text:
# Threshold amplitudes for transition to turbulence in a pipe

## I Introduction

Laminar incompressible flow in an infinite circular pipe is mathematically stable, but in practice, pipe flows invariably undergo transition to turbulence if the Reynolds number $`R`$ is high. It is generally accepted that an explanation for this phenomenon is that although the laminar state is stable to infinitesimal perturbations of the velocity field, certain small finite amplitude perturbations are enough to excite transition for large $`R`$. A natural question is, if $`ϵ=ϵ(R)`$ denotes the minimal amplitude of all perturbations that may excite transition, and if $`ϵ`$ scales with $`R`$ according to

$$ϵ=O(R^\gamma )$$
(1)
as $`R\mathrm{}`$, then what is the exponent $`\gamma `$? A value of $`\gamma `$ substantially below zero would correspond to a sensitivity of the laminar flow that increases rapidly with $`R`$.

We six, coming from diverse backgrounds in applied mathematics, scientific computing, and laboratory experimentation, have all been interested in (1), but the exponents $`\gamma `$ that our different lines of research have suggested have varied by as much as a factor of six, from $`1/4`$ to $`3/2`$. In discussions at the ERCOFTAC Workshop on Subcritical Transition in Delft in October, 1999, it became clear that we have been using inconsistent definitions of the amplitude of a velocity perturbation. Without a consistent definition, (1) of course has little meaning. The purpose of this note is to attempt to cast our various results in terms of a single definition of amplitude. The definition we shall use is essentially the one employed previously by Chapman, Schmid and Henningson, Trefethen, et al., and others, and we shall call it the $`L^2`$ amplitude. We do not argue that this definition is more or less appropriate physically than any other, merely that it is precise and that it provides a reasonable starting point for discussion.

Specifically, in this note we attempt to convert the experimental results of Draad and Nieuwstadt (henceforth DN) and Darbyshire and Mullin (henceforth DM) to $`L^2`$ amplitudes. We conclude that in the $`L^2`$ framework, DN’s published exponent of $`1`$ should be adjusted to between about $`2`$ and $`1`$, and DM’s published exponent of between $`0.4`$ and $`0.2`$ should be adjusted to between $`1.8`$ and $`1.15`$. One reason why these adjusted values are expressed as ranges rather than single numbers is that both sets of experiments introduce perturbations by injection from the side of the pipe, and it is not known exactly what perturbations these injections induce in the velocity field within the pipe. We emphasize that these ranges are rough, having nothing like the two-digit precision suggested by a number like $`1.15`$.

Based on an asymptotic analysis of the Navier–Stokes equations, Chapman has predicted the values $`\gamma =5/4`$ for plane Couette flow and $`\gamma =3/2`$ for plane Poiseuille flow, and discussed the relationship of these predictions to existing evidence from direct numerical simulation of the Navier–Stokes equations (DNS). (In the plane Poiseuille case one restricts attention to perturbations that avoid the Tollmien–Schlichting instability.) In work not yet written for publication, Chapman has extended the prediction $`\gamma =3/2`$ also to pipe flow. Thus if our adjusted exponents for the DN and DM experiments are correct, there would appear to be reasonable agreement between two independent laboratories and a theoretical calculation on an exponent for the pipe in the vicinity

$$\gamma \frac{3}{2}.$$
(2)
This result would be consistent with the conjecture of Ref.  that $`\gamma `$ is strictly less than $`1`$, an inequality also satisfied by most of the low-dimensional ODE models of the Navier–Stokes equations that have been published in the 1990s. The apparent convergence of various lines of evidence on the estimate (2) looks promising, but we urge that it not be taken as definitive or as numerically precise. There are uncertainties at many points on both the experimental and theoretical sides, and no relevant data at all yet from DNS simulations for the pipe. Moreover, as we mention in Section 3, Chapman’s asymptotic arguments are based on pipe lengths much longer than those in the DN and DM experiments, and for these pipes of finite lengths, somewhat less sensitivity to perturbations may be expected. We regard (2) as a rough working approximation.

## II Nondimensionalization and $`L^2`$ amplitude

One source of confusion about $`\gamma `$ has been the nondimensionalization of the Navier–Stokes equations. The $`L^2`$ definition of amplitude is formulated within a particular choice of nondimensional variables, the standard one. We shall review this choice and explain why it can be a point of confusion.

We are concerned with the idealized problem of laminar flow through an infinite circular pipe. The standard nondimensionalization takes the pipe radius as the space scale and the centerline velocity as the velocity scale. Thus, after nondimensionalization, the radius and velocity become

$$\text{radius}=1,\text{velocity}=1.$$

These choices imply that the nondimensional time scale is the convective one, i.e., the time it takes the flow to travel downstream a distance of one pipe radius:

$$\text{time to travel one pipe radius}=1.$$

Now there is also another time scale physically present in the problem, on which the effects of viscosity are felt. In our nondimensionalization this viscous time scale is $`R`$, the Reynolds number. Thus we have the following situation: a typical flow perturbation of small amplitude and of spatial extent comparable to the pipe radius is convected down the pipe at speed $`O(1)`$ for a time $`O(R)`$ and a distance $`O(R)`$ before the effects of viscosity become significant.

With these scales agreed upon, we imagine an initial value problem in which at time $`t=0`$, the velocity field consists of the laminar solution plus a divergence-free finite perturbation $`u(0)=u(x,r,\theta ,0)`$. The flow now evolves according to the Navier–Stokes equations, with the result that the initial perturbation develops as a time-dependent divergence-free function $`u(t)=u(x,r,\theta ,t)`$. At any time $`t`$, we measure the amplitude of $`u`$ in an $`L^2`$ fashion:

$$u(t)=\left(_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_0^1_0^{2\pi }u(x,r,\theta ,t)^2𝑑\theta r𝑑r𝑑x\right)^{1/2}.$$
(3)
Thus $`u(t)`$ is the root-mean-square velocity perturbation over the whole pipe.

We now return to the matter of why these formulations may sometimes be confusing. In most laboratory experiments, and certainly in DM and DN, the Reynolds number $`R`$ is controlled by varying the speed of the flow, not the viscosity. On the other hand in nondimensional units the speed of the flow is always $`1`$, and other velocities are defined as ratios to this one. Thus to convert from laboratory to nondimensional units we must

$$\text{multiply time measured in seconds by }R$$
(4)
and

$$\text{divide velocity measured in meters/second by }R$$
(5)
(as well as $`R`$-independent scalings by pipe diameter divided by kinematic viscosity). In particular, the nondimensionalized $`O(R^\gamma )`$ and $`O(R^{3/2})`$ formulas of (1) and (2) would appear as $`O(R^{\gamma +1})`$ and $`O(R^{1/2})`$ in laboratory units. Thus (2) can be paraphrased by the statement that if you double the speed of flow of water through an infinitely long pipe, the minimal velocity perturbation needed to excite transition becomes smaller in meters/second by a factor of about $`\sqrt{2}`$ and smaller relative to the flow speed by a factor of about $`2\sqrt{2}`$.

## III Asymptotic estimates of Chapman

Chapman’s paper estimates $`\gamma `$ for channel flows by asymptotic analysis of the Navier–Stokes equations. The exponent $`\gamma =3/2`$ is obtained for plane Poiseuille flow, and though this has not yet been written for publication, the same exponent results from an analogous analysis of pipe flow. Chapman uses the $`L^2`$ definition of amplitude as described above, except that he assumes a periodic flow perturbation and defines amplitude by an integral over one period. We believe that this does not affect the final result, so that his conclusion can be fairly summarized by (2).

We shall say nothing of the arguments of Ref.  except to note that they are based on the specific initial condition that appears to be most effective at exciting transition, a streamwise vortex plus small non-streamwise components. If the analysis is correct, the threshold amplitude for such perturbations to excite transition will scale as $`R^{3/2}`$ as $`R\mathrm{}`$. In principle $`3/2`$ is thus a proposed upper bound for $`\gamma `$ in the sense that there is the possibility that some other initial configuration might be found that would excite transition more effectively.

It must be noted, however, that Chapman’s analysis is based on flow structures that evolve on a time scale $`O(R)`$, during which they move a distance $`O(R)`$ and stretch a distance $`O(R)`$. For the mechanisms involved to come fully into play, a pipe would have to have length at least $`O(R)`$, i.e., $`O(R)`$ pipe diameters. This exceeds the actual pipe lengths of experiments, which are in the hundreds, not thousands or tens of thousands. Thus an exponent as low as the theoretical value of $`3/2`$ should not necessarily be observable in any existing pipe experiment. (Conversely, Chapman also identifies other finite-$`R`$ effects that act in the opposite direction, effects which make exponents $`\gamma `$ estimated from data with $`R<10^4`$ more negative than the asymptotic values for $`R\mathrm{}`$.)

## IV Pipe experiments of Draad and Nieuwstadt

The DN experiments in the 36m pipe at the Delft University of Technology are described in detail in Ref. . In these experiments, a disturbance is introduced into the laminar flow through a set of slits in the side of the pipe. These are pumped in an oscillatory fashion so that water is injected and extracted sinusoidally at a controllable frequency and amplitude. As a measure of disturbance amplitude, DN take injection velocity nondimensionalized according to (5), i.e., divided by the flow velocity in the pipe. Their experiments lead to the following estimates, summarized for example in Figure 6.8 on p. 140 of Ref. :

$$\text{DN as published:}\gamma \{\begin{array}{cc}2/3\hfill & \text{for long wavelengths,}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{for short wavelengths.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
“Long” and “short” wavelengths are defined in the usual nondimensional space scale, i.e., relative to the pipe radius. For simplicity, since our interest is in smallest perturbations that may excite turbulence, from now on we shall consider just the value $`1`$ reported by DN for short wavelengths.

