text:
# REFERENCES

DSF-17/2001

MODEL FOR FERMION MASS MATRICES AND

THE ORIGIN OF QUARK-LEPTON SYMMETRY

D. Falcone

Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Università di Napoli,

Complesso di Monte S. Angelo, Via Cintia, Napoli, Italy

e-mail: falcone@na.infn.it

## Abstract

Several phenomenological features of fermion masses and mixings can be accounted for by a simple model for fermion mass matrices, which suggests an underlying U(2) horizontal symmetry. In this context, it is also proposed how an approximate quark-lepton symmetry can be achieved without unified gauge theories.

Understanding the pattern of fermion masses and mixings is a key subject in modern particle physics. Many approaches have been followed . For example, discrete and continuous as well as abelian and nonabelian horizontal symmetries have been often used. Moreover, unified gauge theories, which are based on vertical symmetries, generally predict relations between quark and lepton masses . Horizontal symmetries relate particles of different generations, while vertical symmetries relate particles of the same generation. Even the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ symmetries of the standard model or the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ symmetries of the left-right model are vertical. In this paper we show that several phenomenological issues, among which quark-lepton symmetry, seesaw mechanism and large neutrino mixing, lead to a simple model for quark and lepton mass matrices, suggesting an underlying broken $`U(2)`$ horizontal symmetry . Speculations on the origin of quark-lepton symmetry, not relying on unified models, and hence not leading to proton instability, are also presented.

It is well known that quark masses and mixings exhibit a hierarchical pattern,

$$\frac{m_u}{m_c}\frac{m_c}{m_t}\lambda ^4,$$
(1)
$$\frac{m_d}{m_s}\frac{m_s}{m_b}\lambda ^2,$$
(2)
$$V_{us}\lambda ,V_{cb}\lambda ^2,V_{ub}\lambda ^4,$$
(3)
where $`\lambda =0.22`$ is the sine of the Cabibbo angle, and from Eqn.(3) we see that quark mixings are small. Moreover, the hierarchy of charged lepton masses is similar to that of down quark masses,

$$\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }\frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }\lambda ^2.$$
(4)
For the masses of the third generation we have

$$m_tm_bm_\tau ,$$
(5)
and the top quark mass is nearly equal to the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the standard model Higgs boson.

Quark masses and mixings arise when quark mass matrices are diagonalized by means of biunitary transformations $`V_{uL}^{}M_uV_{uR}=D_u`$, $`V_{dL}^{}M_dV_{dR}=D_d`$. The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) quark mixing matrix  is given by the formula $`V_{CKM}=V_{uL}^{}V_{dL}`$. In recent papers  a parallel structure for up and down quark mass matrices has been obtained,

$$M_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \sqrt{m_um_c}& 0\\ \sqrt{m_um_c}& m_c& \sqrt{m_um_t}\\ 0& \sqrt{m_um_t}& m_t\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
$$M_d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \sqrt{m_dm_s}& 0\\ \sqrt{m_dm_s}& m_s& \sqrt{m_dm_b}\\ 0& \sqrt{m_dm_b}& m_b\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
By using Eqns.(1),(2) we get these mass matrices in terms of powers of $`\lambda `$ and an overall mass scale,

$$M_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \lambda ^6& 0\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^4\\ 0& \lambda ^4& 1\end{array}\right)m_t,$$
(8)
$$M_d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \lambda ^3& 0\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ 0& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)m_b.$$
(9)
This structure for $`M_u`$ and $`M_d`$ strongly suggests the presence of a broken $`U(2)`$ horizontal symmetry , if we consider the zeros as approximate. In particular, for symmetric forms, the similarity $`M_{22}M_{23}`$ favours the $`U(2)`$ symmetry, rather than the $`U(1)`$ symmetry, where we have $`M_{22}(M_{23})^2`$ (see for example Ref.). Mixings come out mainly from the down sector, where the hierarchy is less pronounced.

Now we have to consider lepton masses and mixings. In unified theories, such as the $`SO(10)`$ model, the charged lepton mass matrix $`M_e`$ is related to $`M_d`$ and the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ is related to $`M_u`$,

$$M_e\frac{m_\tau }{m_b}M_d,$$
(10)
$$M_\nu \frac{m_\tau }{m_b}M_u,$$
(11)
where the factor $`m_\tau /m_b`$ takes into account approximate running of quark masses with respect to lepton masses, and $`m_bm_\tau `$ at the unification scale in the supersymmetric case . This is called quark-lepton symmetry. Moreover, the seesaw mechanism  holds, according to the formula

$$M_LM_\nu M_R^1M_\nu ,$$
(12)
where $`M_R`$ is the Majorana mass matrix of heavy right-handed neutrinos and $`M_L`$ is the Majorana mass matrix of light left-handed neutrinos. The seesaw mechanism can explain the smallness of the effective neutrino mass, since the mass of the right-handed neutrino is generated at the unification scale $`M_U10^{16}`$ GeV in the supersymmetric case and the Dirac mass at the weak scale $`M_W10^2`$ GeV. Lepton masses and mixings arise when $`M_L`$ and $`M_e`$ are diagonalized through the transformations $`V_L^{}M_LV_L^{}=D_L`$, $`V_{eL}^{}M_eV_{eR}=D_e`$. The Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (MNS) lepton mixing matrix  is given by $`V_{MNS}=V_L^{}V_{eL}`$. In Eqns.(10),(11) we may neglect the running of quark mixings, which is not relevant for our analysis. In fact, also the running of quark masses is unimportant. However, we keep the factor $`m_\tau /m_b`$ to remember the presence of the running effect, which is responsible for the mass difference between $`m_b`$ and $`m_\tau `$ at the low scale. Quark-lepton symmetry is due to the $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ subgroup of $`SO(10)`$ and in particular to the $`SU(4)`$ component, which includes lepton number as fourth color . In the $`SU(5)`$ model, only relation (10) is achieved.

It can be shown  that the large mixing angle solutions to the solar neutrino problem , which are favoured by recent data fits , along with the large mixing of atmospheric neutrinos, give the remarkable result of a nearly democratic

$$M_L^1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{m_1},$$
(13)
where $`m_1`$ is the mass of the lightest left-handed neutrino in the normal hierarchy case . Then, by using Eqns.(8),(11),(12) and (13) we obtain

$$M_R\left(\frac{m_\tau }{m_b}\right)^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \lambda ^6\\ 0& \lambda ^8& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& 1\end{array}\right)\frac{m_t^2}{m_1},$$
(14)
where again the zeros are approximate. The overall scale of $`M_R`$ is consistent with or higher than the unification scale. Consistence is achieved for $`m_110^4`$ eV.

Therefore, all fermion mass matrices can now be written in a form suggested by the breaking of the $`U(2)`$ horizontal symmetry , and filling the zero elements by higher powers of $`\lambda `$ we get

$$M_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(\lambda ^6)^2& \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4\lambda ^6\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^4\lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& 1\end{array}\right)m_tM_\nu ,$$
(15)
$$M_d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(\lambda ^3)^2& \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2\lambda ^3\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^2\lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)m_bM_e,$$
(16)
$$M_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(\lambda ^6)^2& \lambda ^4\lambda ^6& \lambda ^6\\ \lambda ^4\lambda ^6& (\lambda ^4)^2& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& 1\end{array}\right)M_3,$$
(17)
with $`M_3`$ the mass of the heaviest right-handed neutrino. Coefficients are greater than $`\lambda `$ and less than $`1/\lambda `$. We stress that the heavy neutrino mass matrix is found, and not built, consistent with the broken $`U(2)`$ symmetry, as a consequence of the democratic form (13). The $`U(2)`$ breaking parameters are given by

$$ϵ_uϵ_{d}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda ^4,$$
(18)
$$ϵ_u^{}ϵ_{d}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda ^6,$$
(19)
so that mass matrices can be written as

$$M_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_{u}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}& ϵ_u^{}& ϵ_uϵ_u^{}\\ ϵ_u^{}& ϵ_u& ϵ_u\\ ϵ_uϵ_u^{}& ϵ_u& 1\end{array}\right)m_tM_\nu ,$$
(20)
$$M_d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_{d}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}& ϵ_d^{}& ϵ_dϵ_d^{}\\ ϵ_d^{}& ϵ_d& ϵ_d\\ ϵ_dϵ_d^{}& ϵ_d& 1\end{array}\right)m_bM_e,$$
(21)
$$M_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_{u}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}& ϵ_uϵ_u^{}& ϵ_u^{}\\ ϵ_uϵ_u^{}& ϵ_{u}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}& ϵ_u\\ ϵ_u^{}& ϵ_u& 1\end{array}\right)M_3.$$
(22)
The parameters $`ϵ`$ are involved in the breaking of $`U(2)`$ to $`U(1)`$, and the parameters $`ϵ^{}`$ in the further breaking of this $`U(1)`$. According to the $`U(2)`$ horizontal symmetry, the three generations $`\psi _i`$ transform as a doublet $`\psi _a`$ plus a singlet $`\psi _3`$. This is attractive for supersymmetry, because leads to the degeneracy between first and second generation, which is needed to suppress the flavor changing neutral currents in the squark sector . Thus we discuss the origin of matrices in Eqns.(15),(16) and (17) within the supersymmetric standard model with right-handed neutrinos. We do not assume the existence of a unified model. In fact, in unified theories with $`U(2)`$ as horizontal symmetry, the mechanisms for the enhancement of the up quark mass hierarchy with respect to the down quark mass hierarchy are quite involved . Moreover, it is not clear if a simple Higgs structure is able to account for fermion masses and mixings.

In the supersymmetric model, Dirac masses are generated by two distinct Higgs doublets, $`H_d`$ and $`H_u`$, with VEVs $`v_d`$ and $`v_u`$, through the Yukawa terms

$$Y_uQH_uu+Y_dQH_dd,$$
(23)
$$Y_\nu LH_u\nu +Y_eLH_de,$$
(24)
where $`Q`$ and $`L`$ are quark and lepton weak doublets, and $`u`$, $`d`$, $`\nu `$, $`e`$ are weak singlets. We see that $`M_u`$ and $`M_\nu `$ are generated by the same Higgs doublet $`H_u`$, that is $`M_{u,\nu }=Y_{u,\nu }v_u`$. In a similar way $`M_d`$ and $`M_e`$ are generated by the Higgs doublet $`H_d`$, that is $`M_{d,e}=Y_{d,e}v_d`$. This fact could already suggest the assumption of an approximate quark-lepton symmetry. The hierarchy (5) is obtained for $`v_uv_d`$, keeping all Yukawa couplings for the third generation of order 1, so that $`m_tv_u`$ and $`m_bv_d`$. We find that $`Y_{u,\nu }`$ and $`Y_{d,e}`$ are produced through two independent Yukawa potentials, with breaking parameters $`ϵ_u`$, $`ϵ_u^{}`$ and $`ϵ_d`$, $`ϵ_d^{}`$, respectively. A Dirac potential is in the form

$$Lv\left(\psi _3\psi _3+\psi _3\frac{\phi ^a}{M}\psi _a+\psi _a\frac{S^{ab}}{M}\psi _b+\psi _a\frac{A^{ab}}{M}\psi _b\right),$$
(25)
where $`\phi ^a`$, $`S^{ab}`$, $`A^{ab}`$ are doublet, triplet and singlet flavon fields, with VEVs given by

$$\frac{\phi }{M}\left(\begin{array}{c}ϵϵ^{}\\ ϵ\end{array}\right),\frac{S}{M}\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ^2& ϵϵ^{}\\ ϵϵ^{}& ϵ\end{array}\right),\frac{A}{M}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& ϵ^{}\\ ϵ^{}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(26)
and the mass $`M`$ is the cutoff scale of the effective theory, corresponding to the existence of very massive states. The flavons are weak singlets.

