text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

String theory is still believed to be the only possible candidate to the role of fundamental theory of all interactions though the exact sense of these words is rather far from being creative. One should better say that nowadays it is almost clear that certain problems which are in principle unresolvable in the context of conventional quantum field theory may be solved within this more fundamental theory in the future and, for example, the self-consistent formulation of quantum gravity is among them.

It is also clear that even terminologically string theory is not very exact name for this (not already quite) new fundamental theory, since strings are light excitations only in some part of the whole parameter or moduli space of nonperturbative string (or M-) theory and only there the theory can be formulated as perturbative expansion in terms of the Polyakov path integral . Naively this situation is rather similar to quantum field theory when only at weak coupling it can be presented as (infinite) set of harmonic oscillators or free particles. However, the very fact that a theory is formulated as a sum over string world sheets implies completely different from conventional quantum field theory way of summing the states propagating along string loops, which basically means that string theory is not a quantum field theory. The problem of constructing string field theory or second-quantized theory of strings is a closely related issue.

This problem was among main interests of my teacher Vladimir Yakovlevich Fainberg when he has drawn my attention to this, very new at that time, branch of theoretical physics. We started to understand very soon that string theory is essentially first-quantized and that it is strongly related with the properties of two-dimensional geometry responsible for correct counting in string loops. The simplest analog of string path integral is the path integral over particle’s world lines and it can be used for computation of the Green functions of propagating particles, say, Dirac fermions, in external backgrounds , being a one-dimensional analog of the Fradkin-Tseytlin effective action  in string theory.

The one-dimensional analog of the Polyakov path integral simply results into the proper-time representation of propagators or partition functions of point particles, looking thus to be too complicated formulation of a very simple problem. However, it provides an important geometrical meaning and it is interesting to see methodologically how the well-known answers arise if one starts from one dimensional analog of string and integrate over co-ordinates of particle, extra variables living on a world-line (responsible for ”internal” degrees of freedom) and one-dimensional ”geometries”. Introducing world-line supersymmetry  we immediately obtain space-time fermions, but already in this first nontrivial example the integral over one-dimensional ”supergravity” becomes ill-defined due to presence of real world-line fermions, this is a well-known problem, discussed, for example in . The problem can be resolved, however, if one thinks of a fermionic particle as of a zero-length limit of fermionic Neveu-Schwarz-Ramond (NSR) string 111An alternative approach uses the Green-Scwharz or target-space fermions from the very beginning and leads to the formalism of superparticle and Green-Schwarz superstring. In contrast to fermionic path integrals, describing the propagation of fermion only, the superparticle contains both boson and fermion, respecting space-time supersymmetry..

In this note we are going to discuss another side of the same problem which arises in the case when target-space is not just Minkowski or Euclidean space $`𝐑^D`$ but has one or several compact dimensions. The simplest example of this situation – a partition function at finite temperature when one of dimensions is compactified and the target-space is $`𝐑^{D1}\times 𝐒^1`$. It will be shown below that this partition function may be defined ”in spirit” of string theory, i.e. starting from one-dimensional (super)geometry though again we run into problems related to the existence of real fermions. Nevertheless these problems can be understood better if one thinks of a point particle as of a ”field-theory” limit of string.

## 2 First Quantized Relativistic Bosons and Fermions

The path integral approach to the perturbative string theory  is quite nontrivial but very direct generalization of the first-quantized representation of quantum field theory as world-line integrals over the trajectories of relativistic particles (and anti-particles). The integral over embeddings of the world-sheets and/or world-lines should be supplemented by integration over two-dimensional and/or one-dimensional geometries (or super-geometries). In string theory the integral over two-dimensional geometries leads immediately to nontrivial consequences for the properties of the target space-time, but in the ”model example” of point particles it can be simply reduced to the finite-dimensional integral over the lengths of world lines or what is called the integral over Feynman parameters in quantum field theory.

The simplest illustrative example of this technique is given by path integral representation for the propagator of bosonic spinless particle

$$\begin{array}{c}G(X_f,X_i)=De_{X_i}^{X_f}DXe^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\dot{X}^2}{e}}}+em^2}\end{array}$$
(1)
where integral over one-dimensional geometry is presented by the integral over (square root of) one dimensional metric $`e`$ such that proper length of the world-line is $`T=_0^1e(t)𝑑t`$. Naive integration in (1) first over $`De`$

$$\begin{array}{c}G(X_f,X_i)_{X_i}^{X_f}DXe^{m{\scriptscriptstyle \sqrt{\dot{X}^2}}}\end{array}$$
(2)
gives rise to the non Gaussian integral over embeddings $`X=\{X_\mu (t)\}`$ only 222This is a naive infinite-dimensional analog of the exact formula (20) to be used below. so that the most effective way to deal with integrals like (1) is the opposite – to integrate first over embeddings $`X`$ (with boundary conditions $`X(0)=X_i`$ and $`X(1)=X_f`$) in the Gaussian form (1) and to use explicit co-ordinates in the moduli space of one-dimensional geometries (metrics factorized over reparameterizations of world lines) to construct measure $`De`$.

This is rather trivial procedure, which can be thought of as a variant of the Faddeev-Popov trick, or, even more simple – a generalization of the finite-dimensional formula of Gaussian integration, the details can be found, for example, in . The pretty simple and well-known result is that one can choose a ”gauge” 333The terminology ”gauge” is not, in fact, very strict here since we are integrating over the whole space of metrics on world-line after choosing appropriate co-ordinates. However, we will keep this word throught the paper since this is already commongly accepted terminology and since the integral over all metrics is equivalent to the integral over their ”classes of equivalence” or lengths $`T`$. $`e(t)=T=const`$ ($`T`$ is the length of a path) and rewrite integration over $`De`$ as an integral over reparameterizations and (one-dimensional) integral over the lengths $`T`$. The first one, if measure $`De`$ is normalized by dividing onto the volume of reparameterization group, is trivial (nothing depends on reparameterizations of world-lines!) and gives unity, so that, finally, for open trajectories one gets

$$\begin{array}{c}De_{X_i}^{X_f}DXe^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\dot{X}^2}{e}}}+em^2}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑T_{X_i}^{X_f}DXe^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\dot{X}^2}{T}}}+Tm^2}\end{array}$$
(3)
and performing (now gaussian!) integration over $`X`$’s we finally obtain a well-known formula

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑Te^{\frac{1}{2}Tm^2\frac{(X_fX_i)^2}{2T}}det\left(\frac{1}{T^2}\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\right)^{D/2}=\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^{D/2}}e^{ip(X_fX_i)}\frac{1}{p^2+m^2}\end{array}$$
(4)
where $`D`$ is dimension of space-time with (Euclidean) co-ordinates $`X_\mu `$, $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},D`$.

This pretty simple logic can be generalized to the first-quantized fermions. Indeed, introducing supersymmetry on world line, one immediately comes to the space-time fermion , for example in the above sense – computation of the world-line integral with fixed ends gives the Dirac propagator.

The corresponding world-line action may be determined by invariancy under world-line supersymmetry transformations

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta X=ϵ\mathrm{\Psi }\\ \delta \mathrm{\Psi }=ϵ\left(\dot{X}+\frac{1}{2}\chi \mathrm{\Psi }\right)e^1\\ \delta \chi =2\dot{ϵ}\\ \delta e=ϵ\chi \end{array}$$
(5)
and contains Grassmann fermionic variables $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$, which after quantization become gamma-matrices , so that the wave function carries now also a space-time fermionic index, since it is a vector in representation of the Clifford algebra.

The path integral representation for the Dirac particle propagator  has a similar form to (1)

$$\begin{array}{c}G(X_f,X_i)=DeD\chi _{X_i}^{X_f}DXD\mathrm{\Psi }e^{\frac{1}{2}_{dt}\frac{\dot{X}^2}{e}+\mathrm{\Psi }\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}+\frac{\chi }{e}\mathrm{\Psi }\dot{X}+m^2(e+\frac{1}{4}\chi d_t^1\chi )}\end{array}$$
(6)
where one adds the integration over the Grassmann variables $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$ as well as the integral over one-dimensional geometries $`De`$ is replaced by the integral over one-dimensional super-geometries $`DeD\chi `$. The path integral (6) has the following properties (investigated in detail in ):

* The bosonic part is the same as in (1) giving rise to a contribution to the integral identical to l.h.s. of (4).
* The fermionic integral is ill-defined since we deal with real fermions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$ and $`\chi `$.
* Real first-order fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$ coincides with its own momentum $`\frac{\delta S}{\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu }`$. That leads to appearance of the Clifford algebra after quantization. In the path integral (6) it means that we integrate around the classical trajectory $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu =\gamma _\mu `$ with $`\gamma _\mu `$ to be replace by Dirac gamma-matrices $`[\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu ]_+=\delta _{\mu \nu }`$. More strictly the path integral (6) defines the symbol of the propagator (it is especially clear if one considers sample computations in external fields, see  for details).
* The Gaussian integral over the fluctuations $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu \gamma _\mu )`$ gives rise to the determinant of the first-order differential operator $`det\left(\frac{d}{dt}\right)^{D/2}`$ which does not depends on metric $`e`$ on world line or its length $`T`$. This can be established in several ways, for example, one may compute it via ”discretization”. Another method of computation the same determinant is to assign to the fluctuations the antiperiodic boundary conditions at the end of the world line.
* Like ”metric” $`e`$ the ”gravitino” $`\chi `$ by local transformations can be ”gauged” to the form $`\chi (t)=𝒳=const`$, where $`𝒳`$ is now a Grassmannian constant. The Grassmann integral over $`𝒳`$ gives rise to the most essential contribution into Dirac propagator

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑T\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}Tm^2\frac{(X_fX_i)^2}{2T}}}{det\left(\frac{1}{T^2}\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\right)^{D/2}}𝑑𝒳e^{\frac{𝒳}{2T}\left(\gamma (X_fX_i)+m\gamma _5\right)}=\\ =_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{T^{1+D/2}}e^{\frac{1}{2}Tm^2\frac{(X_fX_i)^2}{2T}}\frac{1}{2T}\left(\gamma (X_fX_i)+m\gamma _5\right)=\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^{D/2}}e^{ip(X_fX_i)}\frac{\gamma p+m\gamma _5}{p^2+m^2}\end{array}$$
(7)
where $`\gamma _5`$ (to be replaced by product of all Dirac matrices $`\gamma _\mu `$) can be thought of  as a classical value of auxiliary Grassmann variable $`\mathrm{\Psi }_5`$ appearing when one gets rid of nonlocal term in the action in (6).
* The ”illness” of real fermions is seen when one derives the integration measure over $`d𝒳`$ from the ”first principles” of world-line theory. To do this, one needs, for example, to complexify the field $`\chi `$ . The only reason for doing this, known to the author, is if one says that the propagator for Dirac particle is a limiting case for the propagator of the open Ramond string . In string theory worldsheet supergeometry has two gravitino fields $`\chi `$ and $`\overline{\chi }`$ (see sect. 5 below) and the integration measure can be defined rigorously.

