text:
# Conscious Pulse II: The rules of engagement

## Introduction

In previous papers, I consider a quantum mechanical superposition of apparatus states in the laboratory system, where an external observer is present during the time it is being produced ,,. This results in a superposition of observer brain states that are correlated with the apparatus. The laboratory superposition of macroscopic apparatus states therefore become entangled with an *endogenous superposition* of macroscopic brain states. Locally, the components of both the laboratory and the endogenous superpositions are incoherent in a sense explained below and in ref. 1. It is an effect of environmental decoherence , .

Four *rules of engagement* are proposed in refs. 1-3 that describe how brain states arise from and are related to apparatus states. In order to formalize this relationship, it is necessary to distinguish between a conscious brain state and a *ready* brain state. The latter is physiologically capable of consciousness but is not conscious; and furthermore, it cannot become conscious until it is chosen by the stochastic process peculiar to quantum mechanics. In ref. 3, it is found that a conscious state will quickly become a pulse of closely grouped neighborhood states in the endogenous superposition. This is called a *conscious pulse*. A ready brain state may also appear as a *ready pulse*. The pulse of a conscious brain state $`\underset{¯}{B}`$ is written {$`\underset{¯}{B}`$}, where the underline means that it is conscious. The pulse of a ready brain state $`B`$ is written $`\{B\}`$.

In the present paper, there is no laboratory superposition that serves as an external stimulus to the observer. Instead, we suppose that the observer is ‘classically’ stimulated, but that that is sufficient to initiate an endogenous quantum mechanical superposition. This is possible if there are *seed particles* (molecules or atoms) within the body that, by virtue of their size and Heisenberg uncertainty, become miniature superpositions that mushroom into larger ones. In order to see how this works, we focus on one particular kind of external stimulus and one kind of consciousness. The problem is otherwise too difficult. I therefore limit consideration to the case of “pain” consciousness. The reason for this choice will be explained in a later section.

## Seed Particles

There are several possible seeds. Henry Stapp proposed that the calcium ions that initiate the release of neurotransmitters might serve this purpose . But since the stimulus that I will be discussing produces pain consciousness, I focus on seeds that are related more directly to pain and the alleviation of pain. These are the endorphin molecules and other peptides that move through the blood stream and cerebrospinal fluids seeking opiate receptors to which they can become attached. When these molecules attach to a receptor they induce euphoria and/or analgesia in the subject. These are suitable seed molecules because they are small enough that their Heisenberg uncertainty of position grows significantly in the time that it takes for them to move from their point of origin to their final destination .

The extent to which a given receptor is stimulated by a single migratory seed molecule is therefore uncertain. We assign a quantum number $`u`$ to the number of receptors that are stimulated by all the seed molecules in the system. Due to a receptor’s strong interaction with its environment, incoherence is locally assured between components of the resulting superposition. These receptors are part of a much wider superposition that includes the seed molecule and their fluid environment; but when all the non-receptor variables are integrated out of cross terms, the variable $`u`$ will identify receptor components that lack the possibility of mutual interference (see Appendix).

## The Initial Distribution and Pulse Formation

Let the observer be subjected to a classical pain stimulus $`S_p`$. An exact physiological response $`R`$ cannot be classically determined from $`S_p`$ because of the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the number of opiate receptors that are occupied by seed molecules at that moment. This means that the pain stimulus represented by $`S_p`$ is correlated with a distribution of responses represented by $`R_u`$, where $`u`$ is the quantum number of occupied receptors. This includes all of the receptor combinations that sum to that number. Each $`u`$ is correlated with a ready brain state that is called into being by the interaction. We will say that $`R_u`$ includes the entire “low level” physiology of the observer that leads into the “high level” ready brain state $`B_u`$. Immediately following the interaction, the state of the system is therefore

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_0)=S_p\{X\}+S_p^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_uR_u\{B_u\}$$
(1)
where $`\{X\}`$ is the unknown state of the observer prior to his interaction with the classical stimulus, and where the primed component in eq. 1 is equal to zero at $`t_0`$. In order to simplify matters, we will initially assume that $`\{X\}`$ is not conscious. Instead, we will say that the observer is unconscious and is aroused by the painful stimulant that links him to a single (i.e., non-pulse) ready brain state $`B_u`$. The more general case of an unknown conscious pulse $`\{\underset{¯}{X}\}`$ is discussed at the end of this section.

Equation 1 is then

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_0)=S_pX+S_p^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_uR_uB_u$$

where again, the primed component is equal to zero at $`t_0`$. The sum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_uR_uB_u`$ is the endogenous superposition that has been produced by the seed molecules 222This expression does not preclude the possibility that there may be other endogenous superpositions embedded in each $`R_n`$. One is enough to make the point of this paper..

According to the rules in ref. 1, the system is certain to experience a stochastic hit on one of the ready brain states at a time $`t_{sc}`$, and this reduces all other states to zero.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t=t_{sc}>t_0)=S_p^{}R_{sc}\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}$$
(2)
Then according to rule (3a) in ref. 3, this single state will dissolve into a conscious pulse, giving

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t>t_{sc})=S_p^{}R_{sc}\{\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}\}$$
(3)
The details of brain state dissolution are discussed in ref. 3. It is assumed that when the entanglement $`R_{sc}\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}`$ in eq. 2 dissolves into $`R_{sc}\{\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}\}`$ in eq. 3, the physiological state $`R_{sc}`$ will split into a superposition in which each component is connected to a component of the higher brain pulse $`\{\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}\}`$, while joining with the single classical state $`S_p^{}`$ at the other end. I will not bracket $`R_{sc}`$ as I do brain pulses. So as in ref. 3, it will be understood that the physiological connection to a brain pulse is itself pulse-like.

The probability that the state $`\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}`$ in eq. 2 will be chosen is found by integrating $`Jdt`$ over the time of the interaction, making use of the requirement in ref. 3 that $`𝑑\alpha \underset{¯}{B}_r^{}\underset{¯}{B}_s=\delta (rs)`$. For a stochastic choice that ranges over non-continuous brain states such as the receptor number $`u`$, this expression is

$$𝑑\alpha \underset{¯}{B}_r^{}\underset{¯}{B}_s=\delta _{rs}\text{or}𝑑\alpha \underset{¯}{B}_{sc}^{}\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}=1$$

In addition, the square modulus $`s=𝑑\alpha (S_pX)^{}(S_pX)=S_p^{}S_p`$ inasmuch as ref. 3 requires that $`𝑑\alpha X^{}X=1`$, so we have

$$\text{Prob}^{(sc)}=(1/s)S_p^{}S_pR_{sc}^{}R_{sc}𝑑\alpha B_{sc}^{}B_{sc}=R_{sc}^{}R_{sc}$$

The total probability is then found by summing over all possible stochastic choices

$$\text{Prob}^{(total)}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{sc}\text{Prob}^{(sc)}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{sc}R_{sc}^{}R_{sc}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_uR_u^{}R_u$$

The complete process is shown in fig. 1. Stage 1 shows the distribution $`R_u^{}R_u`$ as a function of the number of receptors $`u`$ that are occupied at the time of the interaction, where $`u_0`$ locates the central number, and $`u_{sc}`$ is the stochastic choice that is made during the rise time of the distribution (i.e., during the rise time of $`S_p^{}`$). The large number of u-states is represented as a continuum in fig. 1.

Stage 2 shows the reduction of the distribution to just $`R_{sc}`$ at time $`t_{sc}`$ as given in eq. 2. The single conscious state in eq. 2 then dissolves into the conscious pulse given in eq. 3, and this causes the connected physiological state to fan-out into a connecting *physiological pulse* as shown in stage 3 of fig. 1. Normalization is not preserved in this reduction.

If the unknown pre-interaction state in eq. 1 is a conscious observer $`\{\underset{¯}{X}\}`$, then the interaction prior to $`t_{sc}`$ will be

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_0)=S_p\{\underset{¯}{X}\}+S_p^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_uR_u\{\underset{¯}{B}_u\}$$

where the prime component is again zero at $`t_0`$. Substituting the expression for $`\{\underset{¯}{B}_u\}`$ in eq. 2 of ref. 3 gives

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_0)=S_p\{\underset{¯}{X}\}+S_p^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_uR_u𝑑u^{}F_u(u^{})\underset{¯}{B}_u^{}$$

or

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_0)=S_p\{\underset{¯}{X}\}+S_p^{}𝑑u^{}P_u^{}\underset{¯}{B}_u^{}$$

where $`P_u^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_uR_uF_u(u^{})`$. A stochastic hit on a value of $`u^{}`$ at time $`t_{sc}`$ will then yield

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t=t_{sc}>t_0)=S_p^{}P_{sc}\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}$$
(4)
The difference between eq. 2 and eq. 4 is that the term $`R_{sc}`$ in eq. 2 is replaced by a more a general physiological expression given by $`P_{sc}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_uR_uF_u(sc)`$. This uses values of $`R`$ that are associated with the conscious distribution, and these may be different from the $`R`$s associated with the unconscious distribution. Despite these differences, stage 2 will always appear as a single state at the stochastically selected site $`u_{sc}`$ of a physiological distribution $`P_u^{}^{}P_u^{}`$ similar to the one shown in fig. 1; and the final physiological reduction pulse will always appear like the one shown in stage 3. The final state will generally take the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_{sc})=S_p^{}P_{sc}\{\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}\}$$
(5)
where the entanglement $`P_{sc}\{\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}\}`$ connects every component of the brain pulse with the physiological pulse associated with $`P_{sc}`$.