The heavy neutrino mass is generated by a bare mass term $`M_R\nu \nu `$ and is related to the $`U(2)`$ breaking involved in the up sector, as expected since the $`\nu `$ fields appear. It is noteworthy that we find this result from the independent input of large neutrino mixing. Contrary to Dirac masses, which are generated at the weak scale, the Majorana mass of the right-handed neutrino is not constrained and can be very large, allowing the seesaw mechanism. The Majorana potential looks like

$$L_RM_3\left(\nu _3\nu _3+\nu _3\frac{\varphi ^a}{M}\nu _a+\nu _a\frac{\varphi ^a\varphi ^b}{M^2}\nu _b\right),$$
(27)
with the VEV of $`\varphi ^a`$ given by

$$\frac{\varphi }{M}\left(\begin{array}{c}ϵ^{}\\ ϵ\end{array}\right),$$
(28)
and without the triplet (and of course the antisymmetric singlet) contribution. We can also assume, in analogy to Eqns.(23),(24), that $`M_R`$ is generated through a Yukawa term $`Y_R\nu H\nu `$ with a singlet Higgs $`H`$ having a very high VEV $`v_RM_3`$, in such a way to couple different Higgs fields to different flavon fields.

The present model ascribes the hierarchy (5), and its analogue in the lepton sector, to the coupling with two distinct Higgs doublets, which is necessary in the supersymmetric case , and the hierarchies (1),(2), and their analogues in the lepton sector, to the coupling with two corresponding different sets of flavon fields, responsible for the $`U(2)`$ breaking. As a consequence, the quark-lepton symmetry itself, in the form of Eqns.(15),(16), could come out of this framework. Thus, an approximate quark-lepton symmetry can be realized without the $`SO(10)`$ grand unification or the $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ partial unification, avoiding a possible conflict with proton decay . It is worth noting that the model is in some sense economical with respect to unified theories, since many gauge and Higgs bosons need not to be introduced, while flavon fields have in any case to appear, in order to account for the hierarchies. However, we do not exclude a possible realization within the $`SO(10)`$ model.

In summary, from quark-lepton symmetry, seesaw mechanism and the large lepton mixing, we have inferred a simple model for fermion mass matrices in the supersymmetric standard model with right-handed neutrinos and horizontal $`U(2)`$ symmetry. Such a model suggests an alternative to the usual origin of quark-lepton symmetry. The basic features of masses and mixings are produced by VEVs of scalar fields. In particular, Higgs fields determine the overall scales of mass matrices, and flavon fields their internal hierarchies. The ratio $`v_u/v_d=\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is predicted to be very large.

Finally, we discuss the implications for baryogenesis via leptogenesis . This mechanism for the generation of a baryon asymmetry $`Y_B`$ in the universe is based on the decay of the heavy right-handed neutrinos, producing a lepton asymmetry which is partially converted into a baryon asymmetry by sphaleron processes. See Ref. for a collection of the relevant formulas. Using the approximate expression for the supersymmetric case and Eqns.(15),(17),

$$Y_B\frac{M_1}{M_P}\frac{[(M_\nu ^{}M_\nu )_{12}]^2}{[(M_\nu ^{}M_\nu )_{11}]^2}\frac{M_1}{M_2},$$
(29)
where $`M_P10^{19}`$ GeV is the Planck mass, we obtain

$$Y_B\lambda ^{12}\frac{M_3}{M_P}.$$
(30)
The required value $`Y_B\lambda ^{15}`$ is achieved for $`M_310^{17}`$ GeV, by one order higher than the unification scale, and corresponding to $`m_110^5`$ eV. This result has to be taken with care, due to the approximation and the dependence on Yukawa coefficients.


format: text

text:
# Maternal effects in molecular evolution

## Abstract

We introduce a model of molecular evolution in which the fitness of an individual depends both on its own and on the parent’s genotype. The model can be solved by means of a nonlinear mapping onto the standard quasispecies model. The dependency on the parental genotypes cancels from the mean fitness, but not from the individual sequence concentrations. For finite populations, the position of the error threshold is very sensitive to the influence from parent genotypes. In addition to biological applications, our model is important for understanding the dynamics of self-replicating computer programs.

Simple models of asexual evolution, such as the quasispecies model, typically assume that the fitness of an organism is a function of only its genotype and the environment. This allows for the analysis of evolution in static  or variable  environments, many to one mappings from genotype to phenotype (neutrality) , and phenotypic plasticity . These models disregard the potential influence of the mother (or parent, in general) on the organism’s phenotype. This influence comes about because in addition to the genetic material, a wealth of proteins and other substances is transferred from mother to child. In the context of sexual reproduction, the influence of the mother on a child’s phenotype is usually called a maternal effect. A classic example is that of the snail *Partula suturalis* , for which the directionality in the coiling of the shells is determined by the genotype of the mother of an organism, rather than the organism’s own genotype. Maternal effects are not exclusive to sexually reproducing organisms, however, they can be observed in simple asexual organisms as well. In bacteria, for example, the fitness of a strain in a given environment may depend on the environment that was experienced by the strain’s immediate ancestors .

Here, our objective is to define and study a model of the evolution of asexual organisms that takes such maternal effects into account. We assume that the fitness of an organism is given by the product of two quantities $`a`$ and $`b`$, where $`a`$ depends solely on the genotype of the mother of the organism, and $`b`$ depends solely on the organism’s own genotype. Since we need to keep track of the abundances of all possible mother/child combinations, we need $`n^2`$ concentration variables if we distinguish $`n`$ different genotypes in our model. In the following, we denote by $`x_{ij}`$ the concentration of organisms of genotype $`j`$ descended from genotype $`i`$, and by $`q_{ji}`$ the probability that a genotype $`i`$ mutates into genotype $`j`$. The time evolution of the $`x_{ij}`$ is then, in analogy to the quasispecies model,

$$\dot{x}_{ij}(t)=\underset{k}{}a_kb_iq_{ji}x_{ki}(t)f(t)x_{ij}(t),$$
(1)
with $`f(t)=_{i,j}a_ib_jx_{ij}(t)`$. The function $`f(t)`$ gives the average fitness of the population at time $`t`$. In principle, this model can be solved by diagonalizing a $`n^2\times n^2`$ matrix. However, since even for relatively short genetic sequences the number of possible genotypes $`n`$ is enormous, this direct method is very cumbersome. Fortunately, a simple transformation exists that reduces the above problem to one in which the diagonalization of a $`n\times n`$ matrix is sufficient. Namely, if we introduce variables $`x_i`$ such that

$$x_{ij}=b_iq_{ji}x_i/\left(\underset{k}{}b_kx_k\right),$$
(2)
then, after inserting Eq. (2) into Eq. (1), we obtain in the steady state ($`\dot{x}_{ij}=0`$)

$$\stackrel{~}{f}x_i=\underset{j}{}a_jb_jq_{ij}x_j$$
(3)
with $`\stackrel{~}{f}=_ja_jb_jx_j`$. The inverse transformation, which converts Eq. (3) back into the right-hand-side of Eq. (1), can be achieved with

$$x_i=\left(\underset{j}{}a_jx_{ji}\right)/\left(\underset{j,k}{}a_jx_{jk}\right).$$
(4)
Therefore, Eq. (3) is fully equivalent to the steady state of Eq. (1). This leads to an interesting conclusion. Note that Eq. (3) is simply the steady state equation of the quasispecies model if we assume that genotypes $`j`$ replicate with replication rate $`c_j=a_jb_j`$ and mutate into genotypes $`i`$ with $`q_{ij}`$, while $`x_i`$ gives the relative concentration of genotype $`i`$. Consequently, the model with maternal effects is mathematically equivalent to the standard quasispecies model. Moreover, with the aid of Eq. (2) and Eq. (4), it can be shown that $`f(t\mathrm{})=\stackrel{~}{f}`$. Therefore, the average fitness in both models is the same; the maternal effects drop out of the expression for the average fitness.

While the average fitness depends only on the values of $`c_i`$, the individual sequence concentrations actually depend on the details of the maternal effects. In particular, the total amount of sequences of a given genotype $`i`$ is not identical to the corresponding value $`x_i`$ in the standard quasispecies model ($`_jx_{ji}x_i`$ in general). From Eq. (2), we see that for every given mutation matrix $`q_{ij}`$, we can suppress any sequence concentration to as small a level as we please, by reducing the corresponding $`b_i`$ and holding the other $`b_j`$ constant ($`lim_{b_i0}x_{ij}=0`$). Enhancement of sequence concentrations is also possible, although there exists an upper bound that cannot be exceeded. The upper bound is given by the matrix element $`q_{ji}`$ ($`lim_{b_i\mathrm{}}x_{ij}=q_{ji}`$). Its existence is easy to understand: by changing $`b_i`$, we can only jointly manipulate the concentrations of *all* sequences descended from genotype $`i`$. The ratio between different genotypes $`j`$ descended from $`i`$ is always fixed, and it is determined by the matrix elements $`q_{ji}`$. At most, the sum over all descendants from all genotypes $`i`$ in the population can be one, $`_jx_{ij}=1`$, which implies $`x_{ij}=q_{ji}`$.

We will now classify the different types of maternal effects. If all $`a_i=1`$, such that $`b_i=c_i`$, no maternal effects are present, and we obtain the normal sequence concentrations from the quasispecies model. We will refer to this situation as the *neutral* case. In order to classify all non-neutral situations, we compare concentrations of those sequences that are true copies of their parents (this is the only reasonable way, given that *all* genotypes descended from the same ancestor $`i`$ scale identically with $`b_i`$). If the concentration $`x_{ii}`$ of a sequence with large $`c_i`$ is *reduced*, while the concentration $`x_{jj}`$ of some other sequence with smaller $`c_j`$ is *enhanced*, we will speak of *positive* maternal effects. Likewise, if the sequence concentration of a faster replicating sequence is *enhanced*, at the expense of some slower replicating sequence, we will speak of *negative* maternal effects. In short, positive maternal effects promote slower replicators, and negative maternal effects promote faster replicators. We refer to the above classification as the *direction* of the maternal effects. Likewise, the *strengh* of the maternal effects indicates the degree to which a system deviates from the neutral case (*weak* maternal effects show only a small deviation, *strong* maternal effects show a large deviation from the neutral case).

