text:
# Projective Quantum Mechanics

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Motivation

Fibre bundles are powerful tools to formulate the gauge theories of fundamental interactions and gravity. The question arises whether or not quantum mechanics may also be formulated using fibre bundles . Important physical motivations call for such a formulation.

In quantum mechanics one aims at contructing a Hilbert–space vector bundle over classical phase space . In geometric quantisation  this goal is achieved in a two–step process that can be very succintly summarised as follows. One first constructs a certain holomorphic line bundle (the quantum line bundle) over classical phase space. Next one identifies certain sections of this line bundle as defining the Hilbert space of quantum states. Alternatively  one may skip the quantum line bundle and consider the one–step process of directly constructing a Hilbert–space vector bundle over classical phase space. Associated with this vector bundle there is a principal bundle whose fibre is the unitary group of Hilbert space.

Standard presentations of quantum mechanics usually deal with the case when this Hilbert–space vector bundle is trivial. Such is the case, e.g., when classical phase space is contractible to a point. However, it seems natural to consider the case of a nontrivial bundle as well. Beyond a purely mathematical interest, important physical issues that go by the generic name of dualities  motivate the study of nontrivial bundles.

Triviality of the Hilbert–space vector bundle implies that the transition functions all equal the identity of the structure group. In passing from one coordinate chart to another on classical phase space, vectors on the fibre are acted on by the identity. Since these vectors are quantum states, we can say that all observers on classical phase space are quantised in the same way. This is no longer the case on a nontrivial vector bundle, where the transition functions are different from the identity. As opposed to the previous case, different neighbourhoods on classical phase space are quantised independently and, possibly, differently. The resulting quantisation is only local on classical phase space, instead of global. This reflects the property of local triviality satisfied by all fibre bundles .

Given a certain base manifold and a certain fibre, the trivial bundle over the given base with the given fibre is unique. This may mislead one to conclude that quantisation is also unique, or independent of the observer on classical phase space. In fact the notion of duality points precisely to the opposite conclusion, i.e., to the nonuniqueness of the quantisation procedure and to its dependence on the observer .

Clearly a framework is required in order to accommodate dualities within quantum mechanics . Nontrivial Hilbert–space vector bundles over classical phase space provide one such framework. They allow for the possibility of having different, nonequivalent quantisations, as opposed to the uniqueness of the trivial bundle. However, although nontriviality is a necessary condition, it is by no means sufficient. A flat connection on a nontrivial bundle would still allow, by parallel transport, to canonically identify the Hilbert–space fibres above different points on classical phase space. This identification would depend only on the homotopy class of the curve joining the basepoints, but not on the curve itself. Now flat connections are characterised by constant transition functions , this constant being always the identity in the case of the trivial bundle. Hence, in order to accommodate dualities, we will be looking for nonflat connections. We will see presently what connections we need on these bundles.

This article is devoted to constructing nonflat Hilbert–space vector bundles over classical phase space. In motivating the subject we have dealt with unitary groups as structure groups and linear fibres such as Hilbert spaces. However quantum states are rays rather than vectors. Therefore it is more precise to consider the corresponding projective spaces and projective unitary groups, as we will do from now on.

### 1.2 Notations

Throughout this article, $`𝒞`$ will denote a complex $`n`$–dimensional, connected, compact classical phase space, endowed with a symplectic form $`\omega `$ and a complex structure $`𝒥`$. We will assume that $`\omega `$ and $`𝒥`$ are compatible, so holomorphic coordinate charts on $`𝒞`$ will also be Darboux charts. We will mostly concentrate on the case when $`𝒞`$ is projective space $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. Its holomorphic tangent bundle will be denoted $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$. The following line bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ will be considered: the trivial line bundle $`ϵ`$, the tautological line bundle $`\tau ^1`$ and its dual $`\tau `$. The Picard group of $`𝒞`$ will be denoted $`\mathrm{Pic}(𝒞)`$. $``$ will denote the complex, $`(N+1)`$–dimensional Hilbert space of quantum states $`𝐂^{N+1}`$, with unitary group $`U(N+1)`$. They projectivise to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^N`$ and $`PU(N)`$, respectively.

### 1.3 Summary of main results

Our analysis will deal mostly with the case when $`𝒞=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. In section 2 we summarise its useful properties as a classical phase space. In section 3 we recall some well–known facts from geometric quantisation. They concern the dimension of the space of holomorphic sections of the quantum line bundle on a compact, quantisable Kähler manifold. This dimension is rederived in section 4 using purely quantum–mechanical arguments, by constructing the Hilbert–space bundle of quantum states over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. For brevity, the following summary deals only with the case when the Hilbert space is $`𝐂^{n+1}`$ (see sections 4.2, 4.3 for the general case). The fibre $`𝐂^{n+1}`$ over a given coordinate chart on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is spanned by the vacuum state $`|0`$, plus $`n`$ states $`A_j^{}|0`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, obtained by the action of creation operators. We identify the transition functions of this bundle as jacobian matrices plus a phase factor. The jacobian matrices account for the transformation (under coordinate changes on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$) of the states $`A_j^{}|0`$, while the phase factor corresponds to $`|0`$. This means that all quantum states (except the vacuum) are tangent vectors to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. In this way the Hilbert–space bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ splits as the direct sum of two holomorphic vector bundles: the tangent bundle $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$, plus a line bundle $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ whose fibrewise generator is the vacuum.

All complex manifolds admit a Hermitian metric, so having tangent vectors as quantum states suggests using the Hermitian connection and the corresponding curvature tensor to measure flatness. Now $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ is nonflat, so it fits our purposes. The freedom in having different nonflat Hilbert–space bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ resides in the different possible choices for the complex line bundle $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$. Such choices are 1–to–1 with the elements of the Picard group $`\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)=𝐙`$.

Quantum states are unit rays, rather than vectors in Hilbert space. Projectivising the Hilbert–space bundle (with fibre $`𝐂^{n+1}`$) gives rise to a bundle whose fibre is $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. We classify these bundles in section 5 in the case when $`𝒞=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. That is, we classify $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$–bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ as complex manifolds.

The previous picture of quantum states (except the vacuum) as tangent vectors remains substantially correct in the case of an arbitrary, compact, complex manifold $`𝒞`$ whose complex and symplectic structures are compatible; this is proved in section 6. Flatness of the resulting Hilbert–space bundle depends on whether or not the holomorphic tangent bundle $`T(𝒞)`$ is flat. We continue to have the Picard group $`\mathrm{Pic}(𝒞)`$ as the parameter space for different Hilbert–space bundles over $`𝒞`$.

Finally section 7 discusses our results.

## 2 $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ as a classical phase space

We will consider a classical mechanics whose phase space $`𝒞`$ is complex, projective $`n`$–dimensional space $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. The following properties are well known .

Let $`Z^1,\mathrm{},Z^{n+1}`$ denote homogeneous coordinates on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. The chart defined by $`Z^k0`$ covers one copy of the open set $`𝒰_k=𝐂^n`$. On the latter we have the holomorphic coordinates $`z_{(k)}^j=Z^j/Z^k`$, $`jk`$; there are $`n+1`$ such coordinate charts. $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is a Kähler manifold with respect to the Fubini–Study metric. On the chart $`(𝒰_k,z_{(k)})`$ the Kähler potential reads

$$K(z_{(k)}^j,\overline{z}_{(k)}^j)=\mathrm{log}\left(1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}z_{(k)}^j\overline{z}_{(k)}^j\right).$$
(1)
The singular homology ring $`H_{}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝐙)`$ contains the nonzero subgroups

$$H_{2k}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝐙)=𝐙,k=0,1,\mathrm{},n,$$
(2)
while

$$H_{2k+1}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝐙)=0,k=0,1,\mathrm{},n1.$$
(3)
We have $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n=𝐂^n\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$, with $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$ a hyperplane at infinity. Topologically, $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is obtained by attaching a (real) $`2n`$–dimensional cell to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$. $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is simply connected,

$$\pi _1\left(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n\right)=0,$$
(4)
it is compact, and inherits its complex structure from that on $`𝐂^{n+1}`$. It can be regarded as the Grassmannian manifold

$$\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n=U(n+1)/\left(U(n)\times U(1)\right)=S^{2n+1}/U(1).$$
(5)
Let $`\tau ^1`$ denote the tautological bundle on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. We recall that $`\tau ^1`$ is defined as the subbundle of the trivial bundle $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n\times 𝐂^{n+1}`$ whose fibre at $`p\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is the line in $`𝐂^{n+1}`$ represented by $`p`$. Then $`\tau ^1`$ is a holomorphic line bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. Its dual, denoted $`\tau `$, is called the hyperplane bundle. For any $`l𝐙`$, the $`l`$–th power $`\tau ^l`$ is also a holomorphic line bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. In fact every holomorphic line bundle $`L`$ over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is isomorphic to $`\tau ^l`$ for some $`l𝐙`$; this integer is the first Chern class of $`L`$.

## 3 The quantum line bundle

In the framework of geometric quantisation  it is customary to consider the case when $`𝒞`$ is a compact Kähler manifold. In this context one introduces the notion of a quantisable, compact, Kähler phase space $`𝒞`$, of which $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is an example. This means that there exists a quantum line bundle $`(,g,)`$ on $`𝒞`$, where $``$ is a holomorphic line bundle, $`g`$ a Hermitian metric on $``$, and $``$ a covariant derivative compatible with the complex structure and $`g`$. Furthermore, the curvature $`F`$ of $``$ and the symplectic 2–form $`\omega `$ are required to satisfy

$$F=2\pi \mathrm{i}\omega .$$
(6)
It turns out that quantisable, compact Kähler manifolds are projective algebraic manifolds and viceversa . After introducing a polarisation, the Hilbert space of quantum states is given by the global holomorphic sections of $``$.