Apart for the problems with real fermions listed above, the first-quantized technique works quite effective both for bosons and fermions. One can illustrate this, for example, considering generating functionals for particles in external fields (see details and references in ) – the one-dimensional analogs of the Fradkin-Tseytlin string effective actions. One adds, for example, exponent of the interaction term with the gauge field

$$\begin{array}{c}_{dt}\left(\dot{X}_\mu (t)A_\mu (X(t))+\frac{e(t)}{2}F_{\mu \nu }(X(t))\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu (t)\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu (t)\right)\end{array}$$
(8)
(ordered $`P`$-exponent in the non-Abelian case) and this generating functional gives rise to all desired results.

In what follows we will see that background terms and especially those exactly given by (8) are extremely important for the theory with compact dimensions. The interaction of string with gauge field is given by the same integral (8) which is taken, in this case, over the one-dimensional boundary of two-dimensional world-sheet. In the first-quantized ideology of string theory one starts with some arbitrary background which is then ”tuned” by propagating string. If we think of a particle being the zero-length limit of string, the same ideology may be applied directly in the case of integration over world-lines.

In general, exponent of (8) corresponds to nontrivial external gauge field. For vanishing field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }=0`$, $`A_\mu `$ is a pure gauge and the first term in (8) can be integrated out. This is not the case, however, if one allows compact dimensions, then vanishing $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ still allows nonvanishing ”Wilson loops” and the path integral is defined, up to exponent of some phase

$$\begin{array}{c}_{dt}\dot{X}_\mu (t)A_\mu (X(t))=A_\mu 𝑑X_\mu \end{array}$$
(9)
For the flat target space one may always choose $`A_\mu =const`$ and the nonzero phase can be ”generated” only for the compact direction, say in the case of $`𝐑^{D1}\times 𝐒^1`$ only $`A_0`$ may be nonvanishing (index ”$`0`$” here and below would correspond to the compact part of $`𝐑^{D1}\times 𝐒^1`$). Possible arising of nontrivial phase for the first-quantized path integral will be essentially used below and one may even try to interpret this phase as coming from ”internal” degrees of freedom, living on world-lines and world-sheets.

## 3 Free Energy of Point Particles

Let us now turn more closely to the problem we are going to discuss below in detail. In contrast to sect. 2 consider closed trajectories, corresponding to the 1-loop partition functions, which from the point of view of quantum field theory are equal to

$$\begin{array}{c}\pm \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}det(p^2+m^2)\end{array}$$
(10)
where two different signs correspond either to fermions or to bosons. These determinants have well-known proper-time representations, for example, in bosonic case one can write

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{log}det(p^2+m^2)=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}(p^2+m^2)=\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{log}(p^2+m^2)=\\ =_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{T}\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}e^{\frac{1}{2}T(p^2+m^2)}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{D/2}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{T^{1+\frac{D}{2}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}Tm^2}\end{array}$$
(11)
The last expression can be considered as a similar to (1) (first-quantized) path integral representation for a particle,

$$\begin{array}{c}DeDXe^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\dot{X}^2}{e}}}+em^2}\end{array}$$
(12)
but now on periodic trajectories i.e. with boundary conditions $`X(0)=X(1)`$ 444$`X_f=X_i`$ with extra integration over this point if compare to the integral over co-ordinates in (1).. The computation can be performed in a standard way, again choosing the ”gauge” $`e(t)=T=_0^1e(t)𝑑t`$, when it is reduced to

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{T}e^{\frac{1}{2}Tm^2}DXe^{{\scriptscriptstyle {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\dot{X}^2}{2T}}}}\end{array}$$
(13)
since the integration measure over the metric $`De`$ on world-line, induced by $`\delta e^2=_{dt}\frac{(\delta e)^2}{e}`$, gives rise on periodic trajectories to $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{T}`$ (in contrast to $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑T`$ on open world lines). The integral over $`DX`$ separates into the zero-mode part $`dX^{(0)}`$ which gives the contribution $`\left(\frac{T}{2\pi }\right)^{\frac{D}{2}}`$, coming from the reparameterization invariant definition of the integration measure over zero modes, times the volume of target space $`\mathrm{Vol}(𝐑^D)`$, while the rest is again $`det\left(\frac{1}{T^2}\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\right)^{\frac{D}{2}}`$, to be computed in a standard way. For periodic boundary conditions

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{log}det\left(\frac{1}{T^2}\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\right)=4_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}\frac{2\pi n}{T}=2\mathrm{log}T+\mathrm{const}\end{array}$$
(14)
since we have double degenerated eigenvalues $`\left(\frac{2\pi n}{T}\right)^2`$ with $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Altogether, after normalization to the volume of target space $`\mathrm{Vol}(𝐑^D)`$, it gives the last expression in (11).

If now one considers a particle in space-time with compact directions (for example the so called theories at finite temperature when $`X_0X_0+\beta `$), one should make a substitution $`\frac{dp_0}{2\pi }\frac{1}{\beta }_{n𝐙}`$ when computing the trace in (11), so that

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{log}(p^2+m^2)\frac{1}{2\beta }_{n𝐙}_{d𝐩}\mathrm{log}(𝐩^2+m^2+\frac{4\pi ^2n^2}{\beta ^2})=\\ =\frac{1}{\beta }_{d𝐩}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\beta }{2}\sqrt{𝐩^2+m^2}=\frac{1}{\beta }_{d𝐩}\mathrm{log}\left(1e^{\beta \omega _𝐩}\right)\end{array}$$
(15)
up to a divergent constant, including the vacuum energy of the infinite system of oscillators $`_{d𝐩}\frac{\omega _𝐩}{2}`$, where $`\omega _𝐩=\sqrt{𝐩^2+m^2}`$ and $`d𝐩\frac{d^{D1}p}{(2\pi )^{D1}}`$ stays for the integration only over the ”space” momenta. In (15) we have used that

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sinh}\pi x=\pi x_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\left(1+\frac{x^2}{n^2}\right)\end{array}$$
(16)
Now the path integral representation (12) gives for this case

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{T}e^{\frac{1}{2}Tm^2}DXe^{{\scriptscriptstyle {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\dot{X}^2}{2T}}}}=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(𝐑^{D1})}{(2\pi )^{\frac{D1}{2}}}\frac{\beta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{T^{1+\frac{D}{2}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}Tm^2}_{n𝐙}e^{\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{2T}}\end{array}$$
(17)
which includes the $`\theta `$-function sum over ”wrappings” along the compact $`X_0`$-direction

$$\begin{array}{c}\theta \left(0|\frac{i\beta ^2}{2\pi T}\right)=_{n𝐙}e^{\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{2T}}\end{array}$$
(18)
and the extra factor $`\beta 𝑑X_0^{(0)}`$ comes from the integration over the zero mode in compact direction ($`\mathrm{Vol}(𝐑^D)\beta \mathrm{Vol}(𝐑^{D1})`$). This sum can be interpreted as a sum over ensemble of particle (each term corresponds to $`n`$ particles, propagating in the loop), thus giving rise to statistic quantity in terms of formally one-particle, first-quantized integral. The result, normalized now onto the volume of ”space-dimensional” part $`\mathrm{Vol}(𝐑^{D1})`$ only, is free energy $`\beta `$, since

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\beta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{T^{\frac{3}{2}}}\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}Tm^2}}{T^{\frac{D1}{2}}}e^{\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{2T}}=\frac{\beta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}_{d𝐩}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{T^{\frac{3}{2}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}T(𝐩^2+m^2)+\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{2T}}=\\ =\beta _{d𝐩}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{\beta n\omega _𝐩}}{\beta n}=_{d𝐩}\mathrm{log}\left(1e^{\beta \omega _𝐩}\right)=\beta =\mathrm{log}Z\end{array}$$
(19)
In order to present the last computation one should use the integration formula

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{\sqrt{T}}e^{a^2T\frac{b^2}{T}}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{|a|}e^{2|ab|}\end{array}$$
(20)
which is literally used in (19) after a ”modular” transformation $`T\frac{1}{T}`$. Thus, we have checked that in bosonic case the first-quantized formalism immediately, without any subtleties, like introducing nontrivial backgrounds, leads to correct well-known result.

## 4 The path integral for fermions

However, the situation is not as simple in the fermionic case, when one should get instead of (19) 555Notice, that the first-quantized path integral gives the logarithm of the partition function (free energy) so that in both bosonic (15) and fermionic (21) cases one gets the sums of infinitely many terms, corresponding to the expansion of logarithms. If the result of the first-quantized computation were the partition functions themselves (without logarithms), then in bosonic case one would still see the sum of infinitely many terms (geometric progression) while in the fermionic case there would be only two contributions of two-level system.

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{\beta }_{d𝐩}\mathrm{log}\left(1+e^{\beta \omega _𝐩}\right)=_{d𝐩}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{\beta n\omega _𝐩}}{\beta n}e^{i\pi n}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{T^{1+\frac{D}{2}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}Tm^2}_{n𝐙}e^{\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{2T}+i\pi n}\end{array}$$
(21)
where the last factor

$$\begin{array}{c}\theta \left(\frac{1}{2}|\frac{i\beta ^2}{2\pi T}\right)=_{n𝐙}e^{\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{2T}+i\pi n}\end{array}$$
(22)
is the only essential contribution of the world-sheet fermions. In conventional terms of quantum field theory, or better space-time fermions, this effect comes from well-known shift to the Matsubara half-integer frequencies. But let us stress here that this has nothing in common with our discussion based on world-line fermions and below in this section we are going to look at this problem from the perspective of first-quantized formalism.

The fermionic analog of the path integral (12) has the form

$$\begin{array}{c}DeD\chi DXD\mathrm{\Psi }e^{\frac{1}{2}_{dt}\frac{\dot{X}^2}{e}+\mathrm{\Psi }\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}+\frac{\chi }{e}\mathrm{\Psi }\dot{X}+m^2(e+\frac{1}{4}\chi d_t^1\chi )}\end{array}$$
(23)
where integral over $`DX`$ is again considered over closed trajectories $`X(1)=X(0)`$. As in the case of propagators considered in sect. 2, the integration is almost identical to the bosonic case and gives

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{T}e^{\frac{1}{2}Tm^2}DXe^{\frac{1}{2}_{dt}\frac{\dot{X}^2}{T}}D\mathrm{\Psi }e^{\frac{1}{2}_{dt}\mathrm{\Psi }\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}}D\chi e^{_{dt}\frac{1}{8}\chi d_t^1\chi }e^{_{dt}\frac{1}{2T}\chi \mathrm{\Psi }\dot{X}}=\\ =\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(𝐑^{D1})}{(2\pi )^{\frac{D1}{2}}}\frac{\beta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{T}e^{\frac{1}{2}Tm^2}\frac{1}{T^{\frac{D}{2}}}\left(detd_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{D}{2}}\right)\left(detd_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)e^{{\scriptscriptstyle A_\mu 𝑑X^\mu }}\end{array}$$
(24)
The only essential factor, which distinguishes (24) from the bosonic case is the last factor of the type (9) and which can be even thought of as coming from fermionic degrees of freedom $`A_\mu 𝑑X^\mu =_{dt}\frac{1}{2T}\chi \mathrm{\Psi }\dot{X}`$, having exactly the meaning of a ”$`\theta `$-term” or interaction with gauge field (8) $`A_\mu =\frac{1}{2T}\chi \mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$ with vanishing field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }(A)=0`$ as we discussed at the end of sect. 2. Let us stress again that such factor can be the only source for ”fermionic anomaly” since the fermionic determinant $`detd_t`$ does not depends on metric and its extra power in (24) is absolutely inessential. Such gauge potential in the example with target-space $`𝐑^{D1}\times 𝐒^1`$ corresponds to a nontrivial loop in compact direction $`X_0X_0+\beta `$, and it means that in our case one may consider only $`A_0=\frac{1}{2T}\chi \mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ being nonzero. The bosonic part of the computation is identical to that one considered above while two extra determinants in (24) – the degrees of $`detd_t`$ – correspond to the integration over $`D\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`D\chi `$ and, thus, are independent on metric $`e(t)=T`$ and/or should be computed with antiperiodic boundary conditions.

