text:
# References

KIAS-P00046

UOSTP-00105

hep-th/0007107

Elongation of Moving Noncommutative Solitons

Dongsu Bak,a***Electronic Mail: dsbak@mach.uos.ac.kr and Kimyeong Lee bElectronic Mail: klee@kias.re.kr

a Physics Department, University of Seoul, Seoul 130-743, Korea

b School of Physics, Korea Institute for Advanced Study

207-43, Cheongryangryi-Dong, Dongdaemun-Gu, Seoul 130-012, Korea

> We discuss the characteristic properties of noncommutative solitons moving with constant velocity. As noncommutativity breaks the Lorentz symmetry, the shape of moving solitons is affected not just by the Lorentz contraction along the velocity direction, but also sometimes by additional ‘elongation’ transverse to the velocity direction. We explore this in two examples: noncommutative solitons in a scalar field theory on two spatial dimension and ‘long stick’ shaped noncommutative U(2) magnetic monopoles. However the elongation factors of these two cases are different, and so not universal.

Solitons in the noncommutative field theories have attracted much attention recently. Localized solitons in a noncommutative scalar theory of spatial dimensions higher than one is already peculiar because they lost their identity in the commutative case as dictated by the Hobart-Derrick theorem. On the other hand, monopoles or dyons of the commutative super Yang-Mills (SYM) theories become a sticklike. From the D-brane picture, D-strings connecting D3 branes become tilted in noncommutative case. In the field theory picture, the image of a D-string on three space appears as a finite segment of Dirac string, whose two ends are like Dirac magnetic monopoles of two different $`U(1)`$ subgroups of $`U(2)`$.

The detailed dynamical aspects of these noncommutative solitons are not much pursued. Investigation of the free motion of one noncommutative soliton will be the first step toward the understanding of their solitonic moduli dynamics. (See Ref.  for the the moduli space of a single caloron made of $`N`$ monopoles in $`U(N)`$ theory on noncommutative $`R^3\times S^1`$.)

In this note, we consider free motions of a noncommutative soliton, which are not trivial because the systems lack the Lorentz invariance. The change of the shape of the soliton, for example, is not just dictated by the Lorentz contraction but further deformation is induced since the effective noncommutativity scale is changed due to the structure of $``$-product. The key finding is that these solitons can be elongated along transverse to the velocity direction, but the elongation effect is not universal.

For the solitons of two dimensional scalar theory, the size transverse to the motion is elongated by the factor $`\sqrt{\gamma }`$ while the longitudinal size becomes contracted by the factor $`1/\sqrt{\gamma }`$, preserving the area size of the soliton, where the Lorentz contraction factor is $`\gamma ^1=\sqrt{1v^2}`$. In particular, when the velocity approaches the light velocity, the noncommutative soliton looks like a very long and thin string stretched in the transverse direction of the motion.

In the case of $`U(2)`$ BPS monopoles interpreted as tilted D-strings connecting two parallel $`D3`$ branes, the tilting is affected by the motion. Equally, the length of the Dirac string connecting two different $`U(1)`$ monopoles is affected. When the direction of motion is transverse to the Dirac string, the string length gets elongated by the factor $`\gamma `$. When the direction of motion is parallel to the string, the length is contracted by the factor $`\gamma ^1`$. As a by product, we get tilting and the tension of static $`(p_e,q_m)`$\- dyons in similar perspective.

Noncommutative solitons in (2+1) dimensional scalar field theory

We shall first consider the noncommutative soliton arising in 2+1 dimensional scalar theory,

$$L=d^2x\left(\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi V(\varphi )\right),$$
(1)
where the product between fields is defined by the $``$-product,

$$a(𝐱)b(𝐱)\left(e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta ϵ^{ij}_i_j^{}}a(𝐱)b(𝐱^{})\right)|_{𝐱=𝐱^{}}.$$
(2)
For simplicity, we shall consider the case where the potential has its absolute minimum at $`V(0)=0`$ and the other local minimum at some $`\lambda `$ with $`V(\lambda )>0`$. As shown in detail in Ref. , the localized soliton corresponds to a false vacuum bubble where the noncommutativity prevents its collapse to a zero size. This is contrasted to the case of commutative scalar field theory where localized solitons do not exist at all as dictated by the Hobart-Derrick theorem.

The static localized noncommutative soliton solution will satisfy

$$^2\varphi +V^{}(\varphi )=0.$$
(3)
In the large $`\theta `$ limit, the potential part is dominant over the kinetic contributions. This can be easily shown by introducing dimensionless coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{x}_i=x_i/\sqrt{\theta }`$. The energy functional is written as

$$E=d^2\stackrel{~}{x}\left(\frac{1}{2}|\stackrel{~}{}\varphi |^2+\theta V(\varphi )\right).$$
(4)
where the $``$-product is defined in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ with $`\theta =1`$. Thus we clearly see that the kinetic contribution is negligible compared to the potential contribution. Neglecting the kinetic term, the static normalizable solution in this limit can be constructed with help of projection function,

$$P_n(𝐫)=2(1)^ne^{\frac{r^2}{\theta }}L_n(2r^2/\theta )$$
(5)
where $`L_n(x)`$ is the n-th order Laguerre polynomial. These functions work as projection operators under the $``$-product; they satisfy $`P_nP_m=\delta _{nm}P_n`$. The most general radially symmetric normalizable solutions of $`V^{}(\varphi )=0`$ are then given by

$$\varphi =\underset{n}{}w_nP_n,$$
(6)
where $`w_n`$ belongs to the set $`\{\lambda _l\}`$ of real extrema of $`V(x)`$. Let us, for example, take the simplest solution,

$$\varphi (x,y)=\lambda P_0(x,y)=2\lambda e^{r^2/\theta }.$$
(7)
The size of the soliton is approximately $`R=\sqrt{\theta }`$. By the axial symmetry, x-directional size $`L_x=\sqrt{\theta }`$ is the same as the y-directional size $`L_y=\sqrt{\theta }`$. Let us call their potential and kinetic energy to be

$$K_0=d^2\stackrel{~}{x}\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{}\varphi )^2,U_0=\theta d^2\stackrel{~}{x}V(\varphi )$$
(8)
Their order of magnitude is $`K_0𝒪(1)`$ and $`U_0𝒪(\theta ).`$ Thus the rest mass, $`E_0=K_0+U_0`$, is dominated by the potential.

Now let us consider any static solution $`\overline{\varphi }(x,y;\stackrel{~}{\theta })`$ of (3) with a noncommutativity scale $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$. Due to the rotational symmetry, we consider just a soliton moving along the x axis. In the commutative case, the time dependent solution describing a moving profile can be constructed by boosting the static soliton by

$`t^{}=\gamma (tvx),x^{}=\gamma (xvt),y^{}=y,`$ (9)
with $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1v^2}`$. Because the symmetry under the Lorentz boost is explicitly broken by the noncommutativity, the Lorentz boost no longer generates a new solution. Instead, the moving solution is given by

$$\varphi _v(x,y,t;\theta )=\overline{\varphi }(\gamma (xvt),y;\gamma \theta ),$$
(10)
which satisfies the equation of motion,

$$_t^2\varphi _v^2\varphi _v+V^{}(\varphi _v)=0.$$
(11)
Namely the solution is obtained not by a simple Lorentz boost but by the boost accompanied by rescaling of $`\theta `$.

The deformation of the shape is not just a conventional Lorentz contraction because the effective noncommutative scale $`\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is now $`\gamma \theta `$. For a given instant of time $`t`$, the size in each direction is now

$`L_x^{}(v)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\theta }}{\sqrt{\gamma }}}={\displaystyle \frac{L_x}{\sqrt{\gamma }}},L_y^{}(v)=\sqrt{\gamma }\sqrt{\theta }=\sqrt{\gamma }L_y.`$ (12)
It is interesting to note that the area size of the noncommutative soliton is preserved as

$`A(v)=L_x^{}(v)L_y^{}(v)=L_xL_y.`$ (13)
This area preserving character is consistent with the fact that the uncertainty relation set by the noncommutativity of the coordinate $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }y\theta `$. As argued in Ref. , this uncertainty relation is responsible for the size of the soliton, without which the soliton would collapse to zero size. As $`v`$ grows, the transverse size to the motion grows as $`\sqrt{\gamma }`$, reflecting another UV/IR mixing of the noncommutative field theory. However the growth differs from those observed in the wave function of quantum bound state or in the dipole nature described in Ref. . The velocity dependence of the size is illustrated in Fig. 1.

