text:
# Electron-doping versus hole-doping in the 2D 𝑡-𝑡' Hubbard model

## 1 Introduction

Viewed from a weak coupling perspective, the two-dimensional Hubbard model exhibits an interesting interplay between different types of fluctuations. Particular attention has been devoted to the situation close to half band filling, mainly because of its relevance to the high-$`T_c`$ superconducting cuprates anderson . For these particle densities, because of the approximate nesting between opposite sides of the Fermi surface (FS) or due to the large density of states around the saddle points of the dispersion at $`(\pi ,0)`$ and $`(0,\pi )`$, the scattering processes with momentum transfer $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ will be strongly enhanced. Besides the fact that these scattering processes drive antiferromagnetic (AF) fluctuations, they also create a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave component in the pair scattering scalapino . One-loop renormalization group (RG) techniques represent a powerful method to analyze the coupling between antiferromagnetic and superconducting fluctuations in an unbiased way (see dzialoshinski ; schulz ; lederer ; zanchi ; furukawa ; halboth ; hmprl ; honerkamp ; tsai  and the present paper).

Apart from the competition between two different types of ground states, the hole-doped $`t`$-$`t^{}`$ Hubbard model close to half filling may exhibit a richer variety of possible ground states especially when umklapp scattering between electrons becomes important. In furukawa  and honerkamp  it was argued that in the case of not-too-small values of the next-nearest neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$, e.g. $`t^{}=0.3t`$, when the FS is close to the saddle points at $`(\pi ,0)`$ and $`(0,\pi )`$, the RG flow to strong coupling between the $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-space regions around the saddle points has strong similarities with the RG flow in the half-filled two-leg Hubbard ladder. In the latter system, the ground state is well understood and is an insulating spin liquid (ISL) fisher . Although there is no reliable theory for the two-dimensional case, the similarity of the RG flows suggests that here as well the true strong coupling state of the $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-space regions around the saddle points is an ISL with a truncated FS. The parameter region in which this interesting flow to strong coupling occurs was called the saddle point regime.

In this paper we investigate the RG flow to strong coupling for band fillings larger than half-filling, corresponding to electron-doping the half-filled system. Again we choose $`t^{}=0.3t`$. The main observation is that in the electron-doped case the saddle point regime of the hole-doped case is absent. Instead of the mutually reinforcing flow between AF and $`d`$-wave pairing processes which was found in the saddle point regime, there is a clear separation between the energy scales of the two channels. We do not find any signs for a Fermi surface truncation around the saddle points. Moreover the ”hot” Brillouin zone (BZ) regions responsible for the leading flow are now located closer to the BZ diagonals. The different result is a direct consequence of the location of the Fermi surface, which in the electron-doped case crosses the umklapp surface (US, defined in Fig. 4) in the BZ diagonal, therefore giving rise to strong scattering between the FS segments on opposite sides connected by the wave vector $`(\pi ,\pi )`$. These AF processes generate only a weak attractive $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ component in the pair scattering channel and do not drive the pairing processes at low scales as they do in the saddle point regime of the hole-doped case. Consequently, upon increasing the band filling such that the $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ processes get cut off, we obtain a rather abrupt transition from a flow to strong coupling dominated by umklapp and AF processes with high critical scale to a Kohn-Luttinger-like instability with predominant $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-Cooper processes at comparably low critical scale. Therefore the electron-doped case considered here strongly resembles the hole-doped cases with small absolute values of $`t^{}`$ analyzed in zanchi  and halboth ; hmprl  and differs from the hole-doped case with $`t^{}=0.3t`$ discussed in honerkamp .

As another piece of information we present results for the scattering rates of quasiparticles at the FS with a RG method described below. These calculations further illustrate the differences between the hole- and electron-doped cases. According to model calculations by Ioffe and Millis ioffe  and also Hlubina hlubina  most transport experiments of the optimally hole-doped cuprates can be properly described by assuming a pronounced anisotropy in the scattering rate. The anisotropy is such that the quasiparticles around the saddle points scatter strongly and their spectral weight becomes smeared out while the quasiparticles in the BZ diagonal are only subject to a weak Fermi-liquid-like scattering. Our RG calculations with frequency-independent coupling constants can certainly not give reliable information about the frequency dependence of the selfenergy. On the other hand their $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-space resolution is rather good. Applying the RG scheme we observe a pronounced angular dependence of $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{}{k}_F,\omega =0)`$ with maximal scattering for particles at the saddle points and weaker scattering in the BZ diagonals. In the electron-doped case, the anisotropy is weaker and the FS regions with the largest scattering rate are located in the BZ diagonals, tied to the intersection of the FS with the US.

Angular resolved photoemission (ARPES) allows one to measure the temperature dependence of Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega =0,\stackrel{}{k}_F)`$ directly from the width of the quasiparticle peaks. For optimally hole-doped Bi 2212, Valla et al. valla  found a linear-$`T`$ dependence almost everywhere on the FS. For a comparison we calculate the quasiparticle scattering rates at high temperatures, where the RG flow does not diverge. Our results for the hole-doped case are qualitatively similar to the experimental data. In the electron-doped case the RG calculations yield a non-linear $`T`$-dependence of the scattering rates closer to conventional $`T^2`$ behavior.

## 2 The method

Here we describe the RG method and the scheme for the calculation of the quasiparticle scattering rates. Readers who are only interested in the results can proceed to the next section.

### 2.1 RG flow of interactions and susceptibilities

The interplay between the different fluctuations mentioned in the introduction can be appropriately analyzed within one-loop RG where one successively integrates out intermediate states according to their band energy $`ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}`$. For the two-dimensional Hubbard model on the square lattice with nearest neighbor hopping $`t`$ and next-nearest neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$,

$$ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}=2t\left(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y\right)4t^{}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y\mu ,$$

where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential and the lattice constant is set to unity.

The RG scheme for 1PI irreducible vertex functions which we use is explained and discussed in detail in Ref. salmhofer . Here we give simple graphical explanation of the RG flow for the two- and four-point vertex functions. The flow of higher order irreducible vertex functions is not taken into account.

The differential equations for the two-point vertex (yielding the scale-dependent selfenergy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega )`$) and the four-point vertex function, which describe their RG flow with decreasing energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, are described graphically in Fig. 1. At the internal vertices we have four-point vertex functions at scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ connecting the incoming and outgoing lines with the internal ones. Crystal momenta and Matsubara frequencies are conserved at the vertices. One of the two internal lines corresponds to a so-called single scale propagator $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is only non-zero for modes at scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ while the other line denotes a full Green’s function $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with low energy modes below scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cut out through a cutoff function $`C(\mathrm{\Lambda },|ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}|)`$. Throughout this paper we neglect possible self-energy corrections, therefore we have

$$G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega )=\frac{C(\mathrm{\Lambda },|ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}|)}{i\omega ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}}\text{and}S_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega )=\frac{_\mathrm{\Lambda }C(\mathrm{\Lambda },|ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}|)}{i\omega ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}}.$$

The scale-dependent spin-rotation invariant four-point vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{k}_1,s_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,s_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3,s_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4,s_4)`$ can be expressed in terms of a coupling function $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$ honerkamp ; salmhofer  which is determined for the case $`s_1=s_3`$ and $`s_2=s_4`$. The $`s_i`$ denote the $`z`$-components of the spins of incoming ($`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$) and outgoing ($`s_3`$ and $`s_4`$) particles. $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$ is represented graphically in Fig. 2. This means that the electron-electron interaction at energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a function of the two incoming wave vectors $`\stackrel{}{k}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ and one outgoing wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}_3`$. For the bare Hubbard interaction at starting scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_04t`$, we set $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3)=U`$. For all calculations in this paper we choose $`U=3t`$. The flow of $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$ with decreasing the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is then given by all types of one-loop diagrams including particle-particle and particle-hole diagrams with all possible momentum transfers (see Fig. 3).

For the numerical integration of these coupled equations we use a phase space discretization following Zanchi and Schulz zanchi . The BZ is divided up into $`nN`$ patches centered around $`N`$ lines. Each line starts from the origin in a certain angular direction $`\theta (k)`$ and from the $`(\pm \pi ,\pm \pi )`$-points so that the lines meet at the umklapp surface. The phase space segments around these lines are then further split into $`n`$ patches. Here we took $`n=3`$ where one patch per line is centered around the FS with e.g. $`|ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})|<0.4t`$, while the other two patches cover phase space regions at higher positive or negative band energy.

Then the coupling function is discretized as follows: we approximate $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$ by a constant for all wave vectors in the same patches and calculate the RG flow for the subset of interaction vertices with one wavevector representative for each patch. In the low energy patches around the FS we choose to take these wave vectors as the crossing points of the $`N`$ lines with the Fermi surface (FS), the wave vectors for the remaining patches away from the FS correspond to a higher band energy, e.g. $`|ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})|=0.8t`$ (see Fig. 4). The phase space space integrations are performed as sums over the patches and integrations over the radial direction along 3 or 5 lines inside each patch. Most calculations were done using a 32$`\times `$3 system, i.e. $`N=32`$ and $`n=3`$. Two typical Fermi surfaces with $`N=32`$ points are shown in Fig. 5.

Along with the flow of the interactions we calculate several static susceptibilities by coupling external fields of appropriate form to the electrons. During the flow these external coupling are renormalized through one-loop vertex corrections, as described in Ref. honerkamp . The pairing and AF susceptibilities can be calculated directly with the RG flow of the coupling function. The susceptibilities and couplings to uniform external charge and spin fields require special care as they only involve particle-hole excitations in a shell around the FS with width of the temperature. Before the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reaches that scale the interactions have typically grown larger than the bandwidth such that the one-loop flow is not reliable any longer. In order to get a qualitative result for these cases we stop the flow of the interactions at a certain scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$ and treat them as constants in the continuation of the flow of the susceptibilities down to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ where we obtain the main contributions to the uniform susceptibilities. This is basically equivalent to stopping the RG flow at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$ and calculating these susceptibilities for the effective theory below the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$ within RPA (random phase approximation) using the renormalized interactions given by the RG down to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$. A similar way to obtain the uniform susceptibilities from the flow of the Landau function has been used in Ref. halboth .

