text:
# Relativity of ℏ

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Motivation

Coherent states are quantum–mechanical states that enjoy semiclassical properties . One definition of coherent states uses the Heisenberg inequality $`\mathrm{\Delta }q\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{}/2`$. The latter is saturated precisely by coherent states. Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$ can be interpreted as a parameter measuring how far quantum mechanics deviates from classical mechanics.

Along a different line of developments, the notion of duality plays a key role in recent breakthroughs in the quantum theories of fields, strings and branes . Broadly speaking, under duality one understands a transformation of a given theory, in a certain regime of the variables and parameters that define it, into a physically equivalent theory with different variables and parameters. Often, what appears to be a highly nontrivial quantum excitation in a given theory turns out to be a simple perturbative correction from the viewpoint of a theory dual to the original one. This suggests that what constitutes a quantum correction may be a matter of convention: the notion of classical vs. quantum is relative to which theory the measurement is made from. In this way we arrive at the conclusion that may $`\mathrm{}`$ depend on the observer. This, in turn, implies that coherence is also theory–dependent, or observer–depedent. What one observer calls coherent need not be coherent to another observer.

The standard formulation of quantum mechanics  does not allow for such a relativity of the concept of a quantum. Somewhat imprecisely, we will call this concept relativity of $`\mathrm{}`$. The limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ is the semiclassical regime, and the limit $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ is the strong quantum regime. Under the usual formulation of quantum mechanics, if one observer calls a certain phenomenon semiclassical, then so will it be for all other observers. If one observer calls a certain phenomenon strong quantum, then so will it be for all other observers.

In view of these developments, a framework for quantum mechanics is required that can accommodate such a relativity of $`\mathrm{}`$ . Generalising the geometric approach of ref. , in ref.  we have explicitly developed one such framework. There remains the alternative, though equivalent, possibility of addressing the relativity of $`\mathrm{}`$ through an analysis of coherent states. Other geometric approaches to quantum mechanics dealing with this and related topics are refs. .

### 1.2 Summary of main results

The purpose of this article is to present a framework for quantum mechanics in which coherent states are defined locally on classical phase space $`𝒞`$, but not necessarily globally. This is an explicit implementation of a relativity for $`\mathrm{}`$. Globally–defined coherent states are the rule in the standard presentations of quantum mechanics. As such they preclude any possible observer–dependence for $`\mathrm{}`$.

We will analyse the relationship between complex–differentiable structures on $`𝒞`$ and coherent states of the corresponding quantum mechanics. We will elaborate on a suggestion presented in ref. , according to which coherent states may not be globally defined for all observers on $`𝒞`$, and we will relate this observation to the (in)existence of complex structures on $`𝒞`$.

To our purposes it is enough to realise that there exist finite–dimensional symplectic manifolds $`𝒞`$ admitting no complex structure . Using the symplectic structure, we will construct local coherent states around a certain point on $`𝒞`$. Upon a nonholomorphic change of Darboux coordinates to another point on $`𝒞`$, those states will cease to be coherent.

Our results may be summarised as follows. Coherent states can always be defined locally, i.e., in the neighbourhood of any point on $`𝒞`$. This is merely a restatement, in physical terms, of Darboux’s theorem for symplectic manifolds . When there is a complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$, coherence becomes a global property on $`𝒞`$. In the absence of a complex structure, however, the best we can do is to combine Darboux coordinates $`q`$, $`p`$ as $`q+\mathrm{i}p`$. Technically this only defines an almost complex structure $`J_𝒞`$ on $`𝒞`$ . Since the combination $`q+\mathrm{i}p`$ falls short of defining a complex structure, quantities depending on $`q+\mathrm{i}p`$ on a certain coordinate patch will generally also depend on $`q\mathrm{i}p`$ when transformed to another coordinate patch. This proves that coherence remains a local property on classical phase space: observers not connected by means of a holomorphic change of coordinates need not, and in general will not, agree on what is a semiclassical effect vs. what is a strong quantum effect.

### 1.3 Outline

This article is organised as follows. Section 2 sets the scene with a quick review of the geometry of classical and quantum phase spaces, denoted $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒬`$ respectively. The construction of coherent states from a complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$ on $`𝒞`$ is recalled in section 3; further issues discussed in this section are the uniqueness of the vacuum and the global character of the coherent states so constructed. In section 4 we relax the complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$ to an almost complex structure $`J_𝒞`$. In so doing we observe that the vacuum state is only locally defined on $`𝒞`$ and that, under a nonholomorphic change of coordinates on $`𝒞`$, global coherence is lost. In section 5 we prove the coherence of the global states constructed in section 3, and the coherence of the local states constructed in section 4.

The conditions under which a complex structure $`J_𝒞`$ lifts to a complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$ are known in the mathematical literature; we recast them in physical terms in section 6. In section 7 we introduce the concept of a holomorphic foliation $``$ of $`𝒞`$. The leaves of $``$ are the maximal holomorphic submanifolds of $`𝒞`$ on which coherence remains a globally–defined property. Nonholomorphic coordinate changes between different holomorphic leaves of $``$ are interpreted as duality transformations of the quantum theory on $`𝒬`$. Some geometric examples serve to illustrate our proposal. Finally, section 8 discusses some physical and mathematical aspects of our construction.

## 2 Classical and quantum phase spaces

Our starting point is an infinite–dimensional, complex, separable Hilbert space of quantum states, $``$, that is most conveniently viewed as a real vector space equipped with a complex structure $`𝒥`$. Correspondingly, the Hermitian inner product can be decomposed into real and imaginary parts,

$$\varphi ,\psi =g(\varphi ,\psi )+\mathrm{i}\omega (\varphi ,\psi ),$$
(1)
with $`g`$ a positive–definite, real scalar product and $`\omega `$ a symplectic form. The metric $`g`$, the symplectic form $`\omega `$ and the complex structure $`𝒥`$ are related as

$$g(\varphi ,\psi )=\omega (\varphi ,𝒥\psi ),$$
(2)
which means that the triple $`(𝒥,g,\omega )`$ endows the Hilbert space $``$ with the structure of a Kähler space .

Let $`𝒬`$ denote the space of unit rays in $``$, and let $`\omega _𝒬`$ be the restriction to $`𝒬`$ of the symplectic form $`\omega `$ on $``$. The space $`𝒬`$, called quantum phase space, is an infinite–dimensional symplectic manifold. Classical phase space $`𝒞`$ is a $`2n`$–dimensional symplectic manifold; let $`\omega _𝒞`$ denote its symplectic form. If $`q^l`$, $`p_l`$, $`l=1,\mathrm{},n`$, are local Darboux coordinates on $`𝒞`$, we have

$$\omega _𝒞=\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{d}p_l\mathrm{d}q^l.$$
(3)
It should be observed that, while both $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒬`$ are symplectic manifolds, the latter is always Kähler, while the former need not be Kähler. However, in the framework of geometric  and deformation  quantisation it is customary to consider the case when $`𝒞`$ is a compact Kähler manifold. In this context one introduces the notion of a quantisable, compact, Kähler phase space $`𝒞`$. This means that there exists an associated quantum line bundle $`(L,g,)`$ on $`𝒞`$, where $`L`$ is a holomorphic line bundle, $`g`$ a Hermitian metric on $`L`$, and $``$ a connection compatible with the complex structure and the Hermitian metric. Furthermore, the curvature $`F`$ of the connection $``$ and the Kähler form $`\omega _𝒞`$ are required to satisfy

$$F=\mathrm{i}\omega _𝒞.$$
(4)
It turns out that quantisable, compact Kähler manifolds are projective algebraic manifolds and viceversa . For the purpose of introducing duality transformations, however, the previous assumptions are too restrictive. At most we will require $`𝒞`$ to support a complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$ compatible with the symplectic structure $`\omega _𝒞`$, as in the next section.

