format: text

text:
# Spatial Persistence of Fluctuating Interfaces

## Abstract

We show that the probability, $`P_0(l)`$, that the height of a fluctuating $`(d+1)`$-dimensional interface in its steady state stays above its initial value up to a distance $`l`$, along any linear cut in the $`d`$-dimensional space, decays as $`P_0(l)l^\theta `$. Here $`\theta `$ is a ‘spatial’ persistence exponent, and takes different values, $`\theta _s`$ or $`\theta _0`$, depending on how the point from which $`l`$ is measured is specified. While $`\theta _s`$ is related to fractional Brownian motion, and can be determined exactly, $`\theta _0`$ is non-trivial even for Gaussian interfaces.

PACS numbers: 05.70.Ln, 05.40.+j, 02.50.-r, 81.10.Aj

Fluctuating interfaces have played the role of a paradigm in nonequilibrium statistical physics for the last two decades, with applications ranging from growth problems to fluid flow . Traditionally the different universality classes of the interfaces are specified by the exponents associated with the dynamic correlation functions. Recently the concept of persistence, i.e. the statistics of first-passage events, was used to characterize the temporal history of an evolving interface. Starting from an initially flat interface, it was found that the probability that the interface at a given point in space stays above its initial height up to time $`t`$ decays as a power-law in time with an exponent $`\theta _0^{tem}`$ that is nontrivial even for simple ‘Gaussian’ interfaces (i.e. with dynamics governed by a linear Langevin equation) . On the other hand, the statistics of returns to an initial profile chosen from the ensemble of equilibrium configurations was shown to be governed by a different exponent $`\theta _s^{tem}`$. The exponent $`\theta _s^{tem}`$ was shown be the identical to the first passage exponent of the fractional Brownian motion (fbm) which is known exactly. In  these two regimes were termed the coarsening and stationary regimes respectively.

The exponents $`\theta _0^{tem}`$ and $`\theta _s^{tem}`$ describe first-passage properties in time. A question that naturally arises is: what about the first-passage properties in space? Is there a power-law distribution and associated nontrivial exponents for the spatial persistence of an interface? In this paper we address this important question and show that indeed in the steady state (long time limit), the probability $`P_0(l)`$ that an interface stays above its initial value over a distance $`l`$ from a given point in space decays as $`P_0(l)l^\theta `$ for large $`l`$. Furthermore, analogous to its temporal counterpart, the spatial persistence exponent $`\theta `$ again takes different values, $`\theta _0`$ and $`\theta _s`$, according to the “initial” condition, in this case specified by the height and its spatial derivatives at the point (the “initial point” in space) from which $`l`$ is measured. If the initial point is sampled uniformly from the ensemble of steady state configurations, the relevant exponent, $`\theta _s`$, is related to the Hurst exponent of the spatial roughening. Conversely, if the initial point is such that the height and its spatial derivatives are finite, independent of the system size (we will call this a finite initial condition), the corresponding exponent $`\theta _0`$ is a new, nontrivial exponent.

A second interesting question asks: Is there a morphological transition in the stationary profile of a fluctuating interface if one changes the mechanism of fluctuations by tuning either the dynamical exponent $`z`$ or the spatial dimension $`d`$? This question has important experimental significance. For example, recent Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM) measurements have shown that the dynamical exponent $`z`$ characterizing the fluctuations of single layer Cu(111) surface changes from $`z=2`$ at high temperatures to $`z=4`$ at low temperatures. Thus by tuning the temperature, and hence $`z`$, the STM measurements may possibly detect a morphological transition if there is one. We show here that Gaussian interfaces indeed exhibit a morphological transition across a critical line $`z_c(d)=d+2`$ in the $`(zd)`$ plane as one tunes either $`z`$ or $`d`$. For $`z>z_c(d)`$, the steady state profile is smooth with a finite density of zero crossings along any linear cut in the $`d`$-dimensional space. On the contrary, for $`z<z_c(d)`$, the density of zero crossings is infinite and the locations of zeros are nonuniform and form a fractal set.

A seemingly unrelated problem is the usual temporal persistence of the stochastic process,

$$\frac{d^nx}{dt^n}=\eta (t),$$
(1)
where $`x`$ is the position of a particle and $`\eta (t)`$ is a Gaussian white noise with zero mean and delta correlation, $`\eta (t)\eta (t^{})=\delta (tt^{})`$. The probability, $`P_0(t)`$, that $`x`$ does not change sign up to time $`t`$ decays as $`P_0(t)t^{\theta (n)}`$ for large $`t`$, where the persistence exponent $`\theta (n)`$ depends continuously on $`n`$. The exact value of the exponent is known only for $`n=1`$ (the usual Brownian motion), $`\theta (1)=1/2`$, and $`n=2`$ (the random acceleration problem), $`\theta (2)=1/4`$. The latter problem has recently attracted attention in connection with the problem of inelastic collapse in granular materials.

In this paper, we establish an intricate mapping between the process in Eq. (1) and the steady state profile of Gaussian interfaces evolving via the Langevin equation,

$$\frac{h}{t}=(^2)^{z/2}h+\xi $$
(2)
where $`^2`$ is the $`d`$-dimensional Laplacian operator, $`z`$ is the dynamical exponent associated with the interface and $`\xi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is a Gaussian white noise with zero mean and $`\xi (\stackrel{}{r},t)\xi (\stackrel{}{r}^{},t^{})=2\delta (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{})\delta (tt^{})`$. The continuum equation (2) is well defined only for $`z>d`$. For $`z<d`$, one needs a nonzero lattice constant in real space or an ultraviolet cut-off in momentum space. Below we will assume $`z>d`$.

Let us summarize our main results. We find two independent spatial persistence exponents $`\theta _0`$ and $`\theta _s`$ depending on the initial point in space (from where measurements start). The two main results are: (i) By exploiting the mapping to the stochastic process (1), we show that for a ‘finite’ initial starting point,

$$\theta _0=\theta (n),\mathrm{where}n=(zd+1)/2.$$
(3)
and (ii) For initial points sampled from the steady state configurations, however, we show exactly that

$$\theta _s=\{\begin{array}{cc}3/2n,\hfill & 1/2<n<3/2\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & n>3/2\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`n=(zd+1)/2`$.

Exploiting the two exact results, $`\theta (1)=1/2`$ and $`\theta (2)=1/4`$ in Eq. (3), we find that for any $`(d+1)`$-dimensional interface with $`zd=1`$, $`\theta _0=1/2`$ and for $`zd=3`$, $`\theta _0=1/4`$ exactly. An explicit example of the former case is the $`(1+1)`$-dimensional EW model with $`z=2`$ and $`d=1`$, giving $`\theta _0=1/2`$ . An example of the latter case is the $`(1+1)`$-dimensional continuum version of the Das-Sarma Tamborenea (DT) model with $`z=4`$ and $`d=1`$, which gives $`\theta _0=1/4`$, a new exact result. For general $`n>3/2`$, we show that the exponent $`\theta (n)`$ and hence $`\theta _0`$ can be estimated rather accurately by using an ‘independent interval approximation’ (IIA). Thus Eq. (3), besides giving accurate, and in some cases exact, results for the new exponent $`\theta _0`$, also give a physical meaning to the stochastic process in Eq. (1) for general $`n`$. We will use this correspondence to further establish a morphological transition for Gaussian interfaces, across the critical line $`z_c(d)=d+2`$, as one tunes $`z`$ or $`d`$ in the $`(zd)`$ plane.

Let us consider the $`n`$-th derivative of the scalar field $`h(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ with respect to any particular direction, say $`x_1`$, in the $`d`$-dimensional space, $`g(\stackrel{}{r},t)=^nh/x_1^n`$. From Eq. (2), it follows that the Fourier transform, $`\stackrel{~}{g}(\stackrel{}{k},t)=g(\stackrel{}{r},t)e^{i\stackrel{}{k}.\stackrel{}{r}}d^d\stackrel{}{r}`$ then evolves as,

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(\stackrel{}{k},t)}{t}=|k|^z\stackrel{~}{g}(\stackrel{}{k},t)+\xi _1(\stackrel{}{k},t)$$
(5)
where $`|k|^2=k_1^2+k_2^2+\mathrm{}`$ and $`\xi _1`$ is a Gaussian noise with zero mean and correlator, $`\xi _1(\stackrel{}{k},t)\xi _1(\stackrel{}{k}^{},t^{})=2|k_1|^{2n}\delta (\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{k}^{})\delta (tt^{})`$. Using Eq. (5), one can easily evaluate the correlator, $`g(\stackrel{}{k},t)g(\stackrel{}{k}^{},t)=G(\stackrel{}{k},t)\delta (\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{k}^{})`$, to obtain, in the steady state, $`G(\stackrel{}{k})=|k_1|^{2n}/|k|^z`$. Inverting the Fourier transform gives the stationary, real-space correlator,

$$g(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})g(x_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{},x_2,\mathrm{})=\frac{|k_1|^{2n}}{|k|^z}e^{ik_1(x_1x_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})}d^d\stackrel{}{k}.$$
(6)
It is now easy to see from Eq. (6) that with the choice $`n=(zd+1)/2`$ the integral yields a delta function, i.e.,

$$g(x_1,x_2,x_3,\mathrm{})g(x_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{},x_2,x_3,\mathrm{})=D\delta (x_1x_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})$$
(7)
where $`D`$ is just a dimension-dependent number.

Since the basic Langevin equation, Eq. (2), is a linear equation and the noise $`\xi `$ is Gaussian, clearly $`h`$ is a Gaussian process and therefore its $`n`$-th derivative, $`g`$, is also a Gaussian process. A Gaussian process is completely specified by its two-point correlator. Hence in the steady state limit $`t\mathrm{}`$, one can write the following effective equation, which gives the $`x_1`$-dependence of $`g`$ at fixed $`x_2,x_3,\mathrm{}`$

$$g(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})=\frac{^nh}{x_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}}=\eta (x_1),$$
(8)
where $`\eta `$ is Gaussian white noise with zero mean and $`\eta (x_1)\eta (x_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})=\delta (x_1x_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})`$. Note that we have rescaled the $`x_1`$ axis to absorb the constant $`D`$. This effective stochastic equation will generate the correct two-point correlator as given by Eq. (7) and also all higher order correlations as well since $`g`$ is a Gaussian process. Making the identification, $`x_1t`$ and $`hx`$, Eq. (8) immediately reduces to the process in Eq. (1). Hence the steady state profile of a Gaussian interface evolving via Eq. (2) can be effectively described by the stochastic equation (1) with $`n=(zd+1)/2`$. Therefore, the spatial persistence of the Gaussian interface also gets mapped onto the temporal persistence of the stochastic process (1).