For large $`\theta `$, the kinetic energy contribution to the energy is still of O(1) in $`\theta `$ as

$`K(v)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2x(|\dot{\varphi }|^2+|\varphi |^2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma }}{\displaystyle d^2x^{}\left(\gamma ^2(1+v^2)|_x^{}\varphi |^2+|_y^{}\varphi |^2\right)}=\gamma K_0`$ (14)
where we have used the fact that the soliton at the rest frame is rotationally symmetric. Thus the potential energy contribution is dominant over the kinetic part and, consequently, the potential energy is given by

$`U(v)={\displaystyle d^2xV(\varphi (\gamma (xvt),y;\gamma \theta ))}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle d^2x^{}V(\varphi (x^{},y^{};\theta \gamma ))}=U_0.`$ (15)
Here we have used the fact that $`U_0`$ is linear in $`\theta `$. Thus the total energy transforms as

$$E(v)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1v^2}}K_0+U_0.$$
(16)
In the large $`\theta `$ limit, the potential energy is dominant until the velocity is highly relativistic so that $`v\sqrt{1(K_0/U_0)^2}`$. In case of ordinary solitons in 1+1 dimensional sine-Gordon model or monopoles in SYM theories, the energy scales as those of ordinary massive particles; $`E(v)=\gamma E_0`$. Thus, the behavior of energy of the noncommutative solitons is again quite different from that of the conventional soliton. We now turn to the case of momentum of the moving soliton. Using the translational invariance of the system, the conserved momentum may be constructed using the Noether procedure and the resulting expression reads,

$`𝐏={\displaystyle d^2x_t\varphi \varphi }.`$ (17)
The momentum of the noncommutative soliton is then evaluated as

$`P_x=\gamma v{\displaystyle d^2x^{}\left(\frac{\varphi }{x^{}}\right)^2}=v\gamma K_0`$ (18)
Hence the momentum is not given by $`\gamma vE_0`$ but its value is much smaller compared to a particle with rest mass $`E_0`$.

Because of the change of the shape of moving noncommutative solitons, the characteristic of classical scattering, for example, ought to differ from ordinary particles with short-ranged interactions. As the relative velocity grows, the size felt becomes bigger, and the cross section is expected to grow, though a detailed analysis is necessary to see this effect explicitly.

Noncommutative U(2) monopole and $`(p_e,q_m)`$-dyons

We begin by recapitulating the static properties of noncommutative monopole in the N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. We shall restrict our discussion to the case of $`U(2)`$ gauge group. Among the six Higgs fields, only a Higgs field $`\varphi `$ plays a role in the following discussion. The bosonic part of the action is then given by

$$S=\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}d^4x\mathrm{tr}\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}D_\mu \varphi D^\mu \varphi \right).$$
(19)
We shall take the only nonvanishing components to be $`\theta _{12}=\theta _{21}\theta `$. The four vector potential and $`\varphi `$ belong to $`U(2)`$ Lie algebra generated by $`\frac{1}{2}I_{2\times 2}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3)`$. We set the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field in the asymptotic region as $`u\sigma _3/2`$.

The energy functional

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{tr}\left(E^2+|D_0\varphi |^2+B^2+|D\varphi |^2\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}}{\displaystyle _{r=\mathrm{}}}𝑑S_k\mathrm{tr}B_k\varphi ,`$ (20)
is bounded as in the case of the ordinary supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. The bound is saturated if the BPS equation

$`B=D\varphi .`$ (21)
The mass for the monopole solution is then

$`M={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi q_m}{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}}u`$ (22)
where we define the magnetic charge $`Q_M`$ by

$`q_m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi u}}{\displaystyle _{r=\mathrm{}}}𝑑S_k\mathrm{tr}B_k\varphi .`$ (23)
The charge is to be quantized at integer values even in the noncommutative case. This is because the fields in the asymptotic region are slowly varying and, hence, the standard argument of the topological quantization of the magnetic charge holds.

The $`U(2)`$ noncommutativity monopole solution has been investigated in Ref.  and the solution to the second order in $`\theta `$ has been found. In Ref.  the full brane configuration in the commutative SYM picture was found, which is related to the noncommutative description via the Seiberg-Witten map. The monopole (D-string) is tilted between two parallel D3 branes as schematically illustrated in Fig. 2, where we interpret $`\varphi l_s^2`$ as the transverse coordinate $`X_4`$. The configuration has an axial symmetry along z-axis and the projected image to the three space has the z-directional size $`L_z=u\theta `$. The gauge symmetry $`U(2)`$ is spontaneously broken to $`U(1)\times U(1)^{}`$. The two points where D string meet two D3 branes are like $`U(1)`$ monopole and $`U(1)^{}`$ anti-monopole, which are now separated in finite interval of length $`u\theta `$ along the z direction and connected by the Dirac string of finite tension. This Dirac string is the image of the tilted D-string on three space.

This size $`L_z`$ measures the extension of this Dirac string along z-direction. The distance between two D3-branes is given by $`L=ul_s^2`$ with the string length scale $`l_s=\sqrt{2\pi \alpha ^{}}`$. Consequently the tilting angle $`\alpha `$ is

$`\alpha =\mathrm{tan}^1l_s^2/\theta ,`$ (24)
which does to zero in the zero slope limit. Since the length of monopole or D-string is then $`\sqrt{L^2+L_z^2}`$, the tension of the monopole is

$`T_0={\displaystyle \frac{M}{\sqrt{L^2+(u\theta )^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_m}{\sqrt{l_s^4+\theta ^2}}}.`$ (25)
In particular, in the zero slope limit of $`2\pi \alpha ^{}0`$, the tension becomes identical to the tension of the Dirac string $`M/(u\theta )=\frac{2\pi q_m}{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2\theta }`$, which agrees with the value in . (In the full field theory, this should be true when $`u`$ is very large and so the Dirac string is very long. Then the field energy of two $`U(1)`$ monopoles can be negligible in comparison.)

The solution of a moving monopole can be generated from the static solution. Let $`\overline{A}_\mu (x,y,z;\theta )`$ and $`\overline{\varphi }(x,y,z;\theta )`$ be the solution describing a static monopole for arbitrary $`\theta `$. For monopole moving on the $`xy`$ plane, we restrict our discussion to $`𝐯=v\widehat{x}`$ due to the rotation symmetry around the z axis. The corresponding Lorentz transformation is given by

$`t^{}=\gamma (tvx),x^{}=\gamma (xvt),y^{}=y,z^{}=z.`$ (26)
It is now straightforward to verify that the the solution of a moving monopole is

$`A_\mu ^{}(t,x,y,z;\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }}{x^\mu }}\overline{A}_\nu (\gamma (xvt),y,z;\gamma \theta )`$
$`\varphi ^{}(t,x,y,z;\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\varphi }(\gamma (xvt),y,z;\gamma \theta ).`$ (27)
The effective size in the $`z`$ direction is given by $`L_z(v)=u\theta \gamma =\gamma L_z`$. Since the effective noncommutative scale $`\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is given by $`\gamma \theta `$, the monopole looks more tilted when it is moving on $`xy`$ plane. Namely, the distance $`L=ul_s^2`$ between D3-branes unchanged but the Dirac string connecting $`U(1)`$ monopole and $`U(1)^{}`$ anti-monopole gets ‘elongated’ by the factor $`\gamma `$, and so the size becomes $`L_z(v)=\gamma u\theta `$. The tilted slope angle is now given by $`\alpha (v)=\mathrm{tan}^1(l_s^2/\gamma \theta )`$. Thus, in the relativistic speed, the $`U(2)`$ monopole would look like a very long stick. A few comments are in order. First, it should be noted that the full $`U(2)`$ solution is not known thus far for finite $`\theta `$. Hence we do not have the explicit solution for the finite velocity either. Secondly, the shape of monopole is governed by the noncommutativity scale $`\theta `$ together with the scale $`L_z`$ that controls the dipole structure. The whole deformation of the monopole shape is partly from the change of the dipole structure as the scale $`L_z`$ changes effectively. There is also deformation from the Lorentz contraction and the change in the effective noncommutativity scale. The latter part of deformation is universal to all moving noncommutative solitons including the case of scalar noncommutative solitons.