With Eq. (2) we can solve the model, as long as there exists an analytical solution for the corresponding quasispecies landscape. This means that solutions for multiplicative landscapes , the single peak landscape , and certain spin-glass landscapes  are readily available. In the following, we discuss the well-known example of the sharp single-peak landscape . We assume that the genetic sequences are binary of length $`\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, we assume a uniform copy fidelity $`q`$ per digit. The sequence $`000\mathrm{}0`$ may replicate (in the absence of mutations) with rate $`c_0=a_0b_0`$. We will refer to this sequence as the master sequence. Let all other sequences replicate with $`c_1=a_1b_1c_0`$. If $`\mathrm{}`$ is large, we may neglect back-mutations onto the master sequence, in which case it is sufficient to keep track of the total concentration of all sequences off the peak in a single variable, $`x_1`$. The mutation matrix $`q_{ij}`$ is then a $`2\times 2`$ matrix with the elements $`q_{00}=q^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`q_{10}=1q^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`q_{01}=q_{10}/(2^{\mathrm{}}1)`$, and $`q_{11}=1q_{01}`$ (the elements $`q_{01}`$ and $`q_{01}`$ are approximated). In the standard quasispecies model, the equilibrium concentration of the master sequence $`x_0`$ is given by

$$x_0=(c_0q_{00}c_1)/(c_0c_1),$$
(5)
and $`x_1`$ likewise as $`x_1=1x_0`$. The average fitness follows as

$$f=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill c_0q_{00}& \text{for }x_00\text{,}\hfill \\ \hfill c_1& \text{else.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Now, for the sequence concentrations with maternal effects, we obtain from Eq. (5) in conjunction with Eq. (2)

$`x_{0i}`$ $`=`$ $`b_0q_{i0}(c_0q_{00}c_1)/\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (7)
$`x_{1i}`$ $`=`$ $`b_1q_{i1}(c_0c_0q_{00})/\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (8)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(b_0b_1)c_0q_{00}+b_1c_0b_0c_1`$ and $`i=0,1`$.

Figure 1 displays the four sequence concentrations $`x_{00}`$, $`x_{01}`$, $`x_{10}`$, $`x_{11}`$ of the above defined landscape, for positive, negative, and neutral maternal effects. We see that indeed the maternal effects result in a significant shift in the sequence concentrations. The concentration $`x_{11}`$ (shown in the lower right of Fig. 1), e.g., encompasses almost the complete population for positive maternal effects at an error rate of about 0.04, while it constitutes less than 20% in the case of the negative maternal effects for the same error rate.

The potential shift in the individual sequence concentrations has important implications for finite populations. When the concentration of a sequence (as predicted for an infinite population) approaches the inverse of the population size, that sequence will most certanily be lost through sampling fluctuations. In the case of the master sequence, this effect is responsible for the shift of the error catastrophe towards smaller error rates for finite populations in the ordinary quasispecies model . Now, since the concentration of the master sequence can be made arbitrarily small with suitable maternal effects, it follows that the error threshold can be shifted. This effect is illustrated in Fig. 2 for a population size of $`N=1000`$, for which the error transition in the normal quasispecies model (as represented by the ’neutral’ case) is already significantly shifted. Positive maternal effects increase this shift by a fair amount, while negative maternal effects can almost completely counteract the finite population effect, and move the error transition very close to the infinite population limit. Besides the shift in the error transition, Fig. 2 shows that the average fitness is indeed unaffected by strength and/or direction of the maternal effects, as all three curves lie exactly on the infinite population result for error rates below the respective error transitions.

We have seen above that the mean fitness in the population is not influenced by the existence of maternal effects. Since selection acts only on the average fitness , it follows that the maternal effects cannot be under selective pressure. In order to verify this, we have performed simulations in which strength and direction of the maternal effects were allowed to evolve. To each sequence in the population, we added an inheritable variable $`z`$. On reproduction, the offspring received a value $`z^{}=z+dz`$, where $`dz`$ was a normally distributed random variable. For the master sequence, $`z`$ was then mapped into $`a_0`$ and $`b_0`$ via $`a_0=(\alpha +z)/\alpha `$ for $`z>0`$, $`a_0=\alpha /(\alpha +z)`$ for $`z0`$, and $`b_0=1/a_0`$, with $`\alpha `$ defining the scale between $`z`$ and $`a_0`$, $`b_0`$. For $`a_1`$ and $`b_1`$, the value of $`z`$ was ignored. Figure 3 shows a typical simulation run in such a system. We chose $`N=1000`$ and $`1q=0.06`$, so that the population was below the error threshold in the absence of maternal effects, and we initialized all sequences in the population to $`z=0`$. Over the course of a simulation, the $`z`$ values drift randomly, which can be seen in increasing and diminishing fluctuations about the average fitness. When the average $`z`$ drifts below zero, the fluctuations decrease, because $`z<0`$ corresponds to negative maternal effects, which shift the population away from the error threshold. When the average $`z`$ drifts above zero, on the other hand, the fluctuations increase. If there is no upper limit to $`z`$, the fluctuations will eventually grow so large that the population is pushed over the error threshold. In Fig. 3, this happend around generation 5400.

The model we have introduced in this paper oversimplifies the situation for bacteria, where substances can remain in the cytoplasm for several generations, such that not only the parent, but also the grand- and the grand-grand-parent etc. have an influence on the phenotype of an individual. However, it is an exact description of the dynamics of the digital organisms (self-replicating and evolving computer programs) of the Avida system, which has been used extensively in experimental evolution research . The replication rate of these digital organisms is the ratio between the number of instructions per unit time that they can execute \[the speed of their central processing unit (CPU)\] and the number of instructions they have to execute in order to produce a new offspring (length of the gestation cycle). The CPU speed depends on the number and type of logical operations that these organisms perform in addition to their replicatory activity (the more logical operations an organism performs, the faster its CPU will operate). Since the logical operations an organism can perform are only known *a posteriori*, these organisms obtain their initial CPU speed from their parent organism. The CPU speed corresponds thus to the parameter $`a`$ of the present work, and the length of the gestation cycle to the inverse of the parameter $`b`$. Therefore, we have shown in that a quasispecies description of the digital organisms is indeed justified, as was proposed in . Also, our model might lead to a detailed quantitative description of the dynamics of digital organisms in future work.

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Contract No. DEB-9981397. The author thanks Chris Adami for carefully reading this manuscript.


text:
# Anisotropy on the Fermi Surface of the Two-Dimensional Hubbard Model

## Abstract

We investigate anisotropic charge fluctuations in the two-dimensional Hubbard model at half filling. By the quantum Monte Carlo method, we calculate a momentum-resolved charge compressibility $`\kappa (𝒌)=dn(𝒌)/d\mu `$, which shows effects of an infinitesimal doping. At the temperature $`Tt^2/U`$, $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ shows peak structure at the $`(\pm \pi /2,\pm \pi /2)`$ points along the $`|k_x|+|k_y|=\pi `$ line. A similar peak structure is reproduced in the mean-filed calculation for the $`d`$-wave pairing state or the staggered flux state.

Effects of electron-electron interaction have attracted lots of interest. One of the most significant phenomena in the strongly correlated electron system is the Mott transition, which is a quantum phase transition driven by the interaction. This Mott insulator has a finite charge gap and the anitiferromagnetism often accompanies. Recently, various anomalous properties have been found near the Mott transition. Especially, there has been a proposal that the interaction brings about anisotropy in the low energy excitations. For example, the spectral weight of the two-dimensional Hubbard model has been investigated bulut94-b1 ; bulut94-b2 ; hanke ; ift-rmp . In addition, the deformation of the Fermi surface due to the interaction occurs in the $`tJ`$ model putika98 ; ogata00 . The singular momentum dependence is also observed experimentally. Angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) measurements suggest anisotropic properties in the low energy excitations ronning98 . These anomalous properties are widely observed in the strongly correlated electron system and they could be an evidence of the non-Fermi liquid behavior. It is thus an important and appealing topic to study the low energy excitations with momentum resolution.

The anisotropy in the low energy excitations is natural, if we assume the $`d`$-wave pairing state or the flux state affleck88-prb37 . They both have a singular energy dispersion that has gap nodes along the diagonal directions $`|k_x|=|k_y|`$, while a gap opens around the $`(\pm \pi ,0)`$ and $`(0,\pm \pi )`$ points. Thus, one expects anisotropic charge excitations near the Fermi surface. In general, however, these states compete with other instabilities. Especially, at a rational filling, the system often belongs to the antiferromagnetic Mott insulator, where the charge degree of freedom is frozen. In that case, the Néel state well describes the ground state. Nevertheless, the $`d`$-wave pairing state or the flux state can give a sound basis for the interpretation of some singular phenomena near the Mott insulator at a finite temperature.

In this letter, we investigate the charge fluctuation in the half-filled Hubbard model on a two-dimensional square lattice. Using the quantum Monte Carlo method, we calculate the momentum-resolved charge compressibility

$$\kappa (𝒌)=\frac{dn(𝒌)}{d\mu },$$

where $`n(𝒌)=c_𝒌^{}c_𝒌`$ denotes the momentum distribution function and $`\mu `$ the chemical potential. The integral of $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ is equal to the charge compressibility $`\kappa =𝑑𝒌\kappa (𝒌)`$. If system has a finite charge gap, the charge compressibility decreases exponentially towards zero as a temperature is lowered. Thus, at half filling, we cannot calculate $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ with sufficient numerical accuracy at a very low temperature. At a finite temperature, an infinitesimal shift of $`\mu `$ causes an infinitesimal doping. This means $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ reflects the distribution of infinitesimally doped carriers with momentum resolution $`\delta n(𝒌)\kappa (𝒌)\delta \mu .`$ Without the interaction, $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ is peaked on the Fermi surface and its value is constant. At half filling, this non-interacting Fermi surface is a square in the Brillouin zone, $`|k_x|+|k_y|=\pi `$. We define the Fermi surface(FS) as this square in this paper.

We calculate $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ at half filling. Here the charge degree of freedom is almost frozen and the system is dominated only by the insulating fixed point (antiferromagnetic Mott insulator) at the low temperature($`Tt^2/U`$). On the other hand, at a sufficiently high temperature($`TU`$), the Coulomb interaction $`U`$ is irrelevant. We focus on the intermediate temperature region ($`Tt^2/U`$), expecting an interaction between charge and spin degree of freedom gives non-trivial feature on $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ even at half-filling.

The Hamiltonian of the two-dimensional Hubbard model is given by

$`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,\sigma }{}}\left(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+c_{j\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }\right)`$
$`+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(n_i1/2\right)\left(n_i1/2\right)\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}n_{i\sigma },`$
where $`i,j`$ denotes the nearest-neighbor links, and $`t`$ the nearest-neighbor hopping amplitude. The system is on a square lattice and we impose periodic boundary conditions.

In order to obtain approximation-free results, we employ the finite temperature auxiliary field quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) method bss ; hirsch85 ; white89 . In this method, physical observables are evaluated in the grand canonical ensemble. This makes it possible to obtain $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ by direct sampling in the QMC simulations as

$$\kappa (𝒌)=\beta \left(n(𝒌)\underset{𝒌}{}n(𝒌)n(𝒌)\underset{𝒌}{}n(𝒌)\right),$$

where $`\beta `$ denotes an inverse temperature. If we calculate $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ by numerically differentiating the QMC data $`n(𝒌)`$, we need to perform simulations for the doped system. This brings about the notorious sign problem, which prevents us from getting reliable data. On the other hand, the direct evaluation of $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ only needs a simulation at half filling, where the sign problem does not occur due to the particle-hole symmetry. The number of the electrons is not fixed at half filling in the QMC ensembles, even if we set the chemical potential $`\mu =0`$. Thus, the information on infinitesimally doped systems is statistically taken into account in $`\kappa (𝒌)`$.

The simulations were performed on a $`16\times 16`$ square lattice. The finite size effects on $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ are not observed with this lattice size at the temperatures we have studied. The Trotter time slice size is set to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 0.1/t`$. We have checked that the systematic error due to the Trotter decomposition does not change qualitative features. For the interacting case, the strength of the interaction is set to be $`U/t=4`$, where the charge gap is $`E_g0.6t`$ Furukawa . We have typically performed 500 Monte Carlo sweeps in order to reach a thermal equilibrium followed by $`10^4`$ measurement sweeps. The measurements are divided into 10 blocks and the statistical error is estimated by the variance among the blocks.