### 2.2 Approximate calculation of the scattering rates

Here we describe an approximation scheme for the calculation of the imaginary part of the selfenergy from the flow of coupling function. The technical problem occurring in the RG formalism presented above is that we have neglected all frequency dependencies of the four-point vertex, hence the four-point vertex in the one-loop contribution to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in Fig. 1 is a real quantity and the diagram does not give an imaginary part. This deficiency can be repaired to a large extent by replacing the approximate frequency-independent vertex with the solution of the one-loop RG equation for the four-point vertex in its integral form. This effectively yields a two-loop term corresponding to a two-particle–one-hole intermediate state which, after analytical continuation to real frequencies, gives a non-vanishing imaginary part. Moreover these contributions to Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are the leading ones, because all neglected contributions from further insertions of one-loop diagrams at the vertices have intermediate states with a number of intermediate particles larger than 3 and can therefore be expected to give only small contributions due to phase space restrictions. If we ignored the flow of the coupling constants and integrated the expression thus obtained down to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, we would retrieve the bare two-loop selfenergy. In this paper we neglect the feedback of the selfenergy on the flow of the coupling function. In principal this effect is contained in the RG equations but keeping it would increase the complexity of the calculations considerably.

Formally we can calculate the selfenergy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(\stackrel{}{k}_F,i\omega )`$ at the FS for Matsubara frequency $`i\omega `$ by integrating the RG differential equation for the scale-dependent selfenergy depicted in Fig. 1 as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(\stackrel{}{k}_F,i\omega )={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^0}𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k^{}}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{i\omega ^{}}{}}`$
$`\left[2V_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{k}_F,\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}_F)+V_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{k}_F,\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}^{})\right]S_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{k}^{},i\omega ^{})`$
For $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we now substitute the differential equation for the four-point vertex, integrated from the starting scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ down to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This corresponds to inserting the one-loop diagram on the right side of Fig. 1 into the self-energy graph on the left side. Then we get a second integral over $`d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(\stackrel{}{k}_F,i\omega )={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^0}𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}{\displaystyle V_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}G_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}S_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}S_\mathrm{\Lambda }V_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}`$ (1)
Here the sum is over all internal wavevectors, frequencies and spin indices of the different possible diagrams. For simplicity we have suppressed the arguments of the four-point vertices and propagators in this expression. Obviously, repeating the insertion of scale-integrated one-loop terms for the vertices yields a perturbation expansion of the self-energy with arbitrary numbers of intermediate states. Here we restrict the analysis to the contributions from the two-loop term (1), which contains the Landau-Fermi liquid selfenergy and the deviations from it through the flow to strong coupling of the coupling function $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

In the integrand in (1), the two four-point vertices $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, one single scale propagator $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ and one full propagator $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ depend on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. The only $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dependence is in the differentiated cutoff-function $`\dot{C}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ of the original single-scale propagator $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Therefore (1) has the structure

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(\stackrel{}{k}_F,i\omega )=_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^0𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }\dot{C}(\mathrm{\Lambda })_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}R(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}).$$

The double scale integral is numerically expensive, but we can circumvent it by a partial integration, resulting in

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(\stackrel{}{k}_F,i\omega )={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^0𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }\left[C(0)C(\mathrm{\Lambda })\right]R(\mathrm{\Lambda })}.`$ (2)
The remainder $`R(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ contains one single scale propagator at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and a propagator for modes above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The difference of cutoff functions in the rectangular brackets means that the third of the three internal lines has its support on modes below the cutoff. The form (2) only contains a single $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-integral and the vertex functions at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Therefore it can be integrated along with the flow of the four-point vertex. Note however that for consistency with (1) we should always integrate out the full scale range.

Diagrammatically the insertion of the one-loop flow into the one-loop diagram for the selfenergy yields three topologically different diagrams which are shown in Fig. 6. Each of these three diagrams gives 6 contributions: one of the internal line contains modes above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, another modes at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the third below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Since we are interested in the quasiparticle scattering rates, we perform an analytical continuation onto the real frequency axis: the integrand of the two diagrams (a) and (b) in Fig. 6 contains the factor

$$\frac{1}{i\omega ϵ_1ϵ_2+ϵ_3}$$

which upon replacing $`i\omega \omega +i\delta `$ with $`\omega =0`$ yields an imaginary part $`\delta (ϵ_1+ϵ_2ϵ_3)`$. The $`\delta `$-function is smeared with a small width for the numerical treatment.

One can show that for scale-independent vertices, e.g. all $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3)=U`$, this scheme is equivalent to the calculation of the bare two-loop diagram. Thus for ordinary cases where the flow does not diverge we should obtain two-dimensional Fermi-liquid results. In our case the flow goes to strong coupling, and this leaves two possibilities for the analysis: either we choose a high temperature such that the couplings do not become too large, then we can apply the above scheme down to zero scale and obtain an estimate for the imaginary part of the selfenergy above the strong coupling phase. The other option is, if we want to analyze the situation in the strong coupling regime, to stop the flow of the couplings at some scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$ and integrate the flow down to zero scale with fixed couplings. We can then vary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$ and thus obtain the change in the imaginary part of the selfenergy due to the flow of the couplings. This will tell us on which FS parts the renormalized interactions weaken the quasiparticles most and we will e.g. find that in the hole-doped case the quasiparticles in the BZ diagonals are not affected by strong scattering. The results of both types of analysis are described in Section 6.

## 3 Comparison of the flows to strong coupling

First we compare the RG flow of the interactions. For the chosen parameters we generally find a flow to strong coupling, i.e. at sufficiently low scales and temperatures some components of the coupling function $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }(k_1,k_2,k_3)`$ take absolute values larger than the band energy. We analyze the flow to strong coupling at scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ where the coupling functions just exceed the order of the bare bandwidth, i.e. at $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_W,\mathrm{max}.}812t`$. At these scales and for typical temperatures, the coupling functions have already developed a pronounced $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-space structure and the dominant interaction terms at this scale will certainly be important for the strong coupling state. On the other hand the FS shift due to one-loop selfenergy corrections is still small honerkamp  such that it does not qualitatively change the flow above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$. Similarly the scattering rate for particles at the FS (see below) remains smaller than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$. Note however that at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ and for initial interaction $`U=3t`$ the flow has not reached an asymptotic form and different classes of coupling constants would evolve differently if we continued the flow below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ (where our method breaks down). Therefore the analysis of the flow to strong coupling remains qualitative and does not provide definitive conclusions about the true strong coupling state.

### 3.1 Hole-doped model

The hole-doped case with $`t^{}=0.3t`$ was extensively discussed in Ref. honerkamp . In order to simplify the comparison with results for the electron-doped case we repeat the main observations briefly. We found that in the density region where the FS crosses the US close to the saddle points the dominant processes which grow fastest upon integrating out higher energy modes are given by mutually reinforcing umklapp and Cooper processes between the saddle point regions. This leads to a flow to strong coupling at relatively high critical scales. The scattering processes involving quasiparticles in the BZ diagonals grow as well but they are merely driven by the couplings between the saddle points and diverge less rapidly. These results are shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. Starting the flow with purely repulsive interaction, the Cooper channel will initially always decrease the values of the Cooper scatterings. However if the FS is close to the saddle points the particle-hole channel with the rapidly growing umklapp processes also affects the large angle pair scattering processes which involve momentum transfer $`(\pi ,\pi )`$. In the saddle point regime of the hole-doped case this effect is stronger than the suppression through the Cooper channel and the large angle pair scattering processes grow upon reducing the energy scale which in turn enhances the flow of the small angle pair scattering to negative values. Similarly it can be also seen that the growth of the $`d`$-wave pair scattering enhances the flow of the umklapp $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ processes. In the saddle point regime with the FS close to the $`(0,\pi )`$ and $`(\pi ,0)`$-points this mutual reinforcement between $`d`$-wave and AF processes is very effective as it only involves low-energy quasiparticles. Therefore $`d`$-wave and AF processes diverge together at a single high energy scale.

### 3.2 Flow in the electron-doped case

For the electron-doped side we again take $`t^{}=0.3t`$. Here, unlike the hole-doped case, smaller absolute values of $`t^{}`$ yield a similar picture, only the critical scales become larger due to the improved nesting. Half-filling corresponds to $`\mu =0.65t`$. Upon increasing $`\mu `$ and $`n`$, the FS crosses the US close to the BZ diagonals until $`\mu =0t`$ and then loses contact to the US if we further increase the particle number. At these densities the flow to strong coupling changes drastically, therefore we concentrate on this filling range. In Fig. 10 we show the flow to strong coupling for two different chemical potentials: in the upper plots $`\mu =0.1t`$ and the FS intersects the umklapp surface close to the BZ diagonals. Here the dominant processes which become large at comparably high energy scales are umklapp processes between the BZ diagonals involving the momentum transfer $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ (see solid lines in Fig. 10 and the sharp features in Fig. 9).

