text:
# Untitled Document

GEOMETRISATION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTION

O.A.Olkhov

Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences
E–mail: olega@gagarinclub.ru

A new concept for the geometrisation of electromagnetic interaction is proposed. Instead of the concept ”extended field–point sources”, interacting Maxwell’s and Dirac’s fields are considered as a unified closed noneuclidean and nonriemannean space–time 4-manifold. This manifold can be considered as geometrical realisation of the ”dressed electron” idea. Within this approach, the Dirac equation proves to be a relation that accounts for topological and metric characteristics of this manifold. Dirac’s spinors serve as basis vectors of its fundamental group representation, while the electromagnetic field components prove to be components of a curvature tensor of the manifold covering space. Energy, momentum components, mass, charge, spin and particle–antiparticle states appear to be geometrical characteristics of the above manifold.

Introduction

First attempts of the electromagnetic field geometrisation were undertaken just after the appearance of the theory of general relativity. The goal was to unify gravitation and electromagnetism within one geometrical approach (Weyl, Kaluza, Einstein, Fok, Wheeler and others). It was expected that gravitation and electromagnetism can be considered as a manifistation of noneuclidean properties of the physical space–time as it is for gravitational field alone (see, for example, \[1-3\]). Later there were also attempts of the gauge fields geometrisation where these fields were interpreted as connections in a space of the local gauge symmetry group .

We showed early that the equation for free Dirac’s field can be interpreted as a relation that accounts for the topological and metric properties of the nonorientable space–time 4–manifold which fundamental group is generated by four glide reflections \[6–8\]. (Two dimentional analog of such manifold is a Klein bottle ). We also noticed there that Maxwell’s equations for a free electromagnetic field can be interpreted as a group–theoretic relations describing the orientable 4–manifold which fundamental group is generated by four parallel translations (two dimentional analog of such manifold is a torus ).

We shall show now that the system of equations for interacting Dirac and Maxwell fields can be also considered as a topological encoding of some unified closed connected nonorientable space–time 4–manifold.

Free electromagnetic field as an orientable space–time 4–manifold

Before the interacting fields consideration we shall firstly show that Maxwell’s equations for free electromagnetic field can be interpreted as relations describing topological properties of some orientable 4–manifold. For more visualization let us consider the two-dimentional orientable manifold that is homeomorphic (topologically equivalent) to a torus. Torus can be represented as a product of two circles $`S_1\times S_2`$ . Let $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ be the circles lengths. Suppose that $`L_1=L_2`$. Let us find out relations expressing topological (orientable) and metric ($`L_1=L_2`$) invariants of the manifold and let us show that such relations are formally analogous to Maxwell’s equations.

One of the manifold topological invariants is its fundamental group. This group elements are classes of pathes starting and finishing at the same point . There are two classes for our two dimentional torus and corresponding pathes are homeomorphic to the circles $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$. This group is isomorphic (assume one–to–one correspondence) to the group of two parallel translations $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ along the Cartesian coordinates $`0X`$ and $`0Y`$ on euclideam plane (this plane is said to be a covering surface for our torus ). As the above group representation we take operators for the $`L_1`$– and $`L_2`$–translations along $`0X`$ and $`0Y`$

$$T_x=\frac{iL_1}{2\pi }\frac{}{x},T_y=\frac{iL_2}{2\pi }\frac{}{y}.$$

It is easy to verify that the basic vectors for this representation have the form

$$\phi =\mathrm{exp}[2\pi i(\frac{x}{L_1}+\frac{y}{L_2})].$$

Therefore, the conditions imposed by the manifold fundamental group (parallel–translations group) and by the metric restriction ($`L_1=L_2`$) can be formulated with the help of the one relation

$$\frac{\phi }{x}=\frac{\phi }{y}.$$
$`(1)`$
Eq.(1) does not however represent the fact that our geometrical object is a orientable manifold and does not therefore allow to fix the orientation. The reason is that we choosed scalars as basic vectors for the manifold fundamental group representation. It is known that orientable manifolds need more complex tensors for its representation, namely antisymmetric second rank tensors $`F_{ik}`$ (bivectors). The bivector components are defined by two vectors $`a_i`$ and $`b_k`$ as

$$F_{ik}=a_ib_ka_kb_i,$$
$`(2)`$
where for two-dimentional space $`i=x,y;k=x,y`$.

So if we are going to change in (1) scalar for bivector we have to introduce into the theory two vectors on the $`X,Y`$–plane defining the manifold orientation (up–down). One of the vectors is the vector of parallel translations ($`/x,/y`$). Another vector has to be introduced as additional topological propriety of the manifold. Denote this vector by $`𝐀`$. Then we have for $`F_{ik}`$

$$F_{ik}=\frac{A_x}{y}\frac{A_y}{x}.$$
$`(3)`$
Let us change in (1) scalar $`\phi `$ for bivector $`F_{ik}`$ and extend our two-dimentional consideration to the analogous four-dimentional manifold with the pseudoeuclidean covering space. In other words we rewrite Eqs.(1) and (3) as

$$\frac{F_{ik}}{x_i}=0,F_{ik}=\frac{A_k}{x_i}\frac{Ai}{x_k},$$
$`(4)`$
where $`i,k=0,1,2,3;x_0=ct`$, $`c`$ is a light velosity. Here (and later on) the summation is supposed to be going over repeating indices.

We see that Eqs.(4) coincide exactly with Maxwell’s equations for free field if we consider $`F_{ik}`$ as the electric and magnetic fields tensor and $`A_i`$ as 4–potentials . This coincidence means that we can interpret the free electromagnetic field as the orientable closed connected space—time manifold which fundamental group is generated by four parallel translations. The field energy and momentum appear here as the manifold topological invariants and the energy conservation law appears as an additional metric restriction.

We showed earlier that the equation for free Dirac’s field can be considered as a relation describing topological and metric characteristics of the another type manifold (nonorientable one) \[6–8\]. It is usefull now to repeat shortly the argumentation of the above interpretation. This equation has the form :

$$\gamma ^lp_l\psi =m\psi ,$$
$`(5)`$
where

$$\gamma ^lp_l=p_0\gamma ^0p_1\gamma ^1p_2\gamma ^2p_3\gamma ^3.$$

Here $`m`$ is a mass and $`\psi `$ is the four–component first rank spin–tensor. It can be represented by the matrix with four rows and one column

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi \\ \eta \end{array}\right),$$
$`(6)`$
where $`\xi `$ $`\eta `$ are two–component spinors (dotted and undotted ones). Here $`p_l=i/x^l`$ are the 4–momentum operators, $`x^0=t,x^1=x,x^2=y,x^3=z`$, and $`\gamma ^l`$ ($`l=0,1,2,3`$) are the Dirac four–row matrices. If we choose bispinors in the form (6) then the matrices $`\gamma _l`$ can be written as

$$\gamma ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma ^\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma ^\alpha \\ \sigma ^\alpha & 0\end{array}\right),$$
$`(7)`$
where $`\alpha =1,2,3`$ and $`\sigma ^\alpha `$ are two–row Pauli matrices. We write here four–row matrices as two–row ones: each symbol in (7) corresponds to a two–row matrix. Here and later on $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Planck constant.

Within topological interpretation the difference between Dirac’s Eq.(5) and Maxwell’s Eqs.(4) is that in (4) we have a bivector $`F_{ik}`$ but we have the first–rank spin–tensor $`\psi `$ in (5). And we have the parallel translation operator $`p_l`$ in (4) instead of the product $`p_l\gamma _l`$ in (5). Any first–rank spin–tensor (considered as linear geometrical object) corresponds to the geometrical structure that restores its position after rotation by $`4\pi `$ (not $`2\pi `$) . Such behaviour is a feature of the nonorientable geometrical objects. (The simplest example is the Möbius strip )

On the other hand the $`\gamma _l`$ matrices can be considered within spinor basis as a representation for the product of three symmetries with respect to hyperplanes containing $`0X`$–axes \[6-8\]. It means that the product $`p_l\gamma _l`$ in (5) is a representation for the glide reflection group. Therefore, Dirac’s Eq.(5) can be interpreted as a metruc relation for some nonorientable space–time 4–manifold which fudamental group is generated by four glide reflections and which covering space is the physical space–time (Minkowski space). The Klein bottle is a two–dimentional analog of this manifold .

Thus we have shown that equations for free Dirac’s field and free Maxwell’s field can be interpreted as a specific mathematical description of some special closed space–time 4–manifolds. Mass, energy and momentum components appear here as elements of this manifold fundamental group with dimensions of length. Note that the closeness of a manifold in pseudoeuclidean space does not imply any constraints on the manifold extension over the time axis. For example, a circle in pseudoeuclidean plane is mapped into an equilateral hyperbola in the usual plane . In space our manifolds are closed and bounded but they do not have a definite shape (as any nonmetrized manifold): all manifolds obtained from some initial one by the deformation without a damage are equivalent . Nevertheless, it is possible to indicate for these manifolds some characteristic sizes which defined by metric conditions corresponding within geometrical approach to the energy and momentum conservation laws. It is a wave length of the electromagnetic field or the particle wave length $`\mathrm{}/p`$.

Geometrical interpretation of interacting electromagnetic and electron–positron fields

Let us now consider a question of ”switching on” interactions in the geometrical representation of the above considered free fields. In other words let us try to find out the geometrical interpretation of the following known equations for Maxwell’s and Dirac’s interacting fields

$$i\gamma ^l(\frac{}{x^l}+ieA_l)\psi =m\psi ,$$
$`(8)`$
$$\frac{F_{ik}}{x^i}=j_k.$$
$`(9)`$
$$F_{ik}=\frac{A_i}{x^k}\frac{A_k}{x^i}.$$
$`(10)`$
Here $`e`$ is an electron charge, $`m`$ is an electron mass, and the current $`j_k`$ is defined as

$$j_k=e\psi ^+\gamma ^k\psi ,$$

where $`\psi ^+=\psi ^{}\gamma ^0`$ is so called Dirac’s conjugate spinor ($`\psi ^{}`$ is a complex conjugate spinor). Here and later on we use the system where $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$.