The moving solution to the $`z`$ direction is obtained similarly. The Lorentz boost transformation in the z direction reads

$`t^{}=\gamma (tvz),x^{}=x,y^{}=y,z^{}=\gamma (zvt).`$ (28)
The the corresponding moving solution is given by

$`A_\mu ^{}(t,x,y,z;\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }}{x^\mu }}\overline{A}_\nu (x,y,\gamma (zvt);\theta )`$
$`\varphi ^{}(t,x,y,z;\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\varphi }(x,y,\gamma (zvt);\theta ),`$ (29)
and the effective noncommutative scale remains unchanged and only ordinary Lorentz contraction in the $`z`$ direction by the factor $`1/\gamma `$ has occurred. The image of the $`U(2)`$ monopole in the three space has the size $`L_z(v)=u\theta /\gamma `$ and titling angle becomes $`\alpha (v)=\mathrm{tan}^1(\gamma l_s^2/\theta )`$.

Contrary to the case of the scalar noncommutative soliton, the energy and momentum of the moving monopole behaves like a massive particle. Namely, they are respectively given by $`E=\gamma M`$ and $`𝐏=\gamma M𝐯`$, which may be checked directly by inserting the above solutions to definitions of the energy and the momentum.

Finally let us consider the case of dyons or $`(p_e,q_m)`$-strings. The dyons satisfy BPS equations

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\xi D\varphi `$
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\xi D\varphi .`$ (30)
We define electric charge by

$`p_e={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2u}}{\displaystyle _{r=\mathrm{}}}𝑑S_k\mathrm{tr}E_k\varphi ,`$ (31)
and, for the elementary excitations of W-bosons, it takes integer values as expected. Since $`E`$ and $`B`$ are related through the angle $`\xi `$ in the above BPS equations, the ratio of the electric charge $`p_e`$ and the magnetic charge $`q_m`$ is then found to be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_e}{q_m}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}}\mathrm{tan}\xi .`$ (32)
For a given magnetic solution, the corresponding dyon solution can be found by a scale transformation and a Lorentz boost in the extra dimension if we view as $`\varphi =A_4`$. In the noncommutative case, one should take into account the change of the effective noncommutative scale. The corresponding dyon solution satisfying the above BPS equations are

$`A_i=\overline{A}_i(𝐫\mathrm{cos}\xi ;\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\xi )`$
$`\varphi =\overline{\varphi }(𝐫\mathrm{cos}\xi ;\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\xi )`$
$`A_0=\mathrm{sin}\xi \overline{\varphi }(𝐫\mathrm{cos}\xi ;\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\xi )`$ (33)
The energy is determined again by surface integral and can be given in terms of charges by

$$M_{p_e,q_m}=\frac{2\pi }{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}\frac{q_mu}{\mathrm{cos}\xi }=u\sqrt{\left(\frac{2\pi q_m}{g_{YM}^2}\right)^2+p_e^2}.$$
(34)
The length scale of the image in $`z`$ direction is shrunken to $`L_z^D=u\theta /\sqrt{1+(g_{YM}^2p_e/2\pi q_m)^2}`$ and the tilting angle changes to $`\alpha _D=\mathrm{tan}^1\left((l_s^2/\theta )\sqrt{1+(g_{YM}^2p_e/2\pi q_m)^2}\right)`$. In the zero slope limit, the string tension for the Dirac string becomes

$`T_{(p_e,q_m)}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi q_m}{g_{YM}^2\theta }}\left(1+(g_{YM}^2p_e/2\pi q_m)^2\right),`$ (35)
for $`q_m0`$. When $`p_e=0`$, the tension becomes $`T=\frac{2\pi q}{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2\theta }`$, which agrees with the value given previously. When $`q_m=0`$, Eq. (35) is not valid. Indeed the fundamental string tension goes to infinite in the zero slop limit. When moving, these $`(p_e,q_m)`$ dyonic configurations would also go through the same elongation or contraction as the pure monopole configuration.

In this note, we have observed the shape of moving noncommutative solitons is elongated. In short, it accentuates the UV/IR mixing. As the velocity approaches the light velocity, the transverse size grows indefinitely, which is a phenomena residing in the IR regime of the theory. Moving monopoles in the noncommutative SYM theories can have a similar elongation, following the change of tilting of D-strings connecting D3 branes. We have obtained the tension and tilting of static $`(p_e,q_m)`$-dyons.

Investigation of the free motion is the first step toward understanding of dynamical characteristics of noncommutative solitons. For the more detailed dynamics, further studies are required on the moduli dynamics of noncommutative solitons. Especially, the quantum moduli dynamics of the false vacuum bubble in the noncommutative scalar field theory will be of interest. Also our observation on monopoles would also apply to the noncommutative open string theories studied recently .

Acknowledgment We would like to thank P. Yi and C. Zachos for enlightening discussions and R. Jackiw for pointing out Ref. . D.B. would like to thank H. S. Yang for valuable comments. This work is supported in part by KOSEF 1998 Interdisciplinary Research Grant 98-07-02-07-01-5 (DB and KL) and by UOS Academic Research Grant (DB). K.L. thanks the hospitality in Niels Bohr Institute where the part of work is done.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is a known observation  that a relationship exists between the codons and the physical-chemical properties (PCP) of the coded amino acids (a.a.). The observed pattern is read either as a relic of some kind of interaction between the a.a. and the nucleotides at an early stage of evolution or as the existence of a mechanism relating the properties of codons with those of a.a.. In particular it is observed that the relationship depends essentially on the nature of the *second* nucleotide in the codons and it holds when the second nucleotide is adenine (A), uracil (U) or cytosine (C), not when it is guanine (G). To our knowledge neither the anomalous behaviour of G nor the existence of a closest relationship between some of the a.a. is understood. It is the aim of this paper to provide an explanation of both these facts in the framework of the model of genetic code we have discussed in a previous paper , called crystal basis model, as it is heavily based on the mathematical structure of the modules of the irreducible representations (IR) of $`𝒰_{q0}[sl(2)sl(2)]`$, known in the mathematical literature as *crystal basis* . After recalling briefly the model in Sect. 2, we derive in Sect. 3 a set of relations between the PCP of the amino acids, based on the content of the IRs of the dinucleotides and of the codons coding for the amino acids. Finally we compare our predictions with the experimental data.

## 2 The Model

The four nucleotides A, C, G, U are considered as basic states of the $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ irreducible representation of the quantum enveloping algebra $`𝒰_q[sl(2)sl(2)]`$ in the limit $`q0`$, with the following assignment of quantum numbers:

$$\text{C}(+\frac{1}{2},+\frac{1}{2})\text{U}(\frac{1}{2},+\frac{1}{2})\text{G}(+\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\text{A}(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$$
(1)
In this framework, the codons are built as composite states of the nucleotide states by tensoring three such $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ representations. Note that the crystal basis, which exists in the limit $`q0`$ of the $`q`$-deformed universal enveloping algebra $`U_q(G)`$ for any semi-simple Lie algebra $`G`$, is the only way to provide such composite states as *pure* states, and to ensure the existence of an *order* in the tensoring procedure.

