text:
# Quantum Vacuum in Hot Nuclear Matter – A Nonperturbative Treatment

## I Introduction

The understanding of hot and dense matter is an interesting and important problem in the context of heavy ion collision experiments as well as to study different astrophysical objects such as neutron stars. Quantum Hadrodynamics (QHD) is a general framework which has been extensively used to study the nuclear matter, both at zero  and finite temperatures , as well as to describe the properties of finite nuclei . In the Walecka model (QHD-I), the nucleons interact via the scalar ($`\sigma `$) and vector ($`\omega `$) mesons with the scalar and vector couplings fitted from the saturation density and binding energy of nuclear matter . The hot nuclear matter has been studied neglecting the Dirac sea , i.e., in the so called no–sea approximation.

To study the nuclear matter at zero temperature including the sea effects in the relativistic Hartree approximation (RHA), one does a self consistent sum of the tadpole diagrams for the baryon propagator . There have also been calculations including corrections to the binding energy up to two-loops , which are seen to be rather large as compared to the one-loop results. However, it is seen that using phenomenological monopole form factors to account for the composite nature of the nucleons, such contribution is reduced substantially  so that it is smaller than the one-loop result. However, without inclusion of such form factors the mean-field theory is not stable against a perturbative loop expansion. This might be because the couplings involved here are too large (of order of 10) and the theory is not asymptotically free. Hence nonperturbative techniques need to be developed to consider nuclear many-body problems.

The approximation scheme adopted here is nonperturbative and, it uses a squeezed coherent type of construction for the ground state  which amounts to an explicit vacuum realignment. The input here is equal-time quantum algebra for the field operators with a variational ansatz for the vacuum structure and does not use any perturbative expansion or Feynman diagrams. We have earlier seen that this correctly yields the results of the Gross-Neveu model  as obtained by summing an infinite series of one-loop diagrams. It was also seen to reproduce the gap equation in an effective QCD Hamiltonian  as obtained through the solution of the Schwinger-Dyson equations for the effective quark propagator. In an earlier work , such a nonperturbative method was applied to consider vacuum polarization effects in nuclear matter, where it was shown that a realignment of the ground state in nuclear matter with baryon–antibaryon condensates is equivalent to the relativistic Hartree approximation (RHA). We had then included the quantum corrections arising from the scalar meson in a similar way through sigma condensates, amounting to summimg over a class of multiloop diagrams. Recently, the formalism has also been generalised to include strange baryons and its effects on the composition of neutron star matter as well as gross structural properties of neutron stars . In the present paper, we study hot nuclear matter including the vacuum polarisation effects arising from the nucleon and scalar meson fields. The method of thermofield dynamics (TFD) is used here to study the “ground state” (the state with minimum thermodynamic potential) at finite temperature and density. The temperature and density dependent baryon and sigma masses are also calculated in a self-consistent manner in the present framework. We note that in the Walecka model, TFD has been applied to compute perturbatively quantum corrections to the temperature dependent Hartree mean field  and effect of such corrections on the equation of state. Here we shall however use a nonperturbative variational approach to study symmetric nuclear matter within Walecka model using TFD for small temperatures (associated with liquid-gas phase transition) as well as at high temperatures to discuss possible chiral restoration transition. The ansatz functions involved in such an approach shall be determined through minimisation of the thermodynamic potential.

We organize the paper as follows. In section II, we study the quantum correction effects from the nucleon and sigma fields in nuclear matter as simulated through baryon–antibaryon and scalar meson condensates. The quantum vacuum in nuclear matter is generalized to finite temperatures using the thermofield dynamics method. The corresponding condensate functions as well as the functions introduced in the definition of the thermal vacuum are determined through the minimisation of the thermodynamic potential. This enables us to obtain the equation of state (EOS) and various thermodynamic quantities for the hot nuclear matter. In section III, we discuss the results obtained in the present nonperturbative framework of inclusion of quantum corrections. Unlike the mean field calculations , we observe that, at temperatures of around 200 MeV, the decrease in the nucleon mass is slower when one includes such quantum correction effects, and need not be indicative of a chiral symmetry restoration phase transition. We also study the effect of quantum corrections on the liquid gas phase transition. The value of critical temperature for such a phase transition is seen to be lowered due to quantum effects arising from the scalar mesons. In section IV, we give a brief summary of the present work and discuss possible outlook.

## II Quantum Vacuum in Nuclear Matter

We shall start with briefly recapitulating the formalism for studying the nuclear matter including the quantum correction effects as arising through a realignment of the vacuum with baryon–antibaryon and scalar meson condensates . The Lagrangian density is given as

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu Mg_\sigma \sigma g_\omega \gamma ^\mu \omega _\mu )\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\mu \sigma _\mu \sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2\lambda \sigma ^4`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\omega ^2\omega ^\mu \omega _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_\mu \omega _\nu _\nu \omega _\mu )(^\mu \omega ^\nu ^\nu \omega ^\mu ).`$ (2)
In the above, $`\psi `$, $`\sigma `$, and $`\omega _\mu `$ are the fields for the nucleon, $`\sigma `$, and $`\omega `$ mesons with masses M, $`m_\sigma `$, and $`m_\omega `$ respectively. The quartic coupling term in $`\sigma `$ is necessary for the sigma condensates through a vacuum realignment, to exist . We retain the quantum nature of both the nucleon and the scalar meson fields, where as, the vector $`\omega `$– meson is treated as a classical field, using the mean field approximation for $`\omega `$–meson, given as $`\omega ^\mu =\delta _{\mu 0}\omega _0`$. The reason is that without any quartic or any other higher order term for the $`\omega `$-meson, the quantum effects generated due to $`\omega `$-meson through the present variational ansatz turns out to be zero.

The Hamiltonian density can then be written as

$$=_N+_\sigma +_\omega ,$$
(3)
with

$$_N=\psi ^{}(i\alpha \mathbf{}+\beta 𝐌)\psi +𝐠_\sigma \sigma \overline{\psi }\psi ,$$
(5)
$$_\sigma =\frac{1}{2}\dot{\sigma }^2+\frac{1}{2}\sigma (\mathbf{}^2)\sigma +\frac{1}{2}m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2+\lambda \sigma ^4,$$
(6)
$$_\omega =g_\omega \omega _0\psi ^{}\psi \frac{1}{2}m_\omega ^2\omega _0^2.$$
(7)
We may now write down the field expansion for the nucleon field $`\psi `$ at time $`t=0`$ as given by

$$\psi (𝒙)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}\left[U_r(𝒌)c_{Ir}(𝒌)+V_s(𝒌)\stackrel{~}{c}_{Is}(𝒌)\right]e^{i𝒌𝒙}𝑑𝒌,$$
(8)
with $`c_{Ir}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{Is}`$ as the baryon annihilation and antibaryon creation operators with spins $`r`$ and $`s`$ respectively, and $`U`$ and $`V`$ are the spinors associated with the particles and antiparticles respectively . Similarly, we may expand the field operator of the scalar field $`\sigma `$ in terms of the creation and annihilation operators, at time $`t=0`$ as

$$\sigma (𝒙,0)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}\frac{d𝒌}{\sqrt{2\omega (𝒌)}}\left(a(𝒌)+a^{}(𝒌)\right)e^{i𝒌𝒙},$$
(9)
In the above, $`\omega (𝒌)=\sqrt{𝒌^2+m_\sigma ^2}`$. The perturbative vacuum is defined corresponding to this basis through $`avac=0=c_{Ir}vac=\stackrel{~}{c}_{Ir}^{}vac`$.

To include the vacuum polarisation effects for hot nuclear matter, we shall now consider a trial state with baryon–antibaryon and scalar meson condensates and then generalize the same to the finite temperatures and densities . We thus explicitly take the ansatz for the trial state as

$$|F=U_\sigma U_F|vac,$$
(10)
with

$$U_F=\mathrm{exp}[d𝒌f(𝒌)c_{Ir}^{}(𝒌)a_{rs}\stackrel{~}{c}_{Is}(𝒌)h.c.]$$
(11)
Here $`a_{rs}=u_{Ir}^{}(𝝈\widehat{k})v_{Is}`$ and $`f(𝒌)`$ is a trial function associated with baryon-antibaryon condensates. For the scalar meson sector, $`U_\sigma =U_{II}U_I`$ where $`U_i=\mathrm{exp}(B_i^{}B_i),(i=I,II)`$. Explicitly the $`B_i`$ are given as

$$B_I^{}=𝑑𝒌\sqrt{\frac{\omega (𝒌)}{2}}f_\sigma (𝒌)a^{}(𝒌),B_{II}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}𝑑𝒌g(𝒌)a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒌)a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒌).$$
(12)
In the above, $`a^{}(𝒌)=U_Ia(𝒌)U_I^1=a(𝒌)\sqrt{\frac{\omega (𝒌)}{2}}f_\sigma (𝒌)`$ corresponds to a shifted field operator associated with the coherent state  and satisfies the usual quantum algebra. Further, to preserve translational invariance $`f_\sigma (𝒌)`$ has to be proportional to $`\delta (𝒌)`$ and we take $`f_\sigma (𝒌)=\sigma _0(2\pi )^{3/2}\delta (𝒌)`$. $`\sigma _0`$ corresponds to a classical field of the conventional approach . Clearly, the ansatz state is not annihilated by the operators, $`c`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}^{}`$ and $`a`$. However, one can define operators, $`d`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}^{}`$ and $`b`$, related through a Bogoliubov transformation to these operators, which will annihilate the state $`|F`$.

We next use the method of thermofield dynamics  to construct the ground state for nuclear matter at finite temperature. Here the statistical average of an operator is written as an expectation value with respect to a ‘thermal vacuum’ constructed from operators defined on an extended Hilbert space. The ‘thermal vacuum’ is obtained from the zero temperature ground state through a thermal Bogoliubov transformation. We thus generalise the state, as given by (10) to finite temperature and density as

$$|F,\beta =U_\sigma (\beta )U_F(\beta )|F.$$
(13)
The temperature-dependent unitary operators $`U_\sigma (\beta )`$ and $`U_F(\beta )`$ are given as

$$U_\sigma (\beta )=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}d𝒌\theta _\sigma (𝒌,\beta )b^{}(𝒌)\underset{¯}{b}^{}(𝒌)h.c.).$$
(14)
and

$$U_F(\beta )=\mathrm{exp}(d𝒌[\theta _{}(𝒌,\beta )d_{Ir}^{}(𝒌)\underset{¯}{d}_{Ir}^{}(𝒌)+\theta _+(𝒌,\beta )\stackrel{~}{d}_{Ir}(𝒌)\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{d}}_{Ir}(𝒌)]h.c.).$$
(15)
The underlined operators are the operators corresponding to the doubling of the Hilbert space that arise in thermofield dynamics method. We shall determine the condensate functions $`f(𝒌)`$ and $`g(𝒌)`$, and the functions $`\theta _\sigma (𝒌,\beta )`$, $`\theta _{}(𝒌,\beta )`$ and $`\theta _+(𝒌,\beta )`$ of the thermal vacuum through minimisation of the thermodynamic potential. The thermodynamic potential is given as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }p=ϵ\frac{1}{\beta }𝒮\mu \rho _B,$$
(16)
where $`ϵ`$ and $`𝒮`$ are the energy- and entropy- densities of the thermal vacuum, and $`\rho _B`$ is the baryon density. On evaluation, the energy density of the thermal vacuum is given as,

$$ϵ_\beta =ϵ_N+ϵ_\omega +ϵ_\sigma $$
(17)
with

$$ϵ_N=\frac{\gamma }{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝒌\left[ϵ(𝒌)\mathrm{cos}2f(𝒌)+\frac{g_\sigma \sigma _0}{ϵ(k)}\left(M\mathrm{cos}2f(𝒌)+|𝒌|\mathrm{sin}2f(𝒌)\right)\right](\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}),$$
(19)
$$ϵ_\omega =g_\omega \omega _0\gamma (2\pi )^3𝑑𝒌(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _++\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{})\frac{1}{2}m_\omega ^2\omega _0^2,$$
(20)
and