We shall show now that Eqs.(8-10) can be considered as relations describing topological properties of one closed 4–manifold that has some features of both above considered ones (corresponding to electromagnetic and electron–positron fields). This conclusion seems inevitable within our topological approach because it is difficult to suggest something else. Up to now the topology for 4–manifolds is developed not so good as for two-dimentional ones. For two-dimentional manifolds a detailed classification is worked out and their main topological invariants are defined . Therefore, we shall try to use any possible parallels between our problem and corresponding problem within two-dimentional topology. We have in mind here that a usefulness of low-dimentional considerations is one of the geometrical approach advatages. So let us see what could be the result of a unification in one geometrical object proprieties of two two-dimentional manifolds, orientable and nonorientable ones. What kind of object will be the hybrid of torus and the Klein bottle and how can we reflect mathematically its topological peculiarities?

According to topological classification a two–dimentional torus is a ”sphere with one handle” and the Klein bottle is a ”sphere with two holes covered by cross–caps or Möbius films” . As a hybrid of a torus and the Klein bottle it is natural to consider a sphere with one handle and two cross–caps. The covering space for this nonorientable manifold is a hyperbolic plane and the manifold fundamental group is generated by glide reflections . Let us suppose that there is some analogy between above hybrid–manifold and the one which can represent Dirac’s and Maxwell’s interacting fields. Then we can assume that Eq.(8) may be interpreted as a relation describing some nonorientable manifold whose covering space is a four-dimentional analog of a hyperbolic plane. Such analog is a conformal pseudoeuclidean space (the Lobachevskian space is one of the examples ).

Show that Dirac’s equation (8) can indeed be interpreted in this way. Conformal euclidean space is a space that assumes conformal mapping onto euclidean space. This means that for every point $`M(x)`$ of conformal euclidean space there is a point $`M_E`$ in euclidean space where arc’s differentials are connected by the relation

$$ds_E^2=f(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)ds^2,$$
$`(11)`$
where $`ds^2=g_{ik}dx^idx^k`$ defines the conformal euclidean space metrics, $`ds_E^2=g_{ik}^Edx^idx^k`$ is the arc’s differential squared (into our pseudoeuclidean space $`g_{00}^E=1,g_{11}^E=g_{22}^E=g_{33}^E=1,g_{ik}^E=0,ik`$).

Consider the left side of Eq.(8). As compared with Eq.(5) for free electron–positron field it contains expression $`(/x^l+ieA^l)`$ instead of usual derivative $`/x^l`$. It is customary to call this expression ”covariant derivative” because it looks like covariant derivative $`_l`$ of covariant vector field $`B_m`$ \[9-11\]

$$_lB_m=\frac{B_m}{x^l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ml}^sB_s,$$
$`(12)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ml}^s`$ is a connection.

The connection geometrical meaning is that the covariant derivative plays the role of the parallel translation generator for the conventional tensor field defined on some manifold (the connection for euclidean space is zero and the parallel translation generator is a ”usual” derivative $`/x^l`$) \[9-11\]. But there does not exist a connection of this kind into arbitrary space for spintensors (in particular for 4-component Dirac’s spinors). The reason is that spintensors are the euclidean (not affine) tensors. The transformation law for their components is defined by the rotation group representation and it can not be extanded to the group of all linear transformations . This means that spintensors can be compared in two different points only if orthogonal frames remain orthogonal after corresponding transfer through the space.

But for particular cases—for conformal euclidean space, for example, we can always map the vicinity of any point $`M`$ onto vicinity any another point $`M^{}`$ in such way that the orthoganal frame at $`M`$ remains orthogonal in $`M^{}`$ . Therefore the parallel translation for spinors in this space can be defined by the same formulas as for any other tensors and then only the connection components $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lp}^p`$ will be nonzero .

Recall that conformal euclidean space would not be here the physical space –time but the manifold covering space. This space is only a mathematical instrument for the manifold fondamental group description. And only this nonmetrized 4–manifold (that is not a riemann space at all) represents interacting electromagnetic and electron–positron fields. Suppose now that we can consider $`ieA^l`$ in (8) as a connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lp}^p`$ in the space like the conformal euclidean one.(Later we shall call this space as ”conformal pseudoeuclidean” though it is not even supposed to be riemann space). Then we can interpret the expression $`(/x^l+ieA^l)`$ in (8) as a generator of infinitesimal translations in conformal pseudoeuclidean space. The parallel translation generator multiplied by the reflection operator $`\gamma ^l`$ gives within the spinor basis the local glide reflection operator . It leads to the main conclusion: Dirac’s equation (8) can be interpreted as a relation describing topological and metric properties of some 4–manifolds. The manifold fundamental group is a local glide reflection and manifold’s covering space is conformal pseudoeuclidean space. This manifold is infinitly connected in contrast to four–connected manifolds describing free electron–positron and electromagnetic fields.

Considering $`ieA^l`$ as a connection in the manifold covering space we can give a geometrical interpretation for the electric and magnetic fields components (or for components of electric and magnetic fields tensor $`F_{ik}`$). Let us use for this purpose the relation betweeen the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lm}^k`$ and the space curvature tensor $`R_{lk,i}^q`$

$$R_{lk,i}^q=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{li}^q}{x^k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ki}^q}{x^l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kp}^q\mathrm{\Gamma }_{li}^p\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lp}^q\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ki}^p\right).$$
$`(13)`$
(Summation is here going over repeating indices from $`0`$ to $`3`$).

After contraction $`R_{lk,i}^q`$ over upper and right lower indices one obtaines (denote the result as $`R_{lk}^0`$):

$$R_{lk}^0=R_{lk,q}^q=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lq}^q}{x^k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kq}^q}{x^l}.$$
$`(14)`$
Comparing (14) and (10) and taking in mind that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mq}^q=ieA_m`$, we have

$$ieF_{ik}=R_{ik}^0,$$

Comparing Eq. (14) with Eq. (10) and using the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mq}^q=ieA_m`$, one obtains

$$ieF_{ik}=R_{ik}^0,$$
$`(15)`$
i.e., within the geometrical interpretation, the tensor of electric and magnetic fields coincides, except for the factor $`ie`$, with certain components of the curvature tensor of a covering surface. Therefore, Maxwell’s Eq. (9) relates the above-mentioned components of curvature tensor to the basis functions of the fundamental group, thereby rendering the system of Eqs. (8)–(10) closed. The curvature tensor for a space with constant curvature $`K`$ has the form

$$R_{ij,kl}=K(g_{ik}g_{jl}g_{il}gjk).$$
$`(16)`$
Comparing Eqs. (16) and (15), one arrives at the conclusion that, within the geometrical interpretation, the electric charge $`e`$ is proportional to the covering space constant curvature $`K`$.

Finally, Eqs.(8-10) for interacting electromagnetic and electron–positron fields can be written within geometrical approach as

$$i\gamma ^l(\frac{}{x^l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lp}^p)\psi =K\psi ,$$
$`(17)`$
$$R_{ik}^0=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ip}^p}{x^k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kp}^p}{x^i},$$
$`(18)`$
$$\frac{R_{ik}^0}{x^i}=ie^2\psi ^+\gamma ^k\psi ,$$
$`(19)`$
Conclusion

Finally, we have the following geometrical interpretation of electromagnetic interaction.

1. Electromagnetic field and its sources (electron–positron field) can be considered as a single closed infinitely connected nonorientable nonmetrized 4–manifold.
2. Covering space of this manifold is a conformal pseudoeuclidean space.
3. Potentials $`A_k`$ is defined by the connection of this space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ ($`ieA_k=\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$).
4. Electric and magnetic field components are defined by the components of the covering space curvature tensor $`R_{ik}^0`$ ($`ieF_{ik}=R_{ik}^0`$).
5. Dirac’s and Maxwell’s equations appear as the relations imposing metric restictions on generators of the manifold fundamental group.
6. Dirac spinors appear as basic vectors for the manifold fundamental group representation.
7. Electron charge appears as a constant covering space curvature.
8. Electron mass appears as a metric parameter of the manifold fundamental group.
9.Particle–antiparticle states and states with different spin projections are the reflection of the manifold nonorientability.
10. In a way above manifold can be considered as ”dressed electron” and it looks like fluctuating shapeless microscopic droplet of space–time points.

One comment in conclusion. Geometrisation of Dirac’s equation introduces new topological interpretation of quantum formalism. But it is important that replacing a ”wave–particle” by a nonmetrized space–time manifold does not mean ”more determinism” for the quantum object description and the topological approach does not introduce any hidden variables and does not therefore contradict Bell’s and von Neumann’s theorems .

References
1. H.Weyl, Gravitation und Electrisität, Berlin, Sitzber.:Preus.Akad.Wiss, 1918.
2. A.Einstein, Riemann Geometrie mit Aufrechterhaltung des Fernparallelismus, Sitzungsber: preuss. Akad. Wiss., phys-math. K1., 1928, 217-221
3. J.A.Wheeler, Neutrinos, gravitation and geometry, Bologna, 1960
4. N.P.Konopleva, V.N.Popov, Gauge fields, Chuz–London–N.Y.: Harwood acad.publ., 1981.
5. M.Daniel, C.M.Vialett, Rev.Mod.Phys. 52(1980)175.
6. O.A. Olkhov, in Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Particles, Strings and Cosmology, Lake Tahoe, California, 10-16 December 1999, p.160. e-print quant-ph/0101137.
7. O.A.Olkhov, Chemical Physics (Chimitcheskay Fisika, in russian). 19, N6(2000) 13
8. O.A.Olkhov in Thesises of the International Seminar on Physics of Electronic and Atomic Collisions, Klyasma, Moscow region, Russia, 12-16 March 2001, p.28, e-print quant-ph/0103089
9. B.A. Dubrovin, A.T.Fomenko, S.P.Novikov, Modern geometry—methods and applications, N.Y.: Springer, 1990, Pt.2, Ch.4
10. H.S.M. Coxeter, Introduction to geometry. John Wiley and Sons, N-Y-London, 1961, Pt.4, Ch.21
11. P.K.Raschevsky, Rimanova geometria i tensorny analiz, M.:Nauka, 1967.
12. J.D. Bjorken, S.D. Drell, Relativistic quantum mechanics, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1964
13. E. Cartan, Leçons sur la Théorie des Spineurs, Actualités Scientifiques et Industrielles, No.643 and 701, Hermann, Paris, 1938
14. H.S.M. Coxeter, W.O. Moser, Generators and Relations for discrete groups. New York-London.: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.
15. H.Weyl, Z.f.Phys. 56(1929)330.
16. I.S. Bell, Rev.Mod.Phys.38(1966)447.
17. J.V. Neumann, Mathematische grundlagen der quantenmechanik, Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin, 1932.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We are still searching for the theory of quantum gravity. While the four dimensional theory of quantum gravity may have to go beyond the conventional framework of quantum field theory it is possible to discuss two- and three-dimensional quantum gravity in terms of conventional field theoretical concepts. In this way one may hope to learn important lessons about the “real” theory of four-dimensional gravity, whether or not it can be defined as a non-perturbative quantum field theory.