The Cooper processes between particles at the FS have dominant $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-symmetry but remain of the order of the bandwidth even when we integrate the flow far out of the perturbative range. Thus the coupling to the strongly growing AF processes is only weak, as expected from the location of the FS. Consequently the characteristic energy scales where AF and $`d`$-wave channels start to grow are very different, in strong contrast to the saddle point regime of the hole-doped case. Nonetheless we can still find signs of a coupling between $`d`$-wave and AF channel: if we consider Cooper processes for particles at the saddle points below the FS we find a much stronger growth towards lower scales (see dashed-dotted lines in Fig. 10). A large angle Cooper pair scattering between two inequivalent saddle points involves momentum transfer $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ and is therefore enhanced by the AF processes. But unlike the saddle point regime in the hole-doped case, the $`k`$-space regions where the coupling occurs are away from the FS and therefore there is only a weak influence of this mechanism on the true low-energy excitations. One should also note that in more realistic calculations including self-energy effects the coupling through off-FS processes will be further reduced by the short lifetimes of the quasiparticles in these regions.

Increasing the band filling such that the FS loses its intersection with the US, the umklapp and other $`(\pi ,\pi )`$-processes in the diagonals get cut off and saturate at low scales (see solid lines in the lower left plot of Fig. 10). Thus the $`d`$-wave Cooper processes can finally diverge at very low scales (at least two orders of magnitude lower than in the previous case). The Cooper pair scattering is shown in in the inset of Fig. 10. Again the off-FS $`d`$-wave Cooper processes closer to the saddle points benefit more from the AF scattering processes and grow more strongly than the Cooper processes for pairs at the FS, but this difference becomes less with increasing particle density away from half-filling. Apart from this side-effect we emphasize that in this low-scale $`d`$-wave regime only Cooper processes diverge. Umklapp and and nesting processes are cut off and do not develop singularities.

## 4 Flow of the susceptibilities

Next we compare the flow of various susceptibilities. First we analyze the real parts of the static $`d`$-wave pairing susceptibility $`\chi _{d\mathrm{wave}}`$ and the AF susceptibility $`\chi _s(\pi ,\pi )`$. Moreover, as a kind of cross-check, we analyze the coupling to uniform static charge and spin fields for electrons at different points on the Fermi surface .

In the saddle point regime of the hole-doped case the overall behavior of these probes together with general features of the RG flow of the couplings indicated the tendency towards formation of an insulating spin liquid: both $`\chi _{d\mathrm{wave}}`$ and $`\chi _s(\pi ,\pi )`$ diverge together in a similar way (see Fig. 8) and in view of the mutual reinforcement between both channels it is very plausible that the strong coupling state will incorporate both types of fluctuations. On the other hand the coupling of the saddle point regions to uniform charge and spin fields becomes increasingly suppressed in the RG flow (the charge couplings are shown in the left plot in Fig. 11), suggesting the opening of charge and spin gaps around the saddle points. In contrast to that the charge coupling for quasiparticles in the BZ diagonals does not renormalize to zero. This anisotropic flow is consistent with a truncation of the FS at the saddle points while the BZ diagonals remain metallic. The flow of the scattering rates described in Sec. 6 corroborates this scenario.

In the electron-doped case the situation is rather different. Since $`d`$-wave and AF channel do not couple strongly the corresponding susceptibilities have very different flows. While $`\chi _s(\pi ,\pi )`$ already grows considerably at higher scales and eventually diverges if the system is not far away from half filling, $`\chi _{d\mathrm{wave}}`$ becomes large only at low scales. We therefore expect that the system will have only two different phases if we allow for a sufficient amount of 3D coupling: one AF phase with higher critical scale and temperature, and, if we increase the band filling such that the instability in the latter channel becomes cut off by the FS curvature, a rapid drop in the energy scale with a low-$`T`$ Kohn-Luttinger-type $`d`$-wave phase. This – compared to the saddle point regime – more conventional picture is also supported by the behavior of the uniform susceptibilities and the $`k`$-space dependence of the coupling to the corresponding external fields: the coupling to uniform charge fields (see right plot in Fig. 11) is not strongly suppressed, i.e. there are no pronounced indications for incompressible or truncated parts of the FS in our weak-coupling analysis. The reduction of the charge couplings becomes even weaker when the filling is increased. In contrast to the hole-doped case the strongest suppression now occurs for wavevectors in the BZ diagonals, in agreement with the fact that Umklapp processes flow most strongly there (see inset in the right plot of Fig. 11). Again this type of anisotropy compares well the angular-dependent quasiparticle lifetimes obtained with the RG calculations described below and FLEX (fluctuation exchange approximation) kontani .

## 5 Tentative phase diagram for the electron-doped case

The tentative phase diagram for the hole-doped Hubbard model extracted from the one-loop flow to strong coupling was discussed in honerkamp . Here present a schematic phase diagram for the electron-doped side.

Generally with this type of calculations it is difficult to determine exact phase boundaries, e.g. the parameters where the ground state changes from AF to $`d`$-wave superconducting long range order. Nor can we actually prove the existence of the phases suggested by one-loop flow. Selfenergy and higher order effects will become large once the coupling functions exceed the order of the band width and from the flow below that scale it is impossible to tell whether the different classes of couplings really diverge or not. Similarly fluctuations around possible ordered states are not taken into account properly. Nevertheless since in the electron-doped case we observe two different tendencies which are weakly coupled and dominate on opposite sides of the considered density range, we can well discriminate between distinct regimes with different dominant fluctuations. If long range order is possible (at $`T=0`$ or at finite $`T`$ if we add some degree of three-dimensional coupling), its type will most probably correspond to the dominant fluctuations visible in the one-loop RG. Bearing in mind these remarks, we present a schematic phase diagram for the case $`t^{}=0.3t`$ and initial $`U=3t`$ in Fig. 12. For chemical potential $`\mu <0.03t`$ (which corresponds to $`n1.21`$ per site) we find an AF dominated instability with comparably high critical temperature $`T_c`$ (above $`T_c`$ we can integrate down to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ with all couplings staying smaller than 15$`t`$.). For larger chemical potential the instability is $`d`$-wave dominated. The criterion we used for the distinction was the derivative of $`\chi _{d\mathrm{wave}}`$ and $`\chi _s(\pi ,\pi )`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ when the maximal coupling grows larger than 12$`t`$. We repeat that this distinction does not allow any quantitative predictions for the true phase diagram. In particular the critical scales and temperatures for the $`d`$-wave phase strongly depend on the criterion used to separate the regimes<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1If we chose to compare the susceptibilities at higher values of the couplings, i.e. $`20t`$ instead of $`12t`$, the $`d`$-wave phase would extend further to smaller electron-dopings (to approx. $`\mu =0.01t`$). Very close to the instability however, when the coupling function becomes huge, our one-loop RG scheme cannot be justified..

In the electron-doped case considered here there are two disparate energy scales. The first one, which can be high close to half filling, is related to the AF-$`(\pi ,\pi )`$ processes between the BZ diagonals. The second energy scale is given by the critical scale of the $`d`$-wave Cooper channel and remains much lower close to half-filling. Only if the AF energy scale becomes too low at increased doping, when the FS curvature prevents a real flow to strong coupling of the AF processes, an instability in the $`d`$-wave Cooper channel can occur. In the present case, the crossover energy scale is mainly determined by the particle density which regulates the overlap of the FS with the US, i.e. the low energy phase space available for elastic scattering with momentum transfer $`(\pi ,\pi )`$. A qualitatively similar picture was found by Manske et al. manske  who solved the generalized Eliashberg equations with a spin-fluctuation induced pairing interaction obtained within a FLEX scheme.

As mentioned above, on the electron-doped side the flow to strong coupling is qualitatively similar for all $`t^{}<0`$, only the critical scales and relative widths of the regimes change. Thus for band fillings larger than one particle per site our observations for $`t^{}=0.3t`$ are in full qualitative agreement with the results of Zanchi and Schulz zanchi  for $`t^{}=0`$ and Halboth and Metzner halboth ; hmprl  for smaller absolute values of the next-nearest neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$. In particular in the analysis of Ref. hmprl  the $`d`$-wave channel becomes dominant roughly when the FS loses its intersection with the US upon increasing the electron density.

## 6 Scattering rates

### 6.1 Hole-doped case

Here we describe our results for the quasiparticle scattering rates in the hole-doped case. There we are mainly interested in electron densities corresponding to the saddle point regime honerkamp  briefly described above, because there the flow to strong coupling becomes qualitatively different from the $`d`$-wave superconducting instability at lower densities. Again, since we cannot prove the FS truncation suggested by the flow in the saddle point regime, our main goal is to analyze whether the behavior of the scattering rates is consistent with this scenario.

Typical results for the scattering rates in the saddle point regime ($`\mu =1.1t`$) above the critical temperature obtained with the method described in Subsec. 2.2 are shown in Fig. 13. The temperature was chosen such that the couplings $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ do not become too large when we integrate the flow to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, for the lowest $`T`$ shown the maximum coupling reaches $`11.5t`$. This is already larger than the bandwidth, but this high value is only reached at low scales and most couplings remain smaller. Therefore the results should be qualitatively correct. An anisotropy in the scattering rate is clearly observable but not too pronounced, the maximum ratio between Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at the saddle points and in the diagonals at $`\pi /4`$ is $`2`$. The temperature dependence of Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{}{k}_F,\omega =0)`$ is shown in Fig. 13 for $`\mu =1.1t`$ which is above the saddle point regime and close to the van Hove doping at $`\mu =1.2t`$. All curves for the different positions on the Fermi surface show an almost linear increase with $`T`$. Both, the angular variation and the temperature dependence, are qualitatively consistent with the ARPES results by Valla et al. valla <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Valla et al. valla  find a leveling off of the scattering rate very close to the saddle points at lowest $`T`$ in the normal state, which is not present in our results. If this is an intrinsic effect of the CuO<sub>2</sub>-planes, it may be beyond our weak coupling calculation.. In comparison with the model assumptions in ioffe  we note that our calculations at temperatures above the flow to strong coupling yield a smaller anisotropy in the scattering rates and no $`T^2`$ behavior for the quasiparticles in the BZ diagonal. Our data resemble more FLEX results obtained by Kontani et al. kontani  Altmann et al. altmann . The first group was able to describe resistivity and Hall coefficients in qualitative agreement with the experiments. For high temperatures the qualitative similarity between FLEX calculations and our RG analysis is not accidental because for $`T>T_c`$ when the flow does not diverge, the main scattering occurs in the $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ spin fluctuation channel which the typical FLEX schemes focus on.