Recalling that, on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$, $``$ is isomorphic to $`\tau ^l`$ for some $`l𝐙`$, let $`𝒪(l)`$ denote the sheaf of holomorphic sections of $``$ over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. The vector space of holomorphic sections of $`=\tau ^l`$ is the sheaf cohomology space $`H^0(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪(l))`$. The latter is zero for $`l<0`$, while for $`l0`$ it can be canonically identified with the set of homogeneous polynomials of degree $`l`$ on $`𝐂^{n+1}`$ . This set is a vector space of dimension $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+l}{n}\right)`$:

$$\mathrm{dim}H^0(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪(l))=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+l}{n}\right).$$
(7)
We will give a quantum–mechanical derivation of eqn. (7) in section 4.

Equivalence classes of holomorphic line bundles over a complex manifold $`𝒞`$ are classified by the Picard group $`\mathrm{Pic}(𝒞)`$. The latter is defined  as the sheaf cohomology group $`H_{\mathrm{sheaf}}^1(𝒞,𝒪^{})`$, where $`𝒪^{}`$ is the sheaf of nonzero holomorphic functions on $`𝒞`$. When $`𝒞=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ things simplify  because the above sheaf cohomology group is in fact isomorphic to a singular homology group,

$$H_{\mathrm{sheaf}}^1(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪^{})=H_{\mathrm{sing}}^2(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝐙),$$
(8)
and the latter is given in eqn. (2). Thus

$$\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)=𝐙.$$
(9)
The zero class corresponds to the trivial line bundle $`ϵ=\tau ^0`$; all other classes correspond to nontrivial bundles. As the equivalence class of $``$ varies, so does the space $``$ of its holomorphic sections vary.

## 4 Quantum Hilbert–space bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$

As discussed in section 1.1, in quantum mechanics one skips the quantum line bundle $``$ of geometric quantisation and proceeds directly to construct Hilbert–space bundles over classical phase space. We will therefore analyse such vector bundles (that we will call quantum Hilbert–space bundles, or $`𝒬`$–bundles for short), their principal unitary bundles and, finally, their projectivisations. Our aim is to demonstrate that there are different nonequivalent choices for the nonflat $`𝒬`$–bundles, to study how the corresponding quantum mechanics varies with each choice, and to provide a physical interpretation. Although we will be able to reproduce the results that geometric quantisation derives from $``$, our approach will be based on the $`𝒬`$–bundles instead. In particular, triviality of the quantum line bundle $``$ does not imply, nor is implied by, triviality of the $`𝒬`$–bundle; the same applies to flatness.

Our analysis will be modelled on the case when $`𝒞=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. An example of a classical dynamics on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is given by the projective oscillator. On the coordinate chart $`𝒰_k`$ of eqn. (1), the classical Hamiltonian equals the Kähler potential (1). Its eigenfunctions and eigenvalues will be obtained in section 4.5. Compactness of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ implies that, upon quantisation, the Hilbert space $``$ is finite–dimensional, and hence isomorphic to $`𝐂^{N+1}`$ for some $`N`$. This property follows from the fact that the number of quantum states grows monotonically with the symplectic volume of $`𝒞`$; the latter is finite when $`𝒞`$ is compact. We are thus led to considering principal $`U(N+1)`$–bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ and to their classification. Equivalently, we will consider the associated holomorphic vector bundles with fibre $`𝐂^{N+1}`$. The corresponding projective bundles are $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^N`$–bundles and principal $`PU(N)`$–bundles. Each choice of a different equivalence class of bundles will give rise to a different quantisation. How many such equivalence classes are there? This question will be addressed in section 5. For the moment let us observe that there is more than one. For example one can consider the class of the trivial bundle $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n\times U(N)`$, or the class of a nontrivial bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ such as the Hopf bundle. For the same reasons we can expect more than one equivalence class of projective bundles to exist. That this is actually true will also be proved in section 5.

So far we have left $`N`$ undetermined. In order to fix it we first pick the symplectic volume form $`\omega ^n`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ such that

$$_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n}\omega ^n=n+1.$$
(10)
Next we set $`N=n`$, so $`\mathrm{dim}=n+1`$. This normalisation corresponds to 1 quantum state per unit of symplectic volume on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. Thus, e.g., when $`n=1`$ we have the Riemann sphere $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$ and $`=𝐂^2`$. The latter is the Hilbert space of a spin $`s=1/2`$ system, and the counting of states is correct. There are a number of further advantages to this normalisation. In fact eqn. (10) is more than just a normalisation, in the sense that the dependence of the right–hand side on $`n`$ is determined by physical consistency arguments. This will be explained in section 4.1. Normalisation arguments can enter eqn. (10) only through overall numerical factors such as $`2\pi `$, i$`\mathrm{}`$, or similar. It is these latter factors that we fix by hand in eqn. (10).

The right–hand of our normalisation (10) differs from that corresponding to eqn. (6). Up to numerical factors such as $`2\pi `$, $`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}`$, etc, it is standard to set $`_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n}F^n=n`$ . However we will find our normalisation (10) more convenient. Indeed we will make no use of the quantum line bundle $``$, while we will be able to reproduce quantum–mechanically the results of geometric quantisation.

### 4.1 Computation of $`\mathrm{dim}H^0(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪(1))`$

Next we present a quantum–mechanical computation of $`\mathrm{dim}H^0(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪(1))`$ without resorting to sheaf cohomology. That is, we compute $`\mathrm{dim}`$ when $`l=1`$ and prove that it coincides with the right–hand side of eqn. (10). The case $`l>1`$ will be treated in section 4.3.

Starting with $`𝒞=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^0`$, i.e., a point $`p`$ as classical phase space, the space of quantum rays must also reduce to a point. Then the corresponding Hilbert space is $`_1=𝐂`$. The only state in $`_1`$ is the vacuum $`|0_{l=1}`$, henceforth denoted $`|0`$ for brevity.

Next we pass from $`𝒞=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^0`$ to $`𝒞=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$. Regard $`p`$, henceforth denoted $`p_1`$, as the point at infinity with respect to a coordinate chart $`(𝒰_1,z_{(1)})`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$ that does not contain $`p_1`$. This chart is biholomorphic to $`𝐂`$ and supports a representation of the Heisenberg algebra in terms of creation and annihilation operators $`A^{}(1)`$, $`A(1)`$. This process adds the new state $`A^{}(1)|0`$ to the spectrum. The new Hilbert space $`_2=𝐂^2`$ is the linear span of $`|0`$ and $`A^{}(1)|0`$.

On $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$ we have the charts $`(𝒰_1,z_{(1)})`$ and $`(𝒰_2,z_{(2)})`$. Point $`p_1`$ is at infinity with respect to $`(𝒰_1,z_{(1)})`$, while it belongs to $`(𝒰_2,z_{(2)})`$. Similarly, the point at infinity with respect to $`(𝒰_2,z_{(2)})`$, call it $`p_2`$, belongs to $`(𝒰_1,z_{(1)})`$ but not to $`(𝒰_2,z_{(2)})`$. Above we have proved that the Hilbert–space bundle $`𝒬_2`$ has a fibre $`_2=𝐂^2`$ which, on the chart $`𝒰_1`$, is the linear span of $`|0`$ and $`A^{}(1)|0`$. On the chart $`𝒰_2`$, the fibre is the linear span of $`|0`$ and $`A^{}(2)|0`$, $`A^{}(2)`$ being the creation operator on $`𝒰_2`$. On the common overlap $`𝒰_1𝒰_2`$, the coordinate transformation between $`z_{(1)}`$ and $`z_{(2)}`$ is holomorphic. This implies that, on $`𝒰_1𝒰_2`$, the fibre $`𝐂^2`$ can be taken in either of two equivalent ways: either as the linear span of $`|0`$ and $`A^{}(1)|0`$, or as that of $`|0`$ and $`A^{}(2)|0`$.

The general construction is now clear. Topologically we have $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n=𝐂^n\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$, with $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$ a hyperplane at infinity, but we also need to describe the coordinate charts and their overlaps. There are coordinate charts $`(𝒰_j,z_{(j)})`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$ and nonempty $`f`$–fold overlaps $`_{j=1}^f𝒰_j`$ for $`f=2,3,\mathrm{},n+1`$. Each chart $`(𝒰_j,z_{(j)})`$ is biholomorphic with $`𝐂^n`$ and has a $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$–hyperplane at infinity; the latter is charted by the remaining charts $`(𝒰_k,z_{(k)})`$, $`kj`$. Over $`(𝒰_j,z_{(j)})`$ the Hilbert–space bundle $`𝒬_{n+1}`$ has a fibre $`_{n+1}=𝐂^{n+1}`$ spanned by

$$|0,A_i^{}(j)|0,i=1,2,\mathrm{},n.$$
(11)
Analyticity arguments similar to those above prove that, on every nonempty $`f`$–fold overlap $`_{j=1}^f𝒰_j`$, the fibre $`𝐂^{n+1}`$ can be taken in $`f`$ different, but equivalent ways, as the linear span of $`|0`$ and $`A_i^{}(j)|0`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, for every choice of $`j=1,\mathrm{},f`$.

A complete description of this bundle requires the specification of the transition functions; this will be done in section 4.4.