The probability that the pulse $`\{\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}\}`$ in eq. 5 will be chosen is found by integrating $`Jdt`$ over the time of the interaction. In this case, $`(sc)`$ is assumed to be a continuous variable. The total probability is then

$$\text{Prob}^{(total)}=(1/s)S_p^{}S_pd(sc)P_{sc}^{}P_{sc}𝑑\alpha \{\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}\}^{}\{\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}\}=d(sc)P_{sc}^{}P_{sc}$$

where we use $`𝑑\alpha \{\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}\}^{}\{\underset{¯}{B}_{sc}\}=1`$ from ref. 3.

In general for an endogenous superposition, we conclude that the stochastic choice of a ready brain state and its dissolution into a conscious pulse as per rules (3) and (3a) will result in a physiological pulse (in fig. 5) that is correlated with the chosen conscious brain pulse.

## The Parallel Principle and Pain Consciousness

The reason I have chosen to focus on pain consciousness is related to my belief in the validity of the *parallel principle*, and the fact that pain provides an excellent example of how that principle might work.

It is generally accepted that the subjective world of our personal experience corresponds in critical ways with the objective world that exists outside of ourselves. It is assumed that formal relationships can be found in the subjective world that parallel formal relationships that exist in the objective world - and this is the basis of epistemology in physics. Von Neumann calls it the *psycho-physical parallelism*. Why a psycho-physical parallelism should exist at all is an open question, inasmuch as these two separate realms of reality have such different natures. There is no obvious reason why one of these worlds should pay attention to the fortunes or machinations of the other. Responding to this point, Leibniz claimed that one is compelled to believe in a Pre-established Harmony between the two worlds that is arranged by God.

Opposed to this, the parallel principle says that the psycho-physical parallelism is the consequence of natural evolutionary processes. It is claimed here that the conscious evolution of a species develops in parallel with the physiological evolution of the species; and for this to happen, there must be an *interaction* between consciousness and physiology. The general mechanism for this interaction is described in a previous paper .

The rules that have been considered so far allow one to believe that consciousness is only epiphenomenal; that is, that it may be regarded as an insubstantial by-product of a rule (3) reduction that has no influence of its own. But for the parallel principle to work, consciousness must be influential. It must do something. Its presence must give an evolutionary preference to one kind of physiology over another, and to achieve this we adopt rule (5).

Rule (5) *If two states within a conscious pulse represent different degrees of pain, then the square modulus of the state with lesser pain will increase at the expense of the state with greater pain.*

Let the pulse on the left in fig. 2 be the conscious brain pulse in eq. 5. When this pulse is formed soon after $`t_{sc}`$, it is centered over $`u_{sc}^{}`$. But the effect of rule (5) is to subsequently move the pulse to the right as indicated by the arrow in that figure.

Recall that $`u`$ (now $`u^{}`$) represents an increasing numbers of opiate receptors that are occupied by seed molecules. Therefore, states on the right-hand edge of the conscious pulse have a greater population of occupied receptors than the states on the left-hand edge. This means that the right edge states are less painful than the left edge states. Rule (5) then requires that right edge states grow in magnitude at the expense of left edge states, so current flows from left to right. The net effect is to shift the pulse to the right as shown.

The brain pulse $`\{\underset{¯}{B}\}`$ in eq. 5 is correlated with the physiological pulse appearing in that equation, so when the former moves, the latter moves with it. This is shown in the pulse on the right in fig. 2. It is also centered over $`u_{sc}^{}`$ at $`t_{sc}`$, and it also moves to the right because of its connection with the conscious brain pulse.

I claim that the mechanisms of evolution will work together with rule (5) to promote the creation of a psycho-physical parallelism applied to pain. The rightward drift of the physiological pulse in fig. 2 will have behavioral consequences that may or may not benefit the species. Remember that each physiological state $`P_u^{}`$ includes a response to $`K_u^{}`$ of the entire organism leading up to the high level brain state $`B_u^{}`$. The conscious pulse drift dictated by rule (5) therefore results in a behavioral drift. The resulting behavioral change might be trivial or it might be significant; and nothing has been said that would give us a clue as to what that change might be. But we can say that if the induced behavior is harmful, then the species will become extinct. If it is beneficial, then the species will survive with an instinctive physiological response to $`K_u^{}`$ that is associated with a psychological avoidance of pain. Rule (5) therefore provides a platform from which a psycho-physical parallelism can be launched. It establishes a mechanism that makes the parallel principle possible. Further details are found in ref. 8.

## Causal Influence and Equilibrium

The physiological pulse is a superposition whose leading edge components grow at the expense of its trailing edge components; so as it moves to the right, more and more receptors will be occupied by seed molecules. This physiological movement is not caused by physiological terms that are present in the Hamiltonian, except those that keep the connection between the physiological states $`P`$ and the upper brain states $`B`$. The causal ‘push’ behind this movement comes from the extra-physical influence of consciousness itself, enforced by rule (5). It is important to note that consciousness cannot be thought of as something that is equivalent to just “another” physiological package. It is not a euphemism for an extended physiological mechanism that renders it epiphenomenal after all. If that were so, then there would be no reason why consciousness should be shaped by evolution. If the substance of consciousness makes no difference to the objective world, then it will make no difference if it does or does not mirror the objective world. Therefore, rule (5) must refer directly to the properties of consciousness (in this case the ‘pain’ in pain consciousness) in order for the parallel principle to work.

While consciousness is said to override the Hamiltonian as described in rule (5), it is only a partial influence, competing with the more familiar physiological influences. So the pulses in fig. 2 will not continue indefinitely to the right. I assume that these two pulses will always remain correlated, but that opposing tendencies inherent in the Hamiltonian will eventually bring them to a halt. For instance, increasing values of $`u`$ means that there are greater numbers of occupied opiate receptors. But the initial distribution in stage I of fig. 1 shows that there are a limited number of seed particles that are available for that purpose. So the pulse cannot move too far to the right. There will be a final equilibrium between the influence introduced by rule (5) and all the other physiological influences contained in the Hamiltonian.

Because rule (5) establishes a causal influence of pain consciousness on physiology, it should be possible in principle to test that rule experimentally. I have previously suggested two experiments that purport to test the existence of the above ‘pulse drift’ among pain states . The experiments use either a PET scan with human subjects experiencing pain, or autoradiography with rats experiencing pain. If one of these tests proves to be positive, I believe that will confirm the account given in this paper as to how a primitive a psycho-physical parallelism is established. That will also support my claim that all five of the rules given in these papers are correct “rules of engagement” between conscious brain states and physiology.

## A Previous Experiment Is Explained

In 1999, the author performed an experiment in which a $`\beta `$-source was used to create a two-component superposition, one of which gave the author a painful electric shock, and the other of which gave no shock (see ref. 7). The idea was to see if the pain consciousness induced by one component of this externally created superposition would be instrumental in suppressing that component. At the time, it seemed possible that the effect of pain consciousness on an external superposition might be directly observable in this way, but the result of the experiment was negative. This suggested that that effect of pain is felt at a deeper level, although it was not clear at the time why that should be so. The present model shows why that is so.

Painful states are designated by the variable $`u`$ (left side of fig. 3), and the non-painful states are designated by $`u^{\prime \prime }`$(right side of fig. 3). If the $`\beta `$-source chooses the painful stimulus with a frequency that is equal to the non-painful stimulus, then according to my results, the probability that a painfully conscious pulse will arise on the left in fig. 3 will be equal to the probability that a non-painfully conscious pulse will arise on the right333The variable $`n^{\prime \prime }`$ is not physically interpreted, so its distribution in fig. 3 need not look like that of $`n`$. It does not even have to be a quantum superposition. It is important only that non-painful states are equally probable with painful states.. It is only *after* the stochastic decision has taken place that the differential influence of pain consciousness can cause a physiological effect. If a conscious pulse arises among the painful states on the left side of fig. 3, it will drift to the right. If the pulse develops on the right side of the figure among the non-painful states, it will not drift in either direction because those states are assumed to be neutral on a pleasure/pain scale.

Apparently the differential influence of pleasure or pain consciousness can only occur after the stochastic choice has located the initial position of the conscious pulse. The deeper level is then to be found within the post-stochastic conscious pulse. This result is consistent with my 1999 experiment; although of course, this experiment did not allow the drift to be observed.

## Appendix

We will say that the classical volume $`V_0`$ of a molecule is the smallest volume that it can have, consistent with its intrinsic structure. If left by itself, its wave function will expand *via* Schrödinger because of its momentum uncertainty, reaching a volume $`V`$ in time $`T`$. The molecule s position within the volume $`V`$ will be entirely uncertain, *and* the wave function covering the volume will be *spatially coherent*. That is, any spatially identifiable part of the wave is related to any other spatially identifiable part by a well-defined phase relationship.

If the molecule is immersed in a stationary liquid, its expansion will be severely limited by the environmental forces that constrain its motion, thereby limiting the volume that it can reach in time $`T`$. However, if the liquid is undergoing turbulent or laminar flow, then the molecule’s volume might very well reach a volume $`V`$ in time $`T`$, except that it will be broken up and widely distributed. As before, the position of the molecule will be entirely uncertain within that volume; but in this case, the wave function will be spatially *incoherent*. That is, when the environment variables are integrated out of the cross terms between different (spatial) parts of this single molecule, the result will be zero - indicating incoherence between these parts444This is generally expressed by saying (ref. 4) that when the environmental variables are traced out of the density matrix of the total system, the remaining density matrix of the molecular subsystem is an ‘improper’ mixture.. This means that the wave function will be a *locally incoherent superposition* in the sense that it will not display interference between the molecule’s spatially separated parts (beyond its intrinsic size), even if those parts are adjacent to one another. The reason for this break-up of the molecule’s wave function is the thermal pounding given to it by its liquid environment. This incessant interaction between the liquid and the molecule therefore leads to an environmental decoherence that disassociates different parts of the wave function from one another.