From a theoretical point of view the linear-$`T`$ dependence is not unexpected because already the bare two-loop diagram with unrenormalized couplings yields this behavior if the band filling is sufficiently close to the van Hove filling lee ; kastrinakis . Hence it should be considered as an effect of the van Hove singularities and does not immediately imply a breakdown of the quasiparticle concept .

For lower temperatures the coupling function flows to strong coupling at a non-zero critical scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$. Therefore we cannot integrate the flow down to zero scale and do not obtain a good approximation for Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with the above method. At $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ the selfenergy diverges together with the couplings and we expect that the quasiparticles will be at least partially destroyed. Although we cannot really access this strong coupling region, we can gain some insight on how this quasiparticle destruction takes place by considering the change in the two-loop selfenergy through the flow of the coupling function. The results for $`\mu =t`$ and $`T=0.04t`$ are shown in Fig. 14. If we freeze the flow of the four point vertices $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ already at high scales, we basically obtain the bare two-loop selfenergy when we integrate the RG equation for the selfenergy down to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. There, the anisotropy between saddle point regions and BZ diagonals is small. If we now subsequently include the flow of $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by reducing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$, the scattering rate for quasiparticles around the saddle points grows strongly. For the quasiparticles in the BZ diagonals the scattering rate is not much affected by the flow of the couplings. Thus the flow of the scattering rates for these values of the band filling is consistent with a breaking up of the FS into two distinct regions, as suggested in honerkamp  based on an analysis of the flow of the coupling function and susceptibilities: around the saddle points, the quasiparticles are subject to divergent scattering processes, there we also found the strong suppression of the charge compressibility. In the BZ diagonals which appeared to remain compressible, the scattering rate stays in the weak coupling range, consistent with the FS remaining untruncated in these regions.

When the band filling is increased further towards half-filling the energy and temperature scale for the flow to strong coupling rises and the anisotropy of the scattering rates at temperatures above this flow to strong coupling becomes weaker. The reason is that the scattering processes between the saddle point regions lose their dominant role, and the strongest scattering processes occur between FS parts connected by $`(\pi ,\pi )`$, now closer to the BZ diagonals.

### 6.2 Electron-doped case

In Fig. 15 we show the results for the electron-doped case obtained at higher temperatures where the flow does not exceed the order of the bandwidth. There are striking differences compared to the results obtained in the hole-doped saddle point regime. First the overall magnitude of Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{}{k}_F,\omega =0)`$ at a given temperature is much smaller, almost by an order of magnitude. We attribute this to the reduced density of states around the FS, the van Hove singularities are far away from the FS. Second the temperature dependence of the scattering rates is far from being linear and appears to be roughly consistent with a $`T^2`$-behavior at low temperatures above the flow to strong coupling<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3In an isotropic two-dimensional Fermi liquid, we expect Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega =0,\stackrel{}{k}_F)(T/T_F)^2\mathrm{log}(T_F/T)`$ chaplik ; hodges . Since our calculations are rather qualitative we do not attempt a detailed comparison of the data with this $`T`$-dependence.. The data for $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-points in the BZ diagonal do not extrapolate to 0 for $`T0`$ due to the increase of the coupling function at lower $`T`$. Further, the anisotropy of the scattering rate is different and much weaker than in the hole-doped case. The FS parts which feel the strongest scattering at lower $`T`$ are now in the BZ diagonal (see right plot in Fig. 15 for angular dependence). This is consistent with the flow of the interactions which grow fastest in these regions. Our results also agree qualitatively with FLEX calculations kontani ; altmann , which show that the in the electron-doped case the ”hot spots” with the shortest quasiparticle-lifetime move towards the BZ diagonal. Nonetheless due to the weakness of the anisotropy the data do not suggest a truncation of the FS like in the hole-doped case. This can be also seen at lower temperatures (see Fig. 16), where flow of the scattering rates remains comparably weak when the coupling function flows to strong coupling.

## 7 Discussion

We have presented $`N`$-patch RG results for the two-dimensional $`t`$-$`t^{}`$ Hubbard model with particle density $`n>1`$ per site and $`t^{}=0.3t`$. We have shown that the RG flow to strong coupling is qualitatively different from the $`n<1`$ case because of the different location of the FS in both cases. The saddle-point regime honerkamp  which we associated with the pseudogap state in the (hole-)underdoped cuprates is absent in our RG study of the electron-doped side. Instead the picture closely resembles the observations made by Zanchi and Schulz zanchi  and Halboth and Metzner halboth ; hmprl  for zero or smaller absolute value of the next-nearest neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$. Upon increasing the electron density we find a rapid decrease of the critical scale for the instability where the flow of the otherwise strongly growing AF susceptibility is cut off. This leaves a small window for a Kohn-Luttinger-type $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave instability at lower scales and temperatures. The tendency towards incompressibility and truncation of parts of the FS is weaker than in the hole-doped case and strongest in the BZ diagonal. At temperatures above the strongly coupled phase we find slightly anisotropic scattering rates with strongest scattering of quasiparticles, i.e. ”hot spots” in the BZ diagonal. The temperature dependence of the scattering rates is roughly quadratic.

Indeed the experimental phase diagram of the electron-doped cuprates shows a relatively wide AF phase with a boundary to superconducting phase with lower critical temperature. There is increasing experimental evidence tsuei ; prozorov ; mourachkine ; armitage  that the pairing symmetry of this phase is $`d_{x^2y^2}`$. Moreover the in-plane resistivity in the normal state shows a quadratic temperature dependence tsueigupta ; peng .

Note that in our RG study the difference between the energy scales characteristic to these phases is considerably larger than the experimental values. However one should keep in mind that our one-loop analysis can only provide a qualitative picture for the understanding of the real materials. In particular we cannot make any predictions about the stability of the phases suggested by the RG flow and the precise location of the transition from AF to $`d`$-wave regime. In fact the Fermi surface in Nd<sub>1.85</sub>Ce<sub>0.15</sub>CuO<sub>4</sub> with a superconducting $`T_c`$ of 24$`K`$ seen by ARPES armitage  still intersects the Umklapp surface. Thus it might be that our criterion for the transition from AF to $`d`$-wave regime overestimates the width of the AF regime.

The saddle point regime in the hole-doped case with the diverging umklapp processes was interpreted as a precursor of the Mott state where the FS becomes truncated at the saddle points honerkamp . The anisotropic scattering rates described above, which grow strongest at the saddle points as the flow goes to strong coupling, are consistent with this scenario. Due to the location of the FS the diverging umklapp processes also generate strong $`d`$-wave pairing correlations. In this situation the $`d`$-wave-paired condensate which may form at sufficiently low temperature will still be subject to the umklapp scattering at the saddle points where the FS becomes truncated. This may result in a reduced superfluid weight arising from the open parts of the FS in the BZ diagonals only.

In the electron-doped case the umklapp and other AF processes predominantly occur between the BZ diagonals and do not strongly drive the $`d`$-wave correlations, they can only lead to a rapid growth of AF correlations. Thus, instead of being strongly coupled and mutually reinforcing each other in the flow, AF and $`d`$-wave channel have disparate characteristic energy scales and influence each other only weakly. As soon as the umklapp processes in the BZ diagonals flow to strong coupling, the instability is entirely dominated by AF correlations because the energy scale of the $`d`$-wave instability is much lower. This implies that coming from the electron-overdoped side the precursors of the Mott state only occur in the AF phase and should have less influence on the $`d`$-wave state. In particular we speculate that in the superconducting state all electrons contribute to the superfluid weight in contrast with the hole-(under)doped case.

It is a pleasure to thank T.M. Rice, M. Salmhofer, U. Ledermann, K. Lehur, M. Zhitomirsky, R. Hlubina and D. Vollhardt for stimulating discussions. The Swiss National Science Foundation is acknowledged for financial support. The numerical calculations were performed on the Asgard Beowulf cluster of ETH Zürich.


format: text

text:
# The evolutionary time scale of Sakurai’s object: A test of convection theory?

## 1 Introduction

Sakurai’s object (V4334 Sgr) has displayed a dramatically fast evolution both in stellar parameters and in chemical abundance pattern (Duerbeck et al., 1997; Asplund et al., 1999; Duerbeck et al., 2000). In 1976 it was possibly detected by the ESO/SERC survey close to the detection limit of mJ=21 (Pollacco, 1999) which coincides with the stellar parameters of a pre-white dwarf (WD) in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (see Fig. 1). While this measurement is an important consistency check, the last non-detection in 1994 at the limiting magnitude of mV=15.5 and the first positive detection at mV=12.4 by Takamizawa in 1995 (see Duerbeck et al., 1997) represents a stringent constraint on the evolutionary speed (Fig. 1). This evolution has been interpreted as the result of a final He-flash which occurred in 1994. By early 1996 the star had reached $`\mathrm{log}L/\mathrm{L}_{}3.8`$ and cooled to well below $`\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}4`$. Since then it has continued to cool and brighten while displaying RCrBr-like red declines. Thus, according to the observational evidence, V4334 Sgr must have completed the *born again evolution* from the pre-WD stage to its current appearance as a giant in about two years. This interpretation is supported by photoionization modeling of the planetary nebula of V4334 Sgr (Pollacco, 1999; Kerber et al., 1999). These models place the central star at an HRD location which is compatible with a pre-WD central star.