At first, let us discuss results at the temperature $`Tt^2/U`$. The results of $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ for $`U/t=0`$ and $`U/t=4`$ are shown in Fig. 1. For the non-interacting case, the value of $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ on the FS is constant. On the other hand, for $`U/t=4`$, peak structure emerges in $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ at the ($`\pm \pi /2`$,$`\pm \pi /2`$) points. It indicates that the ($`\pm \pi /2`$,$`\pm \pi /2`$) points are more sensitive to the shift of the chemical potential than ($`\pm \pi `$,0) or ($`0,\pm \pi `$). In other words, the system is more compressible at the $`(\pm \pi /2,\pm \pi /2)`$ points. Here we note that the interaction does not change the line defined by $`n(𝒌)=0.5`$, which is identical with the FS in the non-interacting case. In that sense, the shape of the Fermi surface itself is not deformed at half filling Halboth .

Next, we discuss the temperature dependence of $`\kappa (𝒌)`$. The results of $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ for $`U/t=4`$ at several temperatures are provided in Fig. 2. The peak structure at the $`(\pm \pi /2,\pm \pi /2)`$ points is clearly observed at $`Tt^2/U`$. It becomes ambiguous as the temperature increases and vanishes above $`TU`$. Here we note that the antiferromagnetic correlation length is smaller than the linear system size at these temperatures ($`T/t0.2`$). There are two known characteristic energy scales in the Hubbard model. One is the Coulomb interaction $`U`$ and the other is the effective superexchange interaction $`Jt^2/U`$. Our results show the peak structure in $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ emerges at the temperature $`TJ`$ and vanishes at $`T>U`$.

In the half-filled Hubbard model, an antiferromagnetic long-range order appears at $`T=0`$. At a finite temperature, the system does not have any long-range order. Then there is no a priori reason to expect such an anisotropy in the charge compressibility. Thus, let us compare the QMC results with various mean-field solutions at the temperature $`TJ`$. We focus on three possible mean-field solutions; the Néel state, the $`d`$-wave pairing state, and the staggered flux state. As an effective model of the Hubbard model Harris , we use the following $`tJ`$ model to compare with our QMC results

$`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{j,k,\sigma }{}}(c_{j\sigma }^{}c_{k\sigma }+c_{k\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma })`$
$`+J{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}\left(𝑺_j𝑺_k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n_jn_k\right)\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}n_{i\sigma },`$
where $`𝑺_i=\frac{1}{2}_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}c_{i\sigma }^{}𝝈_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_{i\sigma ^{}}`$ and the double occupancy at the same site is prohibited. We take order parameters as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}\left(c_jc_kc_jc_k\right)`$ ($`d`$-wave pairing),
$`\chi _{jk}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}\left(c_jc_k^{}+c_jc_k^{}\right)`$ (staggered flux),
$`m_j`$ $`=JS_j^z`$ (Néel).
We set $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}`$ to have the $`d`$-wave symmetry and its amplitude is constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The link order $`\chi _{jk}`$ is chosen so that the effective magnetic flux for each plaquette takes $`\varphi `$ or $`\varphi `$ alternately. The parameters satisfy $`\mathrm{\Delta }/t<1`$ or $`\varphi <\pi `$ where the low-lying excitations are described by anisotropic Dirac fermionsmorita01 . The staggered magnetization $`m_j`$ is $`(1)^{j_x+j_y}m`$. In order to apply the mean-field ansatz, we introduce auxiliary fields to decouple the superexchange term and incorporate the constraints of no double occupancy. Next, we apply the saddle-point approximation and neglect the fluctuation around it by taking order parameters as an input parameter (without self consistency condition). In low dimensions, the fluctuations generally play a role of destructing the long-range order and it is natural to expect it in our case. Our focus is, however, not on such a long-distance behavior.

We show $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ at half filling for these mean-field states in Fig. 3. The peak structure at the ($`\pm \pi /2`$,$`\pm \pi /2`$) points is observed in the $`d`$-wave pairing or the staggered flux state, which is similar to the QMC results. This implies the $`d`$-wave pairing state or the staggered flux state competes with the Néel order at a finite temperature and they give a good description of the short-distance behavior. However, we don’t claim that these mean-filed states become long-range ordered at half filling.Our interest is in which type of the order parameter can give the anisotropy in the charge compressibility at $`TJ`$. Even if these mean-filed states are unstable, they can still play an important role at a finite temperature. On the other hand, $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ of the Néel state gives a constant value on the FS, which does not reproduce the QMC results. The ground state of the half-filled system is well described by the Néel state, while the system behaves essentially as a non-interacting case at a sufficiently high temperature ($`TU`$). Both the Néel state and the non-interacting metallic state give a constant $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ on the FS. Therefore, one of the natural scenarios for the anisotropy in $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ is that different kinds of fixed points exist and bring about some singular phenomena at an intermediate temperature. Finally, we note that a possible admixture of different orders may happen at a low temperature.

In summary, we have investigated the charge fluctuation in the two-dimensional Hubbard model by the quantum Monte Carlo method. The momentum-resolved charge compressibility $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ is focused on at a finite temperature. It gives information on the infinitesimal doping in the Mott insulator. The peak structure at the ($`\pm \pi /2`$,$`\pm \pi /2`$) points is observed in $`\kappa (𝒌)`$ at the temperature $`Tt^2/U`$. It is qualitatively consistent with the calculation for the $`d`$-wave pairing state or the staggered flux state, while the low temperature($`Tt^2/U`$) behavior is dominated by the antiferromagnetic Mott insulator. This peak structure disappears at the high temperature $`T>U`$ where the Coulomb interaction is irrelevant. The crossover observed in our results reflects the existence of several fixed points (including unstable ones) in the strongly correlated electron systems.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank M. Imada, Y. Kato, S. Ryu, J. Kishine, K. Yonemitsu, and P. A. Lee for fruitful discussions. The computation in this work has been done in part using the facilities of the Supercomputer Center, ISSP, University of Tokyo.


text:
# NewtonPlus: Approximating Relativistic Effects in Supernova Simulations

## I Introduction

The collapsed cores of massive stars are relativistic bodies. Order-of-magnitude estimates of the gravitational potential, infall and outflow velocities, equatorial linear velocity, and microscopic nucleon velocity—computed using typical values of mass, radius, and rotation periods of pulsars—suggest that relativity cannot be neglected. More importantly, detailed comparisons of Newtonian and relativistic supernova simulations in spherical symmetry show more compact cores and higher neutrino luminosities and average energies in relativistic treatments . Because of indications that small (several percent) variations in, for example, neutrino luminosities and shock stagnation radius can make the difference in a successful explosion , it is clear that even modest relativistic effects comprise an indispensible component of realism in supernova studies.

The multidimensional nature of supernovae must also be recognized as an important aspect of realism. Various observations, especially data from SN 1987A, point to the asphericity of supernova explosions (see e.g.  for an overview, and  for a recent polarimetry analysis of several supernovae). Convection may play an important role in the explosion mechanism , and the differing results in various simulations in up to two dimensions (2D)  show that further study is needed. Ultimately consideration of the third dimension will be necessary. Based on an initial exploration of 3D effects, it has been reported  that the sizes of convective cells in 3D simulations are about half as large as in 2D simulations. Moreover, rapid rotation can significantly affect the strength and spatial distribution of convection . Detailed studies of magnetic field generation, jet formation, and neutron star kicks also invite 3D treatments.

Since neutrinos—which carry away about 99% of the gravitational binding energy released in the collapse—are believed to drive the explosions, accurate neutrino transport is also essential to realistic simulations. Simulations with Boltzmann transport have been recently performed in spherical symmetry .

Including all the physics necessary for realism in a supernova simulation is a daunting task. The multidimensional simulations mentioned above, which had simplified neutrino transport, taxed the computational resources of their time; the same is true of the recent simulations involving Boltzmann transport in spherical symmetry. Adding general relativity to the list of desired physics makes things all the more challenging. While numerical relativity has been successful in spherical and axisymmetric cases, “…in the general three-dimensional (3D) case which is needed for the simulation of realistic astrophysical systems, it has not been possible to obtain stable and accurate evolutions…,” and it is argued that the difficulties are more fundamental than insufficient resolution .

In order to overcome the difficulties associated with 3D general relativistic simulations and to save resources for 3D hydrodynamics and accurate neutrino transport, an approximate multidimensional treatment of gravity that captures the phenomena of dynamical importance in supernovae would be desirable. The list of new gravitational phenomena introduced by relativity includes the nonlinearity of the gravitational field, the inclusion of all forms of energy and stress as sources, and gravitational waves. The first two of these effects are of dynamical importance in supernovae, while gravitational waves will probably not exert a strong back-reaction (unless bar or breakup instabilities of some sort become operative in the core). The post-Newtonian expansion is systematic and useful in perturbative applications, but in the present context, an approach that probes the nonlinear nature of gravity more deeply would be desirable. A method that could be incorporated into existing Newtonian hydrodynamics codes would be even more useful. We here describe such an approximation—which we call “NewtonPlus”—and present results for rapidly rotating (and therefore highly deformed) neutron stars, which show that this simple “NewtonPlus” approach to gravity is indeed a significant improvement over the Newtonian limit. A more detailed exposition is given in Ref. .

## II Einstein Equations in the NewtonPlus Approximation

Use of the metric

$$ds^2=(1+2\mathrm{\Phi })dt^2+(12\mathrm{\Phi })d𝐱^2$$
(1)
in the Einstein equations yields the Newtonian limit, provided the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }1`$ and velocities (including microscopic velocities, large values of which lead to significant stresses) are much less than the speed of light. In order to capture the nonlinearity of gravity, the significance of stresses as gravitational sources, and relativistic fluid velocities, we propose the use of the following metric:

$$ds^2=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }+2\delta }dt^2+e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2),$$
(2)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$. In comparison with Eq. (1), the “linearized” metric functions have been promoted here to full exponentials, and a second metric function, $`\delta `$, has been added. Eq. (2) will then reduce to the Newtonian case if $`\delta 0`$; we shall see that this is in fact the case under conditions in which the Newtonian limit is valid. This provides a tight conceptual link with the Newtonian limit. Since it has two independent metric functions, this “NewtonPlus” metric should also provide an exact solution in spherical symmetry.

The metric, a symmetric $`4\times 4`$ matrix, has ten independent components, but the invariance of relativity under coordinate transformations implies that in reality there are only six degrees of freedom. It is apparent that the NewtonPlus metric of Eq. (2) contains only two of the six degrees of freedom that should be present. This means that examination of the complete set of Einstein equations should reveal inconsistencies, but we have argued that these are not too serious in the supernova environment . Here we present highlights of that more detailed discussion, which involves the (3+1) formulation of the Einstein equations , in which spacetime is foliated into spacelike slices labeled by a time coordinate.

