text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0103107

Dimensional Reduction via Noncommutative
Spacetime: Bootstrap and Holography

Miao Li

Institute of Theoretical Physics

Academia Sinica

Beijing 100080

and

Department of Physics

National Taiwan University

Taipei 106, Taiwan

mli@phys.ntu.edu.tw

Unlike noncommutative space, when space and time are noncommutative, it seems necessary to modify the usual scheme of quantum mechanics. We propose in this paper a simple generalization of the time evolution equation in quantum mechanics to incorporate the feature of a noncommutative spacetime. This equation is much more constraining than the usual Schrödinger equation in that the spatial dimension noncommuting with time is effectively reduced to a point in low energy. We thus call the new evolution equation the spacetime bootstrap equation, the dimensional reduction called for by this evolution seems close to what is required by the holographic principle. We will discuss several examples to demonstrate this point.

March 2001

String theory intrinsically exhibits spacetime uncertainty, as first pointed out in \[1,,2\] and later examined in some nonperturbative context in \[3,,4\]. This seems to indicate that space and time will become noncommutative in a more fundamental formulation of string/M theory. On the other hand, quantum black hole physics also cries for noncommutative spacetime \[5,,6\], for a different but somewhat related reason. For a recent review on the two aspects of spacetime uncertainty, see . These observations recently led many people to believe that in string theory and more generally in a theory of quantum gravity, the notion of spacetime will become approximate, and that a fundamental formulation of string/M theory should unify kinematics and dynamics of spacetime into a single framework.

A noncommutative spacetime implies that some dimensions are redundant in a quantum mechanical description, much as in quantum mechanics information is required of the wave function only for one variable in a pair of conjugate variables. This, we believe, is closely related to the holographic principle in a quantum gravity theory  in which a few spatial dimensions are reduced. Thus, it is very likely that in a theory exhibiting holography, such as the AdS/CFT correspondence , space and time are noncommutative. The first concrete proposal in string theory, to the best of our knowledge, appears in  in which a fuzzy $`AdS_2`$ is proposed to describe the quantum gravity effects. Indeed, a correct pattern of $`1/N`$ expansion as well as of nonperturbative effects in large N emerges, the latter can be interpreted as caused by the instanton processes of fragmentation of smaller $`AdS_2`$.

It is possible to construct theories with noncommutative spacetime by switching on an electric field on D-branes. Unlike in the magnetic case, no decoupling limit exists for one to obtain an effective field theory . If one tries to define a field theory on a noncommutative spacetime perturbatively using Feynman rules, one runs into contradiction: The theory would be nonunitary perturbatively . Even if such inconsistency was not there, one would still have problem to define such a theory nonperturbatively. To define a quantum amplitude between two field configurations at two given times, one would have to specify many time derivatives of fields, since the action contains infinitely many time derivatives. This in a way requires one to introduce many more degrees of freedom than those the theory initially contains.

We propose to study noncommutative spacetime in the opposite direction, namely instead of introducing more degrees of freedom we shall try to reduce the number of degrees of freedom, as we explained above that interesting physics demands such a procedure. To this end, it appears to us that it is necessary to reformulate quantum mechanics when time is regarded as an operator rather than a continuous evolution parameter. As we shall explain shortly, usual quantum mechanics for a single degree of freedom can be easily formulated on a noncommutative space, and the second quantization, namely a field theory, can also be formulated. However, one can not write down a Schrödinger equation in which noncommutativity of space and time manifests, this is simply because in the such an evolution equation time is always treated as a c-number variable. We will propose a simple generalization of the time evolution equation. This equation departs from quantum mechanics in a minimal fashion, and is much more constraining than the Schrödinger equation, thus enabling dimensional reduction. If the system under study also involves other commuting spatial dimensions, we will be led to an effective low dimensional theory defined on the commuting space, in the low energy limit. In the dimensional reduced theory, usual quantum mechanics is recovered.

$``$ Noncommutative space

We start with the problem of formulating quantum mechanics on a noncommutative plane. This subject has not received much attention except , the reason is probably that for many experts it is rather straightforward to do so. We present a discussion here for the purpose to distinguish this case from our subject of main interest: noncommutative spacetime. Our discussion is somewhat different from that in . Let us start with the following operator algebra

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{x}^j]& =iϵ^{ij}\theta ,[\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{p}_j]=i\delta _{ij},\hfill \\ \hfill [\widehat{p}_i,\widehat{p}_j]& =0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`\widehat{x}^i`$ are noncommuting, they do not have mutual eigenstates in the Hilbert space. $`\widehat{p}_i`$ however are still commuting, they do have mutual eigenstates

$$\widehat{p}_i|p=p_i|p,$$

or for a state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ expanded in the above basis $`\mathrm{\Psi }(p)=p|\mathrm{\Psi }`$:

$$\widehat{p}_i\mathrm{\Psi }(p)=p_i\mathrm{\Psi }(p).$$

The multiplication on the R.H.S. is the usual one.

In the momentum representation, the position operators are realized by

$$\widehat{x}^i=i_{p_i}\frac{\theta }{2}ϵ^{ij}p_j,$$

when acting on $`\mathrm{\Psi }(p)`$. Now although it is impossible to define the eigenstates of operators $`\widehat{x}^i`$, one can define the state $`|x`$ by $`x|p=\mathrm{exp}(ip_ix^i)`$ so that

$$\widehat{x}^i\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=x_i\mathrm{\Psi }(x)+\frac{i\theta }{2}ϵ^{ij}_j\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=x_i\mathrm{\Psi }(x),$$

where we used the standard $``$-product.

It is not hard to convince oneself that for any operator as a function of $`\widehat{x}^i`$, if Weyl ordered, its action on the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ is given by the $``$-product between itself and the wave function. If there is a potential for a single particle depending only on $`\widehat{x}`$, $`V(\widehat{x})`$, then one has $`V(\widehat{x})\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=V(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$. The Schrödinger equation can be written as

$$i_t\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x)=(\frac{1}{2m}_i^2+V(x))\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x).$$

Apparently, there are just as many solutions to the above equation as many states in the Hilbert space, and the latter is the space of a certain class of functions of $`x`$. This means that although the plane is noncommutative, there is no dimensional reduction at all.

In the second quantization, both time and space coordinates become dummy variables, and it is the field itself acts as an operator. For a nonrelativistic particle moving on a noncommutative plane and under a potential, the Hamiltonian is written as

$$H=d^2x\left(\frac{1}{2m}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)_i^2\mathrm{\Psi }(x)+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)V(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)\right).$$

If the interaction is a type of self-interaction, one replaces $`V(x)`$ in (1) by an operator such as $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$, one ends up with a noncommutative field theory.

$``$ Noncommutative spacetime

We have seen that all is fine with a noncommutative space. The standard quantum mechanics applies rather straightforwardly. We now postulate that for some reason time becomes noncommutative with a spatial dimension $`x`$. We have an operator algebra

$$[\widehat{t},\widehat{x}]=i\theta ,[\widehat{x},\widehat{p}]=i.$$

If we set the speed of light $`c=1`$, $`\theta `$ has a dimension of length square. Apparently, there is trouble with the usual idea about the Hilbert space. Assume that the Hilbert space is the usual representation of the Heisenberg algebra $`[\widehat{x},\widehat{p}]=i`$, then since $`[\widehat{x},\widehat{t}+\theta \widehat{p}]=0`$, one deduces

$$\widehat{t}=\theta \widehat{p}+f(\widehat{x}),$$

that is, time is no longer an independent dummy variable, and is proportional to momentum. This in itself is correct for many physics phenomena, but impedes generalization of the Schrödinger equation. For now the standard wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x)`$ would become a function of the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }(p,x)`$. This does not make sense for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as a wave function. Only the Wigner distribution depends both on $`x`$ and $`p`$. If on the other hand one insists on treating the wave function as a function of only one variable, then in the standard Schrödinger equation the commutator $`[\widehat{t},\widehat{x}]=i\theta `$ plays no role at all.