The born again time scale of the related object FG Sge has been successfully used to derive the stellar mass under the assumption that the star has gone through a *late thermal pulse* (Blöcker & Schönberner, 1997). Applying the same procedure to V4334 Sgr leads to an extremely large stellar mass of about 1$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ as noted by Duerbeck et al. (2000). Such a high mass would require the long distance scale ($`d8\mathrm{kpc}`$) in disagreement with independent distance determinations (such as the extinction method; Kimeswenger & Kerber, 1998), which yield distances as low as $`d1.1\mathrm{kpc}`$.

There is more compelling evidence from nucleosynthesis that V4334 Sgr is not very massive. The abundance ratio N/O in the planetary nebula (PN) is well below unity (Pollacco, 1999). The PN material reflects the envelope composition during the very last phase on the AGB. According to recent stellar evolution calculations by Lattanzio & Forestini (1999), AGB stars with the highest mass have a continuously increasing N/O ratio due to hot-bottom burning and eventually the ratio exceeds unity, e.g. at $`M_{\mathrm{ZAMS}}=6\mathrm{M}_{}`$ in the case of solar metallicity. Therefore V4334 Sgr cannot have the highest possible mass.

In fact, V4334 Sgr must be of even lower mass than required by the N/O constraint. Asplund et al. (1999) report a significant lithium abundance which increased over the six month period covered by their observation in 1996 ($`0.51.0`$ dex above initial solar). This amount of lithium cannot be inherited from a previous evolutionary phase but must be a nucleosynthesis product of the special conditions of the final flash (Herwig & Langer, 2001). Because any mechanism of lithium creation relies on a readily available reservoir of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$, the progenitor star must have avoided hot-bottom burning altogether and thus V4334 Sgr is less massive than $`0.7\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

While observationally the very short evolutionary time scale with a probably normal CSPNe (central star of PNe) seems well established, a theoretical explanation of this phenomenon is lacking. Here it should be noted that two different kinds of models of the final flash have been constructed. Most models are *late thermal pulse* (LTP) evolutionary sequences (which applies to FG Sge). The thermal pulse occurs while the star is still on the horizontal crossing from the AGB to the CSPNe phase at constant luminosity. During this first post-AGB phase the H-shell is still active and prevents the mixing of envelope material into the He-flash convection zone during the thermal pulse. The born again evolution is energetically driven by the He-flash. For these LTP models $`\tau _{\mathrm{BA}}`$ (= time of return to AGB - time of occurrence of LTP/VLTP) is about $`100200\mathrm{yr}`$ (Blöcker, 1995; Schönberner, 1979) and thus clearly in disagreement with the observation of V4334 Sgr.

Both the possible ESO/SERC detection in 1976 and the photoionization models indicate that the post-AGB thermal pulse has occurred very late when the star has already been approaching the WD cooling sequence in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. In this case of a *very late thermal pulse* (VLTP) the H-burning has stopped and the protons in the envelope are mixed down into the He-flash convection zone where they burn on the convective time scale. Because the nuklear burning and convective mixing occurs on the same time scale at the same location, a special numerical treatment is required. Iben et al. (1983) circumvented this problem in their model calculation of the VLTP by ignoring the nuclear energy released by proton captures in the He-flash zone. Energetically their model resembles more that of the LTP and they found $`\tau _{\mathrm{BA}}`$ to be of the order of a few hundred years (from their Fig. 1), similar to the LTP born again evolution. Another VLTP model sequence has been presented by Iben and MacDonald (1995) with $`\tau _{\mathrm{BA}}=17\mathrm{yr}`$. This is closer to the born again time scale of V4334 Sgr, although still too large by a factor of $`34`$. The difference of the two values of $`\tau _{\mathrm{BA}}`$ is probably related to the treatment of hydrogen burning.

The VLTP sequence by Herwig et al. (1999) takes the nuclear energy generation by proton captures in the He-flash convection zone into account. For this purpose a numerical scheme has been developed which consistently couples the nuclear network equations with the equations of time-dependent convective element mixing (Herwig & Koesterke, 2001). However, for this sequence we found $`\tau _{\mathrm{BA}}350\mathrm{yr}`$. Therefore, this model is not in agreement with V4334 Sgr.

In this paper we demonstrate that the very short born again evolution time can be reproduced by stellar models if the efficiency of element mixing in the He-flash convection zone is reduced compared to the mixing velocity predicted by the mixing-length theory (MLT).

## 2 Results

The born again evolution of V4334 Sgr is another case of the general problem of why stars become red giants. It is well known that the non-linear stellar structure equations as a boundary value problem have multiple solutions which may be associated with different topologies (e.g. Sugimoto & Fujimoto, 2000). If the assumption of thermal equilibrium is relaxed, the transition between solutions of different topologies can be obtained. This leads to the initial value problem of stellar evolution. In order to switch from a dwarf structure to a giant structure the entropy of the envelope has to be increased.

In the VLTP model of Herwig et al. (1999, Fig. 4) the peak proton-capture energy release is located deep in the He-flash convection zone. The entropy increase in these layers by the additional H-burning luminosity barely affects the outermost layers because, in the He-flash convection zone, the temperature is already greatly increased by the ongoing He-flash. If the protons are captured at such a deep position in the intershell region the corresponding energy release is merely a perturbation of the prominent He-shell instability. Then, the ingestion of protons does not significantly change the time scale of the born again evolution. As a result the born again evolution following a VLTP will be – rather similar to the born again evolution following the LTP – of the order of a few hundred years. This seems not compatible with the observed time scale of the born again evolution of V4334 Sgr.

In order to construct born again stellar models with an evolutionary speed in agreement with V4334 Sgr we are looking for a modification of the stellar model which is capable of bringing the position of the main H-energy release from ingested protons closer to the envelope. The position of peak hydrogen burning is determined by the competing mixing ($`\tau _{\mathrm{mix}}`$) and nuclear time scales ($`\tau _{\mathrm{nuc}}`$). In Herwig et al. (1999) we have adopted for the time dependent treatment of convective element mixing the diffusion coeffient $`D_{\mathrm{MLT}}=\frac{1}{3}\alpha _{\mathrm{MLT}}H_\mathrm{p}v_{\mathrm{MLT}}`$ where $`v_{\mathrm{MLT}}`$ is the convective mixing velocity according to the MLT (Langer et al., 1985). $`\tau _{\mathrm{nuc}}`$ decreases with increasing temperature as the reaction rate of proton capture by $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ increases. The main energy generation by fast convective proton burning will occur at that position in the He-flash convection zone where $`\tau _{\mathrm{nuc}}\tau _{\mathrm{mix}}`$. This position moves towards the top of the He-flash convection zone if the convective efficiency of mixing the isotopes is reduced. It can be expected that the speed of the born again evolution after a VLTP depends on the position of H-burning energy release within the star.

In order to evaluate this hypothesis new VLTP model sequences have been computed using a starting model of the original sequence of Herwig et al. (1999) before the ingestion of protons into the He-flash convection zone begins. The same evolutionary code (EVOL) has been used. The time evolution of 16 isotopes for hydrogen- and helium-burning is followed. Time-dependent overshoot on any convective boundary can be considered and the latest OPAL opacities have been used (Iglesias & Rogers, 1996). The mixing length parameter is $`\alpha _{\mathrm{MLT}}=1.7`$ and the metallicity is $`Z=0.02`$.

One way to reduce the convective mixing efficiency would be to change the mixing length parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{MLT}}`$. However, this affects both the convective transport of energy as well as that of matter. According to our hypothesis we are only interested in the efficiency of material transport. Besides, the mixing length parameter describing the efficiency of convective energy transport has been calibrated in order to reproduce the solar parameters. It does not seem plausible to change the well established parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{MLT}}`$. Contrary, the effect of the efficiency of mixing material is much less obvious in stellar evolution calculations. In most situations the nuclear time scale is larger than the convective mixing time scale by orders of magnitude. E.g. for main sequence stellar models the velocity of convective material transport can be changed by considerable factors without any change to the stellar parameters. Therefore we define a new parameter $`f_\mathrm{v}D_{\mathrm{MLT}}/D_{\mathrm{CM}}`$ where $`D_{\mathrm{CM}}`$ is the diffusion coefficient for composition mixing. VLTP and born again model sequences for $`f_\mathrm{v}=1`$, $`3`$, $`30`$ and $`300`$ have been computed. A 0.535$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ VLTP sequence with a $`M_{\mathrm{ZAMS}}`$=1$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ progenitor model (Herwig et al., 2000) and $`f_\mathrm{v}=1`$ has been computed for comparison.

The computations show that the evolution across the HRD is accelerated for larger values of $`f_\mathrm{v}`$. The cases $`f_\mathrm{v}=3`$ and $`f_\mathrm{v}=30`$ for the mass 0.604$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ are shown in Fig. 1. The AGB is reached within $`195`$ and $`9.77\mathrm{yr}`$ respectively. In a VLTP model sequence with $`f_\mathrm{v}=30`$ the peak p-capture energy is released at $`m_\mathrm{r}0.601\mathrm{M}_{}`$ compared to $`m_\mathrm{r}0.595\mathrm{M}_{}`$ with $`f_\mathrm{v}=1`$.

Models with reduced convective velocity for composition mixing do not only evolve faster, but they also feature a modified evolution of convective zones. In the new computation with the reduced convective mixing efficiency, H-burning takes place in the top layers of the intershell convection zone and establishes its own convective layer on top of the actual He-flash convection zone. In contrast H-burning in the original computation takes place deeper inside the intershell region and the separate H-burning convection zone inside the He-flash convection zone is very short lived.

A quantitative comparison of the evolutionary times for different $`f_\mathrm{v}`$ values with observed evolution times is given in Fig. 3. Observationally two time intervalls can be defined: from the last non-detection in 1994 to the first positive pre-discovery detection in 1995 (t2) and from this time to the date of the first spectra reported by Asplund et al. (1999) (t1). If V4334 Sgr has a mass of 0.604$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ then this tentative comparison requires a reduction of the efficiency of composition mixing of $`f_\mathrm{v}100`$. This follows from the comparison of time interval t1. The fact that time interval t2 requires a larger reduction factor is due to the fact that the observed time interval t2 is only a lower limit because V4334 Sgr was at or below the detection limit in 1994.

