text:
# ON A GENERAL ANALYTICAL FORMULA FOR 𝑈_𝑞(𝑠𝑢(3))-CLEBSCH-GORDAN COEFFICIENTS

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients (CGCs) of the unitary Lie algebra $`u(n)`$ ($`su(n)`$) have numerous applications in various fields of theoretical and mathematical physics. For example, many algebraic models of nuclear theory(interacting boson model (IBM), Elliott $`su(3)`$ model, $`su(4)`$ supermultiplet scheme of Wigner, the shell model, and so on) demand the CGCs for $`su(6)`$, $`su(5)`$, $`su(3)`$, $`su(4)`$ and $`su(n)`$. Analogously, in quark models of hadrons we need the CGCs of $`su(3)`$, $`su(4)`$, etc. The theory of the $`su(n)`$ CGCs is connected with the theory of special functions, combinatorial analysis, topology, etc.

There are several methods for the calculation of CGCs of $`su(n)`$ ($`u(n)`$) and other Lie algebras: recursion method; method of employment of explicit bases of irreducible representations; method of generating invariants; method of tensor operators, where the Wigner-Eckart theorem is used; projection operator method; coherent state method; combined methods.

It is well known that the method of projection operators for usual (non-quantized) Lie algebras  and superalgebras  is powerful and universal method for a solution of many problems in the representation theory. In particular, the method allows to develop the detailed theory of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and another elements of Wigner-Racah calculus (including compact analytic formulas of these elements and their symmetry properties)  and so on. It is evident that the projection operators of quantum groups  play the same role in their representation theory.

In this paper we present the projection operator method in combination with the Wigner-Racah calculus of the subalgebra $`U_q(su(2))`$  for calculation of CGCs of the quantum algebra $`U_q(su(3))`$. The key formulas of the method are couplings of the tensor and projection operators and also a tensor form for the projection operator of $`U_q(su(3))`$. It should be noted that the first application of this method was for the $`su(3)`$ case in . Some simple elements of this approach were also used in  for the $`U_q(su(n))`$ case. Also, the coherent state method in combination with the Wigner-Racah calculus was applied in  for $`u(n)`$.

## 2 Gelfand-Tsetlin basis

Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }:=\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2\}`$ be a system of simple roots of the Lie algebra $`sl(3)`$ ($`=sl(3,𝐂)A_2`$), endowed with the following scalar product: $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _1)=(\alpha _2,\alpha _2)=2`$, $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)=(\alpha _2,\alpha _1)=1`$. The root system $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ of $`sl(3)`$ consists of the roots $`\alpha _1,\alpha _1+\alpha _2,\alpha _2`$. The quantum Hopf algebra $`U_q(sl(3))`$ is generated by the Chevalley elements $`q^{\pm h_{\alpha _i}}`$, $`e_{\pm \alpha _i}`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ with the relations:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill q^{h_{\alpha _i}}q^{h_{\alpha _i}}& =& q^{h_{\alpha _i}}q^{h_{\alpha _j}}=1,q^{h_{\alpha _i}}q^{h_{\alpha _j}}=q^{h_{\alpha _j}}q^{h_{\alpha _i}},q^{h_{\alpha _i}}e_{\alpha _j}q^{h_{\alpha _i}}=q^{(\alpha _i,\alpha _j)}e_{\alpha _j},\hfill \\ \hfill [e_{\alpha _i},e_{\alpha _j}]& =& \delta _{ij}[h_{\alpha _i}],[[e_{\pm \alpha _i},e_{\pm \alpha _j}]_q,e_{\pm \alpha _j}]_q=0\mathrm{for}|ij|=1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.1)
Here and elsewhere we use the standard notation $`[a]:=(q^aq^a)/(qq^1)`$, and $`[e_\alpha ,e_\beta ]_q:=e_\alpha e_\beta q^{(\alpha ,\beta )}e_\beta e_\alpha `$. The Hopf structure of $`U_q(u(3))`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }_q(h_{\alpha _i})& =& h_{\alpha _i}1+1h_{\alpha _i},S_q(h_{\alpha _i})& =& h_{\alpha _i},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }_q(e_{\pm \alpha _i})& =& e_{\pm \alpha _i}q^{\frac{1}{2}h_{\alpha _i}}+q^{\frac{1}{2}h_{\alpha _i}}e_{\pm \alpha _i},S_q(e_{\pm \alpha _i})& =& q^{\pm 1}e_{\pm \alpha _i}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
For construction of the composite root vectors $`e_{\pm (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)}`$ we fix the normal ordering in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$: $`\alpha _1,\alpha _1+\alpha _2,\alpha _2`$. According to this ordering we put

$$e_{\alpha _1+\alpha _2}:=[e_{\alpha _1},e_{\alpha _2}]_{q^1},e_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}:=[e_{\alpha _2},e_{\alpha _1}]_q.$$
(2.3)
Let us introduce another standard notations for the Cartan-Weyl generators:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill e_{12}& :=& e_{\alpha _1},e_{21}& :=& e_{\alpha _1},e_{11}e_{22}& :=& h_{\alpha _1},\hfill \\ \hfill e_{23}& :=& e_{\alpha _2},e_{32}& :=& e_{\alpha _2},e_{22}e_{33}& :=& h_{\alpha _2},\hfill \\ \hfill e_{13}& :=& e_{\alpha _1+\alpha _2},e_{31}& :=& e_{\alpha _1\alpha _2},e_{11}e_{33}& :=& h_{\alpha _1}+h_{\alpha _2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.4)
The explicit formula for the extremal projector for the quantum groups  specialized to the case of $`U_q(sl(3))`$ has the form

$$p\left(U_q(sl(3))\right)=p_{12}p_{13}p_{23},$$
(2.5)
where the elements $`p_{ij}`$ ($`1i<j3`$) are given by

$$p_{ij}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{[n]!}\phi _{ij,n}e_{ij}^ne_{ji}^n,\phi _{ij,n}=q^{(ji1)n}\{\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}[e_{ii}e_{jj}+ji+s]\}^1.$$
(2.6)
The extremal projector $`p:=p\left(U_q(sl(3))\right)`$ satisfies the relations:

$$e_{ij}p=pe_{ji}=0(i<j),p^2=p.$$
(2.7)
The quantum algebra $`U_q(su(3))`$ can be considered as the quantum algebra $`U_q(sl(3))`$ endowed with the additional Cartan involution $`(^{})`$:

$$h_{\alpha _i}^{}=h_{\alpha _i},e_{\pm \alpha _i}^{}=e_{\alpha _i},q^{}=q(\mathrm{or}\overline{q}:=q^1).$$
(2.8)
Let $`(\lambda \mu )`$ be a finite-dimensional irreducible representation (IR) of $`U_q(su(3))`$ with the highest weight $`(\lambda \mu )`$ ($`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ are nonnegative integers). The vector of the highest weight, denoted by the symbol $`|(\lambda \mu )h>`$, satisfy the relations