Several matters arise in the attempt to convert the DN result to the amplitude measure (3). The most obvious is the fact that since the DN perturbations are periodic in time, they have infinite $`L^2`$-amplitude. For the conversion to (3) we must guess how short a finite-length perturbation might have led to approximately the same observations. If a perturbation of length $`O(1)`$ (i.e., of length independent of $`R`$) would suffice, then the exponent $`\gamma 1`$ can be taken at face value. On the other hand one might also imagine that perturbations of length and time scale $`O(R)`$ (i.e., laboratory time $`O(1)`$ as measured in seconds) would be needed. In this case the disturbance amplitudes must be multiplied by $`O(R^{1/2})`$ for conversion to $`L^2`$ amplitude because of the square root in (3), so that the estimate $`\gamma 1`$ should be increased by $`1/2`$ to $`1/2`$.

Thus at this stage of the discussion it would appear that the DN minimal exponent $`1`$ corresponds in the amplitude measure (3) to a figure in the range $`1`$ to $`1/2`$.

It appears to us that there is also a second adjustment that should be applied to cast these results in terms of the $`L^2`$ amplitude (3). DN measure disturbance amplitude by velocity in the injection and extraction slits. However, the velocity of the water in the slits is not proportional to the velocity of the perturbation it induces in the pipe. The reason is that as the flow speed in the pipe increases with $`R`$, a proportionally greater volume of water is disturbed by the injection and extraction, implying that the pointwise velocity disturbance shrinks.

Penetration scenario. Suppose that for any flow speed $`R`$, the injected perturbation penetrates approximately the full width of the pipe. Then because the amount of fluid into which it is injected scales as $`O(R)`$, the velocity amplitude reduces pointwise by $`O(R)`$. The exponents $`1`$ to $`1/2`$ would need to be decreased by $`1`$, giving the range from $`2`$ to $`3/2`$.

Non-penetration scenario. On the other hand, it is not obvious that injected perturbations penetrate the pipe effectively, and the other extreme scenario would seem to be that the injected perturbation affects a region near the pipe wall of width $`O(R^1)`$. In this case, the perturbation is distributed over a volume $`O(R^1)\times O(R)=O(1)`$, i.e., a volume independent of $`R`$. The pointwise velocity amplitude will accordingly be independent of $`R`$ in that region. At the same time, the fraction of the pipe filled by the velocity perturbation is now not $`O(1)`$ but $`O(R^1)`$, implying an $`L^2`$ correction factor of $`O(R^{1/2})`$. Thus according to the $`L^2`$ definition of amplitude, the exponents $`1`$ to $`1/2`$ would need to be decreased by $`1/2`$, giving the range from $`3/2`$ to $`1`$.

Our discussion has raised two physical questions (whose answers may be related). Rather than attempt to resolve them on the basis of meagre evidence, we summarize our current understanding of the DN observations for short wavelengths by the range

$$\text{DN adjusted to }L^2\text{ amplitudes:}2\gamma 1.$$

In principle these are estimated upper bounds for $`\gamma `$, as it is always possible that the perturbations actually injected are not maximally efficient in exciting turbulence.

## V Pipe experiments of Darbyshire and Mullin

The DM experiments, described in Ref. , were carried out in a 3.8m pipe at Oxford University. (The equipment subsequently moved with Mullin to the University of Manchester, where a new 17m pipe has recently been built based on the same design.) These experiments differ in many ways from those of DN, the most fundamental one being that water is sucked out of the pipe at fixed speed rather than pushed into it at fixed pressure. Another important difference is that whereas the DN perturbation is periodic, the DM perturbation is injected just once.

The DM paper does not propose a value for $`\gamma `$ except to suggest that it seems to be just slightly less than $`0`$. Based on the plots in Ref. , a rough estimate would seem to be

$$\text{DM as published:}0.4\gamma 0.2.$$
(7)
However, the disturbance amplitudes reported by DM are not normalized by the velocity in the pipe. Introducing the adjustment (5) gives

$$\text{DM after nondimensionalization:}1.4\gamma 1.2.$$

Now the more difficult question arises, as in the DN case, of what further adjustment may be needed because of the complex relationship between the flow velocity in the slits and the perturbation velocities induced in the pipe. As with DN, the DM flow perturbations are measured in the slits, not in the pipe. The form of the injections even in the slits is complicated by the geometry of a drive mechanism mounted on a rotating plate. In adjusting what they call the amplitude $`A`$, DM increase the injected volume in proportion to $`A`$, the injection time approximately in proportion to $`A^{1/2}`$, and the maximum injection velocity approximately in proportion to $`A^{1/2}`$. Within the pipe, this will produce a velocity perturbation extending a distance on the order of $`A^{1/2}R`$.

Penetration scenario. Suppose the perturbation penetrates a distance $`O(1)`$ into the pipe. Then the volume of the effective disturbance is $`O(A^{1/2}R)`$ and its pointwise amplitude is $`O(A^{1/2}R^1)`$, giving an $`L^2`$ amplitude $`O(A^{3/4}R^{1/2})`$.

Non-penetration scenario. Suppose the perturbation penetrates only a distance $`O(R^1)`$ into the pipe. Then the volume of the effective disturbance is $`O(A^{1/2})`$ and its pointwise amplitude is $`O(A^{1/2})`$, giving an $`L^2`$ amplitude of $`O(A^{3/4})`$.

We conclude that two further adjustments of the DM results are needed to convert them to $`L^2`$ amplitudes. First, because what DM call $`A`$ becomes $`O(A^{3/4})`$ in the $`L^2`$ measure, the numbers $`0.4`$ and $`0.2`$ should be multiplied by $`3/4`$, becoming $`0.3`$ and $`0.15`$. Second and more important, the final numbers obtained should be reduced by between $`0`$ and $`1/2`$. Putting all these adjustments together gives:

$$\text{DM adjusted to }L^2\text{ amplitudes:}1.8\gamma 1.15.$$

We emphasize once more that our arguments and measurements are not as precise as these numbers may suggest.

In principle these are again estimated upper bounds for $`\gamma `$, as it is again possible that the perturbations actually injected are not maximally efficient. In particular, it might be possible to excite turbulence more efficiently by disturbances shaped to have a streamwise length with a different dependence on $`R`$ and on amplitude.

## VI Discussion

The existing experimental and theoretical literature on threshold exponents for transition in a pipe is based on inconsistent definitions of amplitudes, so the published results are not comparable. Here we have attempted to reformulate some of these results in a matter consistent enough for a meaningful comparison. There are numerous uncertainties in this process, including spatial vs. temporal growth of disturbances, solitary vs. periodic disturbances, form of the velocity field perturbation effectively introduced by injection, non-“optimality” of experimentally injected disturbances from the point of view of exciting transition, the effects of finite pipe length, and, of course, experimental error. For all these reasons, no decisive conclusion can be drawn from our comparison. The tentative conclusion we draw is that the reformulated experimental (Draad and Nieuwstadt; Darbyshire and Mullin) and theoretical (Chapman) results appear to agree upon a critical exponent roughly in the range $`\gamma =3/2\pm 0.3`$, if the centerline velocity is nondimensionalized to $`1`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

The research of AM, TM, and LNT was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of the UK under Grant GR/M30890. The work of TM was also supported by the Leverhulme Trust.


format: text

text:
# Effect of classically forbidden momenta in one dimensional quantum scattering

## I Introduction

Suppose that a classical ensemble of independent particles in one dimension is initially confined (at $`t=0`$) in the spatial interval $`a<x<b0`$, and allowed to move freely after $`t=0`$. Only particles with positive momenta may arrive at positive positions for $`t>0`$. In contrast, the quantum wave function involves negative-momentum contributions as well,

$$\psi (x,t)=h^{1/2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑pe^{ipx/\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}},$$
(1)
where $`E_p=p^2/2m`$, and

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)=h^{1/2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{ipx/\mathrm{}}\psi (x,0)$$
(2)
is the momentum representation of the initial state. The effect of negative momenta for $`x,t>0`$ is however a transient one; the total final probability to find the particle at $`x>0`$ is given only by positive momentum components,

$$P_T(\mathrm{})\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x|\psi (x,t)|^2=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)|^2,$$
(3)
see e.g.  or , since there are no bound states. This negative-momentum effect is also present in collisions, where it is combined with other classically forbidden effects. Consider the family of cut-off potentials of the form

$$V(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }x<c\text{ ,}\hfill \\ U(x),\hfill & \text{if }cxd\text{ ,}\hfill \\ V_0,\hfill & \text{if }x>d\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`V_00`$ and $`V(x)`$ are real, as depicted in Fig. 1.

Let us suppose that the maximum value of the potential is $`V_M`$. For a classical ensemble confined between $`a`$ and $`b`$ (such that $`a<bcd0`$) only particles with initial momentum above the “barrier momentum” $`p_M(2mV_M)^{1/2}`$ may pass to the right of the potential region. In the quantum case however, there are contributions from all the components of the initial wave packet: (a) $`p>p_M(2mV_M)^{1/2}`$ (above-the-barrier transmission); (b) $`p_0<p<p_M`$ (“asymptotic” tunneling, these momenta contribute to the transmission probability $`P_T(\mathrm{})`$); (c) $`0<p<p_0`$ (“transient tunnelling”, these momenta do not contribute to $`P_T(\mathrm{})`$); (d) $`\mathrm{}<p<0`$ (transient negative-momentum effect); (e) $`p_j=i\gamma _j`$, $`\gamma _j>0`$ (tunnel effect associated with bound states, which do contribute to $`P_T(\mathrm{})`$).

