text:
# Anomalous Commutator Algebra for Conformal Quantum Mechanics

## I Introduction

The concept of symmetry plays a central role in the conceptual framework of modern physics. One of the most fruitful approaches starts by identifying a symmetry, whose actual or potential breakdown is subsequently analyzed. A particular case of this process is an anomaly—a classical symmetry that breaks down upon regularization and renormalization a-b-j ; tre:85 ; jac:update\_anomalies . Specifically, the existence of anomalies is usually associated with the need to regularize infinities that appear in quantum-field-theory descriptions of particle and extended-object interactions. In their continuum version, these theories require an infinite number of degrees of freedom, which in turn become the source of infinities in relevant calculations. As a consequence, regularization is unavoidable and occasionally accompanied by anomalous symmetry breaking.

In contrast with their quantum-field-theory counterparts, the concepts of regularization, renormalization, and anomalous symmetry breaking do not appear to be necessary tools in quantum mechanics. This “regular” behavior is usually ascribed to the finite number of degrees of freedom sufficient to describe these systems at low energies. However, this lore has been challenged by Jackiw jac:91  for the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function interaction. The strongly singular nature of this potential at the origin suggests the use of regularization and renormalization as an alternative approach to quantizing the system, which would otherwise seem not to be defined. In fact, a detailed calculation for the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function potential shows that the interacting system is well defined, but only after renormalization jac:91 ; tho:79 . The existence of a renormalized version of the theory and the usefulness of related field-theory concepts have been confirmed in a number of independent studies delta\_biblio ; cam:dtI ; cam:dtII . Moreover, a simple argument reveals that this interaction is scale invariant cam:dtI , but a dimensional parameter survives regularization and renormalization due to dimensional transmutation col:73 . In addition, similar techniques and concepts have been used to analyze and renormalize the inverse square potential gup:93 ; isp\_letter ; cam:dtI ; cam:dtII ; beane:00 , which can also be shown to be conformally invariant at the classical level jac:72 ; alf:76 . These scale-invariant potentials may be regarded as the most outstanding examples of conformal quantum mechanics.

Despite our recent progress in the analysis of singular potentials in conformal quantum mechanics, the possible breakdown of their symmetry algebra at the quantum level has not yet been systematically explored. This omission is corrected in the present paper, in which we introduce an outline of the general theory and detailed computations for the particular case of the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function interaction. The general theory is presented in Sec. II, where we review the algebraic commutator properties of the Noether charges associated with conformal invariance and show how to characterize the corresponding anomaly at the quantum level. In Sec. III we display the emergence of the conformal anomaly for the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function potential by implementing the necessary renormalization of the bound-state sector using three different regularization techniques. In Sec. IV we also show how to describe this anomalous symmetry breaking for the scattering sector of the theory. Finally, in Sec. V we present the conclusions of our work, while in the Appendix we summarize the main results on the $`d`$-dimensional radial Schrödinger equation that are needed throughout the paper.

## II Anomalous Commutator Algebra

In this section we consider an arbitrary scale-invariant potential $`V(𝐫)`$. From a simple dimensional argument cam:dtI , it can be shown that the scale invariance of the action occurs if and only if $`V(𝐫)`$ is homogeneous of degree $`2`$. In subsequent sections of this paper, $`V(𝐫)`$ will be specialized to the particular case of the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function interaction.

### II.1 SO(2,1) commutator algebra

A straightforward analysis of the symmetries of these scale-invariant potentials under time reparametrizations shows the existence of three Noether charges. The corresponding quantum-mechanical generators are the Hamiltonian

$$N_1=H\frac{p^2}{2M}+V(𝐫),$$
(1)
the dilation operator

$$N_2=DtH\frac{1}{4}\left(𝐩𝐫+𝐫𝐩\right),$$
(2)
and the special conformal operator

$$N_3=Kt^2H\frac{t}{2}\left(𝐩𝐫+𝐫𝐩\right)+\frac{M}{2}r^2,$$
(3)
which are expected to satisfy the SO(2,1) Lie algebra wyb:74

$$[D,H]_{\mathrm{regular}}=i\mathrm{}H,[K,H]_{\mathrm{regular}}=2i\mathrm{}D,[D,K]_{\mathrm{regular}}=i\mathrm{}K.$$
(4)
In Eq. (4) the qualification “regular” emphasizes that the commutators follow from a naive computation in which their anomalous behavior is not explicitly considered. These scaling and commutator properties have been shown to apply to the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function interaction jac:91  and the inverse square potential jac:72 ; alf:76 , and are also shared by the magnetic monopole jac:80  and the magnetic vortex jac:90 . These representative examples of conformal quantum mechanics and their associated SO(2,1) symmetry have also been recognized in the study of a number of nonrelativistic limits of quantum field theories jac:90b ; bergman . More generally, the same basic results apply to the entire class of homogeneous potentials of degree $`2`$, which are both scale and conformally invariant.

The usual interpretation of scale invariance is summarized by the first commutator in Eq. (4), which shows that the scale dimension of $`H`$ is $`1`$. This scale dimension is, in fact, the “time dimension” $`𝒯`$ corresponding to the dimensional-analysis result $`[H]=𝒯^1`$, in units such that $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and $`2M=1`$. For an arbitrary interaction, in these units, the spatial length dimension is $`=𝒯^{1/2}`$. Moreover, for the particular case of a scale-invariant theory, i.e., for a potential $`V(𝐫)`$ homogeneous of degree $`2`$, the “naive algebra” and scaling $`[H]=𝒯^1`$ are satisfied directly from the symmetry, when other subtleties are ignored cam:dtI . That is precisely the dimensional-analysis interpretation of the first commutator in Eq. (4).

The main goal of our paper is to show the emergence of correction terms in Eq. (4) due to dimensional transmutation col:73 , as manifested by the presence of a dimensionful renormalization parameter gup:93 ; isp\_letter ; cam:dtI ; cam:dtII . In fact, this is the origin of an experimental realization of a quantum anomaly in molecular physics dipole\_anomaly , whose underlying mechanism has also been studied within a path-integral approach pi\_singular ; pi\_delta ; green .

### II.2 Anomalous commutators

In what follows we will consider the nonperturbative definition of the Hilbert space for conformally-invariant potentials, according to the framework of Refs. jac:91 ; cam:dtI ; cam:dtII ; isp\_letter ; pi\_delta . This can be achieved by properly renormalizing the theory in the strong-coupling regime, with the introduction of a scale-breaking parameter. However, if the SO(2,1) conformal symmetry is violated upon renormalization, then the question arises as to where this symmetry breaking manifests in the commutator algebra of the operators (1)–(3). In this paper we show that the modification of the algebra (4) is encoded in the basic commutator

$$[D,H]=i\mathrm{}H+[D,H]_{\mathrm{extra}},$$
(5)
which acquires an “extra” piece whose expectation values will be computed below. Then, Eqs. (1)–(3) imply that

$$[K,H]=2i\mathrm{}D+2t[D,H]_{\mathrm{extra}},[D,K]=i\mathrm{}Kt^2[D,H]_{\mathrm{extra}},$$
(6)
as follows by straightforward application of the canonical commutator relations. Thus, the extra terms in Eqs. (5) and (6) extend the commutator algebra (4) and spoil the conservation laws of the Noether charges (2) and (3), as dictated by their time evolution

$$\frac{dA}{dt}=\frac{A}{t}+\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[A,H]$$
(7)
in the Heisenberg picture. In particular, the Heisenberg equations (7) imply that

$$\frac{dD}{dt}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[D,H]_{\mathrm{extra}},\frac{dK}{dt}=\frac{2t}{i\mathrm{}}[D,H]_{\mathrm{extra}}.$$
(8)
The next step in our construction is the remarkable finding that the modified commutator algebra and the corresponding relations (8) can be evaluated in a representation-independent manner. This is achieved again by the use of the canonical commutators, which imply that

$$[𝐩𝐫+𝐫𝐩,H]=2i\mathrm{}\left\{2T_𝐫V(𝐫)\right\},$$
(9)
where $`T=HV`$ is the kinetic energy operator and the symbol

$$_𝐫=𝐫$$
(10)
stands for the “Eulerian derivative,” which—when applied to a homogeneous function—selects the correct degree of homogeneity. The expression $`_𝐫V(𝐫)`$ is a formal operator derivative that coincides with the corresponding elementary counterpart in the position representation. Then, the “anomaly operator” $`𝒜(𝐫)`$, to be defined from the extra term $`[D,H]_{\mathrm{extra}}`$ in Eq. (5), can be computed from Eqs. (2) and (9), whence

$$𝒜(𝐫)\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[D,H]_{\mathrm{extra}}\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[D,H]+H=\left[𝟙+\frac{\mathrm{𝟙}}{\mathrm{𝟚}}_𝐫\right]V(𝐫),$$
(11)
where $`𝟙`$ is the identity operator. An alternative useful expression of this anomaly (11) in $`d`$ dimensions is

$$𝒜(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2}(d2)V(𝐫)+\frac{1}{2}\left\{𝐫V(𝐫)\right\}.$$
(12)
Despite their deceivingly simple appearance, Eqs. (11) and (12) still fail to make the anomalous behavior explicit. This is due to the fact that the conformal anomaly can be reduced to the breakdown of the naive scaling properties of the potential. This fact is clearly displayed by Eq. (11), which shows that the dilation charge is conserved and scale invariance is maintained when $`_𝐫V(𝐫)=2V(𝐫)`$, an equation that amounts to Euler’s theorem for a homogeneous potential of degree $`2`$. Thus, one is naively tempted to state that the conformal anomaly vanishes for the class of scale-invariant potentials. However, as we will show below, this homogeneity condition is violated: the breakdown of Euler’s theorem can be traced to the singular behavior of the potential and its associated wave functions at the origin. In particular, the existence of a nonvanishing anomaly can be explicitly shown by considering the corresponding expectation values with normalized states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

In subsequent sections we are going to apply these generic concepts to the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function interaction. More precisely, we will show that the expressions in Eqs. (8) and (11)–(13) are indeed nontrivial due to the singular behavior of the wave function at the origin. This means that: (i) the additional term $`[D,H]_{\mathrm{extra}}`$ in the commutator $`[D,H]`$, as defined in Eq. (5), is not identically equal to zero; (ii) relevant expectation values of this extra term $`[D,H]_{\mathrm{extra}}`$ have nonzero values. Furthermore, this program can be most easily accomplished by computing the expectation value

$$\frac{d}{dt}D_\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒜(𝐫)_\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}(d2)V(𝐫)_\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{1}{2}d^d𝐫V(𝐫)_𝐫\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)\right|^2,$$
(13)
in which a vanishing boundary term at infinity is dropped, after integration by parts.