$$h_{\alpha _1}|(\lambda \mu )h>=\lambda |(\lambda \mu )h>,h_{\alpha _2}|(\lambda \mu )h>=\mu |(\lambda \mu )h>,e_{ij}|(\lambda \mu )h>=0(i<j).$$
(2.9)
Labelling of another basis vectors in IR $`(\lambda \mu )`$ depends upon choice of subalgebras of $`U_q(su(3))`$ (or in another words, depends upon which reduction chain from $`U_q(su(3))`$ to subalgebras is chosen). Here we use the Gelfand-Tsetlin reduction chain:

$$U_q(su(3))U_q(u_Y(1))U_q(su_T(2))U_q(u_{T_0}(1)),$$
(2.10)
where the subalgebra $`U_q(su_T(2))`$ is generated by the elements

$$T_+:=e_{23},T_{}:=e_{32},T_0:=\frac{1}{2}(e_{22}e_{33}),$$
(2.11)
the subalgebra $`U_q(u_{T_0}(1))`$ is generated by $`q^{T_0}`$, and $`U_q(u_Y(1))`$ is generated by $`q^Y`$ (In the classical (non-deformed) case in the elementary particle theory the subalgebra $`su_T(2)`$ is called the T-spin algebra and the element $`Y`$ is the hypercharge operator), where:

$$Y=\frac{1}{3}\left(2h_{\alpha _1}+h_{\alpha _2}\right).$$
(2.12)
In the case of the reduction chain (2.10) the basis vectors of IR $`(\lambda \mu )`$ are denoted by

$$|(\lambda \mu )jtt_z>.$$
(2.13)
Here the set $`jtt_z`$ characterize the hypercharge $`Y`$ and the T-spin and its projection:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill q^{T_0}|(\lambda \mu )jtt_z>& =& q^{t_z}|(\lambda \mu )jtt_z>,q^Y|(\lambda \mu )jtt_z>=q^y|(\lambda \mu )jtt_z>,\hfill \\ \hfill T_\pm |(\lambda \mu )jtt_z>& =& \sqrt{[tt_z][t\pm t_z+1]}|(\lambda \mu )jtt_z\pm 1>,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.14)
where the parameter $`j`$ is connected with the eigenvalue $`y`$ of the operator $`Y`$ as follows $`y=\frac{1}{3}\left(2\lambda +\mu \right)+2j`$. It is not hard to show that the orthonormalized vectors (2.13) can be represented in the following form

$$|(\lambda \mu )jtt_z>=N_{jt}^{(\lambda \mu )}P_{t_z;t}^te_{31}^{j+\frac{1}{2}\mu t}e_{21}^{j\frac{1}{2}\mu +t}|(\lambda \mu )h>,$$
(2.15)
where $`P_{t_z;t_z^{}}^t`$ is the general projection operator of the quantum algebra $`U_q(su_T(2))`$ , and the normalizing factor $`N_{jt}^{(\lambda \mu )}`$ has the form

$$N_{jt}^{(\lambda \mu )}=\left(\frac{[\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\mu j+t+1]![\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\mu jt]![\frac{1}{2}\mu +j+t+1]![\frac{1}{2}\mu j+t]!}{q^{2j+\mu 2t}[\lambda ]![\mu ]![\lambda +\mu +1]![j+\frac{1}{2}\mu t]![j\frac{1}{2}\mu +t]![2t+1]!}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(2.16)
The quantum numbers $`jt`$ are taken all nonnegative integers and half-integers such that the sum $`\frac{1}{2}\mu +j+t`$ is an integer and they are subjected to the constraints:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{1}{2}\mu +jt& & 0,\frac{1}{2}\mu +j+t0,\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}\mu j+t& & 0,\frac{1}{2}\mu +j+t\lambda +\mu .\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.17)
For every fixed $`t`$ the projection $`t_z`$ runs the values $`t_z=t,t+1,\mathrm{},t1,t`$. These results can be obtained from the explicit form of the Gelfand-Tsetlin bases for the case $`U_q(su(n))`$  specializing to the given case $`U_q(su(3))`$.

## 3 Couplings of tensor and projection operators

Let $`\{R_{j_z}^{j(q)}\}`$ be an irreducible tensor operator (ITO) of the rank $`j`$, that is $`(2j+1)`$-components $`R_{j_z}^{j(q)}`$ are transformed with respect to the $`U_q(su_T(2))`$ adjoint action as the $`U_q(su_T(2))`$ basis vectors $`|jj_z>`$ of the spin $`j`$:

$$T_iR_{j_z}^{j(q)}:=(\mathrm{ad}_qT_i)R_{j_z}^{j(q)}\left((\mathrm{id}S_q)\mathrm{\Delta }_q(T_i)\right)R_{j_z}^{j(q)}=\underset{j_z^{}}{}<jj_z^{}\left|T_i\right|jj_z>R_{j_z^{}}^{j(q)},$$
(3.1)
where $`(ab)x=axb`$. The tensor operator of the type $`\{R_{j_z}^{j(q)}\}`$ will be also called the left irreducible tensor operators (LITO) because the generators $`T_i`$ ($`i=\pm ,0`$) act to the left-side of the components $`R_{j_z}^{j(q)}`$. (The given denotation of the ITOs is differed from one of the papers  by the replacement $`q`$ by $`q^1`$). Following to the paper  we also introduce a right irreducible tensor operator (RITO) denoted by the tilde symbol $`\{\stackrel{~}{R}_{j_z}^{j(q)}\}`$, on which the $`U_q(su_T(2))`$ generators $`T_i`$ act on the right-side, namely

$$T_i\stackrel{~}{R}_{j_z}^{j(q)}:=(\mathrm{ad}_q^{}T_i)\stackrel{~}{R}_{j_z}^{j(q)}\stackrel{~}{R}_{j_z}^{j(q)}\stackrel{}{}\left((\stackrel{~}{S}_q\mathrm{id})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_q(T_i^{})\right)=\underset{j_z^{}}{}<jj_z^{}\left|T_i\right|jj_z>\stackrel{~}{R}_{j_z^{}}^{j(q)}.$$
(3.2)
where $`x\stackrel{}{}(ab)=axb`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_q`$ is the opposite coproduct ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_q=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{q}}`$) and $`\stackrel{~}{S}_q`$ is the corresponding antipode ($`\stackrel{~}{S}_q=S_{\overline{q}}`$). It is not hard to verify that any LITO $`\{R_{j_z}^{j(q)}\}`$ is the RITO $`\{\stackrel{~}{R}_{j_z}^{j(q)}\}`$: $`R_{j_z}^{j(q)}=(1)^{j_z}q^{j_z}\stackrel{~}{R}_{j_z}^{j(q)}`$. The projection operator set $`\{P_{t_z;t_z^{}}^t\}`$ for a fixed IR $`t`$ and for various $`t_z`$ and $`t_z^{}`$ will be called the $`𝐏^t`$-operator. It is not hard to see that the subset of the left components of this operator satisfy the relations for the LITO $`𝐑^{j(q)}:=\{R_{j_z}^{j(q)}\}`$ if we understand the action ”$``$” of the generator $`T_i`$ as the usual multiplication of the operators $`T_i`$ and $`P_{t_z;t_z^{}}^t`$ and the subset of the right components of the $`𝐏^t`$-operator satisfy the relations for the RITO $`\stackrel{~}{𝐑}^j:=\{\stackrel{~}{R}_{j_z}^{j(q)}\}`$ if we understand the action $`\mathrm{"}\mathrm{"}`$ as the usual multiplication of the operators $`P_{t_z;t_z^{}}^t`$ and $`T_i^{}`$:

$`T_iP_{t_z;t_z^{}}^t:=T_iP_{t_z:t_z^{}}^t={\displaystyle \underset{t^{}_z^{}}{}}<tt_z^{\prime \prime }\left|T_i\right|tt_z>P_{t^{}{}_{z}{}^{};t_z^{}}^t,`$ (3.3)
$`T_iP_{t_z;t_z^{}}^t:=P_{t_z:t_z^{}}^tT_i^{}={\displaystyle \underset{t^{}_z^{}}{}}<tt_z^{\prime \prime }\left|T_i\right|tt_z^{}>P_{t_z;t^{}_z^{}}^t.`$ (3.4)
Using the $`U_q(su_T(2))`$ CGCs we can couple the LITO $`𝐑^{j(q)}`$ with the left components of the $`𝐏^t`$-operator and the RITO $`\stackrel{~}{𝐑}^{j(q)}`$ with the right components of the $`𝐏^t`$-operator:

$`{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{t^{}}{t_z^{}}}\left\{𝐑^{j(q)}\stackrel{.}{}𝐏_{;t_z}^t\right\}_q:={\displaystyle \underset{j_zt^{}_z^{}}{}}(jj_ztt_z^{\prime \prime }\left|t^{}t_z^{}\right)_qR_{j_z}^{j(q)}P_{t^{}{}_{z}{}^{},t_z}^t,`$ (3.5)
$`\left\{𝐏_{t_z;}^t\stackrel{.}{}\stackrel{~}{𝐑}^{j(q)}\right\}_q{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{t^{}}{t_z^{}}}:={\displaystyle \underset{j_zt^{}_z^{}}{}}(jj_ztt_z^{\prime \prime }\left|t^{}t_z^{}\right)_qP_{t_z,t^{}_z^{}}^t\stackrel{~}{R}_{j_z}^{j(q)}.`$ (3.6)
Here the symbol $`\stackrel{.}{}`$ means that we first take the usual tensor product and then in a resulting expression we replace the tensor product by the usual operator product. It is not hard to show that the couplings (3.5) and (3.6) are connected as follows

$$𝐈𝐑_{tt_z;t^{}t_z^{}}^{j(q)}:=\sqrt{[2t+1]}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{t}{t_z}\left\{𝐑^{j(q)}\stackrel{.}{}𝐏_{;t_z^{}}^t^{}\right\}_q=(1)^{t^{}t}\sqrt{[2t^{}+1]}\left\{𝐏_{t_z;}^t\stackrel{.}{}\stackrel{~}{𝐑}^{j(q)}\right\}_q\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{t^{}}{t_z^{}}.$$
(3.7)
Using (3.7) and an unitary relation of the $`U_q(su(2))`$ CGCs  one can obtain the following useful permutation relations between the components of the tensors $`𝐑^{j(q)}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝐑}^{j(q)}`$ and $`𝐏^t`$-operator:

$`R_{j_z}^{j(q)}P_{t_z;t_z^{}}^t={\displaystyle \underset{t^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{}^{}_z^{}}{}}(1)^{tt^{\prime \prime }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{[2t+1]}{[2t^{\prime \prime }+1]}}}(jj_ztt_z\left|t^{\prime \prime }t_z^{\prime \prime }\right)_q\left\{𝐏_{t^{}{}_{z}{}^{};}^t^{}^{}\stackrel{.}{}\stackrel{~}{𝐑}^{j(q)}\right\}_q{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{t}{t_z^{}}},`$ (3.8)
$`P_{t_z;t_z^{}}^t\stackrel{~}{R}_{j_z}^{j(q)}={\displaystyle \underset{t^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{}^{}_z^{}}{}}(1)^{tt^{\prime \prime }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{[2t+1]}{[2t^{\prime \prime }+1]}}}(jj_ztt_z^{}\left|t^{\prime \prime }t_z^{\prime \prime }\right)_q{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{t}{t_z}}\left\{𝐑^{j(q)}\stackrel{.}{}𝐏_{;t^{}_z^{}}^t^{}^{}\right\}_q.`$ (3.9)
We can show that the monomials $`e_{21}^ne_{31}^m`$ and $`e_{12}^ne_{}^{}{}_{13}{}^{m}`$ are components of ITOs with respect to the adjoint action of the subalgebra $`U_q(su_T(2))`$:

$`R_{j_z}^{j(q)}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{[2j]!}{[jj_z]![j+j_z]!}}}q^{2j^2j}e_{21}^{j+j_z}e_{31}^{jj_z}q^{jh_{\alpha _1}(jj_z)T_0},`$ (3.10)
$`R_{}^{}{}_{j_z}{}^{j(q)}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{[2j]!}{[jj_z]![j+j_z]!}}}q^{2j^2+j}e_{12}^{jj_z}e_{}^{}{}_{13}{}^{j+j_z}q^{jh_{\alpha _1}(j+j_z)T_0}.`$ (3.11)
where the generator $`e_{}^{}{}_{13}{}^{}`$ is defined according to the inverse normal ordering: $`\alpha _2,\alpha _1+\alpha _2,\alpha _1`$, i.e. $`e_{}^{}{}_{13}{}^{}=[e_{23},e_{12}]_{q^1}`$. These ITOs have the remarkable properties: A result of the coupling of two ITOs of the type (3.10) or (3.11) is non-zero only for an irreducible component of the maximal rank, e.g.

$$\left\{𝐑^{j(q)}\stackrel{.}{}𝐑^{j^{}(q)}\right\}_q\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j^{\prime \prime }}{j_z^{\prime \prime }}=\delta _{j^{}{}_{}{}^{},j+j^{}}R_{j^{}_z^{}}^{j+j^{}(q)}.$$
(3.12)
The property is also useful in applications: For ITOs of the type (3.12) the relation is valid

$$R_{j_z}^{j(q)}𝐈𝐑_{tt_z;t^{}t_z^{}}^{j^{}(q)}=\underset{t^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{}^{}_z^{}}{}\sqrt{\frac{[2t+1]}{[2t^{\prime \prime }+1]}}(jj_ztt_z\left|t^{\prime \prime }t_z^{\prime \prime }\right)_qU(jj^{}t^{\prime \prime }t^{};j+j^{}t)_q𝐈𝐑_{t^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{}^{}{}_{z}{}^{};t^{}t_z^{}}^{j+j^{}(q)}.$$
(3.13)
Here $`U(\mathrm{};\mathrm{})_q`$ is recoupling coefficient which can be expressed via the stretched $`q`$-$`6j`$-symbols of $`U_q(su_T(2))`$ :