Consider the stochastic process (1) starting from the initial condition at $`t=0`$ where $`x`$ and all its time derivatives up to order $`(n1)`$ vanish. It turns out that the statistics of first passage events of this process depends crucially on whether one starts measuring these events right from $`t=0`$ or or if one first waits for an infinite time and then starts measuring the events. This is similar to the ‘coarsening’ versus ‘stationary’ regimes as studied in . This can be quantified more precisely in terms of two-time correlations. Integrating Eq. (1) $`n`$ times gives

$$x(t)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}_0^t\eta (t_1)(tt_1)^{n1}𝑑t_1,$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ is the usual Gamma function. From Eq. (9), which provides a natural continuation from integer $`n`$ to real $`n`$, it is easy to evaluate the correlation function,

$`C(t,t^{},t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`[x(t_0+t)x(t_0)][x(t_0+t^{})x(t_0)]`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`A(t_0+t,t_0+t^{})A(t_0+t,t_0)`$ (11)
$``$ $`A(t_0,t_0+t^{})+A(t_0,t_0),`$ (12)
where the autocorrelation $`A(t,t^{})`$ is given by,

$$A(t,t^{})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(n)}_0^{min(t,t^{})}(tt_1)^{n1}(t^{}t_1)^{n1}𝑑t_1.$$
(13)
Thus the correlation function that fully characterizes the Gaussian process and thereby its persistence, depends explicitly on the ‘waiting’ time $`t_0`$, the starting point of measurements. It turns out, however, that there are only two asymptotic behaviors controlled respectively by the $`t_0=0`$ and $`t_0\mathrm{}`$ fixed points. Any finite $`t_0`$ flows into the $`t_0=0`$ fixed point.

To see how the two exponents, $`\theta _0`$ and $`\theta _s`$, emerge, consider first the limit $`t_0\mathrm{}`$. From Eq. (12), we get after some algebra,

$`C(t,t^{},\mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`\alpha _n[t^{2n1}+t^{2n1}|tt^{}|^{2n1}],{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<n<{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},`$ (14)
$``$ $`\beta _nt_0^{2n3}tt^{},n>{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},`$ (15)
where $`\alpha _n=\mathrm{\Gamma }[n]\mathrm{\Gamma }[12n]/\mathrm{\Gamma }[1n]>0`$ and $`\beta (n)=[n^2n+1(n2)/(2n3)]/(2n1)>0`$. To calculate the persistence properties from this correlator, we note that the form of the correlator for $`\frac{1}{2}<n<\frac{3}{2}`$ in Eq. (15) is precisely that of fbm with Hurst exponent $`H=n\frac{1}{2}`$. The corresponding persistence exponent is known exactly  to be $`\theta _s=1H=\frac{3}{2}n=(d+2z)/2`$, from Eq. (3), provided $`z<d+2`$. For $`z>d+2`$, i.e. $`n>3/2`$, Eq. (15) gives the normalized correlator $`C(t,t^{},\mathrm{})/\sqrt{C(t,t,\mathrm{})C(t^{},t^{},\mathrm{})}=1`$, implying $`\theta _s=0`$.

We now turn to the limit $`t_0=0`$. From Eq. (12), we find that the process is non-stationary in time since the correlator depends on both $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ and not just on the difference $`|tt^{}|`$. However, using the standard transformation, $`X=x(t)/\sqrt{x^2(t)}`$ and $`T=\mathrm{ln}t`$, one finds that $`X(T)`$ becomes a Gaussian stationary process in the “new” time variable $`T`$, with a correlator $`C_n(T)=X(0)X(T)`$,

$$C_n(T)=(2\frac{1}{n})e^{T/2}F(1n,1;1+n;e^T),$$
(16)
where $`F(a,b;c;z)`$ is the standard hypergeometric function. This form of the correlator suggests that the exponent $`\theta _0`$ is nontrivial. To find it one is confronted with the following problem: given a Gaussian stationary process $`X(T)`$ with a prescribed correlator $`C(T)=X(0)X(T)`$, what is the probability $`P_0(T)`$ that the process $`X(T)`$ does not cross zero up to time $`T`$?

For general correlator $`C(T)`$, $`P_0(T)`$ is hard to solve. For $`n=1`$, we have, from Eq. (16), $`C_1(T)=\mathrm{exp}(T/2)`$, a pure exponential. This corresponds to a Markov process, for which the exact result is known: $`P_0(T)\mathrm{exp}(T/2)t^{1/2}`$ implying $`\theta _0(1)=1/2`$. For higher values of $`n`$, the process $`X(T)`$ is non-Markovian and hence to determine $`\theta _0(n)`$ is harder. Fortunately for $`n=2`$ where $`C_2(T)=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{exp}(T/2)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{exp}(3T/2)`$, the exact result is also known: $`P_0(T)\mathrm{exp}(T/4)t^{1/4}`$. For general $`n`$, one can extract some useful information about the stochastic process by studying the short-time properties of the correlator $`C_n(T)`$. Expanding Eq. (16) for small $`T`$ we get,

$$C_n(T)\{\begin{array}{cc}1a_nT^{2n1}\hfill & 1/2<n<3/2\text{,}\hfill \\ 1+\frac{T^2}{4}\mathrm{ln}T\hfill & n=3/2\text{,}\hfill \\ 1\frac{(2n1)}{8(2n3)}T^2\hfill & n>3/2\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
where $`a_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(22n)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1n)`$. Thus for $`n>3/2`$, the process is “smooth” with a finite density of zero crossings that can be derived using Rice’s formula,

$$\rho =\frac{\sqrt{C_n^{\prime \prime }(0)}}{\pi }=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{2n1}{2n3}},$$
(18)
where $`C_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(0)`$ is the second derivative at the origin. For $`1/2<n<3/2`$, the density is infinite and the zeros are not uniformly distributed but instead form a fractal set with fractal dimension $`d_f=n1/2`$. The case $`n=3/2`$ is marginal, and the integral in Eq. (16) can be evaluated in closed form, $`C_{3/2}(T)=\mathrm{cosh}(T/2)+\mathrm{sinh}^2(T/2)\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{tanh}(T/4)]`$, with the density still divergent but only logarithmically. A physical example that corresponds to this marginal case $`n=3/2`$ is the $`2`$-d DT model with $`z=4`$. The exponent $`\theta (n)`$ diverges as $`n1/2`$ from above. For $`n<1/2`$ or equivalently $`z>d`$ the continuum equation is not well defined and one needs a non-zero lattice constant in space (for the interface problem) or time (for the stochastic process in Eq. (1)).

This transition at $`n=n_c=3/2`$ can now be directly interpreted in the interface context using the relation (3). Gaussian interfaces with finite initial condition undergoes a morphological transition at $`z_c=d+2`$. For $`z>z_c(d)`$ ($`n>3/2`$), the surface has a finite density of zero crossings, given by (3) and (18) as $`\rho =(1/2\pi )\sqrt{(zd)/(zd2)}`$, along any linear cut in the $`d`$-dimensional space. On the other hand, for $`z<z_c(d)`$, the surface crosses zero in a nonuniform way and the density is strictly infinite. If it crosses zero once, it crosses subsequently many times before making a long excursion.

This transition is reminiscent of the “wrinkle” transition found recently by Toroczkai et. al.  in $`(1+1)`$-dimensional Gaussian interfaces. However there is an important difference. Toroczkai et. al. studied the density of extrema of a Gaussian $`(1+1)`$-dimensional surface and found that the density of extrema is finite for $`z>5`$ and infinite for $`z<5`$. Their results can be understood very simply within our general framework by noting that an extremum of the surface $`h`$ corresponds to $`_xh=0`$. Thus the density of extrema of the surface $`h`$ corresponds to the density of zeros of the derivative process $`_xh`$. One can then follow our chain of arguments mapping a Gaussian interface to the stochastic process in Eq. (1) and one finds that the derivative process also maps to Eq. (1), but with $`n=(zd1)/2`$, i.e. $`n`$ gets replaced by $`(n+1)`$ in Eq. (3) due to the extra derivative. Using $`n_c=3/2`$ again, we find that the transition for the derivative process occurs at $`z=z_c=d+4`$. This is thus a generalization of the $`d=1`$ result ($`z_c=5`$) of Ref. .

For $`n>3/2`$, where the process is smooth, one can apply the IIA which assumes that successive intervals between zero-crossings of the process $`X(T)`$ are statistically independent. The IIA was used very successfully for rather accurate analytical estimates of the persistence exponent for the diffusion equation. According to this approximation, the exponent $`\theta `$ for a general smooth Gaussian process with correlator $`C(T)`$ is given by the first positive root of the following transcendental equation,

$$1+\frac{2\theta }{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}^1\left[C(T)\right]e^{\theta T}𝑑T=\frac{2\rho }{\theta },$$
(19)
where $`\rho =\sqrt{C^{\prime \prime }(0)}/\pi `$ is the density of zero crossings. Applying this formula to our problem, with $`C_n(T)`$ given by Eq. (16) and $`\rho `$ by Eq. (18), we can obtain estimates for $`\theta (n)`$ for arbitrary $`n>3/2`$.

For example, putting $`n=2`$ in Eqs. (16) and (19), we get $`\theta (2)=0.26466\mathrm{}`$ (IIA) which can be compared to the exact result $`\theta (2)=1/4`$. Similarly for $`n=3`$, we find $`\theta (3)=0.22283\mathrm{}`$(IIA), to be compared to the value $`\theta (3)0.231\pm .01`$ obtained by numerical simulation. The limit $`n\mathrm{}`$ is rather interesting. From Eq. (16), we get, $`C_{\mathrm{}}(T)=\mathrm{sech}(T/2)`$ which happens to be also the correlation function for the two-dimensional diffusion equation. For this, one can also obtain an IIA estimate, $`\theta (\mathrm{})=0.1862\mathrm{}`$ (IIA) which is again rather close to the numerical value $`\theta (\mathrm{})0.1875\pm 0.0010`$. Thus for all $`n>3/2`$, the analytical IIA estimates for $`\theta (n)`$ seem to be rather accurate.

In the context of a stationary interface, the morphological transition at $`n=3/2`$ (i.e. $`z=d+2`$) is associated with the familiar transition from a rough to a super-rough interface, extracted from the mean-square height difference $`C(x)=[h(x)h(0)]^2`$. Using the stationary correlator, $`h_𝐤h_𝐤1/|𝐤|^z`$ gives $`C(x)|x|^{zd}`$ for $`d<z<d+2`$, and $`C(x)x^2L^{zd2}`$ for $`z>d+2`$, where the system size $`L`$ acts as a regulator for the small-$`k`$ divergence ($`k_{min}1/L`$) in the latter case. This analysis also illustrates the difference between finite and steady state “initial” points: if $`h(0)`$ is fixed, i.e. not averaged over the steady state distribution, one obtains, for large $`|x|`$, $`C(x)|x|^{zd}`$, independent of $`L`$, for all $`z>d`$. The same result follows from Eq. (1) after the replacements $`xh`$, $`tx`$.