$`ϵ_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒌}{2\omega (k)}\left[k^2(\mathrm{sinh}2g+\mathrm{cosh}2g)+\omega ^2(k)(\mathrm{cosh}2g\mathrm{sinh}2g)\right]\mathrm{cosh}2\theta _\sigma (𝒌,\beta )}`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^2I(\beta )+6\lambda \sigma _0^2I(\beta )+3\lambda I(\beta )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^2\sigma _0^2+\lambda \sigma _0^4,`$ (22)
with

$$I(\beta )=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d𝒌}{2\omega (k)}(\mathrm{cosh}2g+\mathrm{sinh}2g)\mathrm{cosh}2\theta _\sigma (𝒌,\beta ).$$
(23)
The entropy density

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (2\pi )^3{\displaystyle }d𝒌[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{})+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{})`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _+\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _+)+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _+\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _+)]`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`(2\pi )^3{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒌\left[\mathrm{cosh}^2\theta _\sigma \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{cosh}^2\theta _\sigma )\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _\sigma \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _\sigma )\right]}+𝒮_\omega `$ (26)
and the baryon density

$$\rho _B=\gamma (2\pi )^3𝑑𝒌(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _++\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}).$$
(27)
In the above, $`\gamma `$ is the spin isospin degeneracy factor and is equal to $`4`$ for nuclear matter. Further, $`𝒮_\omega `$ is the contribution to the entropy density from $`\omega `$-meson. Extremising the thermodynamic potential, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to the condensate function $`f(𝒌)`$ and the functions $`\theta _{}`$ corresponding to the nucleon sector yields

$$\mathrm{tan}2f(𝒌)=\frac{g_\sigma \sigma _0|𝒌|}{ϵ(k)^2+Mg_\sigma \sigma _0}$$
(28)
and

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta (ϵ^{}(k)\mu ^{}))+1},$$
(29)
with $`ϵ^{}(k)=(k^2+M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{1/2}`$ and $`\mu ^{}=\mu g_\omega \omega _0`$ as the effective energy and effective chemical potential, where the effective nucleon mass $`M^{}=M+g_\sigma \sigma _0`$.

For the sigma meson sector, on extremising the thermodynamic potential, the functions $`g(𝒌)`$ and $`\theta _\sigma `$ are obtained as

$$\mathrm{tanh}2g(k)=\frac{6\lambda I(\beta )+6\lambda \sigma _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\omega (k)^2+6\lambda I(\beta )+6\lambda \sigma _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}$$
(30)
and

$$\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _\sigma =\frac{1}{e^{\beta \omega ^{}(𝒌,\beta )1}};\omega ^{}(𝒌,\beta )=(𝒌^2+M_\sigma (\beta )^2)^{1/2}.$$
(31)
In the above, the effective scalar meson mass is given as

$$M_\sigma (\beta )^2=m_\sigma ^2+12\lambda I(\beta )+12\lambda \sigma _0^2$$
(32)
with

$$I(\beta )=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d𝒌}{2}\frac{1}{(𝒌^2+M_\sigma (\beta )^2)^{1/2}}$$
(33)
It is clear from the equation (30) that in the absence of a quartic coupling no such condensates are favoured since the condensate function, $`g(𝒌)`$ vanishes for $`\lambda =0`$.

Then the expression for the energy density becomes

$$ϵ=ϵ_N+ϵ_\omega +ϵ_\sigma ,$$
(34)
with

$$ϵ_N=\gamma (2\pi )^3𝑑𝒌(k^2+M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{1/2}(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _+),$$
(36)
$$ϵ_\omega =g_\omega \omega _0\gamma (2\pi )^3𝑑𝒌(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _+)\frac{1}{2}m_\omega ^2\omega _0^2,$$
(37)
$$ϵ_\sigma =\frac{1}{2}m_\sigma ^2\sigma _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda \sigma _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝒌(k^2+M_\sigma (\beta )^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{cosh}2\theta _\sigma 3\lambda I(\beta )^2.$$
(38)
After subtracting out the vacuum contributions ($`\theta _\pm `$=0, $`f`$=0 part) for the nucleon sector, one obtains,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_N=ϵ_{finite}^N+\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ,$$
(39)
where,

$$ϵ_{finite}^N=\gamma (2\pi )^3𝑑𝒌(k^2+M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{1/2}(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _+)$$
(40)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ=\gamma (2\pi )^3𝑑𝒌\left[(𝒌^2+M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{1/2}(𝒌^2+M^2)^{1/2}\right],$$
(41)
The contribution arising from the Dirac sea effect given by (41), is identical to that of summing over the baryonic tadpole diagrams of RHA, before renormalisation. This is renormalised by adding the counter terms, as for the zero temperature situation, given as

$$ϵ_{ct}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{4}{}}C_n\sigma _0^n,$$
(42)
since finite temperature does not introduce any fresh divergences.

For the $`\omega `$-sector, the pure vacuum contribution to $`\rho _B`$ is subtracted out, which amounts to a normal ordering of the number operator $`\psi ^{}\psi `$. This yields the usual energy density for the $`\omega `$-sector,

$$ϵ_\omega =g_\omega \omega _0\rho _B^{ren}\frac{1}{2}m_\omega ^2\omega _0^2,$$
(43)
with

$$\rho _B^{ren}=\gamma (2\pi )^3𝑑𝒌(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _+).$$
(44)
For the $`\sigma `$ sector, since there are no additional divergences arising from finite temperatures, we adopt the same renormalization procedure as in Ref. . This yields the gap equation for field dependent effective sigma mass, $`M_\sigma (\beta )`$, in terms of the renormalised parameters as

$$M_\sigma (\beta )^2=m_R^2+12\lambda _R\sigma _0^2+12\lambda _RI_f(M_\sigma (\beta )),$$
(45)
where

$$I_f(M_\sigma (\beta ))=\frac{M_\sigma (\beta )^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_\sigma (\beta )^2}{m_R^2}\right)+\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝒌\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _\sigma (𝒌,\beta )}{(𝒌^2+M_\sigma (\beta )^2)^{1/2}},$$
(46)
Simplifying equation (38) and subtracting the vacuum contribution, we obtain the energy density for the $`\sigma `$,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_R^2\sigma _0^2+3\lambda _R\sigma _0^4+{\displaystyle \frac{M_\sigma ^4}{64\pi ^2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_\sigma ^2}{m_R^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)3\lambda _RI_f^2`$ (47)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\sigma ,0}^4}{64\pi ^2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\sigma ,0}^2}{m_R^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)+3\lambda _RI_{f0}^2,`$ (48)
where $`M_{\sigma ,0}`$ and $`I_{f0}`$ are the expressions as given by eqs. (45) and (46) with $`\sigma _0=0`$. We might note here that the gap equation given by (45) is identical to that obtained through resumming the daisy and superdaisy graphs  and hence includes higher order corrections from the scalar meson field.

In the absence of the quartic interaction ($`\lambda _R=0`$), equation (48) reduces to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_\sigma =\frac{1}{2}m_R^2\sigma _0^2,$$
(49)
which refers to the RHA. Also, we note that the sign of $`\lambda _R`$ must be chosen to be positive, because otherwise the energy density would become unbounded from below with vacuum fluctuations .

One then obtains the renormalised energy density as

$$ϵ_{ren}=ϵ_{finite}^{(N)}+\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{ren}+ϵ_\omega +\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_\sigma ,$$
(50)
with,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{ren}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{16\pi ^2}}(M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^{}}{M}}\right)+M^3(MM^{}){\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}M^2(MM^{})^2`$ (51)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{13}{3}}M(MM^{})^3{\displaystyle \frac{25}{12}}(MM^{})^4)`$ (52)
as the contribution from the Dirac sea. The thermodynamic potential, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, given by equation (16), after subtracting out the vacuum contributions, is now finite and is given in terms of the meson fields, $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\omega _0`$.

Extremisation of the thermodynamic potential with respect to the meson fields $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\omega _0`$ give the self–consistency conditions for $`\sigma _0`$ (and hence for the effective nucleon mass, $`M^{}=M+g_\sigma \sigma _0`$), as

$$\frac{d(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_\sigma )}{d\sigma _0}+\frac{\gamma }{(2\pi )^3}g_\sigma 𝑑𝒌\frac{M^{}}{(𝒌^2+M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{1/2}}(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _+)+\frac{d(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{ren})}{d\sigma _0}=0$$
(54)
and, for the vector meson field, $`\omega _0`$, as

$$\omega _0=\frac{g_\omega }{m_\omega ^2}\frac{\gamma }{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝒌(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _+)$$
(55)
where $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}`$ as the thermal distribution functions for the baryons and antibaryons, given through equation (29).

## III Results and Discussions

We now proceed with the finite temperature calculations for the nuclear matter. The values for $`C_s^2=g_\sigma ^2M^2/m_\sigma ^2`$ and $`C_v^2=g_\omega ^2M^2/m_\omega ^2`$, are given as $`C_s^2`$=183.3,167.5,137.9 and $`C_v^2`$=114.7,96.45,63.7, for the RHA and with quantum corrections from sigma meson, for $`\lambda _R`$=1.8 and 5 respectively . These values were fitted from the nuclear matter saturation properties as $`\rho _0=0.193fm^3`$ and binding energy as $``$15.75 MeV. For given values of the temperature and the baryon chemical potential, $`\mu `$, we calculate the different thermodynamic quantities, with the meson fields determined self consistently from equation (55).

We plot the pressure as a function of the baryon density, $`\rho _B`$ for low temperatures to examine the liquid gas phase transition, in figures 1 and 2, for the RHA and $`\lambda _R`$=1.8 respectively, At zero temperature, the pressure decreases with density, reaches a minimum, then increases and passes through $`p=0`$ at $`\rho =\rho _0`$, where the binding energy per nucleon is a minimum. The negative pressure indicates a mechanical instability of the uniform nuclear matter of saturation density, $`\rho _0`$. This has however an interesting physical interpretation. For the densities below the saturation density, the uniform nuclear matter is unstable and will break up into regions of nuclear matter with density, $`\rho =\rho _0`$ and zero pressure, surrounded by regions of vacuum with $`\rho =0`$ and $`p=0`$ . This pocket in the pressure versus density curve, disappears at the liquid gas phase transition point. For RHA, this transition appears to occur at around 23 MeV. Inclusion of sigma condensates reduces this critical temperature, $`T_c`$ to 22 MeV for $`\lambda _R`$=1.8 and to 21 MeV for $`\lambda _R`$=5.

For higher temperatures (beyond the liquid gas phase transition), we plot the EOS for RHA and for $`\lambda _R`$=1.8 in figures 3 and 4 respectively. These plots show a softening of the EOS due to quantum effects arising from the scalar meson sector. Such a softening of the EOS with inclusion of the quantum corrections was already observed for the zero temperature situation , which had given rise to a lower value for the incompressibility. For a given $`\rho _B`$, the pressure has the usual trend of increasing with temperature . The pressure for $`\rho _B=0`$ is seen to be already nonzero and appreciable at around a temperature of 150 MeV for RHA and 200 MeV for $`\lambda _R`$=1.8. This has contributions arising from the thermal distributions of baryons and antibaryons, as well as from a nonzero value for the sigma field.

The magnitude of the scalar meson field, $`\sigma `$ as obtained through the self-consistency condition (54), is plotted as a function of the baryon density for various temperatures in figure 5 for $`\lambda _R`$=1.8. It may be noted that for $`\rho _B`$=0, $`\sigma `$ field becomes nonzero at a temperature of around 160 MeV due to thermal effects, and is observed to have attained an appreciable value at 200 MeV due to contributions from the thermal distribution functions. The sigma field attaining a nonzero value was also observed for nuclear matter in the mean field approximation in Walecka model , which had led to a sharp fall in the effective nucleon mass between 150 MeV and 200 MeV. The rapid fall of $`M_N^{}`$ with increasing temperature, was ascribed to resemble the situation, when the system becomes a dilute gas of baryons in a sea of baryon-antibaryon pairs.

The density and temperature dependent nucleon mass is plotted in figures 6 and 7, for RHA and $`\lambda _R`$=1.8 respectively. The quantum effects are seen to increase the effective nucleon mass. It may be noted that the in-medium baryon mass increases with larger value of the quartic coupling. Hence, with inclusion of quantum effects, the rapid fall in effective nucleon mass as observed in the mean field calculations  is not seen in the present calculation. The nucleon mass here becomes about half of its vacuum value at T=250 MeV, as compared to $`M^{}/M0.2`$ in Ref.  at T=200 MeV.