### 4.2 Representations

The $`(n+1)`$–dimensional Hilbert space of eqn. (11) may be regarded as a kind of defining representation, in the sense of the representation theory of $`SU(n+1)`$ when $`n>1`$. To make this statement more precise we observe that one can replace unitary groups with special unitary groups in eqn. (5). Comparing our results with those of section 3 we conclude that the quantum line bundle $``$ now equals $`\tau `$,

$$=\tau ,$$
(12)
because $`l=1`$. This is the smallest value of $`l`$ that produces a nontrivial $``$, as eqn. (7) gives a 1–dimensional Hilbert space when $`l=0`$. So our $``$ spans an $`(n+1)`$–dimensional representation of $`SU(n+1)`$, that we can identify with the defining representation. There is some ambiguity here since the dual of the defining representation of $`SU(n+1)`$ is also $`(n+1)`$–dimensional. This ambiguity is resolved by convening that the latter is generated by the holomorphic sections of the dual quantum line bundle

$$^{}=\tau ^1.$$
(13)
On the chart $`𝒰_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$, the dual of the defining representation is the linear span of the covectors

$$0|,0|A_i(j),i=1,2,\mathrm{},n.$$
(14)
These conclusions must be slightly modified in the limiting case when $`n=1`$, since all $`SU(2)`$ representations are selfdual. This point will be explained in section 4.4.

Taking higher representations is equivalent to considering the principal $`SU(n+1)`$–bundle (associated with the vector $`𝐂^{n+1}`$–bundle) in a representation higher than the defining one. We will see next that this corresponds to having $`l>1`$ in our choice of the line bundle $`\tau ^l`$.

### 4.3 Computation of $`\mathrm{dim}H^0(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪(l))`$

We extend now our quantum–mechanical computation of $`\mathrm{dim}H^0(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪(l))`$ to the case $`l>1`$. As in section 4.1, we do not resort to sheaf cohomology. The values $`l=0,1`$ respectively correspond to the trivial and the defining representation of $`SU(n+1)`$. The restriction to nonnegative $`l`$ follows from our convention of assigning the defining representation to $`\tau `$ and its dual to $`\tau ^1`$. Higher values $`l>1`$ correspond to higher representations and can be accounted for as follows. Let us rewrite eqn. (5) as

$$\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}=SU(n+l+1)/\left(SU(n+l)\times U(1)\right),$$
(15)
where now $`SU(n+l+1)`$ and $`SU(n+l)`$ act on $`𝐂^{n+l+1}`$. Now $`SU(n+l)`$ admits $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+l}{n}\right)`$–dimensional representations (Young tableaux with a single column of $`n`$ boxes) that, by restriction, are also representations of $`SU(n+1)`$. Letting $`l>1`$ vary for fixed $`n`$, this reproduces the dimension of eqn. (7).

By itself, the existence of $`SU(n+1)`$ representations with the dimension of eqn. (7) does not prove that, picking $`l>1`$, the corresponding quantum states lie in those $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+l}{n}\right)`$–dimensional representations. We have to prove that no other value of the dimension fits the given data. In order to prove it the idea is, roughly speaking, that a value of $`l>1`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ can be traded for $`l^{}=1`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$. That is, an $`SU(n+1)`$ representation higher than the defining one can be traded for the defining representation of $`SU(n+l+1)`$. In this way the $`𝒬`$–bundle on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ with the Picard class $`l^{}=l`$ equals the $`𝒬`$–bundle on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$ with the Picard class $`l^{}=1`$. On the latter we have $`n+l`$ excited states (i.e., other than the vacuum), one for each complex dimension of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$. We can sort them into unordered sets of $`n`$, which is the number of excited states on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$, in $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+l}{n}\right)`$ different ways. This selects a specific dimension for the $`SU(n+1)`$ representations and rules out the rest. More precisely, it is only when $`n>1`$ that some representations are ruled out. When $`n=1`$, i.e. for $`SU(2)`$, all representations are allowed, since their dimension is $`l+1=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1+l}{1}\right)`$. However already for $`SU(3)`$ some representations are thrown out. The number $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2+l}{2}\right)`$ matches the dimension $`d(p,q)=(p+1)(q+1)(p+q+2)/2`$ of the $`(p,q)`$ irreducible representation if $`p=0`$ and $`l=q`$ or $`q=0`$ and $`l=p`$, but arbitrary values of $`(p,q)`$ are in general not allowed.

To complete our reasoning we have to prove that the quantum line bundle $`=\tau `$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$ descends to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ as the $`l`$–th power $`\tau ^l`$. For this we resort to the natural embedding of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ into $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$. Let $`(𝒰_1,z_{(1)})`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`(𝒰_{n+1},z_{(n+1)})`$ be the coordinate charts on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ described in section 2, and let $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_1,\stackrel{~}{z}_{(1)})`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{n+1},\stackrel{~}{z}_{(n+1)})`$, $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{n+2},\stackrel{~}{z}_{(n+2)})`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{n+l+1},\stackrel{~}{z}_{(n+l+1)})`$ be charts on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$ relative to this embedding. This means that the first $`n+1`$ charts on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$, duly restricted, are also charts on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$; in fact every chart on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is contained $`l`$ times within $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$. Let $`t_{jk}(\tau )`$, with $`j,k=1,\mathrm{},n+l+1`$, be the transition function for $`\tau `$ on the overlap $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_j\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_k`$ of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$. In passing from $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_j`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_k`$, points on the fibre are acted on by $`t_{jk}(\tau )`$. Due to our choice of embedding, the overlap $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_j\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_k`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$ contains $`l`$ copies of the overlap $`𝒰_j𝒰_k`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. Thus points on the fibre over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ are acted on by $`(t_{jk}(\tau ))^l`$, where now $`j,k`$ are restricted to $`1,\mathrm{},n+1`$. This means that the line bundle on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is $`\tau ^l`$ as stated, and the vacuum $`|0_{l^{}=l}`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ equals the vacuum $`|0_{l^{}=1}`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$. Hence there are on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ as many inequivalent vacua as there are elements in $`𝐙=\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ (remember that sign reversal $`ll`$ within $`\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ is the operation of taking the dual representation, i.e., $`\tau \tau ^1`$).

### 4.4 Transition functions

At each point $`p\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ there is an isomorphism between the holomorphic cotangent space $`T_p^{}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ and a complex $`n`$–dimensional subspace of $`=𝐂^{n+1}=𝐂^n𝐂`$, where $`𝐂^n`$ is cotangent to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ and $`𝐂`$ is normal to it. As $`p`$ varies over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ we have the following holomorphic bundles: the quantum Hilbert–space bundle $`𝒬`$ (with fibre $`𝐂^{n+1}`$), the cotangent bundle $`T^{}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ (with fibre $`𝐂^n`$), and the normal bundle $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ (with fibre $`𝐂`$). Modulo a choice of representation for $`T^{}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$, which will be done below, next we prove that

$$𝒬(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)=T^{}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n).$$
(16)
The above eqn. follows from the fact that, in the dual (14) of the defining representation, the operators $`A_i(j)`$ act as $`/z_{(j)}^i`$, i.e., as tangent vectors. Correspondingly, in the defining representation (11), their adjoints $`A_i^{}(j)`$ in $``$ act as multiplication by $`z_{(j)}^i`$. Since adjoints in $``$ transform as duals on tangent space, the $`A_i^{}(j)`$ transform as differentials $`\mathrm{d}z_{(j)}^i`$, or cotangent vectors. In what follows we will identify the cotangent and the tangent bundles, so we can write

$$𝒬(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)=T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n),$$
(17)
where $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ and $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ are subbundles of $`𝒬(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$. It follows that tangent vectors to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ are quantum states in (the defining representation of) Hilbert space. In eqn. (11) we have given a basis for these states in terms of creation operators acting on the vacuum $`|0`$. The latter can be regarded as the basis vector for the fibre $`𝐂`$ of the line bundle $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$.

As a holomorphic line bundle, $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ is isomorphic to $`\tau ^l`$ for some $`l\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ $`=𝐙`$. Now the bundle $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ has $`SU(n+1)`$ as its structure group, which we can consider in a certain representation $`\rho _l`$. If $`\rho _l(T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n))`$ denotes the representation space for $`SU(n+1)`$ corresponding to the class $`l𝐙`$, we can write

$$𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)=\rho _l(T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n))\tau ^l,l𝐙.$$
(18)
The importance of eqn. (18) is that it classifies $`𝒬`$–bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$: holomorphic equivalence classes of such bundles are in 1–to–1 correspondence with the elements of $`𝐙=\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$. The class $`l=1`$ corresponds to the defining representation of $`SU(n+1)`$,

$$𝒬_{l=1}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)=T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)\tau ,$$
(19)
and $`l=1`$ to its dual. The quantum Hilbert–space bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is generally nontrivial, although particular values of $`l`$ may render the direct sum (18) trivial . The separate summands $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ and $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ are both nontrivial bundles. Nontriviality of $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ means that, when $`l0`$, the state $`|0`$ transforms nontrivially (albeit as multiplication by a phase factor) between different local trivialisations of the bundle. When $`l=0`$ the vacuum transforms trivially.

The preceding discussion also answers the question posed in section 4.1: what are the transition functions $`t(𝒬_l)`$ for $`𝒬_l`$? According to eqn. (18), they decompose as a direct sum of two transition functions, one for $`\rho _l(T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n))`$, another one for $`\tau ^l`$:

$$t(𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n))=t(\rho _l(T\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n))t(\tau ^l).$$
(20)
If the transition functions for $`\tau `$ are $`t(\tau )`$, those for $`\tau ^l`$ are $`(t(\tau ))^l`$. On the other hand, the transition functions $`t(\rho _l(T\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n))`$ are the jacobian matrices (in representation $`\rho _l`$) corresponding to coordinate changes on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. Then all the $`𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$–bundles of eqn. (18) are nonflat because the tangent bundle $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ itself is nonflat.