Thus it seems necessary to go beyond quantum mechanics, as first emphasized in the conclusion section of . We will still postulate that it makes sense to talk about the joint function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x)`$, but one has to generalize the Schrödinger equation. The right version of the time evolution equation to be generalized seems to be the integrated form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x)=e^{itH(\widehat{p},\widehat{x})}\mathrm{\Psi }(x).$$

Now for any initial wave function, there is no problem in using the above equation to evolve it to time $`t`$. Due to the simple fact that

$$e^{it^{}H}e^{itH}=e^{i(t+t^{})H},$$

one has the composition law

$$e^{it^{}H}\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x)=\mathrm{\Psi }(t+t^{},x),$$

as demanded by the requirement that the fundamental evolution equation must be time-translationally invariant.

Now when $`\widehat{t}`$ is noncommuting with $`\widehat{x}`$, one might be motivated to generalize (1) to the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x)=e^{itH(\widehat{p},x)}\mathrm{\Psi }(x),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ is the wave function at $`t=0`$. The above $``$-product is a generalized one defined by

$$f(t^{},x)g(t,y)=e^{\frac{i\theta }{2}(_t^{}_y_t_x)}f(t^{},x)g(t,y).$$

Such a generalized $``$-product for functions at different points have been extensively used recently in constructing gauge invariant observables in a noncommutative Yang-Mills theory. Although in (1) the two times are different, the space points in two functions are the same. Also we implicitly assume in (1) that $`\widehat{p}`$ is identified with $`i_x`$, and in the $``$-product it is treated as a dummy variable.

Evolution equation (1) differs from the quantum mechanical one (1) in that we need to specify all the time derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ at the initial time $`t=0`$. This at the first sight requires introducing more degrees of freedom. We shall see shortly that the opposite is true. The evolution form is not guaranteed to be time-translationally invariant, since

$$e^{it^{}H(\widehat{p},x)}e^{itH(\widehat{p},x)}e^{i(t+t^{})H(\widehat{p},x)}.$$

Thus, instead of working with (1) we propose to work with the following equation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t^{}+t,x)=e^{it^{}H(\widehat{p},x)}\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x).$$

The above equation is required to be valid for arbitrary $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$, therefore by definition the composition law is satisfied. (1) differs from (1) in that on the R.H.S. of (1) $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and its time derivatives can be arbitray at $`t=0`$, while (1) is better viewed as a contraining equation rather than an evolution equation, since one can not arbitrarily specify $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and its time derivatives at $`t`$, their form must be consistent with the function on the L.H.S. We shall see soon that indeed this equation will drastically reduce the number of solutions. If one views (1) both as an evolution equation as well as a constraining equation, it is better called the bootstrap equation, in the sense that time and space bootstrap themselves.

By the definition of the generalized $``$-prouduct, we have the following algebra

$$[t,x]=[t^{},x]=i\theta [t,t^{}]=0,$$

where we omitted hat for all variables. This algebra is certainly consistent with the one we started with in (1). We now proceed to examine the implications of our main equation (1).

$``$ H(p,x)=H(p)

The simplest Hamiltonian to work with is a Hamiltonian depending only on momentum. In this case, (1) has the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t+t^{},x)=e^{it^{}H(p)}\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x)+\underset{n1}{}\frac{1}{n!}(\frac{\theta H}{2})^ne^{it^{}H}_x^n\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x).$$

At $`t^{}=0`$, we deduce

$$\underset{n1}{}\frac{1}{n!}(\frac{\theta H}{2})^n_x^n\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x)=0.$$

Once this constraining equation is satisfied, the sum in (1) automatically vanishes, and we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t+t^{},x)=e^{it^{}H(p)}\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x),$$

the standard quantum mechanical evolution equation. Both the constraining equation (1) and (1) are linear, thus an arbitrary solution can be decomposed into a complete basis of solutions. Any solution in this basis satisfies the composition law, since (1) is the usual quantum mechanical equation.

Without loss of any information, we will set $`t=0`$ in (1) and proceed to solve it. Denote the wave function at $`t=0`$ by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$. Using Fourier transformation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=𝑑p\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(p)e^{ipx},$$

we find

$$\left(e^{i\frac{\theta }{2}pH(p)}1\right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(p)e^{ipx}𝑑p=0.$$

So the constraining equation boils down to the simple equation

$$\left(e^{i\frac{\theta }{2}pH(p)}1\right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(p)=0.$$

For $`H(p)`$ non-singular at $`p=0`$, there is a obvious solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }(p)=\delta (p)`$. If $`H(p)`$ also vanishes at $`p=0`$, there are more solutions. For instance for a “nonrelativistic” particle $`H(p)=p^2/(2m)`$, there are three solutions localized at $`p=0`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(p)=a\delta (p)+b\delta ^{}(p)+c\delta ^{\prime \prime }(p).$$

In the position space, we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=a+bx+cx^2.$$

After applying the evolution equation (1), we get

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=a+bx+c(x^2+\frac{it}{m}).$$

It is easy to check that indeed this family of solutions satisfies the bootstrap equation (1). The energy of these solutions is zero. We conclude that in the low energy sector, the number of solutions is finite. If $`H(p)p^m`$, there are $`m+1`$ solutions in the zero-momentum sector.

For nonvanishing $`p`$, the factor in the parenthesis in (1) vanishes if

$$p_nH(p_n)=\frac{4\pi n}{\theta },$$

so there is a solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }(p)\delta (pp_n)`$. The momentum is quantized, although we start with a noncompact dimension $`x`$! The simplest case is when $`H`$ is a constant $``$,

$$p_n=\frac{4\pi n}{\theta }.$$

This formula indicates that the particle effectively moves on a circle of radius

$$R=\frac{\theta }{4\pi }.$$

The smaller the parameter $`\theta `$ is, the smaller the circle, the larger the momentum, while the energy is always a constant. Since in string theory $`\theta `$ is related either to the string scale or the Planck scale, the nonzero momentum is actually quite high, one might say that the low momentum sector ($`p`$=0) is one dimensional. Even when one takes all nozero momentum (1) into account, the original quantum mechanical Hilbert space is reduced to one in which momentum is discrete. We see that indeed we achieved what we hoped: There is a drastic reduction of degrees of freedom.

The next interesting case is when $`H(p)=|p|`$. We find

$$p_n^2=\frac{4\pi n}{\theta }.$$

This quantization condition is similar to the string spectrum 1 I am grateful to P. M. Ho for suggesting this analogue.. In this case, the energy is no longer constant, but proportional to $`\sqrt{n/\theta }`$. Again, for small $`\theta `$, all these are in the high energy sector. There are two states in the low energy sector.

If we have a “nonrelativistic” particle, we have

$$p_n^3=\frac{8\pi mn}{\theta }.$$

In this case there is no direct analogue in familar models.

We notice that as long as $`\theta 0`$, the nonvanishing momentum is always quantized. This phenomenon has no smooth limit at $`\theta =0`$, where the constraining equation (1) is always satisfied for any $`p`$.