Two-dimensional quantum gravity is an example of the subtlety present in a reparameterization invariant theory. In two dimensions the Einstein action is trivial as long as we do not sum over different topologies of space-time (which we are not attempting here). Thus we are left only with the cosmological term in the action and the classical theory is trivial. Diffeomorphism invariance ensures that no field degrees of freedom exist. Nevertheless, a finite number of quantum mechanical degrees of freedom survives, which still have a rich (quantum) geometrical description. Despite the fact that no field degrees of freedom exist, it still makes sense to talk about generalized Hartle-Hawking like amplitudes: the sum over all Euclidean two-geometries with boundaries of of lengths $`L_k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Similarly one can define the concept of correlators, depending on geodesic distance and show that standard concepts, derived from Euclidean quantum field theory or the theory of critical phenomena, make sense even in a framework of fluctuating geometries.

Three-dimensional quantum gravity can be addressed in the same spirit. The new aspects of three-dimensional quantum gravity compared to two-dimensional quantum gravity are the following: the theory is a perturbative non-renormalizable theory in the gravitational coupling constant and the Euclidean action is unbounded from below. It is thus a priori unclear how to make sense of an Euclidean three-dimensional path integral. On the other hand we know that the conformal factor only appears as a constraint in a reduced phase-space quantization and thus should not really pose a problem in a Lorentzian quantization of three-dimensional quantum gravity. It is of interest to understand if it is possible at all to think about three-dimensional quantum gravity as a path integral involving the sum over a certain class of three-dimensional Euclidean geometries of a given topology.

Contrary to the situation in two dimensions this “purely” Euclidean approach has not been successful in three dimensions. This led to the concept of “Lorentzian” gravity, the idea being that only Lorentzian geometries with a global causal structure should be included in the path integral, and that a possible rotation to Euclidean geometries should respect this. Returning to two-dimensional quantum gravity where analytic solutions can be found, one can implement this program and one finds that Lorentzian quantum gravity is different from Euclidean quantum gravity. Using proper-time as an evolution parameter, two-dimension Euclidean quantum gravity can be understood as two-dimensional Lorentzian quantum gravity where it is possible to create at each space-time point a baby universe, which at later proper-time remains separated from the “parent” universe. In three-dimensions the path-integral over Lorentzian geometries can be studied by numerical as well as analytical methods, and it seems an interesting candidate for a theory of quantum gravity, defined as the sum over geometries, with relative weights dictated by the Einstein-Hilbert action.

## 2 Non-perturbative regularization

In a theory of quantum gravity it is not enough to study perturbation theory. The examples of the $`\varphi ^4`$ field theory and $`QCD`$ in four dimensions illustrates this. Both theories have well defined perturbative expansions, and observables can be calculated to any order in the coupling constant in both theories. Since both theories are renormalizable one can express the observables entirely in terms of the renormalized mass and coupling constant. However, it does not ensure that a genuine quantum field exists without a cut-off. In order to address this question one first has to define the theory outside perturbation theory and then show that observables calculated in the non-perturbatively defined theory become independent of a possible cut-off, used in the definition of the non-perturbative framework. Finally, one can then discuss to what extend the perturbation expansion, which is usually at most an asymptotic expansion, contains information about the non-perturbatively defined theory.

All the evidence suggests that $`QCD`$ exists as a genuine quantum field theory in four-dimensional space-time. One needs a cut-off at an intermediate step when defining the theory, but this cut off will never show up in any continuum physical observables. The situation is opposite for the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory. It seems impossible to define a non-trivial theory where the renormalized coupling constant is different from zero when the cut-off is removed. This situation is of course already hinted by low order perturbation theory where one observes a Landau pole at large energies.

In the case of a $`\varphi ^4`$ theory, as it appears for instance in the Standard Model, one considers it as an effective low energy approximation to a more more elaborate, yet to be understood, theory at the GUT scale or the Planck scale. Clearly, if we want to apply conventional quantum field theoretical concepts to the theory of quantum gravity, such a situation is not good enough: it has to be a quantum theory independent of cut-off in the same way as $`QCD`$, since the quantum phenomena we want to consider take place precisely at the Planck scale. In order to understand whether or not the theory exists as a conventional quantum theory a non-perturbative framework is thus mandatory.

For non-Abelian gauge theories and the $`\varphi ^4`$ scalar field theory the use of a space-time lattice has provided a useful regularization, in particularly when combined with the use of Monte Carlo simulations, taking advantage of the fast present days computers. It has allowed us to related Euclidean quantum field theory to the statistical theory of critical phenomena. Stated very shortly Euclidean quantum field theories can be extracted from second order phase transitions of generalized spin systems defined on the lattice. The way the continuum field theory is recovered from the lattice spin model is as follows: by fine-tuning the coupling constants of the model , generically denoted $`\lambda `$, one can approach the phase transition point $`\lambda _c`$. The spin-spin correlation length $`\xi `$, measured in lattice spacings, will diverge as

$$\xi (\lambda )\frac{1}{|\lambda \lambda _c|^\nu }.$$
(1)
The lattice spacing $`a`$ serves as the cut-off. By Fourier transformation it is seen that the (lattice) momentum must be less that $`\pi /a`$. We introduce the physical correlation length $`L`$ as $`L=\xi (\lambda )a`$. One now take the limit

$$L=\xi (\lambda )a\mathrm{fixed},\xi (\lambda )\mathrm{},a0.$$
(2)
From eq. (1) we see that the interpretation of this continuum limit is that while the correlation length measured in lattice units diverges when $`\lambda \lambda _c`$, the lattice spacing (the cut-off) goes to zero as:

$$a(\lambda )|\lambda \lambda _c|^\nu \mathrm{for}\lambda \lambda _c.$$
(3)
In this scaling limit the lattice becomes increasingly fine-grained compared to the physical correlation length $`L`$. The lattice structure becomes unimportant for the physics associated with these long range fluctuations and Euclidean invariance will be restored for the physics related to these fluctuations. Let $`\varphi (x_n)`$ denote the spin at lattice point $`x_n=na`$. Since the spin correlation functions will behaves

$$\varphi (x_n)\varphi (0)\text{e}^{n/\xi (\lambda )}\text{e}^{x_n/L}$$
(4)
for large $`n`$, we see that the renormalized physical mass should be identified with $`1/L`$:

$$m_{ph}=1/L.$$
(5)
The choice of physical correlation length in (2) is equivalent to a choice of renormalized mass in the continuum quantum field theory. We have used $`\lambda `$ as a generic coupling constant and usually the “spin” system will have a number of coupling constants. Combined fine-tuning will allow to fix in addition the other renormalized coupling constants of the continuum theory. Finally the lattice “spin” $`\varphi (x_n)`$ is assigned a dimension from the short distance behavior of the spin-spin correlation function. In eq. (4) it was assumed that $`n\xi (\lambda )`$. In the opposite limit $`1n\xi (\lambda )`$ one expects

$$\varphi (x_n)\varphi (0)n^{d+2+\eta }\frac{a^{d2+\eta }}{x_n^{d2+\eta }},ax_nL.$$
(6)
The factor $`a^{d2+\eta }`$ reflects the scaling dimension of the physical field

$$\varphi _{phys}=a^{(d2+\eta )/2}\varphi _{lattice},$$
(7)
and the anomalous scaling dimension $`\eta `$ is related to wave function renormalization.

This way of defining a quantum field theory is closely related to use of the renormalization group in quantum field theory and it emphasizes the concept of universality: many different “spin” systems defined on lattices will lead to the same class of continuum field theories, characterized by critical exponents like $`\nu `$ and $`\eta `$. One can imagine an idealized spin system where all possible spin interactions are included in the spin Hamiltonian. The key assumption is then that in this infinite dimensional coupling constant space the critical surfaces where one can define continuum theories are of finite co-dimensions. Thus there is only a finite number of coupling constants which need to be fine-tuned in order that the system becomes critical. Translated to continuum physics only a finite number of coupling constants need renormalizations. In the context of a perturbative expansion around free field theory this leads to the usual concept of renormalizable theories. But the philosophy also applies to expansions about non-trivial critical points where there exist no free fields. Since four-dimensional quantum gravity is not renormalizable viewed as a perturbation theory around flat space, the simplest possible scenario still using the framework of conventional quantum field theory is that of a non-trivial fixed point in the sense described above. In the context of quantum gravity this was first emphasized by Weinberg, who called it “asymptotic safety” since only a finite number of coupling constants needed adjustment in order to recover continuum physics.

While the lattice formulation of quantum field theories has the virtues mentioned above it also has a number of drawbacks:

* The lattice formulation is usually not a convenient framework for analytic calculations.
* space-time symmetries are explicitly broken. In particular, the lattice seems not to be the best regularization for theories with local space-time symmetries.

It is no necessarily so. Two-dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity provides a counter example. There exists a simple lattice regularization of 2d Euclidean quantum gravity, called dynamical triangulation, which is

* convenient for analytic calculations,
* has no problems recovering the diffeomorphism invariant continuum limit,
* is defined directly on the space of geometries,
* serves as a textbook example of universality when viewed as a statistical field theory.