### II.3 Properties of symmetry generators and their expectation values

Before applying Eq. (13) and related concepts to particular potentials, we will first summarize a number of well-known albeit insightful results about quantum-mechanical expectation values. These will help interpret the values taken by the conformal anomaly within a familiar framework.

Specifically, consider a generator $`A`$ of a symmetry that satisfies the nontrivial condition $`A/t0`$. Let us also assume that a mechanism is provided for the existence of a state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ that yields a nonvanishing expectation value

$$\frac{A}{t}_\mathrm{\Psi }0.$$
(14)
For the important cases considered in this paper, $`A=D`$ or $`A=K`$, this mechanism happens to be renormalization. Then, from general properties of quantum-mechanical states, the following statements can be made:

1. If the symmetry is strictly maintained, then $`i\mathrm{}A/t=[A,H]0`$, so that Eq. (14) implies that $`[A,H]_\mathrm{\Psi }0`$. This is precisely what would happen with the dilation charge $`D`$ and conformal charge $`K`$, if the commutators were exactly given by Eq. (4).

Reciprocally, this statement is logically equivalent to the condition that, if a state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is found for which $`[A,H]_\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$, then the symmetry is necessarily broken.
2. If there exist normalized stationary states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, then

$$[A,H]_\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
(15)
is also a necessary condition. As a consequence, when Eq. (14) is satisfied, the symmetry is violated, with

$$\frac{d}{dt}A_\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{A}{t}_\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(16)
For the dilation and conformal charges, this is only possible through the extra piece in Eq. (5), which should guarantee a subtle chain of identities

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{A}{t}_\mathrm{\Psi }=[A,H]_{\mathrm{extra}}_\mathrm{\Psi }=[A,H]_{\mathrm{regular}}_\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(17)
where each individual term is not zero.

In particular, the scheme discussed in point 2 above applies directly to the ground state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}`$, whenever it exists. Then, Eq. (16) \[with $`A=D`$ defined in Eq. (2)\] implies that

$$\frac{d}{dt}D_{\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}}=E_{(\mathrm{gs})},$$
(18)
where $`E_{(\mathrm{gs})}=H_{\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}}`$.

In the next few sections, we will verify Eq. (18) for the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function interaction by an explicit computation of the anomalous correction terms. In other words, we will show that this potential exhibits a conformal quantum anomaly.

## III The Two-Dimensional $`𝜹`$-Function Interaction

In this section we will consider a two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function interaction

$$V(𝐫)=g\delta ^{(2)}(𝐫)\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\lambda \delta ^{(2)}(𝐫).$$
(19)
In addition to defining the interaction potential, Eq. (19) introduces a dimensionless coupling $`\lambda `$. For the interaction (19), the conformal anomaly defined in Eq. (13), with $`d=2`$, is given by the formal expression

$$\frac{d}{dt}D_\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{g}{2}d^2𝐫\delta ^{(2)}(𝐫)_𝐫\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)\right|^2.$$
(20)
As we will see next, Eq. (20) is ill defined and requires an appropriate procedure of regularization and renormalization, to be performed simultaneously with the determination of states and observables.

The conformal anomaly discussed in this paper is manifested by the existence of a nonzero value for the right-hand side of Eqs. (8), (11)–(13), and (20). For the two-dimensional delta-function interaction, a naive argument would suggest that this time derivative in Eq. (20) is indeed identically equal to zero, because $`\delta ^{(2)}(𝐫)`$ selects a zero value in $`𝐫`$. However, this line of reasoning assumes that the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ have a regular behavior at the origin—a condition that is explicitly violated upon renormalization in the presence of the interaction (19). More precisely, even though the regularized wave functions satisfy the regular boundary conditions (89) and (90), the renormalized wave functions acquire a logarithmic singularity at the origin. For example, the Hilbert subspace of normalized bound-states of the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function interaction reduces to the one-dimensional space spanned by the renormalized ground state jac:91 ; cam:dtI ; cam:dtII ; pi\_delta

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}(𝐫)=\frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{\pi }}K_0(\kappa r),$$
(21)
where

$$E_{(\mathrm{gs})}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\kappa ^2}{2M},$$
(22)
while the running coupling constant $`g`$ asymptotically vanishes. Specifically, the behavior of the wave function (21) near the origin is dictated by abr:72

$$K_0(z)\stackrel{(z0)}{=}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)+\gamma \right]\left[1+O(z^2)\right],$$
(23)
where $`\gamma `$ stands for the Euler-Mascheroni constant. Thus, the integral in Eq. (20) fails to vanish identically and confirms the purported violation of Euler’s theorem. As a consequence, Eq. (20) is ill defined at the level of the renormalized quantities, but can be evaluated by going back to the regularized theory and taking the appropriate limit of its regularized counterpart.

In what follows we will regularize Eq. (20) using three distinct techniques—and each one involves defining the regularized potential, as well as the corresponding running coupling constant $`\lambda `$: (i) real-space regularization with a circular-well potential; (ii) real-space regularization with a radial $`\delta `$-function potential; and (iii) dimensional regularization. As we will see, subtle cancellations within each one of the regularization methods combine to reproduce the same final answer (18).

### III.1 Real-space regularization with a circular-well potential

Real-space regularization provides a scheme whereby the short-distance physics is appropriately modified for $`ra`$ (where $`a`$ is a real-space regulator), so as to yield a well-defined problem. Of the many possible real-space regularization techniques, here it proves convenient to introduce a circular-well potential

$$V(𝐫)g\frac{\theta (ar)}{\pi a^2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2\lambda }{2M}\frac{\theta (ar)}{\pi a^2},$$
(24)
in which $`\theta (\xi )`$ stands for the Heaviside function.

Due to the central nature of Eq. (24), the results summarized in the Appendix can be directly applied. The corresponding Schrödinger equation for the reduced radial wave function $`u_l(r)`$ is given by

$$\left\{\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\left[\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2}E+\lambda \frac{\theta (ar)}{\pi a^2}\right]\frac{l^21/4}{r^2}\right\}u_l(r)=0,$$
(25)
in which $`l=|m|`$, where $`m`$ is the usual quantum number. The bound-state solution ($`E<0`$) to Eq. (25) can be written in terms of Bessel functions abr:72 ,

$$R_l(r)\frac{u_l(r)}{\sqrt{r}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{\{}\text{ }J_l(\stackrel{~}{k}r)\text{,}\text{ }N_l(\stackrel{~}{k}r)\mathbf{\}}\text{ }\hfill & \hfill \text{for}r<a,\\ \mathbf{\{}\text{ }I_l(\kappa r)\text{,}\text{ }K_l(\kappa r)\mathbf{\}}\text{ }\hfill & \hfill \text{for}r>a,\end{array}$$
(26)
where the curly brackets stand for linear combination, while

$$\stackrel{~}{k}^2=\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2}E+\frac{\lambda }{\pi a^2}$$
(27)
and

$$\kappa ^2=\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2}E.$$
(28)
The regular boundary conditions at the origin (see the Appendix) and at infinity lead to the selection of $`J_l(\stackrel{~}{k}r)`$ and $`K_l(\kappa r)`$, while the continuity of the logarithmic derivative at $`r=a`$ provides the eigenvalue equation

$$\stackrel{~}{k}\frac{J_l^{}(\stackrel{~}{k}a)}{J_l(\stackrel{~}{k}a)}=\kappa \frac{K_l^{}(\kappa a)}{K_l(ka)},$$
(29)
in which the primes denote derivatives.

The next step is the renormalization of the system. This is implemented by finding the behavior of the running coupling constant from the consistency requirement that the eigenvalue equation (29) admit a finite ground-state energy, when $`a0`$. As the analysis in Ref. cam:dtII  shows, this system can only sustain a bound state in the $`s`$ channel; this fact is confirmed by Eq. (29), which admits a nontrivial solution in the limit $`a0`$ only for $`l=0`$. Correspondingly, the ground-state wave function becomes

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}(𝐫)=\{\begin{array}{cc}BJ_0(\stackrel{~}{k}r)\hfill & \hfill \text{for}r<a,\\ AK_0(\kappa r)\hfill & \hfill \text{for}r>a,\end{array}$$
(30)
where the ratio between $`A`$ and $`B`$ can be determined from the additional continuity condition

$$BJ_0(\stackrel{~}{k}a)=AK_0(\kappa a).$$
(31)
For that particular channel ($`l=0`$), Eqs. (27) and (29), combined with the small-argument behavior of Bessel functions \[in particular, Eq. (23)\], provide the desired running of the coupling constant

$$\lambda (a)\stackrel{(a0)}{=}\frac{2\pi }{\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\kappa a/2\right)+\gamma \right]}\left\{1+O\left(\left[\mathrm{ln}(\kappa a)\right]^1\right)\right\}.$$
(32)
In Eq. (32) the hierarchy of correction terms with respect to the variable

$$\xi =\kappa a$$
(33)
yields the three categories $`O([\mathrm{ln}\xi ]^1,\xi ^2\mathrm{ln}\xi ,\xi ^2)`$, including the corresponding higher orders; of these terms, the first is the dominant one. The order notation is used in Eq. (32) and thereafter, in order to keep track of all corrections with respect to small arguments and regularizing parameters. This procedure is suggested by the ill-defined nature of the formal expression (20), which calls for a redefinition of each factor before the limit $`a0`$ is taken. However, it should be pointed out that the corresponding series are typically going to be convergent rather than simply asymptotic, despite our reference to asymptotic approximations.