Let us now turn directly to the only possible classical and ”fermion-dependent” contribution

$$\begin{array}{c}A_\mu 𝑑X^\mu =_{dt}\frac{\chi \mathrm{\Psi }_0}{2T}\dot{X}_0\end{array}$$
(25)
coming from the loop in ”temperature” $`X_0`$-direction. First, already from general physical arguments it is clear that the only self-consistent value for this ”background loop” is $`A_0=\frac{2\pi i}{\beta }(K+\frac{1}{2})`$ with any integer $`K𝐙`$. The corresponding ”gauge” symmetry is a (discrete) $`𝐙_2`$-symmetry of changing the fermionic sign and thus one may interpret $`A_\mu =\frac{\chi }{e}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$ just as a ”Wilson-line” background (9). In particular, it is supersymmetric, since

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta \left(\frac{\chi }{e}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu \right)=\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{2ϵ\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu }{e}\right)+\frac{ϵ}{e}\left(2\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu \frac{\chi }{e}\dot{X}_\mu \right)\end{array}$$
(26)
where the first term is total derivative and vanishes on periodic trajectories (even if $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is antiperiodic, $`ϵ`$ is also antiperiodic and still $`ϵ\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is periodic) while the second is proportional to the equations of motion and vanishes on classical trajectories.

So, in short, there are few things to be fixed for the computation (24) of the fermionic path integral (23):

* The integration over fluctuations of world-line fermionic fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$ gives no nontrivial contribution to the answer for the temperature partition function, unlike the ”Matsubara” target-space fermions. In more conventional string theory terms this is an extra difference between the world-sheet Neveu-Schwarz-Ramond and target-space Green-Schwarz fermions.
* The only essential fermionic factor, which can arise, has the form of (9)

$$\begin{array}{c}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle A_\mu 𝑑X_\mu }}\end{array}$$
(27)
with very special imaginary

$$\begin{array}{c}A_\mu =\delta _{\mu ,0}\frac{2\pi i}{\beta }(K+\frac{1}{2})K𝐙\end{array}$$
(28)
as usual taking values in the ”dual torus” – a circumference with radius proportional to the inverse radius of the compact dimension.
* This ”vacuum expectation value” can be thought of as coming from world line fermions $`A_\mu =\frac{\chi }{2e}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$. This is a very subtle point, since even on classical trajectories if $`\chi =𝒳0`$ one gets $`\psi _\mu 𝒳`$ and due to Grassmannian nature of fermionic variables their product vanishes, but $`\chi \mathrm{\Psi }_\mu =A_\mu 0`$, with $`A_\mu `$ defined by (28). The naive inconsistency of this setting is related, again, to the problem of real fermions (the Grassmann algebra is one-dimensional) we are coming back all the time. Below, in sect. 5, we consider this problem in ”regularized” setup of string theory, looking at the fermionic particle integral as at the limit of path integral for the fermionic string.
* On more rough level, one may even forget about all complications with the fermionic variables. For example, just say, that any first-quantized path integral in space with compact directions is defined up to the factors like (9) with $`F_{\mu \nu }=0`$ but without any other restrictions to $`A_\mu `$. It means, in particular, that the partition function will get a contribution

$$\begin{array}{c}\theta \left(\alpha |\frac{i\beta ^2}{2\pi T}\right)=_{n𝐙}e^{\frac{\beta ^2n^2}{2T}+2\pi in\alpha }\end{array}$$
(29)
of which (18) and (22) are particular cases. The generic factor (29) would correspond to anyon, a particle with fractional statistics determined by arbitrary phase $`\alpha 𝐑/𝐙`$. If we consider, however, a simply-connected target-space (like $`𝐑^{D1}`$), and wave-function depends only on position in this target-space, or co-ordinate $`X`$, and does not ”remember” the path – by standard ”Landau argument” the only choices for the phase are $`\alpha =0,\frac{1}{2}`$, so that from (29) we come back either to (18) or to (22).

So, we have tried to argue in this section that the careful treatment of the fermionic world-line integral gives rise to expected result in the case of compact target-space as well as in the case of usual Minkowski/Euclidean space. However, we again run into a problem with the (integration over) world-line real fermions which has no rigorous resolution without complexification or ”raising” the problem to the string level.

## 5 The fermionic string path integral

Let us, finally, consider the fermionic string path integral

$$\begin{array}{c}DgD\chi DXD\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{}XX+\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{}\mathrm{\Psi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}+\chi \mathrm{\Psi }\overline{}X+\overline{\chi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}X+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\chi }\chi \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)\end{array}$$
(30)
where action now is invariant under local two-dimensional supersymmetry . In contrast to the particle case (23) action in (30) contains now two cubic ”complex conjugated” terms and quartic term $`\overline{\chi }\chi \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$, containing both fermions and both gravitinos. In the case of open fermionic string one should impose boundary conditions $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\pm \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$, $`\chi =\pm \overline{\chi }`$ on the free boundaries of the world-sheet, and for the Ramond sector (the same sign at all components of the boundary) one gets in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ the Dirac particle. Due to existence of both $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ and two gravitinos there is no problem any more with constructing measure for the fermionic string.

This is a kind of ”two-dimensional regularization” of one-dimensional Grassmann algebra considered in sect. 4. Only at the boundaries of the world-sheet two independent generators become connected by the boundary conditions, but now requirement that $`\chi \mathrm{\Psi }0`$ (and $`\overline{\chi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}0`$) is absolutely consistent in the ”interior” of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Reparameterization invariance requires only for these quantities to be (linear combinations of) holomorphic or antiholomorphic differentials, i.e. existence of ”vacuum averages”

$$\begin{array}{c}\chi \mathrm{\Psi }_\mu =_ka_\mu ^{(k)}d\omega _k\end{array}$$
(31)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\chi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu =_k\overline{a}_\mu ^{(k)}d\overline{\omega }_k\end{array}$$
(32)
where we have chosen $`\{d\omega _k\}`$ to be the set of canonical differentials on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`_{A_j}𝑑\omega _k=\delta _{jk}`$, $`j,k=1,\mathrm{},g=\mathrm{genus}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`\{d\overline{\omega }_k\}`$ – their complex conjugated.

In the Ramond sector, which directly ”regularizes” the fermionic particle case, one can choose $`\chi =𝒳`$ and $`\overline{\chi }=\overline{𝒳}`$, with $`𝒳=\pm \overline{𝒳}`$ on the boundaries of the world-sheet, so that quartic term vanishes and the normalization conditions come only from the cubic terms in (30), giving

$$\begin{array}{c}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\chi \mathrm{\Psi }\overline{}X=a_\mu ^{(k)}R_\mu ^{(j)}(\mathrm{Im}T)_{ij}^1_\sigma 𝑑\omega _kd\overline{\omega }_i=_ka_\mu ^{(k)}R_\mu ^{(k)}=(\mathrm{half})\mathrm{integer}\end{array}$$
(33)
together with complex conjugated. In (33) we have introduced $`T_{ij}=_{B_i}𝑑\omega _j`$ – the period matrix of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Relation (33) is a direct two-dimensional generalization of (25) giving rise to the same conclusions – the ”background loop” takes values into the dual torus to the compactified part of the target-space. This is not much more than we had in sect. 4, and it is enough to compute the one-loop temperature partition function of a superstring in NSR formalism . We see again, that the ”vacuum expectation values” $`a_\mu ^{(k)}`$ take values in dual torus and, in complete analogy with the particle case, they should be integer for the bosons, half-integer for the fermions and generic point of a dual torus corresponds to anyons. So, in order to compute the partition function one could ”insert by hands” the extra ”$`𝐙_2`$ factor” for each fermionic sector propagating along the loop in ”temperature direction”.

This is still not quite satisfactory prescription. On the other hand, setting both $`\chi \mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\overline{\chi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ nonvanishing on the world-sheet one sees that the quartic term in (30) becomes also nonzero. Moreover, normalization (33) requires that the contribution of the quartic terms to the action is proportional to the inverse powers $`\beta ^2`$ of the radius $`\beta `$. It means that the string path integral sum over windings respects duality $`\beta \beta ^1`$ already before integrating over two-dimensional geometries. Thus, we see that the properties of NSR string path integral in presence of compact dimensions deserve further careful analysis, in particular the questions of fermionic condensates and background Wilson loops are not yet fully understood.

## 6 Conclusion

In this note we have considered the first-quantized formulation of the temperature partition functions for the bosonic and fermionic particles and a generalization of this path-integral representation to the case of fermionic string. We have seen that the ensemble of particles is generated by wrappings of the world-lines (world-sheets) over the compact direction in space-time. It was shown that in the case of fermions additional phase factor arises due to existence of nontrivial background Wilson loops of $`𝐙_2`$ gauge fields and they can be interpreted even as vacuum condensates of the world-line or world-sheet fermions.

The first-quantized integrals of this kind may be also applied for the computations of string path integrals in the presence of D-branes (see, for example,  and references therein). In particular, it is easy to see that the partition function of strings in the background of D-branes does not differ too much from the old propagator computations  and leads, say, for $`N`$-branes lead to an integral with $`N`$ boundaries of the typical form

$$\begin{array}{c}_{i=1}^NdX_ie^{_{i<j}(X_iX_j)^2}\mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(34)
as an ”eigenvalue” matrix integral. It would be interesting to study fermionic string path integrals of this sort, where the main problems are expected in application of the NSR formalism (before GSO projection!) for the computations with D-branes. One may expect all problems considered in this note together with imposing of boundary conditions on the NSR fermionic fields on the surfaces of D-branes.

Finally, let us point out that we have demonstrated in this note that the ”thermodynamic” computations in the first-quantized formalism for the fermions, involving nontrivial effects with closed trajectories, do not differ too much from the old computations in spirit of . It reminds the similarity between the two interesting physical outcomes of the first-quantized string computations , related to the exponential growth of the density of massive string states. In the ”field theory” part this is a modification of causality behavior of the string theory Green functions  while in ”thermodynamic part” it is related with the famous Hagedorn phase transition (see  and references therein). Both effects are different sides of the same coin and our arguments from sect. 5 may serve as an extra sign in favour of appearance of all ”thermodynamic” effects directly from the NSR string path integral.