The use of dynamical triangulations 222The concept “Dynamical triangulations” was introduced in  mainly in an attempt to provide a non-perturbative definition of the bosonic string. is an attempt to approximate the space of geometries by the class of piecewise linear geometries which can be constructed from an elementary building block. In two dimensions the building block is an equilateral triangle and the piecewise linear geometries are obtained by gluing together the triangles in all possible ways consistent with a given two-dimensional topology. If we consider the triangles as flat, the (piecewise linear) geometry is uniquely determined by the connectivity pattern of the triangulation. The length $`a`$ of the links serves as the cut-off as for a regular lattice, and with the interpretation given here it is a diffeomorphism invariant cut-off, since we work directly with geometries. The hope is that when $`a0`$ this set of geometries will be “dense” in the set of all geometries which enters into the path integral. Also, it is important to understand that in the spirit of universality there is nothing special about the use of equilateral triangles. For instance, one could have used squares as building blocks, and if we wanted a piecewise linear geometry associated with such generalized “quadrangulations” one could subdivide the square into two triangles at one of the diagonals, considering each triangle as “flat”. The results we will mention in the following will indeed be independent of such details.

Using a lattice to define the path integral also includes defining the discretized action. In conventional lattice theories the action is usually chosen such that it for $`a0`$ converges to the classical continuum action of the field theory one tries to quantize. There is a large freedom in choosing such discretized actions, all leading to the same continuum theory by the universality mentioned above. In the case of piecewise linear geometries the Einstein-Hilbert action can actually be implemented entirely in terms of the piecewise linear geometry, as first noted by Regge . For a piecewise linear d-dimensional geometry the integrated curvature is

$$\text{d}^d\xi \sqrt{g}R=\underset{\sigma _{d2}}{}V(\sigma _{d2})\epsilon (\sigma _{d2}),$$
(8)
where $`\sigma _{d2}`$ denotes a $`(d2)`$-dimensional simplex in the $`d`$-dimensional triangulation, $`V(\sigma _{d2})`$ the volume of the simplex and $`\epsilon (\sigma _{d2})`$ the deficit angle associated with the simplex. Eq. (8) is “exact” in the sense that it is the natural curvature one can associate to a piecewise linear geometry. As an example it leads to Eulers formula in the case of two-dimensional manifolds.

In our case it becomes even simpler because the piecewise linear geometries are constructed from a fundamental building block. The space-time volume is thus proportional to the total number of building blocks and the curvature associated with a $`(d2)`$-simplex $`\sigma _{d2}`$ is related to the number $`o(\sigma _{d2})`$ of $`d`$-simplices sharing it in the following way: call the angle in a $`d`$-simplex between two $`(d1)`$-simplices sharing a $`(d2)`$-simplex $`\theta `$. Then the deficit angle associated with $`\sigma _{d2}`$ is

$$\epsilon (\sigma _{d2})=2\pi \theta o(\sigma _{d1}).$$
(9)
The Einstein-Hilbert action

$$S[g]=\frac{1}{G}\text{d}^d\xi \sqrt{g}R+\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{d}^d\xi \sqrt{g}$$
(10)
associated with this kind of piecewise linear geometries is thus very simple and can be expressed as

$$S_T=k_{d2}N_{d2}(T)+k_dN_d,$$
(11)
where $`N_{d2}(T)`$ denotes the number of $`(d2)`$-simplices and $`N_d(T)`$ denotes the number of $`d`$-simplices of the triangulation $`T`$. The dimensionless coupling constants $`k_{d2}`$ and $`k_d`$ are related to the coupling constants $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as

$$k_{d2}\frac{a^{d2}}{G},k_d\frac{a^{d2}}{G}+a^d\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(12)
This has the implication that in any dimension the calculation of the functional integral associated with the Einstein-Hilbert action is purely combinatorial:

$$Z(G,\mathrm{\Lambda })=𝒟[g_{\mu \nu }]\text{e}^{S[g]}Z(k_{d2},k_d)=\underset{T}{}\text{e}^{S_T},$$
(13)
where the sum can be rewritten as

$$Z(x,y)=\underset{N_d,N_{d2}}{}x^{N_d}y^{N_{d2}}𝒩(N_d,N_{d2}).$$
(14)
In this formula $`x=e^{k_{d2}}`$, $`y=e^{k_d}`$ and $`𝒩(N_d,N_{d2})`$ denotes the number of different piecewise linear geometries one can construct from $`N_d`$ simplices, having $`N_{d2}`$ $`(d2)`$-simplices. In this way the partition function $`Z(x,y)`$ becomes the generating function for the numbers $`𝒩(N_d,N_{d2})`$ as it is used in standard combinatorial analysis. This kind of remarkable simplification is only possible because we have restricted the sum over geometries to the ones with can be constructed from the cut-off size building blocks and because the Einstein action by the Regge-prescription is very simple for piecewise linear geometries.

### 2.1 The continuum limit

The combinatorial aspect of the sum over geometries allows us to understand how to approach the continuum limit in the simplest situations: the number of geometries of a given space-time topology and space-time volume grows exponentially with space-time volume:

$$\underset{N_{d2}}{}𝒩(N_{d2},N_d)\text{e}^{k_d^cN_d+o(N_d)}.$$
(15)
From this it follows that for each value of $`k_{d2}`$ there exists a critical value $`k_d^c(k_{d2})`$ such that

* For $`k_d>k_d^c(k_{d2})`$ the partition function $`Z(k_{d2},k_d)`$ is convergent, while it is divergent for $`k_d<k_d^c(k_{d2})`$.
* The infinite volume limit is obtained by fine-tuning $`k_dk_d^c(k_{d2})`$. This can be viewed as an additive renormalization of the bare “cosmological” constant:

$$k_d=k_d^c(k_{d2})+\mathrm{\Lambda }a^d,$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is viewed as a renormalized cosmological constant.
* It might require an additional fine-tuning of $`k_{d2}`$ to obtain a continuum limit, if it exists at all. Such a fine-tuning can be viewed as a renormalization of the gravitational coupling constant. (The analogy with the spin models might be helpful: the infinite volume limit means that the lattice is infinite, but it does not imply that we have a continuum field theory. That might require a fine-tuning of the coupling constants of the spin model).

If a continuum limit of the kind discussed above can be constructed, the corresponding quantum field theory might serve as a candidate for the asymptotic safe non-renormalizable theory in the sense of Weinberg.

## 3 Two-dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity

### 3.1 Hartle-Hawking wave functions

Two-dimensional gravity, defined via dynamical triangulations, serves as a test of some of the above mentioned ideas. The integral of the curvature term is a topological invariant in two dimensions. Thus, as long as we do not consider topology changes of space-time we can ignore the curvature term in two dimensions and we are left with the cosmological term. We write:

$$Z_a(k_2)=\underset{T}{}\text{e}^{k_2N_2(T)}=\underset{N}{}\text{e}^{k_2N}𝒩(N),$$
(17)
where $`𝒩(N)`$ denotes the number of different triangulations constructed from $`N`$ equilateral triangles with link length $`a`$. Objects of interest in the context of quantum gravity are the (generalized) Hartle-Hawking wave functions where the geometry of spatial boundaries are kept fixed, and the amplitude for such a configuration is obtained by summing over all two-dimensional geometries which have the prescribed spatial boundary geometries. In two dimensions the geometry of the boundary is uniquely fixed by its length. In the regularization mentioned above a boundary will consist of $`l`$ links of length $`a`$ from the adjacent triangles. The length of the boundary is thus $`L=la`$. The regularized Hartle-Hawking wave function can thus be written as

$$G_a(l_1,\mathrm{},l_n;k_2)=\underset{T(l_1,\mathrm{},l_n)}{}\text{e}^{k_2N_2(T)}=\underset{N}{}\text{e}^{k_2N}𝒩_{l_1,\mathrm{},l_n}(N),$$
(18)
where $`𝒩_{l_1,\mathrm{},l_n}(N)`$ denotes the number of different triangulations constructed from $`N`$ triangles and with $`n`$ boundaries consisting of $`l_1,\mathrm{},l_n`$ links, respectively.

It is seen that the calculation of $`Z_a(k_2)`$ and $`G_a(l_1,\mathrm{},l_n;k_2)`$ can be reduced to purely combinatorial problems: the counting of distinct triangulations of various kinds. One finds, using either combinatorial methods or so-called matrix models, that

$$𝒩(N)\text{e}^{k_2^cN}N^{\gamma 3},$$
(19)
where $``$ means the leading asymptotic behavior when $`N`$ is large, and where $`\gamma `$ depends on the topology of two-dimensional space-time. For the simplest topology of a sphere $`\gamma =1/2`$. Thus we find

$$Z_a(k_2)\underset{N}{}\text{e}^{(k_2k_2^c)N}N^{\gamma 3}\frac{1}{(k_2k_2^c)^{\gamma 2}}.$$
(20)
One observes a singular structure for $`k_2k_2^c`$ which governs the large $`N`$ behavior of the sum, and a continuum limit can be obtained by an additive renormalization of the cosmological constant:

$$k_2=k_2^c+a^2\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(21)
An additive renormalization is expected since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has a positive mass dimension. The renormalization is “natural” in the sense that

$$(k_2k_2^c)N=(\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2)N=\mathrm{\Lambda }(a^2N)=\mathrm{\Lambda }V,$$
(22)
where $`V`$ denotes the continuum space-time volume. The partition function becomes

$$Z_a(k_2)(a^2\mathrm{\Lambda })^{2\gamma }a^{2\gamma }Z(\mathrm{\Lambda }),Z(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2\gamma }.$$
(23)
The divergent $`a`$-factor can be viewed as the kind of wave function renormalization which is always present in the path integral version of quantum field theory.