## 3 Global coherent states from a complex structure

Let us assume that $`𝒞`$ admits a complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$. Furthermore let $`𝒥_𝒞`$ be compatible with the symplectic structure $`\omega _𝒞`$. This means that the real and imaginary parts of the holomorphic coordinates $`z^l`$ for $`𝒥_𝒞`$ are Darboux coordinates for the symplectic form $`\omega _𝒞`$:

$$z^l=q^l+\mathrm{i}p_l,l=1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(5)
The set of all $`z^l`$ so defined provides a holomorphic atlas for $`𝒞`$. Upon quantisation, the Darboux coordinates $`q^l`$ and $`p_l`$ become operators $`Q^l`$ and $`P_l`$ on $``$ satisfying the Heisenberg algebra

$$[Q^j,P_k]=\mathrm{i}\delta _k^j.$$
(6)
Define the annihilation operators

$$A^l=Q^l+\mathrm{i}P_l,l=1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(7)
Quantum excitations are measured with respect to a vacuum state $`|0`$. The latter is defined as that state in $``$ which satisfies

$$A^l|0=0,l=1,\mathrm{},n,$$
(8)
and coherent states $`|z^l`$ are eigenvectors of $`A^l`$, with eigenvalues given in equation (5) above:

$$A^l|z^l=z^l|z^l,l=1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(9)
How do the vacuum state $`|0`$ and the coherent states $`|z^l`$ transform under a canonical coordinate transformation on $`𝒞`$? Call the new coordinates $`q^l`$, $`p_l^{}`$. As they are Darboux, they continue to satisfy equation (3). Upon quantisation the corresponding operators $`Q^l`$, $`P_l^{}`$ continue to satisfy the Heisenberg algebra (6). Then the combinations

$$z^l=q^l+\mathrm{i}p_l^{},l=1,\mathrm{},n$$
(10)
continue to provide holomorphic coordinates for $`𝒞`$, and the transformation between the $`z^l`$ and the $`z^l`$ is given by an $`n`$–variable holomorphic function $`f`$,

$$z^{}=f(z),\overline{}f=0.$$
(11)
We can write as above

$$A^l=Q^l+\mathrm{i}P_l^{},l=1,\mathrm{},n,$$
(12)
$$A^l|0=0,l=1,\mathrm{},n,$$
(13)
$$A^l|z^l=z^l|z^l,l=1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(14)
There is no physical difference between equations (7), (8) and (9), on the one hand, and their holomorphic transforms (12), (13) and (14), on the other. Under the transformation (11), the vacuum state $`|0`$ is mapped into itself, and the coherent states $`|z^l`$ are mapped into the coherent states $`|z^l`$. Therefore the notion of coherence is global for all observers on $`𝒞`$, i.e., any two observers will agree on what is a coherent state vs. what is a noncoherent state. A consequence of this fact is the following. Under symplectomorphisms (or, equivalently, holomorphic diffeomorphisms) of $`𝒞`$, the semiclassical regime of the quantum theory on $`𝒬`$ is mapped into the semiclassical regime, and the strong quantum regime is mapped into the strong quantum regime.

Conversely, one can reverse the order of arguments in this section. Start from the assumption that one can define global coherent states $`|z^l`$ and a global vacuum $`|0`$ on the symplectic manifold $`𝒞`$. Globality here does not mean that one can cover all of $`𝒞`$ with just one coordinate chart (which is impossible if $`𝒞`$ is compact). Rather it means that, under all symplectomorphisms of $`𝒞`$, the vacuum is mapped into itself, and coherent states are always mapped into coherent states. Then the coordinates $`z^l`$ defined by the eigenvalue equations (9) provide a local chart for $`𝒞`$. Collecting together the set of all such possible local charts we obtain an atlas for $`𝒞`$. This atlas is holomorphic thanks to the property of globality.

To summarise, the existence of a complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$ is equivalent to the existence of a globally defined vacuum and globally defined coherent states.

## 4 Local coherent states from an almost complex structure

We now relax the conditions imposed on $`𝒞`$. In this section we will assume that $`𝒞`$ carries an almost complex structure $`J_𝒞`$ compatible with the symplectic structure $`\omega _𝒞`$. (When $`𝒞`$ is compact, the symplectic structure $`\omega _𝒞`$ automatically leads to an almost complex structure $`J_𝒞`$, so the assumption of the existence of a $`J_𝒞`$ compatible with $`\omega _𝒞`$ is in fact unnecessary; in that case, the symplectic structure $`\omega _𝒞`$ suffices ).

Specificallly, an almost complex structure is defined as a tensor field $`J_𝒞`$ of type $`(1,1)`$ such that, at every point of $`𝒞`$, $`J_𝒞^2=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ . Using Darboux coordinates $`q^l`$, $`p_l`$ on $`𝒞`$ let us form the combinations

$$w^l=q^l+\mathrm{i}p_l,l=1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(15)
Compatibility between $`\omega _𝒞`$ and $`J_𝒞`$ means that we can take $`J_𝒞`$ to be

$$J_𝒞\left(\frac{}{w^l}\right)=\mathrm{i}\frac{}{w^l},J_𝒞\left(\frac{}{\overline{w}^l}\right)=\mathrm{i}\frac{}{\overline{w}^l}.$$
(16)
Unless $`𝒞`$ is a complex manifold to begin with, equations (15) and (16) fall short of defining a complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$. The set of all such $`w^l`$ does not provide a holomorphic atlas for $`𝒞`$. There exists at least one canonical coordinate transformation between Darboux coordinates, call them $`(q^l,p_l)`$ and $`(q^l,p_l^{})`$, such that the passage between $`w^l=q^l+\mathrm{i}p_l`$ and $`w^l=q^l+\mathrm{i}p_l^{}`$ is given by a nonholomorphic function $`g`$ in $`n`$ variables,

$$w^{}=g(w,\overline{w}),\overline{}g0.$$
(17)
Mathematically, nonholomorphicity implies the mixing of $`w^l`$ and $`\overline{w}^l`$. Quan-tum–mechanically, the loss of holomorphicity has deep physical consequences. One would write, in the initial coordinates $`w^l`$, a defining equation for the vacuum state $`|0`$

$$a^l|0=0,l=1,\mathrm{},n,$$
(18)
where $`a^l=Q^l+\mathrm{i}P_l`$ is the corresponding local annihilation operator. However, one is just as well entitled to use the new coordinates $`w^l`$ and write

$$a^l|0^{}=0,l=1,\mathrm{},n,$$
(19)
where we have primed the new vacuum, $`|0^{}`$. Are we allowed to identify the states $`|0`$ and $`|0^{}`$? We could identify them if $`w^l`$ were a holomorphic function of $`w^l`$; such was the case in section 3. However, now we are considering a nonholomorphic transformation, and we cannot remove the prime from the state $`|0^{}`$. This is readily proved. We have

$$a^{}=G(a,a^{}),$$
(20)
with $`G`$ a quantum nonholomorphic function corresponding to the classical nonholomorphic function $`g`$ of equation (17). As $`[a^j,a_k^{}]=\delta _k^j`$, ordering ambiguities will arise in the construction of $`G`$ from $`g`$, that are usually dealt with by normal ordering. Normal ordering would appear to allow us to identify the states $`|0`$ and $`|0^{}`$. However this is not the case, as there are choices of $`g`$ that are left invariant under normal ordering, such as the sum of a holomorphic function plus an antiholomorphic function, $`g(w,\overline{w})=g_1(w)+g_2(\overline{w})`$. Under such a transformation one can see that the state $`|0`$ satisfying eqn. (18) will not satisfy eqn. (19). We conclude that, in the absence of a complex structure on classical phase space, the vacuum depends on the observer. The state $`|0`$ is only defined locally on $`𝒞`$; it cannot be extended globally to all of $`𝒞`$.