Suppose in addition to $`x`$, there are more spatial dimensions and these are always commuting with time. Assume $`H=H(p,q)`$, $`q`$ is the momentum in the commuting directions. The quantization condition (1) is still valid. In this case $`p_n`$ depends continuously on $`q`$, in general we have $`p_n=p(n,q)`$. $`q`$ for a given $`n`$ can vary in a range continuously. For example, if

$$H=\sqrt{p^2+q^2},$$

then

$$p_n^2=\frac{1}{2}\left((q^4+4(\frac{4\pi n}{\theta })^2)^{1/2}q^2\right).$$

For small $`q`$, namely $`q^21/\theta `$

$$p_n^2\frac{4\pi |n|}{\theta }.$$

The energy is also of this order. For large $`q`$, that is $`q^21/\theta `$,

$$p_n\frac{4\pi |n|}{|q|\theta }.$$

The energy is approximately $`|q|`$. In both cases, the energy is no smaller than $`1/\sqrt{\theta }`$.

We are more interested in the low energy sector, namely when $`p=0`$. For the above relativistic model, there is always only one state if $`q0`$. In this case $`E=|q|`$, the theory is completely reduced to a zero mass relativistic particle in the commuting space, and moreover the usual quantum mechanics is valid for this dimensionally reduced theory.

One can proceed to discuss different Hamiltonians when $`q`$ is involved. Suffices it to say that in addition to the low energy sector which is finite dimensional in terms of $`x`$-dimension, all other solutions are highly energetic if $`\theta `$ is very small. In all these theories, the dimensional reduction occurs in the $`p`$-space.

$``$ H=H(x)

Next we consider the case when the Hamiltonian is a function of only $`x`$. In order to solve the bootstrap equation (1) completely, we need the following formula for the $``$-product,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f(t^{},x)g(t,x)& =\frac{1}{(\theta \pi )^2}\underset{i}{}dt_idx_if(t_1,x_1)g(t_2,x_2)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2i}{\theta }[(t^{}t_1)(xx_2)(tt_2)(xx_1)]\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`f(t_1,x_1)=\mathrm{exp}(it_1H(x_1))`$ and $`f(t_2,x_2)=\mathrm{\Psi }(t_2,x_2)`$, one may integrate out $`t_1`$ and then $`x_2`$ first to find the bootstrap equation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }(t+t^{},x)=& \frac{1}{\theta \pi }𝑑t_2𝑑x_1\mathrm{\Psi }(t_2,x+\frac{\theta }{2}H(x_1))\hfill \\ & \mathrm{exp}\left(it^{}H(x_1)\frac{2i}{\theta }(tt_2)(xx_1)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Use the definition

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(E,x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑te^{iEt}\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x)$$

to integrate out $`t_2`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }(t+t^{},x)& =\frac{2}{\theta }𝑑x_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\frac{2}{\theta }(xx_1),x+\frac{\theta }{2}H(x_1))\hfill \\ & \mathrm{exp}\left(it^{}H(x_1)\frac{2i}{\theta }t(xx_1)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Fourier transforming both sides of the above equation with respect to $`t`$ results in

$$e^{it^{}E}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(E,x)=e^{it^{}H(x\frac{\theta }{2}E)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(E,x+\frac{\theta }{2}H(x\frac{\theta }{2}E)).$$

The functional relation (1) is easy to solve. If $`H`$ is a nontrivial function of $`x`$, the $`t^{}`$ dependence of the two sides of (1) do not agree unless $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(E,x)`$ concentrates at the point when $`H(x\frac{\theta }{2}E)=E`$, that is

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(E,x)\delta (H(x\frac{\theta }{2}E)E).$$

Compare the $`x`$ dependence of the two sides of (1) we find that whenever

$$H(x\frac{\theta }{2}E)=E$$

$`x`$ and $`E`$ must also satisfy

$$H(x+\frac{\theta }{2}H(x\frac{\theta }{2}E)\frac{\theta }{2}E)=E.$$

Substituting $`H(x\frac{\theta }{2}E)`$ in the above relation by $`E`$, we have

$$H(x)=E.$$

We conclude that the following two equations must be satisfied simultaneously

$$H(x\frac{\theta }{2}E)=E,H(x)=E.$$

For a monotonic function $`H(x)`$, the two equations in (1) can not possibly be satisfied at the same time unless $`E=0`$. Thus, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(E,x)=f(x)\delta (H(x))\delta (E).$$

To determine the form of $`f(x)`$, substituting the above ansatz back to (1) we find

$$f(x)\delta (H(x))=f(x+\frac{\theta }{2}H(x))\delta (H(x+\frac{\theta }{2}H(x))).$$

This equation does not always have a solution. For instance if $`H=\omega ^2x`$, there is no solution. It is easy to convince oneself that any zero of $`H(x)=0`$ must be of higher order. There is a solution when $`H=\omega ^2x^3`$, in this case $`f(x)x`$. In other word,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(E,x)=\delta (E)\delta (x).$$

The solution is completely localized at $`x=0`$ and the energy vanishes there. This reduction of degrees of freedom is even more complete than in cases when $`H`$ is a function of momentum $`p`$.

If $`H(x)`$ is not a monotonic function of $`x`$, there can be more than one solutions. Consider $`H(x)=\omega ^2x^2`$. The two equations of (1) can be solved if $`E=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is localized at $`x=0`$. These equations can also be solved at the same time if

$$E=(\frac{4}{\theta \omega })^2,$$

and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is localized at

$$x=\frac{4}{\theta \omega ^2}.$$

However this solution is not good, as for the value (1), there are more zeros of (1) than those of (1). In other words, to have nonvanishing energy in a soluton, we need a complicated function $`H(x)`$. As a more interesting example, take

$$H(x)=\mathrm{sin}(\omega x).$$

This function has a period $`\frac{2\pi }{\omega }`$, so a class of solutions is

$$E_n=\frac{4\pi n}{\theta \omega },\mathrm{sin}(\omega x_n)=\frac{4\pi n}{\theta \omega }.$$

When $`\theta \omega 1`$, there are many such localized solutions.

Now if there are commuting spatial dimensions, and $`H`$ depends also on either the position in this space or associated momentum, or both, there can be solutions to the two equations of (1). In this case, both $`E`$ and the localization $`x`$ will depend on these extra parameters. If $`H`$ is always a monotonic function of $`x`$, no interesting solution will be obtained, since $`E`$ always vanishes thus is independent of the parameters in the commuting space. If $`H`$ is not a monotonic function, one can have some fun here. For instance, replace $`\omega ^2`$ in the Hamiltonian $`H=\omega ^2x^2`$ by $`c\theta ^2|q|^1`$, where $`q`$ is the momentum along the commuting space and $`c`$ is a dimensionless parameter, we have

$$E=\frac{16}{c}|q|,x=\frac{4}{c}\theta |q|.$$

The first identity in the above is a relativistic dispersion relation, while the second relation looks like the UV/IR relation in the AdS/CFT correspondence. Of course we can not possibly hope to get a realistic model of AdS/CFT correspondence in this fashion any time soon. The relations in (1), though encouraging, can not be taken literally as we remarked before.

$``$ The general case

We have seen that when $`H`$ is a function of $`p`$ only, the wave functions are localized in the $`p`$ space; when $`H`$ is a function of $`x`$ only, the wave functions are localized in the $`x`$ space, and the number of possible solutions is more reduced in this case. We expect that more interesting phenomenon will happen if $`H`$ is a function of both $`p`$ and $`x`$. This problem can be hardly solved generally, so we will be content with a remark.

