text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

An unstable system of D-branes is characterized by the existence of tachyonic modes in the open string spectrum. Examples of such systems include brane-antibrane configurations in Type II string theory, and unstable D-branes in Type II and bosonic string theory. Since tachyons have a negative mass-squared they are expected to condense to a non-vanishing expectation value corresponding to the true vacuum of the open string theory, provided the complete potential is bounded from below.111In the bosonic case the potential is unbounded from below, and the condensate is at most meta-stable. On the other hand, since D-branes can also be thought of as states in a closed string theory, one expects an unstable system of such states to decay into a stable closed string state carrying the same charges. In particular, a system carrying no net charge should decay into the closed string vacuum.

Sen has conjectured that this decay is described by tachyon condensation . This conjecture makes three important predictions. First, the tachyon vacuum should be identified with the closed string vacuum, and therefore its negative energy density should precisely cancel the positive energy density of the unstable D-brane system. Second, soliton configurations of the tachyon field should be identified with lower-dimensional D-branes, and finally, all open string states should be removed from the spectrum in the tachyon vacuum. A complete proof of the conjecture presumably requires solving the full open string field theory associated with the unstable D-brane system, and there are recent indications that this may indeed be possible ,. Notwithstanding, a considerable amount of evidence for the correctness of the conjecture has accumulated from various sources, including low-energy world-volume field theory , conformal field theory , and level-truncated open string field theory . The latter in particular has been extremely successful in testing the first prediction, and all three have been useful in verifying the second. The last prediction of Sen’s conjecture, and probably the most significant, is less well established. Whereas the first two are essentially classical results, understanding how the open string states are removed from the spectrum appears to require taking quantum effects into account .

At the most basic level, an unstable D-brane system is described by a gauge field theory, where the tachyon plays the role of an ordinary Higgs field. The process of tachyon condensation then reduces to the Higgs mechanism. This simple description, while clearly not complete, already incorporates some of the features described above. In particular, the Higgs mechanism creates a mass gap for some of the fields, which can be seen as a low-energy manifestation of the removal of (some) open string states from the spectrum. In addition, spontaneously broken gauge theories exhibit stable soliton configurations, whose topological charges are classified by the homotopy groups of the vacuum manifold. These can in turn be identified with the topological charges of lower-dimensional D-branes via K-theory .

The systems studied most extensively are brane-antibrane configurations in Type II string theory, and unstable D-branes in Type II and bosonic string theory. The gauge group for $`N`$ brane-antibrane pairs is $`U(N)\times U(N)`$, and the tachyon transforms in the bi-fundamental representation. Tachyon condensation therefore breaks the group to the diagonal $`U(N)`$, and the vacuum manifold is equivalent to $`U(N)`$. The corresponding spectrum of stable solitons consists (for large enough $`N`$) of all even co-dimension configurations, in agreement with the spectrum of stable (BPS) D-branes. The gauge group on a system of $`N`$ unstable D-branes is $`U(N)`$, and the tachyon transforms in the adjoint representation. In this case the unbroken gauge group (for even $`N`$) is given by $`U(N/2)\times U(N/2)`$ . The resulting vacuum manifold is $`U(N)/(U(N/2)\times U(N/2))`$, which for large $`N`$ is equivalent to the universal classifying space $`BU`$. This time the spectrum of stable solitons consists of odd co-dimension configurations, which again agrees with the stable D-brane spectrum.222This is true for the Type II unstable D-branes, but not for the bosonic D-branes. Due to the cubic term in the tachyon potential for the latter, the gauge group $`U(N)`$ is actually unbroken in the bosonic case (see  for a discussion of the closely related $`SU(N)`$ case). The vacuum manifold is therefore trivial, which is consistent with the fact that all bosonic D-branes are unstable.

The aim of this paper is to extend the above picture to unstable D-brane systems in Type I string theory. Here we find eight classes of systems, with different gauge groups and different tachyon spectra. In section 2 we describe how to obtain the gauge group and tachyon representation in each case. In section 3 we make contact with real K-theory, generalizing the known relations between complex K-theory and unstable D-brane systems in Type II. In section 4 we discuss a couple of subtleties associated with the background D9-branes of Type I, and we end with some conclusions and open questions in section 5. For convenience, the main results of the paper are summarized in table 1 below.

## 2 Unstable Type I D-brane systems

In this section we shall determine the gauge group and tachyon representation for each of the unstable D-brane systems in Type I string theory. Some of this information, such as the gauge group for $`p=1,5`$ and 9, and the tachyon spectrum for $`p=3`$ and 7, can be obtained using the consistency conditions of . The rest, such as the gauge group and tachyon spectrum for even $`p`$, will be obtained by other means. We will ignore the background D9-branes for now, and consider their effect in section 4.

### 2.1 $`p`$ odd

The odd-dimensional systems correspond to D$`p`$-$`\overline{\text{D}p}`$ systems in Type IIB string theory projected by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The Type IIB system has a gauge group $`U(N)\times U(N)`$ from the diagonal $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}\overline{p}`$ sectors, and a tachyon transforming in the bi-fundamental representation $`(𝐍,\overline{𝐍})(\overline{𝐍},𝐍)`$ from the off-diagonal $`p\overline{p}`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ sectors.

For $`p=1,5`$ and $`9`$ the RR component of the boundary state is invariant under $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ , so both the D$`p`$-brane and the $`\overline{\text{D}p}`$-brane are invariant. Since $`pp`$ (and $`\overline{p}\overline{p}`$) strings are therefore mapped to themselves, one can use the consistency conditions of  to determine the gauge group. One simply gets twice the result of , i.e. $`𝒢=O(N)\times O(N)`$ for $`p=1`$ and 9, and $`Sp(N)\times Sp(N)`$ for $`p=5`$. On the other hand, since $`p\overline{p}`$ strings are mapped to $`\overline{p}p`$ strings, these conditions do not restrict the tachyon spectrum. The projection simply picks out one linear combination of the two sectors with an arbitrary phase. This leaves precisely the bi-fundamental representation regardless of the phase. The unbroken group $``$ is therefore the diagonal combination of the two factors in $`𝒢`$.

For $`p=3`$ and $`7`$ the RR component of the boundary state is odd, so the brane and antibrane are interchanged. In this case $`p\overline{p}`$ strings are mapped to themselves, so the Gimon-Polchinski conditions fix the action of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on the tachyons. One finds

$$T_{a\overline{b}}\omega _pT_{b\overline{a}},$$
(1)
where $`\omega _p=(i)^{1+(9p)/2}`$ . The gauge group is not fixed by these conditions, but, as with the tachyons in the previous case, the projection simply keeps one linear combination of the two $`U(N)`$’s with an arbitrary phase . It then follows from (1) that the tachyons transform in the symmetric representation of $`U(N)`$ for $`p=3`$, and in the antisymmetric representation for $`p=7`$. The unbroken gauge groups in these cases were determined in . One gets $`O(N)`$ in the first case, and $`Sp(N)`$ in the second case.

### 2.2 $`p`$ even

For the even-dimensional branes we start with the corresponding non-BPS D$`p`$-brane in Type IIB string theory, which has a gauge group $`U(N)`$ and a tachyon in the adjoint representation. The world-sheet arguments of  fail in this case, since the D$`p`$-D9 strings have an odd number of mixed (ND) boundary conditions, and therefore an odd number of fermionic zero modes in both the R and NS sectors. Instead we will determine $`𝒢`$ by demanding that the D$`p`$-D9 strings are real. Since these strings transform in the spinor representation of the Clifford algebra formed by the fermionic zero modes, and at the same time in the fundamental representation of the gauge group, demanding reality will restrict the form of $`𝒢`$.

In the R sector there are $`p+1`$ fermionic zero modes (one of which is time-like), so the ground state transforms as a spinor of $`SO(p,1)`$. In the NS sector there are $`9p`$ zero modes, and the ground state is a spinor of $`SO(9p)`$. For odd $`p`$ there are two irreducible representations in both sectors corresponding to the two Weyl spinors. The zero-mode part of the GSO projection $`(1)^f=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ removes one and keeps the other. For even $`p`$ there is only one irreducible spinor and no GSO projection.333The odd-dimensional Clifford algebras associated with the fermionic zero modes for even $`p`$ actually have two irreducible representations (related by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$), which are equivalent as representations of the corresponding groups. This subtlety can be overlooked in determining the spectrum, but becomes important in the path integral, where one is required to sum over spin structures . To facilitate this sum, Witten proposed to include an additional world-sheet fermion $`\eta (\tau )`$ at each boundary of the open string ending on a D$`p`$-brane . The GSO operator $`(1)^f=\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ then provides the required prescription. The signature of $`\eta `$ must be chosen such that the Weyl spinor one gets after GSO-projection has the same properties as the original spinor. The R sector Clifford algebra is therefore increased to that of $`SO(p+1,1)`$ for $`p=0`$ (mod 4), and $`SO(p,2)`$ for $`p=2`$ (mod 4). In the NS sector one effectively gets $`SO(9p,1)`$ in the first case, and $`SO(10p)`$ in the second. The resulting spinors are real for $`p=0,1,2`$ (mod 8), pseudoreal for $`p=4,5,6`$ (mod 8), and complex for $`p=3,7`$ (mod 8). Consequently $`𝒢`$ is orthogonal in the first case, symplectic in the second case, and unitary in the third case. This is consistent with what we found in the previous section for odd $`p`$. Note however that the above argument does not determine how many factors of these groups $`𝒢`$ contains. In particular, for $`p=1,5`$ and 9 there are two factors, whereas for $`p=3`$ and 7 there is only one. This is of course a consequence of the fact that in the former case the Type I system consists of BPS branes and BPS antibranes, and in the latter only of non-BPS branes. By analogy, we conclude that the gauge groups for even $`p`$ must be $`O(N)`$ for $`p=0,2`$ (mod 8), and $`Sp(N)`$ for $`p=4,6`$.