For the computation of the anomaly (13), the values of the coefficients $`A`$ and $`B`$ should be determined. First, they are related by the condition (31), which reduces to

$$B\stackrel{(a0)}{=}A\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\kappa a}{2}\right)+\gamma \right]\left\{1+O\left(\left[\mathrm{ln}(\kappa a)\right]^1\right)\right\}.$$
(34)
Secondly, their specific asymptotic values can be explicitly obtained from the normalization condition

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝐫|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}(𝐫)|^2}=A^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \kappa ^2\left\{𝒦(\kappa a)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\stackrel{~}{k}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{A}}\right)^2𝒥(\stackrel{~}{k}a)\right\}`$ (35)
$`\stackrel{(a0)}{=}`$ $`\pi \kappa ^2A^2\left\{1+O\left(\kappa a\mathrm{ln}[\kappa a]\right)\right\},`$
where

$$𝒦(\xi )=_\xi ^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zz\left[K_0(z)\right]^2=\frac{1}{2}+O\left(\xi \mathrm{ln}\xi \right)$$
(36)
and

$$𝒥(\stackrel{~}{\xi })=_0^{\stackrel{~}{\xi }}𝑑zz\left[J_0(z)\right]^2=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\xi }^2\left[1+O(\stackrel{~}{\xi }^2)\right],$$
(37)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }=\stackrel{~}{k}a.$$
(38)
Thus, Eq. (35) implies that

$$A\stackrel{(a0)}{=}\frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{\pi }}\left\{1+O\left(\kappa a\mathrm{ln}[\kappa a]\right)\right\}.$$
(39)
Now we proceed to calculate the conformal anomaly via the regularized version of Eq. (13). For the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function interaction, this is accomplished by using the regularized potential (24), in conjunction with the regularized wave function, Eqs. (30), (34), and (39), and running coupling (32). Then,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}D_{\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐫V(𝐫)_𝐫\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}(𝐫)\right|^2}`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda B^2}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{\xi }}}𝑑zzJ_0(z)_zJ_0(z)`$
$`\stackrel{(a0)}{=}`$ $`E_{(\mathrm{gs})}\left\{1+O\left(\left[\mathrm{ln}(\kappa a)\right]^1\right)\right\},`$
as follows from Eqs. (22) and (27), as well as from from the small-argument behavior of $`J_0(z)`$; in Eq. (40), $`_z`$ is the one-dimensional (radial) generalization of Eq. (10). Finally, taking the limit $`a0`$, the conformal anomaly (40) is in perfect agreement with the expected answer (18).

### III.2 Real-space regularization with a radial $`𝜹`$-function interaction

An alternative real-space regularization technique is provided by a radial $`\delta `$-function interaction

$$V(𝐫)g\frac{\delta (ra)}{2\pi \alpha a}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\widehat{\lambda }\frac{\delta (ra)}{2\pi a}.$$
(41)
In addition to defining the regularized potential, Eq. (41) introduces two auxiliary quantities: (i) an arbitrary proportionality factor $`\alpha `$ associated with a possible ambiguity in the definition of the radial $`\delta `$ function radial\_delta ; (ii) a reduced coupling $`\widehat{\lambda }=\lambda /\alpha `$. As it is to be expected, the anomaly (20), to be computed later in this section, will be independent of the undetermined “ambiguity factor” $`\alpha `$.

Due to the central nature of Eq. (41), the formalism of the Appendix can be directly applied again. The corresponding Schrödinger equation for the reduced radial wave function $`u_l(r)`$ is now given by

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{2ME}{\mathrm{}^2}+\frac{\widehat{\lambda }}{2\pi a}\delta (ra)\frac{l^21/4}{r^2}\right]u_l(r)=0.$$
(42)
The bound-state solution ($`E<0`$) to Eq. (42), subject to the regular boundary conditions at the origin (see the Appendix) and at infinity, is given by

$$R_l(r)\frac{u_l(r)}{\sqrt{r}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}B_lI_l(\kappa r)\hfill & \hfill \text{for}r<a,\\ A_lK_l(\kappa r)\hfill & \hfill \text{for}r>a,\end{array}$$
(43)
where $`\kappa `$ is defined just as in Sec. III.1, Eq. (28).

The eigenvalue equation follows from the condition defining the $`\delta `$-function discontinuity at $`r=a`$,

$$\frac{du_l}{dr}|_{r=a^+}\frac{du_l}{dr}|_{r=a^{}}=\frac{\widehat{\lambda }}{2\pi a}u_l(a).$$
(44)
Therefore, with the functions defined in Eq. (43), the eigenvalue equation takes the explicit form

$$\kappa \left[A_lK_l^{}(\kappa a)B_lI_l^{}(\kappa a)\right]=\frac{\widehat{\lambda }}{2\pi a}A_lK_l(\kappa a),$$
(45)
where the primes denote derivatives. A detailed analysis of Eq. (45) shows, as in Sec. III.1, that a nontrivial solution exists only for $`l=0`$. Correspondingly, the ground-state wave function becomes

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}(𝐫)=\{\begin{array}{cc}BI_0(\kappa r)\hfill & \hfill \text{for}r<a,\\ AK_0(\kappa r)\hfill & \hfill \text{for}r>a,\end{array}$$
(46)
where $`AA_0`$ and $`BB_0`$. In addition, $`A`$ and $`B`$ can be determined from the continuity condition

$$BI_0(\kappa a)=AK_0(\kappa a),$$
(47)
which reduces to

$$B\stackrel{(a0)}{=}A\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\kappa a}{2}\right)+\gamma \right]\left\{1+O\left(\left[\kappa a\right]^2\right)\right\}.$$
(48)
Moreover, the normalization condition gives

$$1=d^2𝐫|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}(𝐫)|^2=A^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \kappa ^2\left\{𝒦(\kappa a)+\left(\frac{B}{A}\right)^2(\kappa a)\right\},$$
(49)
where $`𝒦(\xi )`$ is defined in Eq. (36), while

$$(\xi )=_0^\xi 𝑑zz\left[I_0(z)\right]^2=\frac{1}{2}\xi ^2\left[1+O(\xi ^2)\right].$$
(50)
Thus, Eqs. (36), (49), and (50) lead again to an expression identical to Eq. (39).

The running of the coupling constant is obtained by replacing the small-argument behavior of Bessel functions \[in particular, Eq. (23)\] in Eq. (45). Then,

$$\widehat{\lambda }(a)\frac{\lambda (a)}{\alpha }\stackrel{(a0)}{=}\frac{2\pi }{\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\kappa a/2\right)+\gamma \right]}\left\{1+O\left(\left[\kappa a\right]^2\mathrm{ln}[\kappa a]\right)\right\},$$
(51)
where the correction terms with respect to the variable $`\xi =\kappa a`$ appear in the two categories $`O(\xi ^2\mathrm{ln}\xi ,\xi ^2)`$, including the corresponding higher orders; of these terms, the first is the dominant one.

Finally, the conformal anomaly can be computed by replacing the regularized potential (41), the regularized wave function \[Eqs. (39), (46), and (48)\], and the running coupling (51) in Eq. (13). This computation yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}D_{\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐫V(𝐫)_𝐫\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}(𝐫)\right|^2}`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\lambda }}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r\delta (ra)_𝐫\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}(𝐫)\right|^2.`$
As the wave function (46) has a discontinuous derivative through $`r=a`$, the integral in Eq. (52) is conveniently computed by dividing the interval $`[0,\mathrm{})`$ into the subintervals $`I_<=[0,a]`$ and $`I_>=[a,\mathrm{})`$. Then,

$$\frac{d}{dt}D_{\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}}=𝒜^{(<)}+𝒜^{(>)},$$
(53)
where

$$𝒜^{(j)}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\frac{\widehat{\lambda }}{2}_{I_j}𝑑r\delta (ra)_𝐫\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}^{(j)}(𝐫)\right|^2=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\frac{\widehat{\lambda }}{2}R^{(j)}(a)_rR^{(j)}(a),$$
(54)
with $`j=<`$ when $`r<a`$ and $`j=>`$ when $`r>a`$, while $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}^{(j)}(𝐫)R^{(j)}(r)`$ is given in Eq. (46). From Eqs. (39) and (46), as well as the small-argument behavior of Bessel functions, the exterior integral becomes

$$𝒜^{(>)}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\frac{\widehat{\lambda }A^2}{2}\xi K_0(\xi )K_0^{}(\xi )\stackrel{(a0)}{=}E_{(\mathrm{gs})}\left\{1+O\left(\xi ^2\mathrm{ln}\xi \right)\right\}$$
(55)
\[where $`\xi `$ is defined in Eq. (33)\], while the interior integral takes the form

$$𝒜^{(<)}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\frac{\widehat{\lambda }B^2}{2}\xi I_0(\xi )I_0^{}(\xi )\stackrel{(a0)}{=}E_{(\mathrm{gs})}\times O\left(\xi ^2\mathrm{ln}\xi \right);$$
(56)
as a result,

$$\frac{d}{dt}D_{\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}}\stackrel{(a0)}{=}E_{(\mathrm{gs})}\left\{1+O\left(\left[\kappa a\right]^2\mathrm{ln}[\kappa a]\right)\right\}.$$
(57)
Therefore, when the limit $`a0`$ is enforced, the conformal anomaly (40) again agrees with the predicted value, Eq. (18).

### III.3 Dimensional regularization

In dimensional regularization bol:72  the modification of the short-distance physics is nontrivially accounted for by a dimensional generalization of the theory—the relevant physics is analytically continued from a given physical dimensionality $`d_0`$ to $`d=d_0ϵ`$, with $`ϵ=0^+`$. For singular interactions, this procedure is implemented by properly extending the potential from $`d_0`$ to $`d`$ dimensions. Even though this generalization is somewhat arbitrary, in this paper we follow the convenient prescription provided in Refs. cam:dtI ; cam:dtII ; pi\_singular ; pi\_delta . Accordingly,

$$V(𝐫)g\mu ^ϵ\delta ^{(d)}(𝐫)\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\lambda \mu ^ϵ\delta ^{(d)}(𝐫),$$
(58)
where the physical dimensions of the original theory are preserved by changing the dimensions of the coupling according to $`gg\mu ^ϵ`$ cam:dtI .

The interaction (58) can be regarded as effectively central, so that the results of the Appendix can be applied. The corresponding Schrödinger equation for the reduced radial wave function $`u_l(r)`$, in $`d2\nu +2=2ϵ`$ dimensions, is given by

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{2ME}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{(l+\nu )^21/4}{r^2}\right]u_l(r)=0,$$
(59)
for $`r0`$. Equation (59) is formally identical to that of a free particle, but it is to be supplemented by the stringent boundary condition enforced by the $`\delta `$-function singularity at the origin.