We begin with the Hamiltonian constraint. This yields

$$^2\mathrm{\Phi }=4\pi e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}E+\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Phi })^2\frac{3}{2}e^{4\mathrm{\Phi }2\delta }(_t\mathrm{\Phi })^2.$$
(3)
In this expression $`^2`$ is the usual 3D flat-space Laplacian. The energy density as viewed by an “Eulerian” observer (i.e., one whose 4-velocity is orthogonal to the spacelike slices, having covariant components $`n_\mu =(\alpha ,0,0,0)`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the lapse function) is denoted by $`ET^{\mu \nu }n_\mu n_\nu `$; where $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is the stress-energy tensor. For a perfect fluid, $`E=\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\rho +p)p`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(1v^2)^{1/2}`$, $`v`$ is the magnitude of the fluid velocity as measured by an Eulerian observer, and $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are respectively the total energy density and pressure in the fluid rest frame. We have employed the notation

$$XY_rX_rY+\frac{1}{r^2}_\theta X_\theta Y+\frac{1}{r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }_\varphi X_\varphi Y.$$
(4)
As expected from the conceptual link between the Newtonian and NewtonPlus metrics, Eq. (3) identifies $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as a glorified gravitational potential. In addition to the rest energy, the source includes internal and kinetic energies and pressure, all boosted by nonlinear contributions from $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ itself.

The momentum constraints relate $`_t\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to the fluid momentum $`𝐬=\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\rho +p)𝐯`$, where $`𝐯`$ is the physical velocity measured by an Eulerian observer. Because the test calculations reported here are of stationary configurations, $`_t\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, and the momentum constraints don’t come into play. The condition $`_t\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ can be taken as a first approximation in the supernova environment as well, but it will fail if high density matter moves at relativistic velocities. Relativistic velocities may be achieved by infalling matter outside the shock at late times, or in outflowing jets or winds; but these situations involve matter at low density in comparison with the core. Convection may occur deep in the core, where densities are high, but this likely involves nonrelativistic velocities. This means that $`𝐬=\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\rho +p)𝐯`$ will be arguably small enough everywhere for $`_t\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be neglected.

Finally we consider the evolution equations of $`\gamma _{ij}`$ and $`K_{ij}`$. For the NewtonPlus metric, explicit calculation shows that the former turn out to be identities leading to no new information. The latter give three different equations for the subdominant metric function $`\delta `$ that are probably inconsistent, though it is not obvious (to us) how to prove this rigorously. It turns out that stresses (e.g., pressure) constitute the primary source terms in the equations determining $`\delta `$, confirming the expectation expressed previously, that $`\delta `$ should vanish as the Newtonian limit is approached. The observation that $`\delta `$ will only be appreciable at the highest densities, where pressure begins to make a nontrivial contribution in comparison with energy density, suggests a reasonable path forward. In typical cases it is expected that the deepest portion of the core will be roughly spherical, even if rapid rotation causes an equatorial bulge of lower density material (e.g., Fig. 2 of Ref. ). If this is the case, neglecting the angular derivatives of $`\delta `$ is justified, removing many of the apparent inconsistencies in the three equations for $`\delta `$. The remaining discrepancies have to do with angular derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and particular components of the stress tensor that appear in each equation. As it happens, if one adds all three equations, these remaining discrepancies disappear. Hence the equation we shall use to determine $`\delta `$ is

$$_r_r\delta +\frac{1}{r}_r\delta =4\pi e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}(S_{}^{\theta }{}_{\theta }{}^{}+S_{}^{\varphi }{}_{\varphi }{}^{})[_r(\mathrm{\Phi }+\delta )]^2,$$
(5)
where $`S_{ij}T^{km}h_{ik}h_{jm}`$, and the spacelike projection tensor is defined by $`h_{ij}g_{ij}+n_in_j`$. When it is recalled that $`S_\theta ^\theta =S_\varphi ^\varphi =p`$ in spherical symmetry, this is precisely the equation obtained in the spherical case. The source on the right-hand side is to be angle-averaged in solving for $`\delta `$.

It should be straightforward to include the solution of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and, if desired, $`\delta `$, in existing multidimensional gravitational hydrodynamics codes. The solution of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ would make use of the Poisson solver normally used to solve for the Newtonian gravitational potential, the only difference being that one would have to iterate on Eq. (3) (with the $`_t\mathrm{\Phi }`$ term dropped) to get a self-consistent $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The simplest approximation would be to simply solve for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in this manner, and ignore $`\delta `$ altogether. The next level of approximation would involve solving Eq. (5) for $`\delta `$, but ignoring $`\delta `$ on the right hand side. Since $`\delta `$ is already something of a correction, $`\delta `$ appearing on the right hand side is essentially a “correction to the correction.” If desired, however, Eq. (5) could be solved as it stands, with iteration being required.

The equations of hydrodynamics are obtained from the vanishing divergences of the baryon flux vector and stress-energy tensor, employing the NewtonPlus metric. Our study of these equations  shows that they can be cast in a form similar to that used by at least one Newtonian multidimensional PPM hydrodynamics code, VH-1. We plan to adapt this code to the NewtonPlus approach in the immediate future.

## III Testing NewtonPlus Gravity with Rapidly Rotating Stars

In this section we present calculations of neutron stars undergoing rapid uniform rotation in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the NewtonPlus approximation to relativistic gravity. Our models were computed with a code described in Ref. , which was written to compute the structure of relativistic axisymmetric stars. We have modified the code to include the ability to perform computations in the Newtonian and various NewtonPlus limits: with vanishing metric function $`\delta `$, with “linearized” $`\delta `$ (i.e. ignoring $`\delta `$ on the right hand side of Eq. (5)), and “full” $`\delta `$ (solving Eq. (5) as written). All of the NewtonPlus limits solve a two-dimensional (and stationary) version of the nonlinear Poisson-type Eq. (3) for the enhanced “gravitational potential” $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. For the results presented here, the high-density portion of the equation of state (EOS) is taken from Ref. , and is based on a field-theoretic description of cold dense matter. We also performed calculations with a polytropic EOS of adiabatic index 2, and found qualitatively similar results.

Panel (a) of Fig. 1 exhibits mass vs. radius curves for spherical stars. It shows that while the Newtonian limit exhibits no maximum mass with this EOS,***No turnover in the mass vs. radius curve appears in the Newtonian limit, up to the high-density boundary of the tabulated EOS. A configuration with central baryon mass density (total energy density) of $`3.07\times 10^{15}`$ g cm-3 ($`4.65\times 10^{15}`$ g cm-3) has a gravitational mass of 15.6 $`M_{}`$ and radius 18.9 km in the Newtonian limit, while the relativistic configuration with this central density has a gravitational mass of 1.68 $`M_{}`$. and a radius of 9.40 km. We remind the reader that the Chandrasekhar mass phenomenon is a property of stars built on a polytropic equation of state with adiabatic index equal to 4/3 (suitable for white dwarfs), but that stars constructed on “realistic” nuclear equations of state do not necessarily exhibit this behavior. Instead, the upper mass limit of neutron stars derives from the the general relativistic instability indicated by the turning point in the mass vs. radius curve. the NewtonPlus approximation does yield a maximum mass. Even with vanishing $`\delta `$, the approximation captures this consequence of nonlinear gravity. The “linear $`\delta `$” approximation follows the exact relativistic curve until the most dense configurations are reached. Since pressure is the main source for $`\delta `$ (see equation (5)), the large pressures associated with such high densities raise $`\delta `$ to large enough values that it cannot be neglected on the right-hand side of equation (5). As expected, the “full $`\delta `$” approximation is indistinguishable from the relativistic results in spherical symmetry, where only two metric functions are needed to describe the spacetime exactly.

Panels (b)-(f) of Fig. 1 show various physical parameters of rapidly rotating configurations. In order to test the NewtonPlus approximation in a nonspherical setting, we ask the question: Given a definite number of baryons rotating at a given uniform angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, what do the various treatments of gravity do with those baryons? (The fact that baryon number is a conserved quantity makes this an obvious way to compare different treatments of gravity.) To answer this question we have computed constant baryon mass sequences beginning at zero rotation (marked by squares) and ending at the mass shedding limit (marked by stars). The value of baryon mass chosen, 1.8 $`M_{}`$, is close to the maximum baryon mass of 1.95 $`M_{}`$ for the equation of state we employed. The quantities plotted, as a function of the (uniform) stellar angular velocity, are gravitational mass; equatorial radius; total angular momentum; eccentricity, defined as $`1r_p/r_e`$, where $`r_p`$ and $`r_e`$ are respectively the polar and equatorial coordinate radii; and the linear equatorial velocity.

In panels (b)-(f), the efficacy of the NewtonPlus approximations can be judged by choosing a value of angular velocity and seeing how close the approximate quantities come to the fully relativistic value. While the “full $`\delta `$” approximation is indistinguishable from full relativity in the spherical case, the two curves representing these treatments deviate from one another with increasing angular velocity. As expected, the angular velocities at mass shedding of the NewtonPlus approximations are closer to the relativistic values than the Newtonian case. The NewtonPlus treatments are quite successful at approximating the gravitational mass, radius, and eccentricity, while the success of the results for angular momentum and equatorial velocity is more modest. (It is expected that the mass and radius of the collapsed core are more important to the supernova explosion mechanism than the angular momentum.)

## IV Conclusion

Accurate neutrino transport, 3D hydrodynamics, and relativity are all essential for realistic supernova simulations. Given the constraints of current hardware, these cannot all be treated simultaneously with the detail they deserve. We have therefore presented an approximation to full relativity (or set of related approximations) that captures the most relevant relativistic effects in the quasispherical supernova environment: nonlinearity creating a deeper potential well and pressure being a nontrivial source of gravitation.

This “NewtonPlus” approach to gravity has a tight conceptual link with the Newtonian limit that yields certain advantageous features. The gravitational portion of multidimensional Newtonian calculations involves only the solution of the Poisson equation for the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and taking its gradient to find the gravitational force. The basic idea of our NewtonPlus approach is to promote the Newtonian metric functions—which are linear in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$—to full exponentials. We also add a second metric function, $`\delta `$, whose main source is pressure; hence this metric function vanishes in the Newtonian limit. The Einstein equations yield a nonlinear Poisson-type equation for a (now enhanced) “gravitational potential,” whose solution in 3D can be obtained in a manner similar to what is currently done in the Newtonian limit. The inconsistencies in the Einstein equations arising from the reduced number of degrees of freedom turn out to be relegated to the subdominant metric function $`\delta `$; they can be removed by ignoring angular variations in $`\delta `$. This is expected to be successful in the supernova context because the region where $`\delta `$ makes the greatest difference is where pressure is significant in comparison with rest mass density. Normally, this is the deepest portion of the collapsed core, which is roughly spherical even when the outer layers bulge at the equator due to rapid rotation.Ultra-strong magnetic fields  or differential rotation (e.g., Ref. ) can give rise to off-center density maxima, making the spherical correction for stresses via the metric function $`\delta `$ less useful. The NewtonPlus approximation with $`\delta =0`$ could still be employed in such (probably exceptional) cases, however. This strategy—allowing the main contribution to the gravitational field to be multidimensional and nonlinear, while allowing a spherical correction for the contribution of stresses—reproduces fairly well many of the physical characteristics of rapidly rotating relativistic stars. Importantly, the hydrodynamics equations obtained from the NewtonPlus metric are of the same form as those used in a popular Newtonian hydrodynamics algorithm, providing the expectation that existing Newtonian codes might be adapted fairly easily to the NewtonPlus approach.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank M. Liebendörfer, O. E. B. Messer, and W. R. Hix for discussions, and M. Liebendörfer for access to an unpublished manuscript, whose section on relativistic hydrodynamics was particularly insightful. We also thank M. Prakash for a tabulated high-density equation of state. C.Y.C. is supported by a DoE PECASE award, and A.M. is supported at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Noncommutative spaces arise as brane configurations in string theory as well as in the matrix model of M-theory . The appearance of this noncommutativity is quite similar to a corresponding effect in the Landau problem of a charged particle moving on a plane, subjected to a strong perpendicular magnetic field. It is therefore desirable to investigate the noncommutative effects in planar quantum mechanics to get a deeper understanding of this phenomenon in the context of string or matrix models. Some studies  along this direction have been performed. But these are done in a way that either requires the occurence of noncommutativity (in the momenta) due to the presence of a magnetic field, or just as a postulate (noncommutativity in the coordinates).