The counting can also be performed in the case of triangulations with boundaries. The result is as follows:

$$𝒩_{l_1,\mathrm{},l_n}(N)\text{e}^{k_2N}\text{e}^{k_b(l_1+\mathrm{}+l_n)}N^{\gamma _n}(l_1\mathrm{}l_n)^{\gamma _b}F(l_i/\sqrt{N}).$$
(24)
The exponential growth with $`N`$ is counteracted by a renormalization of the cosmological constant as above while the exponential growth with respect to the boundary length can be controlled by adding a boundary cosmological constant to the action. This should anyway be done when we have space-like boundaries (see  for details). In this way we can take a continuum limit by scaling $`l_i\sqrt{N}`$, which is what one expects from the canonical dimensions of boundaries and bulk in two-dimensional quantum gravity. The resulting continuum Hartle-Hawking wave functions can be found (see ). We list the results in the case three boundaries (which is particularly simple):

$$G(L_1,L_2,L_3,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}\sqrt{L_1L_2L_3}\text{e}^{\sqrt{L}(L_1+L_2+L_3)}.$$
(25)
### 3.2 Universality

It is important to understand that the results mentioned above are universal. The precise nature of the short distance regularization used is not important. We could have constructed our two-dimensional complexes from any combination of triangles, squares, pentagons etc with relative weights $`g_3,g_4,g_5,\mathrm{}`$ and we would have obtained the same continuum Hartle-Hawking wave function as long as the relative weights of the various kinds of polygons are non-negative. If some of the weights are taken negative the system can no longer be given a simple interpretation as two-dimensional quantum gravity. However, it can be shown that they can be given the interpretation as certain matter fields coupled to two-dimensional random lattices of the kind used above in constructing the theory of two-dimensional quantum gravity. The fine-tuning of the coupling constants give us new continuum systems which can be viewed as certain conformal field theories coupled to two-dimensional quantum gravity .

Thus we can view these generalized systems as a school book example of critical systems: they are defined in an infinite dimensional coupling constant space $`g_3,g_4,\mathrm{}`$. Fine-tuning the coupling constants bring us to a critical hyper-surface of co-dimension one, describing two-dimensional quantum gravity, and further fine-tuning leads to the critical behavior of certain conformal field theories coupled to two-dimensional quantum gravity. The critical exponents of the conformal field theories are changed (relative to their value in flat two-dimensional space) due to the influence of the fluctuating geometry, and likewise the behavior of two-dimensional quantum gravity is changed by the back-reaction of matter (see  for details).

### 3.3 Quantum geodesic distance

The critical behavior of the conformal field theories coupled to quantum gravity can be calculated by looking at globally defined matter correlators. Let $`\varphi (x)`$ be a scalar matter field. Then

$$𝒟[g(x)]𝒟\varphi (x)\text{e}^{S[g,\varphi ]}\text{d}^2x\sqrt{g(x)}\text{d}^2y\sqrt{g(y)}\varphi (x)\varphi (y)$$
(26)
is reparameterization invariant and the scaling behavior of this correlator with respect to the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ determines the scaling dimension of the fields and the critical exponents. The reason for this is that the average volume of space-time is monitored by the cosmological constant,

$$V\mathrm{\Lambda }^1,$$
(27)
and thus the finite-size scaling relations of the system are determined as functions of the cosmological constant.

However, from the theory of critical phenomena we know that the underlying universality of large scale fluctuations originating from quite different microscopic interactions is due to a divergent correlation length $`\xi (g_3,g_4,\mathrm{})`$. How do we define such a length in quantum gravity? An object like $`\varphi (x)\varphi (y)`$ has clearly no reparameterization invariant meaning if we view $`x`$ and $`y`$ as coordinates. Further, we have to integrate over all geometries and the (geodesic) distance between $`x`$ and $`y`$ will vary. One can define the concept of an invariance correlation function as follows :

$`\varphi (D)\varphi (0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟[g(z)]𝒟\varphi (z)\text{e}^{S[g,\varphi ]}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \text{d}^2x\sqrt{g(x)}\text{d}^2y\sqrt{g(y)}\delta \left(D_g(x,y)D\right)\varphi (x)\varphi (y)}.`$
In (3.3) $`D_g(x,y)`$ denotes the geodesic distance between the space-time points labeled $`x`$ and $`y`$. Let us consider the simplest case where there are no matter Lagrangian at all and $`\varphi (x)=1`$ in (3.3). In this case (3.3) can be viewed as the partition function $`G(D)`$ for universes where two marked points are separated a given geodesic distance $`D`$. Again the calculation of this partition function reduces to the combinatorial problem of counting a certain class of two-geometries. And again one can solve the combinatorial problem. In the regularized theory one obtains for $`k_2`$ close to the critical point :

$$G_a(d;k_2)=(k_2k_2^c)^{3/4}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}d\sqrt[4]{k_2k_2^c}d}{\mathrm{sinh}^3d\sqrt[4]{k_2k_2^c}}.$$
(29)
Here $`d`$ denotes a suitable discretized geodesic distance 333 One expects “universality” in such choice. For instance one can define a distance between two vertices in the triangulation as the smallest number of links connecting them. Other definitions lead to identical results (see  for details).

If we take the continuum limit for the above “two-point” function it is seen that we are forced to scale geodesic distance anomalously:

$$D=d\sqrt{a}.$$
(30)
With this scaling we obtain

$$G(D;\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3/4}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\sqrt[4]{\mathrm{\Lambda }}D}{\mathrm{sinh}^3\sqrt[4]{\mathrm{\Lambda }}D}.$$
(31)
This function behaves as two-point function: it falls of exponentially for large distances and it behaves power-like for distances smaller that $`1/\sqrt[4]{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The anomalous dimension of the geodesic distance is also reflected in the average space-time volume $`V`$ enclosed in disc of (geodesic) radius $`D`$. One finds

$$V_DR^4,R1/\sqrt[4]{\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(32)
Thus the Hausdorff dimension of a typical two-dimensional geometry is four, as first realized in . This is a genuine quantum phenomenon.

Until now it has not been possible to calculate analytically the two-point function (3.3) when matter fields are present. However, it can be studied numerically and it can be verified that for the Ising model and the three-state Potts model coupled to two-dimensional quantum gravity one really obtains a divergent spin-spin correlation length when the spin couplings approach their critical values (see  for details).

### 3.4 The proper-time propagator and quantum geometry

An important tool used in the calculation of $`G(D;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the proper-time propagator. In Euclidean geometry proper-time $`T`$ is equivalent to geodesic distance, which we have denoted $`D`$. Let $`B_1`$ be a boundary. The distance of a point $`P`$ to $`B_1`$ is defined as the minimal geodesic distance of $`P`$ to the points of $`B_1`$. We define another boundary $`B_2`$ to be separated from it by a geodesic distance $`D`$, or proper-time $`T`$, if the distance of each point on $`B_2`$ to $`B_1`$ is $`D`$ (note that the definition is asymmetric with respect to $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$). The proper-time propagator $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(B_1,B_2;T)`$ is defined by summing over all two-geometries with boundaries $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$, such that $`B_2`$ has geodesic distance $`T`$ to $`B_1`$, the weight of each configuration given as usually by $`\text{e}^S`$. It was first calculated in , and in  it was shown that the equation which determines it can be obtained by very simple “quantum geometric” reasoning. Consider Fig. 1. It shows a disc amplitude with one marked interior point $`P`$ (the marked point on the boundary is irrelevant for the considerations to follow)

Since $`P`$ can be anywhere, marking a point corresponds to multiplying with the space-time volume $`V`$ or (equivalently) differentiating after the cosmological constant. However, one can also make the following decomposition: $`P`$ has a geodesic distance $`T`$ to the boundary “1”. Form the connected loop through $`P`$ which has distance $`T`$ to the boundary. One obtains all geometries with one marked point by integrating over $`T`$ and the length of the loop through $`P`$. We thus have the following consistency equation involving the Hartle-Hawking wave function and the proper-time propagator:

$$\frac{G(L_1;\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\text{d}T\text{d}L_2G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(L_1,L_2;T)G(L_2;\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(33)
Under reasonable scaling assumptions one can show that eq. (33) determines the behavior of both $`G(L;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(L_1,L_2;T)`$. Quite surprisingly one finds two different solutions . One scaling behavior leads to the Hartle-Hawking wave function already encountered. The other consistent scaling behavior leads to a different two-dimensional theory of quantum gravity which we call “Lorentzian” quantum gravity for reasons which will become clear in Sec. 5. At the moment we concentrate on the “Euclidean” quantum gravity theory discussed until now. Rather than discussing the explicit form of the proper-time propagator, let us give a further example of simple relations derived using “quantum geometry” (for more examples and a description of “operator product expansions” in two-dimensional quantum gravity see ). The example will illustrate that the proper-time propagator contains all information about quantum gravity. We have already mentioned that the usual Hartle-Hawking wave function $`G(L;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be derived from properties of $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(L_1,L_2;T)`$. Let us consider instead the two-loop function $`G(L_1,L_2;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. It is not simply obtained from by integrating $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(L_1,L_2;T)`$ over $`T`$ since boundary “2” of the space-times included in $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(L_1,L_2;T)`$ has a well-defined distance to boundary “1”. No such relation exists between the boundaries in $`G(L_1,L_2;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. However, starting at boundary “1” and moving in successive proper-time steps one will end in the situation shown in Fig. 2.

The “figure 8” amplitude  with a boundary of length $`L`$ is related to the disc amplitude by

$$G_{fig8}(L;\mathrm{\Lambda })LG(L;\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(34)
simply because it is obtained by pinching the boundary of the disc amplitude. Finally we can write:

$$G(L_1,L_2;\mathrm{\Lambda })=\text{d}T\text{d}L_3G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(L_1,L_3;T)(L_2+L_3)G(L_2+L_3;\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(35)
Like the expression for the disc amplitude, which could be derived from general properties of the proper-time propagator, (35) is also an example of “quantum geometric” considerations, which in essence are just combinatorial identities.

### 3.5 Summary

Euclidean two-dimensional quantum gravity as described above as the continuum limit of a regularized theory of two-dimensional geometries is still awaiting a precise mathematical description. What is meant by this is the following: Consider the random walk process in $`R^d`$. One can take the continuum limit in much the same way as we did in the construction of $`G(L_1,\mathrm{},L_n;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. The number of random walks between point $`x`$ and $`y`$ in $`R^d`$ grows exponentially with the number of steps in the random walk process and by fine-tuning the fugacity or stopping probability of the random walk process one can obtain the relativistic scalar particle propagator from point $`x`$ to point $`y`$. This is in fact the typical “first quantized” path integral derivation of the free propagator. In this case we know the correct mathematical measure on the space of continuous path from $`x`$ to $`y`$: it is the Wiener measure 444A subtlety should be mentioned here: The usual Wiener measure is defined on the class of parameterized path. We need it on the class of unparameterized path. See  for a detailed discussion.. We would like to construct the corresponding measure on the space of two-dimensional continuous geometries. It should exist! Let us list the analogies between the the random walk and the “random geometries”: Their numbers grow exponentially with the number of “elements” (steps in the random walk, triangles etc in the case of random geometries). The constants in the exponents are non-universal, but the leading corrections to the exponential growth are universal. A “typical” path or random geometry is fractal, in fact in almost the same way. The length of a “typical” path between $`x`$ and $`y`$ grows like $`|xy|^2`$ rather than like $`|xy|`$. In the same way the area of a random two-geometry of (geodesic) diameter $`D`$ grows as $`D^4`$ rather than $`D^2`$. It thus seems that the class of continuous two-dimensional geometries constitutes a well-defined class of geometries, not much “wilder” than the class of continuous path 555A more precise description of the geometries will be given below when Lorentzian quantum gravity is discussed. Our results suggest that it should be possible to define a measure on this set, since we can constructively define the path integral over the set of two-geometries.