The bound-state solution ($`E<0`$) to Eq. (59) is a linear combination of the Bessel functions $`I_{l+\nu }(\kappa r)`$ and $`K_{l+\nu }(\kappa r)`$. As usual, the boundary condition at infinity leads to the rejection of $`I_{l+\nu }(\kappa r)`$. As for the modified Bessel function $`K_{l+\nu }(\kappa r)`$, its small-argument behavior for $`l0`$ leads to a singular term proportional to $`r^{(l+\nu )}`$. Thus, the boundary condition at the origin can only be satisfied for $`l=0`$, a result that agrees with the conclusions drawn from real-space regularization techniques. As a consequence, the regularized radial wave function is of the form $`R(r)r^\nu K_\nu (\kappa r)`$, and the corresponding normalized ground-state wave function becomes

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}(𝐫)=\frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\pi ^{ϵ/4}}{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ/2)]^{1/2}}r^{ϵ/2}K_{ϵ/2}(\kappa r)A(ϵ)F_ϵ(\kappa r),$$
(60)
with

$$F_ϵ(z)z^{ϵ/2}K_{ϵ/2}(z).$$
(61)
In Eq. (60) the normalization constant $`A(ϵ)`$ in $`d=2(\nu +1)=2ϵ`$ dimensions was obtained from $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zz\left[K_p(z)\right]^2=\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+p)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1p)/2`$, and its asymptotic value is

$$A(ϵ)\stackrel{(ϵ0)}{=}\frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{\pi }}[1+O(ϵ)].$$
(62)
The fact that Eq. (60) is the only bound state is a requirement of the eigenvalue equation, which follows by asking that the $`\delta `$-function singularity at the origin be enforced cam:dtI . This procedure implies the condition

$$\frac{\lambda \mu ^ϵ}{4\pi }\left(\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{|E|}{4\pi }\right)^{ϵ/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{ϵ}{2}\right)=1,$$
(63)
which displays a simple pole at $`ϵ=0`$, making the theory singular for the two-dimensional unregularized case. However, for $`ϵ=0^+`$, Eq. (63) permits the existence of the bound state (60).

Renormalization is implemented by introducing the running coupling cam:dtI ; cam:dtII ; pi\_delta , which is determined in the limit $`ϵ0`$ from Eq. (63), i.e.,

$$\lambda (ϵ)\stackrel{(ϵ0)}{=}2\pi ϵ\left\{1+\frac{ϵ}{2}\left[g^{(0)}\left(\mathrm{ln}4\pi \gamma \right)\right]+o(ϵ)\right\},$$
(64)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant and $`g^{(0)}`$ is an arbitrary finite part. In particular, from Eq. (64), the ground-state energy becomes

$$E_{_{(\mathrm{gs})}}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mu ^2}{2M}e^{g^{(0)}}.$$
(65)
Finally, the conformal anomaly can be computed by replacing the regularized potential (58) and the running coupling (64) in Eq. (13). Then,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}D_{\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}\lambda (ϵ)\mu ^ϵ\right]\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}\delta ^{(d)}(𝐫)_{\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^d𝐫\delta ^{(d)}(𝐫)_𝐫\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}(𝐫)\right|^2}\right\}`$ (66)
$`\stackrel{(ϵ0)}{=}`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}\right]\pi ϵ\left\{ϵ\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}(\mathrm{𝟎})\right|^2\left[_𝐫\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}(𝐫)\right|^2\right]_{𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}}\right\}\left[1+O(ϵ)\right]`$
$`\stackrel{(ϵ0)}{=}`$ $`E_{(\mathrm{gs})}\left\{\left[ϵF_ϵ(0)\right]^22ϵF_ϵ(0)\underset{z0}{lim}_zF_ϵ(z)\right\}\left[1+O(ϵ)\right],`$
where Eqs. (22) and (60) were applied in the final line, while $`_z`$ is the one-dimensional (radial) generalization of Eq. (10). The operations to be performed in Eq. (66) at the level of the regularized wave function (61) can be simplified with the use of Bessel-function identities. First, the small-argument expansion

$$K_p(z)\stackrel{(z0)}{=}\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)^p+\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)^p\right]\left[1+O\left(z^2\right)\right],$$
(67)
leads to $`F_ϵ(0)=1/ϵ`$, with corrections of order $`O(ϵ)`$. Secondly, either from Eq. (67) again or from the identity

$$\frac{1}{z}\frac{d}{dz}\left[z^pK_p(z)\right]=z^{(p+1)}K_{p+1}(z),$$
(68)
one concludes that $`_\xi F_ϵ(\xi )=\xi ^ϵ`$, with corrections of orders $`O(ϵ,\xi ^2)`$. Therefore, the final result is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}D_{\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}}`$ $`\stackrel{(ϵ0)}{=}`$ $`E_{(\mathrm{gs})}\left\{\left[1+O(ϵ)\right]+2\underset{r0}{lim}\left(\kappa r\right)^ϵ\left[1+O(ϵ)\right]\right\}`$ (69)
$`\stackrel{(ϵ0)}{=}`$ $`E_{(\mathrm{gs})}\left[1+O(ϵ)\right].`$
Remarkably, the limit $`ϵ0`$ should be taken only as the last step, as required by the dimensional-regularization prescription. When this procedure is properly applied, the conformal anomaly (69) again agrees with the value anticipated in Eq. (18).

## IV Scattering Sector for a Two-Dimensional $`𝜹`$-Function Interaction

In Sec. III we focused our analysis on the emergence of extra terms for relevant bound-state expectation values. However, a complete characterization of the interaction requires the complementary analysis in the scattering sector of the theory. For the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function interaction, the compatibility of the renormalization in both sectors is well known; e.g., as discussed in Refs. jac:91 ; cam:dtI ; cam:dtII ; pi\_delta . In this section we now complete our analysis by using these compatibility requirements and consequently display the emergence of an anomalous commutator algebra for scattering.

Our goal is to make use of expectation values and thereby construct nonvanishing symmetry-breaking terms. Unfortunately, this construction proves to be considerably more difficult than for bound states because of the nonexistence of scattering states that are simultaneously normalized and stationary. The proper formalism to display the anomalous terms is then provided by time-dependent collision theory gottfried . In addition, we conveniently switch to the Schrödinger picture as the natural way to study the time evolution of these wave packets.

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)`$ be a wave packet of positive energy evolving in $`d`$ dimensions from an initial state

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,0)=\frac{d^d𝐪}{(2\pi )^d}\chi (𝐪)\varphi _𝐪(𝐫),$$
(70)
in which $`\varphi _𝐪(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐪𝐫\right)`$. This function $`\varphi _𝐪(𝐫)`$ can be interpreted as the incident plane wave for a scattering experiment in which

$$\psi _𝐪(𝐫)=\varphi _𝐪(𝐫)+\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2}d^d𝐫^{}𝒢_d^{(+)}(𝐫𝐫^{};q)V(𝐫^{})\psi _𝐪(𝐫^{})$$
(71)
is the stationary-state interacting wave function for energy $`E=E_𝐪\mathrm{}^2q^2/2M`$ and $`q=|𝐪|`$, while $`𝒢_d^{(+)}(𝐑;q)=i\left(q/2\pi R\right)^{d/21}H_{d/21}^{(1)}(qR)/4`$ stands for the corresponding causal Green’s function.

In this section we assume that the applicability conditions and approximations of Ref. gottfried  are satisfied for the treatment with wave packets. In this context, the present derivation is at least sufficient to prove our claim of the existence of anomalous terms in well-defined expectation values. Then, starting with the initial condition (70), the time evolution of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ is asymptotically described by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)=\frac{d^d𝐪}{(2\pi )^d}\chi (𝐪)\psi _𝐪(𝐫)e^{i\omega _𝐪t},$$
(72)
where $`\omega _𝐪=E_𝐪/\mathrm{}`$. In general, using a resolution of the form (72) between states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1(t)`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2(t)`$, the expression for the transition matrix elements of an operator $`A`$ becomes

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1(t)\left|A\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_2(t)=\frac{d^d𝐪^{\prime \prime }}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d^d𝐪^{}}{(2\pi )^d}\chi _1^{}(𝐪^{\prime \prime })\chi _2(𝐪^{})e^{i(\omega _𝐪^{}\omega _{𝐪^{\prime \prime }})t}\psi _{𝐪^{\prime \prime }}\left|A\right|\psi _𝐪^{}.$$
(73)
In particular, for the expectation value of the dilation operator,

$$\frac{d}{dt}D_{\mathrm{\Psi }(t)}=\frac{d^d𝐪^{\prime \prime }}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d^d𝐪^{}}{(2\pi )^d}\chi ^{}(𝐪^{\prime \prime })\chi (𝐪^{})e^{i(\omega _𝐪^{}\omega _{𝐪^{\prime \prime }})t}\psi _{𝐪^{\prime \prime }}\left|\frac{[D,H]_{\mathrm{extra}}}{i\mathrm{}}\right|\psi _𝐪^{},$$
(74)
an expression which can be evaluated for a specific two-dimensional potential $`V(𝐫)`$ from Eq. (12), whence

$`\psi _1\left|{\displaystyle \frac{[D,H]_{\mathrm{extra}}}{i\mathrm{}}}\right|\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐫\psi _1^{}(𝐫)(𝐫V(𝐫))\psi _2(𝐫)}`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐫V(𝐫)_𝐫\left[\psi _1^{}(𝐫)\psi _2(𝐫)\right]}.`$
Therefore, for the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function interaction,