Knowing the transition functions $`t(𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n))`$ we can also answer the question posed in section 4.2 concerning the selfduality of the $`SU(2)`$ representations. It suffices to consider the defining representation. The latter is 2–dimensional. By eqn. (20), the corresponding transition functions, which are $`2\times 2`$ complex matrices, split block–diagonally into $`1\times 1`$ blocks, with zero off–diagonal entries. Hence these matrices are symmetric, i.e., invariant under transposition, which is the operation involved in passing from a representation to its dual. No complex conjugation is involved, since $`z\overline{z}`$ would involve creation and annihilation operators with respect to the antiholomorphic coordinate $`\overline{z}`$. The notations $`A`$, $`A^{}`$ indicate that, if the latter acts as multiplication by a holomorphic coordinate $`z`$, the former acts by differentiation with respect to the same holomorphic coordinate $`z`$.

### 4.5 Diagonalisation of the projective Hamiltonian

Deleting from $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ the $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$–hyperplane at infinity produces the noncompact space $`𝐂^n`$. The latter is the classical phase space of the $`n`$–dimensional harmonic oscillator (now no longer projective, but linear). The corresponding Hilbert space $``$ is infinite–dimensional because the symplectic volume of $`𝐂^n`$ is infinite.

The deletion of the hyperplane at infinity may also be understood from the viewpoint of the Kähler potential (1) corresponding to the Fubini–Study metric. No longer being able to pass holomorphically from a point at finite distance to a point at infinity implies that, on the conjugate chart $`(𝒰_k,z_{(k)})`$, the squared modulus $`|z_{(k)}|^2`$ is always small and we can Taylor–expand eqn. (1) as

$$\mathrm{log}\left(1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}z_{(k)}^j\overline{z}_{(k)}^j\right)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}z_{(k)}^j\overline{z}_{(k)}^j.$$
(21)
The right–hand side of eqn. (21) is the Kähler potential for the usual Hermitean metric on $`𝐂^n`$. As such, $`_{j=1}^nz_{(k)}^j\overline{z}_{(k)}^j`$ equals the classical Hamiltonian for the $`n`$–dimensional linear harmonic oscillator. Observers on this coordinate chart effectively see $`𝐂^n`$ as their classical phase space. The corresponding Hilbert space is the (closure of the) linear span of the states $`|m_1,\mathrm{},m_n`$, where

$$H_{\mathrm{lin}}|m_1,\mathrm{},m_n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(m_j+\frac{1}{2}\right)|m_1,\mathrm{},m_n,m_j=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(22)
and

$$H_{\mathrm{lin}}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(A_j^{}(k)A_j(k)+\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
(23)
is the quantum Hamiltonian operator corresponding to the classical Hamiltonian function on the right–hand side of eqn. (21). Then the stationary Schrödinger equation for the projective oscillator reads

$$H_{\mathrm{proj}}|m_1,\mathrm{},m_n=\mathrm{log}\left(1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(m_j+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)|m_1,\mathrm{},m_n,$$
(24)
where

$$H_{\mathrm{proj}}=\mathrm{log}\left(1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(A_j^{}(k)A_j(k)+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)$$
(25)
is the quantum Hamiltonian operator corresponding to the classical Hamiltonian function on the left–hand side of eqn. (21).

The same states $`|m_1,\mathrm{},m_n`$ that diagonalise $`H_{\mathrm{lin}}`$ also diagonalise $`H_{\mathrm{proj}}`$. However, eqns. (22)–(25) above in fact only hold locally on the chart $`𝒰_k`$, which does not cover all of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. Bearing in mind that there is one hyperplane at infinity with respect to this chart, we conclude that the arguments of section 4.1 apply in order to ensure that the projective oscillator only has $`n`$ excited states. Then the occupation numbers $`m_j`$ are either all 0 (for the vacuum state) or all zero but for one of them, where $`m_j=1`$ (for the excited states), and $`\mathrm{dim}=n+1`$ as it should. Moreover, the eigenvalues of eqn. (24) provide an alternative proof of the fact, demonstrated in section 4.3, that the Picard group class $`l^{}=l>1`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ can be traded for $`l^{}=1`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$.

## 5 $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$–bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$

Projectivising the quantum Hilbert–space bundle $`𝒬_{l=1}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ gives a $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$–bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$, where the base $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is classical phase space and the fibre $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is quantum phase space. Next we classify these bundles.

### 5.1 The case $`n=1`$

$`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$–bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$ are complex manifolds called Hirzebruch surfaces . Holomorphic equivalence classes of these bundles are 1–to–1 with $`𝐙^+`$, the set of nonnegative integers, $`r=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, with $`r=0`$ corresponding to the trivial bundle $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1\times \mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$. The appearance of the nonnegative integers instead of all the integers can be traced back to the selfduality of the representations of $`SU(2)`$. We will see that, for $`SU(n+1)`$ with $`n>1`$, $`𝐙^+`$ will be replaced by all the integers $`𝐙`$. This fact reflects the non–selfduality of the corresponding representations.

It is interesting to observe that, regarding $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$ as the real manifold $`S^2`$, real equivalence classes of $`S^2`$–bundles over $`S^2`$ are 1–to–1 with $`𝐙_2`$, i.e., there are just 2 such classes, the trivial one and the nontrivial one .

### 5.2 The case $`n>1`$

On $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ there are $`n(n+1)/2`$ overlaps $`𝒰_j𝒰_k`$. Each chart $`𝒰_j`$ is biholomorphic with $`𝐂^n`$ and hence contractible. Thus, locally on $`𝒰_j`$, the $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$–bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is trivial, but nontrivialities may arise on the overlaps $`𝒰_j𝒰_k`$. How does the fibre $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ vary as we change coordinates from $`z_{(j)}`$ to $`z_{(k)}`$?

In eqn. (5) we have $`U(1)`$ as the equator of the sphere $`S^{2n+1}`$. On the latter there are $`2n`$ real dimensions orthogonal to the equator. All of them are compact and can be parametrised by angular variables. A complete rotation around an axis orthogonal to the equator leaves the fibre $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ unchanged, yet it is a transformation different from the identity. Assembling these $`2n`$ real dimensions orthogonal to the equator into $`n`$ complex parameters, one can perform $`n`$ independent transformations of this type, each contributing by a full $`𝐙`$’s worth of different ways the fibre $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ can be patched across the overlap $`𝒰_j𝒰_k`$. Only when every such rotation is by a zero angle, for all values of $`j,k`$, do we have a trivial bundle.

Therefore holomorphic equivalence classes of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$–bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ are 1–to–1 with $`n^2(n+1)/2`$ copies of $`𝐙`$. As advanced in section 5.1, above one can set $`n=1`$ only if one replaces $`𝐙`$ with the positive integers $`𝐙^+`$.

An important point to observe is the following. Given that $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ is fixed, $`𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$–bundles are classified by $`\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$. This gives one copy of $`𝐙`$ as the parameter space for inequivalent $`𝒬(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$–bundles. We can now projectivise these Hilbert–space bundles into $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$–bundles and still we are left with one copy of $`𝐙`$ as the parameter space. This differs from the $`n^2(n+1)/2`$ copies of $`𝐙`$ found above. However there is no contradiction. The operations of projectivisation and classification of bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$, call them $`\pi `$ and $`\kappa `$, do not commute: $`\pi \kappa \kappa \pi `$. In our approach we first construct a family of Hilbert–space bundles, classified by the elements of $`\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$, then we projectivise them into $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$–bundles. Therefore the correct order for these operations is $`\pi \kappa `$, i.e., first classify, then projectivise.

## 6 Tangent vectors as quantum states

We have seen in section 4.4 that (co)tangent vectors to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ are quantum states. The converse is not true, as exemplified by the vacuum. Let us generalise and replace $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ with an arbitrary classical phase space $`𝒞`$. We would like to write, as in eqn. (17),

$$𝒬(𝒞)=T(𝒞)N(𝒞),$$
(26)
where $`N(𝒞)`$ is a holomorphic line bundle on $`𝒞`$, whose fibre is generated by the vacuum state, and $`T(𝒞)`$ is the holomorphic tangent bundle. Does eqn. (26) hold in general?

The answer is trivially affirmative when $`𝒞`$ is an analytic submanifold of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. Such is the case, e.g., of the embedding of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ within $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$ considered in section 4.3; Grassmann manifolds provide another example . The answer is also affirmative provided that $`𝒞`$ is a complex $`n`$–dimensional, compact, symplectic manifold, whose complex and symplectic structures are compatible. Notice that $`𝒞`$ is not required to be Kähler; examples of Hermitian but non–Kähler spaces are Hopf manifolds . Let $`\omega `$ denote the symplectic form. Then $`_𝒞\omega ^n<\mathrm{}`$ thanks to compactness; this ensures that $`\mathrm{dim}<\mathrm{}`$. Assuming that the vacuum is nondegenerate, as was the case with $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$, we can adopt a normalisation similar to that of eqn. (10),

$$_𝒞\omega ^n=n+1,$$
(27)
Let us cover $`𝒞`$ with a finite set of holomorphic coordinate charts $`(𝒲_k,w_{(k)})`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$; the existence of such an atlas follows from the compactness of $`𝒞`$. We can pick an atlas such that $`r`$ is minimal; compactness implies that $`r2`$.