Some of the results mentioned above can be “guessed” from the continuum formulation of two-dimensional quantum gravity known as “Liouville quantum gravity”. Let us consider a fixed topology, for instance that of the sphere, which we represent as the complex plane with $`\mathrm{}`$ identified as the north-pole. Any metric can be decomposed as

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\text{e}^\varphi \delta _{\mu \nu },$$
(36)
and has to satisfy certain regularity conditions at $`\mathrm{}`$. The corresponding classical action is simply

$$S=\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{d}^2x\sqrt{g}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{d}^2x\text{e}^\varphi .$$
(37)
However, $`\varphi (x)`$ is not a genuine dynamical field and the kinetic term comes entirely from the gauge fixing in the path integral:

$$Z(\mathrm{\Lambda })=𝒟\varphi \text{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \text{d}^2x(\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{e}^\varphi +\alpha (\varphi )^2)}}.$$
(38)
There are two problems associated with this partition function. The first is that a cut-off $`a`$ should be invariant under reparameterization, i.e.

$$a^2=\text{e}^{\varphi (x)}(dx_1^2+dx_2^2),$$
(39)
and the cut-off in parameter space $`R^2`$ is thus field dependent. The next problem is the geometric observables we have discussed so far become non-local and complicated when formulated in terms of $`\varphi (x)`$. For instant the concept of geodesic distance as used above in the combinatorial approach is difficult to treat in terms of $`\varphi (x)`$. Nevertheless, a number of the results from the combinatorial approach has been verified in quantum Liouville theory via the study of vertex operators of the theory in the following sense: the study of the scaling properties of vertex operators allows one to make reasonable guesses of the scaling behavior of the “observables” $`G(L_1,\mathrm{},L_n;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and in this way recover the results obtained constructively by combinatorial methods (see for instance ). It is worth emphasizing this, because it shows that there is an underlying continuum quantum theory at the critical point of the discretized theory, described by a Lagrangian and some standard rules of quantization, which however are technically difficult to implement because of the reparameterization invariance of the theory.

## 4 Higher dimensions

Encouraged by the success of two-dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity one can try to follow the program outlined in the introduction and look for a non-trivial fixed point of four-dimensional quantum gravity in the spirit of asymptotic safety as defined by Weinberg. It is indeed possible to find a candidate fixed point using the simplest action mentioned in Sec. 2 . This fixed point seemed originally to relate in very interesting ways to various other proposals for a theory quantum gravity , but extensive computer simulations eventually established that the phase transition was a (weakly) first order transition  and thus could not serve as the desired fixed point of second or higher order 666The situation is slightly more complicated: There is still an infinite volume limit for all values of the bare gravitational coupling constant by an appropriate fine-tuning of the cosmological coupling constant, as described in Sec. 2. However, unlike in two dimensions this infinite volume limit seems to be uninteresting from a physical point of view. We expect in four-dimensional quantum gravity to have genuine dynamical propagating degrees of freedom and the situation is thus more like two-dimensional quantum gravity coupled to for instance an Ising model. While we can always take the infinite volume limit, there will only be one value of $`\beta `$ (of $`k_2`$) where the Ising spin correlation length diverges (where the graviton is massless).. In terms of the properties of “typical” configurations of four-dimensional Euclidean geometries there is a sharp contrast with the two-dimensional case: a typical geometry, constructed by gluing together equilateral four-simplices with weight “one” is singular: the four-dimensional space-time volume grows at least exponentially with geodesic radius of the universe: Thus one cannot talk about a definite fractal dimension of a “typical” geometry. The first order phase transition observed in the numerical simulations is a transition from such “crumpled” geometries of no extension to another phase where the geometries are “maximally elongated” and fractal, of fractal dimension two, namely so-called branched polymers . Neither set of geometries can serve as an underlying set of geometries defining an interesting theory of four-dimensional quantum gravity.

The original hope was that at the transition point one could define a set of geometries of a well defined fractal dimension larger than or equal to four, which could serve as the underlying set of geometries used in the definition of the continuum path integral. However, the first order transition rules out this possibility: there is no smooth interpolation between to two extreme classes of geometries mentioned above.

No simple modification of the Einstein-Hilbert action seems to change the order of the transition . The conclusion is that a continuum theory of Euclidean four-dimensional quantum gravity does not exist as a limit of the simplicial formulation given here.

## 5 Lorentzian quantum gravity

The relation between the theory of critical phenomena and Euclidean quantum field theory is well established. However, if the field theory in question is “quantum gravity” the situation is unclear. The results for Euclidean gravity mentioned in the former Section indicate that in higher than two dimensions one should not sum over Euclidean geometries if one wants a viable theory of quantum gravity. Twenty years ago Teitelboim suggested  that one should only sum over causal space-time histories in the (Minkowskian) path integral if one wanted to maintain causality in the quantum theory of gravity 777Related ideas have been discussed in .. This idea was made concrete in simplicial quantum gravity in  and was denoted Lorentzian simplicial quantum gravity. More precisely, consider the proper-time propagator already defined above in the context of Euclidean quantum gravity. Let the allowed geometries entering in the sum between two spatial boundaries, separated by proper time $`T`$ be all non-degenerate causal geometries which allow a proper time slicing 888It is often stated that proper-time is a bad “time” choice since it can become singular in the context of initial value problems of General Relativity. However, in the path integral such singular behavior is most likely unimportant and of zero measure.. In the context of simplicial gravity this can be made precise (see  for details): starting with a given spatial geometry one defines constructively the class of space-time geometries with a boundary separated from initial spatial surface by proper-time $`a`$, $`a`$ been the lattice spacing, i.e. the cut-off. This is illustrated in the simplest case of two-dimensional Lorentzian gravity in Fig. 3, but can be generalized to three– and four-dimensional cases .

Proceeding this way one defines the simplicial space-time geometries with two spatial boundaries separated a proper-time $`T=an`$ and which allow a proper-time slicing.

The class of simplicial geometries defined this way has the virtue that each geometry allows a natural rotation to Euclidean signature. Also the action is rotated as follows: $`iS_MS_E`$, as in ordinary quantum field theory. This opens for the possibility to follow the standard procedure and first rotate to Euclidean signature, then perform the summation over space-time histories and finally to rotate proper-time back to Minkowskian signature. The difference from the Euclidean path integral considered in Sec. 4 is the requirement that each Euclidean geometry entering in the sum over space-time histories comes from a Minkowskian non-degenerate geometry which allows a proper-time slicing. In particular, this implies that the spatial geometry obtained at a given proper-time is always connected. This is quite natural from the point of view of canonical quantization. The possibility of splitting space in several components is not natural in the framework of canonical quantization. However, if we return to two-dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity it is seen that the proper-time slicing does not respect this. Starting out with a connected boundary of a “typical” two-dimensional Euclidean geometry and implementing a proper-time slicing, the spatial slices will in general consist of many disconnected components. In fact, the main difference between the class of of geometries used in Euclidean two-dimensional quantum gravity and Lorentzian two-dimensional quantum gravity can be understood by looking at the proper-time slicing . In Lorentzian quantum gravity the typical fluctuating geometry is genuining two-dimensional 999The fact that a typical Lorentzian geometry is not fractal does not mean that it is not fluctuating. In fact, in the case of two-dimensional Lorentzian geometries, the fluctuation of the spatial volume (length) $`L(t)`$, where $`t`$ denotes proper time, is maximal: $`L^2L^2L^2`$.. One obtains a typical Euclidean geometry by allowing the outgrowth of a baby universe at each space-time point. In this way the four-dimensional fractal structure of a typical quantum configuration can be understood as a kind of “product” of ordinary two-dimensional space-times.

In view of the universality mentioned in connection with two-dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity it is surprising that there exists another fixed point belonging to a different universality class and corresponding to Lorentzian two-dimensional quantum gravity, but this universality class is now well understood in the context of critical phenomena . To make this possibility of two different types of critical behavior more clear let us consider a model which allows for the creation of baby universes along with the propagation of the two-dimensional Lorentzian space-time. Such a possibility is shown in Fig. 4. Compared to Fig. 3 one allows for the possibility of a baby universe to be created at any point at the spatial slice at proper time $`t`$ and then to develop independently of the “parent universe”.

Let $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(L_1,L_2;T)`$ be the proper-time propagator mentioned above, $`T`$ being the proper-time and let $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(X,Y;T)`$ be the Laplace transform of $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(L_1,L_2;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (and similarly $`G(X;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ the Laplace transform of the Hartle-Hawking wave function $`G(L;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$). Again it has a combinatorial interpretation and from this one can derive the following equation (see  for details):

$$a^\epsilon \frac{}{T}G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(X,Y;T)=a\frac{}{X}\left([X^2\mathrm{\Lambda }+\kappa a^{\eta 2}G(X;\mathrm{\Lambda })]G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(X,Y;T)\right)$$
(40)
Here $`\kappa `$ is the coupling constant for creating a baby universe at a space-time point. The exponents $`\epsilon `$ and $`\eta `$ are related to the dimension of proper-time (or geodesic distance) and the Hartle-Hawking wave function: $`Ta^\epsilon `$ and $`G(X,\mathrm{\Lambda })a^\eta `$, where $``$ just indicates the dimension. One can show, using eq. 33 (i.e. Fig. 1) that there are only two consistent choices: (1) $`\kappa =0`$, $`\epsilon =1`$, and $`\kappa >0`$, $`\epsilon =1/2`$ and $`\eta =3/2`$ (see again  for details). The first case corresponds to two-dimensional Lorentzian quantum gravity where proper-time scales canonically in accordance with the fact that the fractal dimension of a typical geometry is two. The second case corresponds to two-dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity where the geodesic distance scales anomalously and the fractal dimension of a typical geometry is four.