The seed molecules we are considering have a maximum atomic mass of 10,000 u and a classical width of at most 10 nm. Therefore, their minimal quantum mechanical uncertainty in velocity in one direction will be $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ = 0.6 mm/sec, assuming that we begin with a molecule of classical size. These molecules are carried along by blood and/or cerebrospinal fluid in turbulent or laminar flow, so their displacement $`L`$ along that line of flow is likely to be as much as $`\mathrm{\Delta }v\mathrm{\Delta }t=60\mu `$m in just 0.1 s. Therefore, the wave function of this molecule will be an incoherent quantum mechanical superposition of classically sized molecules that are spread out over this macroscopic distance. The particle’s position will be uncertain to that extent.

Since a single seed molecule can spread itself out over a large number of opiate receptors in this way, it is able to produce an uncertainty of stimulation in a widely disbursed group of receptors. This means that a single molecule can give rise to an endogenous superposition of receptors like the one in fig. 1, and that that superposition will be locally incoherent when its environmental influences (including the seed molecules) have been integrated out of any cross terms.


format: text

text:
# New nonultralocal quantum integrable models through gauge transformation

## Abstract

One of the few schemes for obtaining an integrable nonultralocal quantum model is its possible generation from an ultralocal model by a suitable gauge transformation. Applying this scheme we discover two new nonultralocal models, which fit well into the braided Yang-Baxter relations ensuring their quantum integrability. Our first model is generated from a lattice Liouville-like system, while the second one which is an exact lattice version of the light-cone sine-Gordon is gauge transformed from a model, which gives also the quantum mKdV for a different gauge choice.

PACS numbers 02.30.Ik, 02.20.Uw, 11.10.Lm 03.65.Fd

1. Introduction

Extension from the classical to the quantum domain  and exact solution of a number of quantum models are undoubtedly a major achievement in the theory of integrable systems. However, truly speaking inspite of an impressive list of such systems , the success is limited mostly to a class of models known as ultralocal (UL) models , for which the representative Lax operators at different lattice points must commute: $`L_{2k}^{ul}(v)L_{1j}^{ul}(u)=L_{1j}^{ul}(u)L_{2k}^{ul}(v),\text{for }jk.`$ In formulating their quantum integrability  this ultralocality plays a crucial role, since only under such constraint the quantum Yang-Baxter equation (YBE)

$$R_{12}(uv)L_{1j}^{ul}(u)L_{2j}^{ul}(v)=L_{2j}^{ul}(v)L_{1j}^{ul}(u)R_{12}(uv),j=1,\mathrm{},N$$
(1)
can be lifted for the monodromy matrix $`T_a^{ul}(u)=L_{aN}^{ul}(u)\mathrm{}L_{a1}^{ul}(u)`$, to its global form

$$R_{12}(uv)T_1^{ul}(u)T_2^{ul}(v)=T_2^{ul}(v)T_1^{ul}(u)R_{12}(uv).$$
(2)
Defining $`\tau (u)=tr(T(u))`$ therefore the trace identity: $`[\tau (u),\tau (v)]=0`$ can be proved, which is equivalent to the integrability condition $`[c_n,c_m]=0,`$ for the set of conserved quantities $`c_n,n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ .

On the other hand there exists a rich class of classical integrable models, e.g. mKdV, KdV, light-cone sine-Gordon, complex sine-Gordon, derivative NLS, nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model etc. , which violate ultralocality condition and therefore make their quantum description through standard YBE formulation difficult. Nevertheless starting from eighties to early nineties a number of nonultralocal (NUL) systems were discovered showing quantum integrability . Thereafter except  and few others there were not much serious attempts for a considerable period of time to develop this important theory, until probably  where a braided YBE formulation was developed for NUL models and applied successfully to bring the mKdV model into this quantum integrable class . The situation however became more discouraging in recent years with almost no new discoveries of such models made and no new theoretical achievements taking place, inspite of an urgent need for such developments in this subject. Only very recently a mixed left-right component quantum integrable mKdV model has been introduced with its possible connection to perturbed CFT .

In such a scenario therefore it is highly desirable to apply some systematic scheme for discovering new quantum integrable NUL systems which can enrich this important class of models. In fact nonultralocalization of an ultralocal model may serve as such a technique, where the quantum Lax operator of a NUL model can be constructed from that of an integrable UL model by a suitable operator dependent local gauge transformation. This method, which is capable not only to derive new models but also to reveal their direct relation with an UL model, was introduced first possibly in . In subsequent works this scheme was implemented implicitly in , incorporated in a general framework in  and used explicitly in . Our aim here is to apply the same scheme for generating new integrable models, which make valuable additions to the existing list of such quantum integrable NUL systems. In particular we discover two models; the first one being a new discrete quantum NUL system constructed by a simple gauge transformation from a lattice Liouville-like model. Our second model is an exact lattice version of the light-cone sine-Gordon (LCSG), which is also new as a quantum NUL model. Interestingly the LCSG is constructed through gauge transformation from the same UL model, which yields the quantum mKdV , but for a different gauge choice.

We find that the quantum NUL models we obtain fit well into the braided YBE formulation  and can be solved exactly through algebraic Bethe ansatz modified for the NUL models .

2. The scheme:

The idea of the scheme is to start from the Lax operator $`L_j^{ul}`$ of an UL model and applying a local gauge transformation like

$$D_{j+1}^1L_j^{ul}D_j=L_j^{nul}$$
(3)
construct the Lax operator of a NUL model. However to be a proper integrable system the representative Lax operator of the NUL model must satisfy the braided YBE

$$R_{12}(uv)L_{1j}^{nul}(u)L_{2j}^{nul}(v)Z_{12}^1=L_{2j}^{nul}(v)L_{1j}^{nul}(u)Z_{21}^1R_{12}(uv).$$
(4)
together with the nonultralocal braiding relation

$$L_{2j+1}^{nul}(v)Z_{12}^1L_{1j}^{nul}(u)=L_{1j}^{nul}(u)L_{2j+1}^{nul}(v).$$
(5)
It should be noted that compared to the general relations introduced in  we have restricted only to the nearest neighbour braiding and taken the equations in a conjugate form to emphasize the fact that these relations, though look differently are in fact equivalent and lead to the same integrability for the NUL systems. It is obvious that at the trivial limit of $`Z=1`$ the braided YBE reduces to the standard YBE and the braiding relation turns into the usual ultralocality condition.

The success of the gauge transformation would depend naturally on the suitable choice of the gauge operators, which must ensure the above braided extensions. In fact using the inverse of transformation (3) directly in the YBE (1) for $`L^{ul}`$, it can be shown through some simple algebraic manipulations that in the simplest case the gauge operator $`D_m`$ that transforms (1) into the braided YBE (4) for $`L^{nul}`$ must satisfy the conditions

$$D_{aj}L_{bj}^{nul}D_{aj}^1=L_{bj}^{nul}Z_{ab}^1,[R_{12},D_{1j}D_{2j}]=0.$$
(6)
Interestingly the ultralocality condition is transformed automatically to the braiding relation (5), whenever the first of the conditions (6) holds. Note that the corresponding monodromy matrix for the periodic discrete chain of size $`N`$ would also be gauge related through (3) as $`T^{nul}=L_N^{nul}(u)\mathrm{}L_1^{nul}(u)=D_{N+1}^1T^{ul}D_1=D_1^1T^{ul}D_1`$ due to $`D_{N+1}=D_1`$. Therefore, YBE (2) for $`T^{ul}`$ due to $`D_{a1}T_{bj}^{nul}D_{a1}^1=T_{bj}^{nul}Z_{ab}^1,`$ induced by (6), yields the global braided YBE

$$R_{12}(uv)T_1^{nul}(u)Z_{21}^1T_2^{nul}(v)Z_{12}^1=T_2^{nul}(v)Z_{12}^1T_1^{nul}(u)Z_{21}^1R_{12}(uv).$$
(7)
associated with the NUL models. In  the structure of the braiding matrices $`Z`$ for which (7) leads to the integrability condition has been analyzed. In the present applications however we show the integrability by directly using in (7) the explicit form of the braiding matrices, which are much simpler in our case.

Since the NUL model must share the same $`R`$-matrix with the UL model, from which it is to be generated, we search for such a suitable source model associated with the well known $`4\times 4`$ trigonometric $`R`$-matrix, the nontrivial elements of which are

$$R_{11}^{11}=R_{22}^{22}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha (u+1),R_{12}^{12}=R_{21}^{21}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha u,R_{21}^{12}=R_{12}^{21}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha .$$
(8)
The general discrete Lax operator of the UL systems related to (8) as shown in  may be given by

$$L_k(u)=\left(\begin{array}{c}c_+^+\xi q^{S_k^3}+c_+^{}\frac{1}{\xi }q^{S_k^3}2\mathrm{sin}\alpha S_k^{}\\ 2\mathrm{sin}\alpha S_k^+c_{}^+\xi q^{S_k^3}+c_{}^{}\frac{1}{\xi }q^{S_k^3}\end{array}\right),q=e^{i\alpha },\xi =e^{i\alpha u}$$
(9)
linked with the underlying generalized quantum algebra

$$[S_k^3,S_l^\pm ]=\pm \delta _{kl}S_k^\pm ,[S_k^+,S_l^{}]=\delta _{kl}(M^+[2S^3]_q+M^{}[[2S_k^3]]_q),[M^\pm ,]=0.$$
(10)
Here $`[x]_q\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\alpha x)}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha },[[x]]_q\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\alpha x)}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }`$ and the central elements $`M^\pm `$ are related to the other set of such elements appearing in the $`L`$-operator as $`M^\pm =\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\pm 1}(c_+^+c_{}^{}\pm c_+^{}c_{}^+).`$ The ultralocality condition for (9) holds naturally due to the algebraic relations (10), which is valid only at the same lattice sites. It is important to note that since condition (6) is a linear relation for the Lax operator, the same condition must hold also for the UL source model, provided the braiding matrix $`Z`$ commutes with the gauge operator $`D_j.`$ Therefore our strategy is to seek for the suitable structure of an UL Lax operator as some realization of (9), such that it also satisfies (6), crucial for generating NUL models. We are able to find two such structures for two different sets of choice of the central elements in (9).
3. NUL model from the Liouville model:

Lattice Liouville model (LLM)  can be derived from the general Lax operator (9) for the choice $`c_+^{}=c_{}^+=0,c_+^+=c_{}^{}=1,`$ which reduces the second algebraic relation of (10) to

$$[S_k^+,S_l^{}]=2i\delta _{kl}e^{2i\alpha S_k^3}\mathrm{sin}\alpha $$
(11)
and allows a realization of the generators as

$$S_k^+=e^{ip_k}g(u_k),S_k^{}=g(u_k)e^{ip_k},S_k^3=u_k,g(u)=(\kappa +\mathrm{\Delta }e^{i\alpha (u+\frac{1}{2})})^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(12)
in canonical variables $`[u_k,p_l]=i\delta _{kl}.`$ Note that for any arbitrary value of $`\kappa `$ and under any canonical transformation (12) remains a proper realization of (11) and therefore retains the integrability of the model. The well known LLM is obtained at $`\kappa =1,`$ while for the generation of our new model we choose $`\kappa =0`$ along with a trivial canonical transformation $`p\alpha u,\alpha up.`$ This gives the Lax operator of our LLM as a realization of (9) in the form

$$L_k(u)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi e^{ip_k}e^{i(\alpha u_kp_k)}\\ e^{i(\alpha u_k+p_k)}\frac{1}{\xi }e^{ip_k}\end{array}\right),$$
(13)
which would serve now as our source UL model. Since NUL Lax operators usually involve derivatives of the canonical variables or operators with current-like commutation relations $`[v(x),v(y)]=\pm i\alpha \delta ^{}(xy),`$ we introduce for our lattice construction the discrete version of such fields $`v_k^\pm `$, defining their commutators in the form

$$[v_k^\pm ,v_l^\pm ]=\pm i\frac{\alpha }{2}(\delta _{k+1,l}\delta _{k,l+1}).$$
(14)
The fact that these nonultralocal  fields can be realized through canonical variables as

$$v_k^+=\frac{\alpha }{2}(u_{k+1}u_k)p_k,v_k^{}=\frac{\alpha }{2}(u_{k+1}u_k)p_k$$
(15)
would play a significant role in our construction.

Remarkably, the structure of (13), more specifically the same exponential dependence as $`e^{p_k}`$ for all its elements permits us to choose a simple gauge operator in the form $`D_j=e^{i\frac{\alpha }{2}u_j\sigma ^3}`$. Applying this matrix gauge operator in transformation (3) on the LLM-like Lax operator (13) and changing from canonical to current-like variables as in (15) we can generate finally the Lax operator of our quantum integrable NUL model.

Straightforward calculations yield the explicit form of this $`L`$-operator as

$$L_k^{(1)}(u)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi W_k^+W_k^+\\ W_k^{}\frac{1}{\xi }W_k^{}\end{array}\right),W_k^\pm =e^{iv_k^\pm },\xi =e^{i\alpha u},$$
(16)
expressed completely through variables $`v_k^\pm `$ having nonultralocal commutation relations (14).

With all required objects in hand we must check now that the essential conditions (6) are fulfilled in our construction. Indeed we find that the first of these conditions is satisfied by both the Lax operators (13) and (16) yielding the explicit form of the braiding matrix $`Z`$ as

$$Z_{12}=e^{i\frac{\alpha }{2}\sigma _1^3}.$$
(17)
The second condition on the other hand holds due to the symmetry of the trigonometric $`R`$-matrix (8) and the specific form of our gauge operator. Consequently, as shown above, Lax operator (16) should also satisfy the braided YBE relations (4), (5) and (7). The associated $`R`$-matrix is given by the same (8) and the braiding matrix as in (17). Thus we conclude that the Lax operator (16) we have generated from a LLM-like model (13) represents a new integrable quantum NUL model. The full set of conserved quantities for this integrable periodic model may be obtained directly from (7) through diagonal elements $`A(u),D(u)`$ of $`T^{nul}(u)`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }(u)=q^{\frac{1}{2}}A(u)+q^{\frac{1}{2}}D(u)=_n^N\xi ^{\pm n}c_{\pm n},\xi =e^{i\alpha u}`$. We may define the Hamiltonian of the model as $`H=c_{N2}(c_N)^1+c_{(N2)}(c_{}N)^1=2_j\mathrm{cos}(v_j^{}v_j^+\frac{\alpha }{2})`$. For finding the dynamical equations however we have to use the noncanonical commutation relations (14) together with

$$[v_k^+,v_l^{}]=i\frac{\alpha }{2}(\delta _{k+1,l}2\delta _{k,l}+\delta _{k,l+1}),$$
(18)
which is also compatible with the realization (15). Note the intriguing fact that the noncommutativity of the operators (14) and (18) at different sites induce nearest-neighbour interaction in the model.
4. Light-cone sine-Gordon as NUL model:

For constructing our next model we choose $`c_+^{}=c_{}^{}=0,c_+^+=c_{}^+=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or its complementary set $`c_+^{}=c_{}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta },c_+^+=c_{}^+=0,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the lattice constant. Evidently both of these choices give $`M^\pm =0`$ and reduce (10) to a simplified algebra

$$[S_k^+,S_l^{}]=0,[S_k^3,S_l^\pm ]=\pm \delta _{kl}S_k^\pm ,$$
(19)
which may be realized as $`S_k^+=(S_k^{})^1=e^{ip_k},\alpha S_k^3=\alpha u_kp_k.`$ The Lax operators with the above two sets of choices for the central elements and using (19) therefore can be realized from (9) in the form

$$L_k^{()}(u)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }\xi e^{i(\alpha u_kp_k)}e^{ip_k}\\ e^{ip_k}\mathrm{\Delta }\xi e^{i(\alpha u_kp_k)}\end{array}\right),L_k^{(+)}(u)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{\xi }e^{i(\alpha u_k+p_k)}e^{ip_k}\\ e^{ip_k}\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{\xi }e^{i(\alpha u_k+p_k)}\end{array}\right),$$
(20)
representing two quantum integrable UL lattice models, which we intend to use as our source model for constructing NUL systems. Note that the right operator $`L_k^{(+)}(u)`$ can be obtained formally from the left one $`L_k^{()}(u)`$ through a simple mapping $`\xi \frac{1}{\xi },\alpha \alpha `$. Therefore we deal explicitly with the left case only and recover the results related to the complementary right case through the above mapping. Interestingly, one can choose the gauge operator $`\stackrel{~}{D}_j`$ in the present case as the square of that considered above for the LLM, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{D}_j(\alpha )=D_j^2=e^{i\alpha u_j\sigma ^3}`$ for the left model and applying gauge transformation (3) as $`q^{\frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{D}_{j+1}(\alpha )(L_j^{()}(u)\sigma ^1)\stackrel{~}{D}_j^1(\alpha )=L_j^{()lcsg}(u)`$ construct the Lax operator

$$L_j^{()lcsg}(u)=\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i(p_j\alpha u_j)}\mathrm{\Delta }\xi e^{i(p_j+\alpha u_{j+1})}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }\xi e^{i(p_j+\alpha u_{j+1})}e^{i(p_j\alpha u_j)}\end{array}\right),u_ju_{j+1}u_j$$
(21)
with $`\xi =e^{i\alpha u}.`$ Note that (21) is the Lax operator of an exact lattice version of the LCSG model and represents indeed a new quantum NUL model. We can check directly that both the source UL model $`L_k^{()}(u)`$ in (20) and the $`L`$-operator of the NUL model (21) respect conditions (6) required for the scheme, giving the braiding matrix in the explicit form

$$Z_{12}^{()lsgg}=e^{i\alpha \sigma ^3\sigma ^3}.$$
(22)
Therefore the Lax operator (21) satisfies also the braided YBE (4), (7) and the nonultralocal relation (5) with $`R`$-matrix (8) and $`Z`$-matrix (22), which establishes the quantum integrability of the NUL model we have generated. The significance of the model is revealed at the continuum limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, when it reduces to the light-cone sine-Gordon field model. At this field limit we have $`p_j\mathrm{\Delta }_tu(x),\alpha u_ju(x),\alpha u_{j+1}u(x)+\mathrm{\Delta }_xu(x)`$. Defining therefore $`_tu\pm _xu=\frac{1}{2}_\pm u`$ in the light-cone coordinates it is not difficult to show that the lattice LCSG (21) reduces to the well known field operator form $`L_j^{()lcsg}(u)I+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{U}_{}(\mathrm{x})`$, where $`\mathrm{U}_{}(\mathrm{x})=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{i}\frac{1}{2}_{}\mathrm{u}(\mathrm{x})\xi \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{iu}(\mathrm{x})}\\ \xi \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{iu}(\mathrm{x})}\mathrm{i}\frac{1}{2}_{}\mathrm{u}(\mathrm{x})\end{array}\right),`$ yields one of the well known Lax pair: $`_{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{U}_{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

It is intriguing to follow that a complementary right LCSG similarly may be generated from $`L_k^{(+)}(u)`$ in (20) as $`q^{\frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{D}_{j+1}(\alpha )(L_j^{(+)}(u)\sigma ^1)\stackrel{~}{D}_j^1(\alpha )=L_j^{(+)lcsg}(u)`$, which represents again a new quantum integrable NUL model associated with the same R-matrix, while the braiding matrix is given by $`Z_{12}^{(+)lsgg}=e^{i\alpha \sigma ^3\sigma ^3}.`$ Note that the NUL model $`L_j^{(+)lcsg}(u)`$ can be obtained formally from $`L_j^{()lcsg}(u)`$ by using the same mapping $`\xi \frac{1}{\xi },\alpha \alpha `$ and yields at the continuum limit $`L_j^{(+)lcsg}(u)I\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{U}_+(\mathrm{x})`$, with $`\mathrm{U}_+(\mathrm{x})`$ being the other component of the Lax pair. Zero curvature condition: $`_{}U_+_+U_++[U_+,U_{}]=0`$ involving both Lax operators gives the well known form of the sine-Gordon field equation in light-cone coordinates: $`_+^2u=2\mathrm{sin}2u`$.