The construction of the $`𝒬(𝒞)`$–bundle proceeds along the same lines of section 4.1. The chart $`𝒲_k`$ is biholomorphic with (an open subset of) $`𝐂^n`$. The $`n`$ components of the holomorphic coordinates $`w_{(k)}^j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ give rise to creation and annihilation operators $`A_j(k),A_m^{}(k)`$, $`j,m=1,\mathrm{},n`$, satisfying the Heisenberg algebra $`[A_j(k),A_m^{}(k)]=\delta _{jm}(k)`$ for every fixed value of $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$. The vacuum $`|0`$, plus the $`n`$ states $`A_m^{}(k)|0`$, span the fibre $`𝐂^{n+1}`$ of the Hilbert–space bundle over the patch $`𝒲_k`$. On overlaps $`𝒲_j𝒲_k`$, analyticity arguments identical to those of section 4.1 ensure that the fibre can be taken in either of two equivalent ways. $`𝐂^{n+1}`$ is either the linear span of $`|0`$ plus the $`n`$ states $`A_m^{}(j)|0`$, or the linear span of $`|0`$ plus the $`n`$ states $`A_m^{}(k)|0`$.

It is now clear that much of section 4.4 concerning $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ carries over to $`𝒞`$. Choosing $`l\mathrm{Pic}(𝒞)`$ we determine a holomorphic line bundle $`N_l(𝒞)`$ as in eqn. (26), and the latter holds (with a subindex $`l`$ on the left–hand side) under the assumptions made above. By eqn. (26) we can write for the transition functions

$$t(𝒬_l(𝒞))=t(T(𝒞))t(N_l(𝒞)),$$
(28)
as we did in eqn. (20). Transition functions for $`T(𝒞)`$ are jacobian matrices, and tangent vectors are quantum states. Holomorphic line bundles such as $`N_l(𝒞)`$ are classified by the Picard group $`\mathrm{Pic}(𝒞)`$, although the latter need not be $`𝐙`$. Now $`T(𝒞)`$ may or may not be trivial. If both $`T(𝒞)`$ and $`N_l(𝒞)`$ are trivial, then the full quantum Hilbert–space bundle is trivial. A nontrivial $`𝒬_l(𝒞)`$–bundle arises if $`T𝒞`$ is nontrivial and this nontriviality cannot be compensated by a nontrivial $`N_l(𝒞)`$, or viceversa. On the other hand $`𝒬_l(𝒞)`$ is flat if, and only if, both $`T(𝒞)`$ and $`N_l(𝒞)`$ are flat.

However there may also be differences with the case of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. One would like to identify $`N_l(𝒞)`$ (for some class $`l\mathrm{Pic}(𝒞)`$) with the quantum line bundle $``$, but $`𝒞`$ need not be quantisable and/or $`N_l(𝒞)`$ need not possess holomorphic sections. Another potential difference is the possible degeneracy of the vacuum. While all vacua on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ were nondegenerate, this need not be the case on a general $`𝒞`$. We will analyse these cases in a forthcoming article.

## 7 Discussion

Quantum mechanics is defined on a Hilbert space of states whose construction usually assumes a global character on classical phase space. Under globality we understand, as explained in section 1.1, the property that all coordinate charts on classical phase space are quantised in the same way. A novelty of our approach is the local character of the Hilbert space: there is one on top of each Darboux coordinate chart on classical phase space. The patching together of these Hilbert–space fibres on top of each chart may be global (trivial bundle) or local (nontrivial bundle). In order to implement duality transformations we need a nonflat bundle (hence nontrivial). Flatness would allow for a canonical identification, by means of parallel transport, of the quantum states belonging to different fibres.

Given a classical phase space as a base manifold and a Hilbert space as a fibre, the trivial bundle corresponding to these data is unique. On the contrary, there may be more than one (equivalence class of) nonflat (and hence nontrivial) bundles possessing the given base and fibre. This means that, considering nonflat bundles, the choice of a quantum mechanics need not be unique, even if the corresponding classical mechanics is kept fixed. The freedom in choosing different Hilbert–space bundles is parametrised by the Picard group of classical phase space. This group parametrises (equivalence classes of) holomorphic line bundles. The corresponding 1–dimensional fibre is spanned by the vacuum state. The remaining quantum states are obtained by the action of creation operators on the vacuum chosen. The quantum states so obtained can be identified with tangent vectors to classical phase space. When the Picard group is trivial, there exists just one Hilbert–space bundle (though not necessarily trivial). A nontrivial Picard group means that there is more than one equivalence class of Hilbert–space bundles. Any two different choices of a Hilbert–space bundle correspond to two different choices of a line bundle on which the vacuum state lies. The previous conclusions are valid on an arbitrary complex, compact classical phase space whose complex structure is kept fixed and is compatible with the symplectic structure, and assuming nondegeneracy of the vacuum.

In the presence of a nontrivial Picard group, each choice of a line bundle carries with it the choice of a representation for the unitary structure group of the Hilbert–space bundle. This may lead to the wrong conclusion that duality transformations are just different choices of a representation for the unitary group of Hilbert space. A choice of representation is not a duality transformation. The choice of a representation for the unitary group is subordinate to the choice of a class in the Picard group. Picking a class in the latter, one determines a representation for the former. In other words, in eqn. (18), one does not vary the representation $`\rho _l`$ independently of the Picard class $`l`$.

A duality thus arises as the possibility of having two or more, apparently different, quantum–mechanical descriptions of the same physics. Mathematically, a duality arises as a nonflat, quantum Hilbert–space bundle over classical phase space. This notion implies that the concept of a quantum is not absolute, but relative to the quantum theory used to measure it . That is, duality expresses the relativity of the concept of a quantum. In particular, classical and quantum, for long known to be deeply related , are not necessarily always the same for all observers on phase space.

Acknowledgements

It is a great pleasure to thank J. de Azcárraga, U. Bruzzo and M. Schlichenmaier for encouragement and discussions. This work has been partially supported by research grant BFM2002–03681 from Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología and EU FEDER funds.


format: text

text:
# Comparison of Nuclear Suppression Effects on Meson Production at High 𝑝_𝑇 and 𝑝_𝐿

## I Introduction

When partons traverse nuclear medium, whether dense or not, they lose momenta by scattering and gluon radiation. At high transverse momentum $`p_T`$ the effect can be calculated in perturbative QCD, although its reliability is not expected for $`p_T<10`$ GeV/c. At low $`p_T`$, but high longitudinal momentum $`p_L`$, the effect cannot be calculated in pQCD, although it is known that partons suffer momenta losses also in the beam direction. Experimentally, it is the momenta of the produced hadrons that are measured. How they are related to the underlying parton $`p_T`$ and $`p_L`$ distributions is still controversial. But even at the phenomenological level it is unknown what the relationship is between the properties of momentum degradation in the transverse and longitudinal directions. We attempt to shed some light on that relationship in this paper.

There are currently good data on high-$`p_T\pi ^0`$ produced at the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider (RHIC) up to $`p_T=8`$ GeV/c at various centralities dd . One can therefore deduce the suppression factor from the $`p_T`$ distributions as a function of $`p_T`$ and centrality. There are no comparable data on the $`p_L`$ distributions from RHIC. At lower energies the data of NA49 at the SPS provide a good description of the effect of baryon stopping in $`pA`$ collision hf . What we need for comparison with the $`p_T`$ of $`\pi ^0`$ is the $`p_L`$ distribution of the produced pions, for which no data are yet available. However, we do have a model calculation of the pion distribution that contains the degradation effect extracted from the observed proton distribution hy ; that will be our input in our study of the suppression factor in the $`p_L`$ distribution.

The two features that we shall compare are very different: the degradation of $`p_T`$ in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at RHIC and the degradation of $`p_L`$ in $`p+Pb`$ collisions at SPS. In the absence of any information in the literature on the quantitative or qualitative difference between the two types of degradation effects of the nuclear medium, even a crude estimate of the suppression properties described in a common language would be illuminating. Without a study of the type proposed here, one does not even know whether the strengths of suppression are within the same order of magnitude, especially since the medium in $`AA`$ collision at RHIC is dense and hot, while the medium in $`pA`$ collision at SPS is uncompressed and cold.

There is a theoretical issue that is of interest to discuss here. For some time there has been a school of thought that all hadrons are produced by the fragmentations of partons, not only in the transverse direction in the form of jets (which is generally accepted), but also in the longitudinal direction in the form of breaking of strings (as in the dual parton model dpm ). The effect of the nuclear medium has been represented by the modification of the fragmentation function wz  in transverse direction, but that of the longitudinal direction is not known. However, fragmentation of partons is not the only way to produce hadrons. Recent investigations have shown that quark recombination can be important in the high $`p_T`$ problem hy2 -fm , in addition to its relevance originally proposed for the high $`p_L`$ problem dh ; hy3 . Since the multiparton distributions needed for recombination are drastically different in the transverse and longitudinal directions, the effect of the nuclear medium is considerably more complicated. In this paper we can avoid dealing directly with those complications by putting the emphasis on the phenomenology of the hadrons produced. For the $`p_T`$ problem we shall use the scaling form of the data hy4 , while for the $`p_L`$ problem the calculated $`x_F`$ distributions that follow from the $`pA`$ data will be used. Our task is made easier by not deriving the $`p_T`$ and $`p_L`$ distributions, but by focusing on the centrality dependences of those distributions.

Suppression of the meson distribution is like jet quenching at the parton level. In addition to the study of suppression, we shall also consider energy loss, which is another way of quantifying the medium effect. It corresponds to a shift in $`p_T`$ or $`p_L`$ that is necessary for the inclusive cross section in medium to be equivalent to a reference cross section with minimal medium effect. We shall find interesting results in the shift that are very different from the prediction of pQCD. That difference is much larger than the difference between the effects on the transverse and longitudinal motions of the produced mesons.