Similar to (1), for $`H(p,x)`$, the bootstrap equation (1) can be written in an integral form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t+t^{},x)=𝑑t_2𝑑x_2G(t,t^{},x,t_2,x_2)\mathrm{\Psi }(t_2,x_2).$$

This in general is a difficult integral equation to solve. For example, for $`H`$ to be the Hamiltonian of a harmonic oscillator, we do not know how to solve this equation at present. The kernel $`G`$ in no way depends on $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ in the combination $`t+t^{}`$, so the composition law in time is a rather strong constraint on the possible wave functions. We get a projection equation at $`t^{}=0`$, this requires that the kernel $`G(t,0,x,t_2,x_2)`$ is a projection operator, and in general it has only a finite dimensional invariant subspace of the space of all functions. So the dimensional reduction is a general mechanism.

$``$ Conclusion and discussions

First of all, we want to emphasize that there is no issue of violating unitarity in the approach we suggest here. In our view, as we explained in the beginning of this paper, the usual action principle for a field theory on a noncommutative spacetime is an ill-defined notion. One may try to get rid of the conceptual issues as well as the technical ones by introducing more degrees of freedom, or going into higher dimensions, as advocated in . This attempt runs in the opposite direction to our philosophy.

The quick investigation of the idea about going beyond quantum mechanics for a noncommutative spacetime in this paper leaves many problems unanswered. On the technical side, one would like to solve the bootstrap equation for more Hamiltonians to gain experience and insight about how dimensional reduction occurrs. The bootstrap equation proposed here does not have a differential form, one that would be close to the original Schrödinger equation. The best one can hope for is to formulate a path integral form, thus spelling out this procedure in an action principle.

It is also interesting to see whether the simplest form of the bootstrap equation (1) has other variants. An important point is that not only one wants to incorporate the noncommutative spacetime, one also wants to reduce to quantum mechanics after the dimensional reduction is achieved. It therefore appears that not many such variants exist.

To make contact with field theories and string theory, ultimately one needs to study second quantization. Now wave functions are promoted to operators, these operators again should satisfy the bootstrap equation when on-shell. Now a second quantized Hamiltonian is to be constructed in such a way that the bootstrap equation is the equation of motion resulting from it. Or is there a second quantized Hamiltonian at all?

To study the AdS/CFT correspondence, in particular to understand how holography really works, there is a long way to go. Apparently in the usual formulation of AdS/CFT, the two sides have different dynamical variables and Hamiltonians, although there is a dictionary between them. As suggested in , the noncommutative spacetime is a notion for the bulk theory, so when applying the present idea to that context, the resulting boundary theory may well be different from the known CFT. It might be that there is a set of bulk variables different from those known in the bulk theory (more fundamental variables in some sense?), such that when dimensionally reduced, one gets the CFT.

It has been advocated by some people for some time that in a fundamental formulation of the bulk variables in string/M theory, there is a large gauge symmetry. Once the symmetry is fixed, one is led to the boundary theory just as what happens in Chern-Simons theory with a boundary. This suggestion also demands to construct new bulk variables, just as in our proposal. We however view our proposal as a more attractive one for several reasons:

1. Noncommutative spacetime by now is commonly believed to be a general feature of string/M theory, apparently it must be linked to holography. Our proposal shows that indeed this is the case.

2. In the bootstrap equation, quantum mechanics plays an essentially role. Spacetime uncertainty is a dynamical phenomenon, in the very beginning we build this in the fundamental equations. That AdS/CFT works precisely because on each side quantum mechanics is taken into account. This goes without saying on the CFT side. On the AdS side, for example, the giant graviton phenomenon is a quantum mechanical, nonperturbative one.

3. In our scheme we are beginning to see how spacetime and quantum mechanics are intimately tied up. Also, what is more exciting than going beyond quantum mechanics?

4. Finally, we have presented a concrete and very simple scheme, it would be wasteful if we do not explore it in depth.

Acknowledgments. The idea presented here occurred to the author while he participated the M theory workshop at ITP, Santa Barbara, and visited the high energy group of Univ. of Utah. He is grateful to the organizers of the M theory workshop and the high energy group of Univ. of Utah, in particular Y. S. Wu, for hospitality. Discussions with P. M. Ho and Y. S. Wu are acknowledged. This work was supported by a grant of NSC, and by a “Hundred People Project” grant of Academia Sinica and an outstanding young investigator award of NSF of China.

References

relax T. Yoneya, p. 419 in “Wandering in the Fields”, eds. K. Kawarabayashi and A. Ukawa (World Scientific, 1987) ; see also p. 23 in “Quantum String Theory”, eds. N. Kawamoto and T. Kugo (Springer, 1988). relax T. Yoneya, Mod. Phys. Lett. A4, 1587(1989). relax M. Li and T. Yoneya, hep-th/9611072, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 1219. relax M. Li and T. Yoneya, “Short-distance Space-time Structure and Black Holes in String Theory: A Short Review of the Present Status, hep-th/9806240, Jour. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (1999); for a more recent and elegant exposition, see T. Yoneya, “String Theory and the Space-Time Uncertainty Principle”, hep-th/0004074, Prog.Theor.Phys. 103 (2000) 1081. relax ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B256 (1985) 727; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A11 (1996) 4623. relax L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D49, 6606(1994). relax M. Li, “Black Holes and Spacetime Physics in String/M Theory”, hep-th/0006024. relax G. ’t Hooft, gr-qc/9310026; L. Susskind, hep-th/9409089, J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 6377. relax J. Maldacena, hep-th/9711200, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231. relax P. M. Ho and M. Li, “Large N Expansion From Fuzzy $`AdS_2`$”, hep-th/0005268, Nucl. Phys. B590 (2000) 198. relax N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “Strings in Background Electric Field, Space/Time Noncommutativity and A New Noncritical String Theory”, hep-th/0005040, JHEP 0006 (2000) 021; R. Gopakumar, J. Maldacena, S. Minwalla and A. Strominger, “S-Duality and Noncommutative Gauge Theory”, hep-th/0005048, JHEP 0006 (2000) 036; J.L.F. Barbon and E. Rabinovici, “Stringy Fuzziness as the Custodian of Time-Space Noncommutativity”, hep-th/0005073, Phys. Lett. B486 (2000) 202. relax J. Gomis and T. Mehen, “Space-Time Noncommutative Field Theories And Unitarity”, hep-th/0005129, Nucl. Phys. B591 (2000) 265. relax V. P. Nair and A. P. Polychronakos, “Quantum mechanics on the noncommutative plane and sphere”, hep-th/0011172. relax J. Gomis, K. Kamimura and J. Llosa, “Hamiltonian Formalism for Space-time Non-commutative Theories”, hep-th/0006235, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 045003.


format: text

text:
# Additive structure of 𝑍(.) mod 𝑚_𝑘 (squarefree) and Goldbach’s Conjecture

## 1 Introduction

Detailed analysis of the algebraic structure of modulo arithmetic is persued, especially multiplication in relation to addition and exponentiation. Addition and multiplication are associative operations, so semigroup structure analysis provides a good perspective for basic problems in arithmetic  such as Goldbach’s conjecture of every even number $`2n>4`$ being the sum of two odd primes. The additive structure of multiplicative semigroups with squarefree moduli is studied, in ring $`Z(+,.)`$ mod $`m_k`$. Choosing as modulus the product $`m_k`$ of the first $`k`$ primes, all primes between $`p_k`$ and $`m_k`$ are in the group of roots of 1 mod $`m_k`$, denoted as the group $`G_1`$ of units. As shown (thm 3.1), $`G_1+G_1`$ covers all even residues $`2n`$ in $`Z`$ mod $`m_k`$.