The dependence of the entropy density on the temperature and density for $`\lambda _R`$=1.8 is shown in figure 8. This becomes nonzero for zero baryon density at around a temperature of 160 MeV, with contributions from the nonzero value for the sigma field. However, the increase with temperature, for $`\rho _B`$=0, is rather gradual and need not be associated with a phase transition. A similar behaviour of entropy density becoming nonzero at higher temperatures, for $`\rho _B`$=0, was also observed in the Walecka model mean field calculations  as well as in the QMC model .

Finally, the inclusion of quantum corrections through scalar meson condensates enables us to determine the in-medium sigma meson mass in a self–consistent manner, which we plot in figure 9 for $`\lambda _R`$=1.8. An increase in the quartic coupling, $`\lambda _R`$ increases the value for the effective sigma mass .

## IV Summary

To summarize, in the present work, we have studied the hot nuclear matter taking into account the vacuum polarisation effects within a nonperturbative variational calculation. The approximation here lies in the ansatz for the ground state. A realignment of the ground state with baryon-antibaryon condensates takes into account the summing over baryonic tadpole diagrams. Generalization of the vacuum with mesons gives rise to summing over multi-loop diagrams. We could have generalized the ansatz to include vector meson ($`\omega `$)-condensates in a similar way. However, such an ansatz with the present Lagrangian would lead to a trivial solution for the condensate function (thus giving us the mean field result). However, with a quartic term  for the $`\omega `$ meson, the present ansatz for the ground state would give rise to a nontrivial solution for the corresponding gap equation. Including such a term, it would be interesting to study the quantum effects arising from the vector meson.

We would also like to mention that the thermal distribution and the condensate functions are obtained here through a minimisation of the thermodynamic potential which included interactions with the corresponding effective masses for the $`\sigma `$-meson and nucleon determined self–consistently through the equations (45) and (54) at a given temperature.

We have looked into the liquid-gas phase transition, and observed that the critical temperature for the phase transition is lowered due to quantum correction effects from the scalar meson sector. At high temperatures, with quantum effects, the effective nucleon mass does not decrease as rapidly as in the mean field results . With increase in temperature, the decrease of nucleon mass as well as the increase in the entropy density appear to be rather gradual, i.e., without any sudden change and is not indicative of any (chiral or otherwise) phase transition.

## V Acknowledgement

One of the authors (P. K. P.) would like to acknowledge FAPESP (Processo-99/08544-0) for financial support and the IFT, São Paulo, for kind hospitality. This work was initiated when two of the authors (A. M. and P. K. P.) were visiting Institut für Theoretische Physik, J.W. Goethe Universität, Frankfurt, and they would like to thank the Institut für Theoretische Physik, for providing facilities and to Alexander von Humboldt foundation for financial support during that period. AM would like to acknowledge many useful discussions with Prof. J. C. Parikh.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

UNIFICATION OF INDEPENDENCE
IN QUANTUM PROBABILITY
Romuald Lenczewski

Hugo Steinhaus Center for Stochastic Methods
Institute of Mathematics, Technical University of Wrocław
50-370 Wrocław, Poland
e-mail lenczew@im.pwr.wroc.pl

## Abstract

Let ($`_{lI}𝒜,_{lI}`$($`\varphi _l,\psi _l`$)), be the conditionally free product of unital free \*-algebras $`𝒜_l`$, where $`\varphi _l,\psi _l`$ are states on $`𝒜_l`$, $`lI`$. We construct a sequence of noncommutative probability spaces ($`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}`$), $`m𝐍`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}=_{lI}\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_l^m`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}=_{lI}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l\stackrel{~}{\psi }_l^{(m1)}`$, $`m𝐍`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_l=𝒜𝐂[t]`$, and the states $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_l`$ are Boolean extensions of $`\varphi _l,\psi _l`$, $`lI`$, respectively. We define unital \*-homomorphisms $`j^{(m)}`$ $`:_{lI}𝒜_l\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}j^{(m)}`$ converges pointwise to $`_{lI}(\varphi _l,\psi _l)`$. Thus, the variables $`j^{(m)}(w)`$, where $`w`$ is a word in $`_{lI}𝒜_l`$, converge in law to the conditionally free variables. The sequence of noncommutative probability spaces ($`𝒜^{(m)},\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}`$), where $`𝒜^{(m)}=j^{(m)}(_{lI}𝒜_l)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}`$ is the restriction of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}`$ to $`𝒜^{(m)}`$, is called a hierarchy of freeness. Since all finite joint correlations for known examples of independence can be obtained from tensor products of appropriate \*-algebras, this approach can be viewed as a unification of independence. Finally, we show how to make the $`m`$-fold free product $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$ into a cocommutative \*-bialgebra associated with $`m`$-freeness.

1. Introduction

The aim of this paper is to show that the main types of noncommutative independence can be obtained from tensor independence and are related to appropriately constructed \*-bialgebras.

Since different models have led to almost separate theories and techniques, it seems desirable to develop one theory covering all the cases, including tensor, free and Boolean independence as well as their various modifications. This work makes the first step in this direction, namely is provides a unified treatment of the main notions of independence existing in the literature in the sense that it reduces the problem of calculating finite joint correlations to a similar problem formulated for the tensor product of \*-algebras. In other words, it shows that the main types of products of states can be reduced to tensor products of states or they are pointwise limits of such states like in the case of freeness.

From the axiomatic approach presented in \[Sch2\] it follows that under certain assumptions there are three “pure” kinds of independence, namely commutative \[C-H, G-vW\], Boolean \[vW\] and free \[Voi, V-D-N\], each with characteristic combinatorics. An interpolation between the Boolean model and the free model has been given in terms of the so-called conditional freeness (earlier called $`\psi `$-independence) \[B-S\], which allows us to extract both models as special cases. Essentially, the conditionally free probability is based on the approach to the free probability presented by Voiculescu. Noncommutative probability spaces obtained from this kind of approach have always been viewed as very noncommutative and thus not directly related to the tensor product case. Our theory provides a sequence of explicit tensor product constructions which allows to (pointwise) approximate the conditionally free product of states and thus may be viewed as a unifying tensorization scheme.

In our approach, instead of making the theory noncommutative in the definition of the product of \*-algebras, we stick to the tensor product and simply take noncommutative extensions of those \*-algebras with non-canonical embeddings. Our ideas go back to the central limit theorem for the \*-Hopf algebra $`U_q(su(2))`$ in \[Len1, Len2\]. This was our version of “$`q`$-independence”, which gave the $`q`$-Gaussian law in the $`q`$-central limit theorem. It seemed natural that one should be able to construct suitable \*-bialgebras associated with free independence and Boolean independence. An axiomatic approach to this subject was presented by Schürmann \[Sch2\]. Our approach is different and is the first one which gives explicit \*-homomorphic embeddings of the free product of unital free \*-algebras into suitable tensor products. Moreover, our construction can also be used for \*-algebras for which $`𝒜^0`$ is a \*-subalgebra of $`𝒜`$, where $`𝒜=𝒜^0\mathrm{𝐂𝟏}`$. Thus, it is not less general than the approach in \[Sch2\] (see Section 3). Moreover, it gives a nice structure embodied by the constructed hierarchy of freeness and this way fills the “gap” between Boolean independence and freeness.

The main idea consists in constructing \*-bialgebras (or, \*-Hopf algebras, if possible) similar to the $`q`$-bialgebras or the $`q`$-deformed enveloping algebras $`U_q(su(2))`$, but perhaps “more noncommutative”, i.e. with “more noncommutative” kernels replacing the kernels given by $`q`$-relations studied in \[Sch1, Len1, Len2\]. It presents no difficulty to construct a \*-bialgebra associated with Boolean independence, but in order to cover freeness as well as the general case of conditional freeness, one needs to construct a sequence of \*-bialgebras in order to obtain freeness as the limit in law (by which we understand the convergence of finite joint correlations).

This works for independent copies of the same algebra. If we want to consider (free \[Av, Voi\], conditionally free \[B-L-S\], Boolean \[vW\]) products of different algebras, a natural generalization of the \*-bialgebra techniques can be used. Instead of the sequence of coproducts $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}`$, we take a sequence of \*-homomorphisms $`j^{(m)}`$ (see Definition 2.1). It turns out that in order to obtain the Boolean product it is enough to consider the 1-fold tensor product. The 2-fold tensor product construction gives a noncommutative probability space that we associate with 2-freeness, and so on, the $`m`$-fold tensor product giving $`m`$-freeness. Consequently, in the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$ we obtain freeness. In fact, all those constructions can be embedded into one, using the infinite tensor product of \*-algebras, but it is convenient in some places to carry out the proofs for the sequence of $`m`$-fold tensor product constructions.

The implications of this fact should lead to some new interesting developments of the theory. It is not clear at this point to what extent our result will facilitate a unified approach to other aspects of quantum probability. It is also hard to claim that the main results in quantum probability will be reducible to the tensor product techniques and, in the case of independent copies of the same \*-algebra, to the probability theory for \*-bialgebras or \*-Hopf algebras, no matter how nice this connection might seem. However, we think that our result provides a nice structure of independence in the noncommutative probability theory and perhaps will lead to a unified treatment of such topics as limit theorems, invariance principles, Fock spaces, etc.

In Section 2 we give basic definitions related to the extensions of states on unital free \*-algebras and we introduce a sequence ($`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}`$) of quantum probability spaces. Namely, for each $`m𝐍`$ and given two unital free \*-algebras $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ we define the algebraic tensor product

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_1^m\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_2^m$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_l=𝒜_l𝐂[t]`$, $`l=1,2`$, with hermitian $`t`$. Given two pairs of states on $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$, namely ($`\varphi _1,\psi _1`$) and ($`\varphi _2,\psi _2`$), respectively, we construct the tensor product state

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(m)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^{(m)}=\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^{(m1)}\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2^{(m1)}\right),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2`$ are Boolean extensions of $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$, respectively (see Definition 2.0), to states on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_l`$, $`l=1,2`$. For each $`m𝐍`$ we construct a \*-subalgebra $`𝒜^{(m)}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$ on which the restriction of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}`$ denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}`$ can be interpreted as the (conditionally) $`m`$-free product state. The pair ($`𝒜^{(m)},\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}`$) is then the noncommutative probability space associated with $`m`$-freeness. In particular, $`1`$-freeness is in this scheme assigned to the Boolean product and Boolean independence.

In Section 3 we prove a number of technical results, especially certain factorization lemmas which enable us to formulate our main results.

These are presented in Section 4, where we show that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}j^{(m)}`$ converges pointwise to the conditionally free product of states $`_{l\{1,2\}}(\varphi _i,\psi _i)`$ on $`_{i\{1,2\}}𝒜_i`$. In particular, when $`\psi _l=\varphi _l`$, $`l=1,2`$, we obtain in the limit the free product of Voiculescu. We also show how our results can be extended to the case of infinitely many \*-algebras. An uncountable number of free \*-algebras can be treated along the same lines.

In Section 5 we restrict ourselves to the case of one unital free \*-algebra: $`𝒜_l=𝒜`$ for all $`l𝐍`$. This corresponds to the case of conditionally free convolution powers of states on $`𝒜`$. For each $`m𝐍`$ we equip the $`m`$-fold free product $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{𝒜}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ ($`m`$ times) with a \*-bialgebra structure $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)},\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)},ϵ^{(m)})`$ with coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}`$ and counit $`ϵ^{(m)}`$ (in this notation the symbols of products and units are supressed), which has an interesting property. Namely, if we lift two tensor product states $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(m)},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^{(m)}`$ to states $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2`$, respectively, on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$, the convolution of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(m)}`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^{(m)}`$, which by definition is expressed in terms of the coproduct as $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(m)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^{(m)}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(m)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^{(m)})\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)},`$ satisfies

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(m)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^{(m)}\right)\widehat{i}_1(w)=(\varphi _1,\psi _1)(\varphi _2,\psi _2)(w)$$

where $`\widehat{i}_1`$ is the canonical \*-homomorphic embedding of $`𝒜`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$ given by $`aa_{(1)}`$, where $`a_{(1)}`$ is the first copy of the generator $`a`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$.