In order to determine the representation of the tachyon we need to know how $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ acts on the tachyon wavefunction, and how it acts on the CP factors of the $`pp`$ string. The latter can be determined from the above results, together with the fact that the vector is odd under $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ . We find

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }^T\gamma _\mathrm{\Omega }^1,\gamma _\mathrm{\Omega }=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}& p=0,2\text{(mod 8)}\hfill \\ 𝐉& p=4,6,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where

$$𝐉=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝐢𝟏}\\ \mathrm{𝐢𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
The action on the tachyon wavefunction444This is not fixed by action on the vector since the two states belong to different CP sectors . can be determined using Sen’s approach, by considering a disc amplitude in Type IIB string theory involving a tachyon vertex operator at the boundary and a RR $`p`$-form vertex operator in the bulk . Both vertex operators contribute a $`\sigma _1`$ factor in the trace, so the amplitude is non-zero, and gives rise to the interaction

$$C^{(p)}dT.$$
(4)
Since $`C^{(p)}`$ is odd under $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`p=0`$ (mod 4), and even for $`p=2`$ (mod 4), it follows that $`T`$ is odd for $`p=0`$ (mod 4) and even for $`p=2`$ (mod 4). Combining this with the action on the CP factors gives antisymmetric representations for $`p=0,6`$ (mod 8), and symmetric representations for $`p=2,4`$.

The unbroken gauge groups for $`O(N)`$ with a Higgs field in the symmetric and antisymmetric representations were determined in , and are given by $`O(N/2)\times O(N/2)`$ and $`U(N/2)`$, respectively. The unbroken gauge groups for $`Sp(N)`$ can be determined in a similar way, and turn out to be $`U(N/2)`$ for a symmetric Higgs, and $`Sp(N/2)\times Sp(N/2)`$ for an antisymmetric Higgs.

## 3 Relation to real K-theory

The topology of the tachyon vacuum manifold, i.e. the classifying space, determines the soliton spectrum, and therefore the spectrum of lower-dimensional D-branes. On the other hand, since D-branes carry gauge fields they are classified in K-theory. In particular, D-branes in Type II brane-antibrane systems are elements of $`\stackrel{~}{K}^0(X)`$, and D-branes in Type II unstable D-branes are elements of $`K^1(X)`$. It is therefore not surprising that there exists a relation between the the mapping class groups, i.e. homotopy groups, of the vacuum manifold and the isomorphism class groups, i.e. K-theory groups, of the gauge bundles. In the complex case the relevant relations are

$`\stackrel{~}{K}^0(X)`$ $``$ $`[X,BU]`$
$`K^1(X)`$ $``$ $`[X,U],`$ (5)
where $`BU`$ is the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit of $`U(N)/(U(N/2)\times U(N/2))`$, and $`U`$ is the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit of $`U(N)`$.555More generally, $`\stackrel{~}{K}^n(X)=[X,\mathrm{\Omega }^nBU]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^nY`$ is the $`n`$-th iterated loop space of $`Y`$. One can prove that $`\mathrm{\Omega }BU`$ is homotopically equivalent to $`U`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2BU`$ is homotopically equivalent to $`BU`$. In conjunction with (5), this fact leads to Bott periodicity, $`K^{n2}(X)=K^n(X)`$. One usually assumes that the space $`X`$ is compact, but an extension to non-compact $`X`$ is possible by defining K-theory with compact support.

Note that the classifying spaces on the right hand side appear to be in the wrong place; the vacuum manifold is $`U`$ for the brane-antibrane system and $`BU`$ for the unstable D-brane. On the other hand, non-trivial tachyon configurations cannot be in the vacuum everywhere in $`X`$, and are therefore not classified by maps from $`X`$ to the vacuum manifold. Consider for example $`X=𝐑^k`$ (or its compactification $`𝐒^k`$). Finite energy tachyon field configurations must approach the vacuum at infinity, and are therefore associated with maps from $`𝐒^{k1}`$ to the vacuum manifold. These are in turn classified by $`\pi _{k1}(U)`$ for the brane-antibrane system, and by $`\pi _{k1}(BU)`$ for the unstable D-branes. From the relations666These follow from $`\pi _k(X)=\pi _{k1}(\mathrm{\Omega }X)`$ , and the homotopic equivalences $`\mathrm{\Omega }BUU`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2BUBU`$.

$`\pi _{k1}(U)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _k(BU)`$
$`\pi _{k1}(BU)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _k(U),`$ (6)
it then follows that the tachyon vacuum manifolds appearing in (5) should indeed be shifted by one relative to the corresponding K-theory.

In the real case the story is similar. The analogous relations between the higher KO-groups and the classifying spaces are given by

$$KO^n(X)[X,_n],$$
(7)
where, in order,

$$_n=BO,O,O/U,U/Sp,BSp,Sp,Sp/U,U/O$$
(8)
for $`n=0,\mathrm{},7`$ (mod 8). Since Type I D-branes in the D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ system (ignoring the background D9-branes) are classified by $`\stackrel{~}{KO}^0(X)`$, it is apparent from table 1 that the vacuum manifolds are again shifted by one relative to the corresponding KO-groups. In analogy with the complex case, for $`X=𝐒^k`$ this follows from the identities 777These follow from the homotopic equivalence of the $`n`$-th iterated loop space of $`_0=BO`$ and $`_n`$, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Omega }BOO`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2BOO/U`$, etc.

$$\pi _{k1}(_{n+1})=\pi _k(_n).$$
(9)
For example, the D5-brane can be obtained as a stable defect in the D7-brane system, corresponding to the generator of

$$\pi _1(U/Sp)=\pi _2(O/U)=KO^2(𝐒^2)=𝖹𝖹.$$
(10)
## 4 Including the background D9-branes

Two important subtleties arise when one includes the 32 background D9-branes. First, since the zero-point energy of the NS sector of a D$`p`$-D9 string is given by

$$m^2=\frac{5p}{8},$$
(11)
the $`p=8,7`$ and 6 systems have 32 additional tachyons, which transform in the fundamental representation of the corresponding gauge group $`𝒢`$. From the world-volume gauge theory perspective, their only effect is to reduce the rank of $`𝒢`$, keeping its form fixed. The results in table 1 are therefore qualitatively unchanged. On the other hand, as was first pointed out in , their presence has a dramatic effect on the single D7 and D8-brane in spacetime, which are found to be unstable despite being tachyon-free in the $`pp`$ sector. A natural question is what these branes decay into, given that they carry non-trivial topological ($`𝖹𝖹_2`$) charges in K-theory.

The discussion of  seems to suggest that the decay products are $`O(32)`$ gauge field configurations on the background D9-branes, which are classified respectively by $`\pi _1(O(32))`$ and $`\pi _0(O(32))`$ (both of which are $`𝖹𝖹_2`$). In particular, the latter corresponds to a non-trivial $`𝖹𝖹_2O(32)`$ holonomy. The D8-brane therefore decays into a gauge field configuration that is pure gauge at $`x=\pm \mathrm{}`$, such that $`A(\mathrm{})`$ and $`A(\mathrm{})`$ are related by the reflection element in $`O(32)`$ .888The Type I gauge group is actually $`spin(32)/𝖹𝖹_2`$, which does not contain this element . However, there are two choices for the $`𝖹𝖹_2`$ projection, corresponding to which spinor chirality is kept. These are exchanged by the reflection element of $`O(32)`$, so the D8-brane corresponds to a domain wall separating regions of Type I vacuum which differ in the chirality of the spinor state. Despite being topologically stable however, these gauge field configurations are not solutions of the Yang-Mills equations. A simple scaling argument shows that (for $`p>6`$) they will expand indefinitely to minimize the action , leaving behind a dilute gauge field.

There exist also other topologically stable gauge field configurations corresponding to non-trivial elements in $`\pi _{8p}(O(32))`$, with $`p=5,1,0`$ and $`1`$. In contrast to the previous two, these will tend to shrink, which suggests the existence of $`p`$-dimensional stringy objects . Indeed, D$`p`$-branes with the above values of $`p`$ exist and are stable, even in the presence of the background D9-branes. Given that these D-branes are stable, what is the role of the gauge field configurations in this case?

The answer is related to the second subtlety associated with the background D9-branes. Namely, the gauge group of the unstable $`p=9`$ system is $`O(32+N)\times O(N)`$ rather than $`O(N)\times O(N)`$. The tachyon is still bi-fundamental, so the unbroken subgroup is now $`O(32)\times O(N)`$. Consequently the vacuum manifold is topologically equivalent to $`O(32+N)/O(32)`$, rather than $`O(N)`$. For $`N=1`$ this is simply the 32-sphere $`𝐒^{32}`$. More generally it is known as the real Stiefel manifold $`V_{32+N,N}`$. A common property of this space for all $`N`$ is that $`\pi _k(V_{32+N,N})=0`$ for $`k<32`$. Therefore there are no topologically stable tachyon configurations (of relevance in ten dimensions). The D-brane charges are instead encoded in the above gauge field configurations. The configurations which tend to shrink ($`p=1,0,1,5`$) correspond to stable D-branes, and those which tend to expand ($`p=7,8`$) correspond to topologically stable, but dynamically unstable, D-branes.

In light of this one wonders why $`\stackrel{~}{KO}^0(X)`$ is the appropriate classifying group for D-branes in Type I string theory. The relation to homotopy theory is

$$\stackrel{~}{KO}^0(𝐒^n)=\pi _{n1}(O),$$
(12)
but the vacuum manifold is actually $`O(32+N)/O(32)`$, not $`O`$. On the other hand, as argued above, the D-brane charges are encoded in the topology of $`O(32)`$, rather than the topology of the vacuum manifold. Since $`n10`$, one is well within the stability regime for the homotopy groups of $`O(32)`$, which are therefore the same as those of $`O`$. This is why $`\stackrel{~}{KO}^0(X)`$ gives the correct answers.

## 5 Conclusions

Tachyons appear in many forms when supersymmetry is broken in string theory. Since it is difficult to make general statements about the consequence of their condensation, it is useful to have many examples. Unstable D-brane systems provide a relatively simple arena for studying this phenomenon for the case of open string tachyons. In this paper we analyzed the unstable D-branes systems of Type I string theory in the most basic approach, namely the world-volume gauge theory coupled to a Higgs field. It would be interesting to apply some of the other approaches mentioned in the introduction to these systems.

Another interesting question is how the physics of unstable D-brane systems in string theory is lifted to M-theory. The two brane-antibrane systems are M2-$`\overline{\text{M2}}`$ and M5-$`\overline{\text{M5}}`$. The former is difficult to study, since it corresponds to a non-trivial conformal field theory. The situation is somewhat analogous to a string-antistring system, since the M2-brane really serves as the fundamental object in M-theory. The M5-$`\overline{\text{M5}}`$ system is, at least qualitatively, more tractable . For a single pair, it corresponds to a rank two antisymmetric tensor theory (without the restriction of self-duality). The tachyon presumably comes from an open M2-brane, and therefore corresponds to a string-field. While the complete dynamics of the M2-brane are not understood, it is straightforward to generalize the Higgs mechanism to a rank two antisymmetric tensor field . In particular, there exists a stable co-dimension three defect, which can be identified with the M2-brane .