However, it is well-known (see Table 1) that in a multiplet of codons relative to a specific amino acid, the first two bases constituent of a codon are “relatively stable”, the degeneracy being mainly generated by the third nucleotide. Considering the tensor product

$$(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})=(1,1)(1,0)(0,1)(0,0)$$
(2)
we get, using Kashiwara’s theorem , the following tableau:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}sl(2)_H\hfill & (0,0)& (\text{CA})& (1,0)& (\begin{array}{ccc}\text{CG}& \text{UG}& \text{UA}\end{array})\\ \hfill & & & & \\ sl(2)_V\hfill & (0,1)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\text{CU}\\ \text{GU}\\ \text{GA}\end{array}\right)& (1,1)& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\text{CC}& \text{UC}& \text{UU}\\ \text{GC}& \text{AC}& \text{AU}\\ \text{GG}& \text{AG}& \text{AA}\end{array}\right)\end{array}$$

where the subscripts $`H`$ (:= horizontal) and $`V`$ (:= vertical) specify the two $`sl(2)`$.

From Table 1, the dinucleotide states formed by the first two nucleotides in a codon can be put in correspondence with quadruplets, doublets or singlets of codons relative to an amino acid, the sextets (resp. triplets) being viewed as the sum of a quadruplet and a doublet (resp. a doublet and a singlet). We define in our model the “charge” $`Q`$ of a dinucleotide state by

$$Q=J_{3,H}+\frac{1}{4}C_V(J_{3,V}+1)\frac{1}{4}$$
(3)
The dinucleotide states are then split into two octets with respect to the charge $`Q`$: the eight *strong* dinucleotides CC, GC, CG, GG, CU, GU, UC, AC associated to the quadruplets (as well as those included in the sextets) of codons satisfy $`Q>0`$, while the eight *weak* dinucleotides AA, AU, UA, UU, UG, AG, CA, GA associated to the doublets (as well as those included in the triplets) and eventually to the singlets of codons satisfy $`Q<0`$. Let us remark that by the change C $``$ A and U $``$ G, which is equivalent to the change of the sign of $`J_{3,\alpha }`$ or to reflexion with respect to the diagonals of the eq. (1), the 8 strong dinucleotides are transformed into weak ones and vice-versa. Note that a first attempt to differentiate between strong and weak dinucleotides is contained in ref. .

The irreducible representations of the tensor product of $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^3`$ as well as the correspondence codons/amino acids for the eukariotic code is reported in Table 1. The upper labels denote different IRs.

## 3 Relationship between the PCP of Amino Acids

We assume that some PCP of a given amino acid are related to the nature of the codons, in particular they depend on the following mathematical features, written in hierarchical order:

1. the IR of the dinucleotide formed by the first two nucleotides;
2. the sign of the charge $`Q`$, eq. (3), on the dinucleotide state;
3. the value of the third component of $`J_{3,V}`$ inside a fixed IR for the dinucleotides;
4. the upper label(s) of the codon IR(s);

Not all the PCP are supposed to follow the scheme above; some of them are essentially given by the specific chemical structure of the amino acid itself.

In the following, we analyze the PCP of the amino acids in the light of the dinucleotide content of the irreducible representations of eq. (2).

– representation (0,0)
The codons of the form CAN (N = C, U, G, A) all belong to the IR $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^4`$ and code for His and Gln, both being coded by doublets and differing by the value of $`J_{3,V}`$. Then we expect that the PCP of His and Gln are very close.

– representation (1,0)
We analyse now the codons built up by the dinucleotide IR ($`1,0`$). i.e. CG ($`Q>0`$), UG, UA (both $`Q<0`$). The codons CGS (S = C, G), resp. CGW (W = U, A), belonging to IR $`(3/2,1/2)^2`$, resp. $`(1/2,1/2)^2`$, all code for Arg, so we do not have any relation. The codons UGS, resp. UGW, belonging to IR $`(3/2,1/2)^2`$, resp. $`(1/2,1/2)^2`$, code for Cys (which is a doublet) and Trp (singlet), resp. the other Cys and Ter (triplets). So we expect the PCP of Cys not very different from those of Trp. The codons UAN, belonging to the IR $`(3/2,1/2)^2`$, code for the Tyr and Ter. So we expect some affinity between the a.a. coded by UGN and UAN, in particular between Cys and Tyr both being coded by doublets.

– representation (0,1)
The codons built up by the dinucleotide IR ($`0,1`$) are CU, GU (both $`Q>0`$) and GA ($`Q<0`$). The codons CUY and GUY (Y = C, U), resp. CUR and GUR (R = G, A), belonging to IR $`(1/2,3/2)^2`$, resp. $`(1/2,1/2)^3`$, code for Leu and Val. Therefore we do not have any relation between a.a. coded by the same dinucleotide, but we expect that the PCP of Leu and Val are close since CU and GU both belong to the same IR and are both strong. The codons GAN belong to the IR $`(1/2,3/2)^2`$ and they code Asp and Glu (both doublets). Then we expect the PCP of Asp and Glu to be very close.

– representation (1,1)
The dinucleotide IR ($`1,1`$) contains five states with $`Q>0`$ (CC, UC, GC, AC, GG). The codons CCN , resp. UCN, belong to four different IRs and code for Pro (quartet), resp. Ser (sextets). We expect an affinity between the PCP of these a.a.. The codons GCN , resp. ACN, belong to four different IRs and code for Ala (quartet), resp. Thr (quartets). We expect a strong affinity between the PCP of Ala and Thr. The codons GGN belong to two different IRs and code for Gly, so we expect an affinity of PCP of Gly with those of Pro, Ser, Ala, Thr. Now let us look at the four states with $`Q<0`$ (UU, AU, AG, AA). The codons UUN belong to two different IRs and code for Leu, the doublet subpart of the sextet, and for Phe (doublet). An affinity is expected between the PCP of these two a.a.. The codons AUN belong to two different IRs and code Ile (triplet) and Met (singlet) and, in fact, the values of PCP of these two a.a. are not very different. The codons AGN belong to two different IRs and code for Ser and Arg, the doublet subpart of the sextet, so an affinity between the PCP of these codons is expected. The codons AAN belong to the same IR ($`3/2,3/2`$) and code for Asn and Lys, so the values of the PCP of these a.a. should be close.

Note that for the three sextets (Arg, Leu, Ser) the quartet (doublet) subpart is coded by a codon with a strong (weak) dinucleotide.

In conclusion we predict the following relations between the values of the PCP of the amino acids ($``$ means strong affinity, $``$ affinity, $``$ weak affinity):

1. His $``$ Gln
2. Asp $``$ Glu
3. Asn $``$ Lys $``$ Arg, Ser
4. Cys $``$ Tyr $``$ Trp
5. Leu $``$ Val
6. Pro $``$ Ser $``$ Gly
7. Ala $``$ Thr $``$ Gly, Pro, Ser
8. Ile $``$ Met $``$ Phe

## 4 Discussion

We have compared our theoretical previsions with 10 physical-chemical properties:

1. the Chou-Fasman conformational parameters  $`P_\alpha `$, $`P_\beta `$ and $`P_\tau `$ which gives a measure of the probability of the a.a. to form respectively a helix, a sheet and a turn. However it has been suggested in  that the sum $`P_\alpha +P_\beta `$ is a more appropriate parameter to characterize the generic structure forming potential while the difference $`P_\alpha P_\beta `$ is a more appropriate parameter for the helix forming potential, which is a quantity more depending on the particular a.a.. So we compare with $`P_\alpha `$ \+ $`P_\beta `$ and $`P_\tau `$;
2. the Grantham polarity $`P_G`$ ;
3. the relative hydrophilicity $`R_f`$ as computed by Weber and Lacey ;
4. the thermodynamic activation parameters at 298 K: $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ (enthalpy, in kJ/mol), $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ (free energy, in kJ/mol) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ (entropy, in J/mole/K) as obtained by Siemion and Stefanowicz ;
5. the negative of the logarithm of the dissociation constants at 298 K: $`pK_a`$ for the $`\alpha `$-COOH group and $`pK_b`$ for the $`\alpha `$-NH$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ group ;
6. the isoelectronic point $`pI`$ , i.e. the $`pH`$ value at which no electrophoresis occurs.