We view our model as a unified model of independence in the sense that finite joint correlations for known types of independence can be obtained from tensor products of appropriately defined \*-algebras and tensor products of states. Here, the model of free probability of Voiculescu takes the distinguished place of a limit case. In a subsequent paper we will show that using infinite tensor products and the GNS construction one can in fact embed all levels of freeness in one tensor product of algebras. A connection with the free product representation will alos be established there.

2. Preliminaries

By a noncommutative probability space we understand a pair $`(𝒜,\varphi )`$, where $`𝒜`$ is a unital \*-algebra and $`\varphi :𝒜𝐂`$ is a state, i.e. a normalized ($`\varphi (\mathrm{𝟏})=1`$), positive ($`\varphi (xx^{})0`$ for all $`x𝒜`$) functional.

Our construction will be carried out for unital free \*-algebras $`𝒜`$ generated by a set $`𝒢^+`$. We denote $`𝒢^{}=\{a^{}|a𝒢^+\}`$, $`𝒢=𝒢^+𝒢^{}`$. Nonempty words in $`𝒜`$ will be denoted by $`w=a_1\mathrm{}a_k`$, where $`a_i𝒢`$. The length of $`w`$ will be denoted by $`l(w)`$. We allow the empty word, which is denoted by $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, of length $`l(\mathrm{𝟏})=0`$. The involution is given by the antilinear extension of $`(a_1\mathrm{}a_k)^{}=a_k^{}\mathrm{}a_1^{}`$.

For a given unital free \*-algebra $`𝒜`$ we consider the free product of $`𝒜`$ and $`𝐂[t]`$, the algebra of polynomials in one hermitian variable $`t`$, which we denote

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒜}=𝒜𝐂[t].$$

In this free product we identify units. Also, we equip $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ with a natural involution defined by the antilinear extension of

$$(t_0w_1t_1\mathrm{}w_nt_n)^{}=t_nw_n^{}\mathrm{}t_1w_1^{}t_0,$$

where $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ are non-empty words in $`𝒜`$, and $`t_0,\mathrm{},t_n`$ are monomials in $`𝐂[t]`$, respectively, of which $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_{n1}\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

Below we will define an extension of a state $`\varphi `$ on $`𝒜`$ to a state $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ which we refer to as the Boolean extension of $`\varphi `$.

Definition 2.0. For a given state $`\varphi `$ on $`𝒜`$, we define a Boolean extension of $`\varphi `$ to be a functional $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$, which is the linear extension of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\mathrm{𝟏})=1`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\left(t_0w_1t_1\mathrm{}w_nt_n\right)=\varphi (w_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (w_n)$$

where $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ are non-empty words in $`𝒜`$ and $`t_0,\mathrm{},t_n`$ are words in $`𝐂[t]`$, of which $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_{n1}`$ are non-empty.

One can obtain $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ from the Boolean product of $`\varphi `$ and a \*-homomorphism $`h:𝐂[t]𝐂`$, for which $`h(t)=1`$. In fact, from the definition of the Boolean product $`\varphi _Bh`$ (see, for instance \[B-L-S\]), we obtain

$$\varphi _Bh\left(t_0w_1t_1\mathrm{}w_nt_n\right)=h(t_0)\mathrm{}h(t_n)\varphi (w_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (w_n)$$

and using the assumptions on $`h`$ given above, we obtain the Boolean extension of $`\varphi `$.

From \[B-L-S\] it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ is a state. It is also easy to see that the two sided \*-ideal generated by $`t(\mathrm{𝟏}t)`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. Thus we can put $`t^n=t`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}t=(\mathrm{𝟏}t)^n`$ in all formulas written modulo $`\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. In other words, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ does not distinguish between positive powers of $`t`$.

One can say that the generator $`t`$ serves as a “Boolean identity”, in contrast to $`U_q(su(2))`$-type Hopf algebras, where a similar object satisfies certain $`q`$-commutation relation and can be viewed as a “$`q`$-identity”. Note that it plays the role of a “separator” of words from the \*-algebra $`𝒜`$. This nice property will be crucial in further considerations.

Let us also recall the definition of the conditionally free product of \*-algebras. For a given family of unital \*-algebras $`𝒜_l`$, $`lI`$, and given pairs of states $`\varphi _l,\psi _l`$ on $`𝒜_l`$, one can define a state $`\varphi =_{lI}(\varphi _l,\psi _l)`$ on their free product $`_{lI}𝒜_l`$ by $`\varphi (\mathrm{𝟏})=1`$ and the factorization property

$$\varphi (a_1\mathrm{}a_n)=\varphi _{k_1}(a_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _{k_n}(a_n),$$

whenever $`a_j𝒜_{k_j}`$ and $`\psi _{k_j}(a_j)=0`$, where $`k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_n`$. In particular, when $`\psi _j=\varphi _j`$, we obtain the free independence, and when $`\psi _j=\pi _1`$, where $`\pi _1(\mathrm{𝟏})=1`$ and $`\pi _1(w)=0`$ for any non-empty word $`w`$, we get Boolean independence.

For given two unital free \*-algebras $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$ generated by $`𝒢_1^+,𝒢_2^+`$, respectively, let $`𝒢_l=𝒢_l^+𝒢_l^{}`$, where $`𝒢_l^{}=\{a^{}|a𝒢_l^+\}`$, $`l=1,2`$. Given two pairs of states on those \*-algebras, namely $`(\varphi _l,\psi _l)`$, $`l=1,2`$, we construct their Boolean extensions $`(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_l)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_l`$ as explained in Section 2. Using them, we will construct for each $`m𝐍`$ a new noncommutative probability space $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)})`$, where

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_1^m\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_2^m$$

and the state $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^{(m1)}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2^{(m1)}.$$

The involution on the $`2m`$-fold tensor product is given by

$$(b_1\mathrm{}b_mc_1\mathrm{}c_m)^{}=b_1^{}\mathrm{}b_m^{}c_1^{}\mathrm{}c_m^{}.$$

Let $`i_{k,m}`$, $`m𝐍,k[m]\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ be the canonical \*-homomorphic embeddings of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_l`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_l^{(m)}`$ (for each $`l`$ we use the same notation), i.e.

$$i_{k,m}(a)=I_{k1}aI_{mk},i_{k,m}(t)=I_{k1}tI_{mk},$$

where $`a𝒢`$, $`I_k=\mathrm{𝟏}^k`$, extended by linearity and multiplicativity to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_l`$. We will adopt the convention that $`i_{m+1,m}(a)=0`$. We will also use the abbreviated notation for products of $`i_{k,m}(t)`$’s. Namely

$$t_{[k,m]}=i_{k,m}(t)\mathrm{}i_{m,m}(t)=I_{k1}t^{(mk+1)}.$$

Definition 2.1 For given $`a𝒢_1,b𝒢_2`$ and $`m𝐍`$ let

$$j_1^{(m)}(a)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}(i_{k,m}(a)i_{k+1,m}(a))t_{[k,m]}$$

$$j_2^{(m)}(b)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}t_{[k,m]}(i_{k,m}(b)i_{k+1,m}(b))$$

and define the \*-homomorphism

$$j^{(m)}:𝒜_1𝒜_2\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}$$

as the linear extension of $`j^{(m)}(\mathrm{𝟏})=I_mI_m`$ and

$$j^{(m)}(w_1\mathrm{}w_n)=j_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n),$$

where $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ are non-empty words in $`𝒜_{k_1},\mathrm{},𝒜_{k_n}`$, where $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_n\{1,2\}`$.

Equivalently, we can write the above condition in terms of the generators, i.e.

$$j^{(m)}(a_1\mathrm{}a_n)=j_{k_1}^{(m)}(a_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(m)}(a_n),$$

where $`a_l𝒢_{k_l}`$, $`l=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

Remark 1.  We can also write the defining relations of Definition 2.1 in the following way:

$$j_1^{(m)}(a)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}j_{1,k}^{(m)}(a),j_2^{(m)}(a)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}j_{2,k}^{(m)}(a)$$

where

$$j_{1,k}^{(m)}(a)=i_{k,m}(a)(t_{[k,m]}t_{[k1,m]}),$$

$$j_{2,k}^{(m)}(b)=(t_{[k,m]}t_{[k1,m]})i_{k,m}(b),$$

where $`a𝒢_1`$, $`b𝒢_2`$ and we understand that $`t_{[0,m]}=0`$. It turns out that both ways of writing Definition 2.1 (and its generalizations introduced later) are useful, the first one – for the \*-bialgebra construction, the second one – for recurrence relations. We will use them interchangably.

Remark 2. The following notation will also be used:

$$𝒜^{(m)}=j^{(m)}(𝒜_1𝒜_2)\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}|_{𝒜^{(m)}}.$$

Moreover, the state $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}j^{(m)}`$ on $`𝒜_1𝒜_2`$ will be called the $`m`$-free product state.

Remark 3. By $`L^{(m)}`$ we denote the two-sided ideal in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$ generated by $`i_{k,2m}(t(\mathrm{𝟏}t))`$, $`1k2m`$. It is easy to see that $`L^{(m)}\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}`$.

Proposition 2.2. Let $`w,v`$ are non-empty words in $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$, respectively. Then

$$j_1^{(m)}(w)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}j_{1,k}^{(m)}(w)(\mathrm{mod}L^{(m)}),j_2^{(m)}(v)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}j_{2,k}^{(m)}(w)(\mathrm{mod}L^{(m)}),$$

where

$$j_{1,k}^{(m)}(w)=i_{k,m}(w)(t_{[k,m]}t_{[k1,m]}),$$

$$j_{2,k}^{(m)}(v)=(t_{[k,m]}t_{[k1,m]})i_{k,m}(v).$$

Proof. Let $`a,a^{}𝒢_1`$. We have

$$j_1^{(m)}(a)j_1^{(m)}(a^{})=\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{m}{}}j_{1,k}^{(m)}(a)j_{1,l}^{(m)}(a^{}).$$

If $`1<k<l`$, then we obtain

$$j_{1,k}^{(m)}(a)j_{1,l}^{(m)}(a^{})=i_{k,m}(a)i_{l,m}(a^{})(t_{[k,m]}t_{[k1,m]})(t_{[l,m]}t_{[l1,m]})$$

$$=i_{k,m}(a)i_{l,m}(a^{})(I_{k2}(\mathrm{𝟏}t)t^{(mk+1)})(I_{l2}(\mathrm{𝟏}t)t^{(ml+1)})$$

$$=i_{k,m}(a)i_{l,m}(a^{})I_{k2}(\mathrm{𝟏}t)t^{(lk1)}t(\mathrm{𝟏}t)(t^2)^{(ml+1)}=0(\mathrm{mod}L^{(m)}).$$

If $`1=k<l`$, then a similar analysis leads to

$$j_{1,1}^{(m)}(a)j_{1,l}^{(m)}(a^{})=i_{1,m}(a)i_{l,m}(a^{})t_{[1,m]}(t_{[l,m]}t_{[l1,m]})$$

$$=i_{1,m}(a)i_{l,m}(a^{})t^m(I_{l2}(\mathrm{𝟏}t)t^{(ml+1)})$$

$$=i_{1,m}(a)i_{l,m}(a^{})t^{l2}t(\mathrm{𝟏}t)(t^2)^{(ml+1)}=0(\mathrm{mod}L^{(m)}).$$

Due to commutations, the case $`k>l`$ does not have to be considered. Now,

$$j_{1,k}^{(m)}(a)j_{1,k}^{(m)}(a^{})=i_{k,m}(aa^{})(t_{[k,m]}t_{[k1,m]})(t_{[k,m]}t_{[k1,m]})$$

$$=i_{k,m}(aa^{})(I_{k2}(\mathrm{𝟏}t)^2(t^2)^{(mk+1)})=j_{1,k}^{(m)}(aa^{})(\mathrm{mod}L^m).$$

This reasoning can now be extended to a product of $`n`$ generators. The proof for $`j_2^{(m)}(v)`$ is similar. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. Note that if we considered not free \*-algebras, but \*-algebras, for which in the decomposition $`𝒜_k=𝒜_k^0\mathrm{𝐂𝟏}`$, $`𝒜_k^0`$ is a \*-subalgebra of $`𝒜_k`$, then we could obtain such algebras from the associated free \*-algebras by considering relations that do not involve the units. But from the above proposition it is easy to see that such relations are preserved by $`j_k^{(m)}`$, $`k=1,2`$ (modulo $`L^{(m)}`$). Therefore, our construction will also be valid for such unital \*-algebras.