The coupling of matter to two-dimensional Lorentzian gravity is also (partially) understood. The Ising model maintains its flat space critical exponents , and the interaction between matter fields and quantum gravity is weak 101010Again it should be emphasized that a “weak” interaction does not imply that there is no interaction, only that it does not change general properties of the class of geometries used to define the continuum path integral, i.e. the fractal dimension of these geometries. as long as the central change $`c`$ of the matter field is less than one 111111When $`c>1`$ computer simulations have shown a strong back-reaction of matter on geometry .. This is in contrast to Euclidean quantum gravity where the critical exponents of matter as well as the critical exponents of quantum gravity itself are changed due to the coupling.

### 5.1 Higher dimensional Lorentzian quantum gravity

The theory of Lorentzian simplicial quantum gravity has been formulated in two, three and four dimensions. It has been solved analytically in two dimensions, as described above and its relation to two-dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity is understood. The main question is of course if it provides us with a viable four dimensional theory of quantum gravity in the spirit of asymptotic safety. So far only the three-dimensional theory has been investigated in some detail, this made possible because it can be mapped on a matrix model which allows us to do perform some analytical calculations  and because it is possible to perform numerical simulations . Three-dimensional quantum gravity is not without interest. Although it contains no propagating gravitons, i.e. no field-theoretical degrees of freedom, it is formally non-renormalizable when expanded around a fixed background geometry. The results obtained so far are quite encouraging. They indicate that one can take a continuum limit which describe quantum fluctuations around a background geometry created by the presence of a positive cosmological constant. However, more work is needed to substantiate this interpretation. If this works out and one can establish a firm connection to canonically quantized three-dimensional quantum gravity, Lorentzian simplicial quantum gravity will be a most interesting candidate for a regularized, background independent theory of four-dimensional quantum gravity, formulated entirely in terms of fluctuating geometries.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank K. Anagnostopoulos, J. Jurkiewics, R. Loll and Y. Makeenko collaborations associated with the work reported here. This work was supported by “MaPhySto”, the Center of Mathematical Physics and Stochastics, financed by the National Danish Research Foundation as well as by the EU network on “Discrete Random Geometry”, grant HPRN-CT-1999-00161, and by the ESF network no.82 on “Geometry and Disorder”.


text:
# Systematics of mid-rapidity 𝐾⁻/𝜋 ratio in heavy-ion collisions

## Acknowledgments

I thank Drs. J. Dunlop, A. Hirsch, R. Scharenberg, F. Sikler, N. Xu, and Z. Xu for fruitful discussions. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-FG02-88ER40412.

## References


text:
# The Physical Origin of the Scattering Polarization of theNa I D-Lines in the Presence of Weak Magnetic Fields

## 1 Introduction

In a recent work, one of the authors (Landi Degl’Innocenti 1998) concluded that his explanation in terms of ground-level atomic polarization of the “enigmatic” linear polarization peaks of the Na I D-lines, observed by Stenflo & Keller (1997) in “quiet” regions close to the solar limb, implies that the magnetic field in the lower solar chromosphere must be either isotropically distributed and extremely weak (with $`B0.01\mathrm{G}`$) or, alternatively, practically radially oriented. That investigation was based on a formulation of line scattering polarization that is valid in the absence of magnetic fields. The suggestion that the magnetic field of the lower solar chromosphere cannot be stronger than about 0.01 G unless it is oriented preferentially along the radial direction was based on the sizeable amount of ground-level polarization required to fit the $`Q/I`$ observations of Stenflo & Keller (1997), and on the assumption that the atomic polarization of the ground-level of Na I must be sensitive to much weaker magnetic fields than the atomic polarization of the upper levels of the D1 and D2 lines.

On the whole, Landi Degl’Innocenti’s (1998) argument that the observed linear polarization peaks in the cores of the Na I D-lines are due to the presence of ground-level atomic polarization seems very convincing. However, for a rigorous interpretation of spectropolarimetric observations (e.g., Martínez Pillet et al. 2001; Stenflo et al. 2001) it is of fundamental importance to clarify the physical origin of this polarization by carefully investigating how it is actually produced, and modified by the action of a magnetic field of given strength and inclination.111Remarkably, some useful information can be found in the atomic physics literature, notably in the paper by Ellett & Heydenburg (1934) regarding their determination of hyperfine separation constants, and in the work of Lehmann (1969) concerning the orientation of the diamagnetic ground state of Cadmium by optical pumping.

## 2 Formulation of the problem

In this Letter we shall focus on the “solar prominence case”, in which a slab of solar chromospheric plasma at 6000 K, situated at 10 arcsec ($`7000\mathrm{km}`$) above the visible solar limb, and permeated by a magnetic field of given strength and orientation, is illuminated from below (hence, anisotropically) by the photospheric radiation field, which is assumed to be unpolarized and with rotational symmetry around the solar radial direction through the scattering point. The degree of anisotropy of the incident radiation field is calculated as in Landolfi & Landi Degl’Innocenti (1985, hereafter LL85), using the limb-darkening data for the Na i D-lines from Pierce & Slaughter (1982), and a Gaussian absorption profile with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _\mathrm{D}=41\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\AA }`$ (corresponding to $`T=6000\mathrm{K}`$). The resulting anisotropy factors for the two lines are $`w(\mathrm{D}_1)=0.126`$ and $`w(\mathrm{D}_2)=0.118`$, where $`w=\sqrt{2}\overline{J}_0^2/\overline{J}_0^0`$ (with $`\overline{J}_Q^K`$ the radiation field tensors; see, for example, Trujillo Bueno 2001 and note that $`1/2w\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$).

In order to investigate this problem, we have applied the quantum theory of spectral-line polarization in the limit of complete frequency redistribution, and in the collisionless regime, as developed by Landi Degl’Innocenti (1983). The excitation of the atomic system is described by a set of $`\rho _Q^K`$ elements, which are the irreducible spherical tensors of the atomic density matrix (e.g., the review by Trujillo Bueno 2001). We adopt a three-level model of Na I consisting of the ground level ($`3{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{S}_{1/2}^{}`$), the upper level of the D1 line ($`3{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{P}_{1/2}^{}`$), and the upper level of the D2 line ($`3{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{P}_{3/2}^{}`$). We also take into account the hyperfine structure (HFS) of Sodium, due to its nuclear spin with $`I=3/2`$.

We describe the Zeeman splittings of the Na I levels most generally in terms of the incomplete Paschen-Back effect. In fact, as shown, e.g., in Fig. 5 of LL85, in the 10–50 G range numerous level crossings occur among the magnetic sublevels of the HFS levels with $`F=1,2,3`$ of P3/2, whereas fields with strengths in the kilogauss range are necessary to produce level crossing within the HFS levels with $`F=1,2`$ of S1/2. Therefore, besides population imbalances and quantum interferences (or coherences) between the magnetic sublevels of each $`F`$-level, we must also take into account coherences between magnetic sublevels pertaining to different $`F`$-levels within a given $`J`$-level. Instead, we neglect coherences between the two $`J`$-levels P1/2 and P3/2, since they are presumably of secondary importance for the generation of the line-core polarization peaks, given the sizeable energy separation between the upper levels of the D1 and D2 lines. Our model atom then implies 384 $`{}_{}{}^{JI}\rho _{Q}^{K}(F,F^{})`$ elements (with $`K=|FF^{}|,\mathrm{},F+F^{}`$ and $`Q=K,\mathrm{},K`$), which are the unknowns of the linear system representing the statistical equilibrium problem for Na I. In this Letter, these quantities are calculated in a reference frame with the $`z`$-axis (i.e., the quantization axis) along the solar radial direction through the scattering point.

In summary, our approach is similar to that of LL85, but with the following fundamental improvement. In the expressions of the Stokes components of the emission vector ($`ϵ_I,ϵ_Q,ϵ_U,ϵ_V`$) we now take fully into account the energy separation of the various HFS components of the D1 and D2 lines, along with their Zeeman splittings in the presence of the external magnetic field. This is crucial in order to obtain non-zero linear polarization for the Na I D1 line.

## 3 Polarizability of the Na I levels

We have solved numerically the linear system of 384 equations in the unknowns $`\rho _Q^K(F,F^{})`$ mentioned before, for magnetic strengths between 0 and 1000 G, and for various inclinations ($`\vartheta _B`$) of the magnetic field vector from the solar vertical. The eight $`\rho _0^0(F,F)`$ elements quantify the populations of the various $`F`$-levels, and they produce the dominant contribution to the emergent Stokes-$`I`$ parameter. The $`\rho _Q^2`$ elements (the alignment components) contribute to the linear polarization signals, which we quantify by the Stokes parameters $`Q`$ and $`U`$. The $`\rho _Q^1`$ elements (the orientation components) contribute to the circular polarization of the scattered radiation. (We recall that in an aligned atomic system, states of different $`|M_F|`$ are unequally populated, while the populations in $`M_F`$ and $`M_F`$ are the same. In contrast, an oriented system is characterized by different populations in the $`M_F`$ and $`M_F`$ states. We are dealing here with an atomic system which is both aligned and oriented). The contributions from the longitudinal and transverse Zeeman effects are also accounted for, although they become dominant only for relatively strong fields.

Given that we are interested in understanding the generation of linear polarization signals in the presence of weak magnetic fields, we focus here on the alignment components. In Fig. 1, for each $`F`$-level, we show $`\sigma _0^2(F)=\rho _0^2(F,F)/\rho _0^0(F,F)`$, which quantifies the fractional population imbalance of the level. Since the spectral dependence of the incident radiation field is practically negligible over the frequency intervals encompassing the Zeeman components of each of the two spectral lines (flat-spectrum approximation), a necessary condition for inducing atomic alignment by means of an unpolarized radiation field is that the illumination of the atomic system be anisotropic. Moreover, atomic orientation can only be originated through the alignment-to-orientation conversion mechanism discussed by Kemp et al. (1984).