In summary, we have shown that fluctuating interfaces exhibit a form of spatial persistence analogous to the temporal persistence exhibited by stochastic processes. For Gaussian interfaces the analogy is precise – the spatial fluctuations in the stationary state are isomorphic to the stochastic process (1), with $`n`$ given by Eq. (3). A non-Gaussian process for which exact results are possible is the $`(1+1)`$-dimensional KPZ equation, since the stationary probability distribution of the interface field is given by, $`P(\{h(x)\})\mathrm{exp}[(_xh)^2𝑑x]`$. Thus the stationary interface can be described by the effective Langevin equation, $`_xh=\eta (x)`$, the $`n=1`$ version of Eq. (1). From the exact results $`\theta (1)=1/2`$, and $`H=1/2`$ we immediately obtain $`\theta _0=\theta _s=1/2`$, in agreement with Ref. . For the KPZ equation in higher dimensions, and other non-Gaussian interface models, the determination of $`\theta _0`$, in particular, remains a challenge.

We thank M. Barma, G. Manoj, M. Marsili and C. Castellano for useful discussions.


text:
# Late superhumps and the stream-disc impact in IY UMa

## 1 Introduction

IY UMa was identified as a dwarf nova type cataclysmic variable (CV) in January 2000 (Uemura et al. 2000) when it went into superoutburst showing strong superhumps and deep eclipses in its lightcurve.

Superhumps are luminosity variations with period, $`P_{\mathrm{sh}}`$, a few percent longer than the orbital period, thought to arise from the interaction of the donor star orbit with a slowly progradely precessing non-axisymmetric accretion disc. The eccentricity of the disc arises because a 3:1 resonance occurs between the donor star orbit and motion of matter in the outer disc. This can only occur in systems with a sufficiently low mass ratio ($`q=\frac{M_{donor}}{M_{wd}}`$) that the 3:1 resonance radius is within the tidal radius at which the disc is truncated by tidal forces (Paczyński 1977). The superhump period is then given by

$$\frac{1}{P_{\mathrm{sh}}}=\frac{1}{P_{\mathrm{orb}}}\frac{1}{P_{\mathrm{prec}}}$$

where $`P_{\mathrm{prec}}`$ is the disc precession period and $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ is the orbital period.

A detailed study of the superoutburst of IY UMa was carried out by Patterson et al. (2000) (hereafter P2000). IY UMa has orbital period $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}=1.77`$ hours. The system parameters were estimated in P2000 as $`M_{wd}=0.86\pm 0.11M_{}`$, $`M_{donor}=0.12\pm 0.02M_{}`$ and orbital inclination $`i=86\stackrel{}{.}8\pm 1\stackrel{}{.}5`$.

## 2 Observations

Here we analyse V-light data covering the late superhump era, HJD 2451572–79, from the more extensive data presented in P2000. These data comprise 22 eclipses with typical time resolution 20 to 30 seconds. Figure 1 shows a representative orbital lightcurve, where a strong orbital hump is visible as the stream disc impact region (bright spot) comes into view before eclipse. The white dwarf and hot spot eclipses are easily identified.

The entire dataset being analysed is shown in Figure 9a, and is discussed in Section 5.

## 3 Tracing the eccentric disc shape

### 3.1 Shadow method

The eclipse of the prominent hot spot (Figure 1) provides an opportunity to probe the disc shape. Assuming the surface of the donor star is described by its Roche potential surface, and if the mass ratio, $`q`$, and orbital inclination, $`i`$, are known, the region of the orbital plane eclipsed by the donor at any particular orbital phase can be calculated. Figure 2 shows how these “shadows” cast by the donor star at phases corresponding to the start and end of hot spot eclipse ingress and egress constrain the location of the hot spot in the orbital plane to a diamond shaped region. This method has been used before, e.g. Wood et al. (1986). The hot spot is the point where the accretion stream impacts the edge of the disc, so determining the hot spot location determines the location of the disc edge. Assuming the disc precesses at the beat period between the orbital and superhump periods, the geometry shown in Figure 4 was used to trace out the outline of the disc edge using those eclipses where both ingress and egress of hot spot eclipse could be measured.

### 3.2 Stream trajectory method

For some eclipses, only the egress of hot spot eclipse could be measured, and so the technique described above could not be employed for those eclipses. However there is an alternative technique for determining the location of the hot spot which can be employed in this situation (Hessman et al. 1992). Since the hot spot lies on the accretion stream, and the times of hot spot egress depend on the distance of the hot spot from the line of centres of the two stars, a ballistic trajectory for the accretion stream can be used to infer the position of the hot spot along the stream. Hence the location of the hot spot and the disc edge can be determined. Figure 3 shows the variation of eclipse egress phase along a ballistic stream trajectory.

The uncertainty in the time of each point of contact translates mostly to an error in the radial distance of the hot spot from the white dwarf for an assumed $`q`$. Azimuthal error was estimated by considering three slightly different stream trajectories with initial velocities at the inner Lagrange point (with axes as shown in Figure 5) of $`(V_x,V_y)`$=$`(C_s,0)`$, $`(C_s,C_s)`$ and $`(C_s,C_s)`$. $`C_s`$ is the sound speed at the L1 point estimated using

$$C_s10^4ms^1\sqrt{\frac{T}{10^4K}}$$

where the photospheric temperature $`T`$ comes from the stellar models by Baraffe (Baraffe et al. 1998). The different hot spot positions coming from these three slightly different trajectories provide the small near-azimuthal error bars on the egress and ingress locations in Figure 5.

### 3.3 Combining the methods

The disc radius determined using the stream trajectory method depends on whether the start, middle or end of egress is used. We find that for those eclipses where both ingress and egress were measured, using the mid-egress times to locate the hot spot on the accretion stream gives results consistent with the robust “shadow” method whose results completely constrain the location of the hot spot in the orbital plane. We therefore use the shadow method to determine hot spot location and disc radius for those eclipses where both hot spot ingress and egress are measurable, and the stream trajectory method with mid-egress time for the remaining eclipses.

We use the white dwarf mid-eclipse ephemeris $`T_{mid}=HJD2451570.85376(2)+0.07390906(7)E`$ and late superhump maximum ephemeris $`T_{mid}=HJD2451571.731(3)+0.07558(6)E`$ from P2000 to calculate orbital phase and superhump phase. The beat phase between orbital and superhump phase, interpreted as disc precession phase $`\varphi _{prec}`$, is defined as zero when superhump maximum and mid-eclipse coincide. The angle $`\theta _{disc}`$ (see Figure 4) is then $`2\pi \varphi _{prec}`$.

## 4 Results

The average disc radius $`R_{disc}`$ in units of orbital separation $`a`$ is $`<R_{disc}/a>=0.32`$ with a spread of 0.08. The disc shape is shown in Figure 5 and is clearly not centred on the white dwarf. The shape is similar to that found in OY Car by Hessman et al. (1992).

A good fit to the disc shape was achieved using an ellipse with one focus at the white dwarf, semi-major axis $`a_{disc}`$ and eccentricity $`e`$, described by

$$R_{disc}=\frac{a_{disc}(1e^2)}{1ecos(\alpha _{disc}\alpha _0)}.$$

$`\alpha _0`$ is the angle in the precessing disc frame corresponding to maximum disc radius. The resulting fit has $`a_{disc}=0.34a\pm 0.06a`$, $`e=0.31\pm 0.17`$ and $`\alpha _0=117\pm 33^{}`$ and is shown in Figure 6. The errors in our timing determinations and hence deduced geometry (particularly when using the stream trajectory method) are rather pessimistic; our determinations of $`a_{disc}`$, $`e`$ and $`\alpha _0`$ are robust to adopting instead more optimistic error estimates.

The disc is within the tidal cut-off radius $`r0.9R_L=0.50a`$. The largest radius part reaches the location of the 3:1 resonance at $`r0.46a`$ (Osaki 1996), providing a possible explanation for the maintenance of disc eccentricity at this stage after the superoutburst. The smallest radius coincides with the circularization radius.

## 5 Discussion

The disc shape we find is similar to that found for OY Car by Hessman et al. (1992), except that we find the minimum radius at disc azimuth $`\alpha _{disc}=63^{}`$ while in OY Car it is around $`\alpha _{disc}=0`$. This means the smallest radius of the disc is lined up with the donor star at superhump phase -0.18 in IY UMa while this occurs close to superhump phase 0 in OY Car. This has implications for the viability of the hot spot as the source of the superhump light during the late superhump era. Superhumps caused by the variation in hot spot brightness as the stream impacts the disc at varying depth in the white dwarf potential well were first suggested by Vogt (1981). This theory has generally been rejected as an explanation for the common superhumps occurring during the decline from superoutburst maximum in SU UMa stars, but the possible link between this model and *late* superhumps (which appear during very late decline of the superoutburst) has been suggested several times, e.g. by Whitehurst (1988) and by Rolfe, Haswell & Patterson (2000) (hereafter RHP) after a study of persistent superhumps in the novalike V348 Pup. See RHP for more discussion.

In Figure 7a we show a measure of the orbital hump peak modulation while in Figure 7b we show the hot spot flux uncovered on egress of the hot spot eclipse ($`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{hse}`$ from P2000). The variation in hot spot brightness, $`F_{hotspot}`$, predicted by our fitted disc shape is shown in Figures 7a & b, calculated using three models described below.

1. The dashed curve in Figure 7a & b is calculated using $`F_{hotspot}1/r`$ where $`r`$ is the radius of the disc at the hot spot. This assumes the energy released at the hot spot varies as its depth in the white dwarf gravitational potential.
2. The maximum energy which could be released at impact is the kinetic energy of the relative motion of the stream and disc at the hot spot. If the stream velocity vector at the point of impact is $`\stackrel{}{V}_{stream}`$ and the disc velocity at this point is $`\stackrel{}{V}_{disc}`$ then the kinetic energy per unit mass of the relative velocity is $`KE=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{V}_{disc}\stackrel{}{V}_{stream}).(\stackrel{}{V}_{disc}\stackrel{}{V}_{stream})`$. We approximate

$$|\stackrel{}{V}_{disc}|=\sqrt{GM_{wd}\left(\frac{2}{r}\frac{1}{a_{disc}}\right)}$$

at the impact point with direction parallel to the disc edge in the white dwarf frame. This is the correct velocity for an elliptical orbit around a point mass. This model is plotted as the dotted curve in Figures 7a & b.
3. The solid curves in Figures 7a & b were produced by assuming the total hot spot flux behaves as described in the previous model, and considering a simple model for the 3 dimensional structure of the hot spot, shown in Figure 8. The hot spot has an elliptical cross section in the $`rz`$ plane with axis of size $`r_{spot}`$ in the radial direction and $`h_{spot}`$ in the vertical direction (see inset in Figure 8). $`r_{spot}`$ and $`h_{spot}`$ and the spot brightness decrease downstream from the initial impact as $`e^{\theta ^2/\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{spot}^2}`$. Upstream of the impact the hot spot surface is rounded off with a hemisphere of uniform brightness equal to that at the initial impact. The angular extent of the hot spot region is set by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{spot}=\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _0a_{disc}/r_0`$, where $`r_0`$ is the disc radius at the impact point. This keeps the arc length of the hot spot region roughly constant as the eccentric disc precesses. The disc thickness is $`2H_{disc}=0.02a`$ and any region of the hot spot surface within the disc is considered to be obscured completely. The total flux coming from an area element on the hot spot surface is foreshortened according to its area projected in the direction of the observer. This simple parametrized model for the hot spot structure enables us to model the full hot spot lightcurve, taking into account the visibility of the hot spot at any orbital phase and disc precession phase. The model lightcurve is shown in Figure 9b. We use $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _0=36^{}`$ which is the average azimuthal extent of the hot spot regions determined from the eclipse timings as described in Section 3.1. Noting that we see no eclipse of the white dwarf by the hot spot region, we determine the maximum possible value of $`h_{spot}`$ for $`i=86\stackrel{}{.}8\pm 1\stackrel{}{.}5`$ to be $`0.013a\pm 0.006a`$. Therefore we use $`r_{spot}(\theta =0)=h_{spot}(\theta =0)=0.013a`$ at the point of impact.