Another unstable system in M-theory is the non-chiral $`𝐒^1/𝖹𝖹_2`$ compactification, also known as the $`E_8\times \overline{E_8}`$ system . In this case the two “ends of the world” support ordinary gauge theories, and one might expect their annihilation to be described, in part, by an ordinary Higgs mechanism. In particular, since the only non-trivial configuration of $`E_8`$ (of relevance in ten dimensions) is the instanton associated with $`\pi _3(E_8)=𝖹𝖹`$, which is furthermore identified with the M5-brane, one expects the symmetry breaking pattern to be $`E_8\times E_8E_8`$. The question is whether there is a tachyon field that achieves this.

## Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Jaume Gomis and Edward Witten for useful conversations, and John Schwarz for earlier collaboration on some of the material in section 4. I would also like to thank Edward Witten for pointing out an error in the first version of this paper. Finally, I thank the Aspen Center for Physics for its warm hospitality. This work is supported in part by the DOE under grant no. DE-FG03-92-ER 40701.


format: text

text:
# ISSUES AND RAMIFICATIONS IN QUANTIZED FRACTAL SPACE TIME: AN INTERFACE WITH QUANTUM SUPERSTRINGS

## 1 The Background ZPF

We observe that the Bohm formulation discussed in detail in Chapter 3 converges to Nelson’s stochastic formulation in the context of the QMKNBH. Indeed Bohm’s non local potential as also Nelson’s three conditions merely describe the QMKNBH as a vortex, the mass being given by the self interaction, the radius of the vortex being the Compton wavelength. . We can get a clue to the origin of Quantum Mechanical fluctuations: Following Smolin we observe that the non local stochastic theory becomes the classical local theory in the thermodynamic limit, in which $`N`$ the number of particles in the universe becomes infinitely large. However if $`N`$ is finite but large, these fluctuations are of the order $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ of the dimensions of the system, the universe in this case. Indeed as we will see in the nexr Section this provides a holistic rationale for the ”spooky” non-locality of Quantum Theory.
We now remark that in the above formulation elementary particles, typically electrons, can be thought of as ’twisted bits’ of the electromagnetic field. Indeed it was pointed out by Barut and co-workers that wave packet solutions of the mass less scalar fields appear as massive particles, while such solutions for the electromagnetic field would provide a formulation of the wave mechanics without assuming the Planck constant. For example this gives $`E=l\omega `$ rather than $`E=\mathrm{}\omega `$, $`l`$ being the angular momentum and $`E`$ the energy and $`\omega `$ the frequency. Boudet, also questions the necessity of the Planck Constant. These theories do not give a value to Planck’s constant which merely appears as a proportionality factor, because all the equations considered are linear. All this as also the zitterbewegung formulation of Barut and Bracken and Hestenes described in Chapter 3, is superseded by the QMKNBH theory and electrons appear as twisted bits of the ZPF given by the relation, $`E=\mathrm{}\omega `$, instead of Barut’s, $`E=l\omega `$, where $`l`$ is the angular momentum. The question, whether this characterizes the Planck constant, will be answered at the end of Section 5.

## 2 Stochastic Conservation Laws

Conservation Laws, as is universally known, play an important role in Physics, starting with the simplest such laws relating to momentum and energy. These laws provide rigid guidelines or constraints within which physical processes take place.
These laws are observational, though a theoretical facade can be given by relating them to underpinning symmetries.
Quantum Theory, including Quantum Field Theory is in conformity with the above picture. On the other hand the laws of Thermodynamics have a different connotation: They are not rigid in the sense that they are a statement about what is most likely to occur, or is an averaged out statement.
In our formulation, the Compton wavelength represents a statistical uncertainty (Cf. Chapter 6), given by

$$l\frac{R}{\sqrt{N}}$$
(1)
By now (1) is a familiar relation. Given the above background we consider the following simplified EPR experiment, discussed elsewhere.
Two structureless and spinless particles which are initially together, for example in a bound state get separated and move in opposite directions along the same straight line. A measurement of the momentum of one of the particles, say $`A`$ gives us immediately the momentum of the other particle $`B`$. The latter is equal and opposite to the former owing to the conservation law of linear momentum. It is surprising that this statement should be true in Quantum Theory also because the momentum of particle $`B`$ does not have an apriori value, but can only be determined by a separate acausal experiment performed on it.
This is the well known non locality inherent in Quantum Theory. It ceases to be mysterious if we recognize the fact that the conservation of momentum is itself a non local statement because it is a direct consequence of the homogeneity of space as we will see again in the next Chapter: Infact the displacement operator $`\frac{d}{dx}`$ is, given the homogeneity of space, independent of $`x`$ and this leads to the conservation of momentum in Quantum Theory (cf.ref.). The displacement $`\delta x`$ which gives rise to the above displacement operator is an instantaneous shift of origin corresponding to an infinite velocity and is compatible with a closed system. It is valid if the instantaneous displacement can also be considered to be an actual displacement in real time $`\delta t`$. This happens for stationary states, when the overall energy remains constant.
It must be borne in mind that the space and time displacement operators are on the same footing only in this case. Indeed in relativistic Quantum Mechanics, $`x`$ and $`t`$ are put on the same footing - but special relativity itself deals with inertial, that is relatively unaccelerated frames.
Any field theory deals with different points at the same instant of time. But if we are to have information about different points, then given the finite velocity of light, we will get this information at different times. All this information can refer to the same instant of time only in a stationary situation. We will return to this point. Further the field equations are obtained by a suitable variational principle,

$$\delta I=0$$
(2)
In deducing these equations, the $`\delta `$ operator which corresponds to an arbitrary variation, commutes with the space and time derivatives, that is the momentum and energy operators which in our picture constitute a complete set of observables. As such the apparently arbitrary operator $`\delta `$ in (2) is constrained to be a function of these (stationary) variables.
All this underscores two facts: First we implicitly consider an apriori homogenous space, that is physical space. Secondly though we consider in the relativisitic picture the space and time coordinates to be on the same footing, infact they are not as pointed out by Wheeler. Our understanding or perception of the universe is based on ”all space (or as much of it as possible) at one instant of time”.
However, in conventional theory this is at best an approximation. Moreover in our formulation, the particles are fluctuationally created out of a background ZPF, and, it is these $`N`$ particles that define physical space, which is no longer apriori as in the Newtonian formulation. It is only in the thermodynamic limit in which $`N\mathrm{}`$ and $`l0`$, in (1), that we recover the above classical picture of a rigid homogenous space, with the conservation laws.
In other words the above conservation laws are strictly valid in the thermodynamic limit, but are otherwise approximate, though very nearly correct because $`N`$ is so large.
Our formulation leads to a cosmology in which $`\sqrt{N}`$ particles are fluctuationally created from the background ZPF (Cf. Chapter 7), so that the violation of energy conservation is proportional to $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}`$. From (1) also we could similarly infer that the violation of momentum conservation is proportional to $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}`$ (per particle).
All this implies that there is a small but non-zero probability that the measurement of the particle $`A`$ in the above experiment will not give information about the particle $`B`$.
This last conclusion has also been drawn by Gaeta who considers a background Brownian or Nelson-Garbaczewski-Vigier noise(the ZPF referred to above) as sustaining Nelson’s Stochastic Mechanics (and the Schrodinger equation).
In conclusion, the conservation laws of Physics are conservation laws in the thermodynamic sense.

## 3 Quantized Space Time, Time’s Arrow and Parity Breakdown

The arrow of time has been a puzzle for a long time. As is well known, the laws of Newtonian Mechanics, Electromagnetism or Quantum Theory do not provide an arrow of time - they are equally valid under time reversal, with only one exception. This is in the well known problem of Kaon decay. On the other hand it is in Thermodynamics and Cosmology that we find an arrow of time . Indeed it has been shown that stochastic processes are needed for irreversibility.
It is also true that there has been no theoretical rationale for the Kaon puzzle which we will touch upon shortly. We will try to find such a theoretical understanding in the context of our quantized space-time, $`\mathrm{}/(\text{energy})`$, that is the Compton time.
Let us start with one of the simplest quantum mechanical systems, one which can be in either of two sates separated by a small energy. The system flips from one state to another unpredictably and this ”life time” and the energy spread satisfy the Uncertainity Principle, so that the former is a Compton time. We have:

$$ı\mathrm{}\frac{d\psi _ı}{dt}ı\mathrm{}[\frac{\psi _ı(t+n\tau )\psi _ı(t)}{n\tau }]=\underset{ı=1}{\overset{2}{}}H_{ıj}\psi _ı$$
(3)
$$\psi _ı=e^{\frac{ı}{\mathrm{}}Et}\varphi _ı$$

where, $`H_{11}=H_{22}`$ (which we set $`=0`$ as only relative energies of the two levels are being considered) and $`H_{12}=H_{21}=E`$, by symmetry. Unlike in the usual theory where $`\delta t=n\tau 0`$, in the case of quantized space-time $`n`$ is a positive integer. So the second term of (3) reduces to

$$[E+ı\frac{E^2\tau }{\mathrm{}}]\psi _ı=[E(1+ı)]\psi _ı,\text{as}\tau =\mathrm{}/E$$
(4)
Interestingly, in the above analysis, in (4), the fact that the real and imaginary parts are of the same order is infact borne out by experiment.
From (3) we see that the Hamiltonian is not Hermitian that is it admits complex Eigen values indicative of decay, if the life times of the states are $`\tau `$.
In general this would imply the exotic fact that if a state starts out as $`\psi _1`$ and decays, then there would be a non zero probability of seeing in addition the decay products of the state $`\psi _2`$. In the process it is possible that some symmetries which are preserved in the decay of $`\psi _1`$ or $`\psi _2`$ separately, are voilated.
In this context we will now consider the Kaon puzzle. As is well known from the original work of Gellmann and Pais, the two state analysis above is applicable here. In the words of Penrose, ”the tiny fact of an almost completely hidden time-asymmetry seems genuinely to be present in the $`K^0`$-decay. It is hard to believe that nature is not, so to speak, trying to tell something through the results of this delicate and beautiful experiment.” On the other hand as Feynman put it, ”if there is any place where we have a chance to test the main principles of quantum mechanics in the purest way…..this is it.”
What happens in this well known problem is, that given $`CP`$ invariance, a beam of $`K^0`$ masons can be considered to be in a two state system as above, one being the short lived component $`K^S`$ which decays into two pions and the other being the long lived state $`K^L`$ which decays into three pions. In this case $`E10^{10}\mathrm{}`$, so that $`\tau 10^{10}sec`$. After a lapse of time greater than the typical decay period, no two pion decays should be seen in a beam consisting initially of the $`K^0`$ particle. Otherwise there would be violation of $`CP`$ invariance and therefore also $`T`$ invariance. However exactly this violation was observed as early as 1964. This violation of time reversal has now been confirmed directly by experiments at Fermilab and CERN.
We would like to point out that the Kaon puzzle has a natural explanation in the quantized time scenario discussed above. Further, we have shown that the discreteness leads to the non commutative geometry