The direct product $`Z_{rs}=Z_r\times Z_s`$ of multiplications with coprime component moduli $`r`$ and $`s`$, is represented by component-wise multiplication . Squarefree modulus $`m_k`$ implies $`Z_{m_k}(.)=Z_{p_1}\times ..\times Z_{p_k}`$ is a direct product of multiplications mod $`p_i`$. This direct product is analysed as an ordered disjoint union of maximal $`subgroups`$ derived from the component semigroups $`Z_{p_i}`$. The emphasis is on the $`additive`$ properties of idempotents, and the ”fine structure” of residue ring $`Z(+,.)`$ mod $`m_k`$. Considering the principle values of units in units group $`G_1(k)`$ transfer additive results from residues to positive integers. So residues $`u`$ mod $`m_k`$ are taken as naturals $`u<m_k`$, with upper bound $`u+v<2m_k`$ so a possible carry is at most 1, and for sum $`u+v<m_k`$ no carry is produced. For instance in Lemma 2.1: the sum of each pair of complementary idempotents equals 1 mod $`m_k`$, yielding the natural sum $`m_k+1`$ for pairs other than {0,1}.

Notation: The known number representation (base $`m`$) $`n=c.m+r`$ with carry $`c`$ and rest $`0r<m`$ is used. Operation + is natural addition, which for two summands $`<m_k`$ can produce a maximal carry of 1 (base $`m_k`$). For residue arithmetic $`c=0`$. This in contrast to the usual interpretation of a residue arithmetic closure as an image $`Z/Z_m`$ of the integers $`Z`$, consisting of residue classes to express the irrelevance of the carry in residue arithmetic (mod $`m`$). In short, these additive and multiplicative interpretations, with residue values vs. residue classes, correspond to $`n=r+0.m`$ resp. $`n=r+Z.m`$, resetting the carry to $`0`$ or to set $`Z`$. The latter interpretation is a mix of numbers and sets, which is cumbersome and not required in the present additive analysis. Furthermore, $`m`$ will denote modulus $`m_k`$ if no confusion can arise, and $``$ denotes congruence mod $`m_k`$. Sections 4 and 5 interprete residues $`n`$ mod $`m_k`$ as naturals $`n<m_k`$ by taking their principle value, where addition is restricted to summands that produce no carry.

The idempotents $`e^2e`$ of $`Z_m`$(.) play an essential role. For prime modulus $`p`$ it is known that $`Z_p`$ has just two idempotents: 0 and 1 mod $`p`$. And all residues $`1,..,p`$-1, coprime to $`p`$, are in some permutation generated as residues of powers $`g^i`$ of some primitive root $`g<p`$ of unity . They form an order $`p1`$ cyclic subgroup $`G`$ of $`Z_p`$, written $`G=g^{}\{g^i\}(i=1..p`$-1), with $`g^{p1}1`$. Hence $`Z_p(.)`$ is a cyclic group, adjoined to zero.

Summary: The product $`m_k`$ of the first $`k`$ primes is used for analysis of all primes and their additive properties. Each of the $`2^k`$ divisors $`d`$ of $`m_k`$ yields a maximal subgroup $`G_d`$ of $`Z_{m_k}`$ containing all $`n<m_k`$ with the same set of prime divisors as $`d`$. The respective group identities are the $`2^k`$ idempotents of $`Z_{m_k}`$, ordered as Boolean lattice $`BL`$  of which the additive properties are studied.

The additive properties of $`Z_{m_k}`$ are characterised by the successor $`n+1`$ of any $`n`$, especially of the idempotents. An essential additive property is that each complementary pair of idempotents in $`BL`$ sums to 1 mod $`m_k`$ (lemma 2.1), and every even $`e^2=e`$ has successor $`e+1`$ in $`G_1`$, while $`G_1+G_1`$ covers all $`2n`$ mod $`m_k`$. This residue version $`GR`$ of Goldbach’s Conjecture ($`GC`$) is extended, by considering the set of principle values (naturals) $`G(k)`$ of the units in $`G_1(k)`$ for $`k3`$, to prove $`GC`$ for positive integers. Results listed in the Conclusions may be new.

For completeness, these essential concepts  are reviewed in sections 1 and 2. Section 3 derives a ’Goldbach-for-Residues’($`GR`$) result. Sections 4 and 5 give the approach to Goldbach’s conjecture, followed by conclusions.

## 2 Lattice of groups

In modulus $`m_k=p_i(i=1..k)`$ each prime factor has exponent one. So $`m_k`$, having no square divisor, is called square free. The prime divisors of $`m_k`$ are referred to as base primes.

Residues $`n`$ with the same base-prime divisors as squarefree divisor $`d|m_k`$ form a maximal subgroup $`G_dZ_{m_k}`$(.) with closure due to all possible products having the same base primes. If $`e`$ is the identity (idempotent) of $`G_d`$, then each $`n`$ in subgroup $`G_dG_e`$ has a unique $`local`$ inverse $`n^1`$ defined by $`n.n^1e`$.

The $`2^k`$ divisors of $`m_k`$ correspond to as many subsets of the $`k`$ base primes. Each divisor $`d`$ of $`m_k`$ generates a finite cycle $`d^{}=\{d^i\}`$ with an idempotent $`\underset{¯}{d}`$, the identity of subgroup $`G_d`$. Each subgroup has just one idempotent as its identity. So $`Z_{m_k}`$ has $`2^k`$ disjoint subgroups $`G_d`$, one for each divisor $`d`$ of $`m_k`$, ordered in a Boolean lattice as their identities are ordered, as follows.

### 2.1 Ordering of commuting idempotents

$`Z_{m_k}`$ is a disjoint union of $`2^k`$ groups $`G_d`$, and the group identities, the idempotents, form a Boolean lattice. In fact, commuting idempotents $`e^2=e,f^2=f`$ can be ordered $`ef`$ whenever $`ef=fe=f`$, in other words $`e`$ is identity for $`f`$. This is readily verified to be an ordering relation, being transitive, anti-symmetric and reflexive .

The lattice meet (greatest lower bound) operation is modelled by multiplication. The product of two commuting idempotents $`e,f`$ is idempotent: $`ef.ef=effe=efe=eef=ef`$, while $`e,f`$ are left- and right- identity for $`ef`$ since $`e.ef=ef=fe=fe.e`$, sothat $`eef`$, and similarly $`fef`$. Also, $`ef`$ is the greatest idempotent ordered under $`e`$ and $`f`$, since $`ce`$ and $`cf`$ imply $`cef`$, which is easily verified.

The join (least upper bound) of two idempotents is the idempotent with the intersection of the corresponding baseprime sets. Idempotent ’1’ at the top has the smallest base-prime set (empty), while ’0’ at the bottom contains all base-primes since 0=$`m`$ mod $`m`$.

The sum of two idempotents is generally not an idempotent, nor is its generated idempotent their lattice-join, except for complementary idempotents, to be derived next.

### 2.2  Lattice of idempotents: add vs join

As shown earlier, the set of idempotents of $`Z`$ mod $`m`$ is closed under multiplication, forming a lower semi-lattice . Multiplication models the meet (glb: greatest lower bound) operation of two idempotents, yielding an idempotent with the $`union`$ of the respective base-prime sets.