Similar conclusions may be expected for the coherent states $`|w^l`$. The latter are defined only locally, as eigenvectors of the local annihilation operator, with eigenvalues given in equation (15):

$$a^l|w^l=w^l|w^l,l=1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(21)
Due to $`[a^j,a_k^{}]=\delta _k^j`$, under the nonholomorphic coordinate transformation (17), the local coherent states $`|w^l`$ are not mapped into the local coherent states satisfying

$$a^l|w^l=w^l|w^l,l=1,\mathrm{},n$$
(22)
in the primed coordinates. No such problems arose for the holomorphic operator equation $`A^{}=F(A)`$ corresponding to the holomorphic coordinate change $`z^{}=f(z)`$ of equation (11), because the commutator $`[A^j,A_k^{}]=\delta _k^j`$ played no role. Thus coherence becomes a local property on classical phase space. In particular, observers not connected by means of a holomorphic change of coordinates need not, and in general will not, agree on what is a semiclassical effect vs. what is a strong quantum effect.

As in section 3, one can reverse the order of arguments. Start from the assumption that, around every point on $`𝒞`$, one can define local coherent states $`|w^l`$ and a local vacuum $`|0`$, that however fall short of being global. This means that there exists at least one symplectomorphism of $`𝒞`$ that does not preserve the globality property. Local coordinates $`w^l`$ around any point are defined by the eigenvalue equations (21). Collecting together the set of all such possible local charts we obtain an atlas for $`𝒞`$. However, unless the local coherent states $`|w^l`$ are actually global, this atlas is nonholomorphic. This defines an almost complex structure $`J_𝒞`$.

To summarise, the existence of an almost complex structure $`J_𝒞`$ is equivalent to the existence of a locally–defined vacuum and locally–defined coherent states. When the latter are actually global, then $`J_𝒞`$ lifts to a complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$, whose associated almost complex structure is $`J_𝒞`$ itself.

## 5 Proof of coherence

We have called coherent the states constructed in previous sections. However, we have not verified that they actually satisfy the usual requirements imposed on coherent states . What ensures that the states so constructed are actually coherent is the following argument.

We have made no reference to coupling constants or potentials, with the understanding that the Hamilton–Jacobi method has already placed us, by means of suitable coordinate transformations, in a coordinate system on $`𝒞`$ where all interactions vanish. At least under the standard notions of classical vs. quantum, this is certainly always possible at the classical level. At the quantum level, the approach of ref. , which contains the standard quantum mechanics used here as a limiting case, rests precisely on the possibility of transforming between any two quantum–mechanical states by means of diffeomorphisms.

Then any dynamical system with $`n`$ independent degrees of freedom that can be transformed into the freely–evolving system can be further mapped into the $`n`$–dimensional harmonic oscillator. The combined transformation is canonical. Moreover it is locally holomorphic when $`𝒞`$ is an almost complex manifold. Thus locally on $`𝒞`$, our global states $`|z^l`$ of section 3 coincide with the coherent states of the $`n`$–dimensional harmonic oscillator. Mathematically this fact reflects the structure of a complex manifold: locally it is always holomorphically diffeomorphic to (an open subset of) $`𝐂^n`$. Physically this fact reflects the decomposition into the creation and annihilation modes of perturbative quantum mechanics and field theory. In this way, the mathematical problem of patching together different local coordinate charts $`(U_\alpha ,z_\alpha ^l)`$ labelled by an index $`\alpha `$ may be recast in physical terms. It is the patching together of different local expansions into creators $`A_\alpha ^{}`$ and annihilators $`A_\alpha `$, for different values of $`\alpha `$.

In particular, we can write the resolution of unity on $``$ associated with a holomorphic atlas on $`𝒞`$ consisting of charts $`(U_\alpha ,z_\alpha ^l)`$:

$$\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}_𝒞d\mu _𝒞|z_\alpha ^lz_\alpha ^l|=\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{d}\mu _𝒞`$ is an appropriate measure (an $`(n,n)`$–differential) on $`𝒞`$.

Analogous arguments are also applicable to the local states $`|w^l`$ of section 4. In particular, every almost complex manifold is locally a complex manifold . Every holomorphic coordinate chart on $`𝒞`$ is diffeormorphic to (an open subset of) $`𝐂^n`$, so the $`|w^l`$ look locally like the coherent states of the $`n`$–dimensional harmonic oscillator. However, the loss of holomorphicity of $`𝒞`$ alters equation (23) in one important way. We may write as above

$$\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}_𝒞d\mu _𝒞|w_\alpha ^lw_\alpha ^l|,$$
(24)
but we can no longer equate this to the identity on $``$. The latter is a complex vector space, while eqn. (24) allows one at most to expand an arbitrary, real–analytic function on $`𝒞`$, since the latter is just a real–analytic manifold. Hence we cannot equate (24) to $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{}`$. We can only equate it to the identity on the real Hilbert space of real–analytic functions on $`𝒞`$. This situation is not new; coherent states without a resolution of unity have been analysed in ref. , where they have been related to the choice of an inadmissible fiducial vector. It is tempting to equate this latter choice with the viewpoint advocated here about the vacuum state.

## 6 When are local coherent states also global?

This question can be recast mathematically as follows: when does an almost complex structure $`J_𝒞`$ lift to a complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$?

### 6.1 The Newlander–Nirenberg theorem

The almost complex structure $`J_𝒞`$ is said integrable when the Lie bracket $`[Z,W]`$ of any two holomorphic vector fields $`Z`$, $`W`$ on $`𝒞`$ is holomorphic. A necessary and sufficient condition for $`J_𝒞`$ to be integrable is the following. Define the tensor field $`N`$

$$N(Z,W)=[Z,W][J_𝒞Z,J_𝒞W]+J_𝒞[Z,J_𝒞W]+J_𝒞[J_𝒞Z,W].$$
(25)
Now the almost complex structure $`J_𝒞`$ lifts to a complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$ if and only if the tensor $`N`$ vanishes identically .