The phasing of the hot spot brightness predicted by model (i) does not agree with either of the two measures of hot spot variation in Figures 7a & b, with the peak in predicted brightness being about 0.25 earlier than the measured peak. The fractional amplitude in the predicted variation is about half that of the measured variation: in Figures 7a & b the predicted curve has simply been scaled to have the same maximum value as the observed hot spot curves.

In Figure 7c we also show the variation of the angle $`\beta `$ between the stream and disc velocities at the point of impact (approximately equal to $`\beta `$ in Figure 4). The hot spot emission should arise primarily from dissipation of kinetic energy as the infalling stream impacts the disc edge and merges with the Keplerian motion of the disc. The available kinetic energy increases as the angle $`\beta `$ between the velocity vectors of the stream and disc flows increases. Figure 7c clearly shows $`\beta `$ to be greatest around the observed maximum of the hot spot intensity, which coincides with superhump maximum. This effect is taken into account in model (ii) where the maximum kinetic energy available at the impact point is calculated and depends on the directions and magnitudes of the stream and disc velocities. The shape, phasing and fractional amplitude of the curve for model (ii) shows much better agreement with the hot spot brightness measured in Figure 7a. The predicted curve also agrees well in phase and fractional amplitude with the measure of hot spot flux in Figure 7b, although the hot spot flux between superhump phase $``$0.6 and 0.9 is much lower than predicted.

Our final model, (iii), which combines the relative kinetic energy model with a treatment of the hot spot visibility, does not differ from the previous model in its prediction for the peak flux of the orbital hump (Figure 7a). This is to be expected since at the peak of the orbital hump we should be seeing the whole length of the bright spot clearly, so the visibility at this orbital phase should not be very sensitive to small changes in orientation through the disc precession cycle. The hot spot flux measured using the hot spot eclipse egress is different from the predicted variation in intrinsic hot spot flux. This is because at the orbital phase of hot spot egress, we are seeing the impact region roughly end-on, and at this orientation the fraction of the hot spot flux reaching the observer is sensitive to the exact orientation of the hot spot. The result is that the predicted variation (solid curve in Figure 7b) rises to maximum later than the intrinsic variation, but decreases at about the same time as the intrinsic variation. This produces a more flat-bottomed curve which agrees better in shape with the observed egress flux than models (i) and (ii). The flux around egress flux minimum is too low in our models, but this is not surprising; our model for the structure of the impact region is a very simple one. It is also possible that the hot spot emission is strongly anisotropic due to the complicated structure of shocks and contact discontinuities we expect to be present at the impact.

Figure 9a shows the evolution of the IY UMa lightcurve throughout the late superhump era. The important features to note are how strongly the amplitude of the orbital hump varies, and how the late superhump is very weak, in many cases undetectable, when it does not occur near the orbital hump. Strong variation in hump amplitude was also seen towards the end of a more recent superoutburst of IY UMa (Uemura 2000). The combined lightcurve of the late superhump and the orbital hump is not simply a sum of the two, it is some non-linear combination, with the combined hump being extremely strong when orbital hump and late superhump coincide, while both orbital hump and late superhump are weak when they are not coincident. This is exactly what we expect if the stream-disc impact is the source of the late superhump. The hot spot is modulated at the late superhump period, as the impact geometry of the stream and disc varies. Consequently, the orbital hump, which is just the emission from the hot spot coming into view, is modulated on the disc precession period, being strongest at late superhump maximum. The late superhump is very weak away from the orbital hump since away from the orbital hump the bright spot is on the far side of the disc and hence has a low visibility. Our model hot spot lightcurves produced using model (iii) are shown in Figure 9b. Ignoring the stochastic flickering in the observations (which is strongest in the second panel, HJD 72.7), and the deep white dwarf eclipse in the observations not included in the model, our simple model does a convincing job of reproducing the observed bright spot behaviour, although the peak of the orbital hump when it occurs close to late superhump maximum is sharper in the observations than in our model.

The intrinsic bright spot flux in the lightcurve in the third panel (HJD 73.7) appears to be lower than the observed flux, which make is difficult to see how the shape of this curve agrees with observations. Figure 9c shows the model and observations for this curve, with the model scaled by a factor of 5. The good agreement between the shape of the model and the observations is clear, particularly the double humped nature of each orbit curve and the flattish top to the orbital hump before some of the eclipses. More detailed modeling is necessary to explain the low intrinsic brightness of the hot spot in this region of the disc precession cycle. The relative height of the hot spot peak above the disc needed a bit of fine-tuning to achieve this match between the model and observed lightcurves, and $`r_{spot}(\theta =0)`$ had to be less than about twice $`h_{spot}(\theta =0)`$.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the late-superhump light in IY UMa is predominantly coming from the hot spot, whose brightness is modulated at the superhump period as a result of the varying impact geometry of the stream and the disc. The disc shape and orientation found in OY Car (Hessman et al. 1992) suggests that the late superhumps in that system may also originate from the hot spot. An analysis of the OY Car observations like that in our Figure 7 would be valuable. Murray (1996) performed SPH simulations which support the hot spot as the source of late superhump light, but radiative processes were not modelled. More detailed hydrodynamic simulations concentrating on the stream-disc impact region have been carried out (e.g. Armitage & Livio 1998), but there has been no study of the hot spot in such detail for non-circular discs. Such work would be valuable in the light of these observations.

We haved assumed the shape of the disc to be fixed and constant in the precessing disc frame, while our observations of V348 Pup (RHP) and SPH simulations (Haswell, King, Murray & Charles 2000) suggest the disc shape and size changes during the superhump cycle. The disc shape we find represents the disc radius seen by the accretion stream as a function of superhump phase, and any effect of changing shape should have little effect on the angle $`\beta `$ at which the stream impacts the disc since the shape is traced out between radius measurements which are closely spaced in superhump phase.

The transition from the common superhumps which appear during the decline from maximum of the superoutburst to the late superhumps during the very late decline of the superoutburst is easy to explain using a minor modification to the tidal-thermal-instability model of Osaki (1989) proposed by Hellier (2000). Hellier suggests that the tidal and thermal instabilities are uncoupled: the disc can drop out of the thermal high state at the end of the superoutburst while remaining tidally eccentric. At this point, the disc viscosity dramatically reduces and so the viscous dissipation due to tidal stressing which causes normal superhumps will be similarly reduced, allowing the late superhumps which were drowned out during the superoutburst to be seen.

## 6 Summary

The timing of hot spot eclipses during the late superhump era reveals the disc shape, which proves to be non-axisymmetric.

The inferred shape and orientation of the disc and a simple treatment of the kinetic energy available at the stream-disc impact enable us to calculate the hot spot brightness throughout the superhump cycle. The resulting variation in predicted hot spot brightness matches the observed variation well, and is in very close agreement with the superhump modulation. Combining these results with a simple model for the 3D structure of the hot spot enables our model to reproduce the observed lightcurves during the late superhump era.

We conclude that the stream-disc impact region is the source of late superhump light in IY UMa.

## 7 Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to Jonathan Kemp, Tonny Vanmunster and Bob Fried who contributed the data analysed here. We acknowledge the data analysis facilities at the Open University provided by the OU research committee and the OU computer support provided by Chris Wigglesworth. We thank Andrew King and Ulrich Kolb for helpful advice and discussion, and Rick Hessman whose suggestion prompted this work. The comments from the anonymous referee are also appreciated. DJR is supported by a PPARC studentship. CAH gratefully acknowledges support from the Leverhulme Trust F/00-180/A.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The non-standard (or Jordanian) quantum deformation of $`sl(2,)so(2,1)`$ , $`U_z(sl(2,))`$, has been the starting point in the construction of non-standard (or triangular) quantum algebras in higher dimensions. In particular, by taking two copies of $`U_z(sl(2,))`$ and applying the same procedure as in the standard (Drinfel’d–Jimbo) case , a quantum $`so(2,2)`$ algebra has been obtained in , while the corresponding deformation for $`so(3,2)`$ has been found in . These quantum algebras have been realized as deformations of conformal algebras for the Minkowskian spacetime. Furthermore, by following either a contraction approach  or a deformation embedding method , non-standard quantum deformations for other Lie algebras have been deduced; amongst them it is remarkable the appearance of a non-standard quantum Poincaré algebra, which can be considered as a quantum conformal algebra for the Carroll spacetime, or alternatively and more interesting, as a null-plane quantum Poincaré algebra . All these results are summarized in the following diagram where the vertical arrows indicate the contractions leading to quantum Poincaré algebras:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}U_z(sl(2,))& & U_z(sl(2,))U_z(sl(2,))U_z(so(2,2))& & U_z(so(3,2))\\ \epsilon 0& & \epsilon 0& & \epsilon 0\\ U_z(iso(1,1))& & \text{Null-plane Poincaré algebra}U_z(iso(2,1))& & U_z(iso(3,1))\end{array}$$

A first aim of this paper is to provide, starting again from $`U_z(sl(2,))`$, a new way in the construction of non-standard quantum algebras obtaining a new non-standard quantum $`so(2,2)`$ algebra which could be the cornerstone of further constructions in higher dimensions. The essential idea is to require that $`U_z(sl(2,))`$ remains as a Hopf subalgebra, or to be more precise, to keep its underlying Jordanian classical $`r`$-matrix, $`r=zJ_3J_+`$, as the element generating the whole deformation for $`so(2,2)`$. Hence this approach can be seen as a kind of complete deformation embedding method leading to $`U_z(sl(2,))U_z(so(2,2))`$, so that this seems to be a more feasible and applicable quantum deformation procedure than the involved one used in  for $`so(3,2)`$ when the extension to higher dimensions is attacked.

Two choices for such Jordanian classical $`r`$-matrix associated to $`so(2,2)`$ naturally appear: one gives rise to a time-type quantum deformation characterised by a primitive generator of time translations, meanwhile the other leads to a space-type deformation determined by a primitive generator of space translations; the Drinfel’d–Jimbo counterpart of these types of deformations can be found in . Furthermore by using graded contractions this task is carried out for the real Lie algebras $`so(2,2)`$, $`so(3,1)`$ and $`iso(2,1)`$, simultaneously; the quantum algebras so obtained are realized as deformations of conformal algebras of $`(1+1)`$D spacetimes.