Notice that all primes $`p:p_k<p<m_k`$ are ’units’ in topgroup $`G_1`$. In the base-prime set of any idempotent or subgroup they are considered equivalent to 1 mod $`m_k`$. For instance, cycle 2\* mod $`m`$ (in $`G_2`$) produces residues $`c.2^n`$, where $`cG_1`$ are relative prime to $`m_k`$, and $`c`$ has prime divisors $`p_r>p_k`$. Residues in $`G_1`$ can occur as factor in each $`nZ_{m_k}`$, according to their name of $`units`$ in $`Z_{m_k}`$.

The join (least upper bound $`lub`$) of two idempotents follows by $`intersecting`$ their baseprime sets, yielding an idempotent with their common baseprimes.
Def: two idempotents $`a,b`$ are complementary iff $`ab0`$ and $`lub(a,b)1`$.

The endomorphism ’$`.e`$’ for idempotents $`e`$ in commutative $`Z_m(.)`$ models the lattice meet operation by multiplication, since for each $`x,yZ_m:xy.exy.e^2xe.ye`$ .
Although in general the sum of two idempotents is not an idempotent, the next exception is an essential additive property of $`Z_m(.)`$ :

###### Lemma 2.1

For any squarefree $`m>1`$ with at least two prime divisors:
For each $`complementary`$ pair $`\{a,b\}\{0,1\}`$ of idempotents in $`Z_m(.)`$ holds $`a+b=m+1`$.

* The lattice of idempotents has order $`2^k`$, with $`2^{k1}`$ complementary pairs. Consider a sublattice of order four: $`0,1`$ and any other complementary pair $`a,b`$. It must be shown that $`a+b1`$ mod $`m`$. Now idempotents $`a,b`$ are complementary, so $`ab0`$ mod $`m`$, implying :
$`(a+b)^2a^2+2ab+b^2a+b`$ (mod $`m`$), thus $`a+b`$ is idempotent. And $`(a+b)aa^2+baa`$ mod $`m_k`$, so $`a+ba`$, and similarly $`a+bb`$. Hence $`a+b1`$ mod $`m`$, because by $`lub(a,b)1`$ the only idempotent covering complementary $`a`$ and $`b`$ is 1. Clearly, for $`\{a,b\}\{0,1\}`$ holds $`1<a+b<2m`$ so $`a+b=m+1`$, with carry =1 (base $`m`$). $`\mathrm{}`$

In other words : complementary idempotents $`a,b`$ have disjoint base-prime sets $`A`$ and $`B`$, and union $`AB`$ consists of all base-primes in $`m`$. For square-free $`m,a.b0`$ is the idempotent containing all base-primes. And $`join(a,b)`$ has the trivial intersection $`AB=1`$ as base-prime set, relative prime to $`m`$, with corresponding idempotent ’1’ of $`G_1`$.

###### Lemma 2.2

For squarefree modulus $`m=2.odd:h=m/2`$ is the lowest odd idempotent in $`Z_m(.)`$ and $`aa+h`$ is the only additive automorphism of $`Z_m(.)`$

* Notice that $`2h0`$, so for each even or odd pair $`a,b`$ in $`Z_m`$ holds $`(a+b)h0`$. Hence :
$`(a+h)(b+h)ab+(a+b)h+h^2ab+h`$ , and only if $`h^2h`$ this yields $`aa+h`$ as additive automorphism of $`Z_m(.)`$. Furthermore, $`h=m/2`$ is the lowest odd idempotent, namely the image under $`+h`$ of the lowest even idempotent 0 in $`Z_m`$ (for squarefree $`m:`$ no divisors of 0 exist). It is readily verified that this morphism is 1-1 onto, mapping $`Z_m(even)`$ and $`Z_m(odd)`$ into each other. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now consider product $`m=m_k=_{i=1}^kp_i`$ of the first $`k`$ primes. Unit 1 is ordered at the top of the lattice of idempotents, being the identity for all idempotents in $`Z_m=\times _iZ_{p_i}`$. Top group $`G_1`$ of all residues relative prime to $`m`$ misses all base primes. Thus $`G_1=\times _iC(p_i`$-1) $`[i=2..k]`$ is a direct product of $`k1`$ cycles of periods $`p_i1`$.

###### Corollary 2.1

In $`Z`$(.) mod $`m`$ with square-free $`m=2.odd`$, and let $`h=m/2`$ then:
$`Odd`$ and $`even`$ top-groups are isomorphic $`G_1G_2`$ under additive automorphism $`+h`$.
Note: isomorphic max cycles $`(2+h)^{}2^{}`$ in $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ (e.g. $`5<primes<25`$ are $`15\pm 2^i`$)

## 3  Primes, composites and neighbours

Equivalent sum and difference : $`(1)^2`$=1 implies $`1G_1`$, so $`G_1G_1`$ hence :

(1) $`G_1+G_1G_1G_1`$

So sums and differences of pairs in $`G_1`$ yield the same set of residues mod $`m`$. Notice that:
$`(n)^2=n^2`$, so $`n`$ and $`n`$ generate the same idempotent, thus are in the same subgroup:

(2) For every group $`G_dZ_m:`$ if $`nG_d`$ then so is $`n`$, while $`G_d+G_dG_dG_d`$.

Neighbours $`n`$+1 and $`n`$-1 in the lattice of $`Z_m`$ :

For integers and residues: $`n`$ and $`n`$+1 are coprime for each $`n`$ so their prime divisors form disjoint sets. The same holds for $`n`$ and $`n1`$. Then one would expect $`n`$ and $`n`$+1 to be in complementary subgroups of $`Z_m`$. More precisely, the subgroup ordering of their idempotents implies:

###### Lemma 3.1

For each $`nZ_m`$ and base-prime complementary $`\overline{n}:`$ $`G_{n\pm 1}G_{\overline{n}}`$

* Due to the subgroup ordering, a subset of baseprimes disjoint from (complementary to) those in $`n`$ defines a subgroup ordered above or equal to $`G_{\overline{n}}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Hence $`e`$+1 for any even idempotent $`e`$ must be in an odd subgroup $`G_d`$ that is ordered $`G_dG_{\overline{e}}`$, with $`\overline{e}`$ the complement of $`e`$ in the lattice of $`Z_m`$. In fact, as shown next: $`e`$+1 is in topgroup $`G_1`$.

### 3.1 Each idempotent’s successor is in $`G_1`$ or $`G_2`$

The sum of two complementary idempotents yields an idempotent namely 1 (lemma 2.1), which is their join or least upper bound. This is an exception, and in general idempotents do not sum to an idempotent, let alone their join. For instance, in $`Z_{10}`$ with idempotents 1, 5, 6, 0 : $`5+1=6`$ is idempotent, but join(5,1)= 1. And join(6,1)= 1 while $`6+1=7`$ is not idempotent, although 7 does generate the proper idempotent 1, due to:

###### Lemma 3.2

In $`Z`$(.) mod $`m`$, with square-free $`m=2.odd`$:
(a) Each even idempotent $`e`$ has $`e`$+1 in $`G_1`$, and
(b) each odd idempotent $`d`$ has $`d`$+1 in $`G_2`$.
(c) For period $`n`$ of $`e+1`$ in $`G_1`$ mod $`m_k`$ holds: $`e.(2^n1)0`$.