$$[x,y]=0(l^2),[x,p_x]=ı\mathrm{}[1+l^2]$$
(5)
and similar equations. If terms $`l^2`$ are neglected we get back the usual Quantum Theory. However retaining these terms, we deduced in Chapter 6 the Dirac equation. Moreover it can be seen that given (5) space rerlection symmetry no longer holds. This violation is an $`O(l^2)`$ effect.
This is not surprising. It has already been pointed out that the space time divide viz., $`x+ıct`$ arises due to the zitterbewegung or double Weiner process in the Compton wavelength - and in this derivation terms $`(ct)^2l^2`$ were neglected. However if these terms are retained, then we get a correction to the usual theory including special relativity. (We will come back to this point shortly.)
To see this more clearly let us as in Chapter 3 as a first approximation treat the continuum as a series of discrete points separated by a distance $`l`$, which then leads to

$$Ea(x_n)=E_0a(x_n)Aa(x_n+l)Aa(x_nl)$$
(6)
When $`l`$ is made to tend to zero, it was shown that from (6) we recover the Schrodinger equation, and further, we have,

$$E=E_02Acoskl.$$
(7)
The zero of energy was chosen such that $`E=2A=mc^2`$, the rest energy of the particle, in the limit $`l0`$. However if we retain terms $`l^2`$, then from (7) we will have instead

$$\left|\frac{E}{mc^2}1\right|0(l^2)$$
(8)
Equation (8) shows the correction to the energy mass formula, where again we recover the usual formula in the limit $`O(l^2)0`$.
It must be mentioned that all this would be true in principle for discrete space time, even if the minimum cut off was not at the Compton scale.
Intuitively this should be obvious: Space time reflection symmetries are based on a space time continuum picture.
Let us now consider some further imprints of discrete space time.
First we consider the case of the neutral pion. As we saw in Chapter 4, this pion decays into an electron and a positron. Could we think of it as an electron-positron bound state also? In this case we have,

$$\frac{mv^2}{r}=\frac{e^2}{r^2}$$
(9)
Consistently with the above formulation, if we take $`v=c`$ from (9) we get the correct Compton wavelength $`l_\pi =r`$ of the pion.
However this appears to go against the fact that there would be pair annihilation with the release of two photons. Nevertheless if we consider discrete space time, the situation would be different. In this case the Schrodinger equation

$$H\psi =E\psi $$
(10)
where $`H`$ contains the above Coulumb interaction could be written, in terms of the space and time separated wave function components as,

$$H\psi =E\varphi T=\varphi ı\mathrm{}[\frac{T(t\tau )T}{\tau }]$$
(11)
where $`\tau `$ is the minimum time cut off which in the above work has been taken to be the Compton time. If, as usual we let $`T=exp(irt)`$ we get

$$E=\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\tau }sin\frac{\tau r}{2}$$
(12)
(12) shows that if,

$$|E|<\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\tau }$$
(13)
holds then there are stable bound states. Indeed inequality (13) holds good when $`\tau `$ is the Compton time and $`E`$ is the total energy $`mc^2`$. Even if inequality (13) is reversed, there are decaying states which are relatively stable around the cut off energy $`\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\tau }`$.
This is the explanation for treating the pion as a bound state of an electron and a positron, as indeed is borne out by its decay mode. The situation is similar to the case of Bohr orbits– there also the electrons would according to classical ideas have collapsed into the nucleus and the atoms would have disappeared. In this case it is the discrete nature of space time which enables the pion to be a bound state as described by (9).

## 4 Magnetic Effects

If as discussed in Chapter 3 and subsequently, the electron is indeed a Kerr-Newman type charged black hole, it can be approximated by a solenoid and we could expect an Aharonov-Bohm type of effect, due to the vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ which would give rise to shift in the phase in a two slit experiment for example. This shift is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _{\widehat{B}}=\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{A}.\stackrel{}{ds}$$
(14)
while the shift due to the electric charge would be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _{\widehat{E}}=\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}A_0𝑑t$$
(15)
where $`A_0`$ is the electrostatic potential. In the above formulation we would have

$$\stackrel{}{A}\frac{1}{c}A_0$$
(16)
Substitution of (16) in (14) and (15) shows that the magnetic effect $`\frac{v}{c}`$ times the electric effect.
Further, the magnetic component of a Kerr-Newman black hole, as we saw in Chapter 3 is given by

$$B_{\widehat{r}}=\frac{2ea}{r^3}cos\mathrm{\Theta }+0(\frac{1}{r^4}),B_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}}=\frac{easin\mathrm{\Theta }}{r^3}+0(\frac{1}{r^4}),B_{\widehat{\varphi }}=0,$$
(17)
while the electrical part is

$$E_{\widehat{r}}=\frac{e}{r^2}+0(\frac{1}{r^3}),E_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}}=0(\frac{1}{r^4}),E_{\widehat{\varphi }}=0,$$
(18)
Equations (17) and (18) show that in addition to the usual dipole magnetic field, there is a shorter range magnetic field given by terms $`\frac{1}{r^4}`$. In this context it is interesting to note that an extra so called $`B^{(3)}`$ magnetic field of shorter range and probably mediated by massive photons has indeed been observed and studied over the past few years.

## 5 Stochastic Holism and the Number of Arbitrary Parameters

The discrete space time or zitterbewegung has an underpinning that is stochastic. The picture leads to the goal of Wheeler’s ’Law without Law’ as we saw in Chapter 6. Furthermore the picture that emerges is Machian. This is evident from equations like (2), (3) and (6) of Chapter 7– the micro depends on the macro. So the final picture that emerges is one of stochastic holism.
Another way of expressing the above point is by observing that the interactions are relational. For example, in the equation leading to (7), of Chapter 7, if the number of particles in the universe tends to $`1`$, then as we saw in Chapter 4, the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions would be equal, this happening at the Planck scale, where the Compton wavelength equals the Schwarzchild radius.
Infact as was shown in Chapter 6, when $`N`$ the number of particles in the universe is $`1`$ we have a Planck particle with a short life time $`10^{42}secs`$ due to the Hawking radiation but with $`N10^{80}`$ particles as in the present universe we have the pion as the typical particle with a stable life time $``$ of the age of the universe due to the Hagedorn on radiation.
Let us now consider the following aspect: It is well known that there are 18 arbitrary parameters in contemporary physics. We on the other hand have been working with the micro physical constants referred to earlier viz., the electron (or pion) mass or Compton wavelength, the Planck constant, the fundamental unit of charge and the velocity of light. These along with the number of particles $`N`$ as the only free parameter can generate the mass, radius and age of the universe as also the Hubble constant.
If we closely look at the equations (11) of Chapter 4 or (7) of Chapter 7, giving the gravitational and electromagnetic strength ratios, we can actually deduce the relation,

$$l=\frac{e^2}{mc^2}$$
(19)
In other words we have deduced the pion mass in terms of the electron mass, or, given the pion mass and the electron mass, we have deduced the fine structure constant. From the point of view of the order of magnitude theory in which the distinction between the electron, pion and proton gets blurred, what equation (19) means is, that the Planck constant itself depends on $`e`$ and $`c`$ (and $`m`$). Further in the Kerr-Newman type characterisation of the electron, in Chapter 3 the charge $`e`$ is really equivalent to the spinorial tensor density $`(n=1)`$. In this sense $`e`$ also is pre determined and we are left with a minimum length viz. the Compton length and a minumum time viz. the Compton time (or a maximal velocity $`c`$) as the only fundamental microphysical constants.
Let us try to further refine this line of thought. We observe that a discrete space time picture leads to the non commutative geometry alluded to earlier (5).
Infact we would have in this case, more fully,

$$[x,y]=0(l^2),[x,p_x]=ı\mathrm{}[1+l^2],[t,E]=ı\mathrm{}[1+\tau ^2]$$
(20)
What (20) means is that there is a higher order correction to the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle. Infact from (20) we can easily conclude that there is an extra energy $`E^{}`$ given by

$$\frac{E^{}}{mc^2}\tau ^2l^4\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}$$
(21)
In (21), the appearance of $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}`$ where $`N`$ is the number of particles in the universe appears at first sight to be purely accidental: We have not deduced it. However this is not so. Infact from the picture of the fluctuational creation of particles alluded to in section 2, we get

$$\frac{E^{}}{mc^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}$$
(22)
It can be seen that (22) and (21), deduced from two totally different standpoints, are infact the same. A consequence is the following fact: We have just seen that the micro physical constants namely an elementary particle mass, for example the electron mass $`m`$ (or Compton wavelength), a universal maximal velocity $`c`$ together with $`N`$ the number of particles in the universe were the only free parameters or arbitrary constants. From (21) we can see that there is a further narrowing down to just two arbitrary parameters, for example the maximal velocity $`c`$ and $`N`$. Given these two, the microphysical constants, including the Planck constant can be characteriized, thus answering the question at the end of section 1. It must be emphasized that what is required is a universal maximum velocity in principle - its exact value is not important. Then, $`N`$ becomes the only parameter! All this is very much in the spirit of Feynman’s quotation in Chapter 1 as also the ancient Upanishadic tradition of seeing nature as different aspects of one phenomenon.