The second aim of this paper is to analyse the discrete symmetries provided by both families of quantum algebras as differential-difference conformal operators of either a time or a space discretization of some $`(1+1)`$D differential equations (the wave and Laplace equations) on a uniform lattice, and next to relate these results with the Lie symmetry analysis presented in . This objective is achieved by following a similar procedure to the one used in  with respect to non-standard quantum Schrödinger algebras and their associated discrete symmetries.

The structure of the paper is as follows. We summarize in the next section the basic aspects of the $`_2\times _2`$ graded contractions of $`so(2,2)`$ in a conformal basis as well as their role of symmetry algebras of $`(1+1)`$D differential equations. The construction of the time-type quantum deformation together with its universal $`R`$-matrix is developed in the section 3. These quantum algebras are shown to be the symmetry algebras of a time discretization of the wave and Laplace equations on a uniform lattice in the section 4; the relationship with the Lie symmetry approach studied in  is established by means of a twist map. A parallel procedure with the space-type quatum deformation is carried out in the section 5. Finally, an algebraic equivalence or duality between both types of quantum algebras is introduced in the last section where we also comment on their possible generalization to higher dimensions and the way of obtaining new null-plane quantum Poincaré algebras.

## 2 Graded contractions of $`𝒔𝒐\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ and continuous symmetries

The $`_2\times _2`$ graded contractions of the real Lie algebra $`so(2,2)`$ have been analysed in , where a distinguished set of solutions has been explicitly considered and expressed in terms of three contraction parameters $`(\mu _1,\mu _2,\mu _3)`$. Here we shall restrict ourselves to deal with the most relevant contracted Lie algebras setting $`(\mu _1,\mu _2,\mu _3)=(\mu ,+1,\nu )`$, so that all of them are collectively denoted $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$. Recall that each contraction parameter can take either a positive, zero or negative value and whenever they are different from zero can be scaled to $`\pm 1`$.

At this dimension a generic Lie algebra in the family $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$ can be interpreted in two different frameworks: either as the algebra of isometries of a $`(2+1)`$D spacetime (or a 3D space), or as the algebra of conformal transformations of a $`(1+1)`$D spacetime (or a 2D space). In this paper we will adopt the latter interpretation, hence let us consider the generators of time translations $`H`$, space translations $`P`$, boosts $`K`$, dilations $`D`$ and special conformal transformations $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$. In this basis, the Lie brackets of the set of graded contractions $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$ read

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[K,H]=\nu P\hfill & [K,P]=\mu H\hfill & [H,P]=0\hfill \\ [D,H]=H\hfill & [D,C_1]=C_1\hfill & [H,C_1]=2\nu D\hfill \\ [D,P]=P\hfill & [D,C_2]=C_2\hfill & [P,C_2]=2\mu D\hfill \\ [K,C_1]=\nu C_2\hfill & [K,C_2]=\mu C_1\hfill & [K,D]=0\hfill \\ [H,C_2]=2K\hfill & [P,C_1]=2K\hfill & [C_1,C_2]=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.1)
The two Casimirs of $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$ turn out to be

$$\begin{array}{c}W_1=K^2+\mu \nu D^2\frac{1}{2}\mu (HC_1+C_1H)+\frac{1}{2}\nu (PC_2+C_2P)\hfill \\ W_2=KD+\frac{1}{2}(HC_2C_1P).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
In what follows we identify each specific real Lie algebra appearing within the family $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$ (see table 1 below) and comment its physical (or geometrical) role according to the (signs or zero) values of the pair $`(\mu ,\nu )`$ :

$``$ $`so(2,2)`$ when $`(\mu ,\nu )\{(+,+),(,)\}`$. This is the conformal algebra of the $`(1+1)`$D Minkowskian spacetime; alternatively, it can be seen as the kinematical algebra of the $`(2+1)`$D Anti-de Sitter spacetime.

$``$ $`so(3,1)`$ when $`(\mu ,\nu )\{(+,),(,+)\}`$. This is the conformal algebra of the 2D Euclidean space so that, under this interpretation, $`H`$ should be considered as another generator of space translations. This algebra can also be realized as the kinematical algebra of the $`(2+1)`$D de Sitter spacetime.

$``$ $`iso(2,1)`$ when $`(\mu ,\nu )\{(+,0),(0,+),(,0),(0,)\}`$. In the four cases, this is the kinematical algebra of the $`(2+1)`$D Minkowskian spacetime, that is, the $`(2+1)`$D Poincaré algebra. However, this corresponds to the conformal algebra of the $`(1+1)`$D Galilean spacetime whenever $`(\mu ,\nu )=(0,\pm )`$, but to the conformal algebra of the $`(1+1)`$D Carroll spacetime whenever $`(\mu ,\nu )=(\pm ,0)`$.

$``$ $`i^{}iso(1,1)`$ when $`(\mu ,\nu )=(0,0)`$. This is the most contracted algebra in the family $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$ and has no known conformal interpretation, although is the algebra of isometries of certain 3D space. Note that in this case $`K`$ is a central generator.

The aforementioned conformal role of the algebras $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$ (with the exception of $`i^{}iso(1,1)`$) can be appreciated more clearly by taking into account that: (i) The Lie brackets of the subalgebra spanned by $`\{K,H,P\}`$ generate the algebra of isometries of the corresponding $`(1+1)`$D spacetime (or 2D Euclidean space). (ii) When the dilation generator is added, we find the so called Weyl subalgebra $`\{K,H,P,D\}`$ which is the similitude algebra of the $`(1+1)`$D spacetime. (iii) If conformal transformations are also considered, then we obtain the complete conformal Lie group $`SO_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$; its quotient with the subgroup generated by $`\{K,C_1,C_2,D\}`$ is identified with the $`(1+1)`$D conformal spacetime.

The relationship between $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$ and $`(1+1)`$D differential equations can be established by considering the usual (conformal) vector field representation in terms of the space and time coordinates $`(x,t)`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}H=_tP=_xK=\nu t_x\mu x_tD=x_xt_t\hfill \\ C_1=(\mu x^2+\nu t^2)_t+2\nu xt_xC_2=(\mu x^2+\nu t^2)_x2\mu xt_t\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.3)
where we exclude the degenerate case $`i^{}iso(1,1)`$ with $`\mu =\nu =0`$. This is a zero-value realization of the two Casimirs (2.2). The action of the Casimir of the Lie subalgebra $`\{K,H,P\}`$,

$$E=\nu P^2\mu H^2$$
(2.4)
on a function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)`$ through the representation (2.3) (choosing for $`E`$ the zero eigenvalue) leads to the following $`(1+1)`$D differential equation:

$$E\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)=0\left(\nu \frac{^2}{x^2}\mu \frac{^2}{t^2}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)=0.$$
(2.5)
We shall say that an operator $`𝒪`$ is a symmetry of the equation $`E\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)=0`$ if $`𝒪`$ transforms solutions into solutions, that is, $`E𝒪=\mathrm{\Lambda }E`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is another operator. Hence, $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$ is the symmetry algebra of the equation (2.5), since $`E`$ given by (2.4) commutes with $`\{K,H,P\}`$ and in the realization (2.3) the remaining generators are also symmetry operators of (2.5) verifying

$$[E,D]=2E[E,C_1]=4\nu tE[E,C_2]=4\mu xE.$$
(2.6)
From this perspective, we find that the equation (2.5) reproduces the $`(1+1)`$D wave equation when the contraction parameters $`(\mu ,\nu )`$ are either $`(+,+)`$ or $`(,)`$, which in turn means that $`so(2,2)`$ is its associated algebra of symmetry operators. Likewise, $`so(3,1)`$ corresponding to $`(+,)`$ or $`(,+)`$ arises as the symmetry algebra of the 2D Laplace equation (in this case $`t`$ should be seen as another space coordinate). Finally, the contraction with either $`\mu =0`$ or $`\nu =0`$ leads to the 1D Laplace equation with $`iso(2,1)`$ as its symmetry Lie algebra.

## 3 Time-type quantum algebras

Let us consider the subalgebra of $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$ spanned by $`\{D,H\}`$ with Lie bracket $`[D,H]=H`$, and the non-standard or Jordanian classical $`r`$-matrix given by :

$$r=\tau DH$$
(3.1)
which is a solution of the classical Yang–Baxter equation and $`\tau `$ is the deformation parameter. As is well known the deformed commutator and coproduct for this subalgebra can be written as

$$[D,H]=\frac{1\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}}{\tau }\mathrm{\Delta }(H)=1H+H1\mathrm{\Delta }(D)=1D+D\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}.$$
(3.2)
We recall that this structure is a Hopf subalgebra of non-standard quantum deformations of $`sl(2,)`$ , $`iso(1,1)`$, $`gl(2)`$, $`h_4`$ and Schrödinger algebras ; this was also introduced in  in relation to an approach to physics at the Planck scale.

If we impose now the classical $`r`$-matrix (3.1) to be the generating object of a quantum deformation for the whole family $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$, then the cocommutator $`\delta `$ of a generator $`X`$ that defines the associated Lie bialgebra is obtained as $`\delta (X)=[1X+X1,r]`$, namely,

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta (H)=0\delta (D)=\tau DH\hfill \\ \delta (P)=\tau PH\delta (K)=\tau \nu DP\hfill \\ \delta (C_1)=\tau C_1H\delta (C_2)=\tau C_2H+2\tau DK.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.3)
The coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for the quantum algebras denoted $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ is obtained by solving the coassociativity condition $`(1\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }=(\mathrm{\Delta }1)\mathrm{\Delta }`$, by requiring that (3.2) remains as a Hopf subalgebra of $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$, and by taking into account that $`\delta `$ is related to the first order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`\tau `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}`$, by $`\delta =\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}`$ where $`\sigma (XY)=YX`$. The resulting coproduct turns out to be

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }(H)=1H+H1\mathrm{\Delta }(D)=1D+D\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(P)=1P+P\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}\mathrm{\Delta }(C_1)=1C_1+C_1\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(K)=1K+K1\tau \nu D\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}P\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(C_2)=1C_2+C_2\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}+2\tau D\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}K\tau ^2\nu (D^2+D)\mathrm{e}^{2\tau H}P.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.4)
Thereafter, the deformed commutation rules are deduced by imposing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to be an algebra homomorphism, that is, $`\mathrm{\Delta }([X,Y])=[\mathrm{\Delta }(X),\mathrm{\Delta }(Y)]`$; they are

$$\begin{array}{c}[K,H]=\nu \mathrm{e}^{\tau H}P[K,P]=\mu \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}1}{\tau }[H,P]=0[K,D]=0\hfill \\ [D,H]=\frac{1\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}}{\tau }[D,C_1]=C_1+\tau \nu D^2[H,C_1]=2\nu D\hfill \\ [D,P]=P[D,C_2]=C_2[P,C_2]=2\mu D\hfill \\ [K,C_1]=\nu C_2[K,C_2]=\mu C_1\tau \mu \nu D^2[H,C_2]=\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}K+K\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}\hfill \\ [P,C_1]=2K\tau \nu (DP+PD)[C_1,C_2]=\tau \nu (DC_2+C_2D).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.5)
The deformed Casimirs of $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ are given by

$`W_{1,\tau }=K^2+\mu \nu D^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}1}{\tau }}C_1+C_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}1}{\tau }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu (PC_2+C_2P)`$ (3.6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu \nu \left(\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}D^2+D^2\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}\right)\mu \nu D^2`$ (3.7)
$`W_{2,\tau }=KD+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}1}{\tau }}C_2C_1P\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\tau \nu D^2P.`$ (3.8)
Mathematical and physical properties of the quantum algebras $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ are characterized by their primitive generator $`H`$ (that with a vanishing cocommutator). More explicitly, since the product $`\tau H`$ has to be dimensionless in order to have a homogeneous coproduct, the deformation parameter $`\tau `$ has, in principle, the dimension of a time (notice that for $`U_\tau (so(3,1))`$, within the conformal interpretation, $`\tau `$ would be a length). This is similar to what happens with the well known $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra , realized as a kinematical algebra of the Minkowskian spacetime, and where the time translation generator is also primitive; the deformation parameters $`\kappa `$ and $`\tau `$ would be related by $`\kappa =1/\tau `$. Furthermore, as we shall show in the next section, these time-type quantum algebras directly lead to a time discretization of the symmetries (2.3) and equation (2.5) on a uniform lattice.