## Acknowledgements

I am indebted to V.Fainberg, A.Losev, Yu.Makeenko, A.Rosly, I.Tyutin and M.Voloshin for interesting and important discussions. The work was partially supported by RFBR grant No. 99-02-16122, INTAS grant No. 99-0590, CRDF grant No. RP1-2102 ($`\mathrm{\#}`$6531), NATO Collaborative Linkage Grant PST.CLG.977361 and grant for the support of scientific schools No. 00-15-96566.


format: text

text:
# A model for the optical high state light curve of AM Herculis Based on observations obtained at the 1.5m Loiano telescope, operated by the Bologna Astronomical Observatory.

## 1 Introduction

In AM Herculis stars, or polars, a strongly magnetic white dwarf ($`B10`$ MG) accretes from a Roche-lobe filling late type secondary star. The flow of matter leaving the secondary star is threaded by the magnetic field once the magnetic pressure exceeds the ram pressure in the accretion stream. The kinetic energy is converted into heat in a shock near the footpoints of the flux tubes on the white dwarf surface. For low and intermediate local mass flow densities ($`\dot{m}10\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$), this shock stands above the white dwarf surface, and the cooling thermal bremsstrahlung and cyclotron radiation can escape unobstacled into space. For high mass flow densities ($`\dot{m}>10\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$), the shock is submerged into the white dwarf atmosphere, and the primary accretion luminosity is reprocessed into the soft X-ray regime.

The strong magnetic field of the white dwarf synchronises its rotation with the binary orbital period ($`P_{\mathrm{spin}}=P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$). As an observational consequence, the emission of polars is strongly modulated at the orbital period in almost all wavelength bands. While the shape of the hard X-ray light curve of AM Herculis (and most other polars) can be easily interpreted in terms of the changing geometric aspect of the hot plasma below the shock, the optical through infrared emission may show a more complicated phase dependence, as different components within the binary contribute to the observed emission at a given wavelength, and as the cyclotron emission from the accretion column is subject to wavelength-dependent beaming.

In this paper we develop a simple quantitative model which takes into account the various emission sites in AM Herculis, and which can quantitatively describe the observed $`B`$ and $`V`$ band high state light curves with a minimum of free parameters.

## 2 Observations

We obtained $`B`$ and $`V`$ high state photometry of AM Her in August 1998 at the Loiano 1.5 m telescope using a 2-channel photoelectric photometer and a time resolution of 1 s (Table 1). The observations were interrupted every $`60120`$ min for sky measurements in both channels. Data reduction included sky subtraction, differential extinction, absolute calibration using Landolt standards, and binning into 5 s bins. The timings have been converted to orbital phases using the ephemeris of Heise & Verbunt (1988), but defining $`\varphi (=\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}})=0.0`$ as the inferior conjunction of the secondary star (Southwell et al. 1995)111In the magnetic phase convention which is used frequently in the literature, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{mag}}=0.0`$ is defined by the linear polarization pulse observed when the angle between the line of sight and the magnetic field line in the accretion column is closest to $`90^{}`$, or, alternatively, when the sign of the circular polarization is crossing zero.. In AM Her, the conversion between the phase conventions is given by $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}=\varphi _{\mathrm{mag}}+0.367`$. The high precision of the ephemeris of Heise & Verbunt (1988) ensures that the error in the computed phases is $`\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}2\times 10^3`$, which is of no concern for the purpose of the present paper. A phenomenological description of the photometric data used here has been included in the analysis of quasi-simultaneous BeppoSAX observations by Matt et al. (2000).

## 3 Modelling the light curve

The observed light curves (Fig. 1) are typical of AM Her in the high state (e.g. Olson 1977; Szkody & Brownlee 1977). The $`V`$ band shows a broad and round minimum near $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}0.0`$ and a secondary minimum near $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}0.5`$. The $`B`$ band is almost unmodulated. Both light curves exhibit a significant amount of flickering on timescales of several minutes, which is probably due to inhomogeneities in the accretion flow (Matt et al. 2000).

We identify four possible emission sites that will contribute to the observed light curves: the (heated) white dwarf, the secondary star, the accretion stream feeding material from the secondary star towards the white dwarf, and the accretion column just above the white dwarf surface near the magnetic pole. In the following, we will discuss the system geometry of AM Her and the four individual emission components.

### 3.1 The system geometry

The orientation of the accretion column with respect to the observer can be described by a set of three angles: the inclination of the system, $`i`$, the co-latitude of the accretion column/spot, $`\beta `$, measured as the angle between the rotation axis and the field line threading the accretion column and the azimuth of the magnetic axis from the line connecting the centres of the two stars, $`\psi `$. For our present purpose, the exact knowledge of $`\psi `$ is not crucial, as it defines only a phase offset between our model light curve and the observed light curve, and we will adjust $`\psi `$ accordingly below.

The inclination and the co-latitude of AM Her have been subject of dispute. Brainerd & Lamb (1985) derived from the observed polarization properties $`i=35^{}\pm 5^{}`$ and $`\beta =58^{}\pm 5^{}`$. Another polarimetric study indicates $`i50^{}`$ and $`\beta 5060^{}`$ (Wickramasinghe et al. 1991). The higher value of the inclination is favoured by spectroscopy of the secondary and of the accretion stream (Davey & Smith 1996; Southwell et al. 1995; Gänsicke et al. 1998). An additional constraint $`i+\beta 90^{}`$ comes from the observed self-eclipse of the X-ray/EUV/ultraviolet emission from the accretion region and from the heated surrounding white dwarf photosphere. Gänsicke et al. (1998) and Sirk & Howell (1998) derive independently $`i+\beta =105^{}`$.

We will use the combinations ($`i=50^{},\beta =55^{}`$) and ($`i=35^{},\beta =70^{}`$) in our models of the $`B`$ and $`V`$ light curves of AM Her in order to reflect the uncertainties in the exact geometry, while satisfying $`i+\beta =105^{}`$.

### 3.2 The heated white dwarf

IUE and HST observations show that the ultraviolet flux of AM Her is dominated by the emission from the accretion-heated white dwarf during both low states and high states (Gänsicke et al. 1995). Gänsicke et al. (1998) could quantitatively model the quasi-sinusoidal flux modulation observed with HST during a high state with a large, moderately hot spot covering a white dwarf of $`T_{\mathrm{wd}}=\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K. They chose a temperature distribution decreasing linearly in angle from the spot centre merging into $`T_{\mathrm{wd}}`$ at the spot radius. The best-fit spot parameters implied a central temperature of 47 000 K and a spot size of $`f0.09`$ of the total white dwarf surface. With a distance of 90 pc, the inferred radius of the white dwarf was $`R_{\mathrm{wd}}=1.12\times 10^9`$ cm. We use here synthetic phase-resolved spectra computed with the 3D white dwarf model described by Gänsicke et al. (1998), using their best-fit parameters.

We note for completeness that during a low state the $`U`$ and $`B`$ light curves of AM Her can very well be dominated by emission from the heated white dwarf (see e.g. Fig. 1 of Bonnet-Bidaud et al. 2000).

### 3.3 The accretion stream

The near-ultraviolet emission ($`\lambda 2000`$ Å) of AM Her during the high state is dominated by continuum emission from the accretion stream. Based on phase-resolved IUE spectroscopy, Gänsicke et al. (1995) showed that this near-ultraviolet emission of the accretion stream does not vary noticeably with the orbital phase. In the following, we assume therefore that the accretion stream emission does not vary over the binary orbit, and treat the (constant) stream contributions in $`B`$ and $`V`$ as a free parameters. The limitations implied by this assumption will be discussed in Sect.4.

### 3.4 The secondary star

The secondary star in AM Her can be detected during low states, and both its spectral type and magnitude are easily measured (Schmidt et al. 1981; Gänsicke et al. 1995). For completeness, we use here $`B=18.43`$ and $`V=16.83`$, as derived from the low state data, to describe the contribution of the secondary. It is, however, clear that the secondary star contribution to the observed $`B`$ and $`V`$ high state light curves is negligible.

### 3.5 The cyclotron emission

The accreted material releases its kinetic energy in a hydrodynamical shock close to the white dwarf surface. The ions are heated to the shock temperature — a few $`10^7`$ K — while the electrons keep at first their pre-shock temperature because of their low mass. Coulomb interactions between the particles transfer energy from the ions to the electrons, such that their temperature increases below the shock. The electrons then cool radiatively through emission of cyclotron radiation and thermal bremsstrahlung. This interplay between heating and cooling results in a temperature distribution along the post-shock flow which is characterized by its maximum temperature (Woelk & Beuermann 1996).

In order to compute the emisson from the accretion column we approximated the volume between the shock and the stellar surface with a given cross section and height. The total emission of this column is computed with a ray-tracing algorithm, where we solve the radiative transfer equation for each ray passing through the structured column using an updated version of the code described by van Teeseling et al. (1999). For the computation of the angle-dependent cyclotron emission we assumed that the magnetic field within the accretion column is perpendicular to the stellar surface and does not vary over the considered height of the column. A full description of the code used to solve the radiative and hydrodynamical problem is given elsewhere (Fischer & Beuermann 2001).

High state X-ray observations of AM Her give bolometric hard X-ray fluxes of $`(13)\times 10^{10}`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Gänsicke et al. 1995; Ishida et al. 1997; Matt et al. 2000). Assuming that the cyclotron emission can contribute roughly the same amount of flux (Gänsicke et al. 1995), we estimate an accretion rate $`\dot{M}=10^{15}10^{16}`$$`\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for the stand-off shock region222This is not to be confused with the total accretion rate, which includes the regions of high local mass flow densities resulting in submerged shocks with consecutive soft X-ray emission. Matt et al. (2000) found an excess of the soft-to-hard X-ray luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{SX}}/L_{\mathrm{HX}}=5.4`$.. The magnetic field strength of AM Her is $`B=14\mathrm{MG}`$ (Bailey et al. 1991). For the accretion rate estimated above and a dipolar field geometry, a cross section of the accretion column of $`A_{\mathrm{acc}}5\times 10^{16}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ is estimated near the magnetic pole (Lubow & Shu 1975, 1976; Heerlein et al. 1999). From these numbers, a mean local mass flow density $`\dot{m}0.020.2`$$`\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ is derived. We have computed a grid of spectra for several mass flow densities in the given range and for a number of angles between the line of sight and the magnetic field. A representative sample of spectra for different $`\vartheta `$ is shown in Fig. 2.