$`\psi _{𝐪^{\prime \prime }}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{[D,H]_{\mathrm{extra}}}{i\mathrm{}}}\right|\psi _𝐪^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\left\{\psi _{𝐪^{\prime \prime }}^{}(0)\left[\widehat{}_𝐫\psi _𝐪^{}(𝐫)\right]_{𝐫=0}+\left[\widehat{}_𝐫\psi _{𝐪^{\prime \prime }}^{}(𝐫)\right]_{𝐫=0}\psi _𝐪^{}(0)\right\}`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\sqrt{q^{\prime \prime }q^{}}f_{q^{\prime \prime }}^{}(𝛀^{(2)})f_q^{}(𝛀^{(2)}),`$
where

$$f_qf_q(𝛀^{(2)})=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{q}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{E_𝐪}{|E_{(\mathrm{gs})}|}\right)i\pi \right]^1$$
(77)
is the isotropic two-dimensional scattering amplitude pi\_delta , in which the angular dependence $`𝛀^{(2)}`$ can be omitted. Finally, from Eqs. (74) and (76),

$$\frac{d}{dt}D_{\mathrm{\Psi }(t)}=\left(\frac{2\mathrm{}^2}{M}\right)\frac{d^2𝐪^{\prime \prime }}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝐪^{}}{(2\pi )^2}\chi ^{}(𝐪^{\prime \prime })\chi (𝐪^{})e^{i(\omega _𝐪^{}\omega _{𝐪^{\prime \prime }})t}\sqrt{q^{\prime \prime }q^{}}f_{q^{\prime \prime }}^{}(𝛀^{(2)})f_q^{}(𝛀^{(2)}),$$
(78)
whence it follows that

$$\frac{d}{dt}D_{\mathrm{\Psi }(t)}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\left|(t)\right|^2,$$
(79)
where

$$(t)=2\frac{d^2𝐪}{(2\pi )^2}\chi (𝐪)e^{i\omega _𝐪t}\sqrt{q}f_q.$$
(80)
Equations (79) and (80) can be verified in the three regularization schemes introduced earlier and constitute the main result of this section. Just as the logarithmic behavior of Eqs. (21) and (23) was the source of the nontrivial anomalous commutator in the bound state sector, the singular behavior $`H_0^{(1)}(z)\stackrel{(z0)}{=}1+2i\left[\mathrm{ln}(z/2)+\gamma \right]/\pi `$ \[up to terms $`O(z^2)`$\] in Eq. (71) yields the nontrivial expression (79). This final result admits the following interpretation: a wave packet undergoes a time evolution dictated by the linear superposition of its initial Fourier components; as the scattering amplitude depends upon a scale $`|E_{(gs)}|`$, the ensuing symmetry charges are no longer conserved.

## V Conclusions

In conclusion, we have explicitly shown the anomalous nature of the commutator algebra in conformal quantum mechanics for the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function interaction. These results are supported by detailed computations performed with three distinct regularization techniques in both the bound-state sector and the scattering sector of the interacting theory.

The crucial point in this anomalous behavior is that extra terms in the commutators of the SO(2,1) generators arise from the dimensionally-transmuted scale of the renormalized theory. The implication of the existence of these nonvanishing terms at the level of nonconserved symmetry charges was explored and general properties of quantum-mechanical averages were used to shed light on the physical meaning of our results.

A similar but considerably subtler analysis can be applied to the inverse square potential in any number of dimensions; the details of this procedure will be discussed elsewhere. Incidentally, an alternative technique that has been widely used to deal with singular potentials is the method of self-adjoint extensions jac:91 . It would be interesting to investigate the same issues using that method and to provide a comparison with our results esteve .

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported in part by an Advanced Research Grant from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and by the University of San Francisco Faculty Development Fund. One of us (G.N.J.A.) gratefully acknowledges the generous support from the World Laboratory. We also thank Professor Roman Jackiw, Professor Luis N. Epele, Professor Huner Fanchiotti, and Professor Carlos A. García Canal for stimulating discussions. *

## Appendix A CENTRAL POTENTIALS IN $`𝐝`$ DIMENSIONS

In this appendix, we summarize a few basic results for the $`d`$-dimensional radial Schrödinger equation. We only state those properties that are needed for the applications of the general theory discussed in this paper. In particular, these results are essential for the proper use of dimensional regularization, even though the particular problems analyzed herein are strictly two-dimensional.

Conservation of $`d`$-dimensional angular momentum permits the separation of the radial coordinate $`r`$ from the angular variables $`𝛀^{(d)}`$. Moreover, it leads to an angular dependence proportional to the hyperspherical harmonics $`Y_{lm}(𝛀^{(d)})`$. The associated wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=Y_{lm}(𝛀^{(d)})R_l(r)`$ includes a radial piece $`R_l(r)`$, which depends upon the quantum number $`l`$ as well as the energy $`E`$. Furthermore, $`R_l(r)`$ satisfies the differential equation

$$\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }_r^{(d)}\frac{l(l+d2)}{r^2}+\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2}\left[EV(r)\right]\right\}R_l(r)=0,$$
(81)
in which the radial Laplacian is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_r^{(d)}=\frac{1}{r^{d1}}\frac{}{r}\left(r^{d1}\frac{}{r}\right)=\frac{1}{r^{(d1)/2}}\frac{^2}{r^2}\left[r^{(d1)/2}\right]\frac{(d1)(d3)}{4r^2}.$$
(82)
Then, it proves convenient to define the reduced radial wave function

$$u_l(r)=R_l(r)r^{(d1)/2},$$
(83)
which satisfies an effective one-dimensional Schrödinger equation

$$\left\{\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2}\left[EV(r)\right]\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{l,d}}{r^2}\right\}u_l(r)=0,$$
(84)
in which the angular-momentum effective potential has a coupling constant

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{l,d}=l(l+d2)+(d1)(d3)/4=(l+\nu )^21/4,$$
(85)
with

$$\nu =\frac{d}{2}1.$$
(86)
For the interactions discussed in this paper, Eq. (84) provides a direct transition to a differential equation of the form

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\left(k^2\frac{p^21/4}{r^2}\right)\right]u(r)=0,$$
(87)
whose solution $`u(r)=\sqrt{r}Z_p(kr)`$ is given in terms of Bessel functions $`Z_p(kr)`$ of order $`p`$.

Furthermore, Eq. (84) should be supplemented by appropriate boundary conditions at the origin and at infinity. First, asymptotically with respect to $`r\mathrm{}`$, the bound-state solutions should have a zero limit in order to satisfy the square-integrability condition. Likewise, the scattering solutions are subject to the usual requirement that the wave function asymptotically reproduce the incident wave plus an outgoing scattered state cam:dtI . On the other hand, the boundary condition at $`r=0`$ is much subtler and requires additional study.

It turns out that the boundary condition at the origin is the key factor that determines the nature of the singularity at the origin. As such, it is used to establish the classification of potentials into the regular and singular families. In this framework, both the regular and the regularized singular interactions are subject to the limiting condition

$$r^2V(r)\stackrel{r0}{}0.$$
(88)
In particular, asymptotically with respect to $`r0`$, the wave function is reduced to the solution of the radial part of Laplace’s equation. As a consequence, the regular boundary condition becomes

$$R_l(r)r^l,$$
(89)
which is usually restated in terms of the weaker condition

$$u_l(0)=0.$$
(90)


format: text

text:
# Comment on “How the No–Cloning Theorem Got its Name”

## Introduction

The no-cloning theorem  based on idea of nonlinearity is very straightforward and already hint like “quantum cloning is impossible, because it is not linear” is usually enough for a quantum physicist to recover at least outline of the proof.111One negative result of such situation is following: I knew some people “spoiled by modern electronic technology,” who simply did not read yet original paper. I would recommend them after all to find a time to see . Why it was really not issued already 75 years ago?

I think, together with some new details uncovered in  there is omnipresent “meta-physical” problem — correspondence between a pure mathematical model and the real physical system, and here no-cloning theorem provides some challenges, possibly reflected already in first replies on the article . I would try to draw this trouble in most general terms — simple and clear mathematical model used in  stimulates some questions about physical principle of covariance, even more general, than linearity of quantum mechanics.

Sure, it is possible to produce modification of no-cloning proof to take into account this more general principle for particular model with photons and lasers, but in such a case it loses some charm of universality and simplicity of mathematical arguments. So, here I am briefly discussing yet another idea — considering imaginary modifications of quantum evolution, like nonlinear model briefly discussed in , there perfect cloning could be acceptable.

## 1 Covariance vs. linearity?

Let us use simplified formulations of no-cloning theorem without state of measurement device often used nowadays. There are two basic schemes, those could be found in literature:

$$|\psi |\psi |\psi ,$$
(1)
and, more accurate:

$$|a|\psi |\psi |\psi ,$$
(2)
where $`|a`$ is some fixed, known state of ancillary system, sometime denoted simply as $`|0`$ due to “fashionable” applications in quantum information science.

Maybe second expression Eq. (2) is not “more accurate” and in  was used rather first setup222More precisely it was considered also state of measurement device, but because it was noted also, that the state is unchanged in second version of theorem, it can be suggested, that auxiliary system like $`|a`$ in Eq. (2) was not treated as part of device., but more universal and understanding arguments are related rather with second one.

Anyway, let us instead of proper and difficult model of first setup Eq. (1) with Fock spaces, continuous variables, etc., consider naïve nonstandard, “modified” quantum evolution between two finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces with different dimensions:

$$.$$
(3)
In general, relations between such spaces with different dimensions are not always functions at all (i.e. multi-functions). It is possible to ask, that kind of usual functions, maybe even nonlinear, for such non-standard evolution are appropriate as generalization of unitary linear maps between spaces with equal dimension.

Maybe natural example is unitary linear map between first space and subspace of second space with same dimension (image of linear map). Really it is not very interesting example, because it does not differ much from standard case with two equal spaces — if second one contains subspace that never could be reached, why simply does not cut this “nonphysical junk”? But it is not the only problem.

Let us consider usual linear cloning of two orthogonal states allowed by unitary quantum evolution:

$$|0|0|0;|1|1|1,$$
(4)
with arguments used in  we have result, that linear, unitary evolution may clone only this two states.

Let us consider now situation, when modified (imaginary, nonstandard) evolution Eq. (3) describes decay of some hypothetical free spin-1/2 particle into two spin-1/2 particles. For this rather unrealistic333Main problem here is conservation of angular momentum (if do not ask about less fundamental quantum numbers). It presents also in initial paper  and was discussed in replies . But for our hypothetical process Eq. (3) the difficulty with momentum is rather inherited, because already in classics conservation laws due to Noether’s theorem can be considered as consequence of space-time symmetries and homogeneity, it has important influence also in quantum theory , but process Eq. (3) may not be described with continuous time, because dimension of phase space spasmodically increases. So consideration below could be considered as tries to introduce reasonable laws for this discontinuous process and seems the violation is really minimal — using classical analogue in discussed hypothetical model is changed only absolute value of angular momentum, not direction, and such a principle is close related with possibility of cloning in quantum case. process with initial particle and products of decay are staying in rest we get paradoxical situation, that linear cloning Eq. (4) contradicts to principle of covariance, or more simply, uniformity of space, because we have chosen axis in space, i.e. the two opposite directions of spin corresponding basis444These arguments do not have much with real physics and used to emphasize problems of given abstract mathematical model. $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ that only could be cloned and so this “space axis” could be found after numerous repeating of same experiment with different states.

