are sensitive to the field and have a relatively small critical current due to difficulties in step coverage. The solid line corresponds to the fit with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=1.25$`k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{c}`$. b) An optical micrograph of the sensor. The radii of the centre and outer contacts are 15 $`\mu `$m and 150 $`\mu `$m, respectively. c) A diagram showing the layer order.
2. Transition steepness, $`\alpha `$, measured at different bath temperatures. A lower bath temperature corresponds to a larger bias dissipation and correspondingly larger biasing currents. However, the relative transition width remains almost unchanged. The inset shows the corresponding $`RT`$ curves calculated from the $`I(V)`$ curve.
3. The average rms current noise in a frequency band from 100 Hz to 20 kHz (marked by open circles) measured at a bath temperature of 20 mK. The total modeled noise is the solid line, and it consists of TFN, JN, SN, ITFN, and FSN. The dash-dotted line represents a model with only TFN, JN and SN included. The dashed line represents a model with TFN, JN, SN, and ITFN.
4. Noise spectra measured at a bath temperature of 20 mK at bias voltages of a) 0.75 $`\mu `$V, b) 0.62 $`\mu `$V, and c) 0.5 $`\mu `$V. The notation for the different modelled noise components is identical to that of Fig. 3.