From the computed set of model spectra, we synthesized $`B`$ and $`V`$ light curves of the cyclotron emission from the accretion column, where the mass flow density $`\dot{m}`$ was taken as a free parameter. The fundamental parameter in the computation of the observed cyclotron flux for a given orbital phase is the angle between the line of sight and the magnetic field axis, $`\vartheta `$. For a given set of inclination $`i`$, co-latitutde $`\beta `$ and orbital phase $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}`$

$$\mathrm{cos}\vartheta =\mathrm{cos}i\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}i\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}+\pi /2\psi )$$
(1)
Figure 3 shows the variation of $`\vartheta `$ with $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}`$ for ($`i=50^{},\beta =55^{}`$) and for ($`i=35^{},\beta =70^{}`$), the viewing geometry is illustrated in Fig. 4. We chose $`\psi =12^{}`$ so that the minimum in $`\vartheta `$ aligns with the minimum of the observed $`V`$ light curve, i.e. the magnetic pole leads the secondary by $`\psi `$. This value is in good agreement with the azimuth of the hot accretion region derived from X-ray and ultraviolet light curves, $`\psi _{\mathrm{HS}}10^{}\mathrm{to}0^{}`$ (Paerels et al. 1996; Gänsicke et al. 1998). $`\vartheta `$ reaches a minimum near $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}0.03`$, when the observer looks down along the accretion funnel, passes through $`90^{}`$ at $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}0.3`$ and reaches the maximum of $`105^{}`$ at $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}0.47`$. As the cyclotron beaming is sensitive only to $`|\mathrm{cos}\vartheta |`$ we plot $`180^{}\vartheta `$ when $`\vartheta >90^{}`$. From Fig. 3 it is clear that a reduction of the cyclotron flux is expected in the range $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}0.30.6`$ from cyclotron beaming alone, without taking into account a possible occultation of the accretion column by the body of the white dwarf (see also Sect. 4).

A very similar qualitative description of the phase-dependent cyclotron emission has been given by Bailey et al. (1984) in order to explain the polarimetric properties of AM Her: linear polarization pulses and a change of sign of the circular polarization are observed at $`\varphi _{\mathrm{mag}}0.0`$ and $`0.3`$, which corresponds to the phases when $`\vartheta 90^{}`$.

### 3.6 Composite model light curves

We obtain the model light curves by summing up the four individual emission components, white dwarf, accretion stream, secondary star, and accretion column. To fit the flux and the shape of the observed $`B`$ and $`V`$ light curves, we use two free parameters: the mean local mass flow density $`\dot{m}`$ which determines the (phase-dependent) contribution of the cyclotron emission and the (phase-independent) contribution of the accretion stream, $`B_{\mathrm{stream}}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{stream}}`$. As mentioned above, the contributions of the heated white dwarf and of the secondary star are fixed. The observed light curves are reasonably well reproduced for $`\dot{m}=0.06`$$`\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`B_{\mathrm{stream}}=15.0`$, and $`V_{\mathrm{stream}}=14.1`$ (Fig. 5,6). Figures 5 and 6 show the model light curves for the two different choices of ($`i,\beta `$). The contribution of the heated white dwarf to the observed $`B`$ and $`V`$ high state light curves is small (Fig. 5,6), the contribution of the secondary is negligible.

Both fits grossly reproduce the shape of the observed light curves, i.e. a broad and deep minimum at $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}=0.0`$ and a shallow secondary minimum at $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}=0.5`$ in $`V`$ and practically no orbital modulation in $`B`$. However, for ($`i=50^{},\beta =55^{}`$) the angle $`\vartheta `$ drops below $`40^{}`$ during $`\varphi =0.81.1`$, with the result that cyclotron radiation contributes very little to the total $`V`$ band emission. Consequently, this model light curve has a flat bottom, which contrasts the observed round shape.

## 4 Discussion

We have made a number of simplifications and assumptions in our light curve model that need some further attention.

(1) We have assumed that the accretion stream emission does not vary over the orbit, and have treated its contribution as a free parameter to fit the observed flux level. The computation of realistic accretion stream spectra is a problem of great complexity (e.g. Ferrario & Wehrse 1999), and certainly beyond the scope of our paper. However, a short inspection of the general spectral features of accretion stream emission lends support to our assumption.

The optical high state spectrum of AM Her is characterized by strong Balmer and Helium emission lines and by a strong Balmer jump in emission (e.g. Schachter et al. 1991). The origin of such a spectrum is clearly a plasma in which the optical depth in the continuum is below unity (optically thin in the continuum), and the optical depth in the lines is much larger than in the continuum, i.e. $`1`$ (optically thick in the lines). The details of the spectrum depend on the temperature, the density, and the extension of the plasma region, but the general characteristics are (a) significant continuum emission in the near-ultraviolet part of the Balmer continuum, (b) a strong contribution in the $`B`$ band, which covers the higher lines of the Balmer series, Ca K+H in emission, as well as the Balmer jump, and (c) a weak contribution in the $`V`$ band, which covers practically only the weak continuum between $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$. As already stated in Sect. 3.3, Gänsicke et al. (1995) detected strong near-ultraviolet continuum emission with a weak phase-dependence, and identified the accretion stream as the source of this emission. In AM Her, with $`B14`$ MG, cyclotron emission can not contribute significantly at such short wavelengths, the secondary star can be excluded, and the white dwarf contribution was already modelled in the analysis of Gänsicke et al. (1995). We feel, therefore, safe to identify the observed near-ultraviolet continuum flux with the accretion stream feature (a) defined above.

We find in our present analysis that the accretion stream contributes more in $`B`$ than in $`V`$. In fact, the stream emission dominates the practically flat $`B`$ band light curve. This result appears entirely plausible, as our above considerations show that the stream is indeed expected to be brigher in $`B`$ than in $`V`$. We note that weak photometric modulation at blue wavelengths is a hallmark of AM Her during the high state (e.g. Olson 1977).

A more sophisticated approach would need simultaneous phase-resolved spectroscopy, so that the stream contribution in the $`B`$ and $`V`$ bands could be quantitatively estimated e.g. from the orbital variation of the emission line fluxes. Hence, in summary, the observed weak phase dependence of the near-ultraviolet stream emission and the fact that stream is expected to be brighter in $`B`$ than in $`V`$ strongly supports our assumption of a phase-independent stream contribution. This in turn implies, as shown in Sect. 3.6, that cyclotron emission is the dominant phase-dependent contribution to the observed $`V`$ band high state light curve.

(2) We ignore the geometric occultation of the accretion column by the body of the white dwarf. For $`i+\beta =105^{}`$ structures extending less than than $`0.035`$$`R_{\mathrm{wd}}`$ above the white dwarf surface will be totally eclipsed at $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}0.5`$. However, for the low magnetic field and the rather low mass flow density, the shock is expected to stand $`0.1`$$`R_{\mathrm{wd}}`$ above the white dwarf surface (Fischer & Beuermann 2001). The X-ray data of AM Her clearly show that at least part of the accretion region is eclipsed at $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}0.5`$ (i.e. when $`\vartheta `$ reaches its maximum) by the white dwarf (e.g. Hearn & Richardson 1977). In contrast to this, significant polarized emission is still detected during this phase, indicating either that the cyclotron emission arises at a greater height above the white dwarf surface than the X-rays (Bailey et al. 1984), or that additional cyclotron emission comes from the opposite magnetic pole (Wickramasinghe et al. 1991). An indication that an eclipse of the accretion column by the white dwarf might be relevant comes from the $`UBVRI`$ polarimetry of Piirola et al. (1985): the secondary minimum at $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}0.6`$ has practically the same shape in $`V`$, $`R`$, and $`I`$. This is unexpected, as the cyclotron beaming decreases towards the lower cyclotron harmonics (i.e. longer wavelengths). In fact, $`R`$ and $`I`$ band light curves calculated with our model give reasonable magnitudes, but do not show a strong secondary minimum.

(3) We have neglected that the accretion column has a finite lateral extent, which will cause a variation of the magnetic field strength and, more importantly, of its orientation within the cyclotron emitting region. The expected result of such variation is a smoothing of $`\vartheta (\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}})`$, and, consequently, of the cyclotron light curve. In addition, a significant lateral extent of the cyclotron emitting region would counteract to some extent the self-eclipse just described above.

(4) We deliberately restrict our model to a single cyclotron region near the main (upper) pole. The X-ray emission of AM Her is known to switch between (at least, see below) two different patterns. In the normal mode hard and soft X-rays are emitted in phase from the upper pole. During the reversed mode, the soft X-ray emission originates predominantly at the lower pole, while the hard X-rays are still emitted from the upper pole (Heise et al. 1985). Despite this apparently drastic change in the accretion pattern, the optical light curve of AM Her does not change between normal and reversed mode (Mazeh et al. 1986). These observations strongly suggest that only the high mass flow densities may switch back and forth between the poles, while the upper pole is fed during both states by low mass flow densities – associated with the emission of hard X-ray and cyclotron emission. This interpretation supports our one-pole cyclotron emission model.

An ultimate puzzle, though, remains: while our optical data from 1998, August 20/22 presented here are completely typical of AM Her in either the normal mode or the reversed mode, they were obtained only about a week after our BeppoSAX observations (1998, August 12) which showed the system in an hitherto unknown state with significant hard X-ray emission during $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}0.5`$ (Matt et al. 2000). RXTE and EUVE observations obtained on 1998, August 4 confirmed the atypical X-ray light curve (Christian 2000). We are left with the possibility that AM Her returned into one of the previously known – normal or reversed – modes by the time of our optical campaign. Considering that also the optical high state light curve of AM Her noticeably changed on a (to our knowledge) single occasion (Szkody 1978), it appears that AM Her occasionally drops into short-lived “atypical” behaviour. A multiwavelength campaing covering one of these “atypical” states could reveal whether they are related to the switching between the normal and the reversed accretion mode.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Klaus Beuermann for many discussions on this topic and the referee Steve Howell for a number of helpful comments. This research was supported by the DLR under grant 50 OR 99 03 6.


text:
# GEOMETRIC PHASE IN SU(N) INTERFEROMETRY

## I Introduction

The purpose of this contribution is twofold: to review how an SU(N) transformation can be experimentally realized using optical elements, and to show how such an experimental realization can be used to investigate the cyclic evolution of a state over the manifold SU(N)/U(N-1). The bulk of the results will be presented explicitly for SU(3) (see  for further details) and SU(4), although it will become clear that the method can be applied to any SU(N).

Recall that cyclic evolution of a wave function yields the original state plus a phase shift, and this phase shift is a sum of a dynamical phase $`\phi _d`$ and a geometric (or topological, or quantal, or Berry) phase $`\phi _g`$ shift. The geometric phase shift is important not just for quantum systems but also for all of wave physics. Thus far, controlled geometric–phase experiments, both realized and proposed, have been exclusively concerned with the abelian geometric phase arising in the evolution of U(1)–invariant states

Here, we generalize the above results to an Abelian geometric phase which arises from geodesic transformations of U(N-1)–invariant states in SU(N)/U(N-1) space. The scheme employs a sequence of optical element, henceforth called SU(N) elements because they perform transformations described by an SU(N) matrix, arranged so that the net result of the sequence cyclically evolves an initial state back to itself up to a phase. It will be seen that the decomposition of an SU(N) transformation into a product of appropriate SU(2) subgroup transformations is the prescription to construct each SU(N) element as a sequence of SU(2) elements.

It is important to distinguish the evolution of states in the geometric space SU(N)/U(N-1) from the transformations of the optical beam as it progresses through the interferometer. It is possible to set up the experiment so as to eliminate the dynamical phase associated with these optical transformations, thus making the dynamical phase irrelevant for our purpose. The cyclic evolution described here occurs in the geometric space, and the geometric phase of interest is related to this evolution.