Since our comparison is between $`p_T`$ in $`AA`$ collisions and $`p_L`$ in $`pA`$ collisions, they are two steps removed from each other. When good $`p_L`$ data on identified pions in $`AA`$ collisions become available, they shall then serve as the intermediate station to make possible two one-step comparisons: (1) between $`p_T`$ and $`p_L`$ in $`AA`$ collisions, and (2) between $`p_L`$ in $`AA`$ and $`p_L`$ in $`pA`$ collisions. What we do here therefore sets the stage for that work to come.

## II Suppression of the Pion $`p_T`$ Distribution in $`AA`$ Collisions

For the $`p_T`$ distribution of pions in nuclear collisions we use the PHENIX data on $`\pi ^0`$ production at midrapidity with $`p_T`$ extending to as high as 8 GeV/c dd . A convenient scaling form for that distribution has been found that summarizes the dependence on energy and centrality in terms of a simple analytical formula hy4 ; hy5 . The quantity that we want to study is the suppression factor $`S`$, which is the ratio of the normalized $`p_T`$ distribution $`P`$:

$`S(x_T,N)=P(x_T,N)/P(x_T,2),`$ (1)
where $`x_T`$ is the scaled $`p_T`$ variable

$`x_T=p_T/K_0,`$ (2)
and $`N`$ is the abbreviated notation for the number of participants $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$. The scale $`K_0`$ is set at 10 GeV/c for convenience; it is trivial to move it higher when higher $`p_T`$ data become available. If $`x_T^1dN_\pi /dx_T`$ denotes the $`x_T`$ distribution of produced $`\pi ^0`$, averaged over midrapidity and over all azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$, then $`P(x_T,N)`$ is defined by

$`P(x_T,N)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_T}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN_\pi }{dx_T}}/{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_T{\displaystyle \frac{dN_\pi }{dx_T}}.`$ (3)
Instead of determining $`P(x_T,N)`$ directly from the data for every $`N`$ at any given $`s`$, it is simpler to derive it from the scaling function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ that is an excellent fit of all high-energy data for all centralities hy4 ; hy5 . Since the details of the relationship between $`P(x_T,N)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ are given in Refs. hy4 ; hy5 , there is no need for us to repeat them here. For the convenience of the reader, they are summarized in the Appendix.

From the analytical expression for $`S(x_T,N)`$ obtained by use of Eq. (60) in Eq. (1) we can examine the $`N`$ dependence for fixed values of $`x_T`$ by plotting $`\mathrm{ln}S(x_T,N)`$ vs $`N`$ for some sample values of $`x_T`$, as shown in Fig. 1. Approximating the nearly linear behaviors in Fig. 1 by straight lines, we obtain

$`\mathrm{ln}S(x_T,N)=a_0(x_T)a_1(x_T)N,`$ (4)
where $`a_0(x_T)`$ and $`a_1(x_T)`$ are shown in Fig. 2. The solid lines in that figure are fits, using the parametrization

$`a_0(x_T)=0.031\left[1\mathrm{exp}(0.512x_T)\right],`$ (5)
$`a_1(x_T)=0.0043\left[1\mathrm{exp}(0.25x_T)\right].`$ (6)
A general statement that can be made about $`\mathrm{ln}S(x_T,N)`$ is that it is approximately linear in $`N`$, and that the parameters of the linear fits are roughly independent of $`x_T`$ when $`x_T0.4`$.

Since the number of participants $`N`$ is associated only with $`AA`$ collisions, we must express it in terms of some measure of nuclear length in order to be able to compare the suppression factors in $`AA`$ and $`pA`$ collisions. The dependence of $`N`$ on the impact parameter $`b`$ is known kn . At a fixed $`b`$, the lens-shaped overlap region in the transverse plane of two colliding nuclei of the same radius $`R_A`$ has a minimum distance between the center of the overlap and the edge of either nuclei (assumed to have a sharp boundary)

$`L_{\mathrm{min}}=R_Ab/2.`$ (7)
The maximum distance between the center of the overlap to the edge of both nuclei is

$`L_{\mathrm{max}}=\left(R_A^2b^2/4\right)^{1/2}.`$ (8)
The distance that a parton would travel in the nuclear medium at midrapidity in the transverse plane can be as large as $`2L_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and as small as 0, depending on where the parton starts and in which direction. We shall set the average distance $`L`$ traversed to be

$`L(b)=L_{\mathrm{min}}=R_Ab/2,`$ (9)
which is an approximate average over all azimuthal angles and origins of parton paths. Any more detailed geometrical averaging is pointless, since the nuclear density of the overlap region is not uniform, and the nonuniformity depends on $`b`$. Knowing $`N(b)`$ and $`L(b)`$ enables us to plot $`N`$ vs $`L`$, as shown by the solid line in Fig. 3. We shall approximate $`N(L)`$ by a straight line

$`N(L)=35.8+62.2L`$ (10)
(with $`L`$ in units of fm), shown by the dashed line in Fig. 3. In view of the nonuniformity of the nuclear density traversed by a parton in the overlap regions, we believe that an approximation of $`N(L)`$ by a linear dependence in Eq. (10) is good enough to represent the path length that enters into the description of the momentum degradation effect.

Substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (4) we obtain

$`\mathrm{ln}S(x_T,L)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(x_T)\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)L,`$ (11)
where in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(x_T)`$ the contribution from the $`a_0(x_T)`$ term in Eq. (4) is negligible. Thus Eq. (11) may be rewritten as

$`\mathrm{ln}S(x_T,L)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)(L0.71),`$ (12)
where

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)=0.27\left[1\mathrm{exp}(0.25x_T)\right],`$ (13)
which is nearly constant for $`x_T>0.5`$, as shown by the solid line in Fig. 4. This exponential dependence of $`S(x_T,L)`$ on $`L`$ is in a familiar form for nuclear attenuation. We remark that although the length $`L`$ is the approximate average distance in the nuclear medium that a parton traverses, no parton dynamics has been assumed in the derivation of $`S(x_T,L)`$, which is extracted from the data on $`\pi ^0`$ production without dynamical modeling. The exponential form of $`S(x_T,L)`$ is similar to the Gerschel-Hüfner formula for the $`J/\psi `$ suppression gh , except that the latter refers to a quantity integrated over all $`p_T`$, and is related to the dissociation of $`J/\psi `$ in the medium. The quarks and antiquarks that form the produced $`\pi ^0`$ in our expression for $`S(x_T,L)`$ are the results of gluon radiation and gluon conversion processes, most of which are not calculable in pQCD, especially near the end of the evolution process.

## III Suppression of the Pion $`p_L`$ Distribution in $`pA`$ Collisions

Since no $`p_L`$ distributions of identified particles in the fragmentation regions of $`AA`$ collisions at RHIC are available, we consider the processes at the SPS energies. At lower energies the projectile fragmentation region can contain particles arising from the fragmentation of the target, and vice-versa. It is therefore important to consider reactions that are free of such ‘spill-over’ particles. The preliminary data of NA49 on $`pA`$ collisions at SPS have been analyzed to provide the produced $`p\overline{p}`$ distribution of the projectile fragmentation only hf . That is accomplished by determining the $`p_L`$ distribution

$$F_p(p\overline{p})=(p\overline{p})_p\frac{1}{2}\left[(p\overline{p})_{\pi ^+}+(p\overline{p})_\pi ^{}\right],$$
(14)
where $`(p\overline{p})_h`$ denotes the distribution of $`h+A(p\overline{p})+X`$, since the quantity inside the square brackets contains no beam fragments by charge conjugation symmetry. A similar distribution for pions, $`F_p(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$, unfortunately does not exist, which is what we need for comparison with the result obtained in the preceding section.

Although there are no experimental data for pion production in the proton fragmentation region free of target fragments, theoretical results on such distributions are available that are based on the centrality dependence of the experimental data of $`F_p(p\overline{p})`$. In Ref. hy  the recombination model is used to relate the data to the nuclear degradation effect on the $`p_L`$ of the produced $`p\overline{p}`$, which in turn is then used to predict the $`p_L`$ distributions of the produced pions. Since the nuclear suppression factor on the produced pions is directly related to the experimental suppression of the produced $`p\overline{p}`$, we shall use the result in hy  for the pion distribution in $`p+Pb`$ collisions.

Let us use $`H(x_L,\overline{\nu })`$ to denote the pion inclusive distribution in the scaled longitudinal momentum, integrated over $`p_T`$, i.e.,

$$H(x_L,\overline{\nu })=x_L\frac{dN_\pi }{dx_L},$$
(15)
where $`x_L=2p_L/\sqrt{s}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ is the average number of collisions with nucleons in the target nucleus. From Fig. 9 in Ref. hy  one sees that $`H(x_L,\overline{\nu })`$ is essentially exponential in $`x_L`$ for various values of $`\overline{\nu }`$. We use the following parameterization for $`p+Pb\pi ^++X`$

$$H(x_L,\overline{\nu })=\mathrm{exp}\left[h_0(\overline{\nu })h_1(\overline{\nu })x_L\right],$$
(16)
where

$`h_0(3.1)=0.92,`$ $`h_0(6.3)=1.61,`$
$`h_1(3.1)=5.89,`$ $`h_1(6.3)=6.57.`$ (17)
These parameters provide a good fit for $`0.2x_L0.6`$. For $`x_L>0.6`$, the slopes are slightly higher, but the ratio of $`H(x_L,\overline{\nu })`$ at the two values of $`\overline{\nu }`$ is about the same.