While the various tunnel effects have been well discussed in the literature, even though not as clearly distinguished as in the above classification, the negative momentum effect, actually the only one that survives for free motion, has been frequently overlooked, a clear exception being . This paper is complementary to the more usual treatments of one dimensional scattering , and lies in the wake of , who did consider in a concise manner all these effects, with special emphasis on the inclusion of bound states. Our S-matrix treatment is more explicit than that of , and shows how the resolution of the identity in scattering eigenstates leads to compact expressions for the transmitted wave packet. We also illustrate the negative momentum effect with some numerical examples and work out in detail both the case when the state is confined initially to the lower level and when the initial confining is to the upper level (for which case the frequently overlooked contributions are those of positive momenta, including evanescent waves). The contribution of bound states is indicated explicitly, both formally and with some numerical examples.

## II “Stationary” eigenstates of the Hamiltonian

The total Hamiltonian $`H=H_0+V`$ may have a discrete set of bound states $`\{|E_j\}`$, with energies $`E_j<0`$ and (real) wavefunctions $`\varphi _j(x)`$, and a continuum of “stationary scattering eigenstates” with $`E_p>0`$. Only the former belong to the Hilbert space of square integrable functions. The latter however form a convenient basis normalized according to Dirac’s delta. For energies above $`V_0`$, the energy spectrum is doubly degenerate as corresponds physically to incidence from one side or the other. Below $`V_0`$ there is only one linearly independent solution. The resolution of the identity may be written in different ways, in particular as

$$1=\underset{j}{}|E_jE_j|+_{\mathrm{}}^{p_0}𝑑p|p^\pm p^\pm |+_{p_0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p|p^\pm p^\pm |\pm _0^{\pm p_0}𝑑p|p^\pm p^\pm |,$$
(5)
where the states $`|p^\pm `$ have energy $`E_p=p^2/(2m)`$. Continuum and bound states are orthogonal. Moreover, $`p^\pm |p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }=\delta (pp^{})`$, and $`E_j|E_j^{}=\delta _{jj^{}}`$. The first two integrals in Eq. (5) reflect the double degeneracy signalled above, whereas the last integral corresponds to the non-degenerate part of the continuous spectrum. The reason for the sign choice in front of the last integral is due to the unified notation we shall now introduce for the generalized eigenstates associated with the continuous part of the spectrum.

The states $`|p^+`$ with $`p>0`$ are characterized by an incident plane wave of momentum $`p`$ from the left. The asymptotic behaviour of their wave-functions $`\psi _{p^+}(x)`$ is

$$\psi _{p^+}(x)=\frac{1}{h^{1/2}}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(ipx/\mathrm{})+R^l(p)\mathrm{exp}(ipx/\mathrm{}),\hfill & x<c\hfill \\ T^l(p)\mathrm{exp}(iqx/\mathrm{}),\hfill & x>d\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where $`q`$ is the momentum with respect to the upper (right) level of the potential, $`q=(p^22mV_0)^{1/2}`$. For the evanescent regime, i.e. when $`p^2<2mV_0`$, the plane waves on the right become decaying exponentials so the positive imaginary square root is taken. $`R^l(p)`$ and $`T^l(p)`$ are reflection and transmission amplitudes for left incidence. They are obtained by solving the stationary Schrödinger equation subject to the boundary conditions specified in (6).

The states $`|p^+`$ for $`p<p_0`$ are defined by having an incident plane wave from the right, oscillating with spatial frequency $`|q|/\mathrm{}`$, where now the negative square root is taken, $`q=(|p^22mV_0|)^{1/2}`$. The asymptotic behaviour of the corresponding wave-functions is

$$\psi _{p^+}(x)=\frac{1}{h^{1/2}}\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)^{1/2}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}T^r(p)\mathrm{exp}(ipx/\mathrm{}),\hfill & x<c\hfill \\ \mathrm{exp}(iqx/\mathrm{})+R^r(p)\mathrm{exp}(iqx/\mathrm{}),\hfill & x>d\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
The factor $`(p/q)^{1/2}`$ is necessary for the proper delta normalization. $`R^r(p)`$ and $`T^r(p)`$ are reflection and transmission amplitudes for right incidence. Note that the arguments of transmission or reflection amplitudes are always positive for states $`|p^+`$, independently of the sign of $`p`$.

In both cases, (6) and (7), $`q`$ may be defined as the square root of $`p^22mV_0`$ with a branch cut that joins the branch points $`p=\pm p_0`$ going slightly below $`\mathrm{Im}(p)=0`$. In this way the sign of $`q`$ is the same as the sign of $`p`$ for $`p^2>p_0^2`$.

The states $`|p^{}`$ are obtained simply by considering $`p<0`$ in expression (6) and $`p>p_0`$ in expression (7). In these states there appears an outgoing plane wave instead of an incident plane wave. Thus, the right hand side of Eq. (6), with $`p<0`$, defines the corresponding states $`|p^{}`$, as those with a left-outgoing plane wave of absolute momentum $`|p|`$, and can be read as $`\psi _p^{}(x)`$, for $`p<0`$. For $`p<p_0`$, $`q<0`$, whereas for $`p_0<p<0`$, $`q`$ becomes as before a positive imaginary number. States $`|p^{}`$ with a right-outgoing plane wave are defined by the right hand side of Eq. (7), with $`p>p_0`$, and $`q>0`$. Note that the arguments of the amplitudes $`R^{r,l}(p)`$ and $`T^{r,l}(p)`$ are negative for $`|p^{}`$ states. Since the formal boundary conditions that define the states $`|p^\pm `$ are in fact equal, the negative-argument amplitudes will be given by the same formal expressions valid for their positive-argument counterparts. For the same reason, we shall refer to $`R^{r,l}(p)`$ and $`T^{r,l}(p)`$ as “reflection” and “transmission” amplitudes independently of the sign of $`p`$, even though, on physical grounds, this terminology and notation would only be appropriate for the $`p>0`$ case (only in that case does $`T^{r,l}`$ multiply a transmitted wave and $`R^{r,l}`$ a reflected wave).

Reflection and transmission amplitudes are not independent. The unitarity of the $`𝖲`$ matrix imposes certain relations among them. The $`𝖲`$ matrix elements are defined as the coefficients multiplying the outgoing plane waves when the incident plane wave is normalized to unit flux. When the two channels of the one dimensional scattering are open (this happens for $`p>p_0`$), they are given by

$`𝖲(p)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)^{1/2}T^l(p)& R^l(p)\\ R^r(p)& \left(\frac{p}{q}\right)^{1/2}T^r(p)\end{array}\right)`$ (10)
The unitarity of the $`𝖲`$ matrix, $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖲}^{}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, implies that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}|T^r(p)|^2+|R^r(p)|^2=1,`$ (11)
$`|R^l(p)|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}|T^l(p)|=1,`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}T^r(p)R^l(p)^{}+R^r(p)T^l(p)^{}=0.`$ (13)
For $`0<p<p_0`$ only one channel is open, and the $`𝖲`$ matrix reduces to a number, $`R^l(p)`$. Unitarity implies in this case

$$R^l(p)R^l(p)^{}=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}<p<p_0.$$
(14)
All these equations, from (11) to (14), are also valid for negative momenta and relate the amplitudes associated with $`|p^{}`$ states. They can also be derived by comparing various Wronskians of the stationary scattering states at different regions.

For the evanescent case, $`0<p<p_0`$, one important relation follows by multiplying $`|p^+`$ by $`R^l(p)^{}`$ and using (14). This gives the state $`|p^{}`$. Equating the coefficients for $`x>d`$,

$$T^l(p)=T^l(p)R^l(p)^{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}<p<p_0.$$
(15)
Similarly, by taking the complex conjugate of the boundary conditions (6) and (7), it is found that $`\psi _p^{}(x)=\psi _{p^+}(x)^{}`$, and comparing the coefficients that multiply the exponentials,

$`T^{r,l}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`T^{r,l}(p)^{},`$ (16)
$`R^{r,l}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`R^{r,l}(p)^{}.`$ (17)
Another important relation between $`T^l(p)`$ and $`T^r(p)`$ follows by equating the Wronskians of $`\psi _{p^\pm }(x)`$ and $`\psi _{p^\pm }(x)`$ at $`x<c`$ and $`x>d`$,

$$T^r(p)p=T^l(p)q.$$
(18)
As an illustration of the above, the reflection and transmission amplitudes for the simple step potential ($`c=d=0`$, $`U(x)=0`$) are given, for all $`p`$, by

$`T^l(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p}{q+p}};R^l(p)={\displaystyle \frac{pq}{q+p}};`$ (19)
$`T^r(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2q}{p+q}};R^r(p)={\displaystyle \frac{qp}{p+q}}.`$ (20)
The reader may easily check relations (11-18) for amplitudes that correspond to the step potential, Eq. (20), as a test of their validity.