As it has been shown recently , the NUL quantum mKdV<sup>(±)</sup> models can also be obtained by gauge transforming some UL models . It is remarkable that these UL models may be given exactly by the same source models $`L_k^{(\pm )}(u)`$ (20) found here for the LCSG. However the gauge operator required for constructing the mKdV should be given by $`D_j(\alpha )=(\stackrel{~}{D}_j(\alpha ))^{\frac{1}{2}}=e^{i\frac{1}{2}\alpha u_j\sigma ^3}`$ and therefore the braiding matrix for the mKdV is related similarly to that of the LCSG as $`Z^{(\pm )mkdv}=(Z^{(\pm )lcsg})^{\frac{1}{2}}=q^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^3\sigma ^3}`$, as can be confirmed by comparing  with our result. It is intriguing to note that, the gauge operator $`D_j(\alpha )`$ for the mKdV model coincides on the other hand with that for our new nonultralocal LLM-type model, we have found above.

For exact solution of the eigenvalue problem of the Hamiltonian and higher conserved operators for quantum NUL systems, one needs modification of the algebraic Bethe ansatz (ABA). Such a formulation for the NUL mKdV has already been developed in . Since the quantum NUL systems that we have discovered here are very close in structure to the quantum mKdV, we can apply successfully the modified ABA to the present models following closely the steps of the quantum mKdV and therefore we omit them here.

5. Conclusion

It seems that the gauge generation scheme adopted here for constructing new quantum integrable NUL models starting from ultralocal ones is far more promising than might have been expected and applied for, so far. Our success encourages us to look for  the explicit applicability of this scheme to the well known NUL models, e.g. quantum mapping , Coulomb-gas CFT related models , WZWN model  etc. It would certainly be desirable to exploit this scheme for solving the challenging problem of establishing the braided YBE formulation for NUL models like nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model, derivative NLS, complex sine-Gordon model etc.


text:
# References

DCPT-02/57

hep-th/0207219

A Large-D Weyl Invariant String Model
in Anti-de Sitter Space

Ian Davies***I.J.Davies@durham.ac.uk and Paul MansfieldP.R.W.Mansfield@durham.ac.uk

Centre for Particle Theory, Department of Mathematical Sciences

University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, U.K.

## Abstract

Strings propagating in $`AdS_{D+1}`$ are made Weyl invariant to leading order in large $`D`$ by a ghost-matter coupling that preserves the Poincaré symmetry of the boundary.

It has been proposed   that Wilson loops for gauge theories in flat space with coordinates $`X^i`$ are described by strings in a target space with metric of the form

$$ds^2=d\phi ^2+z^2(\phi )\underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}(dX^i)^2.$$
(1)
The extra coordinate $`\phi `$ is the Liouville mode and the ‘warp factor’ is taken to be

$$z^2(\phi )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\phi }{l}\right)$$

so that the metric is that of Euclidean $`AdS_{D+1}`$ space with radius of curvature $`l`$. (This metric also occurs in brane-world models and in the $`AdS`$/CFT correspondence.) When the curvature is small on the string scale, i.e. when $`\alpha ^{^{}}/l^2<<1`$, the conditions for Weyl invariance of the string theory can be reliably computed in perturbation theory and require the presence of $`X^i`$-dependent fields such as the dilaton . These break the space-time symmetries of the original flat space and add to the complexity of the model. However one would also like to investigate the regime where $`\alpha ^{^{}}/l^2`$ cannot be assumed small so that the finite length of the string plays a significant role. Such situations can arise when the curvature of the target space geometry is appreciable at the string scale. In order to probe such situations one must either develop non-perturbative techniques, or identify some other dimensionless parameter in the theory which can be taken to be small in the regime of interest. One could then perform a perturbative computation of the Weyl anomaly with such a parameter and see how the conventional conditions for Weyl invariance are changed. We will analyze string propagation in the target space of the form (1) in an expansion in inverse powers of the dimension. $`D`$ plays an analogous role to $`N`$ in the $`O(N)`$ nonlinear sigma model, which has a well-known large $`N`$ expansion . By working to leading order we obtain a Weyl invariant theory by tuning $`D`$ such that $`D+1=26`$, and by including a coupling between the Faddeev-Popov ghost sector of the worldsheet theory and the “matter” field $`\phi `$. Such a coupling can, in part, be interpreted as the presence of a dilaton field that depends only on $`\phi `$. In the context of Polyakov’s conjecture , this means that the dilaton no longer breaks Poincaré and rotational invariance in the boundary gauge theory, unlike the dilaton field that one requires in the conventional small $`\alpha ^{^{}}/l^2`$ Weyl anomaly analysis. (Coupling matter and ghost sectors has been studied in different contexts in  .)

To pursue the analogy with the $`O(N)`$ nonlinear sigma model we write the string partition function in terms of coordinates $`W^i=zX^i`$ so that

$$Z=𝒟g𝒟z𝒟W\mathrm{exp}\left(S[g,W,z]\right)$$

with

$$S[g,W,z]=\frac{1}{4\pi }d^2\xi \sqrt{g}\left[g^{ab}l^2\frac{_az_bz}{z^2}+W^i\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{z}\mathrm{\Delta }z\right)W^i\right]$$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the usual covariant worldsheet Laplacian, and we work in units such that $`\alpha ^{^{}}`$ is equal to one. The indices $`a,b`$ label the two worldsheet coordinates $`\xi _1,\xi _2`$. We ignore world sheet boundary effects. Performing the Gaussian $`W`$-integral generates the functional determinant of the operator

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{z}\mathrm{\Delta }z\right)$$

The explicit dependence of $`\text{Det}^{D/2}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ on the metric scale $`\varphi (\xi )`$ in the conformal gauge $`g_{ab}(\xi )=e^{\varphi (\xi )}\delta _{ab}`$ can be found using heat kernel techniques,

$`\text{Det}^{D/2}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle d^2\xi \left[\frac{D}{96\pi }(_a\varphi )^2\frac{D}{8\pi }\frac{\varphi }{z}_a^2z+\mathrm{}\right]}\right)`$ (2)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle d^2\xi \left[A+B+\mathrm{}\right]}\right)`$
where $`(\mathrm{})`$ represents $`\varphi `$-independent terms that we will consider in a moment. The first term in (2), $`A`$, is the usual contribution to the Weyl anomaly from $`D`$ free bosons , and can be combined with the standard Faddeev-Popov gauge fixing determinant to give a factor of

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{D26}{96\pi }d^2\xi \left[(_a\varphi )^2+\lambda e^\varphi \right]\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{D26}{96\pi }S_L\right)$$

where $`S_L`$ is the Liouville action for $`\varphi (\xi )`$ in conformal gauge. (The integral over $`z`$ will produce a further contribution to this.)

In critical string theory the overall $`\varphi `$ dependence of $`Z`$ must be cancelled for consistency. This is also true in non-critical string theory since the split of the scale of the metric into the dynamical $`\phi `$ and the fiducial $`\varphi `$ is arbitrary  . Clearly terms proportional to $`S_L`$ can be cancelled by tuning $`D`$ (to a large value).

The second term in (2), $`B`$, is more problematic. In the usual small $`\alpha ^{^{}}/l^2`$ calculation similar terms would appear from expanding the action in Gaussian normal coordinates about a point, so

$$G_{\mu \nu }(\widehat{X})_a\widehat{X}^\mu _b\widehat{X}^\nu =\delta _{\mu \nu }_ax^\mu _bx^\nu \frac{1}{3}R_{\mu \lambda \nu \kappa }(C)x^\lambda x^\kappa _ax^\mu _bx^\nu +\mathrm{}$$

where $`\widehat{X}^\mu =C^\mu +x^\mu `$. Contracting $`x^\lambda `$ with $`x^\kappa `$ produces a term proportional to $`\varphi R_{\mu \nu }_ax^\mu _bx^\nu `$. A partial integration would turn this into something resembling $`B`$ when the latter is expanded about a constant value of $`z`$. Further contraction of $`_ax^\mu `$ with $`_bx^\nu `$ will contribute to the dilaton beta function at sub-leading order. The term in (2) is, by contrast, of leading order in $`D`$. As we will see the $`z`$-propagator is different at leading order in the large-$`D`$ expansion, consequently $`B`$ does not contribute to the dilaton beta-function, but it does make the $`z`$-propagator depend on $`\varphi `$. This does not happen in the small $`\alpha ^{^{}}/l^2`$ calculation because $`x^2x`$ is proportional to the equation of motion. So to make the $`z`$-propagator independent of $`\varphi `$ at leading order in $`D`$ we need to cancel $`B`$. This can be done without breaking the symmetries of the $`X`$ space if we couple $`z`$ to the ghosts.

Firstly “bosonize” the Faddeev-Popov ghosts by writing the Faddeev-Popov determinant as

$$\text{Det}_{FP}^{^{}}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{26}{96\pi }S_L\right)𝒟\psi \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{96\pi }d^2\xi \sqrt{g}\left[\psi \mathrm{\Delta }\psi +2\beta R^{(2)}\psi \right]\right)$$

where $`R^{(2)}`$ is the scalar curvature of $`g_{ab}`$, the prime denotes omission of the zero modes, and $`\beta ^2=25`$. Adding

$$S_{ct}=\frac{D}{8\pi \beta }d^2\xi \sqrt{g}\frac{\psi }{z}\mathrm{\Delta }z$$

to the action cancels $`B`$ in equation (2) on integration over $`\psi (\xi )`$. Integration by parts shows that this counterterm can be interpreted as a dilaton field  of the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)\mathrm{ln}(z)`$, as well as a coupling of the target space metric to the ghost $`\psi (\xi )`$ of the form $`ds_{gh}^2(\psi /z)dz^2`$.