In this paper we would like to address the question of how and why such noncommutative structures appear in planar quantum mechanics and provide a systematic way of obtaining them. For this we adopt a recent approach advocated by ’t Hooft  to study quantum mechanics. In this approach the classical equations are written in a formulation using quantum mechanical notation. However the quantum mechanical hamiltonian does not have a lower bound, which is the price to be paid for expressing a classical system quantum mechanically. Constarints, motivated by information loss or dissipation, are now imposed leading to a well defined bounded hamiltonian as well as to an apparent quantisation of the orbits.

The point we make is that a modification of the hamiltonian brought about by dissipation leads to a deformation in the symplectic structure. The original Poisson brackets are changed to a new set of brackets. This is worked out in details for the motion of a charged particle in a plane subjected to a magnetic field(Landau problem) and a quadratic potential. It naturally leads to a noncommutative algebra which is otherwise postulated. Thus, apart from illuminating the various noncommutative structures, the present work also places ’t Hooft’s observations in a different setting.

In section 2, we review the emergence of noncommutative coordinates for the motion of particles in the lowest Landau level. A strong magnetic field is necessary to effect the projection to this level. However, we show that it is possible to map the general Landau problem to a chiral oscillator model which is described by noncommuting variables. Thus the Landau problem for any magnetic field exhibits noncommutativity, albeit in a different set of coordinates. Indeed the mapping of the Landau problem to the chiral oscillator has also been used in the subsequent analysis.

The noncommutativity in the general problem of a charged particle in magnetic and electric fields, mentioned earlier, is discussed in section 3. This problem has recently generated considerable interest in both theoretical studies  and phenomenological applications . The second order equation of motion is expressed as a pair of first order equations. In this version, ’t Hooft’s analysis, a synopsis of which is given below, is applicable. Noncommutativity in the coordinates or in the momenta are shown to be dual descriptions, corresponding to distinct polarisations chosen for converting a second order system to a first order system. The issue is further clarified by interpreting the results as different superpositions of the noncommutativity in the chiral oscillator models of section 2.

In section 4, a magnetohydrodynamical(MHD) field theory will be investigated from ’t Hooft’s formalism. A complete mapping with the lowest Landau level problem will be done, providing an alternative derivation of noncommutative MHD .

We present some concluding remarks in section 5.

We end this section by briefly mentioning ’t Hooft’s analysis. This is basically a hamiltonian formulation where first order equations $`\dot{q}_i=\{q_i,H\}=f_i(q)`$, decoupled from the conjugate momenta $`p_i`$, are considered. The corresponding hamiltonian $`H=_ip_if_i(q)`$ obviously does not have a lower bound. This is cured by expressing $`H`$ as,

$$H=H_+H_{}$$
(1)
where

$$H_\pm =\frac{1}{4\rho }(\rho \pm H)^2$$
(2)
and $`\rho `$ is a positive definite function of $`q_i`$ satisfying

$$\{\rho ,H\}=0$$
(3)
so that ordering ambiguities (upon quantization) in (2) are avoided. To get a lower bound for $`H`$, one imposes the constraint

$$H_{}|\psi >=0$$
(4)
on the physical space. The constraint can be motivated by dissipation or information loss . In this paper however we shall not be concerned with studying dissipative effects, but rather dwell on a completely new manifestation that has not been discussed either in the original papers  or in the subsequent applications . The point is that a change from the original (unbounded) hamiltonian $`H`$ to the bounded positive (semi) definite hamiltonian $`\rho `$ leads to a modified algebra that can be obtained as follows,

$$\dot{q}_i=\{q_i,\rho \}=\{q_i,q_j\}_j\rho (q)$$
(5)
To reproduce the original set of equations of motion, obviously $`q_i`$ can no longer be taken as commuting and must be calculated from,

$$\{q_i,q_j\}_j\rho (q)=f_i(q)$$
(6)
leading to explicit noncommutative structures for the algebra of $`q_i`$. Furthermore if the brackets $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}=\{q_i,q_j\}`$ are nondegenerate, the corresponding lagrangian can also be evaluated,

$$L=\frac{1}{2}q_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ij}\dot{q}_j\rho (q)$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ij}`$ is the inverse of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jk}=\delta _k^i$$
(8)
## 2 The Landau problem revisited

The classical equations of motion for an electron of charge $`e`$ moving in the $`x_1x_2`$ plane under the influence of a constant perpendicular magnetic field $`B`$ are,

$$m\ddot{x}_i=\frac{e}{c}Bϵ_{ij}\dot{x}_j$$
(9)
whose general solution in the complex notation $`Z=x_1+ix_2`$, corresponds to motion in a circle of radius R,

$$Z=Re^{i(\omega _ct+\delta )}$$
(10)
Here $`\delta `$ is an arbitrary phase and the cyclotron frequency is,

$$\omega _c=\frac{eB}{mc}$$
(11)
The radius of the orbit is related to the tangential velocity $`v`$ by $`v=\omega _cR`$. The centre of the orbit is chosen at the origin, but it could be displaced to any other position $`C(ZZ+C)`$ without changing the physics.

The above equations of motion follow from the Lagrangian,

$$L=\frac{m}{2}\dot{x}_i^2\frac{e}{2c}Bϵ_{ij}x_i\dot{x}_j$$
(12)
The canonical momentum is given by,

$$p_i=\frac{L}{\dot{x}_i}=m\dot{x}_i+\frac{e}{2c}Bϵ_{ij}x_j$$
(13)
while the hamiltonian is

$$H=\frac{\pi _i^2}{2m}=\frac{1}{2m}\left(p_i\frac{e}{2c}Bϵ_{ij}x_j\right)^2$$
(14)
In analogy with the classical considerations it is possible to define a quantum orbit centre operator,

$$C=Z+\frac{i\pi }{m\omega }_c;C_i=x_i+\frac{i\pi _i}{m\omega }_c$$
(15)
which is the source of the degeneracy in the Landau problem and satisfies the algebra,

$$[C_i,C_j]=i\frac{\mathrm{}c}{eB}ϵ_{ij}$$
(16)
Let us now specialise to the lowest Landau level problem by enforcing a strong magnetic field. Heuristically, the classical analysis shows that the particles are projected to their respective orbit centres $`(Z=C)`$, where they are frozen. The kinetic energy is completely quenched, but the algebra among the co-coordinates, given by (16), is noncommutative. The above result can be understood by naively setting $`m=0`$ in (12) (quenching of the kinetic term) in which case the lagrangian is first order leading to the fundamental brackets,

$$[x_i,x_j]=i\frac{\mathrm{}c}{eB}ϵ_{ij}$$
(17)
reproducing (16).

A more rigorous edge to these arguments is provided by using the projection technique developed in . The basis of states in the lowest Landau level may be chosen as,

$$\psi _n(Z,Z^{})=\frac{Z^n}{\sqrt{(2l^2)^nn!\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ZZ^{}}{4l^2}\right)$$
(18)
where the magnetic length $`l`$ is defined by,

$$l^2=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{eB}$$
(19)
The exponential factor, which is common to all eigenfunctions, is removed by formally defining a Hilbert space of analytic functions. One now works with the polynomial factor only which, in contrast to the exponential factor, is analytic. In this scenario the projection of $`Z`$ is trivial $`(ZZ)`$ since it is already contained in the lowest Landau level. The projection of $`Z^{}`$, on the other hand, leads to a differential operator  $`Z^{}2l^2\frac{}{Z}`$. The fundamental algebra, after this projection, thus yields,

$$[x_1,x_2]=\frac{1}{2i}[Z^{},Z]\frac{1}{2i}[2l^2\frac{}{Z},Z]=il^2$$
(20)
showing the noncommutativity (17) among the coordinates.

Having reviewed the noncommutativity in the lowest Landau level, let us provide a mapping of the original Landau problem which manifests this property for any magnetic field. Classically or quantum mechanically, the Landau problem reduces to the motion of a one dimensional harmonic oscillator. Actually since the direction (clockwise or anticlockwise)of cyclotron motion of the charged particle is governed by the direction of the magnetic field(pointing up or down) one should regard it as the chiral form of the harmonic oscillator. The Lagrangian of a chiral oscillator is given by,

$$L_+=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ij}y_i\dot{y}_j\frac{\omega }{2}y_i^2$$
(21)
Eliminating any of the $`y_i`$’s in favor of the other yields a 1-d harmonic oscillator in that variable with frequency $`\omega `$. The equation of motion is,

$$\dot{y}_i=\omega ϵ_{ij}y_j$$
(22)
It is easy to read-off the brackets and the hamiltonian directly from (21)

$$\{y_i,y_j\}=ϵ_{ij}$$
(23)
$$H=\frac{\omega }{2}y_i^2$$
(24)
leading immediately to (22) using the hamilton equations.

The chirality comes from the sign of the kinetic term in (21). Computing the angular momentum,

$$J=ϵ_{ij}y_ip_j=\frac{H}{\omega }$$
(25)
where $`p_i=\frac{L}{\dot{y}_i}`$ is the conjugate momentum. If the sign of the kinetic term is flipped so that

$$L_{}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ij}y_i\dot{y}_j\frac{\omega }{2}y_i^2$$
(26)
we obtain $`J=\frac{H}{\omega }`$. Note that $`L_{}`$ also reduces to a 1-d harmonic oscillator by the variable elimination process. Thus $`L_\pm `$ characterize a pair of chiral oscillators rotating in an anticlockwise or clockwise direction. A suitable combination of such oscillators just leads to a two dimensional oscillator and has been used in the study of Zeeman effect and duality symmetry.

The Landau problem is now mapped to the chiral oscillator by using the correspondence,

$$\sqrt{m}ϵ_{ij}\dot{x}_j\sqrt{\omega }y_i$$
(27)
where $`\omega `$ is identified with the cyclotron frequency $`\omega _c`$. As a check we find that the Landau hamiltonian maps to the chiral oscillator hamiltonian,

$$\frac{m}{2}\dot{x}_i^2\frac{1}{2}\omega y_i^2$$
(28)
The equation of motion(9) goes over to (22) while the noncommutative algebra of $`\pi _i`$ in (14) reproduces (23). Thus there is a complete mapping between the Landau model and the chiral oscillator. The coordinates in the latter satisfy a noncommutative algebra. The result is true for any value of the magnetic field $`B`$. The limit of the strong magnetic field, as necessary in usual treatments of noncommutativity in the lowest Landau level problem, is now irrelevant in this new set of variables.