## III A compact expression for the transmitted wave function

In this section we shall find, using the relations of the previous one, an expression for $`\psi (x,t)`$, with $`t>0`$ and $`x>d`$, assuming that the initial wave function is restricted to $`a<x<bc`$. First we insert the resolution of the identity in terms of bound states and scattering states $`|p^+`$,

$`\psi (x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\varphi _j(x)E_j|\psi (0)e^{iE_jt/\mathrm{}}`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{p_0}}𝑑p\psi _{p^+}(x)p^+|\psi (0)e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}}`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p\psi _{p^+}(x)p^+|\psi (0)e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}},x\mathrm{and}t.`$ (23)
Because of the initial restriction of the wave function, the matrix element $`p^+|\psi (0)`$ may be evaluated with the aid of Eqs. (6) and (7),

$`p^+|\psi (t=0)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)T^r(p)^{},\hfill & p<p_0\text{ ,}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)R^l(p)^{},\hfill & p>0\text{ .}\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
Now we use Eqs. (6-7) and (24) in (23), for $`x>d`$,

$`\psi (x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\varphi _j(x)E_j|\psi (0)e^{iE_jt/\mathrm{}}`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`h^{1/2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{p_0}}𝑑p{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}\left[e^{iqx/\mathrm{}}+R^r(p)e^{iqx/\mathrm{}}\right]T^r(p)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}}`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`h^{1/2}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pT^l(p)e^{iqx/\mathrm{}}\left[\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)+R^l(p)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)\right]e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}},x>d,`$ (27)
and reorganize the terms as follows,

$`\psi (x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\varphi _j(x)E_j|\psi (t=0)e^{iE_jt/\mathrm{}}`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`h^{1/2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{p_0}}𝑑p{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}T^r(p)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{iqx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}}`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`h^{1/2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{p_0}}𝑑p\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}R^r(p)T^r(p)^{}+T^l(p)R^l(p)^{}\right]\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{iqx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}}`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`h^{1/2}{\displaystyle _{p_0}^0}𝑑pT^l(p)R^l(p)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{iqx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}}`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`h^{1/2}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pT^l(p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{iqx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}},x>d.`$ (32)
Keep in mind that between $`p_0<p<p_0`$, $`q`$ is a positive imaginary number, $`q=i(|p^22mV_0|)^{1/2}`$. The second term in the third line and the fourth line come from a variable change $`pp`$.

Making use of Eqs. (13-18), there results the simple form

$`\psi (x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\varphi _j(x)E_j|\psi (t=0)e^{iE_jt/\mathrm{}}`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`h^{1/2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pT^l(p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{iqx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}},x>d.`$ (34)
The equation can be put in an even more compact form as shown in the next section

## IV Bound states

None of the particles of the classical ensemble described in the introduction may be trapped by a potential well of the potential $`U(x)`$. In quantum mechanics though, a bound state wave function extends exponentially beyond the potential limits, and may overlap with the initial state $`\psi (0)`$, even when this state is localized outside the potential limits. The contribution of these bound states to the wave function at $`t>0`$ is orthogonal to the scattering (continuum) part, and will remain spatially linked to the potential region at all times.

A bound state with energy $`E_j`$ corresponds to a simple pole of $`T^l(p)`$, or a zero of $`1/T^l(p)`$ on the positive imaginary axis, at $`p_j=i\gamma _j`$, $`\gamma _j>0`$. In this section we shall see that the bound state terms may be written as a residue

$$\varphi _j(x)e^{iE_jt/\mathrm{}}E_j|\psi (0)=2\pi ih^{1/2}\mathrm{Res}\left[T^l(p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{iq_jx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}}\right]_{p=p_j},x>d$$
(35)
where $`q_j=i\sqrt{\gamma _j^2+p_0^2}`$. The function $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)`$ is defined on the complex plane by the integral

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)=\frac{1}{h^{1/2}}_a^b𝑑xe^{ipx/\mathrm{}}\psi (x,0),$$
(36)
as has been used all along.

For the formal treatment of bound states it is convenient to introduce Jost solutions $`f_1(p,x)`$ and $`f_2(p,x)`$ of the Schrödinger equation. They are defined by the boundary conditions

$`f_1(p,x)`$ $``$ $`e^{iqx/\mathrm{}},\mathrm{as}x>d,\mathrm{and}`$ (37)
$`f_2(p,x)`$ $``$ $`e^{ipx/\mathrm{}},x<c.`$ (38)
We generalize here the treatment of ref. for $`V_0=0`$ to the case $`V_00`$. It is easy from (6) and (7) to obtain the explicit expressions of $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ at $`x<c`$ and $`x>d`$ respectively,

$$f_1(p,x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{iqx/\mathrm{}},\hfill & x>d\hfill \\ e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{T^l(p)}+e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}\frac{R^l(p)}{T^l(p)};\hfill & x<c\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
$$f_2(p,x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{iqx/\mathrm{}}\frac{R^r(p)}{T^r(p)}+e^{iqx/\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{T^r(p)},\hfill & x>d\hfill \\ e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}.\hfill & x<c\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
In particular, if for some value $`p_j`$, $`1/T^l(p_j)=0`$, then $`f_2`$ and $`f_1`$ become real, proportional to each other,

$$f_2=Cf_1,$$
(41)
and decay exponentially for $`x<c`$ and $`x>d`$. Defining the normalization constant $`N`$ by

$$N^2=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xf_1^2,$$
(42)
we may write the wave-function of the bound state $`|E_j`$ as

$$\varphi _j(x)=\frac{1}{N}f_1(p_j,x)=\frac{1}{CN}f_2(p_j,x).$$
(43)
The overlap between the bound state $`|E_j`$ and the initial state, which has support only on the interval $`[a,b]c`$, is as usual

$$E_j|\psi (0)=_a^b𝑑x\varphi _j(x)\psi (x,0).$$
(44)
On substituting the second equality of Eq. (43) in Eq. (44), and taking into account definition (36) and Eq. (40), we obtain

$$E_j|\psi (0)=\frac{1}{CN}_a^b𝑑xf_2(p_j,x)\psi (x,0)=\frac{1}{CN}_a^b𝑑xe^{ip_jx/\mathrm{}}\psi (x,0)=\frac{h^{1/2}}{CN}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p_j).$$
(45)
Therefore, for $`x>d`$, we have

$`\varphi _j(x)E_j|\psi (0)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}f_1(p_j,x)\right)E_j|\psi (0)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}e^{iq_jx/\mathrm{}}\right)E_j|\psi (0)`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h^{1/2}}{CN^2}}e^{iq_jx/\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p_j)=2\pi ih^{1/2}e^{iq_jx/\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p_j)\mathrm{Res}T^l(p)_{p=p_j},`$ (47)
so that (35) is obtained. In the last line of (47) we have used

$$\mathrm{Res}T^l(p)_{p=p_j}=\left[\frac{}{p}(1/T^l(p))\right]_{p=p_j}^1=\frac{i\mathrm{}}{CN^2},$$
(48)
a relation that may be obtained by differentiating the Schrödinger equation for $`f_1`$ with respect to $`p`$, integrating $`f_1f_2`$ between $`R`$ and $`R`$ as $`R\mathrm{}`$, and comparing with the derivative of the Wronskian of $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ with respect to $`p`$ for $`p=p_j`$, see also . Finally, combining (34) and (35) we can write the transmitted wave packet very compactly as

$$\psi (x,t)=h^{1/2}_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑pT^l(p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{iqx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}},x>d,$$
(49)
where the contour $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ goes from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ passing above the bound state poles, as shown in Fig. 2.

## V Initial state in the upper level

Imagine now that the initial state has support only to the right, where the potential is $`V_0`$; that is, assume that the initial support of the state is the interval $`[a,b]`$, such that $`da<b`$. In this case, instead of Eq. (24), we have

$`p^+|\psi (t=0)=\{\begin{array}{cc}T^l(p)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q),\hfill & p>p_0\text{ ,}\hfill \\ T^l(p)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q),\hfill & 0<p<p_0\text{ ,}\hfill \\ \left(\frac{p}{q}\right)^{1/2}\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q)+R^r(p)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q)\right),\hfill & p<p_0\text{ ,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (50)
where, as before, $`q=\left(p^2p_0^2\right)^{1/2}`$, with the branch cut going slightly below $`\mathrm{Im}(p)=0`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q)`$ is defined by Eq. (36).

Expression (23), as such, is also valid for $`x<c`$. Let us then substitute Eq. (50) in Eq. (23), and use Eqs. (6) and (7). The result analogous to Eq. (32) reads then, for $`x<c`$ when the initial state is restricted at $`x>d`$,

$`\psi (x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\varphi _j(x)E_j|\psi (t=0)e^{iE_jt/\mathrm{}}`$ (51)
$`+`$ $`h^{1/2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{p_0}}𝑑pT^l(p)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q)e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}}`$ (52)
$`+`$ $`h^{1/2}{\displaystyle _{p_0}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pT^l(p)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q)e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}}`$ (53)
$`+`$ $`h^{1/2}{\displaystyle _0^{p_0}}𝑑pT^l(p)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q)e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}}`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`h^{1/2}{\displaystyle _{p_0}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}R^r(p)^{}T^r(p)+T^l(p)^{}R^l(p)\right]\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q)e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}}`$ (55)
$`+`$ $`h^{1/2}{\displaystyle _0^{p_0}}𝑑pT^l(p)^{}R^l(p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q)e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}},x<c.`$ (56)
Making use of the unitarity relations, this expression can be written as

$$\psi (x,t)=\underset{j}{}\varphi _j(x)E_j|\psi (t=0)e^{iE_jt/\mathrm{}}+h^{1/2}_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑pT^l(p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q)e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}},$$
(57)
where the path of integration $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ goes from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ immediately below the branch cut. Notice that for $`p=i\gamma `$, with real positive $`\gamma `$, $`q`$ becomes $`i\sqrt{\gamma ^2+p_0^2}`$, which accounts for the minus sign in front of $`q`$ in the third and fifth integrals of Eq. (56).