## 6 The Origin of a Metric

We first make a few preliminary remarks. When we talk of a metric or the distance between two ”points” or ”particles”, a concept that is implicit is that of topological ”nearness” - we require an underpinning of a suitably large number of ”open” sets. Let us now abandon the absolute or background space time and consider, for simplicity, a universe (or set) that consists solely of two particles. The question of the distance between these particles (quite apart from the question of the observer) becomes meaningless. Indeed, this is so for a universe consisting of a finite number of particles. For, we could isolate any two of them, and the distance between them would have no meaning. We can intuitively appreciate that we would infact need distances of intermediate points. So for a meaningful distance, the concepts of open sets, connectedness and the like reenter in which case such an isolation would not be possible.
More formally let us define a neighbourhood of a particle (or point) A of a set of particles as a subset which contains A and atleast one other distinct element. Now, given two particles (or points) A and B, let us consider a neighbourhood containing both of them, $`n(A,B)`$ say. We require a non-empty set containing atleast one of A and B and atleast one other particle C, such that $`n(A,B)n(A,C)`$, and so on. Strictly, this ”nested” sequence should not terminate. For, if it does, then we end up with a set $`n(A,P)`$ consisting of two isolated ”particles” or points, and the ”distance” $`d(A,P)`$ is meaningless. For practical purposes, in the spirit of Wheeler’s approximation, this sequence has to be very large.
Such an approximation has an immediate application. Our universe consists of some $`N10^{80}`$ particles (or points), each point being ”defined” within the Compton wavelength $`l`$. Inside $`l`$, space time in the usual sense breaks down - we have the unphysical zitterbewegung effects. Indeed $`l`$ for a Planck particle of mass $`10^5gm`$ is precisely the Planck scale.
We now assume the following property: Given two distinct elements (or even subsets) $`A`$ and $`B`$, there is a neighbourhood $`N_{A_1}`$ such that $`A`$ belongs to $`N_{A_1},B`$ does not belong to $`N_{A_1}`$ and also given any $`N_{A_1}`$, there exists a neighbourhood $`N_{A_{\frac{1}{2}}}`$ such that $`AN_{A_{\frac{1}{2}}}N_{A_1}`$, that is there exists an infinite sequence of neighbourhoods between $`A`$ and $`B`$. In other words we introduce topological closeness.
From here, as in the derivation of Urysohn’s lemma, we could define a mapping $`f`$ such that $`f(A)=0`$ and $`f(B)=1`$ and which takes on all intermediate values. We could now define a metric, $`d(A,B)=|f(A)f(B)|.`$ We could easily verify that this satisfies the properties of a metric.
It must be remarked that the metric turns out to be again, a result of a global or a series of larger sets, unlike the usual local picture in which it is the other way round.

## 7 Kaluza-Klein Theories and Quantized Super Strings

In Chapter 1, we briefly alluded to string theory. Though our subsequent considerations were in a different class, there is a surprising interface, as we will now see. Our starting point is the fact encountered in Chapter 6 that the fractal dimension of a Brownian quantum path is 2. This was further analysed and it was explained that this is symptomatic of Quantized Fractal space time and it was shown that infact the coordinate $`x`$ becomes $`x+ıct`$. The complex coordinates or equivalently non-Hermitian position operators are symptomatic of the unphysical zitterbewegung which is eliminated after an averaging over the Compton scale. In this picture the fluctuational creation of particles was taken into account in a consistent cosmological scheme in Chapter 7.
It is well known that the generalization of the complex $`x`$ coordinate to three dimensions leads to quarternions, and the Pauli spin matrices.
We next return to the model of an electron as a Quantum Mechanical Kerr-Newman Black Hole. Infact in Chapter 3, we deduced electromagnetism in two ways. The first was by considering an imaginary shift,

$$x^\mu x^\mu +ıa^\mu ,(a^\mu \text{Compton scale})$$
(23)
in a Quantum Mechanical context. This lead to

$$ı\mathrm{}\frac{}{x^\mu }ı\mathrm{}\frac{}{x^\mu }+\frac{\mathrm{}}{a^\mu }$$
(24)
and the second term on the right side of (24) was shown to be the electromagnetic vector potential $`A^\mu `$,

$$A^\mu =\mathrm{}/a^\mu $$
(25)
The second was by taking into account the fact that at the Compton scale, it is the so called negative energy two spinors $`\chi `$ of the Dirac bispinor that dominate where,

$$\chi \chi $$

under reflections. This lead to the tensor density property,

$$\frac{}{x^\mu }to\frac{}{x^\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^{\mu \nu }$$
(26)
the second term on the right side of (26) being identified with $`A^\mu `$,

$$A^\mu =\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^{\mu \nu }$$
(27)
It was pointed out that (27) is formally and mathematically identical to Weyl’s original formulation, except that here it arises due to the purely Quantum Mechanical spinorial behaviour whereas Weyl had put it by hand.
Another early scheme for the unification of gravitation and electromagnetism as referred to earlier was that put forward by Kaluza and Klein in which an extra dimension was introduced and taken to be curled up. This idea has resurfaced in recent years in String Theory.
We will first show that the characterization of $`A^\mu `$ in (25) is identical to a Kaluza Klein formulation. Then we will show that equations (26) and (27) really denote the fact that the geometry around an electron is non-integrable. Finally we will show that infact both (24) or (25) and (26) or (27) are the same formulations (as can be guessed heuristically by comparing (24) and (26)).
We first observe that the transformation (23) can be written as,

$$x^ıx^ı+\alpha ^{ı5}x_5$$
(28)
where $`\alpha _{ı5}`$ in (28) will represent a small shift from the Minkowski metric $`g_{ıj}`$, and $`ı,j=1,2,3,4,5,x^5`$ being a fifth coordinate introduced for purely mathematical conversion.
Owing to (28), we will have,

$$g_{ıj}dx^ıdx^jg_{ıj}dx^ıdx^j+(g_{ıj}\alpha ^{j5})dx^ıdx_5$$
(29)
In Kaluza’s formulation,

$$A_\mu g_{\mu 5}$$
(30)
Comparison of (30), (28) and (29) with (23) and (25) shows that indeed this is the case. That is, the formulation given in (23) and (24) could be thought of as introducing a fifth curled up dimension, as in the Kaluza-Klein theory.
To see why the Quantum Mechanical formulation (26) and (27) corresponds to Weyl’s theory, we start with the effect of an infinitesimal parallel displacement of a vector.

$$\delta a^\sigma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\sigma a^\mu dx^\nu $$
(31)
As is well known, (31) represents the extra effect in displacements, due to the curvature of space - in a flat space, the right side would vanish. Considering partial derivatives with respect to the $`\mu ^{th}`$ coordinate, this would mean that, due to (31)

$$\frac{a^\sigma }{x^\mu }\frac{a^\sigma }{x^\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\sigma a^\nu $$
(32)
The second term on the right side of (32) can be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda g_\lambda ^\nu a^\sigma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\nu a^\sigma $$

where we have utilized the property that in the above formulation as seen in Chapter 3,

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu },$$

$`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ being the Minkowski metric and $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ a small correction whose square is neglected.
That is, (32) becomes,

$$\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{}{x^\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\nu $$
(33)
The relation (33) is the same as the relation (26).
We will next show the correspondence between (33) or (27) or (26) and (25) or (24). To see this simply we note that the geodesic equation is,

$$\dot{u}^\mu \frac{du^\mu }{ds}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \sigma }^\mu u^\nu u^\sigma $$
(34)
We also use the fact that in the Quantum Mechanical Kerr-Newman Black Hole model referred to, we have as in Chapter 3

$$u^\mu =c\text{for}\mu =1,2\text{and}3,$$

while,

$$|\dot{u}^\mu |=|u^\mu |\frac{mc^2}{\mathrm{}}$$

So, from (34) we get,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu }^\mu =\frac{1}{a^\nu },|a^\nu |=\frac{\mathrm{}}{mc}$$

This establishes the required identity.
We now come to the interface with Quantum Super Strings. We have already seen that the Quantized Fractal space time referred to really leads to a non-commutative geometry, given by (20) It was also seen that these relations directly lead to the Dirac equation: Quantized Fractal space time is the underpinning for Quantum Mechanical spin or the Quantum Mechanical Kerr-Newman Black Hole, that is ultimately equations like (24) or (25) and (26) or (27).
It is also true that both the Kaluza Klein formulation and the non commutative geometry (20) hold in the theory of Quantum Superstrings (QSS).
Infact we get from here a clue to the mysterious six extra curled up dimensions of Quantum Superstring Theory. For this we observe that (20) gives an additional contribution to the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle and we can easily deduce

$$\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{}l^2$$

Remembering that at this Compton scale

$$\mathrm{\Delta }pmc$$

It follows that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }xl^3$$
(35)
as $`l10^{11}cms`$ for the electron we recover from (35) the Planck Scale, as well as a rationale for the peculiar fact that the Planck Scale is the cube of the electron Compton scale.
More importantly, what (35) shows is, that at this level, the single dimension along the $`x`$ axis shows up as being three dimensional. That is there are two extra dimensions, in the unphysical region below the Compton scale. As this is true for the $`y`$ and $`z`$ coordinates also, there are a total of six curled up or unphysical or inaccessible dimensions in the context of the preceding section.
If we start with equations (23) to (25) which are related to QFST (Quantized Fractal space time) and the non-commutative relation (20) we obtain a unification of electromagnetism and gravitation. On the other hand if we consider the spinorial behaviour of the Dirac wave function, we get (26) or (27). The former has been seen to be the same as the Kaluza formulation while the latter is formally similar to the Weyl formulation - but in this case (27) is not put in by hand. Rather it is a Quantum Mechanical consequence. We have thus shown that these two approaches are the same. The extra dimensions are thus seen to be confined to the unphysical Compton scale - classically speaking they are curled up or inaccessible.
In a sense this is not surprising. The bridge between the two approaches was the Kerr-Newman metric which uses, though without a clear physical meaning in classical theory, the transformation (23). The reason why an imaginary shift is associated with spin is to be found in the Quantum Mechanical zitterbewegung and the consequent QFST.
Wheeler remarked as quoted in Chapter 4 , ”the most evident shortcoming of the geometrodynamic model as it stands is this, that it fails to supply any completely natural place for spin $`1/2`$ in general and for the neutrino, in particular”, while ”it is impossible to accept any description of elementary particles that does not have a place for spin half.” Infact the bridge between the two is the transformation (23). It introduces spin half into general relativity and curvature to the electron theory, via the equation (27) or (32).
In this context it is interesting to note that El Naschie has given the fractal formulation of gravitation.
Thus apparently disparate concepts like the Kaluza Klein and Weyl formulations, Quantum Mechanical Black Holes, Quantized Fractal space time and QSS are seen to have a harmonius overlap, in the context of QFST with its roots in the fluctuational creation of particles.
It is worth pointing out some of the similarities between String theories and our formulation. The former started off, by considering one dimensional extended objects or strings, the extension being of the order of the proton Compton wavelength, vibrating and rotating with the speed of light (Cf. refs. given in Chapter 1). Not only could space time points and singularities be fudged, but further the angular momenta were proportional to the squares of the masses, defining the well known Regge trajectories, as also in our formulation (Cf. Chapter 12, Equation (14)). All this is not surprising.
In particular, QSS deals with Planck length phenomena, the Kaluza-Klein curled up extra dimensions and leads to the non commutative geometry (20). QFST on the other hand, deals with phenomena at the Compton scale, space time being unphysical below this scale. Yet it leads us back to the Planck scale, the same number of extra, curled up, Kaluza-Klein dimensions and the same non- commutative geometry (20), once the meaning of (35) (or the modification of the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle) is recognized. In this interpretation, the situation is similar to the fractal one dimensioinal Brownian path becoming two (or three) dimensional. The key is the transformation (23), which we first encountered right at the beginning, in Chapter 3 itself. It conceals zitterbewegung, leads to the Kerr-Newman metric, QFST and what not!
Finally it is worth emphasizing that both in Strings and in our formulation the Compton wavelength extension provides a rationale for the dual resonance model, which originated from the Regge trajectories and then gave the initial motivation for String theory.