Since the data are for the two values of $`\overline{\nu }`$ only, our definition of the suppression factor is

$$S(x_L;\overline{\nu }_2,\overline{\nu }_1)=H(x_L,\overline{\nu }_2)/H(x_L,\overline{\nu }_1)$$
(18)
with $`\overline{\nu }_1=3.1`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_2=6.3`$. We now make the assumption that $`h_0(\overline{\nu })`$ and $`h_1(\overline{\nu })`$ are linear functions of $`\overline{\nu }`$, partly because the average $`x_L`$ can be shown to decrease exponentially with $`\overline{\nu }`$ hy , and partly because all nuclear damping effects are empirically dependent on the path length in exponential form. With that assumption we can express $`S(x_L;\overline{\nu },1)`$ for any $`\overline{\nu }`$ relative to $`\overline{\nu }=1`$ as

$$\mathrm{ln}S(x_L;\overline{\nu },1)=\left[\theta _0(\overline{\nu })+\theta _1(\overline{\nu })x_L\right]$$
(19)
where $`\theta _0(\overline{\nu })`$ and $`\theta _1(\overline{\nu })`$ are the linear functions of $`\overline{\nu }`$

$$\theta _i(\overline{\nu })=h_i(\overline{\nu })h_i(1)=\theta _i^{}(\overline{\nu }1),i=0,1.$$
(20)
The slopes are

$$\theta _i^{}=\frac{h_i(\overline{\nu }_2)h_i(\overline{\nu }_1)}{\overline{\nu }_2\overline{\nu }_1}.$$
(21)
From the values given in Eq. (17), we find that $`\theta _0^{}`$ and $`\theta _1^{}`$ are very nearly equal. We denote them collectively by

$$\theta ^{}=0.21$$
(22)
and Eq. (19) becomes

$$\mathrm{ln}S(x_L;\overline{\nu },1)=\theta ^{}(1+x_L)(\overline{\nu }1).$$
(23)
The exponential dependence of $`S`$ on $`\overline{\nu }`$ is now explicit. The specific $`x_L`$ dependence of the decay coefficient is a result of the distribution in Eq. (16) calculated in hy .

If $`L`$ denotes the path length in a $`pA`$ collision, then the usual expression for $`\overline{\nu }`$ in terms of $`L`$ is

$$\overline{\nu }=\sigma _{pp}\rho L,\rho =\frac{4\pi }{3}\frac{A}{R_A^3}.$$
(24)
Using $`R_A=1.2A^{1/3}`$ fm, and $`\sigma _{pp}=35`$ mb, we have

$$\overline{\nu }=0.48L,$$
(25)
where $`L`$ is in units of fm. Substituting this in Eq. (23) yields

$$\mathrm{ln}S(x_L,L)=\lambda (x_L)(L2.1),$$
(26)
where

$$\lambda (x_L)=0.1(1+x_L).$$
(27)
Equations (26) and (27) for the suppression of the $`p_L`$ distribution in $`pA`$ collisions are the counterparts of Eqs. (12) and (13) for the suppression of the $`p_T`$ distribution in $`AA`$ collisions. Instead of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)`$ that rises rapidly at small $`x_T`$, but saturates to a nearly constant value for $`x_T>0.5`$, as shown in Fig. 4, we now have $`\lambda (x_L)`$ which is linearly rising, shown by the dashed line in Fig. 4. Since Eq. (16) is not reliable for $`x_L<0.2`$, we do not show that portion of $`\lambda (x_L)`$ in Fig. 4. For numerical comparison we can consider $`x_T=x_L`$ at two values, 0.6 and 0.8:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(0.6)=0.25,\lambda (0.6)=0.16,`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(0.8)=0.26,\lambda (0.8)=0.18.`$ (28)
Evidently, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)`$ is larger than $`\lambda (x_L)`$ when $`x_T=x_L>0.5`$, but not by much. Of course, there is no cogent reason to compare them at $`x_Tx_L`$ since the scale $`K_0`$ in the definition of $`x_T`$ is arbitrary, while $`x_L`$ is Feynman $`x_F`$ and has scaling property. However, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)`$ being roughly constant for $`x_T>0.5`$, it does not matter what $`x_T`$ is exactly. The relative values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)`$ and $`\lambda (x_L)`$ shown in Eq. (28) give us some indication of how they differ.

## IV Energy Losses in $`p_T`$ and $`p_L`$

Another way to quantify the medium effect is in terms of energy loss. Since our aim in this paper is to stay at the level of observable quantities, we cannot descend to the parton level where the concept of energy loss makes sense as one can study the evolution of a parton in its trajectory through the nuclear or quark medium. A produced meson does not itself traverse that medium, since it is only at the end of the evolution of the parton system that it is formed. Nevertheless, the notion of energy loss can be expressed in terms of a shift in $`x_T`$ in comparing the meson inclusive distributions at two different values of $`N`$. To be specific, let us set the reference value of $`N`$ at $`N=2`$, which is not exactly $`pp`$ collision, but is low enough to represent minimal nuclear effect. Let us then define the shift $`X`$ in $`x_T`$ by

$$P(x_T,N)=P(x_T+X,2),$$
(29)
where $`P(x_T,N)`$ is the normalized pion distribution defined in Eq. (3). Thus $`X`$ measures the degradation of the pion $`x_T`$ in changing $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$ from 2 to $`N`$.

Using Eq. (60) where $`x_T`$ is calculable by use of Eq. (58), we can solve Eq. (29) and determine $`X`$ in terms of $`x_T`$ and $`N`$. At fixed $`N`$, the dependence of $`X`$ on $`x_T`$ is nearly perfectly linear. Parametrisizing it as

$$X(x_T,N)=x_0(N)+\xi (N)x_T,$$
(30)
we find, for $`N=100,200,`$ and 350, the result $`x_0(N)=0.0047,0.0023,`$ and $`0.0039`$, and $`\xi (N)=0.0432,0.0916,`$ and 0.1741, respectively. Since $`x_0`$ is negligible except at very small $`x_T`$, we can regard $`\xi (N)`$ as the fractional shift, or more precisely as

$$\xi (N)=dX(x_T,N)/dx_T,$$
(31)
whose dependence on $`N`$ is shown in Fig. 5. Disregarding the point at $`N=2`$, where by definition $`\xi (2)=0`$, the three points at $`N=100,200,`$ and 350 can be fitted by a straight line, as shown by the solid line in Fig. 5. Its parametrization is

$$\xi (N)=0.011+5.26\times 10^4N$$
(32)
for $`N\stackrel{>}{}50`$. Thus for $`AA`$ collisions the fractional energy loss or fractional shift in $`p_T`$ is independent of $`p_T`$ and depends linearly on $`N`$ with a coefficient

$$\xi _N^{}=5.26\times 10^4.$$
(33)
This result can be obtained quickly, but only approximately, in two ways. First, if one ignores the dependence on $`N`$ of the denominator in Eq. (53), an approximation that amounts to setting $`k(s,N)`$ to be a constant (an error $`20\%`$) compared to the many orders of magnitude of variation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$, then the condition of Eq. (29) is equivalent to identifying its two sides with the same function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ with $`z`$ evaluated at $`N_{\mathrm{part}}=N`$ and 2, i.e.,

$`\xi (N)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_T(2)p_T(N)}{p_T(N)}}={\displaystyle \frac{K(2)K(N)}{K(N)}}`$ (34)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{6.36\times 10^4(N2)}{K(N)}}.`$
Setting $`K(N)K(2)=1.226`$ results in

$$\xi _N^{}5.19\times 10^4,$$
(35)
which is only slightly less than the more accurate value in Eq. (33). The other approximate way of determining the fractional shift is to use Eq. (60) and ignore the $`N`$ dependence of $`x_T^2`$ in that equation so that the condition in Eq. (29) becomes an identification of the $`u`$ variable in $`\mathrm{\Psi }(u)`$ at two values of $`N`$, i.e.,

$$u(N)=\frac{x_T}{x_T_N}=u(2)=\frac{x_T+X}{x_T_{N=2}}.$$
(36)
Since $`x_T_N`$ depends on $`N`$ in a known way hy4

$$x_T_N=x_T_{N_0}\mathrm{exp}[\beta (NN_0)],$$
(37)
where $`\beta =5.542\times 10^4`$ (denoted by $`\lambda `$ in hy4 ), its use in Eq. (36) results in

$$\xi _N^{}\beta =5.54\times 10^4.$$
(38)
Note that the smallness of $`\beta `$ in Eq. (37) roughly justifies the treatment of $`x_T`$ as a constant in Eq. (60) in the first place. The value of $`\xi _N^{}`$ in Eq. (38) is only slightly larger than that in Eq. (33). Thus the two approximate methods yield results that bracket the correct value closely, and illustrate the crucial role that the scaling variables $`z`$ and $`u`$ play.

It is of interest to note that in pQCD the shift in $`p_T`$ of the vacuum spectrum necessary to effect the in-medium spectrum is proportional to $`\sqrt{p}_T`$ bdm . It means that the fractional shift decreases with $`p_T`$, whereas our phenomenological result indicates that it is independent of $`p_T`$. However, since pQCD is reliable only for $`p_T>10`$ Gev/c, while our analysis is based on data at $`p_T<10`$ Gev/c, there is as yet no direct conflict. Nevertheless, the disagreement in the $`p_T`$ dependences is worth bearing in mind.