On the other hand, at the level of Hopf subalgebras of $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ two remarkable structures arise:

$``$ The generators $`\{D,H,C_1\}`$ close a Hopf subalgebra isomorphic either to the Jordanian quantum $`sl(2,)so(2,1)`$ algebra if $`\nu 0`$, or to a non-standard quantum Poincaré algebra $`U_\tau (iso(1,1))`$ under the contraction $`\nu =0`$.

$``$ The generators $`\{K,H,P,D\}`$ span a Hopf subalgebra which is the similitude algebra of a $`(1+1)`$D spacetime. Therefore, as a byproduct of our construction, we obtain for each member in the family $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ a new quantum deformation of the Weyl subalgebra of the corresponding conformal algebra. Notice that $`\{K,H,P\}`$ only close a Hopf subalgebra whenever $`\nu =0`$.

For the sake of clarity the specific Hopf subalgebras spanned by $`\{D,H,C_1\}`$ and $`\{K,H,P,D\}`$ for each quantum algebra in the family $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ are displayed in the table 1 according to the values of the pair $`(\mu ,\nu )`$. The horizontal arrows indicate the contraction $`\mu =0`$ and the vertical ones the contraction $`\nu =0`$. The symbols $`𝒲`$, $`𝒲`$, $`𝒲𝒢`$ and $`𝒲𝒞`$ mean, in this order, the Weyl subalgebra of the Minkowskian, Euclidean, Galilean and Carroll planes, thus reminding the corresponding conformal spaces, while $`𝒲𝒜`$ means the Abelian algebra enlarged with a dilation generator. In this context, we remark that other non-standard quantum deformations of these Weyl algebras have been carried out in , the underlying classical $`r`$-matrix of which reads in our notation $`r=\omega (KH+DP)`$; their generalization to higher dimensions can be found in . We also recall that other non-standard classical $`r`$-matrices for $`so(3,2)`$ and $`so(4,2)`$ (expressed as conformal algebras) can be found in .

Table 1. Hopf subalgebras $`\{D,H,C_1\}`$ and $`\{K,H,P,D\}`$, and associated (difference and/or differential) equations of the time-type quantum algebras $`U_\tau \left(so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)\right)`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ & & & & \\ (+,+)U_\tau \left(so(2,2)\right)& & (0,+)U_\tau \left(iso(2,1)\right)& & (,+)U_\tau \left(so(3,1)\right)\\ U_\tau \left(sl(2,)\right)U_\tau \left(𝒲\right)& & U_\tau \left(sl(2,)\right)U_\tau \left(𝒲𝒢\right)& & U_\tau \left(sl(2,)\right)U_\tau \left(𝒲\right)\\ \left(_x^2\mathrm{\Delta }_t^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=0& & _x^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0& & \left(_x^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_t^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=0\\ & & & & \\ (+,0)U_\tau \left(iso(2,1)\right)& & (0,0)U_\tau \left(i^{}iso(1,1)\right)& & (,0)U_\tau \left(iso(2,1)\right)\\ U_\tau \left(iso(1,1)\right)U_\tau \left(𝒲𝒞\right)& & U_\tau \left(iso(1,1)\right)U_\tau \left(𝒲𝒜\right)& & U_\tau \left(iso(1,1)\right)U_\tau \left(𝒲𝒞\right)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_t^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0& & \text{Degenerate equation}& & \mathrm{\Delta }_t^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0\\ & & & & \\ (+,)U_\tau \left(so(3,1)\right)& & (0,)U_\tau \left(iso(2,1)\right)& & (,)U_\tau \left(so(2,2)\right)\\ U_\tau \left(sl(2,)\right)U_\tau \left(𝒲\right)& & U_\tau \left(sl(2,)\right)U_\tau \left(𝒲𝒢\right)& & U_\tau \left(sl(2,)\right)U_\tau \left(𝒲\right)\\ \left(_x^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_t^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=0& & _x^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0& & \left(_x^2\mathrm{\Delta }_t^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=0\end{array}$$

### 3.1 Universal quantum $`𝑹`$-matrix

Different constructions of the universal quantum $`R`$-matrix associated to the non-standard quantum deformation of the Borel algebra (of the type $`[D,H]=H`$) have appeared in the literature , mainly in relation to the Jordanian quantum $`sl(2,)`$ algebra. If we consider the quantum Borel algebra written in the form of (3.2), then the universal $`R`$-matrix turns out to be

$$=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\tau HD\right\}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\tau DH\right\}$$
(3.9)
which is a solution of the quantum Yang–Baxter equation and also fulfils

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(X)^1=\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(X)\text{for}X\{H,D\}.$$
(3.10)
As it could be expected, the element (3.9) is a triangular universal $`R`$-matrix for the whole family $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ since it contains (3.2) as a Hopf subalgebra and the four remaining generators also verify (3.10):

$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{\tau DH\right\}\mathrm{\Delta }(C_1)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\tau DH\right\}=1C_1+C_11+2\tau \nu DDf`$ (3.11)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{\tau HD\right\}f\mathrm{exp}\left\{\tau HD\right\}=\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(C_1)`$ (3.12)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\tau DH\right\}\mathrm{\Delta }(X)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\tau DH\right\}=1X+X1\mathrm{\Delta }_0(X)\hfill \\ \mathrm{exp}\left\{\tau HD\right\}\mathrm{\Delta }_0(X)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\tau HD\right\}=\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(X)\text{for}X\{P,K,C_2\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.13)
The lower dimensional matrix representation of $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ is given by the following $`4\times 4`$ real matrices:

$`H=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{2}\tau \nu & \frac{1}{2}\tau \nu & \nu & 0\\ \frac{1}{2}\tau \nu & \frac{1}{2}\tau \nu & \nu & 0\\ 1& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)P=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& \mu \\ 0& 0& 0& \mu \\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (3.22)
$`K=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mu \\ 0& 0& \nu & 0\end{array}\right)D=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (3.31)
$`C_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\tau \nu & 0& \nu & 0\\ 0& \tau \nu & \nu & 0\\ 1& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)C_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& \mu \\ 0& 0& 0& \mu \\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (3.40)
We exclude the most contracted quantum algebra with $`\mu =\nu =0`$, since in this case the matrix of $`K`$ is degenerate (and this is a central generator). This representation allows us to deduce a $`16\times 16`$ matrix expression for $``$. Let us denote $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ the $`4\times 4`$ unit and zero matrices; under the representation (3.31) we find that $`H^3=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ so that the quantum $``$-matrix (3.9) reduces to

$$\begin{array}{c}=(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}+\tau HD+\frac{1}{2}\tau ^2H^2D^2)(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\tau DH+\frac{1}{2}\tau ^2D^2H^2)\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.41)
which can finally be written in block-matrix form as $`=`$

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}1\tau ^2\nu & \tau ^2\nu & 0& 0& 0& 0& \tau \nu & 0& 0& \tau \nu & 0& 0& \\ 0& 1& 0& 0& \tau ^2\nu & \tau ^2\nu & \tau \nu & 0& \tau \nu & 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& \tau & \tau & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \\ & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \tau ^2\nu & \tau ^2\nu & \tau \nu & 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& \tau \nu & 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& \tau \nu & 0& \tau ^2\nu & 1+\tau ^2\nu & 0& 0& \tau \nu & 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \tau & \tau & 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& \\ & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& \tau & \tau ^2\nu & 0& 0& \tau & \tau ^2\nu & 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& \\ \tau & 0& \tau ^2\nu & 0& \tau & 0& \tau ^2\nu & 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& \\ & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{\mathrm{𝟎}}& \multicolumn{4}{c}{\mathrm{𝟎}}& \multicolumn{4}{c}{\mathrm{𝟎}}& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right)$$
(3.42)
So far these last results could be further exploited in different directions. By one hand, the expression (3.9) should allow one to obtain a triangular $`R`$-matrix solution of the coloured Yang–Baxter equation (that is, with spectral parameters); indeed this is formally rather similar to the universal $`R`$-matrix of the Jordanian $`gl(2)`$ algebra used in  in order to deduce its coloured realization. On the other hand, the matrices (3.31) and (3.42) could be applied in the computation of the differential calculus on the quantum conformal spaces associated to $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$. In this respect see, for instance,  where the construction of the quantum Anti-de Sitter space from the quantum algebra $`SO_q(3,2)`$ (of Drinfel’d–Jimbo type) has been carried out. The explicit presence of the contraction parameters would enable a simultaneous study of these problems for $`so(2,2)`$, $`so(3,1)`$ and $`iso(2,1)`$ with a built-in scheme of contractions.

## 4 Discrete time symmetries

Non-standard quantum Schrödinger algebras have been recently shown to be the Hopf algebras of symmetries of a time (or a space) discretization of the heat-Schrödinger equation on a uniform lattice ; in that construction the deformation parameter plays the role of the time (or space) lattice constant. Furthermore, by making use of twist maps those discrete Schrödinger symmetries obtained from quantum algebras have been connected with the discretization (in a single variable) of the heat-Schrödinger equation deduced in  by following the usual Lie symmetry theory. In this context, the remarkable point is that the same classical procedure has been also applied in  to the study of the symmetries of a discretization of the $`(1+1)`$D wave equation in both coordinates $`(x,t)`$ on a uniform lattice, showing that they are difference operators preserving the Lie algebra $`so(2,2)`$ as in the continuous case. Therefore some kind of connection between the results of  and the quantum $`so(2,2)`$ algebra here presented should exist as it was already established for discrete Shrödinger equations and quantum algebras in .

Henceforth we follow a parallel procedure with the family $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ in two steps. We first introduce a differential-difference realization showing that indeed this provides discrete symmetries of a time discretization of the equation (2.5). Secondly we give a twist map that turns the deformed commutation rules of $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ into the Lie commutators of $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$ but keeping a (deformed) non-cocommutative coproduct in such a manner that a direct relationship with the time discretization of the wave equation studied in  from the Lie symmetry approach can finally be established.