## 3 Discussion

Several tests have been carried out to ensure obvious sources of uncertainty do not jeopardise the general validity of the findings. Qualitatively, the results are independent on the choice of opacities and the assumptions on overshooting. The influence of numerical parameters, such as the mass at which the outer and the interior solutions are attached, do not change the results qualitatively.

However, several improvements are necessary in future models. We have not considered the $`\mu `$-barrier during the ingestion of protons which might effect the results to some extent. Moreover, time-dependent treatment of convective energy transport is not considered. This means that the time step has always to be chosen sufficiently larger than the convective mixing time scale according to the MLT in order to remain consistent with the assumption of instantaneous convective energy transport. This criterion prohibits the usual time resolution which, for instance, requires that the hydrogen-burning luminosity $`L_\mathrm{H}`$ may not increase by more than a few percent. In the VLTP case $`L_\mathrm{H}`$ often multiplies by some factor within one time step. However, the nuclear energy integrated by the structure equations and the nuclear energy estimated from the amount of consumed proton agree within 10-20$`\%`$ in all cases.

The reduced efficiency of composition mixing leads to a different evolution of the convective zones. This affects the CNO element and isotopic ratios. The surface $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}/^{13}\mathrm{C}`$ ratio of the $`f_\mathrm{v}=30`$ born again model is $`5`$ and thus in agreement with the observations of Asplund et al. (1999). Also the CNO elemental ratios of this sequence are in good agreement with the observed ratios. The absolute CNO abundances of Asplund et al. (1999) are smaller by a factor of $`5`$ compared to the model predictions. The reason for this inconsistency is not clear and might be due to the so-called carbon problem of abundance analysis (Asplund et al., 2000).

The formation of lithium is another important test for any stellar model sequence of Sakurai’s object. More detailed studies of the convective nucleosynthesis should provide additional constraints on the validity of the proposed concept. From a prelimary analysis of the temperature conditions in models with reduced convective element mixing we expect that the mechanism of hot hydrogen-deficient $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$-burning (Herwig & Langer, 2001) for the synthesis of lithium during the VLTP will provide a lithium abundance in agreement with that of V4334 Sgr.

It has been shown that the born again evolution following a VLTP is sensitively dependent on the composition mixing due to convection. Therefore, it is important to consider any mechanism or parameter on which the convective velocity in this region depends. The computations show that the convective velocity in the He-flash convection zone decreases with stellar mass of the post-AGB star. While the 0.604$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ displays $`v_{\mathrm{MLT}}3\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$ (at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=0.003\mathrm{M}_{}`$ below the top boundary of the He-flash convection zone) the comparison model sequence of mass 0.535$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ shows only $`v_{\mathrm{MLT}}0.35\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}`$. In accordance with the previous finding the 0.535$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ model sequence does evolve much faster back to the AGB than the 0.604$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ sequence (Fig. 2). This faster evolution must be attributed to the lower convective velocity. The evolutionary times for the previously described intervals t1 and t2 are included in Fig. 3 and lie clearly off the relation between $`f_\mathrm{v}`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{BA}}`$ for 0.604$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. However, note that $`v_{\mathrm{MLT}}`$ of the 0.535$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ sequence is just about a factor of 10 smaller than in the 0.604$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ case. Possibly all these models follow a narrow relation between $`t_{\mathrm{BA}}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{CM}}`$.

In any case, the assumption of a small mass for V4334 Sgr probably does not solve the time scale problem alone. The time scale for this model sequence is still too large by an order of magnitude. Moreover, stellar masses as low as 0.535$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ are not consistent with the possible detection in the ESO/SERC in 1976 (Fig. 2). However, this argument depends somewhat on the distance-luminosity relation used. Finally, the 0.535$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ evolutionary track is not consistent with the photoionization models of Pollacco (1999) and Kerber et al. (1999). Note, that the horizontal luminosity of the 0.604$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ post-AGB track is somewhat larger than that of previous computations of comparable mass because of the inclusion of AGB overshooting and the resulting effects on the core-mass luminosity relation described by Herwig et al. (1998).

## 4 Conclusion

We have constructed a new born again stellar evolution model for V4334 Sgr which can reproduce the observed evolutionary speed across the HRD as well as the CNO abundance ratios. It is probably compatible with the observed lithium abundance. For the new model it has been *assumed* that the efficiency of material transport by convection is smaller than predicted by the MLT by a factor of $`100`$ (depending on mass). About the underlying physical origin of such a reduction we can only speculate. The results presented here suggest that a modification to the prescription of convective element mixing may be a solution for the otherwise incomprehensible evolutionary behaviour of V4334 Sgr.

I would like to thank D.A. VandenBerg for very useful discussions and for his encouragement of this work. Support through his Operating Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged. Moreover, it is a pleasure to thank T. Blöcker, W.-R. Hamann, L. Koesterke, N. Langer, D. Schönberner and M. Steffen for the very enjoyable collaboration on related projects which has paved the way for this paper. R. Napiwotzki has provided bolometric corrections of his model atmospheres of CSPN.


text:
# Theory of hybrid systems. I. The operator formulation of classical mechanics and semiclassical limit

## 1 Introduction

The hybrid systems are those consisting of two distinguished subsystems. We are interested in situation when one of these subsystems is quantum and the other one classical mechanical, where, of course, by quantum mechanical system we mean such system whose behavior is properly described in terms of quantum mechanics. Similarly, concepts and relations of classical mechanics offer the complete formal description of the second subsystem. On the other side, we believe that “hybrid system” is not bad terminological solution for a physical system whose classical and quantum variants are simultaneously considered.

Theory of hybrid systems should incorporate classical and quantum mechanics on equal footing, together with transitions from one to the other. The correspondence principle, or the quantization and dequantization procedure, should be the essential characteristic of this theory. In other words, it should offer mathematical framework that supports simultaneous meaningful formulation of both mechanics. Within it, classical and quantum mechanics should appear as the same regarding the structural characteristics. In particular, they should have one and the same algebraic product and one and the same Lie bracket and, if one of them is formulated in terms of differential geometry, then the other should be, too. Moreover, fundamental entities of classical and quantum mechanics should be interrelated in unambiguous and correct way.

Theory of hybrid systems should give the proper description of interaction between quantum and classical systems. By proper we mean that the collapse of state of quantum system, which can happen when this system interacts with the classical one, e.g., in the process of measurement, should be explained/described without going into circular argumentation.

With such theory one certainly would not solve all problems of classical and quantum mechanics. This, after all, is not its purpose. By exploiting the juxtaposition of classical and quantum mechanics, this theory should give better insight in the two mechanics and their relations. Eventually, this will be enough for finding answers to some important questions.

After this rather general statements, let us give an outlook of the program and strategy of our approach to the listed requests. In the first paper of a series addressing hybrid systems we shall propose new framework that offers simultaneous representations of classical and quantum mechanics instead of using the framework of functions over the phase space, see Argawal and Wolf (1970); Guz (1984); Jordan and Sudarshan (1961); Mehta (1964); Misra and Shankara (1968); Riccia and Wiener (1966); Shirokov (1976) and Uhlhorn (1956). More concretely, we shall define the general algebra of operators that depend on the Planck constant. We shall take this constant as the parameter which takes value between some nonvanishing $`h_0`$ and zero. For $`h_0`$ the algebra will reduce in one which is isomorphic to the algebra of quantum mechanical system defined in standard fashion. The other extreme value will be attributed to the classical mechanics. That is, for the vanishing Planck constant, the generalized operator algebra will reduce to the algebra that is in one-to-one correspondence with the well-known algebra of variables of classical mechanical system. Looked from another angle, this will mean that there is an operatorial representation of classical mechanics, as well as of quantum mechanics, and that semiclassical limit (dequantization) is established on the kinematical level through the general algebra. The dynamics will be just mentioned in this paper since it asks for longer exposition.

The Lie algebraical structure of classical and quantum mechanics is important for physics, see Emch (1972). The Lie bracket, or product, in quantum mechanics is closely connected to the ordering rule. In order to complete the correspondence principle, i.e., to include quantization, one has to analyze this topics as well. This we shall do in the second article of this series by defining the ordering rule - symmetrized product, of quantum mechanics. This product will be the one according to which the algebras in both classical and quantum mechanics should be formed. In the classical mechanics, where one deals with the commutative algebra, one can apply without problems any ordering rule, so one can use symmetrized product as the algebraical one. Without going into details, let us mention that by using the symmetrized product we are going to propose, one can define the symmetrized Poisson bracket which can substitute the commutator in quantum mechanics becoming its Lie bracket. This bracket can be used in classical mechanics as well (the explanation is as for the algebraic product). Having one and the same algebraical product and one and the same Lie bracket for both mechanics, we shall be able to propose, we believe, unambiguous - obstruction free, quantization prescription. (The ordering rule and obstructions to quantization were previously discussed in Arens and Babit (1965); Chernoff (1995); Cohen (1966); Gotay (1980) and (1996) and Kerner and Sutcliffe (1970).) Moreover, the dynamical equations of both classical and quantum mechanics will appear to be one and the same - the operatorial version of the Liouville equation.