### 6.2 Integrable, almost complex structures

When $`J_𝒞`$ is integrable, the set of all holomorphic vector fields defines an integrable holomorphic distribution whose integral manifold is $`𝒞`$ itself . A knowledge of this integrable distribution of holomorphic vector fields amounts to determining the manifold $`𝒞`$. Let us see how this comes about. Assume for simplicity that $`𝒞`$ is connected, and let $`(U_b,\varphi _b)`$ be a holomorphic chart centred around a basepoint $`b𝒞`$. Such a holomorphic chart always exists locally. The map

$$\varphi _b:U_b𝐂^n$$
(26)
provides local holomorphic coordinates around $`b`$ whose real and imaginary parts can be taken to be Darboux coordinates $`(q^l,p_l)`$, thanks to the assumption of compatibility between $`J_𝒞`$ and $`\omega _𝒞`$. Let $`Z`$ be a holomorphic vector field defined on $`U_b`$. We can interpret $`Z`$ as mapping the chart $`(U_b,\varphi _b)`$ into another chart $`(U_{Z(b)},\varphi _{Z(b)})`$ centred around an infinitesimally close basepoint $`Z(b)`$. Similarly let $`W`$ be another holomorphic vector field mapping $`(U_b,\varphi _b)`$ into $`(U_{W(b)},\varphi _{W(b)})`$. Integrability of $`J_𝒞`$ means that the Lie bracket $`[Z,W]`$ maps $`(U_b,\varphi _b)`$ into another holomorphic chart $`(U_{[Z,W](b)},\varphi _{[Z,W](b)})`$. Were $`J_𝒞`$ not integrable, there would exist a holomorphic chart $`(U_c,\varphi _c)`$ centred around a basepoint $`c𝒞`$, and pair of holomorphic vector fields $`Z,W`$ on $`U_c`$, such that the chart $`(U_{[Z,W](c)},\varphi _{[Z,W](c)})`$ would not be holomorphic.

Proceeding as described when $`J_𝒞`$ is integrable, we succeed in covering $`𝒞`$ with a set of holomorphic charts, the transformations between them being holomorphic symplectic diffeomorphisms. Physically, holomorphicity ensures that the passage from one observer to another respects the globality of the notion of coherence and the uniqueness of the vacuum. In section 7 we will relax the complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$ to an almost complex structure $`J_𝒞`$. In so doing we will interpret a nonholomorphic mapping such as

$$(U_c,\varphi _c)(U_{[Z,W](c)},\varphi _{[Z,W](c)})$$
(27)
as a duality transformation of the quantum theory.

We can turn things around and recast the Newlander–Nirenberg theorem in physical terms: when the commutator of any two (infinitesimal) canonical transformations on $`𝒞`$ maps coherent states into coherent states, then $`𝒞`$ admits a complex structure. The latter is the lift of the almost complex structure $`J_𝒞`$ defined by $`q^l+\mathrm{i}p_l`$ in terms of Darboux coordinates $`q^l`$, $`p_l`$. Conversely, if a canonical transformation on $`𝒞`$ maps coherent states into noncoherent, or viceversa, then $`J_𝒞`$ does not lift to a complex structure.

## 7 Duality transformations

When $`J_𝒞`$ is nonintegrable the above construction breaks down. This gives rise to duality transformations of the quantum theory.

### 7.1 Holomorphic foliations of classical phase space

Let us consider the case when $`𝒞`$ admits a certain foliation $``$ by holomorphic, symplectic submanifolds $``$ called leaves . For simplicity we will make a number of technical assumptions. First, the leaves $``$ have constant real dimension $`2m`$, where $`0<2m<2n`$; $`m`$ is called the rank of the foliation $``$. We will use the notation $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ to denote the $`2(nm)`$–dimensional complement of the $``$ in $`𝒞`$. We will assume maximality of the rank $`m`$, i.e., no holomorphic leaf exists with dimension greater than $`2m`$. Second, we suppose that the restrictions $`\omega _{}`$ and $`\omega _\stackrel{~}{}`$ of the symplectic form $`\omega _𝒞`$ render the leaves $``$ and their complements $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ symplectic. Third we assume that, on the $``$, the complex structure is compatible with the symplectic structure as in section 3. Fourth, the complement $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is also assumed to carry an almost complex structure compatible with $`\omega _\stackrel{~}{}`$ as in section 4.

All these assumptions amount to a decomposition of $`\omega _𝒞`$ as a sum of two terms,

$$\omega _𝒞=\omega _{}+\omega _\stackrel{~}{},$$
(28)
where in local Darboux coordinates around a basepoint $`b𝒞`$ we have

$$\omega _{}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}\mathrm{d}p_k\mathrm{d}q^k,\omega _\stackrel{~}{}=\underset{j=m+1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{d}p_j\mathrm{d}q^j.$$
(29)
Furthermore the combinations $`z^k=q^k+\mathrm{i}p_k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},m`$, are holomorphic coordinates on the $``$, while the combinations $`w^j=q^j+\mathrm{i}p_j`$, $`j=m+1,\mathrm{},n`$, are coordinates on $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. In this way a set of coordinates around $`b`$ is

$$z^1,\mathrm{},z^m,w^{m+1},\mathrm{},w^n.$$
(30)
The holomorphic leaf $``$ passing through $`b`$ may be taken to be determined by

$$w^{m+1}=0,\mathrm{},w^n=0,$$
(31)
and spanned by the remaining coordinates $`z^k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},m`$.

The construction of the previous sections can be applied as follows. Coherent states $`|z^k;w^j`$ can be defined locally on $`𝒞`$. They cannot be extended globally over all of $`𝒞`$, as the latter is not a complex manifold. However the foliation $``$ consists of holomorphic submanifolds $``$. On each one of them there exist global coherent states specified by equations (30), (31), i.e.,

$$|z^k;w^{m+1}=0,\mathrm{},w^n=0.$$
(32)
Physically, this case corresponds to a fixed splitting of the $`n`$ degrees of freedom in such a way that the first $`m`$ of them give rise to global coherent states on the holomorphic leaves $``$. On the latter there is no room for nontrivial dualities. On the contrary, the last $`nm`$ degrees of freedom are only locally holomorphic on $`𝒞`$. Holomorphicity is lost globally on $`𝒞`$, thus allowing for the possibility of nontrivial duality transformations between different holomorphic leaves $``$.

Let us analyse the resolution of unity in terms of the states $`|z^k;w^j`$. With the notations of section 5, the expansion

$$\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=m+1}{\overset{n}{}}_𝒞d\mu _𝒞|z_\alpha ^k;w_\alpha ^jw_\alpha ^j;z_\alpha ^k|$$
(33)
cannot be equated to the identity, for the same reasons as in section 5. However, integrating over the $`w^l`$, the expansion

$$\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}_{}d\mu _{}|z_\alpha ^kz_\alpha ^k|$$
(34)
can be equated to the identity. The integral extends over any one leaf $``$ of the foliation $``$. On the contrary, integrating over the $`z^l`$ in (33) would not give a resolution of the identity.

### 7.2 Examples of duality groups

The previous sections illustrate a possible mechanism to realise quantum–mecha-nical duality transformations between different vacua and between the coherent states built around them. Holomorphic foliations $``$ such as those of section 7.1 allow for both continuous and discrete duality transformations. Assume that the $`w^l`$ span a real, $`2(nm)`$–dimensional manifold invariant under a certain group $`𝒟`$ of nonholomorphic transformations. Then $`𝒟`$ becomes a duality group of the quantum theory on $`𝒬`$. In principle, appropriate choices of the holomorphic foliations $``$ will allow to obtain any given duality group.