$$U(jj^{}t^{\prime \prime }t^{};j+j^{}t)_q=(1)^{j+j^{}+t^{}+t^{}^{}}\sqrt{[2j+2j^{}+1][2t+1]}\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{t^{}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j^{}}{t^{\prime \prime }}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j+j^{}}{t}\right\}_q.$$
(3.14)
Using (3.9) and (3.10) we can present the basis vectors (2.13) in the form of

$$|(\lambda \mu )jtt_z>=_{}^{(\lambda \mu )}(jtt_z)|(\lambda \mu )h>=𝒩_{jt}^{(\lambda \mu )}𝐈𝐑_{tt_z;\frac{1}{2}\mu \frac{1}{2}\mu }^{j(q)}|(\lambda \mu )h>.$$
(3.15)
The normalizing factor $`𝒩_{jt}^{(\lambda \mu )}`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝒩_{jt}^{(\lambda \mu )}& =& (1)^{2j}q^{(j+\frac{1}{2}\mu t)(j\frac{1}{2}\mu +t)+j\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\mu (j+\frac{1}{2}\mu t)2j^2+j+t\frac{1}{2}\mu }\hfill \\ & & \times \sqrt{\frac{\left[j\frac{1}{2}\mu +t\right]!\left[j+\frac{1}{2}\mu t\right]!}{\left[2j\right]!\left[\mu +1\right]}}(j\frac{1}{2}\mu ttt\left|\frac{1}{2}\mu \frac{1}{2}\mu \right)_qN_{jt}^{(\lambda \mu )}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.16)
With the help of (3.15) we easy find the action of the ITO (3.10) on the Gelfand-Tsetlin basis:

$$R_{j_z^{}}^{j^{}(q)}|(\lambda \mu )jtt_z>=\underset{t^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{}^{}_z^{}}{}(j^{}j_z^{}tt_z\left|t^{\prime \prime }t_z^{\prime \prime }\right)_q<(\lambda \mu )j^{\prime \prime }t^{\prime \prime }R^{j^{}(q)}(\lambda \mu )jt>_q|(\lambda \mu )j^{\prime \prime }t^{\prime \prime }t_z^{\prime \prime }>,$$
(3.17)
where

$$<(\lambda \mu )j^{\prime \prime }t^{\prime \prime }R^{j^{}(q)}(\lambda \mu )jt>_q=\delta _{j^{\prime \prime },j+j^{}}\sqrt{\frac{[2t+1]}{[2t^{\prime \prime }+1]}}\frac{𝒩_{jt}^{(\lambda \mu )}}{𝒩_{j^{\prime \prime }t^{\prime \prime }}^{(\lambda \mu )}}U(j^{}jt^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{2}\mu ;j^{}+jt)_q.$$
(3.18)
## 4 Tensor form of the projection operator

It is obvious that the extremal projector (2.5) can be presented in the form

$$p(U_q(su(3))=p(U_q(su_T(2))\left(p_{12}p_{13}\right)p(U_q(su_T(2)).$$
(4.1)
Now we present the middle part of (4.1) in the terms of the $`U_q(su_T(2))`$ tensor operators (3.10) and (3.11). To this end, we substitute the explicit expression (2.6) for the factors $`p_{12}`$ and $`p_{13}`$, and combine monomials $`e_{21}^ne_{31}^m`$ and $`e_{12}^ne_{13}^m`$. After some summation manipulations we obtain the following expression for the extremal projection operator $`p:=p(U_q(su(3)))`$ in terms of the tensor operators (3.10) and (3.11):

$$p=p(U_q(su_T(2))(\underset{jj_z}{}A_{jj_z}\stackrel{~}{R}_{j_z}^{j(q)}R_{}^{}{}_{j_z}{}^{j(q)})p(U_q(su_T(2)).$$
(4.2)
Here

$$A_{jj_z}=\frac{(1)^{3j}[\phi _{12}][\phi _{12}+j+j_z1]![\phi _{13}]!}{[2j]![\phi _{12}+2j]![\phi _{13}+j+j_z]!}q^{4j^2+j+2jh_{\alpha _1}+2(j+j_z)T_0},$$
(4.3)
where $`\phi _{1i+1}:=e_{11}e_{i+1i+1}+i`$ ($`i=1,2`$). Below we assume that the $`U_q(su(3))`$ extremal projection operator $`p`$ acts in a weight space with the weight $`(\lambda \mu )`$ and in this case the symbol $`p`$ is supplied with the index $`(\lambda \mu )`$, $`p^{(\lambda \mu )}`$, and all the Cartan elements $`h_{\alpha _i}`$ on the right side of (4.2) are replaced by the corresponding weight components $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$. Now we multiple the projector $`p^{(\lambda \mu )}`$ from the left side by the lowering operator $`_{}^{(\lambda \mu )}(jtt_z)`$ and from the right side by the rising operator $`\left(_{}^{(\lambda \mu )}(jtt_z)\right)^{}`$, and by applying a relation of type (3.13) we finally find the tensor form of the general $`U_q(su(3))`$ projection operator:

$$P_{jtt_z;j^{}t^{}t_z^{}}^{(\lambda \mu )}=\underset{j^{\prime \prime }t^{\prime \prime }}{}B_{j^{\prime \prime }t^{\prime \prime }}^{(\lambda \mu )}𝐈𝐑_{tt_z,t^{\prime \prime }t^{\prime \prime }}^{j+j^{\prime \prime }(q)}𝐈𝐑_{}^{}{}_{t^{\prime \prime }t^{\prime \prime },t^{}t_z^{}}{}^{j^{\prime \prime }+j^{}(q)},$$
(4.4)
were the coefficients $`B_{j^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{}^{}^{}}^{(\lambda \mu )}`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}B_{j^{\prime \prime }t^{\prime \prime }}^{(\lambda \mu )}=\frac{\left(1\right)^{2j+j^{}+j^{\prime \prime }t^{}+t^{\prime \prime }}q^\varphi \left[\lambda +1\right]\left[\mu +1\right]\left[\lambda +\mu +2\right]}{\left[\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\mu +j^{\prime \prime }+t^{\prime \prime }+2\right]!\left[\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\mu +j^{\prime \prime }t^{\prime \prime }+1\right]!\left[2j^{\prime \prime }\right]!}\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{t^{\prime \prime }}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j^{\prime \prime }}{t}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j+j^{\prime \prime }}{\frac{1}{2}\mu }\right\}_q\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j^{}}{t^{\prime \prime }}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j^{\prime \prime }}{t^{}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j^{}+j^{\prime \prime }}{\frac{1}{2}\mu }\right\}_q\hfill \\ \times \left(\frac{\left[\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\mu j+t+1\right]!\left[\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\mu jt\right]!\left[\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\mu j^{}+t^{}+1\right]!\left[\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\mu j^{}t^{}\right]!\left[2j+2j^{\prime \prime }+1\right]\left[2j^{}+2j^{\prime \prime }+1\right]}{\left[2j\right]!\left[2j^{}\right]!\left[2t+1\right]\left[2t^{}+1\right]}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.5)
$$\varphi =\phi (\lambda ,\mu ,j,t)+\phi (\lambda ,\mu ,j^{},t^{})2\phi (\lambda ,\mu ,j^{\prime \prime },t^{\prime \prime })+j^{\prime \prime }(4\lambda +2\mu 1)+4t^{\prime \prime }2\mu 3j^{}.$$
(4.6)
Here and elsewhere we use the notation $`\phi (\lambda ,\mu ,j,t):=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{2}\mu +jt)(\frac{1}{2}\mu +j+t3)+j(\lambda 2j+1)`$.