## 8 Resolution, Unification and the Core of the Electron

El Naschie has referred to the fact that there is no apriori fixed length scale (the Biedenharn conjecture). Indeed it has been argued in the above context that depending on our scale of resolution, we encounter electromagnetism well outside the Compton wavelength, strong interactions at the Compton wavelength or slightly below it and only gravitation at the Planck scale. The differences between the various interactions are a manifestation of the resolution.
In this connection it may be noted that we can refer to the core of the electron $`10^{20}cms`$, as indeed has been experimentally noticed by Dehmelt and co-workers. It is interesting that this can be deduced in the context of the electron as a Quantum Mechanical Kerr-Newman Black Hole.
It was shown in Chapter 3 that for distances of the order of the Compton wavelength the potential is given in its QCD form

$$V\frac{\beta M}{r}+8\beta M(\frac{Mc^2}{\mathrm{}})^2.r$$
(36)
For small values of $`r`$ the potential (36) can be written as

$$V\frac{A}{r}e^{\mu ^2r^2},\mu =\frac{Mc^2}{\mathrm{}}$$
(37)
It follows from (37) that

$$r\frac{1}{\mu }10^{21}cm.$$
(38)
Curiously enough in (37), $`r`$ appears as a time, which is to be expected because at the horizon of a black hole $`r`$ and $`t`$ interchange roles.
One could reach the same conclusion, as given in equation (38) from a different angle. In the Schrodinger equation which is used in QCD, with the potential given by (36), one could verify that the wave function is of the type $`f(r).e^{\frac{\mu r}{2}}`$, where the same $`\mu `$ appears in (37). Thus, once again we have a wave packet which is negligible outside the distance given by (38).
It may be noted that Brodsky and Drell had suggested from a very different viewpoint viz., the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, that its size would be limited by $`10^{20}cm`$. The result (38) as pointed out, was experimentally confirmed by Dehmelt and co-workers.

## 9 Levels of Physics

We now return to the relation (5) or (20) which expresses the underlying non-commutative geometry of space-time. What we would like to point out is that we are seeing here different levels of physics. Indeed, rewriting (5) or (20) as,

$$[x,u_x]=ı[l+l^3],$$

we can see that if $`l=0`$, we have classical physics, while if $`0(l^3)=0,`$ we have Quantum Mechanics and finally if $`0(l^3)0`$ we have the above discussed fractal picture, and from another point of view, the superstring picture.
Interestingly, in our case the electron Compton wavelength $`l10^{11}cm,`$ so that $`0(l^3)10^{33}`$ as in string theory.
The expansion in terms of $`l`$ given above can be continued, and thus one could in principle go into deeper levels as well.

## 10 Gravitation and Black Holes

In our formulation we have not invoked the full non linear Theory of General Relativity. General Relativity itself comes up as an approximation, in its linear version and also through the fact that while $`G`$ the gravitational constant, varies with time, over intervals small compared to the age of the universe, it is approximately constant. (Dirac however reconciles the variation of $`G`$ with General Relativity by invoking the so called gravitational units of measurement, the units of our common usage being the atomic units). The question arises, is it possible to accommodate Black Holes within such a non General Relativistic formulation? We will now show that Black Holes could also be understood without invoking General Relativity at all.
We start by defining a Black Hole as an object at the surface of which, the escape velocity equals the maximum possible velocity in the universe viz., the velocity of light. We next use the well known equation of Keplerian orbits,

$$\frac{1}{r}=\frac{GM}{L^2}(1+ecos\theta )$$
(39)
where $`L`$, the so called impact parameter is given by, $`Rc`$, where $`R`$ is the point of closest approach, in our case a point on the surface of the object and $`c`$ is the velocity of approach, in our case the velocity of light.
Choosing $`\theta =0`$ and $`e1`$, we can deduce from (39)

$$R=\frac{2GM}{c^2}$$
(40)
Equation (40) gives the Schwarzchild radius for a Black Hole and can be deduced from the full General Relativistic theeory.
We will now use (40) to exhibit Black Holes at three different scales, the micro, the macro and the cosmic scales.
Our starting point is the observation that a Planck mass, $`10^5gms`$ at the Planck length, $`10^{33}cms`$ satisfies (40) and, as such is a Schwarzchild Black Hole. As pointed out Rosen has used non-relativistic Quantum Theory to show that such a particle is a mini universe.
We next come to stellar scales. It is well known that for an electron gas in a highly dense mass we have

$$K\left(\frac{\overline{M}^{4/3}}{\overline{R}^4}\frac{\overline{M}^{2/3}}{\overline{R}^2}\right)=K^{}\frac{\overline{M}^2}{\overline{R}^4}$$
(41)
where

$$\left(\frac{K}{K^{}}\right)=\left(\frac{27\pi }{64\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}c}{\gamma m_P^2}\right)10^{40}$$
(42)
and

$$\overline{M}=\frac{9\pi }{8}\frac{M}{m_P}\overline{R}=\frac{R}{(\mathrm{}/m_ec)},$$

$`M`$ is the mass, $`R`$ the radius of the body, $`m_P`$ and $`m_e`$ are the proton and electron masses and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the reduced Planck Constant. From (41) and (42) it is easy to see that for $`\overline{M}<10^{60}`$, there are highly condensed planet sized stars. (Infact these considerations lead to the Chandrasekhar limit in stellar theory). We can also verify that for $`\overline{M}`$ approaching $`10^{60}`$ corresponding to a mass $`10^{36}gms`$, or roughly a hundred to a thousand times the solar mass, the radius $`R`$ gets smaller and smaller and would be $`10^8cms`$, so as to satisfy (40) and give a Black Hole in broad agreement with theory. (On 13th Septembe, 2000, NASA announced the discovery of exactly such Black Holes.)
Finally for the universe as a whole, using only the theory of Newtonian gravitation, it is well known that we can deduce, as we saw in Chapter 7,

$$R\frac{GM}{c^2}$$
(43)
where this time $`R10^{28}cms`$ is the radius of the universe and $`M10^{55}gms`$ is the mass of the universe.
Equation (43) is the same as (40) and suggests that the universe itself is a Black Hole. It is remarkable that if we consider the universe to be a Schwarzchild Black Hole as suggested by (43), the time taken by a ray of light to traverse the universe equals the age of the universe $`10^{17}secs`$ as shown elsewhere .

## 11 Dimensionality and the Field and Particle Approach

In a recent paper, Castro, Granik and El Naschie have given a rationale for the three dimensionality of our physical space within the framework of a Cantorian fractal space time and El Naschie’s earlier work thereon. An ensemble is used and the value for the average dimension involving the golden mean is deduced close to the value of our $`3+1`$ dimensions. We now make a few remarks based on an approach which is in the spirit of the above considerations.
Our starting point is the fact that the fractal dimension of a quantum path is two, which, it has been argued in Chapter 6 is described by the coordinates $`(x,ict)`$. Infact this lead to the Dirac equation of the spin half electron. Given the spin half, it was pointed out that it is then possible to deduce the dimensionality of an ensemble of such particles, which turns out to be three.
There is another way of looking at this. If we generalise from the one space dimensional case and the complex $`(x,ıt)`$ plane to three dimensions, we infact obtain the four dimensional case and the Theory of Quarternions, which are based on the Pauli Spin Matrices. As has been noted by Sachs, had Hamilton identified the fourth coordinate in the above generalisation with time, then he would have anticipated Special Relativity itself. It must be observed that the Pauli Spin Matrices which denote the Quantum Mechanical spin half form, again, a non commutative structure.
Curiously enough the above consideration in the complex plane can have an interesting connection with an unproven nearly hundred year old conjecture of Poincare.
Poincare had conjectured that the fact that closed loops could be shrunk to points on a two dimensional surface topologically equivalent to the surface of a sphere can be generalised to three dimensions also. After all these years the conjecture has remained unproven. We will now see why the three dimensional generalisation is not possible.
We firstly observe that a two dimensional surface on which closed smooth loops can be shrunk continuously to arbitrarily small sizes is simply connected. On such a surface we can define complex coordinates following the hydrodynamical route exploiting the well known connection between the two. If we consider laminar motion of an incompressible fluid we will have

$$\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{V}=0$$
(44)
Equation (44) defines, as is well known, the stream function $`\psi `$ such that

$$\stackrel{}{V}=\stackrel{}{}\times \psi \stackrel{}{e}_z$$
(45)
where $`\stackrel{}{e}_z`$ is the unit vector in the $`z`$ direction.
Further, as the flow is irrotational, as well, we have

$$\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{V}=0$$
(46)
Equation (46) implies that there is a velocity potential $`\varphi `$ such that,

$$\stackrel{}{V}=\stackrel{}{}\varphi $$
(47)
The equations (45) and (47) show that the functions $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ satisfy the Cauchy-Reimann equations of complex analysis.
So it is possible to characterise the fluid elements by a complex variable

$$z=x+ıy$$
(48)
The question is can we generalise equation (48) to three dimensions? Infact as we saw a generalisation leads not to three but to four dimensions, with the three Pauli spin matrices $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ replacing $`ı`$. Further these Pauli spin matrices do not commute, and characterise spin or vorticity. This close connection can be established by other arguments as well.
This is not surprising - the reason lies in equation (45) or equivalently in the multiplication law of complex numbers. (Infact, there is a general tendency to loverlook this fact and this leads to the mistaken impression that complex numbers are just an ordered pair of numbers, which latter are usually associated with vectors.)
The above considerations give an explanation for the $`3+1`$ dimensionality of space time. Moreover equations like (45) and (48) re-emphasize the hydrodynamical model discussed earlier. Incidentally as Barrow  puts it, ”Interestingly, the number of dimensions of space which we experience in the large plays an important role…. It also ensures that wave phenomena behave in a coherent fashion. Were there four dimensions of space, then simple waves would not travel at one speed in free space, and hence we would simultaneously receive waves that were emitted at different times. Moreover, in any world but one having three large dimensions of space, waves would become distorted as they travelled. Such reverberation and distortion would render any high-fidelity signalling impossible. Since so much of the physical universe, from brain waves to quantum waves, relies upon travelling waves we appreciate the key role played by the dimensionality of our space in rendering its contents intelligible to us.”
We make a final remark. We saw in Chapters 1 and 2 that while the contemporary Field approach is based on guage interactions and spin 1 Bosons, these Bosons, as seen in Chapter 9 are not the Quantuzed Vortices, but rather their bound states - they can be thought of as, approxmately steamlines. On the other hand, our approach has been based on Fermions, spin half particles, which are like the Quantized Vortices encountered in Chapter 3.