It may be mentioned that the above mapping also follows by recalling the equivalence  between the self dual model,

$$_{SD}=\frac{1}{2}f_\mu f^\mu \frac{1}{2m}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }f^\mu ^\nu f^\lambda $$
(29)
and the Maxwell-Chern-Simons theory,

$$_{MCS}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{m}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }A^\mu ^\nu A^\lambda $$
(30)
where the basic field $`f_\mu `$ gets identified with the dual field tensor $`F_\mu `$,

$$f_\mu =F_\mu =ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\nu A^\lambda $$
(31)
If a projection from the field theory models to the planar quantum mechanical models is done by ignoring the spatial derivatives and setting the time components $`f_0,A_0`$ to zero, the lagrangians (29) and (30) correspond respectively to the chiral oscillator and the Landau model. Then the map (31) is the analogue of (27). Other possibilities and consequences of such a projection have been discussed in .

This might be an appropriate place of explicitly working with the ’t Hooft mechanism to realize the noncommutativity in the chiral oscillator, because equation (22) only involves the coordinates. The corresponding hamiltonian is,

$$H=(\omega ϵ_{ij}y_j)p_i$$
(32)
which yields (22) upon using $`\dot{y}_i=\{y_i,H\}`$. This hamiltonian is not bounded from below. Following ’t Hooft’s prescription discussed earlier, the physical hamiltonian $`\rho `$ is constructed so that it commutes with $`H`$. This is given by

$$\rho =\frac{\omega }{2}y_i^2;\{\rho ,H\}=0$$
(33)
To reproduce (22) the symplectic structure gets modified to (23) so that

$$\dot{y}_i=\{y_i,\rho \}=\omega ϵ_{ij}y_j$$
(34)
The noncommutative bracket (23) is thereby reproduced, together with the hamiltonian (24).

## 3 Noncommutativity in the Landau problem with an oscillator potential

The equation of motion for a charged particle moving in the $`x_1x_2`$ plane under the influence of a magnetic field $`B`$ with an oscillator potential is given by,222We have rationalised $`e=c=1`$.

$$m\ddot{x}_iBϵ_{ij}\dot{x}_j+kx_i=0$$
(35)
Recall that the harmonic oscillator was recast in the form of a chiral oscillator by doubling the degrees of freedom which manifested noncommutative properties. Thus the first step is to rewrite the second order system into a pair of first order equations by doubling the degrees of freedom. There is a certain amount of flexibility in doing this, but for the moment we confine to the following choice.

$$\dot{x}_i=\frac{1}{m}q_i;\dot{q}_i=Bϵ_{ij}\dot{x}_jkx_i$$
(36)
Also $`q_i`$ satisfies an equation identical to (35),

$$m\ddot{q}_iBϵ_{ij}\dot{q}_j+kq_i=0$$
(37)
The hamiltonian that yields the above set of first order equations is,

$$H=\frac{1}{m}q_i\pi _i^x+\left(\frac{B}{m}ϵ_{ij}q_jkx_i\right)\pi _i^q$$
(38)
where $`(x_i,\pi _i^x)`$ and $`(q_i,\pi _i^q)`$ are canonical pairs. This hamiltonian is not bounded from below. Following ’t Hooft, a bounded hamiltonian follows upon dissipation. Explicitly this is found by constructing a positive definite $`\rho `$ that commutes with $`H`$:

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{q_i^2}{m}+kx_i^2\right);\{\rho ,H\}=0$$
(39)
In order to generate the equations (36) from $`\rho `$ ($`\dot{x}_i=\{x_i,\rho \},\dot{q}_i=\{q_i,\rho \}`$), it is obvious that the basic brackets are now given by,

$$\{x_i,q_j\}=\delta _{ij},\{x_i,x_j\}=0,\{q_i,q_j\}=Bϵ_{ij}$$
(40)
thereby revealing a noncommutative algebra. To make contact with known results, one interprets the hamiltonian $`\rho `$ in (39) as the usual harmonic oscillator hamiltonian with noncommutative momenta $`(q_i)`$ manifesting the presence of the magnetic field. It is straightforward to obtain the lagrangian since the matrix,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}=\left[\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\}\right]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \delta _{ij}\\ \delta _{ij}& Bϵ_{ij}\end{array}\right)$$
(41)
of the coordinates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(x,q)`$ possesses an inverse,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Bϵ_{ij}& \delta _{ij}\\ \delta _{ij}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(42)
The lagrangian is given by,

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ij}\dot{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_j\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma })=q_i\dot{x}_i+\frac{B}{2}ϵ_{ij}x_i\dot{x}_j\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{q_i^2}{m}+kx_i^2\right)$$
(43)
Explicitly the equations of motion from the lagrangian reproduce (36). Since $`q_i`$ is an auxiliary variable it can be eliminated by solving for it to yield,

$$L=\frac{m}{2}\dot{x}_i^2+\frac{B}{2}ϵ_{ij}x_i\dot{x}_j\frac{1}{2}kx_i^2$$
(44)
which is the standard lagrangian leading to (35).

Next, we show how noncommutativity in the coordinates, instead of the momenta, arise. As remarked before there is a freedom in splitting (35) into a dual set of first order equations. Consider the following polarisation,

$$\dot{q}_i=kx_i,\dot{x}_i=\frac{q_i}{m}+\frac{B}{m}ϵ_{ij}x_j$$
(45)
This set also yields the equation (35) as well as (37). The desired hamiltonian is, therefore, given by,

$$H=(kx_i)\pi _i^q+\left(\frac{q_i}{m}+\frac{B}{m}ϵ_{ij}x_j\right)\pi _i^x$$
(46)
The physical hamiltonian $`\rho `$ is once again given by (39). However since the basic equations(45) are different from (36) the algebra (40) also gets modified to,

$$\{x_i,q_j\}=\delta _{ij},\{q_i,q_j\}=0,\{x_i,x_j\}=\theta ϵ_{ij}$$
(47)
where the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta =\frac{B}{km}`$. Comparing with (40) shows that the noncommutativity has been shifted from the momenta to the coordinates.

As before, the lagrangian can be computed from an inverse Legendre transform. The result is,

$$L=q_i\dot{x}_i+\frac{\theta }{2}ϵ_{ij}q_i\dot{q}_j\frac{k}{2}x_i^2\frac{q_i^2}{2m}$$
(48)
leading to the set of equations (45). Eliminating the auxiliary variable $`x_i`$ yields,

$$L=\frac{\dot{q}_i^2}{2k}+\frac{\theta }{2}ϵ_{ij}q_i\dot{q}_j\frac{q_i^2}{2m}$$
(49)
from which equation (37) follows directly.

The above analysis shows that noncommutativity is a manifestation of the presence of the magnetic field. In the extended set of coordinates this noncommutativity can occur either in $`x_i`$ or in $`q_i`$. However it is also possible to interpret $`(x_i,q_i)`$ as phase space variables. The common structure of the hamiltonian $`\rho `$ shows that $`x_i`$ and $`q_i`$ are coordinates and momenta, respectively. Interpreted this way, noncommutative spatial variables are just the dual of what happens for the momenta. Intrinsically there is no fundamental difference between them. Depending on the polarisation it is possible to have noncommuting momenta or coordinates. The dual nature is further realised by observing that while one polarisation yields the lagrangian in the $`x`$ variables, the other yields the lagrangian in the $`q`$ variables. The duality map $`mk^1`$ connects the lagrangians (44) and (49); i.e., small ‘$`m`$’ in (44) corresponds to large ‘$`k`$’ in the latter. Now for small ‘$`m`$’, (44) reduces to a chiral oscillator for which $`\{x_i,x_j\}=B^1ϵ_{ij}`$. In , a canonical derivation of this result is provided by observing that the hamiltonian (39) is now meaningful only if $`q_i=0`$. Imposing this as a constraint in (40), and then calculating the Dirac bracket, which, for any pair of variables $`X_i,X_j`$ subjected to the constraints $`\mathrm{\Omega }_l`$, is defined as,

$$\{X_i,X_j\}_{DB}=\{X_i,X_j\}\{X_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_l\}W^{lm}\{\mathrm{\Omega }_m,X_j\}$$
(50)
where $`W^{lm}`$ is the inverse of the bracket among the constraints $`(\{\mathrm{\Omega }_l,\mathrm{\Omega }_m\})`$,one finds ,

$$\{x_i,x_j\}_{DB}=\{x_i,q_l\}W^{lm}\{q_m,x_j\}=W^{ij}$$
(51)
where $`W^{ij}=B^1ϵ_{ij}`$. The noncommutative bracket is thus obtained as a Dirac bracket.

In the dual version small ‘$`m`$’ is replaced by large‘ $`k`$’. Then (39) is meaningful for $`x_i=0`$. Imposing this as a constraint in (47), the Dirac bracket among $`q_i`$ is,

$$\{q_i,q_j\}_{DB}=\{q_i,x_l\}\stackrel{~}{W}^{lm}\{x_m,q_j\}=\stackrel{~}{W}^{ij}$$
(52)
where $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{ij}=\theta ^1ϵ_{ij}`$ is the inverse of $`\{x_i,x_j\}`$. This Dirac bracket is exactly the noncommutative bracket obtained direcly from (49) for large ‘$`k`$’. This completes the analysis of the dual structure.

We now show that the origin of noncommutativity is contained in a similar feature occurring in the chiral oscillators considered in the previous section. Two such oscillators $`(L_\pm )`$ rotating in clockwise and anticlockwise directions, respectively, with different frequencies, exactly simulate the Landau problem in the presence of the oscillator potential. This was shown in . The magnetic field gets identified with the difference in the frequencies of the oscillators. Naturally, if the fequency of the oscillators is identical, the doublet of chiral oscillators just reduces to a two dimensional harmonic oscillator. Consider, therefore the equations of motion for the chiral oscillators($`L_\pm `$) (see 21) with frequencies $`\omega _\pm `$:

$$\dot{z}_i=\omega _+ϵ_{ij}z_j,\dot{y}_i=\omega _{}ϵ_{ij}y_j$$
(53)
satifying the algebra,

$$\{z_i,z_j\}=\{y_i,y_j\}=ϵ_{ij};\{y_i,z_j\}=0$$
(54)
Expressing the above set of equations in terms of a new set of variables,

$$z_i+y_i=x_i$$
(55)
we find

$$\dot{x}_i=ϵ_{ij}(\omega _+z_j\omega _{}y_j)$$
(56)
To reproduce the first part of (36), put

$$ϵ_{ij}(\omega _+z_j\omega _{}y_j)=\frac{1}{m}q_i$$
(57)
Solving for $`y_i`$ and $`z_i`$ in terms of $`x_i`$ and $`q_i`$ yields,

$$y_i=\frac{1}{\omega _++\omega _{}}(\omega _+x_i+\frac{1}{m}ϵ_{ij}q_j)$$
(58)
$$z_i=\frac{1}{\omega _++\omega _{}}(\omega _{}x_i\frac{1}{m}ϵ_{ij}q_j)$$
(59)
If we take the time derivative of the difference of the above two equations and exploit (53), the second equation of (36) is exactly reproduced with the following identification,

$$k=m\omega _+\omega _{},B=m(\omega _+\omega _{})$$
(60)
Expectedly the magnetic field is proportional to the difference of the frequencies.

Knowing the algebra of $`z_i`$ and $`y_i`$, it is easy to get the algebra of $`x_i`$ and $`q_i`$, which is given by,

$$\{x_i,x_j\}=0$$
(61)
$$\{x_i,q_j\}=m(\omega _++\omega _{})\delta _{ij}$$
(62)
$$\{q_i,q_j\}=m^2(\omega _+^2\omega _{}^2)ϵ_{ij}=m(\omega _++\omega _{})Bϵ_{ij}$$
(63)
where the mapping (60) has been used. Upto a trivial scaling this reproduces the algebra (40).