Contrary, the nonlinear evolution like Eq. (1) does not have such a problem. It is clear also that such arguments may not be applied to apparently equal scheme Eq. (2), because there is ancillary system in state $`|0`$ corresponding to certain direction of spin and so here is not necessary to introduce some non-homogeneity in model of physical interaction, because a prefered direction presents in initial conditions555In example with laser it corresponds to a question: “How does it possible to clone only two fixed state of polarization — it breaks rotational symmetry?” and suggestion: “This symmetry may be broken due to spins and nonzero angular momenta of atoms and electrons involved in stimulated emission”..

The principle of covariance is very significant and universal, because it is related with inevitable conditions, like independence of physical laws from coordinate system used by us for its description and example above demonstrates such kind of relations. On the other hand, the linearity and covariance is particular case of the same mathematical idea: let us consider some object with operation ‘$``$’, then homomorphism is map $`H`$ to other object with property:

$$H(ab)=H(a)H(b).$$
(5)
It is clear, that if ‘$``$’ is addition, then “homomorphism” is “linearity”, but if ‘$``$’ is operation of composition in group of transformation of space-time, then “homomorphism” is “covariance”.

Using formal mathematical language, principle of covariance can be expressed as homomorphism between transformations of wave vector and symmetries of space . So, if quantum evolution could accept some fundamental processes between Hilbert spaces with different dimensions like Eq. (3), then general physical principles rather would forget linear evolution, than cloning.

But here again the problem  with instantaneous (“superluminal”) communications should be considered with necessary care, but it is not the subject of present note.

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Asher Peres for comments.


text:
# Formation of an Icosahedral Structure during the Freezing of Gold Nanoclusters: Surface-Induced Mechanism

## Abstract

The freezing behavior of gold nanoclusters was studied by employing molecular dynamics simulations based on the semi-empirical embedded-atom method. Investigations of the gold nanoclusters revealed that, just after freezing, ordered nano-surfaces with a fivefold symmetry were formed with interior atoms remaining in the disordered state. Further lowering of temperatures induced nano-crystallization of the interior atoms that proceeded from the surface towards the core region, finally leading to an icosahedral structure. These dynamic processes explain why the icosahedral cluster structure is dominantly formed in spite of its energetic metastability.

Nano sized metal clusters containing tens to thousands of atoms have attracted great attention due to their possible applications as catalysts and surface nanostructures cluster ; HeerJensen ; MoriartyBinns . In particular, understanding and predicting the structural properties and formation of clusters produced from the liquid state or gas phase are major concerns in investigations of the controlled growth of low dimensional structures. Unlike bulk materials, small metal clusters exhibit various structural modifications, for example, for fcc metals, cuboctahedra (CO) with a face-centered-cubic (fcc) structure, twinned fcc (containing one or several parallel twin planes) Pinto ; Buffat , twinned hexagonal close packed (hcp) Yacaman , icosahedral and truncated icosahedral (Ih) Buffat ; MarksMartin ; Ino ; Komoda ; Ascencio , truncated decahedral (Dh) MarksMartin ; Ino ; Komoda , and amorphous Garzon . Notably, high-resolution electron microscopy (HREM), under typical cluster-growth conditions, routinely detected metal clusters of Ih or Dh morphology with a fivefold symmetry of noncrystallographic atomic arrangements MarksMartin .

The thermodynamical-equilibrium forms and structures of metal clusters have been exhaustively searched and discussed on the basis of theoretical calculations. In contrast to experimental observations, theoretical calculations suggest that for Au, the Ih structure is energetically metastable even for small clusters (less than $`100`$ atoms) with a large surface-to-volume ratio Cleveland ; BalettoJCP . With increasing cluster size, the stability of the Ih structure should decrease markedly due to accumulated strain energy Cleveland . HREM studies Buffat ; MarksMartin ; Ino ; Komoda ; Ascencio , however, have revealed that even larger clusters (up to a few thousand atoms) still have Ih or Dh morphology. Real-time microscopic studies by Iijima and Ichihashi Iijima  demonstrated structural changes in gold clusters from a single crystalline form to a twinned crystalline form of the Ih or Dh structures, and vice versa, originating from electron beam irradiation (charging effect). Such experimental observations emphasize that the formation of Ih clusters is governed by kinetic rather than thermodynamic factors.

In order to understand the kinetics, we investigated the structural changes of gold nanoclusters during cooling from a molten state by employing molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. Interestingly, we found that the Ih structure originates from surface ordering not from conventional core nucleation. At the initial stage of the freezing, close-packed (111)-type planes with a fivefold Ih symmetry were formed at surfaces before the interior of the cluster crystallized. Subsequently, nano-crystallization at lower temperatures propagated inward from these (111)-type surface segments, leading to the Ih cluster.

All MD simulations of gold nanoclusters were performed using the semi-empirical embedded-atom method EAM . We used the XMD code described in Ref. XMD, . In the simulations we used an Ih cluster of 561 atoms as an initial structure. The cluster was then heated to 1500 K, well above its melting temperature to ensure complete melting, and equilibrated for a long period of more than 250 ps ($`1.3\times 10^5\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=`$2.0 fs represents the time step for the integration of the equation of motion). The cluster was cooled to 300 K at $`10^{11}`$ K/s ($`2\times 10^4`$ K/$`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$); the temperature was set through the mean kinetic energy of the atoms.

Our simulations at different initial configurations showed that most of the $`561`$ atom clusters were frozen to an Ih structure at a cooling rate of $`10^{11}`$ K/s. Typical melting and freezing behavior of the clusters is displayed by the potential energy vs. temperature curve in Fig. 1. The melting and freezing phase transition can be identified by an abrupt change in potential energy. Interestingly, we here see two different types of freezing behavior under identical cooling condition. In the first case shown by the freezing curve ‘A’ in Fig. 1, the cluster underwent a sharp liquid-solid transition and the freezing point was estimated as $`706`$ K. In the second case shown by the freezing curve ‘B’ in Fig. 1, the liquid-solid transition took place over tens of degrees of temperature.

Similar MD simulation works of the melting and freezing were reported by Chushak et al. Chushak  and they also found the preferential formation of an Ih structure for various cluster sizes. In spite of the MD simulations, an understanding as to why the formation of an Ih structure occurs so frequently is still lacking. For detailed analysis of the freezing behavior we looked at cluster configurations corresponding to the three open circles (at $`750`$, $`700`$, and $`650`$ K, respectively) in freezing curve ‘A’ of Fig. 1 \[see Figs. 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c)\]. Only for the purpose of avoiding vibrational noise effect in the analysis of the cluster structure, we relaxed the cluster-atomic configurations to the local energy-minimum structures by using the conjugate gradient minimization technique. We also showed an ideal Ih structure of a $`561`$-atom cluster for comparison \[see Fig. 2(d)\]. At $`750`$ K, which is well above the freezing temperature, the cluster was in a liquid state. Forming and dissolving of very small embryos occurred within the disordered state and the cluster shape was highly fluctuating and approximately spherical. Notably, as the freezing temperature was approached, flat surface segments like solid facets started to appear temporarily. The abrupt decrease of potential energy shown in Fig. 1 indicates that the cluster at $`700`$ K had just frozen. At 700 K, the cluster showed ordered facets with a fivefold symmetry, apparently with an Ih shape \[see Fig. 2(b)\]. As the cluster was cooled further to $`650`$ K, the interior atoms rearranged from these surface facets to form an Ih crystalline structure \[see Fig. 2(c)\], which was comparable to an ideal icosahedron \[see Fig. 2(d)\].

The cluster configurations have been also investigated by using the local bond order parameter $`q_l(i)`$ characterizing the local atomic arrangement around atom $`i`$ Fuente . The method is essentially the same in formalism as that of Ref. Chushak, , but local structure criteria are different. Thereby, we are successfully able to discriminate atoms with an hcp local symmetry for an Ih structure. Solid-like atoms with a well-defined local symmetry are shown in two-cross-sectioned views in the bottom row of Fig. 2. At high temperatures we observed typical forming and dissolving of very small embryos as expected \[see Fig. 2(a)\]. At 700 K, just after freezing, we clearly observed a surface-crystallized structure, representing that the nanocrystallization for an Ih structure proceeds from surfaces segments towards core regions.

Structure evolution can also be investigated using diffraction patterns. Figure 3 shows the simulated diffraction intensity $`s^3I(s)`$ versus the diffraction parameter $`s`$ for the clusters at $`750`$ , $`700`$, and $`650`$ K as compared to an ideal Ih cluster, denoted by a dashed line. Note that $`s^3I(s)`$ rather than $`I(s)`$ was used for detailed comparisons with the ideal Ih structure Waal . At $`750`$ K, the diffraction pattern was somewhat broadened, due to the liquid state of the cluster \[see Fig. 2(a)\]. At $`700`$ K, some peaks started to appear, which represented a disordered structure with a short-range order \[see Fig. 2(b)\]. At $`650`$ K, fine structures of peaks were found and the overall pattern was similar to that of the ideal Ih structure.

Next we consider the second case of freezing curve ‘B’ that appears to be different from freezing curve ‘A’ \[see Fig. 1\]. In this case, freezing took place by the advancement of the solid/liquid interface relatively gradually (over about 200 ps). This is in contrast to the freezing situation described by curve ‘A’ where freezing took place from a liquid state to a surface-ordered structure abruptly (over about $`10`$ ps). Figures 4(a), 4(b), and 4(c) show cluster configurations corresponding to the three open square symbols (at 680, 670, and 660 K, respectively) in freezing curve ‘B’ of Fig. 1. During the initial stage of freezing \[see Fig. 4(a)\], facets started to form on the local surface. In the middle stage \[see Fig. 4(b)\], more surface facets were formed giving the surface a fivefold symmetry, and crystallization proceeded from one part of surface to the others. In the final stage \[see Fig. 4(c)\], the entire cluster was crystallized, although the final cluster was not a single crystal but a multiply twined crystal.