In order to include the bound states in a more compact expression, let us substitute the first equality of Eq. (43) in Eq. (44). Thus, using definition (36) and Eq. (39), we obtain

$$E_j|\psi (0)=\frac{1}{N}_a^b𝑑xf_1(p_j,x)\psi (x,0)=\frac{1}{N}_a^b𝑑xe^{iq_jx/\mathrm{}}\psi (x,0)=\frac{h^{1/2}}{N}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q_j),$$
(58)
where, as before, $`q_j=i\sqrt{\gamma _j^2+p_0^2}`$. Therefore, for $`x<c`$, we have in this situation, using Eqs. (40) and (43),

$`\varphi _j(x)E_j|\psi (0)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{CN}}f_2(p_j,x)\right)E_j|\psi (0)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{CN}}e^{ip_jx/\mathrm{}}\right)E_j|\psi (0)`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h^{1/2}}{CN^2}}e^{ip_jx/\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q_j).`$ (60)
The pole of $`T^l(p)`$ at $`p_j=i\gamma _j`$ becomes a pole of $`T^l(p)`$ at $`p_j`$. Thus,

$$T^l(p)=\frac{i\mathrm{}}{CN^2}\frac{1}{p+p_j}+\mathrm{},$$
(61)
and it follows that

$$\varphi _j(x)E_j|\psi (t=0)e^{iE_jt/\mathrm{}}=2\pi ih^{1/2}\mathrm{Res}\left[T^l(p)e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q)e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}}\right]_{p=p_j},$$
(62)
from which we can conclude that when the initial state is restricted to the interval $`[a,b]`$, with $`d<a<b`$,

$$\psi (x,t)=h^{1/2}_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}𝑑pT^l(p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(q)e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}e^{iE_pt/\mathrm{}},$$
(63)
for $`x<c`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is a path of integration that goes from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ below the branch cut and the poles $`p_j`$.

## VI Discussion

The main results of this paper are Eqns. (49) and (63), that provide simple, compact, and exact expressions for the transmitted wave packet in terms of the initial momentum distribution and bound state contributions. Whereas these expressions have been obtained for cut-off potentials, they may be easily generalized for potentials that decay fast enough, so that the initial wave packet does not overlap significantly with the potential region, and for $`x`$ values where the asymptotic expressions for the scattering states are accurate.

These two equations make clear the need to include different contributions for the transmitted wave-packet. Even though tunnelling terms are of course included in theoretical analysis of wave packet collisions, the contribution of negative momenta is frequently overlooked in integral expressions of the wave function. Similarly, the contribution of the evanescent momentum region when the wave packet is initially on the potential upper level has been also disregarded. We have applied these equations in  to establish the relation between source boundary conditions, in which the wave function is specified at a point and for all times, with standard initial-value-problem boundary conditions where the wave function is specified in all space at $`t=0`$. One further intended application is the study of arrival-time measurement models where a clock dial is coupled to the particle’s motion in such a way that the particle’s crossing stops the dial’s motion . These models are described by step potentials of the form considered in section V.

Let us now illustrate the formal results obtained above with some simple explicit computations. In all of them, the initial wave packet is taken as the ground state of an infinite well; it is located between $`a`$ and $`b`$,

$$\psi (x,0)=\left(\frac{2}{ba}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}[(xa)k_w](a,b),$$
(64)
where $`k_w=\pi /(ba)`$, and

$$(a,b)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & a<x<b\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
See  for details of the analytical time dependence of $`\psi (x,t)`$. Here we shall evaluate the norm for $`x>0`$,

$$P_T(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x|\psi (x,t)|^2,$$
(66)
as well as the contributions from positive and negative momenta, the interference terms, and, whenever required, the contribution of bound states and evanescent waves.

For instance, in the case of free motion, by defining the projectors

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p|pp|\mathrm{and}`$ (67)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`1P,`$ (68)
$`P_T`$ is decomposed into three terms, $`P_T=P_{T,+}+P_{T,}+P_{T,int}`$:

$`P_{T,+}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x|x|P\psi (t)|^2,`$ (69)
$`P_{T,}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x|x|Q\psi (t)|^2,`$ (70)
$`P_{T,int}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{Re}[x|P\psi (t)Q\psi (t)|x].`$ (71)
These quantities are shown as functions of $`t`$ for free motion in Fig. 3. The interference term is important only for early times, and the limit $`P_T(\mathrm{})=P_{T,+}(\mathrm{})`$ is clearly checked visually, although the decay of $`P_{T,}`$ is rather slow.

In Fig. 4 we show how the addition of an attractive delta potential, that creates a bound state, modifies the analogous contributions, since the bound state component has to be detracted from them. $`P_{T,bound}`$ is constant in time, since there is only one bound state, and it is no longer true that the total final probability equals $`P_{T,+}(\mathrm{})`$; actually, we have $`P_T(\mathrm{})=P_{T,bound}+P_{T,+}(\mathrm{})`$. In the picture we have only shown the interference term between positive and negative momenta, which is the most relevant one in this case.

In order to show the applicability of expression (49), we portray in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 the squared moduli of the total amplitude and of different components of the amplitude for a step potential with an attractive delta potential; that is, the potential is $`V(x)=U_0\delta (x)+V_0\theta (x)`$. In this situation, additional to the positive and negative momenta components, we have evanescent waves and the contribution of the bound state. At the time of both pictures, ($`t=5`$ in atomic units), the evanescent waves are the major contributor to the wavefunction in the vicinity of the origin. It should be noticed though that interference terms are relevant in that region and elsewhere.

The magnitude of the component of negative momenta, as well as that corresponding to the bound state, is rather small relative to the positive momenta component of the amplitude modulus squared, but it is nonetheless very important even for large distances because of the interference between components, as is clearly reflected in Fig. 5. Fig. 6 is added to show more clearly the relative importance of the negative momenta and bound state components.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge support by Ministerio de Educación y Cultura (Grants PB97-1482 and AEN99-0315), by The University of the Basque Country (grant UPV 063.310-EB187/98), and the Basque Government (grant PI-1999-28). A. D. Baute acknowledges an FPI fellowship by Ministerio de Educación y Cultura.


text:
# Connection between vibrational dynamics and topological order in simple glasses

## I Introduction

The nature of vibrational dynamics in topologically disordered solids remains an unsolved problem of fundamental interest. An important question is to what extent is the vibrational behaviour determined by the atomic structure in such materials. Liquids and glasses lack global symmetry, and, therefore, their vibrational eigenstates are no longer phonons. Nevertheless, long-wavelength phonon-like propagating acoustic plane waves can be observed in these structures Taraskin\_00:PRB\_IR1 ; Taraskin\_00:PRB\_IR2  up to a certain frequency, known as the Ioffe-Regel crossover $`\omega _{IR}`$, beyond which they are heavily damped due to strong scattering. However, the spectral functions (e.g. the dynamical structure factor $`S(Q,\omega )`$) are still peak-shaped even beyond $`\omega _{IR}`$ (see e.g. Ref. Taraskin\_00:PRB\_IR1 ; Taraskin\_00:PRB\_IR2  and references therein). Thus, the concept of dispersion, as peak-position frequency versus the wavevector magnitude, is still valid in disordered structures Taraskin\_00:PRB\_IR1 ; Taraskin\_00:PRB\_IR2 ; Grest\_82 ; Grest\_84 ; Taraskin\_97:EPL ; Sampoli\_98 ; DelAnna\_98 . In glasses, it has been assumed that the position of the main maximum, $`Q_0`$, of the static structure factor $`S(Q)`$ plays the role of the first reciprocal-lattice point, with the first pseudo-Brillouin zone extending up to $`Q_0/2`$ Grest\_82 ; Grest\_84 ; Hafner\_87 ; Suck\_92 .

However, the main maximum of $`S(Q)`$, manifesting the dominant pseudo-periodicity in glasses, does not contain full information about the glass structure. Even in simple monatomic liquids and glasses, there exist distinct types of short-range order (SRO) closely related to the respective counterpart periodic structures Stillinger\_85 . Then, to what extent is the structural diversity of glasses reflected in their vibrational properties? In particular, can the distinctive features of the vibrational dynamics characteristic of a crystalline structure be discerned in the vibrational properties of a glass with similar local order?

A type of SRO that is most interesting in this respect is that based on icosahedral coordination of the first shell of neighbors. It is commonly associated with the glass-forming ability of simple metallic systems Nelson\_89 . The frustration inherent in packing icosahedra in Euclidean (flat) 3D space in the liquid state produces 6-fold defects which, on cooling, form disclination lines. The latter may align in space, forming globally ordered patterns, e.g. Frank-Kasper periodic phases or morphologically related quasicrystals. Under sufficiently rapid cooling, the disclination lines get entangled, forming a glass Nelson\_89 .

The large numbers of atoms in the primitive cells of the Frank-Kasper phases give rise to many optic vibrational modes. Can these modes survive the lack of long-range order in the related glass? In addressing this issue, it is important to discriminate between the optic modes arising as a result of a particular type of topological SRO, of interest here, and those induced by the chemical SRO in a system with more than one type of atom. The latter have been observed in simple glassy alloys Hafner\_83 ; Benmore\_99 .

Here, we employ molecular dynamics to investigate the vibrational dynamics in a monatomic model of a glass with icosahedral SRO (IC glass) Dzugutov\_92:glass . The thermodynamically stable solid phase on freezing for this system is a dodecagonal quasicrystal Dzugutov\_93:quasicrystal , whereas the energy-favored structure is the $`\sigma `$ phase Dzugutov\_97 ; Simdyankin\_00 ; Roth\_00 , a Frank-Kasper crystal Frank\_59 .

The rest of the paper is arranged as follows. In Sec. II, we describe simulation procedure. The results and their discussion are presented in Sec. III and Sec. IV, respectively. The conclusions are given in Sec. V.

## II Simulation

The IC glass was obtained in the course of a NVE molecular dynamics (MD) simulation. A system of 16000 particles was cooled from the liquid state above the melting point $`T_m0.5`$ at a constant density $`\rho =0.8771`$ (all quantities reported here are expressed in the Lennard-Jones reduced units Allen\_87  defining the pair potential Dzugutov\_92:glass ). This is the minimum energy density at zero pressure in the $`\sigma `$ phase Simdyankin\_00 . We cooled the system in a stepwise manner. At each cooling step, the temperature of the system was reduced by scaling the velocities of the constituent particles. Then the system was equilibrated at constant temperature until the decrease of the potential energy was observed to cease, indicating that a state of metastable equilibrium had been reached. Successful equilibration of this system in the metastable liquid domain below the melting point was possible due to the complexity of its crystallization pattern, significantly inhibiting the process of crystalline nucleation. The equilibration time rapidly increased with decreasing temperature. At $`T0.3`$, this time exceeded the time of the simulation run Below $`T=0.3`$, we found that the equilibration had not been completed after the relaxation run of $`t=10^7\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.01`$. At this point, the system, therefore, was assumed to be in the glassy state. Then it was cooled to the temperature $`T=0.01`$ at which the atoms vibrate around their equilibrium positions and do not diffuse away, and their vibrational dynamics was investigated.