## 5 General form of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients

For convenience we introduce the short notations: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:=(\lambda \mu )`$ and $`\gamma :=jtt_z`$ and therefore the basis vector $`|(\lambda \mu )jtt_z>`$ will be is denoted by $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma >`$. Let $`\{|\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\gamma _i>\}`$ be bases of two IRs $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ $`(i=1,2)`$. Then $`\{|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\gamma _1>|\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\gamma _2>\}`$ be a basis in the representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ of $`U_q(su(3))U_q(su(3))`$. In this representation there is an another coupled basis $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2:s\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\gamma _3>_q`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q(U_q(su(3)))`$ where the index $`s`$ classifies multiple representations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$.We can expand the coupled basis in terms of the tensor uncoupled basis $`\{|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\gamma _1>|\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\gamma _2>\}`$:

$$|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2:s\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\gamma _3>_q=\underset{\gamma _1,\gamma _2}{}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\gamma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\gamma _2\left|s\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\gamma _3\right)_q\right|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\gamma _1>|\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\gamma _2>,$$
(5.1)
where the matrix element $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\gamma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\gamma _2|s\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\gamma _3\right)_q`$ is the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient of $`U_q(su(3))`$. In just the same way as for the non-quantized Lie algebra $`su(3)`$ (see ) we can show that any CGC of $`U_q(su(3))`$ can be represented in terms of the linear combination of the matrix elements of the projection operator (4.4)

$$(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\gamma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\gamma _2|s\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\gamma _3)_q=\underset{\gamma _2^{}}{}C(\gamma _2^{})<\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\gamma _1|<\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\gamma _2|\mathrm{\Delta }_q(P_{\gamma _3,h}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_3})|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1h>|\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\gamma _2^{}>.$$
(5.2)
Classification of multiple representations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$ in the representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ is special problem and we shall not touch it here. For the non-deformed algebra $`su(3)`$ this problem was considered in details in . Concerning of the matrix elements in the right-side of (5.2) we give here an explicit expression for the more general matrix element:

$$<\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\gamma _1|<\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\gamma _2|\mathrm{\Delta }_q(P_{\gamma _3,\gamma _3^{}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_3})|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\gamma _1^{}>|\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\gamma _2^{}>.$$
(5.3)
Using (4.4) and the Wigner-Racah calculus for the subalgebra $`U_q(su(2))`$  (analogously to the non-quantized Lie algebra $`su(3)`$ ) it is not hard to obtain the following result:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}<\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\gamma _1|<\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\gamma _2|\mathrm{\Delta }_q(P_{\gamma _3,\gamma _3^{}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_3})|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\gamma _1^{}>|\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\gamma _2^{}>=\left(t_1t_{1z}t_2t_{2z}|t_3t_{3z}\right)_q\left(t_1t_{1z}^{}t_2t_{2z}^{}|t_3^{}t_{3z}^{}\right)_q\hfill & & \\ \times [\lambda _3+1][\mu _3+1][\lambda _3+\mu _3+2]A\underset{j_1^{}{}_{}{}^{}j_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{3}^{}^{}}{}C_{j_1^{}{}_{}{}^{}j_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{3}^{}^{}}\hfill & & \\ \times \{\begin{array}{cccc}& j_1j_1^{}^{}& j_2j_2^{}^{}& j_1+j_2j_1^{}{}_{}{}^{}j_2^{}^{}\\ & t_1^{}^{}& t_2^{}^{}& t_3^{}^{}\\ & t_1& t_2& t_3\end{array}\}_q\{\begin{array}{cccc}& j_1^{}j_1^{}^{}& j_2^{}j_2^{}^{}& j_1^{}+j_2^{}j_1^{}{}_{}{}^{}j_2^{}^{}\\ & t_1^{}^{}& t_2^{}^{}& t_3^{}^{}\\ & t_1^{}& t_2^{}& t_3^{}\end{array}\}_q.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(5.4)
Here