According to classical nucleation theory based on the macroscopic concept of the interface Handbook ; RMW , nucleation should take place in the interior of the liquid cluster Bartell . In this case, the stable fcc phase is expected to be formed locally inside the cluster and to finally grow into a single fcc crystalline phase. Then, the final fcc structure would be energetically more stable than the Ih structure. However, our MD simulations revealed that the Ih structure is a prevailing cluster structure, which is in agreement with experimental observations. Inspections of the freezing cluster configurations showed that Ih cluster formation is initiated from surface ordering not from conventional core nucleation. In the freezing processes of the melted cluster shown in curve ‘A’ of Fig. 1, surface ordering took place over the entire surface. Surface ordering induces an abrupt transition from the liquid to an amorphous state. Actually, the potential energy of an amorphous cluster with an ordered surface is only slightly higher than that of the Ih cluster. In the case of curve ’B’ in Fig. 1, surface ordering took place only on parts of the local surface and propagated. Our results suggest that low kinetic barriers at surfaces make cluster formation of the meta-stable Ih skin structure kinetically favorable (although the energy barriers are not accessible under the present MD simulations). Once the ordered surface facets were formed, they would work as a crystallization seed, and thereby nano-crystallization would proceed inward, finally forming the Ih structure.

In our further simulations of different cooling conditions and cluster sizes up to $`1000`$ atoms, including cluster sizes of 581 atoms and of 545 atoms corresponding to the magic number sizes of the fcc octahedron and of the truncated decahedron, respectively, other structures such as the truncated decahedral and fcc structures were also formed, but the Ih structure was always dominant. Kinetic competition between these structures seems to be correlated with the surface ordering of the cluster during freezing, which means that the reduction of surface energy more efficiently contributes to the determination of the cluster structure than the internal energy. In many simulation runs, we found that when surface ordering was dominant, the cluster became Ih. Otherwise, the cluster became t-Dh or fcc.

In our simulations, we investigated a structural change of clusters during cooling from the liquid state. Typically, clusters are generated from the gas phase through inert gas condensation using adiabatic expansion. Even in this case, if clusters grow as a liquid droplet and then solidify BalettoCPL , or if disordered or amorphous clusters are first formed and then these undergo solid-solid transition to nanocrystalline structures, surface ordering of the clusters might occur and have the same effect as freezing.

In summary, by performing MD simulations on gold clusters, we examined the formation mechanism of an Ih cluster experimentally observed. When $`561`$-atom gold clusters were cooled from a liquid state, the Ih structure was obtained repeatedly by two different processes. In the first case, surface ordering with {$`111`$}-type facets with a five-fold symmetry took place while interior atoms were frozen into a disordered structure abruptly, over about $`10`$ ps. The rearrangement of interior atoms then proceeded inward from the Ih-like surface, leading to an Ih cluster. In the second case, crystallization took place at a surface region and then propagated to the whole over about $`200`$ ps. In both cases, the formation of the Ih structure originated from ordered surface facets with a fivefold symmetry. This surface-induced mechanism explains why clusters tended to adopt an Ih structure, although it is not energetically the most stable phase.

###### Acknowledgements.

We gratefully acknowledge support from the Korea Ministry of Education through the Brain Korea $`21`$ Program (H.-S.N. and J.-K.Y.), the Korea Ministry of Science and Technology through the Creative Research Initiative Program (N.M.H.), and the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation through the ASSRC at Yonsei University (B.D.Y.). Fruitful discussions with S. C. Lee at Korea Institute of Science and Technology and P. R. Cha at Seoul National University are appreciated.


text:
# Quantum transition in bilayer states

## 1 Introduction

The quantum Hall effect  is both a quantum and a macroscopic phenomena. Both aspects manifest themselves through the transport properties. The quantum character cannot be understood without invoking the splitting of levels $`\frac{\mathrm{}eB}{m}`$ induced by the magnetic field $`B`$ ($`m`$ is the mass of the electron).

The relevant parameter which characterizes the system is its filling factor $`\nu `$ related to the electron density in units of magnetic flux (typically $`10^{10}`$ electrons per square cm for magnetic fields of a few Tesla). For a small density $`\nu <<1`$ the electrons form a crystal due to the quenching of the kinetic energy. Experiments have shown that the system is a liquid which conducts the current up to quite small filling factors ($`\nu 1/7`$). Moreover, the conductivity tensor

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\sigma _{xx}\sigma _{xy}\\ \sigma _{xy}\sigma _{yy}\end{array}\right)`$ (1)
has very peculiar features: $`\sigma _{xy}`$ is strictly constant and equal to $`\nu e^2/h`$ with $`\nu `$ a fractional filling factor for a wide variation of the magnetic field called the plateau region. It increases rapidly to reach a higher fractional value in between two plateaus. In the plateau regions $`\sigma _{xx}`$ is strictly equal to zero and suddenly grows to reach large values in between the plateaus. Each plateau corresponds to a phase characterized by a specific wave function for the ground state. The system develops a gap responsible for the vanishing of the dissipative conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$. The transition region where the system switches between two plateaus is the quantum analogous of a continuous phase transition.

Here we investigate other types of transitions which occur when two electron (or bosonic) layers are separated from each other. In this case, the filling factor is kept fixed and the continuously varying parameter is the separation $`d`$ between the two layers. The quantum transition results from the weakening of the interlayer interactions as they are separated. Two phases with a definite wave function can be identified when the layers are either very close or very far from each other

We consider cases where the total filling factor is less than one and the dynamics is restricted to the lowest Landau level. The way particles organize is counter intuitive because their position is not a good quantum number any more. Instead, we must use the guiding center momentum $`P_x,P_y`$ to localize them. In the symmetric gauge, for example, the expression for $`P_x,P_y`$ are given by:

$`P_x=p_xqy/2,P_y=p_y+qx/2`$ (2)
These guiding center coordinates do not commute: $`[P_x,P_y]=iq`$ where $`q=eB/\mathrm{}c`$ is the charge of the particle times the magnetic field. As a result one cannot localize a particle better that over a cell of area $`2\pi l^2`$ with $`l^2=q^1.`$ We can imagine that the effect of the magnetic field is to divide the space into cells, each of which corresponds to a quantum state. The precise definition of the filling factor $`\nu `$ is the number of electrons per cell. Note that the mass $`m`$ is an irrelevant parameter which only appears in the level splitting and disappears from the dynamics. As a result, all the relevant parameters are solely due to the interactions. In principle it is a degenerate perturbation problem where the effective Hamiltonian is obtained by projecting the interaction potential $`V`$ in the lowest level. If we denote by $`P`$ this projector, the effective Hamiltonian is given by:

$`H=PVP`$ (3)
Essentially, the effect of the projection is to replace the coordinates of the potential by the guiding center coordinates. Therefore $`H`$ is a true operator ( it has non diagonal matrix elements) acting in the LLL Hilbert space.

In the fractional Hall effect, the plateaus can be explained through a careful study of the dynamics induced by (3). The aim here is to analyze similar phenomena in the bilayer systems. The systems are made of two layers and switch from one phase to the other as the separation between the layers is increased. A transition is expected to occur for $`dl`$.

I consider the case of electron bilayers of current experimental  and theoretical  interest. The approach I follow is very closed to the one of Kim et al.  (especially their second section) although some of the conclusions are in better agreement with the recent proposal of Nomura and Yoshioka . I also study bosonic bilayers technically easier to understand which are potentially observable in the context of rotating Bose condensate.

## 2 Exciton in electron bilayers

The system made by two parallel layers of electrons has attracted a lot of experimental attention. In particular Spielman et al.  have observed a huge enhancement of the tunneling conductance at small separation.

When the separation $`d`$ between the two layers is large they behave independently and are described by a gapless Fermi liquid  On the other hand, as $`d`$ is reduced, the system undergoes a transition to an incompressible state described by the filling factor $`\nu _T=1/2+1/2=1`$. Kellog et al.  have clearly exhibited the strong quantum Hall drag resistance which sets up in this regime. In this section I only discuss the incompressible state obtained when the layers are very close $`d<l`$ and live the description of the compressible state and the transition to a further section.

Consider the case where both layers are on top of each other. Electrons in one layer are pseudospin up while those in the other layer are pseudospin down. The system must be in a ferromagnetic state if we assume that the effect of the interactions can be reduced to a short range repulsive potential. In the symmetric gauge the spatial part of the wave function for $`N_e`$ electrons is then equal to a Vandermonde determinant, the so-called $`(1,1,1)`$ state in Halperin’s terminology :

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1,1}={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(z_i^{}z_j^{})(z_i^{}z_j^{})(z_i^{}z_j^{})`$ (4)
The three $`1`$ in $`(1,1,1)`$ refer to the exponents of each of the three facors in (4). It is the unique wave function at filling factor one which vanishes when any two electrons are at the same position. The Pauli principle then forces the pseudospin part to be symmetric and therefore the pseudospin takes its maximum value $`N_e/2`$. If both layers are exactly half filled, one has $`N_{}=N_{}=N_e`$ so that the $`z`$ component of the pseudospin $`N_{}N_{}`$ is equal to zero and the pseudospin points in the $`xy`$ easy-plane. The natural excitations are spin waves with a quadratic dispersion relation characteristic of a ferromagnet and not a linearly dispersing Goldstone collective mode. Said differently, the groundstate is a condensate of excitons obtained by acting with $`(S^{})^N_{}`$ on the state with all electrons in the top layer.