## II SU(N) optical elements

Consider an optical element which mixes two input beams. It is, formally, a black box which performs some transformation, as the output is not the same as the input. We are here interested by optical elements which mix the input beams in a linear way, i.e. the output is a linear combination of the inputs. Furthermore, we will assume that the optical element is passive, i.e. it does not globally create or annihilate photons.

The optical elements the enter in the construction of SU(N) device are beam splitters, mirrors and phase shifters. A phase shifter is essentially a slab of material which increases the optical path lenght of one beam relative to the other. A beam splitter is a partially–silvered mirror which lets photons through with some probability.

Provided that losses can be ignored, each of these optical elements can be associated with an SU(2) unitary transformation. It is therefore advantageous to factorize each SU(N) transformation into a product of SU(2)ij subgroup transformations mixing fields $`i`$ and $`j`$.

An optical element mixing two fields is associated with an SU(2) transformation in the following way. Suppose that one photon enters the black box. We may assume that it will enter the optical system either via beam one or beam two. Thus the Hilbert space of input states is two–dimensional. As the transformation is linear, the set of all possible output states will also be a two–dimensional space. Clearly this conclusion does not change if the input state is a general state $`(\alpha ,\beta )^t`$, where the photon has probability $`|\alpha |^2`$ of being in beam 1 and probability $`|\beta |^2`$ of being in beam 2 ($`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are complex numbers).

Suppose now that two photons enter the black box. Then, we can have one of three possibilities: two photons enter in beam 1, one photon enters in each beam, or both photons enter in beam 2. In this case, the Hilbert space of states is three–dimensional.

Continuing in this way, and using the fact that the input photons are indistinguishable, one rapidly works out that, in a system containing $`\lambda `$ photons, the relevant Hilbert space is of dimension $`\lambda +1`$.

The conservation of photon number leads to the following constraint on the possible form of the linear transformation. Consider first the case of a single photon. The optical transformation

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
with $`a,b,c,d`$ complex numbers, transforms a general state $`(\alpha _{in},\beta _{in})^t`$ into the output state $`(\alpha _{out},\beta _{out})^t`$ such that

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _{out}& \\ \beta _{out}& \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _{in}& \\ \beta _{in}& \end{array}\right).$$
(2)
Taking the transpose complex conjugate of that to find $`(\alpha _{out}^{},\beta _{out}^{})`$, multiplying from the right by $`(\alpha _{out},\beta _{out})^t`$, we find that, if the number of photon (=1) is to be conserved for any input state, $`|\alpha _{out}|^2+|\beta _{out}|^2=|\alpha _{in}|^2+|\beta _{in}|^2=1`$ implies that $`T^{}T=1`$, the unit matrix. Thus, $`T`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ unitary transformation. Because we are only interested in the relative phase between the beams, the determinant of $`T`$ can chosen without loss generality to be +1, so that $`T`$ is an SU(2) matrix.

If the black box performs a transformation $`T`$ that is an SU(2) transformation when there is a single photon in the system, it must also perform an SU(2) transformation when there are $`\lambda +1`$ photons in the system: the transformtation effected by the black box cannot depend on the number of photons in the system (at least not in the regimes that we are considering). Thus, in a system of two photons, where state space is three–dimensional, $`T`$ will be $`3\times 3`$ representation of the relevant SU(2) transformation. In a system containing $`\lambda `$ photon, $`T`$ will be an SU(2) matrix of dimension $`(\lambda +1)\times (\lambda +1)`$.

It is well known that an SU(2) transformation can be factored into a product of three subtransformations:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}R_z(\alpha )& & R_y(\beta )& & R_z(\gamma )\\ \left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\alpha }& \\ & e^{i\alpha }\end{array}\right)& & \left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\beta & \mathrm{sin}\beta \\ \mathrm{sin}\beta & \mathrm{cos}\beta \end{array}\right)& & \left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\gamma }& \\ & e^{i\gamma }\end{array}\right)\end{array}$$
(3)
This factorization is a prescription on how to construct the SU(2) device: a slab of material is inserted in one beamline so as to create a relative phase shift of $`e^{2i\gamma }`$, a partially silvered mirror which lets $`\mathrm{cos}^2\beta `$ photons from beam 1 through is then inserted, and another phase shifter completes the design.

In an SU(3) interferometer, an general SU(3) matrix is decomposed into a product of three SU(2) matrices :

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& a_1& b_1\\ 0& b_1^{}& a_1^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{cos}t& \mathrm{sin}t& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}t& e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{cos}t& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& a_2& b_2\\ 0& b_2^{}& a_2^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`|a_i|^2+|b_i|^2=1`$.

This factorization, symbolically written $`R_{23}^1R_{12}R_{23}^2`$, is a de facto prescription on how to build the SU(3) device: fields $`2`$ and $`3`$ are mixed followed by a mixing of the output field $`2`$ with the field in channel $`1`$, and, finally, the output field $`2`$ is mixed with field $`3`$.

As it is possible to factorize an SU(N) matrix in terms of SU(2) submatrices , the process of constructing a general SU(N) device is perfectly obvious and follows the lines illustrated explicitly for the SU(3) device.

For instance, the appropriate factorization of an SU(4) matrix is a product of the type

$$R_{23}^1R_{34}^1R_{23}^2R_{12}R_{23}^3R_{34}^2R_{23}^4,$$
(5)
where $`R_k\mathrm{}^i`$ is an SU(2) matrix mixing fields $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$.

The factorization of an SU(N) matrix into SU(2) subgroup matrices is not unique, and the number of SU(2) elements required to construct an SU(N) device can vary according to the parametrization: an estimate of the number of SU(2) devices required to construct an SU(N) element was given in . Finally, we mention that SU(3) and SU(4) devices have been constructed but with an aim to study non-classical statistics .

## III Geodesic evolutions

The total phase $`\phi `$ acquired by a state during a generic cyclic evolution is the sum of $`\phi _d+\phi _g`$.

A special type of evolution is the geodesic evolution; by transforming the output state along geodesic paths in the geometric space, the geometric phase shift along each path is zero.

An essential property of geodesic evolutions is that they are not transitive: the product of two such evolutions is not necessary another geodesic evolution. This is most easily illustrated by drawing three points on a plane at random. It is well known that the geodesic on a plane is a straight line. Let $`|1,|2`$ and $`|3`$ denote the three points. Then it is clear that, even if $`R_{12}`$ is the straight (geodesic) line that connects $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, and even if $`R_{23}`$ is the straight line that connect $`|2`$ and $`|3`$, the combined segment $`R_{23}R_{12}`$ is not a geodesic between $`|1`$ and $`|3`$.

This property makes it possible to construct a cyclic evolution from a sequence of geodesic legs: the geometric phase acquired during the circuit is then a global property of the entire circuit.

For definiteness, let us consider SU(3). There, the evolution of the state $`\psi ^{(1)}`$ to the state $`\psi ^{(4)}=e^{i\phi _g}\psi ^{(1)}`$ via 3 geodesic paths in the geometric space can be described by 3 one–parameter SU(3) group elements $`\{U_k^g(s_k);k=1,2,3\}`$, with $`s_k`$ an evolution parameter. These transformations satisfy the conditions that $`U_k^g(0)`$ is the identity element and

$$U_k^g(s_k^0)\psi ^{(k)}=\psi ^{(k+1)},k=1,2,3,$$
(6)
for some fixed end values $`\{s_k^0\}`$ of the evolution parameters. We consider evolutions $`U_k^g(s_k)`$ of the form

$$U_k^g(s_k)=V_kR_{s_k}V_k^1,$$
(7)
with $`V_k`$ an element of SU(3) satisfying $`\psi ^{(k)}|U_k^g(s_k)|\psi ^{(k)}`$ real and positive, and

$$R_{s_k}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}s_k& \mathrm{sin}s_k& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}s_k& \mathrm{cos}s_k& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
The form of the one–parameter subgroup $`R_{s_k}`$ with real entries was guided by the definition of a geodesic curve between two states $`\psi ^{(k)}`$ and $`\psi ^{(k+1)}`$, which can be written in the form

$$\psi (s_k)=\psi ^{(k)}\mathrm{cos}s_k+\frac{\left(\psi ^{(k+1)}\psi ^{(k)}\psi ^{(k+1)}|\psi ^{(k)}\right)}{\sqrt{1\psi ^{(k+1)}|\psi ^{(k)}^2}}\mathrm{sin}s_k,$$
(9)
with $`0s_ks_k^0=\mathrm{arccos}\psi ^{(k+1)}|\psi ^{(k)}`$. As it is always possible to choose unit vectors $`\psi ^{(k)}`$ such that $`\psi ^{(k+1)}|\psi ^{(k)}`$ is real and positive, it is straightforward to show that any $`U_k^g(s_k)`$ of the form given by Eq. (7) satisfying $`\psi ^{(k+1)}|\psi ^{(k)}`$ real and positive gives evolution along a geodesic curve in SU(3)/U(2).

The form of the geodesic evolution makes it easy to obtain its physical interpretation. The transformation $`R_{s_k}`$ is a transformation of appropriate length along some reference geodesic (some generalized Greenwich meridian on SU(3)/U(2)). The transformation $`V_k`$ is a principal axis transformation which correctly orients the reference geodesic so that it passes through $`|\psi ^k`$ and $`|\psi ^{k+1}`$. $`V_k`$ therefore depends on the initial and final states.

The three states in SU(3)/U(2) must be chosen in a sufficiently general way to ensure that they can represent any triangle in SU(3)/U(2) . Since the latter is of dimension $`4`$, there are $`4`$ free parameters to be chosen. The first state can be chosen, WLOG, to be the “north pole” state. Again WLOG, the second state can always be chosen to lie along the reference geodesic some distance away from the initial state. The last state must therefore contain the remaining $`3`$ parameters. In short, the vertices of a geodesic triangle in SU(3)/U(2) can, in general, be chosen as

$`\psi ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=e^{i\phi _g}\psi ^{(4)},\psi ^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}s_1^0\\ \mathrm{sin}s_1^0\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$ (16)
$`\psi ^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}s_1^0\mathrm{cos}s_2^0e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{sin}s_1^0\mathrm{sin}s_2^0\mathrm{cos}\beta \\ \mathrm{sin}s_1^0\mathrm{cos}s_2^0+e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{cos}s_1^0\mathrm{sin}s_2^0\mathrm{cos}\beta \\ \mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}s_2^0\end{array}\right),`$ (20)
with $`s_1^0`$, $`s_2^0`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ arbitrary.