Before we consider the general case, we look at the simplest case first, i.e. $`m=1`$. Then

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(1)}=\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_1\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_2,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(1)}=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2$$

and

$$j_1^{(1)}(a)=at,j_2^{(1)}(b)=tb,$$

where $`a,b`$ are generators of $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$, respectively. Thus, if $`w,v`$ are nonempty words in $`𝒜_1`$, $`𝒜_2`$, respectively, then

$$j_1^{(1)}(w)=wt^{l(w)}=wt(\mathrm{mod}L^{(1)})$$

$$j_2^{(1)}(v)=t^{l(v)}v=tv(\mathrm{mod}L^{(1)})$$

where $`l(w),l(v)`$ are the lenghts of words $`w,v`$, respectively.

We obtain for $`m=1`$ the Boolean factorization law:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(1)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(1)}(w_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(1)}(w_n)\right)=\varphi _{k_1}(w_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _{k_n}(w_n)$$

with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(1)}(\mathrm{𝟏})=1`$. Thus we can write

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(1)}j^{(1)}\varphi _1_B\varphi _2,$$

where $`\varphi _1_B\varphi _2`$ denotes the Boolean product of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. Thus the Boolean model is associated wih $`1`$-freeness. This terminology can be justified by means of the following argument: $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(1)}j^{(1)}`$ agrees with the conditionally free product on words $`w_1w_2`$. This is the trivial case but simple enough to see how the ideas of our approach developed. In the sequel we will construct succesive approximations of (conditional) freeness, using tensor products of higher orders.

Before we go on, let us write down a simple result for the Boolean case which will be used later.

Proposition 2.3. The following factorization property holds:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(1)}\left((j_{k_1}^{(1)}(w_1)d_{k_1}^{(1)}(w_1))\mathrm{}(j_{k_n}^{(1)}(w_n)d_{k_n}^{(1)}(w_n))\right)$$

$$=\left(\varphi _{k_1}(w_1)\psi _{k_1}(w_1)\right)\mathrm{}\left(\varphi _{k_n}(w_n)\psi _{k_n}(w_n)\right)$$

where $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ are non-empty words from $`𝒜_{k_1},\mathrm{},𝒜_{k_n}`$, $`k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_n`$, and

$$d_1^{(1)}(w)=\psi _1(w)t,d_2^{(1)}(w)=t\psi _2(w).$$

Proof. This property follows directly from the fact that $`t`$ plays in both $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_2`$ the role of a separator of non-empty words from $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$, respectively. $`\mathrm{}`$

The next order of freeness will be associated with the double tensor product

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(2)}=\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_1\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_1\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_2\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_2$$

and the double tensor product state

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2$$

with the \*-homomorphism $`j^{(2)}`$ defined by

$$j_1^{(2)}(a)=i_1(a)t_{[1,2]}+i_2(a)(t_{[2,2]}t_{[1,2]})$$

$$a\mathrm{𝟏}tt+\mathrm{𝟏}a(\mathrm{𝟏}t)t$$

$$j_2^{(2)}(b)=t_{[1,2]}i_1(b)+(t_{[2,2]}t_{[1,2]})i_2(b)$$

$$ttb\mathrm{𝟏}+(\mathrm{𝟏}t)t\mathrm{𝟏}b$$

for generators $`a𝒢_1,b𝒢_2`$, respectively. Let us present two examples.

Example 1. Let $`a_1,a_2𝒢_1`$, $`b𝒢_2`$. Then

$$j_1^{(2)}(a_1)j_2^{(2)}(b)j_1^{(2)}(a_2)=\left(a_1\mathrm{𝟏}tt+\mathrm{𝟏}a_1(\mathrm{𝟏}t)t\right)$$

$$\times \left(ttb\mathrm{𝟏}+(\mathrm{𝟏}t)t\mathrm{𝟏}b\right)\left(a_2\mathrm{𝟏}tt+\mathrm{𝟏}a_2(\mathrm{𝟏}t)t\right)$$

$$=\left(a_1\mathrm{𝟏}tt\right)\left(ttb\mathrm{𝟏}+(\mathrm{𝟏}t)t\mathrm{𝟏}b\right)\left(a_2\mathrm{𝟏}tt\right)(\mathrm{mod}L^{(2)}).$$

Therefore,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}\left(j_1^{(2)}(a_1)j_2^{(2)}(b)j_1^{(2)}(a_2)\right)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}(a_1ta_2ttbtt)$$

$$+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}(a_1a_2tttbt)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}(a_1ta_2tttbt)$$

$$=\varphi _2(a_1)\varphi _2(a_2)\varphi _1(b)+\varphi _2(a_1a_2)\psi _1(b)\varphi _2(a_1)\varphi _2(a_2)\psi _1(b).$$

Example 2. Let $`a_1,a_2𝒢_1`$, $`b_1,b_2𝒢_2`$. Then

$$j_1^{(2)}(a_1)j_2^{(2)}(b_1)j_1^{(2)}(a_2)j_2^{(2)}(b_2)=\left(a_1tttb_1t+a_1(\mathrm{𝟏}t)tttb_1\right)$$

$$\times \left(a_2tttb_2t+ta_2t(\mathrm{𝟏}t)b_2t\right)(\mathrm{mod}L^{(2)})$$

$$=a_1ta_2tttb_1tb_2t+a_1tta_2t\left[tb_1b_2ttb_1tb_2t\right]$$

$$+\left[a_1a_2tta_1ta_2tt\right]tb_2tb_1t(\mathrm{mod}L^{(2)}).$$

Therefore, we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}\left(j_1^{(2)}(a_1)j_2^{(2)}(b_1)j_1^{(2)}(a_2)j_2^{(2)}(b_2)\right)=\varphi _1(a_1)\varphi _1(a_2)\varphi _2(b_1)\varphi _2(b_2)$$

$$+\varphi _1(a_1)\psi _1(a_2)\left[\varphi _2(b_1b_2)\varphi _2(b_1)\varphi _2(b_2)\right]+\left[\varphi _1(a_1a_2)\varphi _1(a_1)\varphi _1(a_2)\right]\varphi _2(b_2)\psi _2(b_1).$$

In both examples we obtain the same expressions as if we calculated $`_{l\{1,2\}}(\varphi _l,\psi _l)`$ acting on $`a_1ba_2`$ and $`a_1b_1a_2b_2`$, respectively.

3. Factorization Lemmas

In this section we will derive some factorization lemmas that will be needed in the proofs of the main theorems in Section 4.

Let us define the following “condition” maps $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}=\mathrm{id}^{(m1)}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1\mathrm{id}^{(m1)}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2.$$

Note that

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m2)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}=\mathrm{}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(1)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}.$$

Proposition 3.0. We can write

$$\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}j_1^{(m)}\right)(w)=j_1^{(m1)}(w)+g_1^{(m1)}(w)(\mathrm{mod}L^{(m1)})$$

$$\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}j_2^{(m)}\right)(v)=j_2^{(m1)}(v)+g_2^{(m1)}(v)(\mathrm{mod}L^{(m1)})$$

where

$$g_1^{(m1)}(w)=\psi _1(w)[I_{m1}I_{m2}(\mathrm{𝟏}t)],$$

$$g_2^{(m1)}(v)=\psi _2(v)[I_{m2}(\mathrm{𝟏}t)I_{m1}],$$

and $`w,v`$ are non-empty words in $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$, respectively.
Proof. It is an immediate consequence of Proposition 2.2. $`\mathrm{}`$.

Proposition 3.1. The unital \*-homomorphisms $`j^{(m)}`$ preserve the marginal laws, i.e.

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}j_1^{(m)}=\varphi _1,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}j_2^{(m)}=\varphi _2.$$

Proof. If $`m=1`$, it is obvious. For $`m>1`$, we obtain the result using the induction argument. Clearly, $`\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}j_k^{(m)}\right)(\mathrm{𝟏})=1=\varphi _k(\mathrm{𝟏})`$, since $`\varphi _l,\psi _l`$ are states on $`𝒜_l`$, $`l=1,2`$. Thus, assume that $`w=a_1\mathrm{}a_n`$ is a non-empty word in $`𝒜_1`$. Using Proposition 3.0, we obtain

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}j_1^{(m)}\right)(w)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}\left(j_1^{(m1)}(w)+g_1^{(m1)}(w)\right)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\left(j_1^{(m1)}(w)\right).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

In the expressions for $`j_k^{(m)}(w)`$, $`k=1,2`$, there is always exactly one term with one separator $`t`$. Since it will have to be subtracted from $`j_k^{(m)}(w)`$, we introduce a new notation. Thus, for words $`w,v`$ in $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$, respectively, let

$$d_1^{(m)}(w)=i_{m,m}(w)t_{[m,m]}I_{m1}wI_{m1}t,$$

$$d_2^{(m)}(v)=t_{[m,m]}i_{m,m}(v)I_{m1}tI_{m1}v.$$

Let us also note that

$$(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}d_1^{(m)})(w)=\psi _1(w)[I_{m1}I_{m1}],(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}d_2^{(m)})(v)=\psi _2(v)[I_{m1}I_{m1}].$$

for words $`w,v`$ in $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$, respectively. Moreover,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}(j_k^{(m)}(w)d_k^{(m)}(w))=j_k^{(m1)}(w)h_k^{(m1)}(w)(\mathrm{mod}L^{(m1)})$$

where $`k=1,2`$ and

$$h_1^{(m1)}(w)=\psi _1(w)[I_{m1}I_{m2}t],h_2^{(m1)}(w)=\psi _2(w)[I_{m2}tI_{m1}]$$

The main purpose of introducing the separator $`t`$ is to obtain some factorizations of correlations. We present two easy lemmas.

Lemma 3.2. Let $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ be non-empty words in $`𝒜_{k_1},\mathrm{},𝒜_{k_n}`$, respectively, where $`k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_n`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}`$ exhibits the following multiplicative property:

$$\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}j^{(m)}\right)\left(w_1\mathrm{}w_n\right)=\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}j_{k_1}^{(m)}\right)\left(w_1\right)\mathrm{}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}j_{k_n}^{(m)}\right)\left(w_n\right)(\mathrm{mod}L^{(m1)})$$

Proof. The only thing to show is that all words from $`𝒜_1`$ appearing at the $`m`$-th site and all words from $`𝒜_2`$ appearing at the $`2m`$-th site are separated by $`t`$. But that immediately follows from Proposition 2.2 since each summand of $`j_1^{(m)}(w)`$, $`w𝒜_1`$, has $`t`$ at the $`2m`$-th site and each summand of $`j_2^{(m)}(v)`$, $`v𝒜_2`$, has $`t`$ at the $`m`$-th site. $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 3.3. Let $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_p`$ be non-empty words in $`𝒜_{k_1},\mathrm{},𝒜_{k_n}`$, respectively, where $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_n\{1,2\}`$ and $`k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_n`$. Then

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}\left[\left(j_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)d_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)\right)\mathrm{}\left(j_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n)d_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n)\right)\right]$$

$$=\left(\varphi _{k_1}(w_1)\psi _{k_1}(w_1)\right)\mathrm{}\left(\varphi _{k_n}(w_n)\psi _{k_n}(w_n)\right).$$

Proof. The case $`m=1`$ is covered by Proposition 2.1. The general case follows from the induction argument. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}`$ and use Lemma 3.2 to obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}\left[\left(j_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)d_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)\right)\mathrm{}\left(j_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n)d_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n)\right)\right]$$

$$=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\left[\left(j_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1)h_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1)\right)\mathrm{}\left(j_{k_n}^{(m1)}(w_n)h_{k_n}^{(m1)}(w_n)\right)\right]$$

Write $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m2)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}`$ and, since each $`h_1^{(m1)}(w_l)`$ has $`t`$ at the $`2m2`$-th site and each $`h_2^{(m1)}(w_k)`$ has $`t`$ at the $`m1`$-th site, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}`$ is multiplicative also on the products of the above type, hence we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m2)}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1)h_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1)\right)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}\left(j_{k_n}^{(m1)}(w_n)h_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_n)\right)\right]$$

$$=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m2)}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1)d_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1)\right)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}\left(j_{k_n}^{(m1)}(w_n)d_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_n)\right)\right]$$

$$=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\left[\left(j_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1)d_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1)\right)\mathrm{}\left(j_{k_n}^{(m1)}(w_n)d_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_n)\right)\right]$$

where (in the first equation) we used

$$h_1^{(m1)}(w)d_1^{(m1)}(w)\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}$$

$$h_2^{(m1)}(v)d_2^{(m1)}(v)\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}$$

for words $`w,v`$ in $`𝒜_1`$, $`𝒜_2`$, respectively. This finishes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

4. Main Theorems

We are ready to state our main result which says that the $`m`$-free product state agrees with the (conditionally) free product state on word products of not more than $`2m`$ words. The proof of that fact will be carried out in two steps. First, we show that $`m`$-freeness agrees with conditional freeness for products of at most $`m+1`$ words (Theorem 4.0). Then, we will improve that result in Theorem 4.1 and prove that in fact $`m+1`$ can be replaced by $`2m`$. As a corollary we obtain pointwise convergence of the $`m`$-free product states $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}j^{(m)}`$ to the conditionally free product state. Thus, the conditionally free case, in particular the free case, is obtained as a limit of $`m`$-fold tensor product constructions.