In the third article we shall unify the results of the first two. Namely, we shall start with the general operators of coordinate and momentum which depend on the Planck constant, then we shall introduce one algebraical product and one Lie algebraical product and, after considering the above mentioned extreme values of Planck constant, we shall establish the semiclassical limit of quantum mechanics for complete algebraical and Lie algebraical settings. Then, because observables and variables are functions of coordinate and momentum and since the functions are 0-forms in differential geometry, we will go one step further in the exploration of common characteristics of classical and quantum mechanics, i.e., we will find other basic entities of differential geometry in case of quantum mechanics, see Strocchi (1966); Heslot (1985) and Ashtekar and Schiling (1997) for related considerations. We will define n-forms, the Hamiltonian vector fields and symplectic structure of quantum mechanics and these in such operatorial forms that they become equivalent to the corresponding ones of classical mechanics in the semiclassical limit. This will lead to the conclusion that, regarding all aspects, classical and quantum mechanics are just two cases of one general theory. All structural characteristics of these mechanics will appear to be the same while the crucial difference will be in operators representing coordinate and momentum.

In the third article we shall propose the symmetrized Poisson bracket for the case of more than one degree of freedom. This generalization is not so trivial problem, as it might look like on the first sight, since it should be related to the dynamical equation for the hybrid systems - classical and quantum systems in interaction, see Prvanović and Marić (2000) and references therein.

Regarding the interaction between classical and quantum systems, it should be said that one concrete example - the process of measurement, we have considered in quoted article. The results of this paper were that the dynamical equation of hybrid systems can produce noncausal evolution and that the state of quantum system collapses because of the non-negativity of probability. For finding this the operator formulation of classical mechanics was extremely useful. Moreover, this formulation was necessary for the analysis of subsequent problem: if the equation of motion can produce noncausal evolution, then what within this equation one can find as responsible for some nonlinearity which will allowe one to design a formal model of the collapse. Due to these, the quoted article is strongly connected (or belongs) to the series of papers concerned with the theory of hybrid systems being oriented to its application.

## 2 Basic definitions

The present considerations will address a part of kinematical aspect of quantum and classical mechanics in order to investigate the semiclassical limit of quantum mechanics, see Shirokov (1976); Werner (1995) and references therein. For this intention, it is needed to use the same mathematical framework for both classical and quantum mechanics. In contrast to the usual approach, where functions over the phase space were used for representations of both mechanics and discussions of their relationship, our proposal is based on the operatorial representations. That is, instead of transforming the standard operatorial formulation of quantum mechanics into the formulation comparable to the standard one of classical mechanics, we expose the most important features of classical mechanics in the form of operators acting in the same space where quantum representatives do. The operator formulation of classical mechanics used here is similar to those given in Sherry and Sudarshan (1978) and (1979) and Gautam et al. (1979). Some connections between our proposal and those given in Cohn (1980) and (1983); Muga and Snider (1992) and Sala and Muga (1994) can be found, too.

Our intention is to find such formulations of classical and quantum mechanics in which the main characteristics of these theories are preserved. Then, for the intended formulations the following should hold: 1.) the observables and states are in the 1-1 correspondence with the adequate ones of the standard formulations, 2.) the commutation relations among observables and the relations among the eigenstates of observables are the same as are the corresponding ones of the standard formulations and 3.) the mean values are equal to the corresponding mean values calculated in standard fashions. The mathematical framework that will be used can be seen as a direct product of coordinate and momentum representations of quantum mechanics. In this way, it will mimic the phase space of classical mechanics in the most trivial case.

Let us, firstly, define the generalized $`h`$-dependent operator algebra as the algebra of polynomials with real coefficients in operators $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$, which are:

$$\stackrel{~}{q}=\widehat{q}\widehat{I}\left[\widehat{R}_q+\left(1\frac{h}{h_o}\right)\widehat{R}_p\right]+\widehat{I}\widehat{q}\widehat{R}_p,$$
(1)
$$\stackrel{~}{p}=\widehat{p}\widehat{I}\widehat{R}_q+\widehat{I}\widehat{p}\left[\left(1\frac{h}{h_o}\right)\widehat{R}_q+\widehat{R}_p\right],$$
(2)
and $`\stackrel{~}{I}=\widehat{I}\widehat{I}\widehat{I}`$. These operators act in $`_q_p_r`$ with $`q`$, $`p`$ and $`r`$ being here just the indices of these spaces. The first two spaces are the rigged Hilbert spaces and the third is a two-dimensional Hilbert space. More concretely, $`_q`$ and $`_p`$ are formally identical to the rigged Hilbert space of states which is used in the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics for a single system with one degree of freedom when the spin is neglected. The indices $`q`$ and $`p`$ serve only to denote that the choice of a basis in these spaces is a priori fixed when the semiclassical limit is under considerations. For the basis in $`_q_p`$ we take $`|q|p`$. Here, $`|q`$ and $`|p`$ are the eigenvectors of $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$, respectively. Then, $`_q_p`$ can be seen as an imitation of the phase space. The third space is introduced only for the formal reasons and need not to be related to the space of states of the inner degrees of freedom.

The parameter $`h`$ takes values from $`0`$ to $`h_o`$, $`0hh_o`$, where $`h_o`$ is attributed to quantum mechanics - the nonvanishing Planck constant, while, for $`h=0`$, the above algebra will be related to the classical mechanics.

The operators $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ are as the operators representing coordinate and momentum in the standard quantum mechanics. Instead of reviewing their properties, which can be found in all textbooks of quantum mechanics, we only mention that they do not commute: $`[\widehat{q},\widehat{p}]=i\mathrm{}\widehat{I}`$ and that they are the Hermitian (self-adjoint). For the projectors $`\widehat{R}_q`$ and $`\widehat{R}_p`$, the following holds:

$$\widehat{R}_q\widehat{R}_p=0,\widehat{R}_q\widehat{R}_q=\widehat{R}_q,\widehat{R}_p\widehat{R}_p=\widehat{R}_p,$$

$$\widehat{R}_q^{}=\widehat{R}_q,\widehat{R}_p^{}=\widehat{R}_p,\widehat{R}_q+\widehat{R}_p=\widehat{I},$$

$$\widehat{R}_q=|r_qr_q|,\widehat{R}_p=|r_pr_p|.$$

They, being introduced to ensure desired properties of the polynomials in $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ for the extreme values of $`h`$, need not to have physical meaning.

## 3 Quantum mechanics

When the above algebra of operators is represented with respect to the basis $`|q|p|r_i`$, where $`i\{q,p\}`$ and $`|r_i`$ is the eigenvector of $`\widehat{R}_i`$ for the eigenvalue 1, ($`r_i|r_j=\delta _{i,j}`$), then, for $`h=h_o`$, it becomes equivalent to the (same representation of) algebra formed over:

$$\widehat{q}_{qm}=\widehat{q}\widehat{I}\widehat{R}_q+\widehat{I}\widehat{q}\widehat{R}_p,$$
(3)
$$\widehat{p}_{qm}=\widehat{p}\widehat{I}\widehat{R}_q+\widehat{I}\widehat{p}\widehat{R}_p.$$
(4)
(We are not going to write these representations explicitly just for the sake of simplicity of expressions. But, this can be easily done knowing that $`q|\widehat{q}|q^{}=q\delta (qq^{})`$, $`q|\widehat{p}|q^{}=i\mathrm{}\frac{\delta (qq^{})}{q}`$, $`p|\widehat{p}|p^{}=p\delta (pp^{})`$ and $`p|\widehat{q}|p^{}=i\mathrm{}\frac{\delta (pp^{})}{p}`$.)

The algebra of polynomials with real coefficients in $`\widehat{q}_{qm}`$ and $`\widehat{p}_{qm}`$ and the appropriate eigenvectors are in the one-to-one correspondence with the algebra of observables and eigenstates defined in the standard manner in a single rigged Hilbert space. For example, it holds: $`[\widehat{q}_{qm},\widehat{p}_{qm}]=i\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{I}`$, as it is necessary. On the other hand, due to the fact that $`\widehat{R}_q`$ and $`\widehat{R}_p`$ are idempotent and mutually orthogonal, the standard representation of an observable, e.g., $`H(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})`$, is now translated to:

$$H(\widehat{q}_{qm},\widehat{p}_{qm})=H(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})\widehat{I}\widehat{R}_q+\widehat{I}H(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})\widehat{R}_p.$$

It could be said that this formulation of quantum mechanics simply doubles the standard one. Or, it takes the coordinate representation, multiply it directly with one projector and adds this to the momentum representation, which was directly multiplied with the other projector.

If $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ was the eigenstate of $`H(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})`$ for the eigenvalue $`E_i`$, then:

$$|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i=c_q|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|a|r_q+c_p|b|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|r_p,$$

is the eigenstate of $`H(\widehat{q}_{qm},\widehat{p}_{qm})`$ for the same eigenvalue if the coefficients $`c_q`$ and $`c_p`$ satisfy the condition $`|c_q|^2+|c_p|^2=1`$ and if the vectors $`|a`$ and $`|b`$, that are fixed at the beginning of all considerations being arbitrarily picked, are normalized to one ($`a|a=b|b=1`$). Moreover, it could be easily checked that all relations among eigenstates ,a la $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i`$, of the same or different observables are as they were for the corresponding ones, i.e., $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, of the standard formulation.

Since our intention is to discuss the semiclassical limit of quantum mechanics after the introduction of new operatorial representations of both classical and quantum mechanics, it is necessary to take $`_q_p_r`$. Of course, this space is much bigger than $``$ where quantum mechanical coordinate and momentum are irreducibly represented. Only a subspace of $`_q_p_r`$ that is formed over the basis $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i`$ is interpretable for quantum mechanics. It depends on the choice of $`|a`$, $`|b`$, $`c_q`$ and $`c_p`$ which, after being initially fixed, give desired irreducible representation. (As will become obvious, the states of classical system are embedded in the set of operators that act in $`_q_p_r`$.) In other words, having formal reasons, we have purposely skipped over the requirement of irreducible representation of quantum mechanical coordinate and momentum. That this is reducible representation one can check by finding one nontrivial operator, e.g., $`\widehat{q}\widehat{I}\widehat{R}_p`$, which commutes with $`\widehat{q}_{qm}`$ and $`\widehat{p}_{qm}`$. But, one can recover the irreducibility in a formal way and/or extract from $`_q_p_r`$ the physically meaningful part. This is very similar to the approach developed in Streater (1966) and references therein where the request of irreducibility is treated in more relaxed form than usually it is the case.