text:
# Dimension dependence of the conductance distribution in the non-metallic regimes

## I Introduction

Our understanding of the metal - insulator transition (MIT) in disordered solids is based on the scaling theory of localization . We believe that MIT is universal. It means that the system-size dependence of any quantity, say conductance $`g`$, is determined only by one parameter. The validity of the one parameter scaling was tested and confirmed in the neighborhood of the critical point by various numerical simulations on quasi-one dimensional (Q1D) systems . However, a detailed analytical theory of MIT is still missing. Their formulation is complicated also by absence of the self-averaging of the conductance in disordered systems at zero temperature . Complete description of transport properties requires therefore a detailed analysis of the conductance distribution $`P(g)`$. Such theory exists only in the weak disorder limit. The weak disorder expansion, Dorokhov-Mello-Pereyra-Kumar equation (DMPK) , and the random matrix theory (RMT)  provide us with entire quantitative description of the transport statistics. However, critical regime never appears in the weak disorder limit.

For the critical regime, analytical results for the conductance statistics were derived only in dimensions slightly above the lower critical dimension $`d=2+\epsilon `$ with $`\epsilon 1`$ . These cannot be extrapolated to three dimensional systems ($`\epsilon =1`$) . Our information about the critical regime in 3D systems is therefore based only on numerical simulations. The shape of the conductance distribution at the critical point was analyzed  and one-parameter scaling of the mean conductance was numerically proven in .

Recently, an attempt has been made to obtain relevant information about the critical regime from studies of the weakly disordered Q1D systems . Although Q1D systems do not exhibit critical phenomena (correlation length never diverges ) their transport properties resemble that observed in 3D systems: (1) in the metallic regime when the system length $`L_z`$ is shorter than the localization length $`\xi `$, both RMT and the DMPK equation predict that $`P(g)`$ in Q1D systems is Gaussian with a constant, disorder independent width. This was numerically observed also for squares (2D)  and cubes (3D) . Only the variance of conductance depends on the dimension . (2) In the limit of very long system length, $`L_z\xi `$, Q1D samples become insulating, in spite of weak disorder. RMT predicts that the distribution of $`\mathrm{log}g`$ is Gaussian and var log $`g=2\mathrm{log}g`$ . Log-normal distribution was observed also in 2D and 3D strongly disordered systems . The dimension-dependence of the variance var log $`g`$ is, however, not understood. (3) In the intermediate regime, where $`g1`$, analytical relation for the conductance distribution can be obtained . Its shape is similar to that obtained numerically at the critical point of MIT .

In this paper we discuss the differences between the conductance distribution for Q1D weakly disordered systems and for 3D cubes. As the metallic limit is already good understood both analytically  and numerically  we concentrate to the critical regime ($`g1`$) and the strongly localized regime ($`g<<1`$. Although the distributions are qualitatively similar in each transport regime, quantitative differences will be found. We show that statistics of the conductance depends on the dimension in the critical and even in the localized regime. This must be taken into account in the entire description of the transport. Our analysis of the statistical properties of parameters $`z`$, which are defined by Eq. (2) below, confirms the validity of the one-parameter scaling theory in the insulating regime.

In Section 2 we describe the model we use. Section 3 presents numerical data for the conductance distribution in the intermediate (critical) regime. The shape of the distribution in the three dimensional localized regime is studied in detail in Section 4.

## II The model

We consider Anderson model defined by the Hamiltonian

$$=W\underset{n}{}\epsilon _n|nn|+\underset{[nn^{}]}{}|nn^{}|+|n^{}n|$$
(1)
where $`n`$ counts the sites in $`d`$-dimensional lattice and $`nn^{}`$ are nearest-neighbor sites. The size of the lattice is either $`L^d`$ ($`d=2,3`$) or $`L^{d1}\times L_z`$. Random energies $`\epsilon _n`$ are distributed with the box distribution $`|\epsilon _n|1/2`$ and $`W`$ is the strength of the disorder.

Our analysis of the conductance distribution is based on the Landauer formula for the conductance

$$g=\mathrm{Tr}t^{}t=\underset{1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{cosh}^2(z_i/2)$$
(2)
In (2), $`t`$ is the transmission matrix, and the parameters $`z_i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, the parameterize the eigenvalues of $`t^{}t`$ . In the limit $`L_z>>L`$, parameters $`z`$ converge to Lyapunov exponents of the transfer matrix. $`N`$ is the number of open channels .

According to (2), statistics of the conductance is completely determined by statistical properties of the parameters $`z`$. It is well known that in weakly disordered systems the spectrum of $`z`$ is linear

$$z_ii$$
(3)
independently on dimension and shape of the sample. The linear behavior (3) can be derived also from the random matrix model  and was used in Ref.  to prove of the universality of conductance fluctuation .

It is important to mention that weakness of the disorder is not only necessary but also sufficient condition for the linear form of the spectra (3). Relation (3) holds therefore for any weakly disordered Q1D systems independently on the system length . This is not true when disorder increases. Thus, we have numerically proven that

$$z_i^{d1}iW=W_c.$$
(4)
at the critical point of MIT in dimension $`d=3`$ and 4. Relation (4) holds for both Q1D  and 3D  systems. In 3D, it enables us to understand the dimension-dependence of the conductance distribution at the critical point .

The form of the spectra of $`z`$ for strongly disordered systems is known for the Q1D samples . An attempt was made to study $`z`$ for 2D and 3D strongly disordered systems . We present here much more accurate data for parameters $`z`$, which enable us to estimate the contribution of higher channels to the conductance.

## III Conductance distribution in the intermediate (critical) regime

Three-dimensional Anderson model with a box distributed disorder exhibits MIT at the critical point $`W_c=16.5`$. We calculated the conductance distribution for ensembles of three-dimensional cubes with disorder $`10.6W21.5`$. The system size was $`8\times 8\times 8`$ which is large enough to exhibit quantitative properties of the conductance distribution. Calculated shape of $`P(g)`$ is compared with the conductance distribution for weakly disordered Q1D systems of the size $`8^2\times L_z`$. The disorder $`W=4`$ assures the existence of the metallic regime for short $`L_z`$, $`L_z100`$. The localized regime appears when $`L_z`$ exceeds 250. Tuning the length $`L_z`$ we find for each 3D ensemble the corresponding Q1D ensemble with the same mean conductance.

A comparison of the conductance distribution of 3D and Q1D systems is presented in Figures 1, 2 and 4. In the metallic regime, when $`g>1`$, $`P(g)`$ is Gaussian in both 3D and Q1D geometry, as supposed (Fig. 1a). The width of the distribution is universal, independent on the system size. It depends only on the system shape, and is slightly smaller for Q1D than for 3D systems, in agreement with theoretical results .

Figures 1 (b-e) present the shape of $`P(g)`$ in the critical regime, when $`g1`$. We know that $`P(g)`$ for 3D systems becomes non-analytical at $`g=1`$ and decreases exponentially when $`g>1`$ . The same is true also for Q1D systems in the intermediate regime . $`P(g)`$ decreases for $`g>1`$ much faster than predicted theoretically . The exponential decrease in Q1D is even faster than that in 3D systems. This is because for a given $`z_1`$ the difference $`z_2z_1`$ is much smaller in 3D than in Q1D, as follows from the comparison of (3) with (4). Higher channels have therefore a better chance to contribute to the conductance in 3D than in Q1D.

Figure 2 presents the conductance distribution for 3D Anderson model at the critical point ($`W_c=16.5`$) and for 2D and Q1D systems with the same mean conductance. As supposed, 3D distribution posses the longest tail, while two Q1D-distributions are almost identical. From the plot of the $`P(\mathrm{log}g)`$ (data not shown in the paper) we conclude that all four distributions are identical for small $`g`$. This is not surprise since the small -$`g`$ behavior is determined completely by the distribution of $`z_1`$, which is the same in all systems.

The quantitative difference between the conductance distribution for cubic and Q1D systems is measured by the integral

$$I(1)=_1^{\mathrm{}}P(g)dg$$
(5)
In figure 3 we plot $`I(1)`$ as a function of the mean conductance $`g`$ for various geometrical shapes of systems. For Q1D systems, we calculated both $`L\times L_z`$ and $`L^2\times L_z`$ ($`L_z>>L`$). The data lay on the same curve. This is no surprise since the spectrum of $`z`$ is linear in both systems. A similar universality was found in 2D system. Here, we either increase disorder with constant system size or increase the size of square samples keeping disorder constant. As supposed, the data for 3D and 2D systems scales independently.

The figure 4 compares $`P(\mathrm{log}g)`$ for 3D and Q1D systems in localized regime. It confirms that $`P(\mathrm{log}g)`$ converges to Gaussian both for 3D and Q1D systems. The distribution for Q1D systems is much broader than that for 3D. While the shape of $`P(\mathrm{log}g)`$ in weakly disordered Q1D systems can be obtained analytically , distribution for 3D systems is known only from numerical simulations  and deserves more detailed analysis.

## IV Strongly localized regime

In the insulating regime all $`z`$ increase linearly with the system length. The length-dependence of $`z_1`$ determines the localization length $`\xi `$

$$z_1(L)=\frac{2L}{\xi }+\mathrm{const}$$
(6)
(For Q1D systems, $`L`$ should be replaced by $`L_z`$).