In order to complete the calculation of the partition function we must also determine the $`z`$-dependence of $`\text{Det}^{D/2}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. This is facilitated by the $`1/D`$ expansion. We write the $`z(\xi )`$ field as

$$z(\xi )=z_0+\frac{\overline{z}(\xi )}{\sqrt{D}}$$

where $`z_0`$ is a constant on the world-sheet and $`\overline{z}(\xi )`$ are quantum fluctuations about $`z_0`$ to be integrated over. To obtain an effective action for the $`\overline{z}(\xi )`$ fluctuations, the determinant of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is expanded in powers of $`\overline{z}(\xi )`$ retaining terms up to $`O(1)`$ in $`D`$ . This is most easily done in momentum space and gives the leading order effective theory

$$Z\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{D26}{96\pi }S_L\right)\times 𝒟\overline{z}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{z_0^2}\overline{z}(p)\overline{z}(p)p^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\right)$$
(3)
(note that the Fourier transform of the $`\overline{z}`$-propagator is not the usual $`1/p^2`$, as was mentioned earlier. It is the improved ultra-violet behaviour that is responsible for $`B`$ not contributing to the dilaton beta-function in next to leading order). $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ is a finite overall scale. We need to integrate over the fluctuations to obtain the final form of the Weyl anomaly, and this will involve computing the $`\varphi `$-dependence of the determinant of the operator whose Fourier representation is given in equation (3). Again, heat kernel techniques and the fact that this operator derives from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (whose $`\varphi `$-dependence is readily found to be $`\delta _\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }=\delta \varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }`$) gives a contribution to the Weyl anomaly equal to that of a single free boson. Hence, the final Weyl anomaly is found to be

$$Z\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{D+126}{96\pi }S_L\right)$$

and so $`Z`$ is Weyl invariant when $`D+1=26`$, as usual.

In conclusion we have found that to leading order in a large-$`D`$ expansion it is possible to construct a Weyl invariant string theory in Euclidean $`AdS_{D+1}`$ space without breaking the symmetries associated with the boundary. This is achieved by coupling the $`z`$ coordinate to the ghosts, resulting in part in a $`z`$-dependent dilaton. The $`1/D`$ expansion promotes to leading order terms that are usually negligible for small $`\alpha ^{^{}}/l^2`$. The question of whether the ghost-matter coupling is necessary to achieve Weyl invariance, rather than just sufficient, is one which warrants further investigation, as is the question of next to leading order effects.

Acknowledgements

Ian Davies would like to thank James Gregory, Ken Lovis, Tony Padilla and David Page for helpful discussions. Ian Davies is supported by a PPARC research studentship.


text:
# Boson Stars with Self-Interacting Quantum Scalar Fields

## I Introduction

The presence of dark matter has been established indirectly in a wide range of scale of the universe, from that of individual galaxies to the entire universe itself . Though direct measurements of the nature of the dark matter have not yielded any result, speculations on its composition vary from baryonic to non-baryonic matter. Particles like axions and neutralinos are the specific targets for direct observation since the indirect measurements like rotation curves of spiral galaxies and others do not depend on the presence of a particular type of particles. One of the most promising candidates for dark matter is the boson star, which was discovered theoretically over thirty years ago . Until now, the reality of boson stars has been successfully applied to various plausible physical situations .

The boson star is a self-gravitating compact solitonic object made up of bosonic fields. Non-interacting complex scalar fields  were originally considered for the constituents composing boson stars. In this case, the resultant configurations are typically ‘mini’-boson stars, which have small size and mass. This result originates from the following specific feature of boson stars; the boson star is protected from gravitational collapse by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, instead of the Pauli exclusion principle that applies to fermionic stars, and the characteristic length scale of the former is much smaller than that of the latter. It has been shown that this situation can be dramatically changed by introducing self-interacting complex scalar fields. The self-interaction effectively generates a repulsive force and the maximum mass of stable boson stars can be enhanced up to a size of the order of ordinary fermionic stars ***Analyltic evaluation of the maximum mass and higher order self-interaction effect to boson star configuration can be found in ..

On the other hand, there is another type of gravitationally bound solitonic object known as oscillating soliton star composed of classical real scalar fields . In this case, the spacetime geometry and real scalar field satisfying the Klein-Gordon-Einstein (KGE) equations are time-dependent (periodic in time). Such objects are of interest to study dark matter, since the most promising candidates for dark matter are described by real scalar fields such as the axion . However, even though these solutions are stable with respect to some simple perturbations, it is still unclear whether the stability of the oscillating star can be maintained with general perturbations. Moreover, due to its oscillating feature, real scalar fields may not form primordial solitonic objects in the early universe  (cf. ), which are expected to play important roles in galaxy formation, the microwave background, and formation of protostars.

In this paper, we report some very interesting results for the self-gravitating solitonic object formed with real scalar fields: there exist gravitationally bound non-oscillating (static) objects composed of quantum real scalar fields, instead of classical real ones. Our (zero-node) solitonic solution is quite similar to the solutions describing boson stars formed with classical  and quantum complex scalar fields (the latter will be studied in this paper). The only difference between them at the equation of motion level is just the effective coefficient of the self-interaction term (within the validity considered in this paper, i.e. zero-node solutions, the semi-classical and Hartree (mean-field) approximations). Therefore, non-self-interacting quantum/classical complex and quantum real scalar fields coupled to gravity can form identical static mini-boson stars.

On the other hand, as many viable cosmological scenarios indicate, quantum fields present in early stage of the universe may experience phase transitions by temperature changes. Thus, if the boson star forms in the early universe, it would undergo phase transitions. It might be an interesting issue to consider the consequence of such a phase transition for the boson star.In , a boson star in an evolving cosmological background with time varying gravitational constant (i.e., in the context of scalar-tensor theory of gravity) has been considered. What is the fate of the scalar field and what are the final products after the phase transition, which is presumably second order? In this paper, as a first step, we consider a simple toy model; without speculating on the detailed procedure of the phase transition, we introduce a plausible form of the Lagrangian for real scalar fields coupled to gravity, which would give the physics after phase transition, and examine that there may still exist boson stars. If they continue to exist, what are the differences between the boson stars before and after phase transition.

In the next section, we start by studying boson stars composed of quantum complex scalar fields, and compare them with the boson stars formed with the classical complex scalar fields . The boson stars composed of quantum real scalar fields are studied in Sect.3. In Sect.4, we consider boson stars composed of quantum real scalar fields that undergo a second-order phase transition. Disscussions and some remarks are given in Sect.5.

## II Complex quantum scalar fields

Consider a self-interacting complex scalar field Lagrangian given by

$$_{\mathrm{matt}}=\frac{1}{2}^\mu \varphi ^{}_\mu \varphi \frac{1}{2}m^2\left|\varphi \right|^2\frac{\lambda }{4}\left|\varphi \right|^4,$$
(1)
where we assume that the coupling to gauge fields is negligible. Then, the field equations of the scalar field are given by

$$^\mu _\mu \varphi m^2\varphi \lambda \left|\varphi \right|^2\varphi =0,$$
(2)
and its complex conjugate. For convenience, we introduce two real scalar fields, defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\varphi +\varphi ^{}\right),\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\varphi \varphi ^{}\right),$$
(3)
and rewrite the field equations as

$`^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_1m^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1\lambda \left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
$`^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_2m^2\mathrm{\Phi }_2\lambda \left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (5)
General expressions for solutions to Eqs. (4) can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nlm}{}}\left(a_{nlm}\zeta (r)_{nl}Y_m^le^{i\omega _{nl}^\zeta t}+a_{nlm}^{}\zeta (r)_{nl}^{}(Y_m^l)^{}e^{i\omega _{nl}^\zeta t}\right),`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nlm}{}}\left(b_{nlm}\eta (r)_{nl}Y_m^le^{i\omega _{nl}^\eta t}+b_{nlm}^{}\eta (r)_{nl}^{}(Y_m^l)^{}e^{i\omega _{nl}^\eta t}\right).`$ (7)
As quantum scalar fields, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ become operators

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nlm}{}}\left(\widehat{a}_{nlm}\zeta (r)_{nl}Y_m^le^{i\omega _{nl}^\zeta t}+\widehat{a}_{nlm}^{}\zeta (r)_{nl}^{}(Y_m^l)^{}e^{i\omega _{nl}^\zeta t}\right),`$ (8)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nlm}{}}\left(\widehat{b}_{nlm}\eta (r)_{nl}Y_m^le^{i\omega _{nl}^\eta t}+\widehat{b}_{nlm}^{}\eta (r)_{nl}^{}(Y_m^l)^{}e^{i\omega _{nl}^\eta t}\right),`$ (9)
where $`\widehat{a}_{nlm}^{}`$, $`\widehat{b}_{nlm}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_{nlm}`$, $`\widehat{b}_{nlm}`$ are the creation and annihilation operators, respectively, and they satisfy the commutation relations $`[\widehat{a}_\alpha ^{},\widehat{a}_\alpha ^{}]=`$ $`[\widehat{b}_\alpha ^{},\widehat{b}_\alpha ^{}]=\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$. In the following, only the ground state of the system, $`n=1,l=m=0`$, will be considered and the condition $`\omega _{01}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_1}=\omega _{01}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_2}=\omega `$ is assumed. In addition, we assume that in the ground state, which is denoted by $`|N>=|N_{\mathrm{\Phi }_1}>|N_{\mathrm{\Phi }_2}>`$, the number of particles created by $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ is the same as that associated with $`\widehat{b}^{}`$, i.e. $`N_{\mathrm{\Phi }_1}=N_{\mathrm{\Phi }_2}=N`$. In general, $`\zeta (r)`$ and $`\eta (r)`$ are complex functions, but here we restrict them to real ones. To linearize the field equations (4), we adopt the Hartree approximation such that $`\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^2\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1<N|(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^2)|N>\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1`$.