A differential-difference realization of $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$, which under the limit $`\tau 0`$ gives the continuous conformal realization (2.3), reads

$`H=_tP=_x`$
$`K=\nu t\mathrm{e}^{\tau _t}_x\mu x\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\tau _t}1}{\tau }}\right)D=x_xt\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{e}^{\tau _t}}{\tau }}\right)`$ (4.1)
$`C_1=(\mu x^2+\nu t^2\mathrm{e}^{\tau _t})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\tau _t}1}{\tau }}\right)+2\nu xt_x+\tau \nu (x_x+x^2_x^2)`$ (4.2)
$`C_2=(\mu x^2+\nu t^2\mathrm{e}^{2\tau _t})_x2\mu xt\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{e}^{\tau _t}}{\tau }}\right)+\tau \nu t\mathrm{e}^{2\tau _t}_x.`$ (4.3)
In terms of (4.3) both deformed Casimirs (3.8) vanish. The generators $`\{K,H,P\}`$ close a deformed subalgebra, the Casimir of which is given by

$$E_\tau =\nu P^2\mu \left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}1}{\tau }\right)^2.$$
(4.4)
By introducing the realization (4.3) we find a time discretization of the equation (2.5) on a uniform lattice with $`x`$ as a continuous variable:

$$E_\tau \mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)=0\left\{\nu \frac{^2}{x^2}\mu \left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\tau _t}1}{\tau }\right)^2\right\}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)=0.$$
(4.5)
The generators (4.3) are symmetry operators of (4.5) fulfilling

$`[E_\tau ,X]=0\text{for}X\{K,H,P\}[E_\tau ,D]=2E_\tau `$ (4.6)
$`[E_\tau ,C_1]=4\nu (t+\tau +\tau x_x)E_\tau [E_\tau ,C_2]=4\mu xE_\tau .`$ (4.7)
Hence we conclude that $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ is the symmetry algebra of the discrete equation (4.5).

Next, let us consider the so called minimal twist map, first introduced in  for the Jordanian quantum $`sl(2,)`$ algebra (here with generators $`\{D,H,C_1\}`$ and $`\nu 0`$) and also used in  with other non-standard quantum algebras. This map can be implemented in the whole family $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ as

$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}1}{\tau }}𝒫=P𝒦=K𝒟=D`$ (4.8)
$`𝒞_1=C_1\tau \nu D^2𝒞_2=C_2.`$ (4.9)
These new generators verify the classical commutation rules (2.1), while the coproduct remains deformed as

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }()=1+1+\tau \mathrm{\Delta }(𝒫)=1𝒫+𝒫1+\tau 𝒫\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(𝒟)=1𝒟+𝒟\frac{1}{1+\tau }\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒦)=1𝒦+𝒦1\tau \nu 𝒟\frac{𝒫}{1+\tau }\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(𝒞_1)=1𝒞_1+𝒞_1\frac{1}{1+\tau }2\tau \nu 𝒟\frac{1}{1+\tau }𝒟+\tau \nu (𝒟^2+𝒟)\frac{\tau }{(1+\tau )^2}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(𝒞_2)=1𝒞_2+𝒞_2\frac{1}{1+\tau }+2\tau 𝒟\frac{1}{1+\tau }𝒦\tau ^2\nu (𝒟^2+𝒟)\frac{𝒫}{(1+\tau )^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.10)
The new generator $``$ verifies $`\mathrm{\Delta }((1+\tau )^a)=(1+\tau )^a(1+\tau )^a`$ for any real number $`a`$, since $`(1+\tau )=\mathrm{e}^{\tau H}`$.

We apply the twist map (4.9) to the realization (4.3) and introduce the time shift operator $`T_t=\mathrm{e}^{\tau _t}`$ and the time difference operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_t=(T_t1)/\tau `$, thus finding

$$\begin{array}{c}=\mathrm{\Delta }_t𝒫=_x\hfill \\ 𝒦=\nu tT_t^1_x\mu x\mathrm{\Delta }_t𝒟=x_xtT_t^1\mathrm{\Delta }_t\hfill \\ 𝒞_1=(\mu x^2+\nu t^2T_t^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_t+2\nu xtT_t^1_x\tau \nu tT_t^2\mathrm{\Delta }_t\hfill \\ 𝒞_2=(\mu x^2+\nu t^2T_t^2)_x2\mu xtT_t^1\mathrm{\Delta }_t+\tau \nu tT_t^2_x.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.11)
In this new basis the Casimir of the subalgebra $`\{𝒦,,𝒫\}`$ is the undeformed one (2.4)

$$=\nu 𝒫^2\mu ^2$$
(4.12)
that written through (4.11) leads again to the discrete equation (4.5):

$$(\nu _x^2\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_t^2)\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)=0.$$
(4.13)
The new generators (4.11) are symmetry operators of (4.13) now verifying

$`[,X]=0\text{for}X\{𝒦,,𝒫\}[,𝒟]=2`$ (4.14)
$`[,𝒞_1]=4\nu tT_t^1[,𝒞_2]=4\mu x.`$ (4.15)
In this way the relationship between $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ and the symmetries of a time discretization of the wave equation deduced from the Lie theory in  clearly arises. In particular, let us denote our generators, contraction parameters and variables by

$`\{,𝒫,𝒦,𝒟,𝒞_1,𝒞_2\}=\{P_k,P_n,L,D,C_k,C_n\}`$ (4.16)
$`(\mu ,\nu )=(s^2,+1)x=n\sigma t=k\tau `$ (4.17)
with $`s0`$. If we perform the limits $`n\mathrm{}`$ and $`\sigma 0`$, subjected to the condition $`n\sigma =x`$, in the results given in  for $`m=0`$ (this implies that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n_x`$, $`T_n1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_t`$, $`T_k=T_t`$), then we recover the realization (4.11) and the discrete equation (4.13). Consequently, $`U_\tau (so_{s^2,1}(2,2))`$ is the quantum symmetry algebra of such equation and the deformation parameter $`\tau `$ is identified with the time lattice constant in the $`t`$ coordinate; the space $`x`$ remains as a continuous variable. Recall that the solutions of (4.13) has also been obtained in .

We write down in the table 1 the particular equation (4.13) that appears for each quantum algebra in the family $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$. It is worth noting that this collective treatment enables a clear view of the contraction limits between these (difference and/or differential) equations together with their associated symmetry algebras.

## 5 Space-type quantum algebras and <br>discrete space symmetries

A second natural choice for a non-standard classical $`r`$-matrix for $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$, instead of (3.1), is to take

$$r=\sigma DP$$
(5.1)
where $`\sigma `$ is now the deformation parameter. If we follow the same steps described in section 3, we obtain a family of quantum algebras $`U_\sigma (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ characterised by a primitive generator $`P`$ (instead of $`H`$). The resulting coproduct, commutation rules and universal quantum $`R`$-matrix are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }(P)=1P+P1\mathrm{\Delta }(D)=1D+D\mathrm{e}^{\sigma P}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(H)=1H+H\mathrm{e}^{\sigma P}\mathrm{\Delta }(C_2)=1C_2+C_2\mathrm{e}^{\sigma P}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(K)=1K+K1\sigma \mu D\mathrm{e}^{\sigma P}H\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(C_1)=1C_1+C_1\mathrm{e}^{\sigma P}2\sigma D\mathrm{e}^{\sigma P}K+\sigma ^2\mu (D^2+D)\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma P}H\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}[K,H]=\nu \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\sigma P}1}{\sigma }[K,P]=\mu \mathrm{e}^{\sigma P}H[H,P]=0[K,D]=0\hfill \\ [D,H]=H[D,C_1]=C_1[H,C_1]=2\nu D\hfill \\ [D,P]=\frac{1\mathrm{e}^{\sigma P}}{\sigma }[D,C_2]=C_2\sigma \mu D^2[P,C_2]=2\mu D\hfill \\ [K,C_1]=\nu C_2+\sigma \mu \nu D^2[K,C_2]=\mu C_1[P,C_1]=\mathrm{e}^{\sigma P}KK\mathrm{e}^{\sigma P}\hfill \\ [H,C_2]=2K+\sigma \mu (DH+HD)[C_1,C_2]=\sigma \mu (DC_1+C_1D)\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.3)
$$=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\sigma PD\right\}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\sigma DP\right\}.$$
(5.4)
At the level of Hopf subalgebras of $`U_\sigma (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$, we find that the generators $`\{D,P,C_2\}`$ give rise to either a quantum $`sl(2,)`$ algebra if $`\mu 0`$ or to a quantum $`iso(1,1)`$ algebra if $`\mu =0`$, meanwhile $`\{K,H,P,D\}`$ close again a quantum Weyl algebra; these Hopf subalgebras are indicated in the table 2 for each pair $`(\mu ,\nu )`$.

Table 2. Hopf subalgebras $`\{D,P,C_2\}`$ and $`\{K,H,P,D\}`$, and associated (difference and/or differential) equations of the space-type quantum algebras $`U_\sigma \left(so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)\right)`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ & & & & \\ (+,+)U_\sigma \left(so(2,2)\right)& & (0,+)U_\sigma \left(iso(2,1)\right)& & (,+)U_\sigma \left(so(3,1)\right)\\ U_\sigma \left(sl(2,)\right)U_\sigma \left(𝒲\right)& & U_\sigma \left(iso(1,1)\right)U_\sigma \left(𝒲𝒢\right)& & U_\sigma \left(sl(2,)\right)U_\sigma \left(𝒲\right)\\ \left(\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2_t^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=0& & \mathrm{\Delta }_x^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0& & \left(\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2+_t^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=0\\ & & & & \\ (+,0)U_\sigma \left(iso(2,1)\right)& & (0,0)U_\sigma \left(i^{}iso(1,1)\right)& & (,0)U_\sigma \left(iso(2,1)\right)\\ U_\sigma \left(sl(2,)\right)U_\sigma \left(𝒲𝒞\right)& & U_\sigma \left(iso(1,1)\right)U_\sigma \left(𝒲𝒜\right)& & U_\sigma \left(sl(2,)\right)U_\sigma \left(𝒲𝒞\right)\\ _t^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0& & \text{Degenerate equation}& & _t^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0\\ & & & & \\ (+,)U_\sigma \left(so(3,1)\right)& & (0,)U_\sigma \left(iso(2,1)\right)& & (,)U_\sigma \left(so(2,2)\right)\\ U_\sigma \left(sl(2,)\right)U_\sigma \left(𝒲\right)& & U_\sigma \left(iso(1,1)\right)U_\sigma \left(𝒲𝒢\right)& & U_\sigma \left(sl(2,)\right)U_\sigma \left(𝒲\right)\\ \left(\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2+_t^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=0& & \mathrm{\Delta }_x^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0& & \left(\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2_t^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=0\end{array}$$