We now consider the energy loss of $`p_L`$ of pions produced in $`pA`$ collisions. We define the shift $`X`$ by referring the inclusive cross section at $`\overline{\nu }`$ to that at $`\overline{\nu }=1`$, i.e.,

$$H(x_L,\overline{\nu })=H(x_L+X,1).$$
(39)
The use of Eq. (16) and (20) leads to

$$X(x_L,\overline{\nu })=\xi (\overline{\nu })(x_L+1),$$
(40)
where

$$\xi (\overline{\nu })=\xi _{\overline{\nu }}^{}(\overline{\nu }1),$$
(41)
$$\xi _{\overline{\nu }}^{}=\theta ^{}/h_1(1)=0.0385.$$
(42)
To compare with the result from $`AA`$ collisions, let us convert both $`N`$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ to the average path length $`L`$. Using Eq. (10) in (32), we get

$$\xi _T(L)=0.03+0.0327L.$$
(43)
Using Eq. (25) in (41), we get

$$\xi _L(L)=0.0385+0.0185L.$$
(44)
In both cases the fractional shifts depend linearly on $`L`$ with the coefficients

$$\xi _T^{}=0.0327,\xi _L^{}=0.0185.$$
(45)
The ratio of these two coefficients is very nearly the same as the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)`$ to $`\lambda (x_L)`$ in the region $`x_{T,L}0.5`$ \[cf. Fig. 4\]. Thus the study of energy loss and that of suppression give comparable results on the effects of the nuclear medium. The advantage of using Eq. (45) for comparing the nuclear effects on the transverse and longitudinal motions is that the fractional shift is independent of the scale $`K_0`$ used in the definition of $`x_T`$ in Eq. (2). Thus the numerical values of $`\xi _N^{},\xi _{\overline{\nu }}^{},\xi _T^{}`$ and $`\xi _L^{}`$ are simple quantitative results of this investigation that can be reexamined in the future when experimental data at different energies for different colliding nuclei become available.

## V Conclusion

We have studied the suppression effect of the medium and the energy losses of the produced particles. The former is a comparison of the inclusive distributions in-medium versus minimal-medium at the same $`x_T`$ or $`x_L`$. The latter is the shift in $`x_T`$ or $`x_L`$ necessary for the two distributions at different $`N`$ to be equivalent. Both studies yield qualitatively the same level of effect. In the following we shall use the suppression effect to represent both in our discussion of the differences between the transverse and longitudinal effects.

The primary remark to make is that the values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)`$ and $`\lambda (x_L)`$ given in Eq. (28) are amazingly close. There are many arguments one can give to suggest that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)`$ and $`\lambda (x_L)`$ should not be similar in magnitude, and few are available to explain that they are even within the same order of magnitude. Let us present some of them.

The main difference between the two suppression effects is that one refers to transverse, the other longitudinal motion. For transverse momenta of partons caused by hard collisions, at least there is pQCD to describe some aspects of the dynamics, although not reliably for $`p_T<8`$ GeV/c. For the longitudinal momenta of the particles detected, there is no basic theory to describe their behavior in terms of partons without some substantial use of models. Some properties of the $`p_T`$ degradation can be calculated, but a recent result on the nuclear modification factor does not reproduce even the trend of the $`p_T`$ dependence sw . Nevertheless, much more work has been done in applying pQCD to the high $`p_T`$ problem than to the high $`p_L`$ problem. Since no large momentum transfers are involved at high $`p_L`$, one would naively not expect the nuclear suppression effect to be of the same nature as at high $`p_T`$. Yet we find $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)`$ and $`\lambda (x_L)`$ to be comparable.

The media of the two problems are also different. In $`AA`$ collisions at RHIC one expects the nuclear medium to be dense and hot, if not a quark-gluon plasma. In $`pA`$ collisions at SPS the medium that the projectile traverses is the normal uncompressed nucleus. One would therefore expect the effects of the media on momentum degradation to be very different, yet they are not.

The estimates of the average path length $`L`$ involve different approximations for the two cases, and it is difficult to assess the effects of those approximations. The only way that $`p_T`$ in $`AA`$ collisions can be compared to $`p_L`$ in $`pA`$ collisions is in the common language of exponential decay in terms of a path length $`L`$. To improve on this problem, we have to gain more information from experiments at intermediate steps by measuring $`p_L`$ in $`AB`$ collisions with various nuclear sizes of $`A`$.

We can think of one reason that could possibly explain the closeness of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)`$ to $`\lambda (x_L)`$. The inclusive cross sections that we examine for the calculation of the suppression factor $`S`$ are for pions, not nucleons or other baryons. Whereas leading baryons are strongly related to the valence quarks in the projectile, the pions are more associated with the gluons, which undergo conversion to $`q\overline{q}`$ pair before hadronization. The depletion of gluons in the nuclear medium can lead to pion suppression in any direction. Evidence for gluon depletion even in $`pA`$ collisions can be found in the suppression of $`J/\psi `$ production at large $`x_L`$ jp ; hpp . Our result on the closeness of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)`$ and $`\lambda (x_L)`$ may well suggest that gluon depletion is the main mechanism for the suppression of both $`p_T`$ and $`p_L`$ distributions.

In quantitative terms it must be recognized that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_T)`$ is undisputatively larger than $`\lambda (x_L)`$ and therefore provides some comfort that the suppression effect is enhanced when the medium is denser and hotter. What is unexpected is that it is not an order of magnitude larger. In order to fully understand the suppression problem we need a whole set of experiments that measure identified pions at high $`p_T`$ and $`p_L`$ for all combinations of nuclear sizes in $`AB`$ collisions at high energy. It is important to discover what is universal in the nuclear effects on the produced particles, and what is not. The finding in this paper constitutes an interesting and intriguing beginning in that direction.

## Acknowledgment

We acknowledge helpful discussions with H. Huang and A. Tai at the early stage of this work. This work was supported, in part, by the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-96ER40972.

## Appendix

In this Appendix we summarize the basic formulas that relate $`P(x_T,N)`$ to two scaling functions found in hy4 . The first scaling function is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=1200(z^2+2)^{4.8}\left(1+25\mathrm{e}^{4.5z}\right),$$
(46)
which describes the $`p_T`$ distributions at all $`N`$ (number of participants) and all $`\sqrt{s}`$ in terms of one scaling variable

$$z=p_T/K(s,N),$$
(47)
where $`K(s,N)=K(s)K(N)`$, with hy2 ; hy5

$$K(s)=0.69+1.55\times 10^3\sqrt{s},$$
(48)
$$K(N)=1.2266.36\times 10^4N,$$
(49)
$`\sqrt{s}`$ being in units of GeV and $`K(s,N)`$ in units of GeV/c. $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ is related to the $`x_T`$ distribution by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=A(N)k^2(s,N)\frac{1}{x_T}\frac{dN_\pi }{dx_T},$$
(50)
where rapidity density is implied, and

$$A(N)=530N_c(N)^{0.9},N_c(N)=0.44N^{1.33},$$
(51)
and

$$k(s,N)=K(s,N)/K_0,$$
(52)
$`K_0`$ being an arbitrary scale, fixed at 10 GeV/c for the definition of $`x_T`$ in Eq. (2). It is a phenomenological fact that the combination of separate factors on the RHS of Eq. (50) that individually depend on $`x_T`$, $`N`$ and $`s`$ results in a universal function that depends explicitly on the one variable $`z`$ only.

Using Eq. (50) in Eq. (3) yields

$$P(x_T,N)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x_T,N)/_0^1𝑑x_Tx_T\mathrm{\Phi }(x_T,N)$$
(53)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ is expressed in terms of $`x_T`$ and $`N`$ through

$$z=x_T/k(s,N).$$
(54)
Dependences of $`P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`s`$ will not be shown explicitly. With Eq. (53), the distribution $`P(x_T,N)`$ can thus be analytically calculated. However, instead of performing the integration in the denominator for every $`N`$, there is an even simpler relationship that makes use of another scaling function.

It is found in Ref. hy4  that there exists another scaling function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }(z(u))/𝑑uu\mathrm{\Phi }(z(u)),$$
(55)
where

$$u=\frac{p_T}{p_T}=\frac{x_T}{x_T}=\frac{z}{z}.$$
(56)
The new scaling variable $`u`$ endows $`\mathrm{\Psi }(u)`$ with a property that is analogous to the Koba-Nielsen-Olesen (KNO) scaling kno . The average $`z`$, defined by

$$z=\frac{𝑑zz^2\mathrm{\Phi }(z)}{𝑑zz\mathrm{\Phi }(z)},$$
(57)
is a constant $`z=0.414`$, and is related to $`x_T`$ by

$$z=x_T/k(s,N)$$
(58)
due to Eq. (54), where $`x_T`$ is defined by

$$x_T=𝑑x_Tx_T\frac{dN_\pi }{dx_T}/𝑑x_T\frac{dN_\pi }{dx_T}.$$
(59)
A comparison between Eqs. (53) and (55) yields

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(u)=x_T^2P(x_T,N).$$
(60)
It is the combination of Eqs. (56) and (60) that has led us to regard $`\mathrm{\Psi }(u)`$ as a KNO-type scaling. The advantage of dealing with $`u`$ instead of $`z`$ is that $`k(s,N)`$ is not explicitly involved in relating $`u`$ to the observable $`p_T`$. Evaluating Eq. (55), we have hy4

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(u)=2.1\times 10^4(u^2+11.65)^{4.8}\left(1+25e^{1.864u}\right).$$
(61)
Using Eqs. (58) and (60), we now have an algebraic formula for $`P(x_T,N)`$, which can be used directly in Eq. (1) for the suppression factor $`S(x_T,N)`$.