A simple example of a holomorphic foliation (that also happens to be a symplectic foliation of a Poisson manifold) is given by the Kirillov form  for the Lie algebra su(2). Using coordinates $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$, the latter is spanned by generators $`T_x`$, $`T_y`$, $`T_z`$ satisfying the commutation relations

$$[T_i,T_j]=ϵ_{ijk}T_k.$$
(35)
There is the Casimir operator $`T_x^2+T_y^2+T_z^2`$ on the enveloping algebra of su(2). We have a Poisson tensor $`P`$

$$P=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& z& y\\ z& 0& x\\ y& x& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(36)
and the Poisson bracket of any two functions $`f`$, $`g`$ on su(2) reads

$$\{f,g\}=x\left(_yf_zg_zf_yg\right)$$

$$y\left(_xf_zg_zf_xg\right)+z\left(_xf_yg_yf_xg\right).$$
(37)
Now $`\mathrm{det}P=0`$ everywhere. Away from the origin $`x=y=z=0`$, the Poisson matrix $`P`$ always contains a $`2\times 2`$ nonsingular submatrix; this corresponds to the existence of the Casimir function $`f(x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^2`$. Hence we have a symplectic foliation of su(2) by symplectic leaves which are concentric spheres $`x^2+y^2+z^2=R^2`$ of increasing radii $`R>0`$. Passing through each point of su(2) there is exactly one such symplectic leaf; only the origin is met by no leaf, as the foliation has zero rank there. In standard spherical coordinates $`r,\theta ,\phi `$ one finds a Poisson bracket on the leaves

$$\{f,g\}=\frac{1}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }\left(_\theta f_\phi g_\phi f_\theta g\right)$$
(38)
and a Kirillov symplectic form

$$K=r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{d}\phi \mathrm{d}\theta .$$
(39)
To us, the above example is interesting not because the leaves are symplectic, but because they are holomorphic. They provide a holomorphic foliation of su(2). Of course, the latter cannot be a symplectic manifold, but one can imagine embedding these holomorphic leaves into a nonholomorphic, symplectic manifold.

## 8 Discussion

### 8.1 Recapitulation

Most physical systems admit a complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$ on their classical phase spaces $`𝒞`$. Prominent among them is the 1–dimensional harmonic oscillator. Mathematically, the corresponding $`𝒞`$ supports the simplest holomorphic structure, that of the complex plane. Physically, canonical quantisation rests on the decomposition of a field into an infinite number of oscillators. The notions that the vacuum state is unique, and that coherence is a universal property independent of the observer, follow naturally. However, as summarised in section 1, recent breakthroughs in quantum field theory and M–theory suggest the need for a framework in which duality transformations can be accommodated at the elementary level of quantum mechanics, before considering field theory or strings. This, in turn, would help to understand better the dualities underlying quantum fields, strings and branes.

The formalism presented here can accommodate duality transformations in a natural way. In the absence of a complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$, all our statements concerning the vacuum state and the property of coherence are necessarily local in nature, i.e., they do not hold globally on $`𝒞`$. A duality transformation of the quantum theory on $`𝒬`$ will thus be specified by a nonholomorphic coordinate transformation on $`𝒞`$.

However, the question immediately arises: do we not have an overabundance of vacua? Does every imaginable nonholomorphic transformation induce a physical duality? A judicious application of physical symmetries can vastly restrict this apparent overabundance. Usually dualities appear under the form of a group $`𝒟`$. Rather than taking every imaginable nonholomorphic transformation to define a physical duality we must assume, as is the case in M–theory, a knowledge of the duality group $`𝒟`$, or perhaps even a finite subgroup thereof, and restrict ourselves to those nonholomorphic transformations that actually realise it.

### 8.2 The notion of duality

Duality is not to be understood as a transformation between different physical phenomena. Rather, it is to be understood as a transformation between different descriptions of the same quantum physics. Similarly, the statement that $`\mathrm{}`$ depends on the observer is to be understood as meaning that one given quantum phenomenon may be described by different observers on $`𝒞`$ as corresponding to different regimes in a series expansion in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$. Thus the semiclassical regime is given by a truncation of this series to order $`\mathrm{}`$, while the strong quantum regime requires the whole infinite expansion.

That coherence equals holomorphicity has been known for long . Here we have proved that noncomplex structures (such as almost complex structures) allow to implement duality transformations. The picture that emerges is conceptually close to that of a geometric manifold covered by local coordinate charts. Instead of the latter, quantum mechanics has local coherent states. A change of Darboux coordinates on $`𝒞`$ may or may not be holomorphic. Correspondingly, a transformation between quantum–mechanical states may or may not preserve coherence. Those that do not preserve coherence are duality transformations. A duality appears when it is possible to give two or more, apparently different, descriptions of the same quantum–mechanical phenomenon. Coherence thus becomes a local property on classical phase space $`𝒞`$. Observers on $`𝒞`$ not connected by means of a holomorphic change of coordinates need not, and in general will not, agree on what is a semiclassical effect vs. what is a strong quantum effect.

### 8.3 Holomorphic foliations vs. symplectic foliations

Some authors take the view that classical phase space $`𝒞`$ requires no more structure than a Poisson bracket as the latter becomes, under quantisation, the commutator of quantum operators . A more geometric viewpoint  is to take $`𝒞`$ to be not just Poisson, but symplectic. This is also useful in analysing physical issues such as constrained dynamics .

In implementing duality transformations we have relaxed the complex structure $`𝒥_𝒞`$ to an almost complex structure $`J_𝒞`$. In foliating $`𝒞`$ by holomorphic leaves, our approach is reminiscent of the symplectic foliations of Poisson manifolds . Our conclusion is that, just as symplectic foliations of Poisson manifolds implement constraints, holomorphic foliations of symplectic manifolds implement dualities.

In our analysis, the symplectic structure of classical phase space $`𝒞`$ plays a key role. Moreover, we claim that $`\omega _𝒞`$ also has a quantum–mechanical role to play, too. In ref.  we have put forward a starting point for a formulation of quantum mechanics that is compatible with the relativity of $`\mathrm{}`$. This approach is based on the symplectic structure $`\omega _𝒞`$. In fact Darboux’s theorem falls short (by $`\mathrm{}`$) of being a quantisation, as symplectic geometry does not know about Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$. Once supplemented with the physical input $`\mathrm{}`$, Darboux’s theorem truly becomes a quantisation.

### 8.4 Final comments

In using coherent states our approach has been geometric. Indeed coherent states have been applied to geometric quantisation ; closely related issues have been studied recently in refs. . However there are a number of alternative viewpoints in order to analyse duality in quantum mechanics. Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$ can be interpreted as the only modulus existing in quantum mechanics. It is precisely this parameter that tells classical from quantum, so duality in quantum mechanics necessarily refers to $`\mathrm{}`$. This interpretation is especially natural in deformation quantisation . It has gained renewed interest in the physical community due to its links with noncommutative theories, nontrivial Neveu–Schwarz $`B`$–fields and branes. It would be very interesting to analyse duality from this perspective.

Along other lines, interesting points to explore in this context are the higher–order generalisations of Poisson structures  and supersymmetric quantum mechanics . Of course, quantum gravity is always an important testing ground for geometric theories . Inasmuch as we are relativising the concept of a quantum we may be said to be quantising gravity too—only in reverse.

Acknowledgements

Support from PPARC (grant PPA/G/O/2000/00469) and DGICYT (grant PB 96-0756) is acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# A Constraint on the 𝑥 Dependence of the Light Antiquarks Ratio

## Abstract

We perform a careful study on the effect of the Pauli blocking to the light antiquark structure of the proton sea. We develop the formal expressions for the antiquark distributions, highlighting the role played by quark statistics and the vacuum structure. Ratios involving the antiquarks are calculated. In particular, it is found that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)/\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)`$ should be negative and $`x`$ independent.