Theorem 4.0. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(m)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^{(m)}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_l^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l\stackrel{~}{\psi }_l^{(m1)}`$, $`l=1,2`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_l`$ are Boolean extensions of states $`\varphi _l`$, $`\psi _l`$ on unital free \*-algebras, $`𝒜_i`$, $`i=1,2`$. Then, if $`nm+1`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}j^{(m)}`$ agrees with the conditionally free product $`_{i\{1,2\}}(\varphi _i,\psi _i)`$ on word products $`w_1\mathrm{}w_n`$, where $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n𝒜_{k_1},\mathrm{},𝒜_{k_n}`$, respectively, and $`k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_n`$
Proof. If $`m=1`$, then the result is trivial (Boolean case). So let us proceed with the induction. We have $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}j^{(m)})(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}(I_mI_m)=1`$. Now,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n)\right)$$

$$=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}\left(\left(j_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)d_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)\right)\mathrm{}\left(j_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n)d_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n)\right)\right)$$

$$+\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)\mathrm{}d_{k_i}^{(m)}(w_i)\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n)\right)$$

$$\underset{i<l}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)\mathrm{}d_{k_i}^{(m)}(w_i)\mathrm{}d_{k_l}^{(m)}(w_l)\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n)\right)$$

$$+\mathrm{}(1)^n\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}\left(d_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)\mathrm{}d_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n)\right).$$

Note that the above recurrence relation looks like the corresponding one for the conditionally free case, except that instead of numbers we have $`d_{k_i}^{(m)}(w)`$’s replacing $`j_{k_i}^{(m)}(w)`$’s at one, two, or more places. We invoke Lemma 3.2 to conclude that the first term on the right -hand side is identical to the conditionally free case. Thus what we need to prove is that in the remaining ones $`d_{k_i}^{(m)}(w)`$’s indeed behave like numbers. Thus the proof reduces to proving the following claim.
Claim:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)\mathrm{}d_{k_{i(1)}}^{(m)}(w_{i(1)})\mathrm{}d_{k_{i(l)}}^{(m)}(w_{i(l)})\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n)\right)$$

$$=_{i\{1,2\}}(\varphi _i,\psi _i)(w_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{˘}{w}_{i(1)}\mathrm{}\stackrel{˘}{w}_{i(l)}\mathrm{}w_n)\psi _{k_{i(1)}}(w_{i(1)})\mathrm{}\psi _{k_{i(l)}}(w_{i(l)}),$$

for $`nm+1`$, where by $`\stackrel{˘}{}`$ we understand that the words with indices $`i(1),\mathrm{},i(l)`$, $`1ln`$, are omitted. Note that the claim says that the operators $`d_{k_i}^{(m)}(w)`$ do behave like constants locally, i.e. if the correlation is not too long (for now, $`nm+1`$) and that is the reason why we only have local freeness for fixed $`m`$.

The claim will be proved by induction. It trivially holds for $`m=1`$ and $`n2`$, so assume that it holds for $`m1`$. In particular, this inductive assumption implies that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}j^{(m1)}`$ agrees with $`_{i\{1,2\}}(\varphi _i,\psi _i)`$ on products of $`nm`$ words (Lemma 3.3 is used and the above recurrence relation for $`m1`$).

Using $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}`$, we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)\mathrm{}d_{k_{i(1)}}^{(m)}(w_{i(1)})\mathrm{}d_{k_{i(l)}}^{(m)}(w_{i(l)})\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n)\right)$$

$$=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}(j_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1))\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}(d_{k_{i(1)}}^{(m)}(w_{i(1)}))\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}(d_{k_{i(l)}}^{(m)}(w_{i(l)}))\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}(j_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n))\right)$$

$$=\psi _{k_{i(1)}}(w_{i(1)})\mathrm{}\psi _{k_{i(l)}}(w_{i(l)})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\left(\underset{i[n]\{i(1),\mathrm{},i(l)\}}{}(j_{k_i}^{(m1)}(w_i)+g_{k_i}^{(m1)}(w_i))\right).$$

We used the muliplicativity of $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}`$ (cf. Lemma 3.2), which still holds when some of the $`j_{k_i}^{(m)}(w_i)`$’s are replaced by $`d_{k_i}^{(m)}(w_i)`$’s ($`d_1^{(m)}(w)`$ and $`d_2^{(m)}(v)`$ have $`t`$ at the $`2m`$-th and $`m`$-th tensor sites, respectively, and $`k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_n`$). We then used Proposition 3.0 to get the second equation.

It is enough to show that

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1)\mathrm{}g_{k_{p(1)}}^{(m1)}(w_{p(1)})\mathrm{}g_{k_{p(r)}}^{(m1)}(w_{p(r)})\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(m1)}(w_n)\right)=0$$

for $`nm`$ and arbitrary $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_n`$ (note that we pulled out at least one $`d_{k_i}^{(m)}(w_i)`$ above, so the number of factors got smaller).

Let us now make some observations which will reduce the number of cases that need to be considered. We refer to $`g_{k_{p(1)}}^{(m1)}(w_{p(1)}),\mathrm{},g_{k_{p(r)}}^{(m1)}(w_{p(r)})`$ in the above formula, although, for simplicity, the indices $`k_{p(1)},\mathrm{},k_{p(r)}`$ and $`p(1),\mathrm{},p(r)`$ will not be used explicitly. Instead, we will refer to generic $`w,w^{}`$ or $`v`$, nonempty words in $`𝒜_1`$, $`𝒜_2`$, respectively. Firstly, note that each element of type $`g_1^{(m1)}(w)`$ commutes with $`g_2^{(m1)}(v)`$, so if such elements stand next to each other, we can regroup them in any way we want. Secondly, without loss of generality we can replace $`g_k^{(m1)}(w)g_k^{(m1)}(w^{})`$ by $`g_k^{(m1)}(ww^{})`$, $`k=1,2`$ (this only changes the above expression by a constant). Thirdly, it is enough to consider such configurations in which each $`g_1^{(m1)}(w)`$ is sourrounded by $`j_2^{(m1)}(w^{})`$’s and $`g_2^{(m1)}(w)`$ is sourrounded by $`j_1^{(m1)}(w^{})`$’s. For, if for instance we had $`g_1^{(m1)}(w)j_1^{(m1)}(w^{})`$ or $`j_1^{(m1)}(w^{})g_1^{(m1)}(w)`$, then at the $`2m2`$-th tensor site we would get $`t(\mathrm{𝟏}t)`$, which is in $`L^{(m1)}`$. A similar argument shows that $`g_2^{(m1)}(w)`$ must be sourronded by $`j_1^{(m1)}(w^{})`$’s. All this reduces the proof to configurations in which elements $`g_{k_{p(i)}}^{(m1)}(w_{p(i)})`$ are sourrounded by $`j_{k_{p(i)1}}^{(m1)}(w_{p(i)1})`$ and $`j_{k_{p(i)+1}}^{(m1)}(w_{p(i)+1})`$ with $`k_{p(i)1}k_{p(i)}k_{p(i)+1}`$. Thus it remains to tackle the configurations of this type and show that their contribution vanishes.

For that purpose we will replace each $`g_1^{(m1)}(w)`$ and $`g_2^{(m1)}(v)`$ by

$$\psi _1(w)I_{2m2}h_1^{(m1)}(w),\psi _2(v)I_{2m2}h_2^{(m1)}(v),$$

respectively. Thus, to finally prove the claim it suffices to show that for $`nm`$ we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1)\mathrm{}h_{k_{s(1)}}^{(m1)}(w_{p(1)})\mathrm{}h_{k_{s(u)}}^{(m1)}(w_{p(r)})\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(m1)}(w_n)\right)$$

$$=\psi _{k_{s(1)}}(w_{s(1)})\mathrm{}\psi _{k_{s(u)}}(w_{p(r)})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\left(\underset{i[n]\{s(1),\mathrm{},s(u)\}}{}(j_{k_i}^{(m1)}(w_i))\right)$$

for $`k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_n`$. In fact, one can take the consecutive indices different since $`j_1^{(m1)}`$, $`j_2^{(m1)}`$ are multiplicative and the configurations to which we reduced our proof had the property $`k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_n`$.

We write again $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m2)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}`$ and use the factorization property of $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}`$ on the left-hand side of the above equation since $`h_1^{(m1)}`$ and $`h_2^{(m1)}`$ have a non-zero power of $`t`$ at the $`2m2`$-th and $`m1`$-th tensor site, respectively. We obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1)\mathrm{}h_{k_{s(1)}}^{(m1)}(w_{s(1)})\mathrm{}h_{k_{s(u)}}^{(m1)}(w_{s(u)})\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(m1)}(w_n)\right)$$

$$=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m2)}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}(j_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1))\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}(h_{k_{s(1)}}^{(m1)}(w_{s(1)}))$$

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}(h_{k_{s(u)}}^{(m1)}(w_{s(u)}))\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}(j_{k_n}^{(m1)}(w_n)))$$

$$=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m2)}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}(j_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1))\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}(d_{k_{s(1)}}^{(m1)}(w_{s(1)}))$$

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}(d_{k_{s(u)}}^{(m1)}(w_{s(u)}))\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m1)}(j_{k_n}^{(m1)}(w_n)))$$

$$=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(m1)}(w_1)\mathrm{}d_{k_{s(1)}}^{(m1)}(w_{s(1)})\mathrm{}d_{k_{s(u)}}^{(m1)}(w_{s(u)})\mathrm{}d_{k_n}^{(m1)}(w_n)\right)$$

$$=\psi _{k_{s(1)}}(w_{s(1)})\mathrm{}\psi _{k_{s(u)}}(w_{s(u)})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m1)}\left(\underset{i[n]\{s(1),\mathrm{},s(u)\}}{}(j_{k_i}^{(m1)}(w_i))\right)$$

where, in the last equation, we used the inductive assumption of the claim. Thus, we have proved our claim. This also finishes the proof of the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

It turns out that the result of the theorem can be improved. Namely, one can show that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}j^{(m)}`$ agrees with the conditionally free product of states on word products $`w_1\mathrm{}w_n`$ for $`n2m`$. This is not surprising since already Example 2 in Section 2 showed that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}j^{(2)}`$ suffices to calculate a four-point correlation.