This description can be refined using an excitonic picture. The excitons can be introduced by starting from a situation where the pseudospin up layer is filled and the other layer is empty. Suppose one electron is removed from the top layer to be put in the down layer. In this simple situation one has a hole in the up-layer interacting with an electron in the down-layer. The dynamics can be solved using the model Hamiltonian (3) and it can be shown that the electron and the hole form a bound state . The main point of the following discussion is to show that the bound state wave function is independent of the the interacting potential and has a group theoretical interpretation . Particles in the lowest Landau level organize into representations of a deformation of the displacement group generated by $`P_x,P_y`$ (2) and the angular momentum $`L=xp_yyp_x`$ obeying the relations:

$`[P_x,P_y]=iq,[L,P_x]=iP_y,[L,P_y]=iP_x`$ (5)
They are characterized by the charge $`\pm q`$ of the particle (in (5) the charge $`q`$ must be replaced by $`q`$ when we consider a hole) which play a similar role as the angular momentum for the rotations ( the Casimir operator is $`P_x^2+P_y^22qL`$). The wave function of the bound state is the analogous of a Clebsh-Gordon coefficient which couples the two representations of charge $`q`$ and $`q`$ into an irreducible representation of charge zero. The exciton having a zero charge, it does not feel the exterior magnetic field and its guiding center coordinates $`P_x,P_y`$ can be diagonalized simultaneously. The bound state is a dipole oriented perpendicularly to its momentum $`𝐏`$ of length $`Pl^2`$. The dispersion relation can be computed in terms of the interaction $`V`$ and is quadratic at low momentum $`ϵ(p)Vp^2l^2/2`$. Excitons behave as effective bosons interacting with the Hamiltonian :

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}{\displaystyle V_{ab}(xy)\rho _a(x)\rho _b(y)d^2xd^2y}`$ (6)
Here $`a,b`$ is a layer index and the Hamiltonian takes into account the fact that the attraction between different layers is weaker than the repulsion in the same layer: $`V_,<V_,`$. Note that (6) is nothing but the second quantized rewriting of (3). When the two layers are on top of each other ($`d=0`$), the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry is recovered and the excitons interact weakly, which explains why the dispersion relation is quadratic in the momentum. The first effect of the separation is to introduce a repulsion between the excitons. If we model them by a slightly non-ideal Bose gas, the dispersion relation is parameterized by the repulsion pseudopotential $`U_0`$ equal to zero for $`d=0`$ and increasing with $`d`$. As a result the exciton behaves like a Goldstone boson with a sound velocity $`u\sqrt{U_0/ml^2}`$ increasing with the separation. This goes with a smooth decreasing of the total spin as seen in . The apparent contradiction between the absence of a gap and the observed incompressibility is due to the fact that the exciton is neutral and does not interfere with the charge gap responsible for the Hall effect.

When the separation $`d`$ is so large that $`V_,=0`$ the fluid is no more incompressible and the Bose-gas picture is not correct any more. Instead, each layer can be modeled by a gas of neutral fermionic dipoles . The problem is then to understand how the transition between the gas of bosonic excitons and the two uncorrelated Fermi liquids occurs.

## 3 boson bilayers

Before discussing this quantum transition, I wish to draw an analogy with the reversed phenomena that occurs when two bosonic layers are moved away from each other. A physical context could be two Bose-condensate in a rotating trap gradually separated from each other. To use a language adapted to the Hall effect, I treat the rotation as if it were a magnetic field which means that the rotation frequency is equal to the harmonic trap frequency . The magnetic length is then defined in terms of this critical frequency.

The physical problem consists of two kinds of bosons in a magnetic field at filling factor $`\nu =1`$. We imagine that the particle index is a layer index. At zero separation the interaction between particles in different layers is the same as the interaction between particles in the same layer. By analogy with the quantum Hall state at $`\nu =1/2`$, we expect the system to be described by a Fermi liquid state. We then separate the two layers which are exactly at half filling. When they are sufficiently far away that particles between different layers do not interact any more, one is left with a two copies of a $`\nu =1/2`$ bosonic system which are incompressible states. Therefore, we expect that a transition will occur at some separation where the dissipative conductivity suddenly vanishes as the incompressible state builds up. This is exactly the reverse situation as with electrons, one goes from a compressible Fermi liquid state to an incompressible boson condensate as the two layers are separated from each other.

Let us first consider the zero separation state which should correspond to a Fermi liquid state. The picture developed for the Fermi liquid state at $`\nu =1`$  is in terms of neutral fermionic dipoles consisting of the charge $`e`$ boson and a fermionic hole with a charge $`e`$. Energetically, the system would like to have a slater determinant wave function (4). This wave function is however in conflict with the bosonic statistics and the neutral dipole Fermi liquid is the less costly manner in which it adjusts itself to satisfy the correct statistics. It can be written in a product form :

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(z_i)=P\{\mathrm{Fermi}\mathrm{Liquid}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}z_iz_j\}`$ (7)
As explained earlier, the projection $`P`$ is the origin of the dipole interpretation of the Fermionic quasiparticles. Each Fermi liquid quasiparticle is a dipole made of a boson correlated to a hole in the Slater determinant factor. The difference between the dipoles and the bilayer excitons is their fermionic statistics.

Another possibility to satisfy the Bose statistics is the Pfaffian state :

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(z_i)=\mathrm{Pf}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_iz_j}}\}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}z_iz_j`$ (8)
The Pfaffian factor being antisymmetric guarantees that the total wave function is symmetric. Each denominator $`1/z_iz_j`$ in the Pfaffian removes the correlation hole between particles $`i`$ and $`j`$. Thus, the Pfaffian induces a pairing between the particle and can be thought as a kind of BCS wave function where the composite Fermions are in a p-paired $`L=1`$ state. Unlike the Fermi liquid, this state is incompressible.

In the bilayer case the boson carry a spin index which specifies in which layer they lie. The Fermi liquid takes advantage of this to reduce its energy by putting two dipoles with up and down spin in the same momentum state thus reducing the Fermi momentum by a factor $`\sqrt{2}`$ with respect to the spinless case. The system is in the paramagnetic state. The Pfaffian state on the other hand is ferromagnetic and can be obtained by acting with $`(S^{})^N_{}`$ on the state with all bosons in the top layer without energy gain. As a result the Fermi liquid is probably energetically favored with respect to the Pfaffian in this bilayer situation.

In the large separation limit limit the $`\nu =1/2`$ bosonic state of one layers is a $`\nu =1/2`$ Laughlin type wave function

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(z_i)={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{N/2}{}}}(z_iz_j)^2`$ (9)
which is legitimate for bosons. This state is incompressible and minimizes the energy of a single layer. To understand how the transition from a Fermi liquid to this kind of state occurs it is useful to rewrite the product $`(2,2,0)`$ of the two $`\nu =1/2`$ factors (9) as a paired state:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(z_i)=\mathrm{Det}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_i^{}z_j^{}}}\}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}}z_iz_j`$ (10)
which can be shown using the Cauchy identity. This rewriting clearly shows that the large separation limit can be understood as a pairing between the bosons of the top layer with those of the bottom layer. The pairing factor $`1/z_i^{}z_j^{}`$ annihilates a correlation hole between these two bosons and carries an angular momentum $`L=1`$.

If the state at zero separation is the Pfaffian state (8), it can be continuously deformed  into the state (9) without undergoing a phase transition. For this one needs to multiply the matrix element in (8) by a factor $`1+\mu \sigma _i\sigma _j`$ and let $`\mu `$ vary between $`0`$ and $`1`$.

The pairing instability also follows in the dipole approach . The dipoles at the Fermi surface have a length $`k_fl^2`$ and an orientation perpendicular to their momentum. For obvious geometrical reasons a dipole with momentum $`𝐤`$ tends to bind with a dipole $`𝐤`$. When the repulsion between bosons of the two layers decreases, this strengthens the binding between dipoles with opposite spins and very plausibly induces the pairing instability in the p-channel.

To conclude this section, two scenarios are possible in the case of bosonic bilayer systems. In the first one the system is incompressible at all separations and it is in the Pfaffian state at zero separation. In the second more probable one the state is a Fermi liquid at zero separation and undergoes a pairing transition to an incompressible state as the separation is increased.

## 4 Transition in electron bilayers

I now return to the transition in the $`\nu _t=1`$ Fermionic layers. The problem is more difficult and this section is speculative.

The intuition gained in the bosonic bilayer case was that layer separation induced attraction between the bosons in different layers at $`d0`$ which resulted in the disappearance of the correlation hole between them. What made life easy was that the quasiparticles relevant at $`d=0`$ were Fermions and the pairing mechanism was reminiscent of a BCS transition. In the present case, excitons are bosons and we have seen that the effect of the separation is to repel them. Therefore we abandon the exciton picture and try to model the transition as a pairing mechanism between the electrons directly. This is possible if we multiply the wave function (4) by a symmetric factor which does not spoil its polynomial character nor modifies the filling factor. It suggests to multiply the wave function by a Permanent Factor :

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(z_i)=\mathrm{Per}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_i^{}z_j^{}}}\}\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1,1}=\mathrm{Det}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(z_i^{}z_j^{})^2}}\}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}(z_i^{}z_j^{})^2`$ (11)
The second equality results from Borchart identity . The first writing exhibits it can be obtained as a paired wave function from the state $`(1,1,1)`$ (4). The second writing represents the state as a paired state built on the $`(0,0,2)`$ bosonic Laughlin state. Note that the weak pairing state with the square factor removed in the determinant yields back the $`(1,1,1)`$ state . Although the two states (4) and (11) are both incompressible, the transition should have consequences in drag experiments . In (4) electrons of the first layer are bound to holes in the second layer whereas in (11) they form pairs with the electrons of the second layer in agreement with the conclusions of .

This cannot be the complete story however since at large separation the Fermi liquid states are built as in (7) on a $`(2,2,0)`$ incompressible state, not a $`(0,0,2)`$ one as in (11). A possible precursor to the Fermi liquid state is a product of two Pfaffian states. The main difference between the Pfaffian states and our trial state (11) is that in the Pfaffian the electrons are paired inside one single layer whereas in (11) the pairs involve two electrons in different layers. It is possible that this repairing occurs in a continuous way. The Pfaffian incompressible state then undergoes a second phase transition towards a Fermi liquid state. Although this scenario with two phase transitions is neither economical nor easy to formalize precisely, it is difficult to rule out an intermediate phase involving paired quasiparticles. An experimental compelling evidence of this possibility would be to observe charge two carriers in this intermediate phase.

## 5 Concluding remarks

The two layer systems clearly exhibit quantum phase transitions mediated by interactions. Such transitions are now well studied in the electron context and it would be very interesting to see them in bosonic systems. A first step would however be to clearly identify a fractional Hall regime in rotating Bose condensates and the most promising direction seems to me the analogous of the Jain series at filling factors $`\nu =p/p+1`$ terminating in a Fermi liquid state at $`\nu =1`$. The transition discussed here would be a second step. In the fractional Hall regime, the message of this essay is to stress that the most likely transition between a Fermi liquid state and an incompressible state is through a pairing mechanism which may hopefully be seen experimentally.

## Acknowledgements

I thank Christian Glattli for persuading me to write this essay and Jean Dalibard for drawing my attention to the problem of phase transitions in Bose condensates.