The first suggestion that the proton sea is not symmetric was put forward by Feynman and Field in 1977 . They noticed that because there are more empty states for $`d`$ quarks in the proton, $`\overline{d}d`$ pairs would be created more easily than the $`\overline{u}u`$ pairs - the Pauli Blocking. In the early 1980’s, Thomas  noticed that a pion cloud in the proton having more $`\pi ^+`$ than $`\pi ^{}`$ naturally produces an excess of $`\overline{d}`$ antiquarks. Then in the early 1990’s the first measurements of the Gottfried sum rule by the NMC  strongly suggested, in the context of the Parton model, that there was indeed an excess of $`\overline{d}`$ over $`\overline{u}`$ antiquarks. A flurry of papers followed, where most of the work was based on meson clouds (for a complete review on the Meson Cloud Model approach to the light antiquark asymmetry see ), with a few exceptions where the Pauli Blocking was advocated . Chiral quark models  and instantons  have also been used to explain the NMC data. By now, extensive experimental data is available and we have at our disposition not only data on the magnitude of $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$, as well as on its $`x`$ dependence .

In this letter we advocate the fundamental role played by the quark statiscs in both the polarized and unpolarized antiquark distributions. In order to isolate such effects to the sea structure of the proton, we work out the formal definition of the antiquark distributions to a point where some actual predictions can be made without the introduction of a number of model parameters. From this point, we are able to study to what extent Pauli Blocking is a correction or is the main phenomenon behind the sea assimmetry of the light quarks.

We start with the formal definition of the antiquark distribution :

$$\overline{q}(x)=\frac{p^+}{2\pi }𝑑z^{}e^{ixp^+z^{}}<P|\psi _+(z^{})\psi _+^{}(0)|P>_c_{z^+=z^{}=0},$$
(1)
with $`x>0`$. To calculate Eq. (1), we remember that the sum over all the possible spins of the $`\psi _+`$ operators provides:

$$\psi _+^{}\psi _+=\psi _+^{}\psi _+^{}+\psi _+^{}\psi _+^{}=\frac{1}{2}\psi ^{}(1+\gamma _0\gamma _3)\psi ,$$
(2)
with

$$\psi (z)=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{\alpha }{}[b_\alpha (k)u^{(\alpha )}(k)e^{ikz}+d_\alpha ^{}(k)v^{(\alpha )}(k)e^{ikz}].$$
(3)
Using Eq. (3) in Eq. (1) we see that the term which involves the quark operators produces a restriction, in the form of $`\delta (xp^++k^+)`$, which forces it to not contribute to the antiquark distributions, once $`x`$ should be positive, ($`p^+`$ and $`k^+`$ are positive). Hence, taking a general for the Dirac spinor, with $`f(k)`$ and $`g(k)`$ its upper and lower components, respectively, the antiquark distribution is rewritten asAs usual in the definition of parton distributions, we take the parton transverse momenta squared not to be large. Or, correspondingly, we take $`k_z^2>>k_{}^2`$, implying that $`\sigma \stackrel{}{k}\chi _\alpha =\pm \chi _\alpha `$ (+ for $`\alpha =`$; - for $`\alpha =`$):

$$\overline{q}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}[f^2+g^2+2fg]<p|d_{}^{}(k)d_{}(k)+d_{}^{}(k)d_{}(k)|p>_c\delta (x\frac{k^+}{p^+}).$$
(4)
The calculation of the polarized distributions follows the same pattern. From the expression for the polarized antiquark distribution:

$$\overline{q}(x)=\frac{p^+}{2\pi }𝑑z^{}e^{ixp^+z^{}}<P|\psi _+(z^{})\gamma _5\psi _+^{}(0)|P>_c_{z^+=z^{}=0},$$
(5)
for $`x>0`$, we get:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}[f^2+g^2+2fg]<p|d_{}^{}(k)d_{}(k)d_{}^{}(k)d_{}(k)|p>_c\delta (x\frac{k^+}{p^+}).$$
(6)
We expanded the $`\psi `$ operators in terms of free quark and antiquark operators. Quarks in the proton, however, are not free and that can be translated into a complicated vacuum structure where the confined quarks live . In this environment, the free space vacuum is certainly not a good approximation for the ground state of the confined quark operators. Instead, one has to build a new vacuum structure based on bound quark operators. Following this direction, we extend the work of Tsushima, Thomas and Dunne , to derive general forms for the antiquark distributions which incorporate the effects from the modified vacuum. The bound state operators (denoted by a “\*”) and the free state operators are related by a Bogolyubov transformation:

$`b^{}`$ $`=`$ $`Ab+Bd^{},`$ (7)
$`d^{}`$ $`=`$ $`Cb+Dd^{},`$ (8)
where the $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, $`D`$ factors are the overlaps between the bound and free states. As shown in , these overlaps are non zero for a confining scalar potential, at least in 1+1 dimensions. The vacuum of the bound states are defined such that:

$`b^{}|0^{}>`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (9)
$`d^{}|0^{}>`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (10)
From Eqs. (8) and (10) it follows that:

$`b|0^{}>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{DACB}}|\overline{q}^{}>,`$ (11)
$`d|0^{}>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C^{}}{D^{}A^{}C^{}B^{}}}|q^{}>,`$ (12)
where $`|\overline{q}^{}>=d^{}|0^{}>`$, and $`|q^{}>=b^{}|0^{}>`$. Eqs. (12) are telling us that the modified vacuum is not empty but filled with quark-antiquark pairs.

In order to reach any conclusion regarding the sea quark structure of the proton, we should specify what is the state $`|p>`$ in Eqs. (4) and (6). The proton state, as a bound state of quarks, has to be built from bound state quark operators acting on the modified vacuum, as described by Eq. (10). The simplest form one can use for such state is that given by the $`SU(6)`$ wave function:

$`|p`$ $``$ $`F[b^{}]|0^{}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}}}ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }[b^{}(u,,\alpha )b^{}(d,,\beta )b^{}(u,,\alpha )b^{}(d,,\beta )]b^{}(u,,\gamma )|0^{}.`$ (14)
Because we know, from Eqs. (12) how the free quark operators act on the modified vacuum, we can readily calculate the distributions written in Eqs. (4) and (6). In particular, our interest is the antiquark distributions, which is calculated to be:

$$\overline{q}^m(x)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}[f^2+g^2+2fg]\frac{|C|^2}{|BCAD|^2}<q_m^{}|F^{}[b^{}]F[b^{}]|q_m^{}>\delta (x\frac{k^+}{p^+}),$$
(15)
where $`m`$ stands for the possible spin projections. Notice that the antiquark distribution comes from the expectation values between the bound quark states. In the case of a proton state built from free quarks, there is no antiquark distributions, as $`\frac{|C|^2}{|BCAD|^2}0`$. We can, of course, generate the sea quarks through perturbation theory once we know the quark - gluon vertex from QCD, a procedure which has actually been implemented before . In this case, it happens that the quark-antiquark pairs generated from perturbative gluons produce an excess of $`\overline{u}`$ antiquarks over $`\overline{d}`$ antiquarks - in clear contradiction to the naive expectation from the Pauli principle. The solution to this dilemma is straightforward and will be presented in a forthcoming work.