The comparison between the theoretical relations and the experimental values shows (see Tables 2 and 4):

1. His $``$ Gln – The agreement, except for $`pI`$, is very good.
2. Asp $``$ Glu – The agreement, except for $`P_\tau `$, is very good.
3. Asn $``$ Lys $``$ Arg, Ser – The agreement, except for $`pI`$ and $`P_\tau `$ is very good. The comparison with the values of PCP of Ser and Arg is satisfactory.
4. Cys $``$ Tyr $``$ Trp – Except for $`R_f`$, the agreement between the first two a.a. is very good, while with Trp is satisfactory.
5. Leu $``$ Val – The agreement is very good.
6. Pro $``$ Ser $``$ Gly – The agreement is very good, except for $`P_\alpha +P_\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$, and with Gly more than satisfactory.
7. Ala $``$ Thr $``$ Gly, Pro, Ser – The agreement is very good between the first two a.a. except for $`P_\tau `$ and satisfactory with the others except for the conformational parameters.
8. Ile $``$ Met $``$ Phe – The agreement is very good between the first two a.a. and satisfactory with Phe.

In order to have a more quantitative evaluation of the agreement between the data and the theoretical model we compute the mean value and the standard deviation of the whole population (i.e. the twenty amino-acids) for each generic PCP $`x`$

$$\overline{x}=\frac{1}{n}\underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}x_i\text{and}\sigma _x=\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}\underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}(x_i\overline{x})^2}$$
(4)
in 3 different cases:

1. considering all the amino acids, i.e. summing over the whole set of amino acids ($`n`$ = 20);
2. considering the amino acids coded by the codons with the same second nucleotide ($`n`$ = 4 for C, $`n`$ = 5 for U and G, $`n`$ = 7 for A);
3. considering the couples ($`n`$ = 2) of amino acids given by our 8 relations.

The results are reported in Tables 2 to 4.
As an estimate of the accurary of our predictions, we compute the sum of the adimensional quantities given for any PCP by the ratios $`\sigma _x/\overline{x}`$ of the standard deviation to the average value, in the three different cases considered above.

| all 1.82 | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A 1.82 | | C 1.13 | | G 1.82 | | U 0.70 | |
| Gln/His | Asp/Glu | Asn/Lys | Cys/Tyr | Pro/Ser | Ala/Thr | Ile/Met | Leu/Val |
| 0.35 | 0.63 | 0.72 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.48 | 0.39 | 0.38 |

Values of $`\eta =\sigma _x/\overline{x}`$

Looking to the table above, we remark that the characterization of the PCP from the nature of the second nucleotide in the codons is, except for U, indeed not really discriminatory. On the contrary, the relations derived by our model reduces dramatically the values of our estimate parameter $`\eta =_i\sigma _x/\overline{x}`$.

From Table 2 we note that the values of the thermodynamical quantities for some amino acids are not yet measured. Our relations predict that the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ for His should be around 60 kJ/mol and 120 kJ/mol/K. For the values of Asp and Glu coded by the unique weak nucleotide GA in the IR (0,1), we do not have any available data to compare with. However, making the further assumption, supported by an inspection of the available data, that the values of the thermodynamical quantities depend slightly on the nature of the charge, we predict that the values of these quantities for Asp and Glu should not be very dissimilar from the values of the analogous quantities for Leu and Val, coded by the strong dinucleotide CU an GU in the IR (0,1). So we predict that for Asp and Glu, one should find $`\mathrm{\Delta }H60`$ kJ/mol, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S135`$ kJ/mol/K and $`\mathrm{\Delta }G100`$ kJ/mol.

## 5 Conlusion

In conclusion, the values of PCP show, with a few exceptions, a pattern of correlations which is expected from the assumptions done in the crystal basis model. Let us emphasize that the assignment of the value of the IRs both for the dinucleotide and for the trinucleotide states or codons is a straightforward consequence of our model. The remarked property that the a.a. coded by codons whose second nucleotide is G do not share similarity in the properties of PCP with other a.a. does find an explication in the model as it is immediate to verify, looking to the table of the tensor product of two ($`\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}`$) that that are no two states with G in second position which share simultaneously the properties of belonging to the same IR and being characterized by the same value of $`Q`$.

A final remark: it has beeen sugested that the physico-chemical properties of the amino acids have played a fundamental role in the evolution and the organization of the genetic code. In this framework, a meaure of the relative distances between amino acids has been defined, see  and references therein. The picture which emerges in  has some striking confirmations with the predictions of our model. So we argue that the assignment of codons in multiplets, corresponding to irreducible representations, may have a deep connection with the evolutionary organization.

Acknowledgments: We are grateful to M.L. Chiusano for pointing us the interest to analyse the physical-chemical properties in the light of the crystal basis model and for providing us literature on the subject. Partially supported by MURST (Italy) and MAE (France) in the framework of french-italian collaboration Galileo.


text:
# THE UNIFICATION OF ELECTROMAGNETISM AND GRAVITATION IN THE CONTEXT OF QUANTIZED FRACTAL SPACE TIME

## 1 Introduction

The problem of the unification of gravitation and electromagnetism has a long and as yet unconcluded history. The very early attempt of Weyl did not find favour  as he had incorporated electromagnetism into the field equation, as it were from outside. The ingenous suggestion of Kaluza that a fifth, and somehow suppressed, dimension be introduced  also did not find favour, though the idea has resurfaced in the theory of Quantum Superstrings. Another approach has been that of Quantum Mechanical Black Holes which recovers the Kerr-Newman metric in the context of quantized fractal space time (QFST). While there is formal resemblance to the Weyl formulation on the one hand, there is an imaginary shift of coordinates, quite meaningful in the above context, on the other. In the derivation of the Kerr Newman metric too, there is a mysterious imaginary shift which however is not explicable in classical theory. Finally both in Quantum Superstrings and the (QFST) or quantized fractal space time picture, the underlying geometry is non-commutative .
So there are in these scenarios several at first sight disparate and even inexplicable strands: the Kaluza-Klein curled up extra dimension, Weyl’s electromagnetism, Quantum Mechanical Black Holes, Quantum Superstrings, the Kerr-Newman metric, non-commutative geometry…. We will now show that infact all these characteristics have a unified underpinning in the context of quantified fractal space time (QFST).

## 2 The Kaluza-Klein and Weyl Formulations

Our starting point is the fact that the fractal dimension of a Brownian quantum path is 2, as pointed out by Abbott and Wise, Nottale and others. This was further analysed by the author and it was explained that this is symptomatic of quantized fractal space time and it was shown that infact the coordinate $`x`$ becomes $`x+ıct`$, reminiscent of El Naschie’s complex time and the Hawking-Hartle static time. The complex coordinates or equivalently non-Hermitian position operators are symptomatic of the unphysical zitterbewegung which is eliminated after an averaging over the Compton scale. In this picture the fluctuational creation of particles is taken into account in a consistent cosmological scheme.
It is well known that the generalization of complex $`x`$ coordinate to three dimensions leads to quarternions, and the Pauli spin metrics.
We next come to a model of an electron as a Quantum Mechanical Black Hole and widely discussed by the author (Cf. example). In this model an electron is a spinning shell (reminiscent of Dirac’s model) of radius equalling the Compton wavelength, and equavalently a Kerr-Newman Black Hole. Within this Compton scale Black Hole we encounter the unphysical zitterbewegung region of complex (or non-Hermitian) coordinates already alluded to.
Infact electromagnetism was deduced in two ways. The first was by considering an imaginary shift,

$$x^\mu x^\mu +ıa^\mu ,(a^\mu \text{Compton scale})$$
(1)
in a Quantum Mechanical context. This lead to

$$ı\mathrm{}\frac{}{x^\mu }ı\mathrm{}\frac{}{x^\mu }+\frac{\mathrm{}}{a^\mu }$$
(2)
and the second term on the right side of (2) was shown to be the electromagnetic vector potential $`A^\mu `$,

$$A^\mu =\mathrm{}/a^\mu $$
(3)
The second was by taking into account the fact that at the Compton scale, it is the so called negative energy two spinors $`\chi `$ of the Dirac bispinor that dominate where,

$$\chi \chi $$

under reflections. This lead to the tensor density property,

$$\frac{}{x^\mu }to\frac{}{x^\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^{\mu \nu }$$
(4)
the second term on the right side of (4) being identified with $`A^\mu `$,