Mindful of the possible growth of crystalline grains in the process of glass formation, we analyzed the evolution of the six-fold structural elements, the Frank-Kasper $`Z`$14 polyhedra (shown in Fig. 1(a)). In the process of Frank-Kasper crystallization, interpenetrating $`Z`$14 elements form $`72^{}`$ disclination lines (Fig. 1(b)) which eventually thread the entire sample Nelson\_89 . Therefore, the extent of crystallization can be assessed by monitoring the length of these disclination lines. Table 1 demonstrates that the process of glass formation in the IC system is not accompanied by any significant growth of the crystalline phase.

As a reference, we simulated a monatomic Lennard-Jones (LJ) glass with the SRO related to the face-centered cubic (fcc) structure. This glass was prepared at the density $`\rho =1.0888`$, corresponding to the zero-pressure energy minimum of the fcc crystal with the LJ potential truncated at $`r_c=4`$, by rapidly quenching a system of 16000 particles from a well-equilibrated liquid state at $`T=3`$ to $`T=0.01`$. The structural distinction between the two glasses is demonstrated in Fig. 2.

In order to gain an insight into the vibrational properties of the IC glass, we also studied the dynamics of a one-component model of the $`\sigma `$ phase Simdyankin\_00 . The latter model utilized the same pair potential as the IC-glass model. Both models were studied at the same density.

We associated longitudinal vibrational modes with non-zero frequency maxima in the dynamical structure factor, $`S(Q,\omega )`$, the spectrum of the density-fluctuation time-autocorrelation function Hansen\_86 : $`S(Q,\omega )=N^1_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}\rho (𝐐,t)\rho (𝐐,0),`$ where $`\rho (𝐐,t)=_{k=1}^N\mathrm{exp}[i𝐐𝐫_k(t)]`$ and $`𝐫_k(t)`$ is the positional vector of the particle $`k`$. For transverse vibrational modes, we calculated the spectra of the transverse current fluctuations Hansen\_86 : $`C_t(Q,\omega )=Q^2N^1_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}j_t(𝐐,t)j_t(𝐐,0),`$ where $`j_t(𝐐,t)`$ is the transverse component of the Fourier-transform of the local current: $`j_t(𝐐,t)=_{k=1}^N(𝐞_t𝐯_k(t))\mathrm{exp}[i𝐐𝐫_k(t)],`$ $`𝐞_t𝐐`$ and $`𝐯_k(t)`$ is the velocity of particle $`k`$. Finite-time truncation effects in the spectra of the time-correlation functions were reduced by convolution with a Gaussian window function.

## III Results

Fig. 3 shows $`S(Q,\omega )`$ for the two glassy models, as well as the $`\sigma `$ phase, for several representative values of $`Q`$. For sufficiently small $`Q`$, both glassy systems clearly exhibit acoustic modes which manifest themselves as pronounced Brillouin peaks in $`S(Q,\omega )`$, Fig. 3(a). A marked difference between the two sets of curves arises for $`Q0.2Q_0`$. The width of the Brillouin peak in the LJ glass becomes comparable with that of the whole vibrational spectrum (see Fig. 3(e)) and for larger $`Q`$ the peak disappears (Fig. 3(f)). For the IC glass, a well-defined Brillouin peak persists well beyond $`Q_0`$ (Fig. 3(c)). Another important feature of the IC glass is that, for $`Q>0.2Q_0`$, the Brillouin maximum develops a well-defined shoulder on the high-frequency side (Fig. 3(b)). We analyzed this structure of the Brillouin peak by fitting it with the sum of two Gaussians.

The assumed interpretation of the shoulder observed in the Brillouin peak in $`S(Q,\omega )`$ of the IC glass as indicating the presence of a separate maximum can be corroborated by a comparison with the structure of $`S(Q,\omega )`$ calculated for the $`\sigma `$ phase which is also shown in Fig. 3(a)-(c). $`S(Q,\omega )`$ for the $`\sigma `$ phase was computed at $`T=0.8`$ in the same way as for the glassy systems: the averaging was performed over all wavevectors $`𝐐`$ confined to a narrow spherical shell in reciprocal space, such that $`|𝐐|Q`$. For $`Q/Q_0=0.35`$, $`S(Q,\omega )`$ exhibits a pronounced peak at the frequency close to the position of the shoulder observed in $`S(Q,\omega )`$ of the glassy phase. The two sets of curves in Fig 3(a)-(c) clearly show certain similarities: the number of peaks is the same and their corresponding positions are close. This leads us to the conclusion that the shape of the dynamical structure factor in the frequency domain for the IC glass is generically related to that for its crystalline counterpart, the $`\sigma `$ phase. Namely, the peaks in $`S(Q,\omega )`$ for the IC glass originate from the corresponding peaks for the $`\sigma `$ phase, which are broadened and shifted by disorder-induced level-repelling effects Taraskin\_00:PRL . The level-repelling and hybridization effects describe a reconstruction of the crystalline vibrational spectrum to give the disordered one. These should give rise to a shift of the low-frequency crystalline peaks downwards in frequency but upwards for the high-frequency peaks (see Ref. Taraskin\_00:PRL  for more detail). Such tendencies are indeed seen in Fig. 3(a)-(c) for the relative positions of the peaks for the $`\sigma `$ phase and the IC glass. Therefore, our results support the conjecture that disorder-induced level-repelling effects in vibrational states in crystalline counterparts of topologically disordered structures, such as the IC glass, are responsible for the main features of their vibrational spectrum.

The dispersion relations as derived from the positions of the respective Brillouin maxima for the LJ and IC models are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. The patterns corresponding to the longitudinal modes in the two glassy systems are strikingly different. The longitudinal dispersion curve for the LJ glass demonstrates a pattern typical for acoustic modes, with a maximum centered at around $`Q_0/2`$, Fig. 4(a). The dispersion pattern of the single Brillouin peak observed in $`S(Q,\omega )`$ for the IC system for $`Q<0.2Q_0`$ can also be identified with acoustic behavior. For larger values of $`Q`$, we identify two separate dispersion branches associated with the positions of the maxima of the two Gaussians approximating $`S(Q,\omega )`$, as shown in Fig. 5(a). The main subpeak of the Brillouin maxima exhibits a very weak $`Q`$-dependence, resembling the behavior of the optic modes in crystalline solids (Fig. 5). The shoulder observed in the Brillouin peaks of the IC system gives rise to a higher-frequency dispersion branch which exhibits a maximum. However, in contrast to the acoustic-type dispersion observed in the LJ glass, the maximum is located at around $`0.4Q_0`$.

## IV Discussion

The pronounced differences in the behavior of the longitudinal modes in these two model glasses can be rationalized by considering the respective modes in the crystalline counterparts - the $`\sigma `$ phase in the case of the IC glass, and the fcc crystal in the case of the LJ glass.

The LJ glass is characterized by a single dominant structural repeat distance, manifested by the first peak of $`S(Q)`$. It corresponds to the interplanar spacing along the $`(111)`$ symmetry direction in the fcc structure (i.e., the apex-basal-plane distance in a close-packed tetrahedron). $`Q_0`$ being the first reciprocal-lattice point, the first Brillouin-zone boundary is at $`Q_0/2`$, which corresponds to the maximum in the dispersion curve of the longitudinal acoustic (LA) modes (Fig. 4(a)). As a result of this structural simplicity, the vibrational dispersion pattern in the LJ glass is also simple, with only LA and transverse branches, as in the counterpart crystalline (fcc) structure (Fig. 4(c)) that has just one atom as the basis in the primitive unit cell.

The pattern of longitudinal vibrational modes in the IC glass is considerably more complex (Fig. 5(a)), displaying a low-frequency weakly dispersive branch with the first maximum at $`Q/Q_00.2`$. Its dispersion behavior clearly resembles that of the optic modes which dominate this range of frequencies in the vibrational spectra of the $`\sigma `$ phase (Fig. 5(c)). In the same domain of $`Q`$, the IC glass also exhibits a higher-frequency branch associated with the high-frequency shoulder of the Brillouin peak. As has been mentioned earlier, this shoulder mirrors a peak in $`S(Q,\omega )`$ of the high-temperature $`\sigma `$ phase (Fig. 3(b)). The latter manifests optic modes and therefore we conclude that optic-type modes dominate the vibrational dynamics in the IC glass for $`Q/Q_0>0.2`$. The position of the maximum in the high-frequency branch, $`Q/Q_00.4`$, is twice that in the low-frequency branch, $`Q/Q_00.2`$. However, both branches are suppressed at $`Q=Q_0`$ by the influence of the main peak of $`S(Q)`$.

The appearance of modes in the IC glass, mirroring the optic modes in the corresponding $`\sigma `$-phase crystal (Fig. 5(c)), is a consequence of the type of topological SRO that exists in both structures. The first Brillouin-zone boundary in the $`\sigma `$ phase in the $`(001)`$ symmetry direction is at $`Q0.2Q_0`$ (Fig. 5(c)), corresponding very closely to the first pseudo-Brillouin-zone boundary value found in the IC glass (Fig. 5(a)). The behavior observed in the IC glass, that the low-frequency branch first peaks at $`Q0.2Q_0`$ whereas the high-frequency branch peaks at $`Q0.4Q_0`$, is typical for nonsymmorphic crystalline structures, of which the $`\sigma `$ phase is an example (space group $`P4_2/mnm`$), for $`𝐐`$ in the direction of a screw axis Steurer\_93 . Some modes sense any particular (pseudo-) periodic atomic-density fluctuations, whereas some modes sense alternate such atomic-layer spacings and therefore the apparent first Brillouin-zone boundaries differ by a factor of two. On the other hand, the dominant length scale in the IC glass that is manifested by the main peak of $`S(Q)`$ corresponds to the layer periodicity in the (111) direction of the $`\sigma `$ phase (the same apex-basal-plane distance in tetrahedra as in fcc).