To proceed, we need the calculation of the expectation value between the bound quark states. A direct calculation shows that:

$$<u^{}|F^{}[b^{}]F[b^{}]|u^{}>=4,<d^{}|F^{}[b^{}]F[b^{}]|d^{}>=5,$$
(16)
where the sum over the spins have been performed. Thus it follows that there is an excess of down antiquarks in the proton compared to the up antiquarks. Now we can write down the explicit expression for the difference:

$$\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}[f^2+g^2+2fg]\frac{|C|^2}{|BCAD|^2}\delta (x\frac{k^+}{p^+}),$$
(17)
which is positive definite. Although we do not know how to calculate Eq. (17) for the realistic (3 + 1) dimensions case, we can make a direct comparison to the experimental result by calculating the ratio:

$$\frac{\overline{d}(x)}{\overline{u}(x)}=\frac{5}{4}.$$
(18)
The experimental result is not an $`x`$ independent curve. However, we know that in the small $`x`$ region, where the number of perturbative antiquarks is quite large, the ratio should approach 1. In the intermediate $`x`$ region the number of perturbative antiquarks diminishes drastically and the constant ratio, around the 5/4 of Eq. (18), should appear. However, inside this region we have the meson cloud, which is known to give its main contribution around the $`x=0.2`$ region. The deviation from 5/4 is maximum exactly in this region. Nevertheless, the interesting point is that the result encapsulated by Eq. (18) is fundamental for any calculation of the sea asymmetry effect.

Having established the fundamental role played by the quark statistics, along with the vacuum structure, to the observed sea asymmetry, we discuss the role of the Pauli Blocking in the polarized sea. As before, we calculate the expectation value for the number of polarized antiquarks of a given flavor in the proton using the quark distribution as given in (15). However, instead of summing over the spins, we now have to take the difference. The matrix elements in Eq. (15) when calculated for $`m=`$ and $`m=`$ gives a factor of 4/3 for the $`\overline{u}`$ antiquarks and 1/3 for the $`\overline{d}`$ antiquarks. Hence, we have for the polarized distributions:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}[f^2+g^2+2fg]\frac{|C|^2}{|BCAD|^2}\delta (x\frac{k^+}{p^+})},`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}[f^2+g^2+2fg]\frac{|C|^2}{|BCAD|^2}\delta (x\frac{k^+}{p^+})}.`$ (20)
Note that the ratios, like

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)}{\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)}=\frac{5}{3},$$
(21)
are $`x`$ independent up to pionic corrections to the unpolarized distributions and quark mass corrections to all distributions. A different choice for the wave function, Eq. (14), would render a different numerical factor, but it would not introduce an extra $`x`$ dependence in the ratio. On the other hand, the ratio

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)}=\frac{1}{4}$$
(22)
should not be affected by pions (as they do not contribute to the polarized distributions). In this case, the experimental value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)/\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)`$ should be very close to a straight line.

We have seen that developing the formal expression for the antiquark distributions, Eq. (1), as far as possible in terms of the quark operators, allows us to derive some general conclusions about the physics responsible for the antiquark asymmetries in the proton sea. We see that the vacuum structure inside the proton, as expressed by Eqs. (12), is decisive in reaching this conclusion. However, it is not the final story, as Eqs. (12) would exist even if quarks were bosons. The fact that quarks are fermions is fundamental for the observed asymmetry in the number of the unpolarized light quarks in the proton sea, as can be seen from Eqs. (16). For the polarized case, the quark statistics is more than fundamental, it is probably the only sizeable effect to be measured. Of course, to extract numbers we need to model the proton wave function. Using the SU(6) quark wave function for the proton, we see that the $`x`$ dependence cancels when ratios are taken. The result embodied by Eq. (22) is made more important when we remember the discussion after the $`\overline{d}(x)/\overline{u}(x)`$ was calculated: pion dressing of the proton wave function is the effect that gives the $`x`$ dependence of the unpolarized ratio. It means that the ratio would be different from the unity even in a world without pions. In the polarized case, apart from quark mass effects in the large $`x`$ region, Eq. (22) should hold. In this way, the polarized ratio is expected to be $`x`$ independent.
I would like to thank W. Melnitchouk and Kazuo Tsushima for helpful discussions.


text:
# High coherent solid-state qubit from a pair of quantum dots

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the special funds for Major State Basic Research Project No. G001CB3095 of China, and by the special grant from Chinese Academy of Sciences to distinguished young researchers.


text:
# What did we learn from studying acoustic black holes ?

## The motivation for the analogy

The semi-classical description of black hole evaporation is based on the hypothesis that the dynamics of the system (black hole + radiation) can be well approximated by treating the gravitational field classically. In this case the quantized radiation field $`\varphi `$ obeys the d’Alembert equation

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu \sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \varphi =0,$$
(1)
where $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric of the collapsing body. Following Hawking, one obtains that an isolated black hole formed by gravitational collapse radiates away its mass by emitting a thermal flux with a temperature given by $`T=\kappa /2\pi `$ where $`\kappa `$ is its surface gravity.

The hypothesis of having treated $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ classically finds support in the fact that $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor of $`\varphi `$, is regular. By solving Einstein equations driven by $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, one then finds that the evaporation stays adiabatic as long as the residual mass of the hole is much larger than the Planck mass, see e.g. .

However, the validity of the semi-classical description becomes dubious when inquiring about the origin of Hawking quanta. Eq. (1) predicts that they emerge from configurations localized extremely close to the horizon and characterized by ultra-high frequencies (when measured by an infalling observer). This is specific and intrinsic to horizon quantum physics as it follows from free propagation near an event horizon and from second quantization. The infinite gravitational redshift from the event horizon implies that during the last stage of the collapse the radiation emitted by the body is redshifted according to

$$\lambda (t)\mathrm{\Omega }e^{\kappa t},$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the emitted frequency and $`\lambda `$ that received on $`𝒥^+`$. Classically, there is thus no appeal to high frequencies since the initial frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are bounded. On the contrary, Hawking quanta emerge from vacuum fluctuations with very high $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ precisely because these are redshifted as in Eq. (2). Indeed, the steady character of Hawking radiation is achieved at time $`t`$ by referring to vacuum frequencies which grow according to $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)\kappa e^{\kappa t}`$, see Eq. (3.34) in .

Hawking radiation therefore cannot be derived within the framework of a low energy effective theory. Moreover since Planck scale physics is unknown, it is important to determine if/why the asymptotic properties of Hawking radiation could be insensitive to it. From the outset this question has been the principle motivation for studying acoustic black holes.

## The acoustic black hole geometry

The concept of acoustic black hole arises from the analogy between light propagation in a curved background and sound propagation in a moving fluid. Consider a vorticity-free flow of a barotropic fluid. The velocity field can be written as $`v=\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the pressure $`P`$ is related to the density $`\rho `$ by an equation of state $`P=P(\rho )`$. Consider also the equation of continuity and Euler equation. Then linearize these three equations about a background solution, $`v_B=\mathrm{\Psi }_B`$, $`P_B`$, $`\rho _B`$, and consider the equation for $`\psi =\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_B`$, see  for details. Verify that $`\psi `$ obeys Eq. (1) when introducing the $`4`$D acoustic metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^{ac}`$ given (up to a conformal factor) by $`g_{tt}^{ac}=(c_s^2v_B^2),g_{ti}=v_{Bi},g_{ij}=\delta _{ij}`$. The velocity of sound $`c_s`$ is given by $`c_s^2=dP/d\rho `$.