$$A^\mu =\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^{\mu \nu }$$
(5)
It was pointed out that (5) is formally and mathematically identical to Weyl’s original formulation, except that here it arises due to the purely Quantum Mechanical spinorial behaviour whereas Weyl had put it by hand.
Another early scheme for the unification of gravitation and electromagnetism as referred to earlier was that put forward by Kaluza and Klein in which an extra dimension was introduced and taken to be curled up. This idea has resurfaced in recent years in String Theory.
We will first show that the characterization of $`A^\mu `$ in (3) is identical to a Kaluza Klein formulation. Then we will show that equations (4) and (5) really denote the fact that the geometry around an electron is non-integrable. Finally we will show that infact both (2) or (3) and (4) or (5) are the same formulations.
We first observe that the transformation (5) can be written as,

$$x^ıx^ı+\alpha _{ı5}x^5$$
(6)
where $`\alpha _{ı5}`$ in (6) will represent a small shift from the Minkowski metric $`g_{ıj}`$, and $`ı,j=1,2,3,4,5,x^5`$ being a fifth coordinate introduced for purely mathematical conversion.
Owing to (6), we will have,

$$g_{ıj}dx^ıdx^jg_{ıj}dx^ıdx^j+(g_{ıj}\alpha _{j^5})dx^ıdx^5$$
(7)
In Kaluza’s formulation,

$$A_\mu g_{\mu 5}$$
(8)
Comparison of (6) and (7) with (1) and (3) shows that indeed this is the case. That is, the formulation given in (1) and (2) could be thought of as introducing a fifth curled up dimension, as in the Kaluza-Klein theory.
To see why the Quantum Mechanical formulation (4) and (5) corresponds to Weyl’s theory, we start with the effect of an infinitesimal parallel displacement of a vector \[Bergmann\].

$$\delta a^\sigma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\sigma a^\mu dx^\nu $$
(9)
As is well known, (9) represents the extra effect in displacements, due to the curvature of space - in a flat space, the right side would vanish. Considering partial derivatives with respect to the $`\mu ^{th}`$ coordinate, this would mean that, due to (9)

$$\frac{a^\sigma }{x^\mu }\frac{a^\sigma }{x^\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\sigma a^\nu $$
(10)
The second term on the right side of (10) can be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda g_\lambda ^\nu a^\sigma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\nu a^\sigma $$

where we have utilized the property that in the above formulation (Cf.refs.),

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu },$$

$`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ being the Minkowski metric and $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ a small correction whose square is neglected.
That in, (10) becomes,

$$\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{}{x^\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\nu $$
(11)
The relation (11) is the same as the relation (4).
We will next show the correspondence between (11) or (5) or (4) and (3) or (2). To see this simply we note that the geodesic equation is,

$$\dot{u}^\mu \frac{du^\mu }{ds}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \sigma }^\mu u^\nu u^\sigma $$
(12)
We also use the fact that in the Quantum Mechanical Black Hole model referred to, we have

$$u^\mu =c\text{for}\mu =1,2\text{and}3,$$

while,

$$|\dot{u}^\mu |=|u^\mu |\frac{mc^2}{\mathrm{}}$$

So, from (12) we get,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu }^\mu =\frac{1}{a^\nu },|a^\nu |=\frac{\mathrm{}}{mc}$$

This establishes the required identity.

## 3 Quantized Fractal Space time and Quantum Superstrings

It was shown that the quantized fractal space time referred to really leads to a non-commutative geometry, not surprisingly:

$$[x,y]=0(l^2),[x,p_x]=ı\mathrm{}[1+l^2],[t,E]=ı\mathrm{}[1+\tau ^2],\mathrm{}$$
(13)
It was shown earlier that these relations directly lead to the Dirac equation: Quantized fractal space time or the above relation (13) are the underpinning for Quantum Mechanical spin or the Quantum Mechanical Black Hole, that is ultimately equations like (2) or (3) and (4) or (5).
It is also true that both the Kaluza Klein formulation and the non commutative geometry (13) hold in the theory of Quantum Superstrings.
Infact we get from here a clue to the mysterious six extra curled up dimensions of Quantum Superstring Theory. For this we observe that (13) gives an additional contribution to the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle and we can easily deduce

$$\mathrm{\Delta }p\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}x\mathrm{}l^2$$

Remembering that at this Compton scale

$$\mathrm{\Delta }pmc$$

It follows that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }xl^3$$
(14)
as $`l10^{11}cms`$ for the electron we recover from (14) the Planck Scale, as well as a rationale for the peculiar fact that the Planck Scale is the cube of the electron Compton scale.
More importantly, what (14) shows is, that at this level, the single dimension along the $`x`$ axis shows up as being three dimensional. That is there are two extra dimensions, in the unphysical region below the Compton scale. As this is true for the $`y`$ and $`z`$ coordinates also, there are a total of six curled up or unphysical or inaccessible dimensions in the context of the preceding section.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusion

If we start with equations (1) to (3) which were related to QFST (Quantized Fractal space time) and the non-commutative relation (13) we obtain a unification of electromagnetism and gravitation. On the other hand if we consider the spinorial behaviour of the Dirac wave function, we get (4) or (5). The former has been seen to be the same as the Kaluza formulation while the latter is formally similar to the Weyl formulation - but in this case (5) is not put in by hand. Rather it is a Quantum Mechanical consequence. We have thus shown that these two approaches are the same. The extra dimensions are thus seen to be confined to the unphysical Compton scale - classically speaking they are curled up or inaccessible.
In a sense this is not surprising. The bridge between the two approaches was the Kerr-Newman metric which uses, though without a clear physical meaning in classical theory, the transformation (1). The reason why an imaginary shift is associated with spin is to be found in the Quantum Mechanical zitterbewegung and the consequent QFST.
Wheeler remarked , ”the most evident shortcoming of the geometrodynamic model as it stands is this, that it fails to supply any completely natural place for spin $`1/2`$ in general and for the neutrino, in particular”, while ”it is impossible to accept any description of elementary particles that does not have a place for spin half.” Infact the bridge between the two is the transformation (1). It introduces spin half into general relativity and curvature to the electron theory, via the equation (5) or (10).
In this context it is interesting to note that El Naschie has given the fractal formulation of gravitation.
Thus apparently disparate concepts like the Kaluza Klein and Weyl formulations, Quantum Mechanical Black Holes, quantized fractal space time and QSS are seen to have a harmonius overlap, in the context of QFST with its roots in the fluctuational creation of particles.


text:
# Skyrmions in the Quantum Hall effect and noncommutative solitons

## 1 Introduction

This letter is made of two parts.

In the first part we show that the wave functions of two particles interacting by a rotationally invariant potential in their Lowest Landau Levels is independent of the potential. This is well known  when the two particles have equal and opposite charge and remains true when the charges are not equal. The interest of this result is that the bound states formed by the two particles are the relevant excitations of the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE). In this case the two particles obey opposite statistics and the bound states are the so called Composite fermions of the FQHE. The universality of their wave function is the seed for the rigidity of the many-body wave functions of the FQHE  as explained in . When the two charges are equal and opposite, the bound states form neutral fermionic dipoles . The field theory of these neutral dipoles is related to the Fermi liquid observed at $`\nu =1/2`$ . We briefly recall why the theory of these dipoles is expected to be noncommutative (see also ).

In the second part we study the condensation of bosonic dipoles made of two fermions using the techniques of . These bosonic dipoles are useful to describe the quantum Hall effect with spin or the double layer systems. This allows us to establish a link between the skyrmion of the Hall effect  and solitons recently introduced in the context of non commutative string theory . The main physical difference lies in the extensiveness of the skyrmions made out of a macroscopic number of dipoles whereas the noncommutative solitons  coincide with their microscopic limit.

## 2 Dipoles and displacement group

In this section we consider the motion of two particles with charges of opposite sign but not necessarily equal in magnitude which interact attractively in a strong magnetic field. If $`V`$ is a translation and rotation invariant potential and $`P_0`$ projects each particle in its Lowest Landau Level, the eigenstates of the matrix $`P_0VP_0`$ acting in the Hilbert space of the two particles do not depend on $`V`$ and can be organized into representations of a deformation of the displacement algebra.