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A& =& (\frac{\left[2t_1+1\right]\left[2t_2+1\right]\left[2j_1+1\right]!\left[2j_2+1\right]!\left[\lambda _3+\frac{1}{2}\mu _3j_3+t_3+1\right]!\left[\lambda _3+\frac{1}{2}\mu _3j_3t_3\right]!}{\left[\lambda _1+\frac{1}{2}\mu _1j_1+t_1+1\right]!\left[\lambda _1+\frac{1}{2}\mu _1j_1t_1\right]!\left[\lambda _2+\frac{1}{2}\mu _2j_2+t_2+1\right]!\left[\lambda _2+\frac{1}{2}\mu _2j_2t_2\right]!\left[2j_3\right]!}\hfill \\ & & \times \frac{\left[2t_1^{}+1\right]\left[2t_2^{}+1\right]\left[2j_1^{}+1\right]!\left[2j_2^{}+1\right]!\left[\lambda _3+\frac{1}{2}\mu _3j_3^{}+t_3^{}+1\right]!\left[\lambda _3+\frac{1}{2}\mu _3j_3^{}t_3^{}\right]!}{\left[\lambda _1+\frac{1}{2}\mu _1j_1^{}+t_1^{}+1\right]!\left[\lambda _1+\frac{1}{2}\mu _1j_1^{}t_1^{}\right]!\left[\lambda _2+\frac{1}{2}\mu _2j_2^{}+t_2^{}+1\right]!\left[\lambda _2+\frac{1}{2}\mu _2j_2^{}t_2^{}\right]!\left[2j_3^{}\right]!})^{\frac{1}{2}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.5)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}C_{j_1^{}{}_{}{}^{}j_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}t_{3}^{}^{}}=\frac{\left(1\right)^{2(j_1+j_2+j_3^{}j_1^{}{}_{}{}^{}j_2^{}{}_{}{}^{})}q^\psi \left[2\left(j_1+j_2j_1^{\prime \prime }j_2^{\prime \prime }\right)+1\right]!\left[2\left(j_1^{}+j_2^{}j_1^{\prime \prime }j_2^{\prime \prime }\right)+1\right]!}{\left[2j_1^{\prime \prime }\right]!\left[2j_2^{\prime \prime }\right]!\left[2j_12j_1^{\prime \prime }\right]!\left[2j_22j_2^{\prime \prime }\right]!\left[2j_1^{}2j_2^{\prime \prime }\right]!\left[2j_2^{}2j_2^{\prime \prime }\right]!\left[2\left(j_1+j_2j_3j_1^{\prime \prime }j_2^{\prime \prime }\right)\right]!}\hfill & & \\ \times \frac{\left[\lambda _1+\frac{1}{2}\mu _1j_1^{\prime \prime }+t_1^{\prime \prime }+1\right]!\left[\lambda _1+\frac{1}{2}\mu _1j_1^{\prime \prime }t_1^{\prime \prime }\right]!\left[\lambda _2+\frac{1}{2}\mu _2j_2^{\prime \prime }+t_2^{\prime \prime }+1\right]!\left[\lambda _2+\frac{1}{2}\mu _2j_2^{\prime \prime }t_2^{\prime \prime }\right]!\left[2t_1^{\prime \prime }+1\right]\left[2t_2^{\prime \prime }+1\right]\left[2t_3^{\prime \prime }+1\right]}{\left[\lambda _3+\frac{1}{2}\mu _3+j_1+j_2j_3j_1^{\prime \prime }j_2^{\prime \prime }+t_3^{\prime \prime }+2\right]!\left[\lambda _3+\frac{1}{2}\mu _3+j_1+j_2j_3j_1^{\prime \prime }j_2^{\prime \prime }t_3^{\prime \prime }+1\right]!}\hfill & & \\ \times \left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_1j_1^{\prime \prime }}{\frac{1}{2}\mu _1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_1^{\prime \prime }}{t_1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_1}{t_1^{\prime \prime }}\right\}_q\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_2j_2^{\prime \prime }}{\frac{1}{2}\mu _2}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_2^{\prime \prime }}{t_2}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_2}{t_2^{\prime \prime }}\right\}_q\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_3}{t_3^{\prime \prime }}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_1+j_2j_3j_1^{\prime \prime }j_2^{\prime \prime }}{t_3}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_1+j_2j_1^{\prime \prime }j_2^{\prime \prime }}{\frac{1}{2}\mu _3}\right\}_q\hfill & & \\ \times \left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_1^{}j_1^{\prime \prime }}{\frac{1}{2}\mu _1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_1^{\prime \prime }}{t_1^{}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_1^{}}{t_1^{\prime \prime }}\right\}_q\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_2^{}j_2^{\prime \prime }}{\frac{1}{2}\mu _2}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_2^{\prime \prime }}{t_2^{}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_2^{}}{t_2^{\prime \prime }}\right\}_q\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_3^{}}{t_3^{\prime \prime }}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_1^{}+j_2^{}j_3^{}j_1^{\prime \prime }j_2^{\prime \prime }}{t_3^{}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_1^{}+j_2^{}j_1^{\prime \prime }j_2^{\prime \prime }}{\frac{1}{2}\mu _3}\right\}_q,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(5.6)
where $`\psi =_{i=1}^2\left(2\phi (\lambda _i,\mu _i,j_i^{\prime \prime },t_i^{\prime \prime })\phi (\lambda _i,\mu _i,j_i,t_i)\phi (\lambda _i,\mu _i,j_i^{},t_i^{})t_i(t_i+1)t_i^{}(t_i^{}+1)\right)2\phi (\lambda _3,\mu _3,j_3^{\prime \prime },t_3^{\prime \prime })+\phi (\lambda _3,\mu _3,j_3,t_3)+\phi (\lambda _3,\mu _3,j_3^{},t_3^{})+j_3^{\prime \prime }(4\lambda _3+2\mu _3+2)2t_3^{\prime \prime }(t_3^{\prime \prime }1)2\mu _3(j_2+j_2^{}2j_2^{\prime \prime })(2\lambda _1+\mu _16j_1^{\prime \prime })+4(j_1j_1^{\prime \prime })(j_2j_2^{\prime \prime })+4(j_1^{}j_1^{\prime \prime })(j_2^{}j_2^{\prime \prime })(j_3+j_3^{\prime \prime })(j_3+j_3^{\prime \prime }+1)(j_3^{}+j_3^{\prime \prime })(j_3^{}+j_3^{\prime \prime }+1)`$, $`j_3^{\prime \prime }:=j_1+j_2j_3j_1^{\prime \prime }j_2^{\prime \prime }=j_1^{}+j_2^{}j_3^{}j_1^{\prime \prime }j_2^{\prime \prime }`$.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by RFBR-99-01-01163, and by the program of French-Russian scientific cooperation (CNRS grant PICS-608 and grant RFBR-98-01-22033, V.N. Tolstoy).


format: text

text:
# Trapped and Passing Electrons in BGK Solitary Waves

## Abstract

This paper reexamines the physical roles of trapped and passing electrons in Bernstein-Greene-Kruskal (BGK) electron solitary waves, also called the BGK electron holes (EH). It is shown that the shielding of the positive core is achieved by electrons trapped and oscillating inside the potential energy trough, instead of the thermal screening from the ambient plasma as previously thought. The size of a BGK EH is therefore not restricted to be greater than the Debye length $`\lambda _D`$.

In 1957, Bernstein, Greene and Kruskal  solved the one-dimensional, time-independent Vlasov-Poisson equations and obtained the general solutions for electrostatic nonlinear traveling waves, including solitary potential pulses. Their derivation emphasized the special role played by the particles trapped in the potential energy troughs. They demonstrated that one could construct waves of arbitrary shapes by assigning the distribution of trapped particles suitable for the desired wave form.

In 1967, Roberts and Berk  provided a quasi-particle picture for the electron phase space holes (EH) based on the results of a numerical experiment on two-stream instability. They followed the evolution of the electron phase space boundary between $`f=0`$ and $`f=1`$ using the time-dependent Vlasov-Poisson equations with the “water-bag” model in which the distribution function only takes discrete values, 0 and 1. They interpreted the elliptical empty ($`f=0`$) region associated with a positive charge observed in the late stage of the nonlinear development as a BGK EH. In order to explain the coalescence of neighboring EHs, a negative effective mass was assigned to each EH to compensate for the Coulomb repulsion of two positive EHs. Thus, they suggested a quasi-particle picture that BGK EHs have positive charge and negative mass. This picture is in use even today to interpret results in computer simulations of EH disruptions , and to model the mutual interaction of electrostatic solitary waves in space plasma .

It was not until 1979 that BGK EHs were experimentally realized by the Risø laboratory experiments . By applying large amplitude potential pulses in a plasma-loaded wave guide, solitary potential pulses were excited, including EHs and Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) solitons . Investigations of the mutual interaction of EHs showed that two EHs close to each other would coalesce if they have almost equal velocity and they would pass through each other if their relative velocity was large . The coalescence was interpreted in terms of the positive EH picture derived earlier .

The analytical work that followed the Risø experiments mainly focused on constructing solutions and obtaining the corresponding width-amplitude relations to facilitate the comparison between BGK EHs and KdV solitons . In addressing the quasi-particle picture of EHs, Schamel  concluded that EHs were positively charged, screened by the ambient electrons over many Debye lengths ($`\lambda _D`$), and had negative mass . This conclusion supports the positive EH picture previously obtained from the numerical experiments  and that the minimum size of EHs of several $`\lambda _D`$ is a consequence of thermal screening by the ambient electrons.