Optic modes in the IC glass give no contribution to $`S(Q,\omega )`$ for $`Q/Q_0<0.2`$. This is not surprising because the dynamical structure factor describes the response of the system to plane wave excitations. Even in crystals, the optic phonons are not simple plane waves (the atoms inside the unit cell are not displaced according to a plane wave), and in the long-wavelength limit ($`Q0`$) only acoustic modes respond to plane-wave excitations Taraskin\_00:PRB\_IR1 ; Taraskin\_00:PRB\_IR2 . The signature of optic-like excitations appears in the dynamic structure factor of the IC glass only when the wavelength becomes comparable with the size of structural units responsible for this effect.

The dispersion curves for the IC glass thus indicate the existence of an additional pseudo-periodic interlayer spacing incommensurate with that manifested by the main peak of $`S(Q)`$. The latter corresponds to the same pseudo-period in the atomic-density fluctuations as for the LJ glass. The second length scale is related to the interlayer spacing in aggregates of interpenetrating icosahedral units, as along the $`(001)`$-axis in the $`\sigma `$ phase. This assertion is confirmed by the fact that both the total $`S(Q)`$ and the partial structure factor calculated only for the centers of icosahedra exhibit a prepeak at $`Q0.4Q_0`$ (see the inset in Fig. 2). The presence of an additional length scale in the IC glass appears to agree with recent observations of medium-range order in paracrystalline amorphous models Treacy\_98 ; Treacy\_00 . This length scale is associated with a particular type of structural unit which is morphologically close to those found in the counterpart crystalline structure. In a reciprocal-space picture, the effect of these structural units can be analogous to that of the “quasi-Bragg planes” Uhlherr\_94 ; Gaskell\_96  used for explanation of the first sharp diffraction peak in $`S(Q)`$ of amorphous solids.

The difference in the behaviour of collective vibrational modes in the two glasses is also reflected in their densities of states, Figs. 4(b), 5(b). On the other hand, the curves for the vibrational density of states in both glasses appear to be consistent with the respective curves calculated for the crystalline counterparts.

The dispersion patterns of the transverse modes are qualitatively similar (Figs. 4(a), 5(a)). This implies that either these modes are insensitive to the structure or, more likely, any structure effects cannot be shown using $`C_t(Q,\omega )`$. This will be analyzed elsewhere.

## V Conclusion

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that structural distinctions in simple monatomic glasses give rise to an appreciable difference in the behaviour of vibrational excitations. We have shown that the main features in the dynamical structure factor of the IC glass are generically related to those of its crystalline counterpart, the $`\sigma `$ phase. The other distinctive features of vibrational dynamics displayed by the IC glass, namely, the presence of optic-like modes and an additional pseudo-Brillouin zone boundary incommensurate with $`Q_0`$, can be accounted for by the specific structure of aggregates of interpenetrating icosahedra characteristic of the $`\sigma `$ phase, which was previously shown Simdyankin\_00  to be a good crystalline counterpart of the IC glass. This observation implies that the structural similarity between a glass and its crystalline counterpart extends well beyond the shell of nearest neighbors. The existence of an additional incommensurate length scale and optic modes may be a generic feature of glasses having complex counterpart crystalline structures.

## Acknowledgments

S.I.S. and M.D. thank Trinity College, Cambridge for hospitality, and acknowledge support from the following Swedish research funds: Natural Science Research Foundation (NFR), Technical Research Foundation (TFR), and Network for Applied Mathematics (NTM). S.N.T. is grateful to EPSRC for support.


text:
# References

ITEP–TH–41/00

hep-th/0007247

On noncommutative vacua and
noncommutative solitons

A.S.Gorsky, Y.M.Makeenko and K.G.Selivanov

ITEP, B.Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow

## Abstract

We consider noncommutative theory of a compact scalar field. The recently discovered projector solitons are interpreted as classical vacua in the model considered. Localized solutions to the projector equation are pointed out and their brane interpretation is discussed. An example of the noncommutative soliton interpolating between such vacua is given. No strong noncommutativity limit is assumed.

1. Noncommutative theories have been attracted recently a great deal of attention both at perturbative and nonperturbative levels. Even the simplest noncommutative scalar theory reveals a new peculiar object which is absent in commutative theory namely nontrivial solution to the equation of motion at large noncommutativity. It was identified as the noncommutative soliton in the scalar theory with generic potential . Later this solution got interpreted as a brane localized within the brane of higher dimension with the large B field included . This solution finds a proper place in the context of the tachyon condensation  as well as in the open string field theory formalism . Recently new solutions implying the restoration of the full gauge symmetry outside the soliton core have been found .

In this note we would like to consider the theory with a compact scalar field. In this case we shall show that noncommutativity amounts to rather rich vacuum structure. Interestingly the projector solitons discussed above, despite the fact that they have a nontrivial dependence on noncommutative coordinates, play in our case the role of classical vacua additional to the simple “commutative” ones. A domain wall type soliton interpolating between the vacua is found. We also construct a new localized solution in the case of large noncommutativity. The brane interpretation of the solutions considered is given.

2. Let us remind the description of the noncommutative solitons in terms of the projector operators. We shall work in (2+1)D space with Euclidean signature, two coordinates being noncommutative:

$$[x,y]=i.$$
(1)
In this equation we assume that the noncommutative coordinates have been rescaled to get rid of the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ from the right hand side; it will then be present in front of a kinetic term (cf. ). In  solitons in a theory of noncommutative scalar field were obtained in the limit of strong noncommutativity ($`\theta \mathrm{}`$). In that limit one can neglect kinetic term and the field equation reduces to

$$\frac{}{\varphi }V(\varphi )=0,$$
(2)
where $`V(\varphi )`$ is a potential, $`V(\varphi )=1/2m^2\varphi ^2+_n1/n!\lambda _n\varphi ^n`$. The solutions to Eq.(2) were found using the ansatz

$$\varphi (x,y)=\underset{n}{}\alpha _nP_n(x,y)$$
(3)
where $`P_n(x,y)`$ is a set of projectors,

$$P_n(x,y)P_m(x,y)=\delta _{n,m}P_n(x,y),$$
(4)
and the star-product $`f(x^\mu )g(x^\nu )=e^{i/2ϵ_{\mu \nu }\frac{}{_{\eta _\mu }}\frac{}{_{\rho _\nu }}}f(\eta _\mu )g(\rho _\nu )|_{\eta _\mu =x^\mu ,\rho _\nu =x^\nu }`$ have been used.

In view of Eq.(4) the field equation (2) further reduces to

$$\frac{}{\varphi }V(\alpha _n)=0$$
(5)
so the parameters $`\alpha _n`$ must be extrema of the potential. This way the problem of constructing solutions has been reduced to the problem of constructing projectors.

Radially symmetric projectors, $`P_n(r^2)`$, are most conveniently described (see ) in terms of a generating function $`P(r^2,u)`$,

$$P(r^2,u)=\underset{n}{}u^nP_n(r^2).$$
(6)
Eq.(4) is then rewritten as

$$P(r^2,u)P(r^2,v)=P(r^2,uv)$$
(7)
and the completeness condition

$$\underset{n}{}P_n=1$$
(8)
is rewritten as

$$P(r^2,1)=1.$$
(9)
The solution to Eqs.(7), (9) reads

$$P(r^2,u)=\frac{2}{u+1}e^{\frac{u1}{u+1}r^2}$$
(10)
which is a generating functions for the Laguerre polynomials. The construction of projectors completes the construction of the noncommutative solitons .

Our point here is to interpret those solutions rather as classical vacuum states, while the proper solitons are solutions interpolating between these vacua. To illustrate this point, let us consider the following noncommutative field theory with the compact scalar field:

$$L=\frac{1}{2\theta }_Ag^1_Ag+2gg^1$$
(11)
where $`g=e_{}^{i\varphi }=1+i\varphi +1/2i\varphi i\varphi +\mathrm{}`$ and $`g^1`$ is inverse to $`g`$ in the sense of the star-product:

$$g^1g=gg^1=1.$$
(12)
The derivatives $`_A`$ include derivatives with respect to the noncommutative coordinates $`_\mu `$ and derivative with respect to (Euclidean or Minkowski) time $`\tau `$.

Notice that the kinetic term in Eq.(11) can be considered as the one of a noncommutative $`U(1)`$ sigma-model. In the commutative limit it reduces to the common kinetic term for a scalar field so it is a legal noncommutative generalization of the latter. The potential term reduces in the commutative limit to $`2(1\mathrm{cos}\varphi )`$. In principle one can consider additional vacua in the theory without the potential term but it will be used to construct time-dependent solutions interpolating between different vacua. By the way, in 2D one can add a Wess-Zumino term to the Lagrangian (11) obtaining this way a noncommutative integrable sin-Gordon model. At rational values of the noncommutativity parameter the noncommutative sin-Gordon model on a torus is Morita equivalent to a nonabelian sin-Gordon model, a member of the family of Polyakov’s nonabelian Toda theories. The noncommutative sin-Gordon model was discussed in the context of the noncommutative bosonization in .