Since $`|\psi ^4=e^{i\phi _g}|\psi ^1`$, the geometric phase for the complete circuit is extracted from the overlap real positive overlap $`\psi ^{(3)}|\psi ^{(1)}`$. This works out immediately to

$$\phi _g=\text{arg}(\mathrm{cos}s_1^0\mathrm{cos}s_2^0e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{sin}s_1^0\mathrm{sin}s_2^0\mathrm{cos}\beta ).$$
(21)
The generalization to SU(4) is immediate: the form of Eq.(7) remains the same, but the matrix of Eq.(8) is augmented to a $`4\times 4`$ matrix:

$$R_{s_k}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}s_k& \mathrm{sin}s_k& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}s_k& \mathrm{cos}s_k& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(22)
The condition of Eq.(9) remains. As we have argued, the first two vertices of the geodesic triangle remain unchanged, but the last vertex now depends on the $`6`$ parameters of SU(4)/U(3):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\psi ^{(1)}\hfill & =\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=e^{i\phi _g}\psi ^{(4)},\psi ^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}s_1^0\\ \mathrm{sin}s_1^0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ & \\ \psi ^{(3)}\hfill & =\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}s_1^0\mathrm{cos}s_2^0e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{sin}_1^0\mathrm{sin}s_2^0\left(\mathrm{cos}\beta _1\mathrm{cos}\beta _2+\mathrm{sin}\beta _1\mathrm{sin}\beta _2\mathrm{cos}\beta _3\right)\\ \mathrm{sin}s_1^0\mathrm{cos}s_2^0+e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{cos}s_1^0\mathrm{sin}s_2^0\left(\mathrm{cos}\beta _1\mathrm{cos}\beta _2\mathrm{sin}\beta _1\mathrm{sin}\beta _2\mathrm{cos}\beta _3\right)\\ \left(\mathrm{cos}\beta _1\mathrm{sin}\beta _2+\mathrm{sin}\beta _1\mathrm{cos}\beta _2\mathrm{cos}\beta _3\right)\mathrm{sin}s_2^0\\ \mathrm{sin}s_2^0\mathrm{sin}\beta _1\mathrm{sin}\beta _3\end{array}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
a form which obviously reduces to the SU(3) case if $`\beta _3=0`$. For SU(4)/U(3), the Berry phase is again related to the inner product of $`\psi ^{(1)}|\psi ^{(3)}`$ through $`|\psi ^{(4)}=e^{i\phi _g}|\psi ^{(1)}`$ and can be seen to depend on the required number of parameters.

## IV Geometric phase in SU(N) interferometry

An optical SU(N) transformation can be realized by a N–channel optical interferometer.

The SU(2)12 matrix $`R_s`$ in Eq. (8) is a special case of the generalized lossless beam splitter transformation for mixing channels $`1`$ and $`2`$. More generally a beam splitter can be described by a unitary transformation between two channels. For example, a general SU(2)23 beam splitter transformation for mixing channels $`2`$ and $`3`$ is of the form

$$R_{23}(\varphi _\mathrm{t},\theta ,\varphi _\mathrm{r})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{cos}\theta & e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{r}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ 0& e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{r}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(24)
with $`\varphi _\mathrm{t}`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{r}`$ the transmitted and reflected phase–shift parameters, respectively, and $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ the beam splitter transmission. A generalized beam splitter can be realized as a combination of phase shifters and 50/50 beam splitters in a Mach–Zehnder interferometer configuration.

The goal of the following is to construct an SU(3) optical transformations in terms of SU(2) elements which realize the geodesic evolution in the geometric space by appropriately adjusting parameters of the interferometer.

It will be convenient to write $`\psi ^{(3)}`$ in Eq.(16) as $`(e^{i\xi }\mathrm{cos}\eta ,e^{i(\xi +\chi )}\mathrm{sin}\eta \mathrm{cos}\tau ,\mathrm{sin}\eta \mathrm{sin}\tau )^t`$, where $`\xi `$, $`\eta `$, $`\tau `$ and $`\chi `$ are functions of $`s_1^0`$, $`s_2^0`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, the parameters of $`\psi ^{(3)}`$ in Eq. (16). Following our factorization scheme, the geodesic evolution operators $`U_k^g(s_k)`$, connecting $`\psi ^{(k)}`$ to $`\psi ^{(k+1)}`$, can be expressed as

$`U_1^g(s_1)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{s_1},`$ (25)
$`U_2^g(s_2)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{s_1^0}R_{23}(\alpha ,\beta ,0)R_{s_2}R_{23}^1(\alpha ,\beta ,0)R_{s_1^0},`$ (26)
$`U_3^g(s_3)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{23}(\chi ,\tau ,\xi )R_{s_3}R_{23}^1(\chi ,\tau ,\xi ),`$ (27)
with $`R_s`$ given by Eq. (8), the parameters $`s_k`$ ranging from $`0s_ks_k^0`$, and $`s_3^0=\eta `$. Note that $`s_3^0`$ and, in fact, all the parameters of $`U_3^g(s_3)`$ are fixed by the requirement that $`\psi ^{(4)}=e^{i\phi _g}\psi ^{(1)}.`$ Also note that, for each $`k`$, $`U_k^g(0)`$ is the identity in SU(3) and $`U_k^g(s_k^0)\psi ^{(k)}=\psi ^{(k+1)}`$ as required. Once it is observed that $`\psi ^{(k+1)}|\psi ^{(k)}=\mathrm{cos}s_k^0`$, it is trivial to verify that each evolution satisfies Eq. (9) and is therefore geodesic.

The geometric phase for the cyclic evolution $`\psi ^{(1)}\psi ^{(4)}`$ is given explicitly by Eq.(21). This phase depends on four free parameters in the experimental scheme: $`s_1^0`$, $`s_2^0`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, which describe a general geodesic triangle in SU(3)/U(2).

The interferometer configuration for realizing the necessary evolution about the geodesic triangle is depicted in Fig. 1. This configuration consists of a sequence of SU(2)ij transformations, and we use the shorthand notation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i(\alpha _i,\beta _i,\gamma _i)`$ to designate the three parameters associated with the generalized beam splitter. The three–channel interferometer consists of a sequence of nine SU(2)ij transformations. The field enters port $`1_{\mathrm{in}}`$, and the vacuum state enters ports $`2_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`3_{\mathrm{in}}`$.

For SU(4), the first evolution is the same, but the second will depend on more parameters as the dimensionality of SU(4)/U(3) is larger than that of SU(3)/U(2). Briefly, we have:

$`U_1^g(s_1)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{s_1},`$ (28)
$`U_2^g(s_2)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{s_1^0}\stackrel{~}{V}_2R_{s_2}\stackrel{~}{V}_2^1R_{s_1^0},`$ (29)
$`U_3^g(s_3)`$ $`=`$ $`V_3R_{s_3}V_3^1,`$ (30)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_2=R_{23}(\alpha _1,\beta _2,0)R_{34}(\alpha _1,\beta _3,0)R_{23}(0,\beta _1,0),$$
(31)
and where $`V_3`$ is an SU(3) matrix of the form $`R_{23}R_{34}R_{23}^{}`$ whose details are unimportant for our purposes.

Although SU(3) and SU(4) interferometry have been considered in some details, the methods employed here can be extended to SU(N), or N–channel, interferometry. The schemes discussed above employing such a device would produce and enable observation of the geometric phase shift for geodesic transformations of states invariant under U(N-1) subgroups of SU(N) states in the 2(N-1)–dimensional coset space SU(N)/U(N-1).

## V Discussion and Conclusion

This contribution is a summary of recent theoretical work on the possibility of measuring Berry phases using optical elements. The scheme depends on the optical realization of SU(N) transformations in the optical domain; this is possible because the Lie algebra su(n) can be realized in terms of boson creation and destruction operators which have immediate interpretation as photon field operators. There also exists the possibility of realizing Sp(2n,$``$) transformation using optical elements : the Lie algebra sp(2n,$``$) also has a realization in terms of boson operators. The setup to measure Berry phase in an optical experiment is interesting because it provides a very practical realization of otherwise abstract ideas and allows one to do “experimental differential geometry” over SU(N)/U(N-1).

This contribution has dealt exclusively with the optical realization of Abelian Berry phase: even if states are invariant under U(N), two states are equivalent if they differ by a U(1)–phase. It is possible to enlarge the equivalence class to obtain the so–called non-Abelian Berry phase , which has been studied in the context of degenerate states. It is possible to study the non-Abelian version of the results presented here by using polarization: two states of different polarization are declared equivalent. The larger equivalence class comes about because a rotation of the polarization plane is an SU(2) transformation. The experimental aspects of this remain, at the moment, unclear. An optical experiment to measure an SU(2) phase would require optical devices which perform “tunable” polarization–dependent transformation. The theoretical aspects of this questions are currently under investigation.

This work has been supported by two Macquarie University Research Grants and by an Australian Research Council Large Grant. BCS appreciates valuable discussions with J. M. Dawes and A. Zeilinger, and HdG acknowledges the support of Fonds F.C.A.R. of the Québec Government.


text:
# Growth-related profiles of remanent flux in bulk melt-textured YBaCuO crystal magnetized by pulsed fields

## 1 Introduction

The recent progress in melt processing enables to fabricate large RE–Ba–Cu–O (RE is the rare-earth element) high-temperature superconductors (HTS) that look very promising for manifold applications, viz., for HTS permanent magnets, magnetic bearings and flywheels, electromotors and generators, current limiters, etc. Thus, it is vitally important to find fast, sensitive and non-destructive method(s) for the quality tests of the HTS material.

Now the remanent magnetic flux profiles  of the field-cooled (FC) or zero-field-cooled (ZFC) samples are prevalent for these tasks. Compared to permanent magnets , strong magnetic fields of superconducting coils result in an increased sensitivity to the sample inhomogeneities. However, this seems to be essentially improved with the pulsed field magnetization (PFM). Till nowadays this technique was mainly considered as a convenient method to magnetize the HTS permanent magnets if these are preinstalled in various equipment such as, for example, electromotors . The main problem, which was encountered by various authors , consisted in the trapped flux losses related to the sample heating by viscous forces that exert on moving flux lines . Thus, the main pains were taken to reduce this destructive effect. In particular, various parameters of magnetic pulses (i.e. the shapes, durations and amplitudes)  and/or their sequences  were tested for these purposes. However, being harmful for practical magnetization of HTS bulks, this phenomenon promises a certain profit for their characterization. In fact, the local areas containing weak links have been shown to be more heated than those where weak links are absent . If the magnetic pulse is short enough, the heat transfer during the pulse is nearly negligible. In this case, the temperature distribution just after the pulse has to correlate with the material quality and yet more enlarge the contrast between the magnetic flux trapped by areas with and without weak links. Thus, the recipe of how to increase this contrast seems simple: one has to accelerate the magnetic flux motion and to shorten the pulse duration. But despite of evident benefits for the HTS sample characterization, the PFM method did not gain a respective reputation so far. Moreover, no detailed studies: Which parameters of the magnetic pulse are enough to provide the required sensibility? were performed.

Meantime, a macroscopic arrangement of structural imperfections (e.g., subgrains and 211-inclusions) which is related to the growth of the HTS crystals was recently inquired by polarized light methods . Due to extremely short coherence length $`\xi `$ which is typical for HTSs, this arrangement may certainly be expected to result in the growth-related magnetic properties. Except for an apparent importance of this feature itself, its detection by the PFM technique could serve as the best criterion whether a necessary sensitivity is already attained. To our knowledge, no growth-related profiles of the remanent magnetic flux were reported hitherto. That is what we are going to demonstrate in the current paper.