Turikov  followed the BGK approach and constructed the trapped electron distribution for a Maxwellian ambient electron distribution and various solitary potential profiles. He restricted his study to BGK EHs with phase space density zero in a hole center and the results showed that the potential width increases with increasing amplitude. This behavior is different from that of the KdV solitons whose width decreases with increasing amplitude. He also numerically simulated the temporal evolution of the EHs for different Mach numbers to study the EH stability and found that EHs are quasi-stable for Mach numbers less than 2. One of the main conclusions that Turikov made was that EHs are purely kinetic nonlinear objects in which trapped electrons play an important role, but exactly what physical role trapped electrons played was not addressed.

Space-borne experiments now show that electrostatic solitary waves (ESW) are ubiquitous in Earth’s magnetospheric boundaries, shock, geomagnetic tail and auroral ionosphere . While detailed properties of these solitary waves are continuously being studied, it has been shown that in a number of cases the ESWs have features that are consistent with BGK electron  and ion  mode solitary waves. A statistical study by FAST satellite observations  in the auroral ionosphere has revealed that solitary pulses with a positive potential typically have a Gaussian half width ranging from less than one $`\lambda _D`$ to several $`\lambda _D`$ with a mean of $`1.80\lambda _D`$ and a standard deviation of $`1.13\lambda _D`$. However, the statistical analysis strongly favored large amplitude pulses  and smaller EHs if they existed were not sampled. This question of how small EHs can be is an important issue associated with how a collisionless plasma supports nonlinear waves and needs to be further investigated.

To examine the physical roles played by trapped and passing electrons, we start first with simple physical arguments and then perform analytical calculations using the same formulation used by Turikov , except that we relax the restriction of empty-centered EHs and obtain a more general width-amplitude relation. The number density profiles of trapped and passing electrons are calculated to quantify the separate contributions from trapped and passing electrons to the charge density. Implications of our results to the positive EH picture and minimum size of BGK EHs are made.

We first discuss heuristically the behavior of electrons in the vicinity of a potential pulse. Figures 1(a)-1(c) show the general form of a positive solitary potential pulse ($`\varphi (x)`$), the corresponding bipolar electric field ($`E=\varphi /x`$) and the total charge density ($`\rho =^2\varphi /x^2`$). The charge density is positive at the core, negative at the boundary, and zero outside the solitary potential. Figure 1(d) shows the potential energy trough with an electron passing by (open circle) and a trapped electron (solid circle) at its turning point. Consider the phase space trajectories of electrons passing by the potential and those that are trapped in the potential shown in Figure 1(e). The dashed line marked by electrons with zero total energy is the boundary of the trapping region inside which electrons are trapped and outside which electrons are untrapped. The total energy, $`w=\frac{m}{2}v^2e\varphi `$, is a constant of motion. A passing electron ($`w>0`$) moves with a constant velocity outside the potential and the speed increases when it encounters the potential pulse and then decreases back to its original value as it moves away. A trapped electron ($`w<0`$) bounces back and forth between its two turning points in the potential. Since there is no source or sink for the particles, the density is inversely proportional to the velocity. We can thus deduce that the density of passing electrons is constant outside and becomes smaller as $`\varphi `$ increases. No excess negative charge results from the passing electrons. On the other hand, trapped electrons have density maxima at their turning points, and so must be responsible for the excess negative charge. The charge density variation (Figure 1(c)) needed to be self-consistent with the solitary potential pulse is thus a net balance of the negative charge from trapped electrons and the positive charge due to the density decrease of passing electrons since the ion density is assumed uniform. From this simple picture, one can see that in BGK solitary waves it is the trapped electrons traveling with the solitary potential that screen out the positive core. Our picture is different from the picture of a positive object in a plasma whose screening is achieved by the thermal motion of the plasma (Debye shielding).

The entire trapping region that consists of the total electron density enhancement at the flanks and depletion at the core is a physical entity produced by the self-consistent interaction between the plasma particles and the solitary potential pulse. This defines the physical identity of one BGK EH. The total charge of the entire trapping region is zero, and therefore it follows that two separated BGK EHs do not interact and the concept of negative mass is not needed.

We now use the approach formulated by BGK  to quantify the above arguments and further demonstrate that the results are independent of the strength of the nonlinearity. The time-independent, coupled Vlasov and Poisson equations with the assumption of a uniform neutralizing ion background take the following form:

$$v\frac{f(v,x)}{x}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\varphi }{x}\frac{f(v,x)}{v}=0,$$
(1)
$$\frac{^2\varphi }{x^2}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(v,x)𝑑v1,$$
(2)
where f is the electron distribution function and the quantities have been normalized with the units of the Debye length $`\lambda _D`$, the ambient electron thermal energy $`T_e`$, and the electron thermal velocity $`v_t=\sqrt{2T_e/m}`$. The total energy $`w=v^2\varphi `$ under this convention. Any $`f=f(w)`$ is a solution to Eq. 1 as can be readily verified. Recognizing this, Eq. 2 can be re-written in the following form,

$$\frac{^2\varphi }{x^2}=_\varphi ^0𝑑w\frac{f_{tr}(w)}{2\sqrt{w+\varphi }}+_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑w\frac{f_p(w)}{2\sqrt{w+\varphi }}1,$$
(3)
where $`f_{tr}(w)`$ and $`f_p(w)`$ are the trapped and passing electron phase space densities at energy $`w`$, respectively. The first integral on the RHS of Eq. 3 is the trapped electron density, and the second integral the passing electron density. Prescribe the solitary potential as a Gaussian,

$$\varphi (\psi ,\delta ,x)=\psi \mathrm{exp}(x^2/2\delta ^2),$$
(4)
and the passing electron distribution a Maxwellian where the density has been normalized to 1 outside the solitary potential,

$$f_p(w)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}(w).$$
(5)
Following the BGK approach, we obtain the trapped electron distribution,

$`f_{tr}(\psi ,\delta ,w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{w}}{\pi \delta ^2}}\left[12\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{4w}{\psi }})\right]`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{exp}(w)}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left[1erf(\sqrt{w})\right].`$
The first term in $`f_{tr}`$ stems from $`^2\varphi /x^2`$ term in Eq. 3 and has a single peak at $`w=\frac{\psi }{4e^{3/2}}`$. This term is 0 at $`w=0^{}`$, goes negative at $`w=\psi `$, and will always be single peaked even for other bell-shaped solitary potentials (for example, $`sech^2(x/\delta )`$ and $`sech^4(x/\delta )`$, see Figure 4 of  for the special case of empty-centered EHs). Although the peak location may vary, it will not be at the end points, 0 and $`\psi `$. The second term arising from the integral of the passing electron distribution decreases monotonically from $`w=0^{}`$ to $`w=\psi `$. The end point behavior of the two terms implies that $`f_{tr}(w=0^{})>f_{tr}(w=\psi )`$. Combining the behavior of the two terms in $`f_{tr}`$, it can be concluded that $`f_{tr}(0>w\psi )f_{tr}(w=\psi )`$. This feature of $`f_{tr}`$ is essential in making a solitary pulse, and it manifests itself at the peak of the potential as two counterstreaming beams. For the solution to be physical, $`f_{tr}`$ has to be nonnegative. $`f_{tr}(\psi ,\delta ,w=\psi )0`$ suffices this requirement, yielding the width-amplitude ($`\delta `$-$`\psi `$) relation,