Consider a charge $`q>0`$ particle in a magnetic field. We use the symmetric gauge and take a units of length such that the gauge field is given by: $`A_x=y,A_y=x`$. In terms of the coordinates $`z=x+iy,\overline{z}=xiy`$ one can define two sets of mutually commuting oscillators:

$`a=_{\overline{z}}+qz/2`$ , $`a^+=_z+q\overline{z}/2`$ (1)
$`b=_z+q\overline{z}/2`$ , $`b^+=_{\overline{z}}+qz/2`$ (2)
The first set of oscillators define the free Hamiltonian $`H=a^+a`$ the eigenvalues of which correspond to the Landau levels (LL) $`E_n=nq`$ with $`n0`$. The second set of oscillators $`b,b^+`$ are the guiding center coordinates. Together with angular the angular momentum $`L=(b^+ba^+a)/q`$ they generate a deformation of the displacement algebra:

$`[b,b^+]=q,[L,b^+]=b^+,[L,b]=b`$ (3)
and they commute with $`H`$ so that this algebra acts within each LL. The representations are characterized by the eigenvalues $`n0`$ of $`b^+b/qL`$ which index the LL’s and the states $`|n,l`$ within a representation are labeled by the angular momentum eigenvalues $`ln`$. The wave functions in the Lowest LL $`(n=0)`$ are:

$`z|l=(q^{1/2}z)^l/(2\pi l!)^{1/2}e^{qz\overline{z}/2}`$ (4)
It is helpful to visualize them as thin shells of radius $`\sqrt{l/q}`$ occupying an area $`\pi /q`$. The orbital degeneracy of a charge $`q`$ is thus $`N_\varphi =A/2\pi l_q^2`$ where $`A`$ is the total area and $`l_q=(2q)^{1/2}`$ defines the magnetic length. It is also useful to introduce coherent states $`|z`$ defined by $`l|z=z|l^{}`$ which are the most localized states in the Lowest Landau level (LLL).

Consider now two particles with positive charge $`q_1,q_2`$ interacting by a translation and rotation invariant potential $`V`$ within their respective LLL ($`n_1=n_2=0`$). If we label $`1,2`$ the oscillators associated to each particle, the operators $`B=b_1+b_2,B^+=b_1^++b_2^+`$ and $`L=L_1+L_2`$ act within the LLL and commute with the interaction $`V`$. They obey the relations (3) with the parameter $`q=q_1+q_2`$. Inside the LLL the states $`|n,l`$ are labeled by the eigenvalues of $`B^+B/qL`$ $`n0`$ and the angular momentum eigenvalues $`ln`$. As a result the eigenstates of $`P_0VP_0`$ where $`P_0`$ projects each particle in its LLL do not depend on $`V`$ and their eigenvalues $`E_n`$ are labeled by $`n`$.

We are interested in the case where the first particle has a positive charge $`q_1`$ and the second one has a negative charge $`q_2`$, $`q_1>q_2`$. In this case, $`a_2^+`$ and $`b_2^+`$ are an annihilation operator and it follows that the states associated to the second particle in the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ LL have their angular momentum $`l_2n_2`$. When the two particles $`1`$ and $`2`$ interact the operators $`B,B^+,L`$ obey the relations (3) with the parameter $`q^{}=q_1q_2`$ and the states in the LLL $`(n_1=n_2=0)`$ $`|n,l`$ have $`n0`$ and $`ln`$. They are the eigenstates of $`P_0VP_0`$ and in the case where $`V`$ is attractive they form bound states which can be interpreted as charge $`q^{}`$ particles in the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ LL. For example, the wave functions of the states with zero angular momentum ($`l=0`$) are given by:

$`\varphi _n(z_1,\overline{z}_2)=L_n(q^{}z_1\overline{z}_2)e^{q_2z_1\overline{z}_2q_1z_1\overline{z}_1/2q_2z_2\overline{z}_2/2}`$ (5)
where the $`L_n`$ are the Laguerre polynomials. If the two charges are equal and opposite, $`B`$ and $`B^+`$ can be diagonalized simultaneously and play the role of a generalized momentum. The corresponding plane waves are then:

$`\varphi _{p,\overline{p}}(z_1,\overline{z}_2)=e^{q(z_1\overline{z}_2z_1\overline{z}_1/2z_2\overline{z}_2/2)+i(\overline{p}z_1+p\overline{z}_2)}`$ (6)
This dynamical generation of higher Landau level wave functions or plane waves inside the LLL plays an important role in the FQHE. The bound states obtained in this way are called composite particles and the field theory of these particles is non-commutative as we show now (see also ). Let us consider the case where the two charges are equal in magnitude $`q_1=q_2`$. Then the bound states form neutral dipoles and the non-commutativity originates from their extensiveness . The projection into the LLL transforms $`f(\stackrel{}{x})`$ into a matrix :

$$\widehat{f}_{l,l^{}}=l|f|l^{}$$

where the matrix elements are taken in between LLL orbitals. The action of this matrix on the state $`|l`$ being given by $`_l^{}f_{l,l^{}}|l^{}`$. The function $`f(z,\overline{z})`$ is called the P-symbol for the matrix $`\widehat{f}`$ . If we use the coherent state basis to represent the LLL orbitals one can rewrite the matrix $`\widehat{f}`$ as:

$$\widehat{f}=|zf_p(z,\overline{z})z|𝑑z𝑑\overline{z}.$$

and because the LLL basis is not complete, the matrices associated to different functions not commute .

Another way to associate a function to a matrix consists in bracketing the matrix between coherent states:

$`f_q(z,\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`z|\widehat{f}|z`$ (7)
It is called the Q-symbol and will be useful when we consider fields in the next section. In particular one has:

$`e^{i(\overline{p}z+p\overline{z})}=z|e^{i\frac{\overline{p}b^+}{q}}e^{i\frac{pb}{q}}|z`$ (8)
The Q-symbol induces a noncommutative product on functions which we denote by $``$: $`f_qg_q=(\widehat{f}\widehat{g})_q`$. In the following, the Q-symbol is understood whenever we consider a \*-product.

In the dipole case there are $`4`$ type of operators to consider according to how they intertwine the particles $`1`$ and $`2`$. They can be represented in the matrix form:

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{f}_{11}& \widehat{f}_{12}\\ \widehat{f}_{21}& \widehat{f}_{22}\end{array}\right)`$ (9)
where each matrix element is a $`N_\varphi ^2`$ matrix. We can also consider the Q-symbol which is a two by two matrix with functions of $`z,\overline{z}`$ as matrix elements.

## 3 Skyrmions and non-commutative solitons

The simplest model for dipoles occurs for a system of $`N_e`$ electrons interacting repulsively at $`\nu =1`$: $`N_e=N_\varphi `$. The electrons carry a spin $`1/2`$ which is not coupled to the magnetic field in the limit of zero Zeeman coupling. At this filling the ground state is a ferromagnet with total spin $`N_e/2`$ where $`N_e=N_\varphi `$ is the total number of electrons in the system.

The addition or removal of a single electron dramatically reduces the spin as seen numerically  and experimentally . This behavior may be explained using the so called skyrmion spin textures  in a non linear $`\sigma `$ model approach. These textures carry a topological number equal to the electric charge. In this section we review these solutions and reinterpret them as non-commutative solitons.