* (a,c): Given $`e^2=e`$, notice that $`(e+1)(e1)e^21e1`$, so $`e`$+1 is identity for $`e1`$, hence $`G_{e+1}G_{e1}`$ for $`every`$ idempotent $`e`$. Now $`(e+1)^2e^2+2e+13e+1`$, and in general expanding $`(e+1)^n`$, with $`e^ie`$ for all $`i>0`$ and factoring out $`e`$, yields:

$`(e+1)^n1+_{i=1}^n(\begin{array}{c}n\\ i\end{array})e^i1+(2^n1)e`$

We need to show $`c=(2^n1)e0`$ for every even idempotent $`e`$, where $`n`$ is the period of $`e+1`$, with corresponding odd idempotent $`d=(e+1)^n=c+1`$, which equals 1 iff $`c0`$. In fact it would suffice if $`2^n1`$ is in a group complementary to $`G_e`$ in the lattice of $`Z_m`$. The baseprimes in $`2^n1`$, which are all necessarily odd, would then complement those in even idempotent $`e`$.

This can be seen as follows: $`d^2=d`$ implies $`(c+1)^2c+1`$, hence $`c^2+c0`$,
so: $`(2^n1)^2e+(2^n1)e(2^n1)(2^n1+1)e(2^n1)2^ne0`$.
Apparently, the odd baseprimes in $`2^n1`$ complement at least those in $`e`$ because their union is complete (product 0). This implies $`(2^n1)e=c0`$, independent of the extra factor $`2^n`$. So :

(3) $`(e+1)^n1+(2^n1)e1`$, where $`n`$ is the period of $`e`$+1 in $`G_1`$.

Part (b) is dual to (a), proven similarly by using $`G_1G_2`$ (lemma LABEL:lem:G1=G2) $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 3.1

( Goldbach for Residues $`GR`$ ):
For squarefree $`m_k=p_i(i=1\mathrm{}k)`$ with $`p_1`$=2, and $`E`$ the set of even residues mod $`m_k`$:
In $`Z`$ mod $`m_k:E\{2n\}G_1+G_1G_1G_1`$, so :
Each even residue in $`Z_{m_k}`$ is a sum or difference of two units.

* In short write $`G`$ for $`G_1`$. Let $`e`$ be any even idempotent, then multiply $`eG1`$ (lem 3.2) on both sides by $`G`$. On the lefthand side this yields $`G.e=G_e`$ which is the max-subgroup on $`e`$, and on the righthand side $`G(G1)=G^2G=GG`$, sothat $`G_eGG`$. Using (1) yields: $`G_eGG=G+G`$ for all even $`G_e`$, so $`G+G`$ covers all even residues. $`\mathrm{}`$

This also holds for any even squarefree modulus $`m=2.odd`$. Theorem 3.1 can be generalized to hold for naturals which are the principle values of the units in groups $`G_1(k)`$, as shown next.

## 4 Prime units and carry extension

Define $`G_1(k)`$ as group of units mod $`m_k`$, and the correponding set $`G(k)`$ of principle values (naturals) $`\{1,u\}`$ where $`p_k<u<m_k`$ with $`u`$ coprime to base primes $`pp_k`$. Use set $`P(k)`$ of all primes in $`G(k)`$. The emphasis in the sequel is on the principle (natural) values in $`G(k)`$ of units in group $`G_1(k)`$.

The primes $`p>p_k`$ are congruent mod $`m_k`$ to units in $`G_1(k)`$, and all those $`p<m_{k+1}`$ in $`G_1(k+1)`$ are covered by $`G(k)+am_k(carrya:0a<p_{k+1})`$.
An example for $`k`$=3 with all units in $`G_1(4)`$ follows (table 1). It illustrates the relation between the prime structures of $`G_1(k)`$ and $`G_1(k+1)`$, which is a generalization of the known fact that all primes are congruent to $`G_1(2)=\{1,5\}`$ mod $`m_2`$=6: remove the numbers that have a base prime as divider (re Eratosthenes’ prime sieve). Here : $`G_1(4)G_1(3)`$ mod $`m_3`$=30.

```
 Units:  1     7<   11    13    17    19    23    29 :   mod m3 = 30

 +30:   31    37    41    43    47   7^2<   53    59     p_{k+1} = 7

 +60:   61    67    71    73  7.11<   79    83    89     7.n (8x ’<’)
                                                         not in G(4)
 +90:  7.13<  97   101   103   107   109   113   7.17<  (baseprime 7)

+120: 11^2#  127   131  7.19<  137   139  11.13# 149     Composites #
                                                         Smallest 11^2
+150:  151   157  7.23<  163   167  13^2#  173   179      in G(4)

+180:  181 11.17#  191   193   197   199  7.29< 11.19#   mod m4= 210

```

Table 1 Unit extensions: $`G(k+1)=\{u+a.m_k\}:unituG(k),carry0<a<p_{k+1}`$

The set of all units in $`G_1(k+1)`$ is generated as illustrated for $`G_1(4)`$ in table 1, including all primes in $`P(k+1)`$. Each natural unit $`uG(k)`$ generates at most $`p_{k+1}1`$ primes $`p=u+a.m_kP(k+1)`$ , with $`p_k<p<m_{k+1}`$ and carry $`0a<p_{k+1}`$. For large enough $`2n`$ there are several prime pairsums in $`GC`$ format (see diagonals of equal carry-sum in table 2). Clearly $`p_{k+1}`$ is the smallest unit in $`G_1(k)`$, so $`(p_{k+1})^2`$ is its smallest composite, hence:

(4) All (natural) units $`u`$ with $`p_{k+1}u<(p_{k+1})^2`$ in $`G(k)`$ are prime.

Moreover, principle values of composite units in $`G_1(k)`$ are necessarily generated under multiplication by the corresponding prime principle values $`>p_k`$ of units in $`G_1(k)`$. The reverse process of unit reduction by multiples of $`m_k`$ yields the next lemma:

###### Lemma 4.1

$`G_1(k+1)G_1(k)`$ mod $`m_k`$, symbolizes that group $`G_1(k)`$ is an epimorphic image of $`G_1(k+1)`$ with $`v=t+c.m_k`$, relating each principle value $`tG_1(k)`$ to $`p_{k+1}`$ principle values $`vG_1(k+1)`$ with a carry $`c`$.

* The mappings $`vc.m_kt`$ form a morphism because $`v.w(t+c.m_k)(u+d.m_k)(t.u)+e.m_kt.u`$ mod $`m_k`$, where $`e=(td+cu)+cd.m_k`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Notice that each natural $`n<m_k`$ is represented uniquely by $`k`$ digits of a multi base code using the successive baseprimes: $`p_1...p_k`$. The $`k1`$ lower significant digits are extended with a most significant digit or carry $`a<p_k`$, of weight $`m_k`$.

This in contrast to the usual single base code, e.g. decimal, using powers of ten. The successive bases 2, 6, 30, 210, … have maximal digit values $`p_k`$-1: 1, 2, 4, 6, … respectively. For instance decimal $`331=210+11^2=1.210+4.30+0.6+0.2+1`$ yields 5-digit code 1 4 0 0 1.

All primes $`p>`$3 are congruent to {1, 5} mod 6, while primes $`p>p_3=5`$ are congruent to the eight prime residues {1,7, … ,23,29} mod 30 in $`G_1(3)`$, obtained from $`G(2)=\{1,5\}`$ by $`p_3`$-1=5-1=4 extensions with increment $`m_2=6`$, namely {7, 11} ; {13, 17} ; {19, 23} ; {25, 29}.