To obtain an acoustic geometry which behaves like that of a black hole, one must consider a flow which becomes supersonic without developing any shock wave. A well-known device (by hydrodynamicians) which realizes this is the Laval nozzle: a pipe wherein $`|v_B|`$ reaches $`c_s`$ at its narrowest radius. When considering a flow to the left in the $`x`$-direction, the velocity behaves as $`v_B(x)=c_s+x\kappa _{ac}`$ and the acoustic horizon is located at $`x=0`$. In the near horizon region, for $`xc_s/\kappa _{ac}`$, null (retarded) geodesics behave like

$$x(t)=x_0e^{\kappa _{ac}(tt_0)}.$$
(3)
Hence, for $`x<0`$, right moving sound waves are carried away to the left by the supersonic flow. For $`x>0`$ instead, they propagate to the right and their frequencies are redshifted according to Eq. (2) with $`\kappa =\kappa _{ac}`$.

Thus, if the phonon field $`\psi `$ is second quantized and if its state is regular across the horizon, the standard treatment applies. It tells us that a constant flux of phonons at temperature $`T_{ac}=\kappa _{ac}/2\pi `$ will be emitted against the flow, to the right. The quantization of the phonon field is physically pertinent in $`\mathrm{He}^4`$ and in Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC). The regularity of the state of $`\psi `$ requires that the flow $`v_B(x)`$ be regular across the horizon.

## The usefulness of the analogy

So far we have not learned much because we have not yet taken into account the fact that the dispersion relation of phonons is not linear when the wave length approaches the inter-atomic distance, $`d_c`$. Three possibilities can be obtained. Two can be modeled by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2=c_s^2k^2[1+\xi k^2d_c^2+O(k^4)],$$
(4)
with $`\xi =\pm 1`$. $`\xi =1`$ is realized in BEC and leads to supersonic propagation. $`\xi =1`$ is realized in $`\mathrm{He}^4`$ and leads to subsonic propagation. The third case describes propagation in an absorptive medium such as a viscous fluid. It is governed by a correction term, the bracket in Eq. (4), given by $`[1i|k|d_c]`$.

When taking into account the non-linearities of Eq. (4) while deriving the production of Hawking phonons, one can test if the asymptotic properties of the flux are sensitive to these non-linearities. In 1995 Unruh showed (numerically and for $`\xi =1`$) that they are not sensitive when $`T_{ac}c_s/d_c`$ and when the initial state is vacuum for $`\mathrm{\Omega }T_{ac}`$. These conclusions are now understood analytically, see  for a review. In spite of this absence of asymptotic modification, when propagating backwards in time a mode (or better a wave packet), one finds that its near horizon propagation is dramatically modified when its blue-shifted frequency reaches the critical frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=c_s/d_c`$, see  for schematic representations of the modified trajectories.

Being insensitive to high energy physics, the asymptotic Hawking radiation is truly a low energy $`O(T)`$ phenomenon. This reinforces our confidence in the low energy predictions of the semi-classical treatment but does not take us any further concerning its dubious high energy predictions.

## Inflationary models

In inflationary scenarios, the primordial density fluctuations find their origin in the non-adiabatic evolution of the non-homogeneous modes of the inflaton which were in their vacuum state at the onset of inflation. Given the exponentially growing redshift during inflation, their initial frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ was proportional to $`e^{H\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$, where $`H`$ is the Hubble constant and $`H\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the number of e-folds during inflation. If the latter is taken to be larger than $`70`$ (which is the minimal number for inflation to work when the adiabatic era starts just below GUT scale, near $`10^{15}`$Gev) there is an appeal to Planckian physics. Therefore the doubts concerning Hawking radiation apply here as well. Thus the appeal to modified dispersion relations can also be called upon to see if the scale-invariance of the primordial fluctuations spectrum is affected by modifications of Planck scale physics.

As in black hole physics, the properties of the spectrum are robust. The two conditions guaranteeing this robustness are the adiabaticity of the evolution from Planck scale to that of $`H`$, and the regularity of the initial configurations. The adiabaticity essentially follows from scale separation, $`M_{Planck}H`$, whereas the second condition is severely constrained by self-consistency in the following sense. The very existence of inflation implies that the dominant term in the Friedman equation is the inflaton potential energy. Thus the contribution of the other modes must be negligible. When $`HM_{Planck}`$ and when inflation lasts more than $`70`$ e-folds, this condition requires that the initial state of the modes observed today be vacuum.

## Experiments ?

Can we conceive and realize experiments in which Hawking quasi-particles could be measured ? We used the term “quasi-particles” rather than phonons to emphasize that in condensed matter there is a large variety of collective excitations which can propagate in effective metrics. At present it is not clear which material is the most suitable for our purpose. Another challenge is to build a regular horizon enclosing a trapped region. But probably the main difficulty is to get a sufficiently high temperature. Indeed it does not seem easy to get $`T_{ac}>10^6`$K.

To overcome the detection of these soft quanta, one should perhaps consider a pair of acoustic holes. A natural feature of acoustic holes is to come in pairs: it suffices to reduce the velocity flow $`v_B`$ so as to re-cross the sound velocity. Moreover this second crossing leads to a white hole. And white holes are unstable. This instability would show up differently according the sign of $`\xi `$. For positive $`\xi `$, one would obtain a self-amplifying flux of soft phonons, a laser effect, see . On the other hand, for $`\xi `$ negative, the “partners” of Hawking quanta would leak out of the white horizon with a frequency close to the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=c_s/d_c`$ and would thus be easier to detect.

## Orienting research on Quantum Gravity ?

Even though this is clearly a delicate enterprise and one which might turn out to be misleading, it has been one of the major reasons to study acoustic holes. Let us take some risk and present our opinion as it stands today.

Besides the insensitivity of asymptotic properties, we have also learned that for all dispersion relations but the scale invariant one $`d_c=0`$, there is no appeal to unbounded frequencies. \[When the gradient $`dv_B/dx`$ vanishes for $`xx_{horizon}d_c`$, the frequency of a backwards in time propagated wave packet stays of the order of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ for both $`\xi =\pm 1`$, without any further blueshift. One learns from this that the stationarity of Hawking radiation now results, as in the Golden Rule, by a steady increase of the density of modes at some fixed frequency. This is not what is found when there is no dispersion, see Eq. (3.34) in .\] This suggests that the quantum gravitational interactions neglected in the semi-classical treatment might introduce a new scale $`d_{QG}`$ which could act on light propagation near the event horizon as $`d_c`$ did on phonons. In order words, instead of questioning the robustness of asymptotic properties, we are lead to question is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=k`$ robust ?

I would claim probably not. Because $`\mathrm{\Omega }=k`$ follows from Eq. (1) which results from a linearisation procedure: when starting from a quantum formulation of black hole evaporation, Eq. (1) is obtained by discarding all fluctuations of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ around the mean metric, a solution of the semi-classical Einstein equations. A first order analysis shows that the effects of metric fluctuations on configurations giving rise to Hawking quanta grow like $`1/(r2M)`$. Therefore a taming mechanism is bound to occur. This has been substantiated in  where it is shown that vacuum energy fluctuations engender metric fluctuations whose random properties induce a damping similar to that obtained by putting $`\xi =i`$ in Eq. (4). That near horizon quantum gravitational interactions should induce dissipative effects was anticipated in .

## Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the organizers of the Journées Relativistes in Dublin, as well as those of the ESF-COSLAB meeting in London for the invitation. I also wish to thank Ted Jacobson for many discussions. This work has been supported by the NATO Grant CLG.976417.