Figure 1 shows the sensitivity of $`\sigma _0^2(F)`$ to the magnetic field strength and inclination. First of all, we note that the largest values are obtained for the level P3/2, which can carry atomic alignment even neglecting HFS. On the contrary, both the lower and upper levels of the D1 line, with electronic angular momentum $`J=1/2`$, can carry atomic alignment only because of HFS, as each of these levels splits into two polarizable HFS levels with $`F=1`$ and $`F=2`$. However, it is found that only the level $`\mathrm{P}_{3/2}`$ can be polarized directly via the anisotropic illumination. The levels of the D1 line, instead, are directly sensitive only to radiation intensity, but they nonetheless become polarized when the atomic polarization of the level P3/2 is transferred to the level S1/2 via spontaneous emission in the D2 line, and then from the level S1/2 to the level P1/2 via radiative absorption in the D1 line, in a process known as repopulation pumping (e.g., Trujillo Bueno 2001). In fact, this explains one of the various remarkable features of Fig. 1, i.e., the fact that the atomic alignment in the lower and upper levels of the D1 line are equally sensitive to the magnetic strength, independently of the magnetic field inclination.

For instance, we see that a non-vertical magnetic field of the order of 0.01 G is sufficient to produce a serious reduction of the atomic alignment of both the lower and upper levels of the D1 line. This is due to Hanle depolarization of the S1/2 ground level, which occurs when the Larmor frequency corresponding to the magnetic field becomes comparable to the inverse lifetime for radiative absorption of that level. Nonetheless, the alignment of the level $`F=2`$ of S1/2 is still significant for fields up to 10 G, except for field inclinations close to the Van Vleck angle ($`\vartheta _B=54.73^{}`$).

For non-vertical fields the alignment of the level P3/2 is also sensitive to magnetic strengths between 0 and 10 G, but the depolarization takes place rather smoothly. An interesting point to note here is the sizeable feedback of the ground-level polarization on the alignment of the $`F`$-levels of P3/2, with the exception of the level $`F=1`$. (This behavior can be understood analytically via inspection of the corresponding transfer rates). As previously indicated, such a feedback takes place because the upper level of the D2 line can be repopulated as a result of absorptions from the polarized ground level.

The most remarkable feature of Fig. 1 is that, independently of the magnetic field inclination (e.g., even for a purely vertical magnetic field), the atomic alignment of each of the two levels involved in the D1 line transition is suddenly reduced for magnetic strengths larger than 10 G, and practically vanishes for strengths larger than 100 G. We stress the fact that this depolarization is not due to the Hanle effect, as it occurs also for vertical fields. A thorough investigation of this phenomenon shows that the vanishing of atomic alignment in the levels with $`J=1/2`$ sets in when the electronic and nuclear angular momenta, $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐈`$, are decoupled, for the atom in the excited state P3/2. In the case of Na I, this decoupling is reached in the limit of the complete Paschen-Back effect of the level P3/2, i.e., for magnetic strengths $`B100\mathrm{G}`$. In such regime, it is found that the transfer of atomic alignment from the level $`\mathrm{P}_{3/2}`$ to the ground level is inhibited. At the same time, the alignment of the level $`F=2`$ of P3/2 must vanish as well. The analytical proof of these properties will be given in a forthcoming paper (Casini et al. 2001, in preparation).

It is also of interest to note that the repopulation pumping process works efficiently in Na I thanks to the fact that the HFS of the level $`\mathrm{P}_{3/2}`$ is of the same order of magnitude of its natural width. If the frequency intervals between the HFS levels of P3/2 were instead substantially smaller than the natural width of this level, then we would have a negligible HFS interaction during the lifetime of the level $`\mathrm{P}_{3/2}`$, with the result of a drastic reduction in the efficiency of the repopulation pumping process that polarizes the ground level of Sodium, regardless of the magnetic field strength.

## 4 Observable effects of the atomic alignment

The theory of the Hanle effect for a two-level atom devoid of HFS predicts no modication of the emergent linear polarization with increasing strength of a magnetic field oriented parallel to the symmetry axis of the incident radiation (e.g., Landi Degl’Innocenti 1985). For this reason, and given the conclusions of the previous section, it is of great interest to investigate the emergent polarization of the Na I D-lines for 90 scattering events as a function of the strength of a vertical magnetic field. For this case, and choosing the reference direction for positive Stokes $`Q`$ parallel to the limb, the only non-zero Stokes parameter is $`Q`$.

Figure 2 shows profiles of $`Q/I_{\mathrm{max}}`$, where $`I_{\mathrm{max}}`$ indicates the peak intensity of the emission line, for magnetic strengths between 0 and 100 G. The top panels refer to the solution of the statistical equilibrium problem outlined in § 3. The results shown in the two bottom panels, instead, are obtained assuming that the ground level of Na I is totally unpolarized (e.g., by the presence of depolarizing collisions).

The first interesting feature of the D2 line polarization is the increase of the linear polarization degree as the strength of the vertical magnetic field increases beyond 10 G. This is caused by the interferences, $`\rho _Q^2(F,F^{})`$ (not shown in Fig. 1), of the HFS levels in the P3/2 level. Our calculations for inclined fields with $`B100\mathrm{G}`$ (not given here) show first a decrease and then an increase of the linear polarization, but the maximum polarization amplitude of the D2 line corresponds to the $`B=0\mathrm{G}`$ case. In general, the polarization of both D1 and D2 fluctuates significantly with strength and inclination.

We note that the polarization of the D2 line is practically unaffected by ground-level polarization for fields larger than 10 G. As shown in Fig. 1, for weaker fields the existing ground-level polarization has a significant feedback on the alignment of the $`\mathrm{P}_{3/2}`$ level, which in turn produces a significant but small enhancement of the emergent linear polarization in the D2-line core, with respect to the case of totally unpolarized ground level (see Fig. 2).

As shown in Fig. 2, for magnetic strengths $`B10\mathrm{G}`$, the emergent linear polarization of the D1 line owes its very existence to the presence of ground-level polarization. Note that its Stokes $`Q`$ profile is antisymmetric.222This peculiar shape has been observed by Trujillo Bueno et al. (2001) in “quiet” regions close to the solar limb, as shown in Fig. 1 of Trujillo Bueno & Manso Sainz (2001). See also Bommier & Molodij (2002). In Fig. 2 we can see that a 1 G vertical field has practically no effect on the emergent linear polarization, while a 10 G vertical field reduces the signal by a factor of two, as a result of the significant reduction of the atomic alignment of the HFS levels of the upper level P1/2 (see Fig. 1). What we see for stronger fields in the corresponding top panel of Fig. 2 is the result of the combined action of the atomic alignment of the upper level of the D1 line and of the transverse Zeeman effect. Since the Zeeman splittings for the magnetic strengths of interest are determined by the incomplete Paschen-Back effect, and the Na I D-lines are the combination of transitions between $`F`$-levels weighted by different Landé $`g`$-factors, the Stokes $`Q`$ profiles can be asymmetric, even if the ground level is forced to be totally unpolarized (see bottom panels of Fig. 2). Nonetheless, it can be analitically proven that the wavelength integrated Stokes $`Q`$ parameter of D1 is always zero (see LL85). It is also of interest to point out that, if the field is horizontal with randomly distributed azimuth, then the Stokes $`Q`$ amplitude of the D1 line is reduced by a factor of four for a magnetic strength of 1 G, with respect to the non-magnetic case.

In general, the linear polarization of the D1 line is dominated by the transverse Zeeman effect for magnetic strengths $`B50\mathrm{G}`$ (the alignment of the D1 levels is practically zero for such field intensities). For example, from Fig. 2 we see that the amplitude of the Stokes $`Q`$ signal in the presence of a vertical field with $`B100\mathrm{G}`$ is comparable to the amplitude produced by scattering processes in the absence of magnetic fields, but the linear polarization signature has a profile characteristic of the transverse Zeeman effect, with a polarization peak at the line core. On the other hand, the Stokes $`Q`$ signal in the D2 line for $`B100\mathrm{G}`$ is still “scattering like,” being determined essentially by the contribution of the alignment of the level $`\mathrm{P}_{3/2}`$. In fact, for this line, the signature of the transverse Zeeman effect begins to appear only for fields $`B500\mathrm{G}`$.

## 5 Concluding remarks

One of the most interesting results of this investigation is that the atomic polarization of the HFS levels of the $`\mathrm{S}_{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{P}_{1/2}`$ states of Na I is practically negligible for $`B>10\mathrm{G}`$, and virtually vanishes for $`B100\mathrm{G}`$, even for a purely vertical field. Consequently, the characteristic antisymmetric scattering polarization signature of the D1 line is practically suppressed in the presence of fields larger than 10 G, regardless of their inclination.

Concerning the observable effects, we find that the scattering polarization amplitude of the D2 line increases steadily with the magnetic strength, in the case of vertical fields larger than 10 G, whereas the contribution of atomic alignment to the linear polarization of the D1 line rapidly decreases. On the contrary, for vertical fields such that $`B10\mathrm{G}`$ (or, alternatively, for turbulent or canopy-like fields with a predominance of much weaker fields) it is possible to have a non-negligible scattering polarization signal for the D1 line, but then the maximum D2 core amplitude corresponds to the $`B=0\mathrm{G}`$ case. From this we tentatively conclude that spectropolarimetric observations of the “quiet” solar chromosphere showing significant scattering polarization peaks in both the D1 and D2 line cores cannot be interpreted in terms of one-component magnetic field models, suggesting that the magnetic structuring of the solar chromosphere could be substantially more complex than previously thought. For instance, in the presence of a topologically complex distribution of “weak” solar magnetic fields, the D2 line core would respond mainly to the strongest and preferentially radially oriented fields, while the D1 line to the weakest and more randomly oriented fields. It remains to be seen whether or not this conclusion is validated after we take fully into account radiative transfer effects and the role of dichroism (Trujillo Bueno & Landi Degl’Innocenti 1997) on the emergent polarization of the “enigmatic” Na i D-lines.

One of the authors (J.T.B.) is grateful to the High Altitude Observatory (U.S.A.) and to the University of Florence (Italy) for short-term visitor grants, which have facilitated this collaboration. This work has been partly funded by the Spanish PNAYA through project AYA2001-1649.