On the other hand, we also use the semi-classical approximation in Einstein’s equations

$$G_\nu ^\mu =8\pi G<N|\widehat{T}_\nu ^\mu |N>,$$
(10)
where $`G_\nu ^\mu `$ is the Einstein tensor and $`\widehat{T}_\nu ^\mu `$ is the energy-momentum operator that is obtained by quantizing the energy-momentum tensor

$`T_\nu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(^\mu \varphi ^{}_\nu \varphi +^\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi ^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_\nu ^\mu \left(^\alpha \varphi ^{}_\alpha \varphi +m^2\left|\varphi \right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\left|\varphi \right|^4\right)`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_1_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_1+^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_2_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_\nu ^\mu \left(^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_1_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_1+^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_2_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_2+m^2\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2\right)^2\right).`$ (12)
The background spacetime is restricted to be static and spherically symmetric. Thus, in Schwarzschild coordinates, it can be written as

$$ds^2=B(r)dt^2+A(r)dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(13)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ denotes the metric of a two-dimensional unit sphere.

After performing some algebraic calculations and reparametrizations in Eqs. (10) and (4), we obtain the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A^2x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}+1\right)(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4}}\left(3\left(\sigma _1^4+\sigma _2^4\right)+4\sigma _1^2\sigma _2^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\left(\left(\sigma _1^{}\right)^2+\left(\sigma _2^{}\right)^2\right),`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{ABx}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}1\right)(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4}}\left(3\left(\sigma _1^4+\sigma _2^4\right)+4\sigma _1^2\sigma _2^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\left(\left(\sigma _1^{}\right)^2+\left(\sigma _2^{}\right)^2\right),`$ (15)
$`\sigma _1^{\prime \prime }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2B}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{2A}}\right)\sigma _1^{}+A\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}1\right)\sigma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2)\sigma _1\right]=0,`$ (16)
$`\sigma _2^{\prime \prime }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2B}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{2A}}\right)\sigma _2^{}+A\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}1\right)\sigma _2\mathrm{\Lambda }(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2)\sigma _2\right]=0,`$ (17)
where $`xmr`$, $`\sigma _1\left(4\pi GN\right)^{1/2}\zeta (r)`$, $`\sigma _2\left(4\pi GN\right)^{1/2}\eta (r)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega /m`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda /4\pi Gm^2`$, and the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`x`$. In Eqs. (17)Note that while Eqs.(4) and (11) are invariant under a rotation in the internal space given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }+\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }+\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a constant, in Eq.(17) such a symmetry does not exist. This is simply because $`\sigma _1`$, $`\sigma _2`$ in Eq.(17) are not field variables but (redefined) radial functions of the mode solutions. So, there is no reason maintaining the internal symmetry in the level of Eq.(17)., we have used the approximation, $`N1`$. In this paper, we consider only a special type of solution given by $`\sigma _1=\sigma _2=\sigma /\sqrt{2}`$. Then, the equations become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A^2x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}+1\right)\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{5\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8}}\sigma ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sigma ^{}\right)^2}{A}},`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{ABx}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}1\right)\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{5\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8}}\sigma ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sigma ^{}\right)^2}{A}}.`$ (19)
$`\sigma ^{\prime \prime }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2B}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{2A}}\right)\sigma ^{}+A\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}1\right)\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma ^3\right]=0`$ (20)
Note that comparing (18)-(20) with the KGE equations for classical complex scalar fields , only the coefficients of self-interaction terms in (18) and (19) are changed as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/25\mathrm{\Lambda }/8`$, while the field equation (20) remains without any change. Such a change results in modifications of some properties of the boson stars, especially the maximum mass of stable boson stars. This can be seen in the following numerical analysis.

Substituting an ansatz of the metric function $`A`$ by

$$A\left(x\right)=\left[1\frac{2\left(x\right)}{x}\right]^1,$$
(21)
into the above equations and using the boundary conditions

$$(0)=0,\sigma (0)=\sigma _c,\sigma ^{^{}}(0)=0,\mathrm{and}B(\mathrm{})=1,$$
(22)
we obtain the mass of boson stars as a function of $`\sigma _c`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=100`$ in Fig.1. In Fig.1, it is shown that the maximum mass of boson stars composed of quantum complex scalar fields is greater than that in the case of classical complex scalar fields. This is true for other values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as can be seen in Fig.2. The lines in Fig.2 are chosen in a way that they hold for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$; in the case of quantum fields ($`5\mathrm{\Lambda }/8`$) $`M_{\mathrm{max}}0.223\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}M_p^2/m`$, while $`M_{\mathrm{max}}0.22\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}M_p^2/m`$ for the classical fields ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$) . It has also to be mentioned that in Fig.1, there is a crossing (at $`\sigma _c0.132`$) of the two mass-curves, and when $`\sigma _c>0.132`$, the mass of the boson stars formed by the classical complex scalar field is greater than that of the boson stars formed by a quantum complex scalar field.

As mentioned above, the difference between the two cases of classical and quantum fields is in the coefficient of the self-interaction term in the Einstein equations (18) and (19), i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ for the classical field and $`5\mathrm{\Lambda }/8`$ for the quantum one. Why does the difference appear? In fact, the KGE equations for the classical complex scalar field considered in Ref. become the equations for a “real” field§§§The quoted term of “real” field will be used for the spatial part of a mode function, not for an ordinary field. after eliminating the time-dependent part. This is because the authors of Ref. have taken the solution of the complex field which has the form of $`\varphi (r,t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(r)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$ with real $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$. In our case, the KGE equations given in (17) are for two “real” fields. Even though we chose a special form of the solution given by $`\sigma _1=\sigma _2=\sigma /\sqrt{2}`$ to compare with the classical case studied in , the resulting equations given by (18)-(20) already include the interaction between the two “real” fields as well as self-interactions of each fields, and this is the reason why the coefficients of self-interaction term are effectively different from each other in the quantum and classical cases, even though we have started with the same Largrangian (1).

Roughly speaking, since larger self-interaction energy exerts greater repulsive force in the formation of boson stars, the ‘quantum’ effect, i.e. using the quantum field rather than the classical one to form a boson star, enhances the maximum mass of the boson stars. (In fact, when the self-interaction is introduced, density of the boson star is approximately proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ so that the boson stars become dilute. However, since its radius is approximately proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}`$, the maximum mass of the boson star is to be proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}`$. This argument is available for the case that the self-interaction energy is comparable to the mass energy of the field, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>>0`$. See Ref. for a detailed analysis.)

Of course, the validity of our argument has to be restricted to solutions that are considered in this paper and . However, it is reasonable to study the difference between the roles of classical and quantum fields in the formation of boson stars. Another point that has to be mentioned is that the mass curves in Fig.1 cross each other at $`\sigma _c0.132`$, and the boson star masses for the classical and quantum cases reverse in magnitude. This phenomenon can not be described by the above argument. To understand such a behavior, a detailed analytical approach would be required.

## III Real quantum scalar fields

Now, let us consider a real scalar field for the formation of boson stars. The real massive scalar field Lagrangian including self-interaction is written as

$$_{\mathrm{matt}}=\frac{1}{2}^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2}m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\frac{\lambda }{4}\mathrm{\Phi }^4.$$
(23)
And the energy-momentum tensor and field equation are obtained as

$`T_\nu ^\mu =^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_\nu ^\mu \left(^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }+m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^4\right),`$ (24)
$`^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }m^2\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^3=0.`$ (25)
From the general form of solutions of the field equation, the field operator is given by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\underset{nlm}{}\left(\widehat{d}_{nlm}\mathrm{\Phi }(r)_{nl}Y_m^le^{i\omega _{nl}t}+\widehat{d}_{nlm}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(r)_{nl}(Y_m^l)^{}e^{i\omega _{nl}t}\right),$$
(26)
where the creation and annihilation operators, $`\widehat{d}_{nlm}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{d}_{nlm}`$, satisfy the commutation relations $`[\widehat{d}_\alpha ^{},\widehat{d}_\alpha ^{}]=\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$. Again we only consider the ground state. Note that we take the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ as a complex function. Then, defining new real functions

$$\xi (r)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(r)+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(r)\right),\chi (r)\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(r)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(r)\right),$$
(27)
and taking the Hartree and semi-classical approximations, we obtain the KGE equations given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A^2x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}+1\right)(\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4}}\left(\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\left(\left(\rho _1^{}\right)^2+\left(\rho _2^{}\right)^2\right),`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{ABx}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}1\right)(\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2){\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4}}\left(\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\left(\left(\rho _1^{}\right)^2+\left(\rho _2^{}\right)^2\right),`$ (29)
$`\rho _1^{\prime \prime }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2B}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{2A}}\right)\rho _1^{}+A\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}1\right)\rho _1\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2)\rho _1\right]=0,`$ (30)
$`\rho _2^{\prime \prime }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2B}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{2A}}\right)\rho _2^{}+A\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}1\right)\rho _2\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2)\rho _2\right]=0,`$ (31)
where $`xmr`$, $`\rho _1\left(4\pi GN\right)^{1/2}\xi (r)`$, $`\rho _2\left(4\pi GN\right)^{1/2}\chi (r)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega /m`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda /4\pi Gm^2`$, and we use the metric (13) and the approximation $`N1`$. Taking a special form of the solution for $`\rho _1=\rho _2=\sigma /\sqrt{2}`$, above equations become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A^2x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}+1\right)\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4}}\sigma ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sigma ^{}\right)^2}{A}},`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{ABx}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}1\right)\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4}}\sigma ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sigma ^{}\right)^2}{A}},`$ (33)
$`\sigma ^{\prime \prime }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2B}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{2A}}\right)\sigma ^{}+A\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}1\right)\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma ^3\right]=0.`$ (34)
Note that the above equations can be obtained from (17) by substituting $`\sigma _1=\sigma `$, $`\sigma _2=0`$.