## 2 Experimental details

To avoid unwanted consequences that could be induced by cracks and other macroscopic imperfections, we have knowingly selected rather homogeneous YBa2Cu3O$`_{7\delta }`$ (YBCO) sample (Figure 1). This was sinthesized from the mixture of commercially purchased powders (Solvay GmbH, Germany) with 1 wt.% CeO2 by the melt-processing technique  and post-annealed in oxygen atmosphere. The bulk thus prepared was a cylinder with a diameter of 30 mm and a thickness of 18 mm. To reduce a plausible scatter of flux distribution caused by a roughness of the top surface, the sample was polished.

The optical image of the polished surface (see Figure 1(a)) clearly exhibited a trace in its geometric centre, i.e. under the point where the SmBa2Cu3OX seed was placed, and the X-like cross separating the crystal onto four 90-degree segments. These features correspond to five growth sectors (GSs), i.e. areas grown on different habit planes: the c-GS with the habit (001) perpendicular to the c-axis, , and four a-GSs with the (100), (010), ($`\overline{1}`$00) and (0$`\overline{1}`$0) habit planes (see the schematic illustration in Figure 1(c)) . In other words, both the central trace and the cross display the GS boundaries (GSBs), viz., a-c-GSBs and a-a-GSBs, respectively, which are pathways of crystal edges between two neighboring habits during the growth stage. Although a regular shape of the remanent flux map presented in Figure 1(b) well confirmed the sample homogeneity, we shall hereafter report in what devastating contrast may minor inhomogeneities result under the PFM.

In order to magnetize the sample we used either quasi-static fields with a sweep rate $`V=\mu _0dH/dt0.01T/s`$ or the sin-wave-shaped magnetic pulses ($`V6000T/s`$). In all cases, the sample was magnetized in the vertical direction, i.e. along the c-axis, . The static magnetization (both in the FC and ZFC modes) was provided by the iron-yoke magnet ($`\mu _0H1T`$) and the superconducting solenoid ($`\mu _0H8T`$). Magnetic pulses were supplied by discharging of capacitors (with a total capacity of 5 mF) charged up to 2 kV through a circuit consisting of a copper coil and a thyristor which flashed only the first half ($`0\omega t\pi `$) of a sin-wave $`H=H^{}\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)`$. This form, amplitude ($`\mu _0H^{}6T`$) and duration ($`t_{max}=\pi /\omega =3ms`$) were wittingly selected so to attain better sensitivity to the sample inhomogeneities. In our view, the sweep rates $`V=\pi \mu _0H^{}\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)/t_{max}`$, which are especially high both in the ascending ($`t0`$) and, in contrast to the exponentially decaying pulses , descending ($`tt_{max}`$) branches, have to result in the heat generation which is almost twice larger than this registered in . In fact, numerical calculations  confirm that, owing to lower sweep rates, the descending brunch of the exponentially decaying pulses gives a minor contribution ($`13\%`$, i.e. $`0.6K`$ at $`\mu _0H^{}=4T`$) to the total temperature change ($`\mathrm{\Delta }T=4.55K`$ at $`\mu _0H^{}=4T`$).

However by simple heating of the sample, one could scarcely improve a sensibility. The heat also has to retain in the areas wherein this arises, i.e. in the areas with an excess of weak links . Short length of magnetic pulses promises to resolve this problem in the most important stage, i.e. during a pulse. Nothing can stop the heat exchange within the HTS sample afterwards, but the “after-the-pulse” smearing of the heat distribution is expected to reduce the remanent flux contrast less considerably. Besides, to minimize the “after-the-pulse” effects, for a whole experimental cycle (magnetizing $``$ dwelling time of 300 s $``$ measurements) the sample was immersed in a liquid nitrogen which, to our opinion, could provide a good thermal conductivity with, at least, the sample surfaces giving a main contribution to the measured flux density $`B`$.

The value of $`B`$ was mapped by the Hall sensor (Arepoc Ltd., Slovakia) which moved horizontally, 0.8 mm above the surface, stepwise with a pitch of 1 mm.

## 3 Results and discussion

Before an immediate presentation of the remanent flux profiles, we have, at first, to note the following. The common-accepted value which characterizes the influence of the magnetic field on the sample ability to trap magnetic flux is the total flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$. To calculate $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ one usually integrates the measured flux density $`B`$ over an entire surface $`S`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is positive. Although the averaged value $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T=\overline{B}S`$ describes the sample only as a whole, it would nevertheless be useful to compare the data obtained under our pulse conditions with those reported in references . Figure 2 presents such dependencies for the sample magnetized in the FC, ZFC and PFM modes. Obviously, the optimal field $`\mu _0H_{opt}=1.9T`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ in the PFM mode exhibits a maximum, corresponds to a full magnetization, i.e. the double penetration field $`H_p=H_{opt}/2`$.

In general, these curves are similar to those obtained elsewhere , but a certain distinction of our PFM data does seem worthy of discussion. This feature, viz., much lower ratio $`R(H>H_{opt})=\mathrm{\Phi }_T^{PFM}/\mathrm{\Phi }_T^{ZFC}`$ of the trapped flux to its “isothermal” ($`\mathrm{\Delta }T=0`$) value (i.e. this obtained under the ZFC magnetization), is readily explained by more rapid motion of flux lines and, due to their interaction with viscous forces, more energy dissipated in the sample during a pulse. For example, $`R0.65`$ which was reported at $`\mu _0H=4T`$ in Ref.  nearly twice exceeds similar value in Fig.2, $`R=0.38`$. Assuming that the total flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ is proportional to the critical current density $`j_c`$ which linearly decreases with the temperature and vanishes at $`T_c91K`$ , one can roughly estimate the temperature rise as $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=(1R)\times (T_c77K)`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=8.7K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=4.9K`$ for $`R=0.38`$ and $`0.65`$, respectively. This naive approach appears, nevertheless, rather accurate: the latter value is in an agreement with $`\mathrm{\Delta }T4.6K`$ calculated by authors  from direct measurements of flux line velocities as well as with $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=4.55K`$ given by numerical methods .

However, large temperature rise $`\mathrm{\Delta }T8.7K`$ does not yet guarantee whether the generated heat distribution reflects the HTS quality or not. The answer may be obtained from Figure 3 which shows the changes of the remanent flux distribution as $`\mu _0H`$ grows. To make this evolution more evident, we have previously normalized the flux densities $`B`$ for each measurement cycle to their peak value $`B_{max}`$. Owing to this trick, one can easily observe how the ring-like distributions gradually transform into the “cross-wheels” which “rungs” have the form of a dovetail. If the flux maps (a) and (b) are quite typical for the ZFC procedure at $`H<H_{opt}`$, the high-field data, $`H>H_{opt}`$, seem much more interesting. At first, so large gradients $`dB/dx`$ and $`dB/dy`$, where $`x`$ and $`y`$ are the space coordinates, as those shown in Figures 3(e)-(h) do confirm the above suggestion that the heat transfer within the HTS bulk is relatively small. But the main result is still the following: in view of the mentioned above scenario , the obtained flux profiles convincingly attest that weak links are mostly distributed inside the a-GSs, while a-a-GSBs are nearly free of them. Meanwhile, this arrangement is hardly noticeable under the slow magnetization. Upon a closer view, Figure 1(b) displays this difference only through minor twists of isolines (confer, for example, their pincushion distortion along the top-right a-a-GSB with the maximum in Figures 3 (e)-(h)).

Having direct magnetic data about the distribution of weak links inside the YBCO crystal, it would be unforgivable fault to miss an opportunity of demonstration which structural defects do act as weak links. For this reason, we have cut the sample along the plane $`SS^{}`$ perpendicular to the a-a-GSB (see Figure 4) and studied this microscopic section under the polarized light. This method allows to spot subgrains (because a minor misalignment yields different colors and contrasts) as well as other imperfections of the crystalline structure. Following the expectations , the image (a) shows the subgrain-free band (with a width of approximately 1 mm) between the sample surface and the c-GS apex. It confirms that weak links in the YBCO material are mainly related to subgrain boundaries .

Figure 4(b) helps to answer another important question: Why the geometric centre of the HTS sample, wherein the heat generation is minimal even at $`HH_{opt}`$ , does not correspond in Figures 3(e)-(h) to $`B_{max}`$? In particular, this image shows that the density of the Y2BaCuO5 (211) inclusions, i.e. pinning centers responsible for the $`j_c`$ values, does not change across the a-a-GSB, but differs essentially at intersecting a-c-GSBs. Due to the polishing process which exposures in this place the c-GS apex (see the sketches presented in Figures 1 and 4) with a smaller $`j_c`$, this area can not carry a whole current that flows along a-a-GSBs. Thus, only a portion of current loops does have the X-like shape, whilst the others are closed around the GSB segments. That is the reason why the local maxima have to be exhibited by centers of these segments, but not by the geometric centre of the sample. Actually, the positions of the maxima have to move a bit closer to the crystal rims since current loops in lower planes, where the a-a-GSBs are edged out due to the c-GS expansion, also contribute to the measured flux density.

The only issue, namely, the “dovetail”-form of isolines close to the crystal edges, still remains unclear. One can presume that the isoline forks correspond to bifurcations of the a-a-GSBs, so the forks mark the points where new, secondary a-GSs are spontaneously generated. However, this question lies outside the scope of current work, it would be the subject of further studies .

## 4 Conclusions

In summary, we can conclude that the PFM does seem a promising method not only for a technical magnetization of HTS bulks, but also for their characterization: it is fast, non-destructive and, provided that appropriate parameters of magnetic pulse are used, very sensitive to minor inhomogeneities  of the HTS material. The main conditions which may guarantee this sensibility are the following.

* The amplitude $`H^{}`$ of magnetic pulses has to much exceed the double penetration field $`H_p`$ which linearly increases with the sample size $`d`$ and shielding properties ($`j_c`$) of the HTS material (for example, $`H_p`$ in the SmBa2Cu3O7-δ crystals is twice larger than this in the YBa2Cu3O$`_{7\delta }`$ones with the same size ).
* Except for the pulse amplitude, its duration $`t_{max}`$ and the form are also responsible for high velocities $`V\pi \mu _0H^{}/t_{max}`$ of magnetic flux lines and, because of their interaction with viscous forces, considerable heat generation. Besides, short pulse duration provides nearly adiabatic conditions when both the heat transfer to a cooling media and this within the sample are negligible.
* The heat exchange between the sample and a cooling media has to be good enough to minimize the “after-the-pulse” smearing of the heat distribution.

Since these requirements are quite easy to satisfy, this technique seems the most suitable to explore magnetic properties of modern, nearly perfect HTS crystals. Obviously, its importance should evergrow with a further enhancement of the HTS samples to be studied.

This work was supported by the German BMBF under the project No. 13N6854A3. One of the authors (A.S.) would like to thank Z. H. He and P. Diko for illuminating discussions as well as R. Müller for his continual encouragement throughout the present work. We are also indebted to M. Arnz and Ch. Schmidt for technical support.

## References