The knowledge of the spectrum of parameters $`z`$ is important also in the insulating regime. As mentioned above, the spectrum of $`z`$ remains linear in weakly disordered Q1D systems  so that $`z_2=2z_1z_1`$. Contrary to Q1D systems, we find that the difference $`z_2z_1`$ increases only logarithmically with the system size for 2D systems (Figure 5):

$$z_2z_1c\times \mathrm{log}L2\mathrm{D}\mathrm{systems}.$$
(7)
The same logarithmic behavior was found also in the 2D systems with spin-orbit scattering (data are not presented here).

In 3D systems we find that the differences $`z_2z_1`$ and $`z_3z_1\mathrm{}`$ do not depend on the system size in the strongly localized regime:

$$z_2z_1\mathrm{const}3\mathrm{D}\mathrm{systems}$$
(8)
In figure 6 we present the $`z_1`$-dependence of the difference $`z_2z_1`$ for the 2D and 3D systems. For $`z_1`$ large enough, data scale to the same curve, confirming the one-parameter scaling. More important, data prove that the spectrum of the transfer matrix depends on the dimension of the sample in the localized regime.

Figure 7 presents the $`z_1`$ \- dependence of the differences $`z_iz_1`$ for $`i=2,3,4`$ and 5. Although the convergence is worse for higher differences, the saturation to the $`z_1`$-independent constant is clearly observable as $`z_1`$ increases.

Due to (8), the contribution of the second channel is nonzero whichever is the contribution of the first one. This contribution, however gives only small correction to the first channel contribution $`\mathrm{log}g=\mathrm{log}4z_1`$. Nevertheless, it is interesting to test how the contributions of the higher channels influence the statistical properties of the conductance. We found that apart the shift of the mean value the distribution $`P(\mathrm{log}g)`$ and the distribution $`P(z_1)`$ are almost identical.

Although the absolute value of the conductance changes only slightly due to the contribution of higher channels, the present effect influences the variance of the log $`g`$. Indeed, the small difference $`z_2z_1`$ causes that $`z_1`$ is confined from above: the probability to find $`z_1>>z_1`$ is much less in the 3D than in the Q1D. The width of the distribution of $`z_1`$ and of $`\mathrm{log}g`$ is therefore narrower in 3D than in in the Q1D. This agrees with numerical data presented in figure 4. Note also an asymmetry of the distribution: the probability to find $`\mathrm{log}g=\mathrm{log}g+\delta `$ is higher than the probability to find $`\mathrm{log}g=\mathrm{log}g\delta `$ ($`\delta >0`$).

To support one-parameter scaling by more quantitative arguments we analyzed also statistical properties of the parameters $`z`$. Contrary to weakly disordered Q1D systems, we have to take into account also mutual correlations of $`z_1`$ and higher $`z`$ in 3D. It is therefore not clear in advance, whether or not the one-parameter scaling theory is valid in this regime. However, Figure 6 shows that the differences $`z_iz_1`$ are unambiguous functions of $`z_1`$. Validity of the one-parameter scaling in the localized regime is confirmed also by the data in figure 5 which shows that var $`z_1`$ is an unambiguous function of the mean value $`z_1`$ in 2D even when disorder is strong. The same seems to hold also for 3D systems (figure 8) In figure 8 we present also the $`\mathrm{log}g`$-dependence of var log $`g`$. In the last case we find deviations from scaling only when the localization length $`\xi `$ becomes comparable with inter-atomic distance ($`\xi 1`$). We analyzed also systems with non-zero Fermi energy. This was motivated by Ref. , where separate var $`z`$ vs $`z`$ \- relations were found in systems with different Fermi energy. Our present data, however, scale to the same curve as that for the zero Fermi energy (Figure 8). However, we cannot guarantee that more detailed statistical analysis will not show small deviations from the one-parameter scaling, similar to that observed in one-dimensional systems .

## V Conclusion

We have shown numerically that the shape of the conductance distribution depends on the system dimension when the system leaves metallic regime. Qualitative explanation of this difference is based on the known spectra of the parameters $`z`$. In weakly disordered quasi-one dimensional systems the spectrum of $`z`$ is linear independently on the dimension and the system length. However, in the cubic $`d`$-dimensional samples the spectrum depends on the dimension of the system when the disorder increases.

We presented and compared the conductance distributions for Q1D and 3D systems in the intermediate (critical) regime. For both of them we found non-analytical behavior in $`g=1`$ and exponential decrease of $`P(g)`$ for $`g>1`$. The distributions differ only quantitatively.

We have shown for the first time that the differences $`z_2z_1`$ increase logarithmically with the system size in two-dimensional strongly disordered systems. In three dimensional strongly disordered systems the differences $`z_2z_1`$ and $`z_3z_1`$ are constant and independent on the system size and on the strength of the disorder. Is agrees with previous results . The contributions to the conductance from the first, the second and higher channels have therefore the same system-size dependence $`\mathrm{exp}z_1`$. Although the contribution of higher channels to the mean conductance is small, the shape of the spectra of $`z`$ influences strongly the form of the distribution of the $`\mathrm{log}g`$, which becomes narrower in 3D than in the weakly disordered quasi-one dimensional systems. The one-channel approximation is therefore not sufficient for the entire description of the insulating regime in three dimensions.

Our numerical data confirm that $`z_2`$, $`z_3`$ together with var $`z_1`$ are unambiguous functions of $`z_1`$. We believe therefore, that, in spite of the non-linearity of the spectrum of $`z`$, the random matrix theory can be generalized to the description of the non-metallic systems . Such a generalization would approve applicability of the one-parameter scaling theory both to the critical and the strongly insulating regime.

This work was supported by Slovak Grand Agency VEGA, Grant n. 2/7174/20. Numerical data were partially collected using the computer Origin 2000 in the Computer Center of the Slovak Academy of Sciences.


text:
# Comment on the intermediate vortex liquid phase in extreme type-II superconductors

## Abstract

It is shown that disentangled vortex liquid can be a true thermodynamic phase of type-II superconductors in spite of the absense of supercurrent in the direction parallel to the magnetic field.

The problem of the nature of phase transition(s) into a superconductive state in extreme type-II superconductors placed in external magnetic field was recently addressed in a number of numerical simulations and experiments  on YBa2Cu3O7 single crystals. The main issue was formulated long ago  as follows: does an intermediate state of vortex matter (”disentangled vortex liquid”, DVL) exist between well-understood Abrikosov lattice and normal metal states ? Following early discussions in , the DVL was understood as the state with superconductive current response, $`J_z=\mathrm{const}\delta A_z`$, along the direction of background magnetic field $`𝐁\widehat{z}`$. With such an understanding, the results of numerical and experimental studies  are apparently conflicting: measurements  and simulations  indicate the presence of some intermediate vortex liquid state, whereas other measurements  and simulations  demonstrate absense of superconductive response in the vortex liquid. In the present Comment I would like to point out a simple way to reconcile the above observations and to provide some understanding of the vortex state discussed in .

Consider a 3D superconductor with current $`𝐉`$ and vector potential $`𝐀`$. The longitudinal response of the superconductor in the vortex state is defined by,

$$J_z(𝐪,q_z)=P_{zz}(𝐪,q_z)A_z(𝐪,q_z),$$
(1)
where $`𝐪\widehat{z}`$. There is a “duality relation” between the longitudinal polarization function of the superconductor $`P_{zz}`$ and the transverse polarization function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega =0,𝐪)`$ of the corresponding 2D Bose-liquid ground-state

$$P_{zz}(𝐪,q_z=0)=\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\frac{q^2}{q^2+g^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega =0,𝐪)},$$
(2)
(in the context of the frustrated XY model , $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_z(𝐪)=P_{zz}(𝐪,q_z=0)`$ is called the helicity modulus). For the superfluid groud-state of 2D Bose-lqiuid, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(q0)=\rho _s>0`$, and the duality relation (2) gives a normal longitudinal response $`P_{zz}q^2`$. For the 2D Bose-liquid ground-state with finite susceptibility $`\chi `$, like in normal (non-superfluid) liquid, one gets $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(𝐪0)=\chi q^2`$, and Eq. (2) gives $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_z(q0)>0`$, i.e. a non-zero helicity modulus. Numerical data  show no evidence of such a liquid state. The point to be made is that these data do not contradict to the existence of non-superfluid Bose-liquid ground-state per se.

Namely, suppose that a Bose-liquid ground-state possesses a transverse polarization function with an anomalous $`q`$-dependence, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(𝐪)|q|^a`$ with $`0<a<2`$. The corresponding state of the superconductor will have $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_z(q0)|q|^{2a}`$, so the $`q=0`$ helicity modulus is zero. At the same time, such a ground-state is qualitatively different from the superfluid Bose liquid (i.e. ”entangled vortex liquid” in superconductive language); its existence is intrinsically related to the appearence of massless excitation modes with nonzero momentum $`q`$, and breakdown of Galilei invariance, as described in . On the other hand, an existence of an intermediate state with such a massless modes is the direct consequence of experimental observations . The only numerical data for the finite-$`q`$ helicity modulus $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(q)`$ are provided in , cf. their Fig.3b. The data for $`T=0.54`$ seem to be consistent with the above hypothesis, although their accuracy is not yet sufficient to establish this. An additional phase transition above the melting line observed (by counting of vortex lines trajectories ) in Ref.  can be understood macroscopically as a transition into a state dual to the above non-superfluid Bose-liquid.

On a purely theoretical side, arguments in favor of existence of an intermediate nonsuperfluid Bose-liquid ground state were advanced in Ref.  where a Bose liquid with a special kind of instantaneous interaction was considered. The peculiar feature of the interaction is that it produces no long-wavelength shear modulus $`C_{66}(q0)=0`$ even in the periodic crystal-like ground state; as a result, the ground state was found to be very fragile. Although a physical realization of the specific model studied in Ref.  looks doubtful, it has the same qualitative property, $`C_{66}(q0)=0`$, as the vortex-vortex interaction in the recently studied borocarbide compounds of the RNi2B2C family at the critical line $`H^{}(T)`$ of the hexagonal-to-square vortex lattice transition. We speculate that there may be a fluctuation region around the mean-field transition line $`H^{}(T)`$ between the vortex lattices of different symmetries, and that an anomalous vortex liquid state may occur in borocarbides within this region.

To conclude, a simple way to reconcile apparently conflicting published results  on existence of disentangled vortex liquid in HTSC is proposed. I am grateful to V. B. Geshkenbein and A. E. Koshelev for many useful discussions. This research was supported by the RFBR grant #98-02-16252 and the DGA grant #94-1189.