$$\delta \left[\frac{2\sqrt{\psi }(2\mathrm{ln}41)}{\sqrt{\pi }e^\psi [1erf(\sqrt{\psi })]}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(8)
The equal sign in Ineq. 8 corresponds to the case of empty-centered EHs studied by Turikov . We plot Ineq. 8 in Figure 2. A point in the shaded region represents an allowed EH with a given $`\psi `$ and $`\delta `$. The shaded region includes all of the allowed $`\psi `$ and $`\delta `$ for the range of values shown. For a fixed $`\delta `$, all $`\psi \psi _0`$ are allowed, where $`\psi _0`$ is such that $`f_{tr}(\psi _0,\delta ,w=\psi _0)=0`$; while for a fixed $`\psi `$, all $`\delta \delta _0`$ are allowed, where $`\delta _0`$ is such that $`f_{tr}(\psi ,\delta _0,w=\psi )=0`$. The corresponding physical meaning is that empty-centered EHs give the largest amplitude ($`\psi _0`$) for a fixed width, and the smallest width ($`\delta _0`$) for a fixed amplitude as comparing to EHs that are not empty-centered. Note that by distributing a finite number of electrons at rest at the bottom of the potential energy trough, the plasma supports smaller amplitude or larger width pulses than the amplitude and width of empty-centered EHs. This inequality relation is dramatically different from that of KdV solitons whose width-amplitude relation is a one-to-one mapping.

With $`f_p`$ and $`f_{tr}`$, we can now calculate the passing and trapped electron densities separately and obtain

$`n_p(x)=\mathrm{exp}(\varphi )\left[1erf(\sqrt{\varphi })\right],`$

$`n_{tr}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi \left[1+2\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\psi )\right]}{\delta ^2}}+1\mathrm{exp}(\varphi )\left[1erf(\sqrt{\varphi })\right].`$

Another way to obtain $`n_{tr}`$ comes directly from solving Eq. 3 as the first term on the RHS is exactly $`n_{tr}`$. Solving Eq. 3 for $`n_{tr}`$ is simpler, but without the knowledge of $`f_{tr}`$, one is not guaranteed whether the particular set of ($`\psi `$, $`\delta `$) is physically allowed ($`f_{tr}0`$). Note that even for $`\varphi 1`$, $`n_p12\sqrt{\varphi /\pi }`$ is different from the leading terms of a Boltzmann distribution, $`e^\varphi `$. The physical meaning is that under self-consistent interaction of electrons and the solitary potential, electrons in the vicinity of the potential are not in local thermal equilibrium, in contrast to the starting point of local thermal equilibrium in obtaining the thermal screening length .

To study the contributions from trapped and passing electrons to the charge density ($`^2\varphi /x^2`$) and how such contributions are affected by various parameters, we show in Figure 3 plots of $`n_{tr}`$ and $`n_p`$ and the charge density $`\rho `$ as a function of $`x`$ for several values of $`\psi `$ and $`\delta `$. Figure 3 (a) and (b) plot $`100\times n_{tr}(x)`$, $`100\times [n_p(x)1]`$, and $`100\times \rho (x)`$ for ($`\psi `$, $`\delta `$)=($`2\times 10^5`$,$`0.1`$). For an ambient plasma with $`T_e=700eV`$ and $`\lambda _D=100m`$ as found at ionospheric heights by FAST satellite in the environment of BGK EHs , this case corresponds to $`\psi =1.4\times 10^2V`$ and $`\delta =10m`$. As shown, in this weakly nonlinear case, the maximum perturbation in $`n_p`$ is only $`0.5\%`$ and in $`n_{tr}`$ $`0.4\%`$. The perturbation in the charge density $`\rho `$ is $`0.2\%`$, and occurs all within one $`\lambda _D`$.

$`n_p(x)`$, $`n_{tr}(x)`$, and $`\rho (x)`$ for ($`\psi `$, $`\delta `$)=(5, 4.4) in Figure 3 (c) and (d). This choice corresponds to a point close to the curve $`f_{tr}(w=\psi )=0`$ in Figure 2 and is an extremely nonlinear case. One can see that the total charge density perturbation goes $`10\%`$ negative and $`25\%`$ positive, corresponding respectively to electron density enhancement and depletion. With similar format, Figure 3 (e) and (f) plots a case with same $`\delta `$ and $`\psi =1`$ to illustrate the change in $`n_p`$, $`n_{tr}`$, and $`\rho `$ of an EH with equal width but smaller amplitude. By locating this case in Figure 2, one notices that farther away from the $`f_{tr}(w=\psi )=0`$ curve, the dip in $`n_{tr}`$ is filled up and the charge density perturbation only increases to $`5\%`$ positive and $`2\%`$ negative.

These examples demonstrate how trapped electrons produce negative charge density perturbations and passing electrons positive charge density perturbations owing to the decrease in their number density. It is always true that $`n_{tr}0`$, since the number density cannot be negative, and therefore trapped electrons always contribute to negative charge density regardless of the strength of the nonlinearity. This result disagrees with the picture that the positive core is due to a deficit of deeply trapped electrons, and that this positive core is screened out by the ambient electrons . It is also different from the conclusion that the trapped electrons are screened out by the resonant or nonresonant passing electrons depending on the EH velocity in .

We now turn to the issue of minimum size of EHs. From the illustrations of Figure 3, one sees that the charge density variation is the net balance of the negative charge produced by trapped electrons and the positive charge density produced by a depletion of passing electrons inside the solitary potential. The trapped electrons must distribute and oscillate in such a way to yield the desired negative charge at the flanks to shield out the positive core. The entire solitary object is a self-consistent and self-sustained object with zero total charge and does not require screening from the ambient plasma. Thus, the size of EHs are not restricted to be greater than $`\lambda _D`$.

In summary, we demonstrated that the positive core of the EH is shielded exclusively by trapped electrons oscillating between their turning points and resulting in the excess negative charge. A BGK EH consists of an electron density enhanced region and depletion region, and this means that the total charge for a BGK EH is zero. It thus follows that two separated EHs do not interact and the concept of negative mass is not needed. There does not exist a minimum size for BGK EHs since they do not rely on the thermal screening from the ambient plasma. These features are independent of the particular choice of potential profile and passing electron distribution, and also independent of the strength of nonlinearity, because the only principle upon which the arguments are built is conservation of charge (the continuity equation). The restriction to empty-centered EHs which was used previously is relaxed to obtain a more general width-amplitude relation of an inequality form.

Finally, note that the arguments and results we obtained for BGK electron solitary waves can be analogously applied to BGK ion solitary waves.

One of the authors (Chen) is grateful to Bill Peria for the discussions on the electric field experiment onboard FAST satellite. The research at the University of Washington is supported in part by NASA grants NAG5-3170 and NAG5-26580.