Comparing Eqs. (32)-(34) with (18)-(20), we find that the only difference is the coefficient of the self-interaction term. Thus, the KGE equations (32)-(34) should have solutions that are much like the solutions describing the boson star composed of classical/quantum complex scalar fields. As mentioned above, since the coefficient $`3\mathrm{\Lambda }/4`$ is greater than those in the classical and quantum complex scalar field cases, which are $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ and $`5\mathrm{\Lambda }/8`$, respectively, the maximum mass of boson star formed by quantum real scalar fields should be larger than those of other cases. Indeed, using the ansatz (21) and the boundary conditions given by (22), we calculate numerically the mass of boson star as a function of $`\sigma _c`$ for various values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in Fig.3. In Fig.1 and Fig.2, we compare the maximum mass of boson stars composed of quantum real scalar fields with other cases, and confirm that the order of magnitude of maximum masses follows that of the coefficient of self-interaction term, i.e. $`3\mathrm{\Lambda }/4>5\mathrm{\Lambda }/8>\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$. (The solid line in Fig.2 is the relation $`M_{\mathrm{max}}0.225\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}M_p^2/m`$, which holds for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>>1`$ for the case of quantum real scalar fields.) This result can be interpreted in the same way as given in Sect.2; comparing (31) with (17), the Einstein equations in (31) include the term representing the interaction of “real” fields, $`(3\mathrm{\Lambda }/2)\rho _1^2\rho _2^2`$, which has a larger coefficient than in other cases, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma _1^2\sigma _2^2`$ in the Einstein equations in (17).

## IV Phase transition

In this section, we consider a phase transition that the boson star can undergo in early stages of the universe. Our model of the system after the phase transition is a simple one with Lagrangian for real scalar fields given by

$$_{\mathrm{matt}}^{ph}=\frac{1}{2}^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{1}{2}m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\frac{\lambda }{4}\mathrm{\Phi }^4.$$
(35)
In order to simulate the condition of phase transition the mass $`m`$ in the Largrangian is taken to be a function of time $`t`$. Then, in the process of the phase transition, we consider $`m^2m^2`$ after phase transition. Such a procedure is commonly used in describing a second-order phase transition, and compares well to the ideas of spontaneous symmetry breaking which is the theoretical underpinning for such a phase transition.

In this theory, the vacuum expectation value of the field does not vanish, but $`<\mathrm{\Phi }>_{vac}=m\sqrt{\lambda }`$. Now, shifting the field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }+m/\sqrt{\lambda }`$, and the potential energy, $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })V(\mathrm{\Phi })m^4/(4\lambda )`$, we obtain a new Lagrangian written as

$$_{\mathrm{matt}}^{new}=\frac{1}{2}^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\frac{\lambda }{4}\mathrm{\Phi }^4m\sqrt{\lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }^3.$$
(36)
Then, the energy-momentum tensor and field equation are evaluated from the Lagrangian (36);

$`T_\nu ^\mu =^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_\nu ^\mu \left(^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }+2m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^4+2m\sqrt{\lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }^3\right),`$ (37)
$`^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }2m^2\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^33m\sqrt{\lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }^2=0.`$ (38)
Comparing (37) and (38) with (24) and (25) for the case before the phase transition, we see that the scalar field becomes effectively more massive, $`m\sqrt{2}m`$, through the phase transition, and an additional non-linear interaction term with a coupling constant proportional to $`m\sqrt{\lambda }`$ is included in the energy-momentum tensor and field equation. Within the validity of the Hartree and semiclassical approximation, however, the non-linear coupling term proportional to $`m\sqrt{\lambda }`$ does not contribute to the KGE equations, i.e. $`<N|\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^3|N>=0`$ in the Einstein equations and $`<N|\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}|N>\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$ in the field equation due to the semiclassical and Hartree approximation, respectively. Thus, effectively the consequence of phase transition is just to enhance the mass of scalar fields.

Explicitly, the KGE equations are written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A^2x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}+2\right)\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4}}\sigma ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sigma ^{}\right)^2}{A}},`$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{ABx}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}2\right)\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4}}\sigma ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sigma ^{}\right)^2}{A}},`$ (40)
$`\sigma ^{\prime \prime }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2B}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{2A}}\right)\sigma ^{}+A\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B}}2\right)\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma ^3\right]=0.`$ (41)
More conveniently, reparametrizing the above equations by $`y\sqrt{2}x`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Omega }/\sqrt{2}`$, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A^2y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2}{B}}+1\right)\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8}}\sigma ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sigma ^{}\right)^2}{A}},`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{ABy}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2}{B}}1\right)\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8}}\sigma ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sigma ^{}\right)^2}{A}},`$ (43)
$`\sigma ^{\prime \prime }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2B}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{2A}}\right)\sigma ^{}+A\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2}{B}}1\right)\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}\sigma ^3\right]=0,`$ (44)
where prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`y`$. Note that the coefficient of the self-interaction term in (44) is not $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ but $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$, which is different from (20) and (34). The KGE equations given in (42)-(44) are obtained by just replacing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ in all the equations (32)-(34). In other words, the phase transition makes the scalar field effectively less self-interactive. This result apparently tells us that after phase transition the boson star composed of real scalar fields is to have a smaller mass than in the case before phase transition.

Such a loss in the boson star mass caused by the phase transition, however, does not appear to be a serious shortcoming for describing the dark matter. Rather, the fact that the boson star can still exist after a phase transition, seems to deserve our attention.

## V Discussions

In this paper, we have considered self-gravitating solitonic objects made up of quantum complex/real scalar fields. It has been shown that quantum complex/real scalar fields may compose the boson stars that are similar to that formed by classical complex scalar fields. The difference in the theories considered here appears only in the coefficient of the self-interaction term in the Einstein equations, i.e. they are $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ for classical complex fields, $`5\mathrm{\Lambda }/8`$ for quantum complex ones, and $`3\mathrm{\Lambda }/4`$ for quantum real ones. Numerically we have verified, Fig.1 and Fig.2, that the maximum mass of the boson stars increases with the magnitude of the coefficient of the self-interaction term. This result can be understood as follows; after eliminating the time-dependent part the KGE equations for the quantum complex/real scalar fields become effectively for two “real” fields as (17) and (31). Then, the equations include interactions between the two “real” fields as well as self-interactions of each fields. On the other hand, the KGE equations for the classical complex fields considered in Ref. become effectively for one “real” field after eliminating the time-dependent part and contain just the self-interaction term of the “real” field. Therefore, the coefficients of the resulting interaction terms in the KGE equations for the quantum complex/real scalar fields, which are given by (18), (19), and (32), (33), are greater than that in the case of the classical complex scalar fields. According to the argument that more interaction energy generates effectively a larger maximum mass of the boson star, the maximum masses of the boson stars composed of quantum complex/real scalar fields are greater than that in the case of classical complex scalar fields. This argument, however, has a limitation due to the presence of a crossing between the mass-curves in Fig.1 and Fig.2.

In fact, the existence of such solitonic solutions does not guarantee that the bosonic compact objects can be formed in the universe. (cf. ) It has been shown that there is a process that is able to describe the formation of the bosonic compact objects in the early universe . The process, which is similar to the way of describing the settling of collisionless star systems, starts with collapsing due to a gravitational instability analogous to the Jeans instability. Then, after undergoing the so called gravitational cooling mechanism ejecting part of the scalar field, bosonic compact objects could be formed from the primodial bosonic cloud. In the case of complex scalar fields, this mechanism works to form mini-boson stars. However, in general, the oscillatons made up of classical real scalar fields can be formed only in a short dynamical time scale, but are unstable in such a state. Thus, without introducing additional proviso such as fragmentation of the primodial bosonic cloud, the classical real scalar fields would be ruled out as a candidate for the dark matter.

In this paper, we have shown that quantum real scalar fields can form the boson star rather than the oscillaton. Especially, without the self-interaction $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, the mini-boson star composed of the quantum real scalar fields becomes exactly identical to that made up of the classical (and quantum) complex scalar fields. Thus, considering the quantum effect, the real scalar field can be saved, and can be the most promising candidate for dark matter.

As a corollary, which would be an interesting issue in the study of bosonic objects, the quantum complex/real scalar fields in excited states may be considered. The solitonic solutions, if they exist, are unlikely to be static in both (complex and real) cases. However, it is not obvious if such quantum fields in excited states can be ruled out completely as candidates for the dark matter.

Another interesting test for the boson star composed of the quantum real scalar fields is the second-order phase transition. In this analysis, we have shown that the phase transition makes the fields effectively more massive, $`m\sqrt{2}m`$, or equivalently less self-interactive, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$, and more importantly the boson stars can exist even after the phase transition.

###### Acknowledgement 1

We would like to thank B. Teshima for his prominent contribution to the numerical job, and S. P. Kim and S. Sengupta for their helpful discussions and comments. J.H. and C.H.L. also thank to D. Page and V. Frolov for their warm hospitality during staying at Univ. of Alberta. This work was supported in part by Korea Science and Engineering Foundation under Grant no. 1999-2-112-003-5 (J.H. and C.H.L.), the BK21 project at Hanyang University (C.H.L.), and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada(J.H., C.H.L. and F.C.K.).