Let us return back to the model Eq.(11). Corresponding field equation reads

$$\frac{1}{\theta }_A\left(g^1_Ag\right)=gg^1.$$
(13)
In complete analogy with the commutative case there are classical vacua solutions

$$\varphi _n=2\pi n.$$
(14)
In addition there are solutions of the type of Eq.(3) with

$$\alpha _n=2\pi m_n$$
(15)
where $`m_n`$ is a set of integers (if one considers a theory without the potential, $`\alpha _n`$ are no longer restricted to be integer). These are obviously solutions of Eq.(13) in view of the fact that when $`\varphi `$ is of the form of Eq.(3),

$$g=e_{}^{i\varphi }=\underset{n}{}e^{i\alpha _n}P_n$$
(16)
where, we remind, $`e_{}^{i\varphi }`$ is the star-exponential of $`i\varphi `$ and the exponential of $`\alpha `$ on the right hand side is the usual exponential. When $`\alpha _n`$ are as in Eq.(15), $`g`$ is equal to 1, so such states are most natural to interpret as the additional classical vacua. We would like to emphasize that unlike  we do not restrict ourselves to the strong noncommutativity limit and vacuum states exist at arbitrary $`\theta `$.

Let us discuss in more detail the vacuum state of the type

$`\alpha _n`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _+,n\mathrm{even},`$
$`\alpha _n`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{},n\mathrm{odd}.`$ (17)
Then

$$\varphi =\alpha _+\frac{1+P(r^2,1)}{2}+\alpha _{}\frac{1P(r^2,1)}{2}.$$
(18)
Using the fact that

$$P(r^2,1)=\pi \delta ^2(x)$$
(19)
(notice that, in view of Eq.(7), $`\pi \delta ^2(x)\pi \delta ^2(x)=1`$) one can also rewrite the field as

$$\varphi =\frac{\alpha _++\alpha _{}}{2}+\frac{\alpha _+\alpha _{}}{2}\pi \delta ^2(x).$$
(20)
According to the general discussion above, it is a classical vacuum state, providing $`\alpha _{+/}=2\pi m_{+/}`$. A few additional remarks concerning this solution are in order. First, the soliton can be placed at an arbitrary point so a nontrivial moduli space of the solutions appears. We shall describe it in a moment. One could ask if a superposition of the localized solitons placed at different positions in the noncommutative plane is again a solution to the equation of motion. The answer is “no” due to the following identity

$$\pi \delta ^2(xa)\pi \delta ^2(xb)=e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }(a,b,x)}$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(a,b,x)=2ϵ_{\mu \nu }(a_\mu b_\nu +b_\mu x_\nu +x_\mu a_\nu )`$ is the flux of the B field through the triangle with the vertices at $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`x`$.

The solution (3) can be transformed into another solution by a star-unitary transformation

$$\varphi ^{}=\omega \varphi \omega ^1.$$
(22)
This is again a solution since $`\omega \omega ^1=1`$. The translation discussed above is the simplest example of such a transformation given by $`\omega =e^{ik_xx+ik_yy}`$. Another example is given by the Gaussian function

$$\omega (x,y)=\sqrt{1+\alpha \beta \gamma ^2}e^{i\alpha x^2+i\beta y^2+2i\gamma xy}$$
(23)
which is star-unitary. The transformation generated by this function keeps the functional form of $`\varphi (x,y)`$ unchanged but rotates $`x,y`$ in the noncommutative plane by an $`sl(2;R)`$ matrix into

$`x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\gamma ^2)^2\alpha \beta }{1+\alpha \beta \gamma ^2}}x+{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{1+\alpha \beta \gamma ^2}}y,`$
$`y^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{1+\alpha \beta \gamma ^2}}x+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\gamma ^2)^2\alpha \beta }{1+\alpha \beta \gamma ^2}}y.`$ (24)
In general, the new solution is no longer spherically symmetric. Some of the star-unitary transformation leave the solution (3) invariant. An example of such a star-unitary function is

$$\omega (x,y)=\pi \delta (x)\delta (y)$$
(25)
which only inverts the signs of $`x`$ and $`y`$.

3. Thus the structure of vacua in the noncommutative framework is much more involved than in the commutative one. Let us now discuss solitons of the type of domain walls, i.e., solutions interpolating between different vacua of the type of Eq.(3). We shall now assume that coefficients $`\alpha `$ in Eq.(3) are $`\tau `$-dependent but independent of the noncommutative coordinates. In this assumption the field equation (13) reduces to

$$i/\theta \underset{n}{}(\frac{}{\tau })^2\alpha _nP_n+1/\theta \underset{n,m}{}e^{i(\alpha _m\alpha _n)}_\mu \left(P_n_\mu P_m\right)=\underset{n}{}(e^{i\alpha _n}e^{i\alpha _n})P_n$$
(26)
The term with derivatives of the projectors, $`_\mu \left(P_n_\mu P_m\right)`$, can be computed in terms of the projectors using the generating function:

$`\left(_\mu P(r^2,u)\right)\left(_\mu P(r^2,v)\right)=(u1)(v1)_{uv}\left((uv+1)P(r^2,uv)\right)`$
$`_\mu \left(P(r^2,u)_\mu P(r^2,v)\right)=(u+1)(v1)_{uv}\left((uv1)P(r^2,uv)\right)`$ (27)
We shall however not need it because we make a further assumption under which that term disappears. Namely, we assume that all $`\alpha `$’s differ from each other by only integers, that is,

$$\alpha _n=\overline{\alpha }+2\pi m_n.$$
(28)
Then Eq.(26) reduces to an ordinary differential equation for $`\overline{\alpha }`$,

$$(\frac{}{\tau })^2\overline{\alpha }=2\theta \mathrm{sin}(\overline{\alpha }),$$
(29)
the solitonic solution to which is well known to be

$$\overline{\alpha }=\frac{4}{\sqrt{2\theta }}\mathrm{arctan}(e^{\sqrt{2\theta }\tau }).$$
(30)
For this solution all $`\alpha _n`$’s change by $`2\pi `$ when $`\tau `$ runs from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$.

One can introduce a topological charge associated to solitons, a generalization of $`_C𝑑\varphi `$ to the noncommutative framework:

$$Q=\frac{1}{2\pi i}d^2x_Cg^1𝑑g$$
(31)
where the first integration is over the noncommutative plane (a sort of trace) and the contour $`C`$ is assumed to begin and end at the same point of the noncommutative plane. Since the integrated form is a flat connection, $`Q`$ does not depend on the shape of $`C`$ and does not change under the star-unitary transformation (22). When $`g`$ is of the form Eq.(16) with possibly $`\tau `$-dependent $`\alpha `$’s, one obtains

$$Q=\frac{1}{2\pi }d^2x\underset{n}{}\alpha _n|_{}^+P_n=\underset{n}{}\alpha _n|_{}^+$$
(32)
where $`\alpha _n|_{}^+`$ is a total change of $`\alpha _n`$ along the path $`C`$. The projectors are easily integrated using the generating function Eq.(10). One can also use non-integrated version of topological charge which depends on a point on the noncommutative plane.

4. Let us discuss the brane interpretation of the solutions discussed above. First let us consider the new solution to the projector equation we have constructed. It was shown in  that noncommutative soliton at large noncommutativity is nothing but a brane of lower dimension inside the brane if the tachyon Lagrangian is considered. For instance the Gaussian projector solution for bosonic string was interpreted as D23 brane within D25 brane. The key point of this identification is the reproducing of the correct tension of D23 brane from the action calculated on the noncommutative soliton. However this interpretation is a little bit subtle since the size of the Gaussian soliton is nonzero. For the localized delta function solution which is perfectly localized this subtlety is resolved and to confirm the identification of our localized solution as a D brane we have to calculate its tension.

For example the action on the localized soliton in bosonic string looks as

$$S=\frac{g_sT_{25}}{G_s}d^{24}d^2\sqrt{G}\varphi (r)$$
(33)
where $`\varphi (r)`$ is the localized soliton, $`g_s`$ is a string coupling, G is a metric and $`G_s=\frac{g_s\sqrt{G}}{2\pi B\sqrt{g}\alpha ^{^{}}}`$. The direct calculation amounts to the correct tension of the brane. Let us also note that in the type II theory where the tachyon potential is definitely even one can construct the additional solution based on the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ instead of the projector one solving the equation of motion. This solution

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=\pi \delta ^2(x)$$
(34)
admits the similar brane interpretation as well.

Let us turn to the role of the solution in the theory of the compact scalar which it presumably plays in the brane context. To this aim remind that the complex tachyon field is certainly present for the brane-antibrane system  and its potential has a form of the “Mexican hat”. Then at the vacuum manifold we have $`T\overline{T}=const`$ therefore the vacuum valley is parameterized by the phase of the complex scalar which is definitely compact. Therefore we arrive at the theory with the action we have discussed before. Hence we can expect nontrivial vacuum states involving projectors in the theory of the complex tachyon. It is known that the BPS D(p-2) brane arises as vortex in the complex tachyon field in the $`Dp\overline{Dp}`$ system  (noncommutative vortexes were also discussed ) Such stable configuration can be also derived for the additional noncommutative vacuum state where the tachyon phase has nontrivial space dependence. We shall discuss this point in more details elsewhere.

5. In this letter we have described a rich vacuum structure in the noncommutative theory of the compact scalar field. The example of the kink type solution interpolating between two vacua of the theory is presented. New solutions to the projector equations are found and their brane interpretation is given. Let us also note that the noncommutative solitons where recently discussed in the context of Quantum Hall effect . It seems that the new localized noncommutative solitons we have found are better candidates for the skyrmion spin textures then Gaussian solitons discussed in that paper.

This work was supported in part by CRDF grant RP1-2108. The work of A.G. is supported in part by grant INTAS-99-1705 and K.S. by INTAS-97-0103. A.G. thanks J. Ambjørn for the hospitality at NBI where the part of the work has been done.