Theorem 4.1. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}j^{(m)}`$ agrees with the conditionally free product on word products $`w_1\mathrm{}w_n`$ for $`n2m`$, where $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ $`𝒜_{k_1},\mathrm{},𝒜_{k_n}`$, respectively, and $`k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_n`$.
Proof. Let $`n2m`$. We know from Theorem 4.0 that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(s)}j^{(s)}`$, $`s=2m1`$, agrees with the conditionally free product on word products $`w_1\mathrm{}w_n`$. We will show that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(s)}j^{(s)}`$ agrees in fact with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}j^{(m)}`$ on such word products. By Proposition 2.2 we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(s)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(s)}(w_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(s)}(w_n)\right)=\underset{m_1=1}{\overset{s}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{m_n=1}{\overset{s}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(s)}\left(j_{k_1,m_1}^{(s)}(w_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n,m_n}^{(s)}(w_n)\right).$$

Claim. One obtains the following “pyramidal” formula:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(s)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(s)}(w_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(s)}(w_n)\right)$$

$$=\underset{m_1=1}{\overset{1}{}}\underset{m_2=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{m_{n1}=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{m_n=1}{\overset{1}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(s)}\left(j_{k_1,m_1}^{(s)}(w_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n,m_n}^{(s)}(w_n)\right).$$

Note that if $`n=2k`$ is even we obtain a “pyramid” of height $`km`$ with a flat top, and if $`n=2k1`$ is odd, then we get a “pyramid” of height $`km`$ with a sharp top.

To prove our claim we assume that $`k_1=1`$. The proof for $`k_1=2`$ is similar. First, note that the only term that survives from the first summation corresponds to $`m_1=1`$. The reason is simple. That is the only term that does not have a compensator since it takes the form

$$j_{1,1}^{(s)}(w_1)=i_{1,s}(w_1)t_{[1,s]}.$$

The other ones look like

$$j_{1,r}^{(s)}(w_1)=i_{r,s}(w_1)(t_{[r,s]}t_{[r1,s]})$$

for $`r>1`$ and thus have $`t\mathrm{𝟏}`$ at site $`(2,r)`$ which is not preceded by any non-empty words of $`𝒜_2`$ and thus give zero. By mirror reflection we can conclude that the same must happen at the other end of the correlation. Thus, we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(s)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(s)}(w_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(s)}(w_n)\right)$$

$$=\underset{m_2=1}{\overset{s}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{m_{n1}=1}{\overset{s}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(s)}\left(j_{k_1,1}^{(s)}(w_1)j_{k_2,m_2}^{(s)}(w_2)\mathrm{}j_{k_{n1},m_{n1}}^{(s)}(w_{n1})j_{k_n,1}^{(s)}(w_n)\right).$$

Suppose that we have already reduced our expresion to the following form

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(s)}\left(j_{k_1}^{(s)}(w_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(s)}(w_n)\right)$$

$$=\underset{m_1=1}{\overset{1}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{m_l=1}{\overset{l}{}}\underset{m_{l+1}=1}{\overset{s}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{m_{nl}=1}{\overset{s}{}}\underset{m_{nl+1}=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{m_n=1}{\overset{1}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(s)}\left(j_{k_1,m_1}^{(s)}(w_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n,m_n}^{(s)}(w_n)\right).$$

To fix attention, assume that $`k_{l+1}=1`$. We will show that the terms in which $`j_{k_{l+1},r}^{(s)}(w_{l+1})`$ appears for $`r>l+1`$, give vanishing contribution. Such a term produces

$$i_{1,1}^{(s)}(w_1)(t_{[m_2,s]}t_{[m_21,s]})\mathrm{}(t_{[m_l,s]}t_{[m_l1,s]})i_{r,s}(w_{l+1})\mathrm{}$$

in the place reserved for $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_1^s`$ and

$$t_{[1,s]}i_{m_2,s}(w_2)\mathrm{}i_{m_l,s}(w_l)(t_{[r,s]}t_{[r1,s]})\mathrm{}$$

in the place reserved for $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_2^s`$. The second expression is crucial. Namely, if $`r>l+1`$, then the $`t`$’s produced by $`j_{k_{l+1},r}^{(s)}(w_{l+1})`$ appear at sites greater than $`l+1`$. At these sites there are no words of $`𝒜_2`$ preceding the $`t`$’s. Therefore, the term with $`t_{[r,s]}`$ is compensated by the term with $`t_{[r1,s]}`$. Again, the miror reflection gives a symmetric behavior on the other side. The proof for $`k_{l+1}=2`$ is similar. This finishes the proof of the claim.

Thus, we finally have to show that in order to perform calculations for a pyramid of height $`m`$ one can replace $`s`$ by $`m`$, i.e.

$$\underset{m_1=1}{\overset{1}{}}\underset{m_2=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{m_{n1}=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{m_n=1}{\overset{1}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(s)}\left(j_{k_1,m_1}^{(s)}(w_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n,m_n}^{(s)}(w_n)\right)$$

$$=\underset{m_1=1}{\overset{1}{}}\underset{m_2=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{m_{n1}=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{m_n=1}{\overset{1}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}\left(j_{k_1,m_1}^{(m)}(w_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n,m_n}^{(m)}(w_n)\right)$$

for $`n2m`$. Note that in the above sum there are no words of $`𝒜_1`$ or $`𝒜_2`$ at sites greater than $`m`$. They are only occupied by powers of $`t`$, but then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(s)}`$ sends them into $`1`$’s. Therefore, each $`j_{k_i,m_i}^{(s)}(w_i)`$ can be replaced by $`j_{k_i,m_i}^{(m)}(w_i)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(s)}`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}`$. This ends the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 4.3. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}j^{(m)}`$ converges pointwise to the conditionally free product od states.
Proof. Obvious.

An extension of the construction presented above to the case of infinitely many free \*-algebras is very natural. We will show how to do the construction of $`m`$-freeness, but we will not repeat the proofs since they require only minor modifications.

Let $`𝒜_l`$, $`l𝐍`$ be a family of unital free \*-algebras generated by $`𝒢_l^+`$. Let $`𝒢_l^{}=\{a^{}|a𝒢_l^+\}`$, $`𝒢_l=𝒢_l^{}𝒢_l^+`$. As before, denote by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_l=𝒜_l𝐂[t]`$ the free product of $`𝒜_l`$ and the algebra of polynomials in one variable $`t`$. For ach $`l𝐍`$ we identify the units of $`𝒜_l`$ and $`𝐂[t]`$ and, by abuse of notation, we denote the unit of each such product by $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$. As before, extend states $`\varphi _l,\psi _l`$ on $`𝒜_l`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_l`$, $`l𝐍`$. In the free product $`_{l𝐍}𝒜_l`$ we identify the units of $`𝒜_l`$, $`l𝐍`$. Abusing notation, we also in this case denote the sequences of unital free \*-algebras, \*-homomorphisms and states by $`j^{(m)}`$, $`𝒜^{(m)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}`$, respectively.

Definition 4.4. For given $`a𝒢_l`$, let

$$j_l^{(m)}(a)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}t_{[k,m]}^{(l1)}(i_{k,m}(a)i_{k+1,m}(a))t_{[k,m]}^{\mathrm{}}$$

where $`t_{[k,m]}^{\mathrm{}}(t_{[k,m]})^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`i_{m+1,m}(a)=0`$, and define the \*-homomorphism

$$j^{(m)}:_{l𝐍}𝒜_l\underset{l𝐍}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_l^m$$

as the linear extension of $`j^{(m)}(\mathrm{𝟏})=I_m^{\mathrm{}}`$ and

$$j^{(m)}(w_1\mathrm{}w_n)=j_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)\mathrm{}j_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n)$$

where $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ are non-empty words in $`𝒜_{k_1},\mathrm{},𝒜_{k_n}`$ with $`k_1,\mathrm{}k_n𝐍`$.

Consider the noncommutative probability space ($`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}`$), where

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}=\underset{i𝐍}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_i^m$$

and the state is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}=\underset{i𝐍}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^{(m)},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i\psi _i^{(m1)}.$$

We will also use the $`m`$-th “condition” maps

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}=\underset{i𝐍}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(m)},\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(m)}=\mathrm{id}^{(m1)}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i.$$

All results of Sections 2-4 are easily generalized to the case of infinitely many \*-algebras. The differences are purely technical and are omitted.

Theorem 4.5. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}j^{(m)}`$ agrees with the conditionally free product on word products $`w_1\mathrm{}w_n`$ for $`n2m`$, where $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ $`𝒜_{k_1},\mathrm{},𝒜_{k_n}`$, respectively, and $`k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_n`$, $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_n𝐍`$. Thus, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(m)}j^{(m)}`$ converges pointwise to the conditionally free product of states.

If we want to consider an uncountable number of \*-algebras, we can take the continuous tensor product and proceed in a similar way.

5. Construction of the Associated \*-Bialgebras

The tensor product constructions are good enough as long as we only want to study independence of certain variables. However, we also would like to associate a \*-bialgebra with each kind of independence. In the case of the conditionally free independence it seems that one should be able to do that for each $`m𝐍`$ using the $`m`$-fold tensor product $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^m`$. Nevertheless, it turns out that one needs to take the $`m`$-fold free product $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$. The construction of this \*-bialgebra is presented below. First, it is convenient to introduce a free version of the \*-homomorphism $`j^{(m)}`$.

Definition 5.0. For given $`a𝒢_1,b𝒢_2`$, let $`a_{(i)}`$ and $`b_{(i)}`$, $`i[m]`$, denote different copies of $`a`$ and $`b`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_1^{(m)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_2^{(m)}`$, respectively, and let $`t_{(i)}`$, $`i[m]`$, stand for different copies of $`t`$ in both products. Let

$$\widehat{j}_1^{(m)}(a)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}(a_{(k)}a_{(k+1)})t_{[k,m]},$$

$$\widehat{j}_2^{(m)}(b)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}t_{[k,m]}(a_{(k)}a_{(k+1)})$$

where, by abuse of notation, $`t_{[k,m]}=t_{(k)}\mathrm{}t_{(m)}`$, and define the \*-homomorphism

$$\widehat{j}^{(m)}:𝒜_1𝒜_2\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_1^m\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_2^m$$

as the linear extension of $`\widehat{j}^{(m)}(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and

$$\widehat{j}^{(m)}(w_1\mathrm{}w_n)=\widehat{j}_{k_1}^{(m)}(w_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{j}_{k_n}^{(m)}(w_n),$$

where $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ are non-empty words in $`𝒜_{k_1},\mathrm{},𝒜_{k_n}`$, where $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_n\{1,2\}`$.

Let $`𝒜_1=𝒜_2=𝒜`$ in the above definition. We can associate a cocommutative \*-bialgebra with the pair ($`𝒜,\widehat{j}^{(m)}`$). Also, let $`\delta :𝒜𝒜𝒜`$ be the \*-homomorphism defined by $`\delta (\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\delta (a)=a^{(1)}+a^{(2)}`$, where $`a^{(1)},a^{(2)}`$ are different copies of $`a𝒢`$ in $`𝒜𝒜`$. Note that $`\delta `$ maps a given $`a`$ to the sum of different copies of $`a`$. Thus the moments of $`\delta (a)`$ in the product state are the moments of the sum of “independent”, identically distributed random variables.

Theorem 5.1. The \*-algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^m`$ can be equipped with the coproduct

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}(t_{(i)})=t_{(i)}t_{(i)},$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}(a_{(k)}a_{(k+1)})=(a_{(k)}a_{(k+1)})t_{[k,m]}+t_{[k,m]}(a_{(k)}a_{(k+1)})$$

where $`k[m]`$ and it is understood that $`a_{(m+1)}=0`$, and the counit

$$ϵ^{(m)}(t_{(k)})=ϵ^{(m)}(\mathrm{𝟏})=1,ϵ^{(m)}(a_{(k)})=0.$$

Moreover,

$$\widehat{j}^{(m)}\delta =\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}\widehat{i}_1$$

where $`\widehat{i}_1:𝒜\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$ is the canonical \*-homomorphic embedding given by $`\widehat{i}_1(a)=a_{(1)}`$.
Proof. Note that $`t_{(k)}`$, $`k[m]`$ (and thus also $`t_{[k,m]}`$, $`k[m]`$) are group-like and $`a_{(k)}a_{(k+1)}`$, $`k[m]`$ are $`t_{[k,m]}`$-primitive. Thus it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}`$ is coassociative. Verifying that $`ϵ^{(m)}`$ is the counit is also immediate. Therefore ($`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)},\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)},ϵ^{(m)}`$) becomes a \*-bialgebra.