## 4 Classical mechanics

In the $`|q|p|r_i`$ representation, but for $`h=0`$, the general algebra becomes equivalent to the (same representation of) algebra formed over:

$$\widehat{q}_{cm}=\widehat{q}\widehat{I}\widehat{I},$$
(5)
$$\widehat{p}_{cm}=\widehat{I}\widehat{p}\widehat{I}.$$
(6)
The algebra of polynomials in $`\widehat{q}_{cm}`$ and $`\widehat{p}_{cm}`$ with real coefficients and the appropriate eigenvectors are in the 1-1 correspondence with the standard formulation of classical mechanics (defined in the framework of functions over phase space). Namely, this algebra is manifestly a commutative one. To the $`c`$-number formulation of a classical variable, e.g., $`H(q,p)`$, now corresponds:

$$H(\widehat{q}_{cm},\widehat{p}_{cm})=H(\widehat{q}\widehat{I},\widehat{I}\widehat{p})\widehat{I}.$$

The vectors $`|q_o|p_o(c_q|r_q+c_p|r_p)`$ are eigenstates of all classical observables with the real eigenvalues, e.g., $`H(q_o,p_o)`$ for the above given observable. These vectors now play the role of points in the phase space. The pure states $`|q_o|p_o`$, taken in dyadic form, can be expressed via $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ in the following manner:

$$|q_oq_o||p_op_o|=\delta (qq_o)\delta (pp_o)|qq||pp|𝑑q𝑑p=$$

$$=\delta (\widehat{q}q_o)\delta (\widehat{p}p_o).$$

Then, being guided by this, the classical (noncoherently) mixed states one can define as:

$$\rho (\widehat{q}\widehat{I},\widehat{I}\widehat{p})(c_q|r_q+c_p|r_p)(c_q^{}r_q|+c_p^{}r_p|).$$

All classical states will be the Hermitian, non-negative operators and normalized to $`\delta (0)\delta (0)`$ if for $`\rho (q,p)`$ it holds that: $`\rho (q,p)𝐑`$, $`\rho (q,p)0`$ and $`\rho (q,p)𝑑q𝑑p=1`$, as it is in the phase space formulation of classical mechanics, where $`\rho (q,p)`$ appears in the coordinate-momentum representation of $`\rho (\widehat{q}\widehat{I},\widehat{I}\widehat{p})`$.

One does not need to proceed with translation of other features of the classical mechanics into this framework. Having basic entities, one can do that straightforwardly.

The mean value of the observable, say $`\widehat{A}`$, when the system (classical or quantum) is in the state $`\widehat{\rho }`$, should be calculated within the theory of hybrid systems by the Ansatz:

$$\widehat{A}=\frac{\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\rho }\widehat{A})}{\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\rho }}.$$
(7)
The norm $`\delta (0)\delta (0)`$ of classical states will be regularized in this way and the mean values will be equal to those found within the standard formulations for the appropriate variables, observables and states.

The above, and the fact that the phase space formulation of classical mechanics appears through the kernels of the operator formulation in the $`|q|p|r_i`$ representation, can be used as the proof of equivalence of these two formulations. There will be a complete correspondence between the $`c`$-number and this operatorial formulation if the dynamical equation is defined as the operatorial version of Liouville equation, where the partial derivations within the Poisson bracket are with respect to the operators $`\widehat{q}_{cm}`$ and $`\widehat{p}_{cm}`$. For now, let the dynamical equation for the above formulation of quantum mechanics be the Schrödinger (von Neumann) equation, as it is in the standard formulation. However, in the next paper we shall show that for quantum mechanical observables and statistical operators the commutator can be substituted by the symmetrized Poisson bracket (see next section). This will implicate that the dynamical equation of quantum mechanics can be the operatorial version of Liouville equation, as well.

## 5 Concluding remarks

Since these papers are devoted to the formalism and not to the phenomenology, we are not going in thorough discussions regarding the meaning of limit $`h0`$, where $`h`$ is thought to be the natural constant. Instead, let us illustrate what we mean by the semiclassical limit. The Hamilton function $`H(q,p)`$ of classical mechanics and the Hamiltonian $`H(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})`$ of quantum mechanics are represented here by $`H(\widehat{q}_{cm},\widehat{p}_{cm})`$ and $`H(\widehat{q}_{qm},\widehat{p}_{qm})`$, respectively. If they are addressing the same physical system, say the harmonic oscillator, the last two operators follow from $`H(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{p})`$ for $`h=0`$ and $`h=h_o`$, respectively. Of course, it is understood that one should work in $`|q|p|r_i`$ representation which, as we have mentioned, we have not proceeded here only for the sake of simplicity of expressions. This means that the semiclassical limit of quantum mechanics is established through the generalized operator algebra since, for the one extreme value of $`h`$, it expresses properties characteristic for the quantum mechanics and, for the other extreme value of $`h`$, it has classical mechanical ones.

The semiclassical limit holds for each polynomial with real coefficients in $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ no matter how these operators are ordered. This allowed us not to specify explicitly what is the algebraic product of quantum mechanics. The ordering rule, or the symmetrized product, being unrelated to the semiclassical limit, we shall discuss in details in the second paper of this series. In that article, we shall propose new way of looking on the Lie bracket of quantum mechanics, too. Here, let us just mention that the symmetrized product of $`\widehat{q}^n`$ and $`\widehat{p}^m`$, denoted by $``$, will be the sum of all different combinations of involved operators divided by the number of these combinations:

$$\widehat{q}^n\widehat{p}^m=\frac{n!m!}{(n+m)!}(\widehat{q}^n\widehat{p}^m+\mathrm{}+\widehat{p}^m\widehat{q}^n),$$

where, in the parenthesis, there should be all different combinations of $`n+m`$ operators. The product of two monomials, let say $`\widehat{q}^a\widehat{p}^b`$ and $`\widehat{q}^c\widehat{p}^d`$, will be:

$$\frac{(a+c)!(b+d)!}{(a+b+c+d)!}(\widehat{q}^{a+c}\widehat{p}^{b+d}+\mathrm{}+\widehat{p}^{b+d}\widehat{q}^{a+c}).$$

Then, the Lie bracket of quantum mechanics will be:

$$\{f(\widehat{q},\widehat{p}),g(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})\}_𝐒=\frac{f(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})}{\widehat{q}}\frac{g(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})}{\widehat{p}}\frac{g(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})}{\widehat{q}}\frac{f(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})}{\widehat{p}},$$

where, within the polynomials $`f(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})`$ and $`g(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})`$, the operators of coordinate and momentum are multiplied according to the symmetrized product $``$.

Only after having all these results, we will be able to address in complete the problem of dequantization: the semiclassical limit of the kinematical aspect of quantum mechanics and reexpressed dynamical equation of quantum mechanics will be unified in a way leading to the proposition of the semiclassical limit of all quantum mechanical differential geometric entities. Moreover, having defined the symmetrized product and Poisson bracket, we will be able to propose the quantization procedure in the most trivial case. In this way, both directions of the correspondence principle will be covered. The states are seen as the secondary in our proposal. The meaningful states are solutions of the appropriate eigenvalue problems and, because quantum and classical observables are essentially different, they differ, too.

If one is not interested in the semiclassical limit, then the operator formulation of classical mechanics can be simplified. Namely, after noticing that the algebra of variables of classical system with one degree of freedom is isomorphic to the maximal Abelian subalgebra of operators related to the quantum system with two degrees of freedom, one can take $`\widehat{q}\widehat{I}`$, $`\widehat{I}\widehat{p}`$ and $`\widehat{I}\widehat{I}`$ as the basic elements of the operatorial formulation of classical mechanical algebra. This formulation of classical mechanics can find its applicability in, for example, the analysis of the problem of measurement.

Similar proposition one can find in Sherry and Sudarshan (1978) and (1979) and Gautam et al. (1979). Without repeating the detailed analysis of these articles, let us mention that a regulating procedure which recovers the classicality was found as necessary there and, for this purpose, the so called principle of integrity was introduced. This is related to the following proposition of our approach: only the algebra formed over $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ should be considered since only to its elements the physical meaning can be attributed and this only for the extreme values of Planck constant. All operators different from these will never occur if they were not introduced with some unphysical - artificial, reasons.

The framework of functions over the phase space, that is often used for simultaneous representation of classical and quantum mechanics and investigation of the semiclassical limit, we find unsuitable for the related and well-known problems. We believe that unpleasant situations, the example of which is to end with possibly negative (quasi)distributions, are the consequence of the fact that this mathematical ambient is not wide enough to allow meaningful formulation of quantum mechanics.

The framework of commutative operators, on the other hand, certainly is not the minimal one needed for the representation of only classical mechanics. But, motivations for its introduction do exist. Some problems definitely ask for a framework wider than the usually used one. Only with the operatorial formulation of classical mechanics, the argumentation regarding the mentioned problem of measurement can be proceeded and completed without going in conflict with physical meaning, see Prvanović and Marić (2000).

The space $`_q_p_r`$ we find not only suitable, but also necessary for the meaningful representations of both mechanics and discussion of the semiclassical limit. So, with respect to this, it could be qualified as the minimal. However, one should be careful not to misuse its formal opportunities since, if one would do that, and only then, one would go out of physics. In short, the comparation of our approach with the alternative ones can be summarized in the following way: according to our opinion, it is better to be faced with the need to restrict the considerations and to do that a priori than to rectify it a posteriori.