Properties of the family of quantum algebras $`U_\sigma (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ are now determined by their primitive generator $`P`$, since the product $`\sigma P`$ implies that the deformation parameter $`\sigma `$ has dimensions of length; hence we say that these are space-type quantum algebras. Therefore this second quantum deformation leads to a space discretization of the equation (2.5). Explicitly, if we introduce the following differential-difference realization of $`U_\sigma (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$

$`P=_xH=_t`$
$`K=\nu t\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\sigma _x}1}{\sigma }}\right)\mu x\mathrm{e}^{\sigma _x}_tD=x\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{e}^{\sigma _x}}{\sigma }}\right)t_t`$ (5.5)
$`C_1=(\mu x^2\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma _x}+\nu t^2)_t+2\nu xt\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{e}^{\sigma _x}}{\sigma }}\right)\sigma \mu x\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma _x}_t`$ (5.6)
$`C_2=(\mu x^2\mathrm{e}^{\sigma _x}+\nu t^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\sigma _x}1}{\sigma }}\right)2\mu xt_t\sigma \mu (t_t+t^2_t^2)`$ (5.7)
in the Casimir of the deformed subalgebra $`\{K,H,P\}`$ given by

$$E_\sigma =\nu \left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\sigma P}1}{\sigma }\right)^2\mu H^2$$
(5.8)
then we obtain a discretization of the equation (2.5) on a uniform space lattice:

$$E_\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)=0\left\{\nu \left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\sigma _x}1}{\sigma }\right)^2\mu \frac{^2}{t^2}\right\}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)=0.$$
(5.9)
The quantum algebra $`U_\sigma (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ is the symmetry algebra of this equation as the operators (5.7) satisfy

$`[E_\sigma ,X]=0\text{for}X\{K,P,H\}[E_\sigma ,D]=2E_\sigma `$ (5.10)
$`[E_\sigma ,C_1]=4\nu tE_\sigma [E_\sigma ,C_2]=4\mu (x+\sigma +\sigma t_t)E_\sigma .`$ (5.11)
To unfold the relationship between these discrete space symmetries and the results obtained in  from a Lie symmetry approach we consider the twist map for $`U_\sigma (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ defined by

$`𝒫={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\sigma P}1}{\sigma }}=H𝒦=K𝒟=D`$ (5.12)
$`𝒞_1=C_1𝒞_2=C_2+\sigma \mu D^2`$ (5.13)
that gives rise to the classical commutators (2.1) with the coproduct given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒫)=1𝒫+𝒫1+\sigma 𝒫𝒫\mathrm{\Delta }()=1+1+\sigma 𝒫\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(𝒟)=1𝒟+𝒟\frac{1}{1+\sigma 𝒫}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒦)=1𝒦+𝒦1\sigma \mu 𝒟\frac{}{1+\sigma 𝒫}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(𝒞_1)=1𝒞_1+𝒞_1\frac{1}{1+\sigma 𝒫}2\sigma 𝒟\frac{1}{1+\sigma 𝒫}𝒦+\sigma ^2\mu (𝒟^2+𝒟)\frac{}{(1+\sigma 𝒫)^2}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(𝒞_2)=1𝒞_2+𝒞_2\frac{1}{1+\sigma 𝒫}+2\sigma \mu 𝒟\frac{1}{1+\sigma 𝒫}𝒟\sigma \mu (𝒟^2+𝒟)\frac{\sigma 𝒫}{(1+\sigma 𝒫)^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.14)
Under the map (5.13), the realization (5.7) is transformed into

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒫=\mathrm{\Delta }_x=_t\hfill \\ 𝒦=\nu t\mathrm{\Delta }_x\mu xT_x^1_t𝒟=xT_x^1\mathrm{\Delta }_xt_t\hfill \\ 𝒞_1=(\mu x^2T_x^2+\nu t^2)_t+2\nu xtT_x^1\mathrm{\Delta }_x\sigma \mu xT_x^2_t\hfill \\ 𝒞_2=(\mu x^2T_x^2+\nu t^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_x2\mu xtT_x^1_t+\sigma \mu xT_x^2\mathrm{\Delta }_x\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.15)
where $`T_x=\mathrm{e}^{\sigma _x}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x=(T_x1)/\sigma `$. The element $`E_\sigma `$ becomes the undeformed $``$ (4.12), so that the associated differential-difference equation keeps the form of (5.9):

$$(\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_x^2\mu _t^2)\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)=0.$$
(5.16)
The operators (5.15) are symmetries of this equation since $`\{𝒦,,𝒫\}`$ commute with $``$ and the remaining ones fulfil

$$[,𝒟]=2[,𝒞_1]=4\nu t[,𝒞_2]=4\mu xT_x^1.$$
(5.17)
These last results reproduce those found in  once we introduce the notation (4.17) and apply the limits $`k\mathrm{}`$, $`\tau 0`$ (with $`k\tau =t`$) in the symmetries and equation of  (that is, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k_t`$, $`T_k1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$, $`T_n=T_x`$). This in turn means that $`U_\sigma (so_{s^2,1}(2,2))`$ is the quantum algebra of symmetries of the equation (5.16) on a uniform space lattice with the deformation parameter $`\sigma `$ identified with the space lattice constant and $`t`$ as a continuous variable. The particular equation (5.16) arising for each pair $`(\mu ,\nu )`$ is written in the table 2.

## 6 ‘Duality’ and higher dimensions

At a classical level, a remarkable equivalence between the Lie algebras in the family $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$ (2.1) is provided by the map defined by

$$HPPHKKDDC_1C_2C_2C_1$$
(6.1)
that interchanges the role of the generators $`HP`$ and $`C_1C_2`$, thus relating the set of graded contractions as

$$so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)so_{\nu ,\mu }(2,2).$$
(6.2)
If the interchange of the two coordinates $`xt`$ is added (so $`_x_t`$), then this algebraic equivalence also works for the vector field realization (2.3) and equation (2.5). This means that if we consider the classical Lie algebras and associated differential equations arranged as in table 1 by applying the classical limit $`\tau 0`$ (also as in table 2 for $`\sigma 0`$), this kind of duality corresponds to the reflection in the main diagonal. Thus $`so(2,2)`$ and $`i^{}iso(1,1)`$ have self-dual structures, meanwhile for the four Lie algebras $`iso(2,1)`$ this duality interchanges the Weyl subalgebras $`𝒲𝒞𝒲𝒢`$ (isomorphic at this dimension) and the differential equations $`_t^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0_x^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ according to the transformation of their contraction parameters $`(\pm ,0)(0,\pm )`$.

When either the time- or space-type quantum deformation is introduced in the family $`so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2)`$, it can be checked that the map (6.1) does not lead to a duality as (6.2) for a single family of quantum algebras. To implement this duality at a quantum algebra level requires to consider both families $`U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ and $`U_\sigma (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ simultaneously; then the map (6.1) can be extended by simply interchanging both deformation parameters $`\tau \sigma `$ in such a manner that both families of quantum algebras are related as follows

$$U_\tau (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))U_\sigma (so_{\nu ,\mu }(2,2)).$$
(6.3)
Thus the results presented in the table 1 are transformed into those given in the table 2, and conversely. For instance, the quantum duality (6.3) interchanges the quantum Weyl subalgebras $`U_\tau (𝒲)U_\sigma (𝒲)`$, $`U_\tau (𝒲)U_\sigma (𝒲)`$, $`U_\tau (𝒲𝒢)U_\sigma (𝒲𝒞)`$ and $`U_\tau (𝒲𝒞)U_\sigma (𝒲𝒢)`$, as well as the derivatives $`\mathrm{\Delta }_t\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ and $`_t_x`$. Therefore a byproduct of (6.3) is that the expressions (3.31) and (3.42) become a matrix realization and an $`R`$-matrix for $`U_\sigma (so_{\mu ,\nu }(2,2))`$ once the map (6.1) has been applied together with the replacements $`\mu \nu `$ and $`\tau \sigma `$.

Consequently, both families of quantum algebras are algebraically equivalent at this $`(1+1)`$ dimension. In spite of this fact, we consider that the explicit results concerning both families are necessary not only because from a physical viewpoint they have a different interpretation and allow us to exhibit the duality clearly, but also because they indicate the way to rise to higher dimensions. In this sense, the $`(1+1)`$D case is somehow exceptional due to the symmetric role that the generators $`H`$ and $`P`$ (respectively, the coordinates $`t`$ and $`x`$) play.

We expect that a similar procedure to the one presented in this paper would enable to construct quantum deformations for the next dimensions (keeping the classical $`r`$-matrices (3.1) and (5.1) as the seeds of the deformations), particularly for the $`(3+1)`$D case. The possible quantum $`so(4,2)`$ algebras generalizing $`U_\tau (so(2,2))`$ and $`U_\sigma (so(2,2))`$ would be interpreted as quantum deformations of the conformal algebra of the $`(3+1)`$D Minkowkskian spacetime giving rise to discretizations of the $`(3+1)`$D wave equation as

$$\begin{array}{cc}U_\tau (so(4,2)):\hfill & (_x^2+_y^2+_z^2\mathrm{\Delta }_t^2)\mathrm{\Phi }=0\hfill \\ U_\sigma (so(4,2)):\hfill & (\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2+_y^2+_z^2_t^2)\mathrm{\Phi }=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.4)
and fulfilling a sequence of Hopf subalgebras embeddings such as

$$U_\tau (sl(2,))U_\tau (so(2,1))U_\tau (so(2,2))U_\tau (so(3,2))U_\tau (so(4,2))\mathrm{}$$
(6.5)
We have achieved here the first embedding. In this context we remark that in  (see also references therein) a systematic construction of a chain of twists applied to the universal envelopings of the semisimple Lie algebras leading to sequences similar to (6.5) has been introduced. Furthermore the structures (6.4) would be the cornerstone of a scheme of contractions leading to different quantum deformations of the algebras $`so(5,1)`$, $`so(3,3)`$, $`iso(4,1)`$, $`iso(3,2)`$,…as well as of their associated differential-difference equations.

To end with we wish to point out that the quantum $`iso(2,1)`$ algebras we have obtained can also be interpreted in a kinematical framework as quantum deformations of the $`(2+1)`$D Poincaré algebra by using a null-plane basis  with generators $`\{P_+,P_1,P_{},E_1,F_1,K_2\}`$. If we take, for instance, the Poincaré algebra with contraction parameters $`(\mu ,\nu )=(0,+1)`$, then the relationship between the null-plane generators and the conformal ones is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}P_+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}P\hfill & P_1=K\hfill & P_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}C_2\hfill \\ E_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}H\hfill & F_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}C_1\hfill & K_2=D.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.6)
This change of basis gives rise to two inequivalent quantum Poincaré algebras: $`U_\tau (iso(2,1))U_\tau (so(2,1))`$ with $`E_1`$ primitive and $`U_\sigma (iso(2,1))U_\sigma (iso(1,1))`$ with $`P_+`$ primitive. These non-standard deformations are different from the so called null-plane quantum Poincaré algebra , the underlying classical $`r`$-matrix of which reads $`r=2z(K_2P_++E_1P_1)`$ in the $`(2+1)`$D case.

## Acknowledgment

This work was partially supported by Junta de Castilla y León, Spain (Project CO2/399).