The hamiltonian of the composite system is obtained by adding the contributions from the two components and using (58, 59),

$$H=H_++H_{}=\frac{\omega _+}{2}z_i^2+\frac{\omega _{}}{2}y_i^2=\frac{1}{2m(\omega _++\omega _{})}\left(\frac{q_i^2}{m}+kx_i^2\right)$$
(64)
which, modulo the scaling mentioned above, reproduces the desired expression (39).

Proceeding similarly it is possible to reproduce the polarisation (45) along with the associated algebra (47). In this case define,

$$z_i+y_i=q_i$$
(65)
and,

$$ϵ_{ij}(\omega _+z_j\omega _{}y_j)=kx_i$$
(66)
so that the first equation in (45) is obtained. The same steps adopted earlier lead to the second equation in (45) with exactly the same normalization (60).

The algebra of $`q_i`$ and $`x_i`$ follows from (65) and (66):

$$\{q_i,q_j\}=0;\{x_i,q_j\}=\frac{\omega _++\omega _{}}{k}\delta _{ij};\{x_i,x_j\}=\left(\frac{\omega _++\omega _{}}{k}\right)\theta ϵ_{ij}$$
(67)
and a simple scaling reproduces the desired algebra (47).

This section is concluded by providing a more general type of noncommutativity involving both $`x_i`$ and $`q_i`$. Consider the pair of first order equations,

$$\dot{x}_i=\alpha ϵ_{ij}x_j+\beta q_i$$
(68)
$$\dot{q}_i=\lambda ϵ_{ij}q_j+\gamma x_i$$
(69)
which lead to the Landau type equations in both $`x_i`$ and $`q_i`$,

$$\ddot{r}_i=(\alpha +\lambda )ϵ_{ij}\dot{r}_j+(\alpha \lambda +\beta \gamma )r_i;r_i=x_i,q_i$$
(70)
Following ’t Hooft, a hamiltonian is constructed,

$$H=(\alpha ϵ_{ij}x_j+\beta q_i)\pi _i^x+(\lambda ϵ_{ij}q_j+\gamma x_i)\pi _i^q$$
(71)
where $`(x_i,\pi _i^x)`$ and $`(q_i,\pi _i^q)`$ are canonical pairs. The equations of motion $`\dot{r}_i=\{r_i,H\}`$ just yields (68, 69). As usual, this $`H`$ is not bounded from below. A positive definite $`\rho `$, commuting with $`H`$, has to be obtained. A natural choice is,

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}(ax_i^2+bq_i^2);a,b0$$
(72)
where $`a\beta +b\gamma =0`$ follows on demanding $`\{\rho ,H\}=0`$. To satisfy the condition among the parameters $`\beta `$ is chosen to be negative $`(\beta =k)`$. Then the desired hamiltonian becomes,

$$H\rho =\frac{a}{2}(x_i^2+\frac{k}{\gamma }q_i^2)$$
(73)
The linearity of the original pair of first order equations show that they remain unchanged under a scaling $`r_i\sqrt{\frac{\gamma }{a}}r_i`$. Moreover to make contact with the familiar form of the hamiltonian we set $`\gamma =m^1`$ where $`m`$ is a mass parameter. Then the hamiltonian reduces to

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{x_i^2}{m}+kq_i^2\right)$$
(74)
It is easy to check that the corresponding algebra is,

$$\{q_i,x_j\}=\delta _{ij};\{x_i,x_j\}=\alpha ϵ_{ij};\{q_i,q_j\}=\frac{\lambda }{k}ϵ_{ij}$$
(75)
and the equations of motion (68, 69) reduce to,

$$\dot{x}_i=\{x_i,\rho \}=\frac{\alpha }{m}ϵ_{ij}x_jkq_i$$
(76)
$$\dot{q}_i=\{q_i,\rho \}=\lambda ϵ_{ij}q_j+\frac{1}{m}x_i$$
(77)
Both $`x_i,q_i`$ satisfy a noncommuting algebra.

The Lagrangian follows from an inverse Legendre transform. The matrix constructed from the brackets is,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}=\left[\{r_i,r_j\}\right]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\lambda }{k}ϵ_{ij}& \delta _{ij}\\ \delta _{ij}& \alpha ϵ_{ij}\end{array}\right)$$
(78)
whose inverse is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}=\frac{1}{k\lambda \alpha }\left(\begin{array}{cc}k\alpha ϵ_{ij}& k\delta _{ij}\\ k\delta _{ij}& \lambda ϵ_{ij}\end{array}\right)$$
(79)
Hence the lagrangian is given by,

$$L=\frac{1}{2}r_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}\dot{r}_j\rho =\frac{1}{2(k\lambda \alpha )}\left[\lambda ϵ_{ij}x_i\dot{x}_j+\alpha kϵ_{ij}q_i\dot{q}_j+2kx_i\dot{q}_i\right]\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{x_i^2}{m}+kq_i^2\right]$$
(80)
Obviously $`\frac{\lambda \alpha }{k}=1`$ is a special point manifesting a degeneracy. This particular point has been discussed in details elsewhere . The equations of motion obtained from this lagrangian are compatible with (76, 77).

The rotational symmetry of the hamiltonian $`\rho `$ suggests that the angular momentum operator $`J`$ has the conventional algebra with $`x_i`$ and $`q_i`$,

$$\{J,r_i\}=ϵ_{ij}r_j;r_i=x_i,q_i$$
(81)
The structure of $`J`$ which yields these equations, from the basic brackets (75), is given by,

$$J=\frac{1}{2(k\lambda \alpha )}\left(\lambda x_i^2+\alpha kq_i^2+2kϵ_{ij}q_ix_j\right)$$
(82)
Actually this expression for $`J`$ follows from (80) by following a standard canonical prescription,

$$J=ϵ_{ij}(x_i\pi _j^x+q_i\pi _j^q)$$
(83)
where,

$$\pi _i^x=\frac{L}{\dot{x}_i}=\frac{\lambda }{2(k\lambda \alpha )}ϵ_{ij}x_j$$
(84)
$$\pi _i^q=\frac{L}{\dot{q}_i}=\frac{k}{2(k\lambda \alpha )}(2x_i\alpha ϵ_{ij}q_j)$$
(85)
are the respective conjugate momenta.

## 4 Noncommutative field theory in the lowest Landau level

In a recent paper  noncommutativity in a magnetohydrodynamical model was studied by taking the vanishing limit of a mass parameter, in analogy with the lowest Landau level problem. A similar study will be done here, based on the ideas presented earlier.

A field theory is obtained by introducing electron creation and annihilation operators in terms of which the density operator is $`\eta (x)=\psi ^{}\psi (x)`$. Now the hamiltonian $`h`$ of a particle in the lowest Landau level is just the projection of potential to that level ,

$$h=d^2xV(x)\eta (x)$$
(86)
since the kinetic term, after projection, gets quenched.

If a particle substructure is given to a fluid, then $`\eta (x)`$ is the density of the fluid satisfying the continuity equation,

$$\dot{\eta }=_i(\eta v_i)$$
(87)
The hamiltonian leading to this equation is,

$$H=d^2x_i(\eta v_i)\pi ^\eta $$
(88)
where $`(\eta ,\pi ^\eta )`$ is a canonical pair. As usual, this is not bounded from below. The physical hamiltonian would be the operator commuting with $`H`$. In our case this is given by (86) so that $`\{h,H\}=0`$ yields,

$$d^2xV(x)_i(\eta v_i)(x)=0$$
(89)
Upto a normalization $`N`$, a solution for $`v_i(x)`$ is,

$$v_i(x)=Nϵ_{ij}_jV(x)$$
(90)
With this $`v_i(x)`$, the continuity equation (87) is reproduced by bracketing with $`h`$ ($`\dot{\eta }=\{\eta ,h\}`$) provided,

$$\{\eta (x),\eta (y)\}=Nϵ_{ij}_i\eta _j\delta (xy)$$
(91)
revealing a noncommutativity among the density operators. Exactly the same structure follows for the Landau problem if the explicit form for $`\eta (x)`$ and the noncommuting brackets among $`x`$ is used, with the identification,

$$N=\frac{c}{eB}$$
(92)
The bracket (91) with the normalisation (92) was obtained in  by using the continuity equation and Euler equation in the massless limit.

## 5 Concluding remarks

Let us now digress on the significance of our findings. The Landau model lagrangians with an oscillator potential, expressed in their usual second order forms (44) or (49) obviously satisfy a conventional commutative algebra. In the standard treatments  one introduces a noncommutative plane by hand and subsequently discusses the model on that plane. Here we show that, by transforming the second order system to a first order one, by introducing an additional variable, the noncomutative plane is naturally induced. Indeed, by following ’t Hooft’s analysis done in a different context, we have provided a systematic way of obtaining the various noncommutative strutures on the plane. In this connection we might recall that a “natural explanation” for the occurrence of noncommutativity in the Landau problem is attributed to the presence of the magnetic field. However, this effect is only found for the lowest Landau level in which case the original second order system is effectively replaced by a first order one. This is the origin of the change in the symplectic structure. Something similar happens here where a passage from the second order to the first order system has been effected. Our conclusions are further confirmed by the fact that all the noncommuting structures were also obtained as a superposition of two chiral oscillators, which are essentially first order systems, moving in opposite (clockwise and anticlockwise) directions. Since the difference in the frequencies of the two rotations is actually proportional to the magnetic field, the connection of this approach with the one where noncommutaivity is just introduced through the presence of a magnetic field gets established.

A consequence of our analysis has been that the manifestation of the noncommutativity in the coordinates or in the momenta is shown as a dual aspect of the same phenomenon. Indeed we established a direct connection between the noncommutativity parameter $`B`$ (the magnetic field) in the momentum algebra with the corresponding parameter $`\theta `$ in the coordinate algebra through the relation $`\theta =\frac{B}{km}`$. This is again reminiscent of an analogous connection found in the discussions of noncommutativity in the context of open string quantisation . Furthermore, the critical point (where the density of states becomes infinte) found in the literature  in the analysis comprising noncommutativity in both coordinates and momenta, was also obtained here. At this point it was shown that the symplectic matrix does not have an inverse so that the transition from the hamiltonian to the lagrangian by an inverse Legendre transform was not feasible.

We conclude this paper by briefly suggesting the restrictions on the Landau orbits brought about by the imposition of the constraints that eventually led to a bounded hamiltonian from the unbounded one. Thus if the period of the cyclotron orbit in a chiral oscillator be a function $`T(\rho )`$ of $`\rho `$, where the constraint leads to the physical hamiltonian $`\rho =H`$, then

$$e^{iHT}|\psi >=|\psi >$$
(93)
so that,

$$\rho T(\rho )=2\pi n,n𝒵$$
(94)
This means that the orbits in the Landau problem with an oscillator potential comprise two pieces (see 53); clockwise orbits satisfying the periodicity condition,

$$\frac{\omega _+}{2}z_i^2T(z)=2\pi n,n𝒵$$
(95)
and anticlockwise orbits obeying,

$$\frac{\omega _{}}{2}y_i^2T(y)=2\pi m,m𝒵$$
(96)
As a final remark we mention some recent works  which reveal the continuing interest in quantum mechanics on the noncommuting plane.

Acknowledgement
I thank Gerard ’t Hooft for a useful correspondence.