Let us see heuristically how this problem is related to the dipoles and why we expect them to condense in presence of an electric charge. The picture we have in mind is a ferromagnetic ground state where all spins are aligned in the minus direction. Each time we flip a spin a spin one dipole is formed made by the spin up electron and the hole created in the spin down electron sea. If we remove an electron from the ground state, a condensate will form if it is energetically favorable to flip a large number of spins to lower the energy. In the dipole language it means that a large number of dipoles agglomerate around the charge. To see that this occurs consider one dipole in presence of a positive charge equal in magnitude to the charges of the dipole. It is equivalent to consider two positive charges denoted $`1,2`$ in presence of a negative charge denoted $`3`$. The charges with the same sign repel each other through the interaction $`V`$ while the charges with opposite sign attract each other through $`V`$. In the strong field limit we can neglect the masses of the particle and by the canonical quantization procedure the coordinate $`R_{13}=R`$ becomes conjugated to $`R_{23}=P^{}`$, $`[P_x^{},R_y]=[P_y^{},R_x]=1`$. The Hamiltonian which describes the three charges is the sum of their interactions: $`H=V(RP^{})V(R)V(P^{})`$. For a reasonable repulsive potential a bound state forms with the three particles aligned and the negative charge in the middle of two positive charges (see  for a more complete treatment). The angular momentum is proportional to the area since $`L=R.P^{}`$. Since a single dipole binds to the charge we expect that several (bosonic) dipoles condense in the presence of the charge and that the condensate carries an angular momentum $`L`$ proportional to its mean square radius.

To make the discussion simplest we consider the case of a hard core potential $`V=\delta ^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ and the electrons live on a sphere of area $`(2L+1)\pi `$ thread by $`2L`$ quantum fluxes where $`L`$ is half integer. The LLL is $`2L+1`$ degenerate and in the azimuthal gauge $`a_\varphi =1\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$ the LLL orbitals take the form:

$`\widehat{r}|l=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2L}{l+L}}\right)^{1/2}u^{L+l}v^{Ll}`$ (10)
$`LlL`$ where $`u=\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi }`$ and $`v=\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)`$.

The zero energy wave functions are homogeneous polynomial of degree $`2L`$ in the coordinates $`u_i,v_i`$ of the electrons and vanish when two particles are at the same position. When there are exactly $`2L+1`$ electrons on the sphere the Pauli principle forces it to be symmetric under the spin permutations and the ground state is thus ferromagnetic. If we remove $`1`$ electron from the system, Fertig et al.  proposed a wave function satisfying these constraints :

$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_e}{}}}(u_i|+v_i|){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(u_iv_ju_jv_i)`$ (11)
The effect of the first factor is to expel the spin down electrons from the first orbital $`(l=L)`$ and the spin up electron from the last orbital $`(l=L)`$ so that the spin is up at the north pole and down at the south pole. This wave function being invariant under simultaneous space and spin rotation, it follows that the spin takes a hedgehog shape around the sphere. Although it is not a spin eigenstate, it has its maximal weight for the spin and angular momentum $`S=L=0`$. It fits our qualitative picture where on a sphere of area $`(2L+1)\pi `$, $`L`$ dipoles bind to the charge to form a bound state of spin and the angular momentum $`L`$.

To relate this discussion to the noncommutative field theory it is useful to introduce the fermionic operators which create a spin up or down electron in the $`l^{\mathrm{th}}`$ orbital: $`c_l^+,c_l^+`$. The products $`c_l^+c_l^{}`$ create a spin one dipole made of charge $`q=1`$ particle in the $`l`$ orbital and a charge $`q=1`$ hole in the $`l^{}`$ orbital. It is possible to express the relevant observables in terms of a fundamental field which creates the dipoles. For this we define the matrix fields $`\sigma _{ij},\overline{\sigma }_{kl}`$ which obey canonical commutation relations:

$`[\sigma _{ij},\sigma _{kl}]=[\overline{\sigma }_{ij},\overline{\sigma }_{kl}]=0`$
$`[\sigma _{ij},\overline{\sigma }_{kl}]=\delta _{il}\delta _{jk}`$ (12)
Next we identify fields in the two representations by requiring that they obey the same commutation relations:

$`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_i^+c_j& c_i^+c_l\\ c_k^+c_j& c_k^+c_l\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(\overline{\sigma }\sigma )_{ij}& (\overline{\sigma }.\sqrt{1\sigma \overline{\sigma }})_{il}\\ (\sqrt{1\sigma \overline{\sigma }}.\sigma )_{kj}& (1\sigma \overline{\sigma })_{kl}\end{array}\right)`$ (13)
Indeed, the matrix elements of the left-hand side matrix obey the commutation relations of a $`U(2N)`$ Lie algebra and the right-hand side matrix can be viewed as a generalized Holstein-Primakov representation for these generators . If we go to the Q-representation, the equality (13) translates into an identification between fields:

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _{}^+\varphi _{}& \varphi _{}^+\varphi _{}\\ \varphi _{}^+\varphi _{}& \varphi _{}^+\varphi _{}\end{array}\right)(\widehat{r})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\sigma }\sigma & \overline{\sigma }\sqrt{1\sigma \overline{\sigma }}\\ \sqrt{1\sigma \overline{\sigma }}\sigma & 1\sigma \overline{\sigma }\end{array}\right)(\widehat{r})`$ (14)
where the fields $`\varphi _,^+(\widehat{r})=_l\widehat{r}|lc_{l,}^+`$ create an electron up or down at a given position. The diagonal matrix elements are the density of up and down electrons. In the case of a $`\delta `$ potential the energy is the integral of the total density squared which in term of $`\sigma (\widehat{r})`$ is given by:

$`E={\displaystyle (\sigma \overline{\sigma }\overline{\sigma }\sigma 1)^2d^2\widehat{r}}`$ (15)
We then minimize the energy for a classical field and we thus replace $`\sigma _{ij}`$ by a c-number in this expression. The minimum is clearly for a constant density:

$`[\sigma ,\overline{\sigma }]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L+1}}`$ (16)
A solution valid in the north hemisphere is $`\sigma _{l1,l}=\sqrt{\frac{l+L}{2L+1}}`$. The expression which follows for $`A`$ is then:

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L+1}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}L+l& L_+\\ L_{}& Ll\end{array}\right)`$ (17)
where $`\stackrel{}{L}`$ is the angular momentum operator. In the south hemisphere we must use the gauge $`\stackrel{~}{a}_\varphi =1+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$. The LLL basis $`|\stackrel{~}{l}`$ takes the form (10) where $`\stackrel{~}{u}=\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}=\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)`$. In the intermediate region the two basis are related by a gauge transformation $`e^{2iL\varphi }\widehat{r}|\stackrel{~}{l}=\widehat{r}|l`$ with $`l=\stackrel{~}{l}`$. In the basis $`|\stackrel{~}{l}`$ the expression (17) of $`A`$ must be conjugated by $`\sigma _x`$. Thus we use the same expression $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ll^{}}=\sigma _{ll^{}}`$ in the right hand side of (13) to represent $`\sigma _xA\sigma _x`$ in the south hemisphere. Clearly we cannot use a single matrix $`\sigma `$ to represent $`A`$ globally since the trace of the left-hand side of (13) must be equal to the number of electrons $`2L`$ and the trace of the right-hand side is equal to $`2L+1`$ for any finite size matrix $`\sigma `$.

The Q-symbol expression of $`A`$ at scales large compared to the magnetic length is obtained by substituting in (14) $`\sigma _q(\widehat{r})\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi }`$. It has the characteristic hedgehog shape of the spin texture.

Recently, non-commutative solitons were introduced in relation with strings . The solution presented here has many similarities with the one presented in  following . In particular the field $`A`$ is a projector $`A^2=A`$. There is however a major physical difference: on the plane, the equivalent of the skyrmion  has a parameter which controls its size. The solution $`A`$ of  coincides with the ’zero size soliton’ as can easily be seen by interpreting its Q-symbol as a spin texture. In the case of the $`\delta `$ potential, the energy of the skyrmions is independent of their size but as soon as some nonlocal repulsion is introduced large skyrmions are energetically favored.

One of the aim of this letter was to establish a link between an experimentally observed phenomena in the integer Hall effect and classical solutions of noncommutative field theories. In the context of the fractional Hall effect the dipoles that have been considered in  are fermions and the field $`\sigma `$ is thus fermionic. In this case nonlinear classical solutions, if they exist, may be related to the striped phases  (see  for a proposal in this direction) or pair condensation  predicted for higher Landau levels.

I thank D.Bernard, J.Chalker, G.Misguich, U.Moschella and D.Serban for discussions and advices.