Now, $`(\widehat{j}^{(m)}\delta )(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}=(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}\widehat{i}_1)(1)`$. If $`a𝒢`$, then

$$(\widehat{j}^{(m)}\delta )(a)=\widehat{j}_1^{(m)}(a)+\widehat{j}_2^{(m)}(a)$$

$$=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}(a_{(k)}a_{(k+1)})t_{[k,m]}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}t_{[k,m]}(a_{(k)}a_{(k+1)})$$

$$=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}\left((a_{(1)}a_{(2)})+\mathrm{}+(a_{(m1)}a_{(m)})+a_{(m)}\right)=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}(a_{(1)})=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}\widehat{i}_1(a).$$

This implies that this identity holds also for arbitrary words in $`𝒜`$ since $`\widehat{j}^{(m)},\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)},\delta `$ and $`\widehat{i}_1`$ are \*-homomorphisms. $`\mathrm{}`$

The above theorem shows a relation between $`\widehat{j}^{(m)}\delta `$ and the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}`$. Namely, $`\widehat{j}^{(m)}\delta `$ equals the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}`$ when restricted to the \*-subalgebra $`\widehat{i}_1(𝒜)`$. However, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}`$ takes $`\widehat{i}_1(𝒜)`$ out of $`\widehat{i}_1(𝒜)\widehat{i}_1(𝒜)`$. That is why we had to take a bigger \*-bialgebra. Moreover, looking at $`\widehat{j}^{(m)}\delta (a)`$, we can see that the $`m`$-fold free product $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$ is the right choice if we do not assume any additional relations between different copies of the generators of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$. If we do, we can take the quotient of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ modulo a two-sided ideal providing it is also a coideal. However, many relations which appear in the tensor product construction are not preserved by the coproduct. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}`$ preserves $`t_{(i)}t_{(j)}=t_{(j)}t_{(i)}`$ for any $`i,j`$, and $`a_{(i)}t_{(j)}=t_{(j)}a_{(i)}`$ for $`j<i`$, but it does not preserve $`a_{(i)}t_{(j)}=t_{(j)}a_{(i)}`$ for $`j>i`$, or $`a_{(i)}a_{(j)}^{}=a_{(j)}^{}a_{(i)}`$ for $`ij`$. In other words, the two-sided ideal $`𝒯`$ generated by all those relations is not a coideal. This is the reason why we cannot take $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^m`$ and we have to stick to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$ or its quotient $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}/𝒯_0`$, where $`𝒯_0`$ is the two sided ideal (and a coideal) generated by $`t_{(i)}t_{(j)}=t_{(j)}t_{(i)}`$. All the results can be formulated for either of these two cases (we choose $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$).

Definition 5.2. Let $`m,N𝐍`$. For given $`a𝒢_i`$, $`i[N]`$ let

$$\widehat{j}_{i,N}^{(m)}(a)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}t_{[k,m]}^{(i1)}(a_{(k)}a_{(k+1)})t_{[k,m]}^{(Ni)},$$

and define the \*-homomorphism

$$\widehat{j}_N^{(m)}:𝒜_1\mathrm{}𝒜_N\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_i^{(m)}$$

as the linear extension of $`\widehat{j}_N^{(m)}(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and

$$\widehat{j}_N^{(m)}(w_1\mathrm{}w_n)=\widehat{j}_{k_1,N}^{(m)}(w_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{j}_{k_n,N}^{(m)}(w_n),$$

where $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ are non-empty words in $`𝒜_{k_1},\mathrm{},𝒜_{k_n}`$, $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_n[N]`$ and $`t_{[k,m]}^l(t_{[k,m]})^l`$.

Then we can express the iterations of the coproduct in terms of $`\widehat{j}_N^{(m)}`$ in the following way.

Corollary 5.3. Let $`\delta _N`$ be the $`N`$-th iteration of $`\delta `$, i.e. $`\delta _N:𝒜𝒜\mathrm{}𝒜`$ (N times) is the \*-homomorphism defined by $`\delta _N(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\delta _N(a)=a^{(1)}+\mathrm{}+a^{(N)}`$, where $`a^{(1)},\mathrm{},a^{(N)}`$ are different copies of $`a`$. Then

$$\widehat{j}^{(m)}\delta _N=\mathrm{\Delta }_{N1}^{(m)}\widehat{i}_1,$$

where the $`N1`$-th iteration of the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}`$ is obtained from the recursive formula: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{(m)}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{(m)}=(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta }_{k1}^{(m)})\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}`$, $`k>1`$ .
Proof. Clearly,

$$(\widehat{j}_N^{(m)}\delta _N)(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏}^N=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{N1}^{(m)}\widehat{i}_1)(\mathrm{𝟏}).$$

Now, let $`a𝒢`$. Using $`\widehat{j}^{(m)}`$, we obtain

$$(\widehat{j}_N^{(m)}\delta _N)(a)=\widehat{j}^{(m)}(a^{(1)}+\mathrm{}+a^{(N)})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{j}_{i,N}^{(m)}(a)$$

$$=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}t_{[k,m]}^{(i1)}(a_{(k)}a_{(k+1)})t_{[k,m]}^{(Ni)}$$

$$=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{N1}^{(m)}(a_{(k)}a_{(k+1)})=\mathrm{\Delta }_{N1}^{(m)}(a_{(1)})=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{N1}^{(m)}\widehat{i}_1)(a).$$

Thus $`\widehat{j}_N^{(m)}\delta _N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{N1}^{(m)}\widehat{i}_1`$ agree on the unit and the generators of $`𝒜`$. This is enough since $`\delta _N`$, $`\widehat{j}_N^{(m)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{N1}^{(m)}`$ and $`\widehat{i}_1`$ are \*-homomorphisms. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 5.4. Let $`\overline{𝒜}=𝒜𝐂[t,t^1]`$. The \*-bialgebra ($`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)},\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)},ϵ^{(m)}`$) can be embedded in the \*-Hopf algebra ($`\overline{𝒜}^{(m)},\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(m)},\overline{ϵ}^{(m)},S^{(m)}`$), where the coproduct $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(m)}`$ and the counit $`\overline{ϵ}^{(m)}`$ agree with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}`$ and $`ϵ^{(m)}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$, respectively, and

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(m)}(t_{(k)}^1)=t_{(k)}^1t_{(k)}^1,\overline{ϵ}^{(m)}(t_{(k)}^1)=1,$$

with the antipode $`S^{(m)}`$ defined by

$$S^{(m)}(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏},S^{(m)}(t_{(k)})=t_{(k)}^1,S^{(m)}(t_{(k)}^1)=t_{(k)},$$

$$S^{(m)}(a_{(k)}a_{(k+1)})=t_{[k,m]}^1(a_{(k)}a_{(k+1)})t_{[k,m]}^1.$$

Proof. Recalling the definition of a Hopf \*-algebra \[Kas\], we need the involution and the antipode to satisfy the following conditions: (i) * is an antimorphism of real algebras as well as a morphism of real coalgebras, (ii) $`S^{(m)}(S^{(m)}(x^{})^{})=x`$ for all $`x\overline{𝒜}^{(m)}`$.

The involution * is an antimorphism of real algebras by definition: $`(x_1\mathrm{}x_n)^{}=x_n^{}\mathrm{}x_1^{}`$. To show that * is a morphism of real coalgebras, one needs $`\overline{ϵ}^{(m)}`$ to be a hermitian functional and the coproduct to satisfy $`()\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(m)}=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(m)}`$. The first property follows from the definition of the counit. Checking the second property for the generators is immediate. This is enough since

$$()\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(m)}(x_1\mathrm{}x_k)=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(m)}(x_k)^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(m)}(x_1)^{}$$

$$=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(m)}(x_k^{})\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(m)}(x_1^{})=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(m)}(x_k^{}\mathrm{}x_1^{})=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(m)}((x_1\mathrm{}x_k)^{}).$$

Finally, property (ii) can be easily verified for generators, from which it follows that it holds for any $`x\overline{𝒜}^{(m)}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us look now at the convolutions of states. It is known how to define convolutions of states for \*-bialgebras. Namely, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ are two states on a \*-bialgebra ($`,\mathrm{\Delta },ϵ`$), then the convolution of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

Thus, in the case of $`m`$-freeness we can express the convolution of states on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$ in terms of the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}`$. Let $`𝒯`$ be the two-sided ideal in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$ generated by

$$t_{(i)}t_{(j)}t_{(j)}t_{(i)},t_{(i)}a_{(j)}a_{(j)}t_{(i)},a_{(i)}a_{(j)}a_{(j)}a_{(i)},$$

where $`i,j[m]`$, and $`ij`$. Then the quotient algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}/𝒯`$ is canonically isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^m`$. Denote by $`\eta :\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(m)}`$ $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^m`$ the canonical mapping. Then, for a given state $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^m`$, let $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\eta `$. We arrive at the following corollary.

Corollary 5.5. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_l^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l\stackrel{~}{\psi }_l^{(m1)}`$, where $`\varphi _l,\psi _l`$ are states on $`𝒜`$, and let $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_l^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_l^{(m)}\eta `$, $`l[2]`$. Then

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(m)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^{(m)})\widehat{i}_1=(\varphi _1,\psi _1)(\varphi _2,\psi _2)$$

pointwise, where $`(\varphi _1,\psi _1)(\varphi _2,\psi _2)=_{i\{1,2\}}(\varphi _i,\psi _i)\delta `$ is the conditionally free convolution of states.
Proof. Let $`w`$ be a word in $`𝒜`$. From Theorems 4.0-4.1 and Proposition 5.1 we obtain

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(m)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^{(m)})\widehat{i}_1(w)=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(m)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^{(m)})\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}\widehat{i}_1(w)$$

$$=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(m)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^{(m)})\widehat{j}^{(m)}\delta (w)=_{i\{1,2\}}(\varphi _i,\psi _i)\delta (w)=(\varphi _1,\psi _1)(\varphi _2,\psi _2)(w).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 5.6. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_l^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l\stackrel{~}{\psi }_l^{(m1)}`$, where $`\varphi _l,\psi _l`$ are states on $`𝒜`$, and let $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_l^{(m)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_l^{(m)}\eta `$, $`l[N]`$. Then

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(m)}\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(m)})\widehat{i}_1=(\varphi _1,\psi _1)\mathrm{}(\varphi _N,\psi _N)$$

pointwise.
Proof. In the proof of Corollary 5.5 replace $`\delta `$ by $`\delta _N`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{N1}^{(m)}`$ and instead of tensor products and convolutions of two objects take tensor products and convolutions, respectively, of $`N`$ objects. $`\mathrm{}`$

References

\[Av\] D. Avitzour, Free products of $`C^{}`$\- algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 271 (1982), 423-465.
\[B-L-S\] M. Bo$`\dot{\mathrm{z}}`$ejko, M. Leinert, R. Speicher, Convolution and limit theorems for conditionally free random variables, Pac. J. Math. 175, No.2 (1996), 357-388.
\[C-H\] C.D. Cushen, R.L. Hudson, A quantum central limit theorem, J. Appl. Prob. 8, (1971), 454-469.
\[G-vW\] N. Giri, W. von Waldenfels, An algebraic version of the central limit theorem, Z. Wahr. Verw. Gebiete 42 (1978), 129-134.
\[Kas\] Ch. Kassel, Quantum groups, Springer-Verlag, 1995.
\[Len1\] R. Lenczewski, On sums of $`q`$-independent $`SU_q(2)`$ quantum variables, Comm. Math. Phys. 154 (1993), 127-134.
\[Len2\] R. Lenczewski, Addition of independent variables in quantum groups, Rev. Math. Phys. 6 (1994), 135-147.
\[Sch1\] M. Schürmann, White Noise on Bialgebras, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993.
\[Sch2\] M. Schürmann, Non-commutative probability on algebraic structures, Probability measures on groups and related structures, Vol. XI (Oberwolfach, 1994), 332-356, World. Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 1995.
\[Voi\] D. Voiculescu, Symmetries of some reduced free product $`𝒞^{}`$-algebras, in: Operator Algebras and their Connections with Topology and Ergodic Theory, Lecture Notes in Math. 1132, Springer, Berlin, 1985, 556-588.
\[V-D-N\] D.V. Voiculescu, K.J. Dykema, A. Nica, Free Random Variables, CRM Monograph Series, AMS, Providence, 1992.
\[vW\] W. von Waldenfels, An approach to the theory of pressure broadening of spectral lines, Lecture Note in Math. 296 (1973), 19-69.