Composite $`25=5^2`$ is not coprime to 30, hence is not in $`G(3)`$. The other seven extensions are all primes $`p_3<p<30=m_3`$, forming with 1 the 8 units in $`G_1(3)=C_2\times C_4`$, in fact of form $`15\pm 2^i`$ (cor 2.1). The 7-1=6 extensions $`G(3)+a.m_3`$ generate all 2.4.6 = 48 units in $`G_1(4):`$ the 5 composites with prime divisors $`p>7`$ (exclude eight non-units of form 7.n in table 1), identity 1 and all $`486=42`$ primes in open interval $`(7,210)`$.

### 4.1 Pair sums of carry extended units

Define set $`S_0(k)=G(k)+G(k)`$ of pair sums of (natural) units.
Denote even numbers interval by set $`E(k)=\{2n|4<2n<m_k\}`$, and the set of natural carry-extended units: $`T_a(k)=G(k)+a.m_k(a<p_{k+1})`$ in $`G(k+1)`$. The set of baseprimes is extended by $`p_{k+1}`$, so its multiples in $`G(k+1)`$ are not units (see table 1 for expanding G(3) to G(4) by baseprime 7). All other extended units of $`G(k)`$ are units of $`G(k+1)`$ since none is divisible by a baseprime $`pp_{k+1}`$.

Table 2 shows these sums for $`k`$=2 and 3 (by commutation half an array suffices). Notice that $`G(2)=\{1,5\}`$ with pair sums $`S_0(2)=\{2,6,10\}`$, while pair sums $`2n`$ in $`S_0(3)=G(3)+G(3)`$ covers all $`2n`$ with $`2p_42n<m_3=30`$, where $`G(3)=\{1,7,..,29\}`$ coprime to $`\mathrm{2.3.5}=30=m_3`$. For 6, 8, 10 use 3 and 5 to avoid non-prime 1. In fact all $`2n>16`$ have several $`GC`$ pair sums, e.g. each $`2n`$ in $`S_0(2)+6c=\{2,6,10\}+6c`$ for $`1<c<p_3=5`$ has distinct unit pair sums, all of which are prime pair sums.

### 4.2 Pair sums of primes in $`G(3)`$

Define Set $`S_{a+b}(k)=S_0(k)+(a+b)m_k`$ of pairsums in $`T_a(k)+T_b(k)`$ of extended (natural) units in $`G(k+1)`$, except multiples of $`p_{k+1}`$ (e.g. $`5^2G(3)`$), with carrysum $`0a+b<p_{k+1}`$.

Table 2 Extension sums: carry sum diagonals $`a+b=c<5`$ cover $`2n`$ in $`E(3)`$ by $`S_0(2)+6c`$

```
 Ta+Tb |    0        1        2        3        4    : carry b (wgt 6)
_______#__1___5 #  7__11   13__17   19__23   25__29  : translations Tb
     1 | .2.  6 |<- 6= 3+3                   xx
 0   5 |  6 .10.|<- S0(2)= {2,6,10}                25=5^2: no unit in G(3)
       #--------#   S0(3)= {2,6,..2n..,28)          6=3+3, 8=3+5, 10=5+5
     7 |  8  12  .14. 18
 1  11 | 12 >16<  18 .22.
 a  Ta  ........ ........+--------*
    13 | 14  18   20  24 |.26. 30 | <- S4(2)= S0(2)+4.6
 2  17 | 18  22   24  28 | 30 .34.|         ={26,30,34}
                +--------*--------+
    19 | 20  24 | 26  30 |
 3  23 | 24  28 | 30  34 |
       +--------*--------+
   5.5 x 26  30 |
 4  29 | 30  34 |
 ------*--------+

```

For instance extend $`m_2`$=6 to $`m_3`$=30 ($`p_3=5`$) then translations $`S_{a+b}`$ of $`S_0(2)`$={2,6,10} yield $`51=4`$ diagonals of 2 $`\times `$ 2 sums with carries $`a+b<p_3`$ (table 2):

$`S_1\{8,12,16\},S_2\{14,18,22\},S_3\{20,24,28\},S_4\{26,30,34\}`$

Extending $`G(2)=\{1,5\}`$ yields $`G(3)=\{G(2)+6a|0<a<5\}`$, containing prime set $`P(3)=\{15\pm 2^i,29\}<m_3`$ ($`i`$=1,2,3) where $`5^2`$ is not coprime to 30, so not in $`G(3)`$.

###### Lemma 4.2

(basis $`k`$=3): Let $`P^{}(3)=P(3)\{3,5\}`$, then $`P^{}(3)+P^{}(3)`$ covers $`E(3)`$.

* By complete inspection. Increments 4 in $`S_0(2)=\{2,6,10\}`$ cause successive $`S_c(2)=S_0(2)+c.m_2`$ with carry increment $`m_2`$=6 to $`interlace`$ for $`2n<m_3`$. Exclude non-prime 1 by including primes 3 and 5. Then $`E(3)=\{2n[6,30)\}`$ is covered by pair sums of primes $`p<m_3`$ in $`G(3)`$, extended with primes 3, 5 in $`G(1)G(2)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

So pair sum set $`S_0(3)`$, adapted for the interlacing edge-effect by including $`\{3,5\}`$, covers adjacent $`2n`$ in $`E(3)`$. Hence interlacing does not occur for $`k>`$3, and a unique carry sum $`a+b=c`$ suffices for covering successive $`2n`$ by unit pair sums, in adjacent and disjoint extension sum intervals $`S_c(k)`$, while:

Each $`2n`$ in $`E(k+1)`$ has a unique carry sum c with $`0c<p_k`$, such that $`2nS_c(k)`$.

This is to be used as basis for $`k>3`$, first for unit pair sum sets $`S_c(k)`$.

Define: The set $`S_0(k)=G(k)+G(k)`$ of pair sums of principle values of units is called complete if it covers $`E(k)`$, otherwise it is $`incomplete`$.

###### Lemma 4.3

For $`k3`$:

Extended pairsum sets $`S_c(k)`$ for $`0c<p_k`$ partition $`E(k+1)`$ iff $`S_0(k)`$ covers $`E(k)`$.

* Extension sets $`S_c(k)=S_0(k)+c.m_k`$ are disjoint for different carries $`c<p_{k+1}`$, and $`\{x,y\}`$ in distinct extension sum sets remain so under any shift $`s=c.m_k:xyx+sy+s`$. For distinct carrysums $`c<c^{}`$ with $`c^{}c=d:S_c(k)S_c^{}(k)=S_c(k)(S_c(k)+d.m_{k1})=\mathrm{}`$. Their union covers $`E(k)only`$ if pair sums $`S_0(k)=G(k)+G(k)`$ cover $`E(k)`$. Because some $`2n`$ missing from $`S_0(k)`$ implies its translations $`2n^{}=2n+c.m_k`$ are also missing from all $`S_c(k)`$ with $`c>0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.3 Excluding composites in $`G(k)`$, baseprimes and 1 as summands

The set $`G(k)`$ of principle values (naturals) of units in group $`G_1(k)`$ coprime to baseprimes $`2..p_k`$, contains $`p_{k+1}`$ as smallest prime, so the smallest composite in $`G(k)`$ is $`(p_{k+1})^2`$. Notice that $`G(3)`$ has no composites since $`(p_4)^2=49>30=m_3`$. Furthermore, the natural units $`uG(4)`$ are in interval $`(7<u<210)`$ with smallest prime $`p_5=11`$, hence minimal composite $`11^2=121`$, so all units of $`G(4)`$ in $`[11,11^2)`$ (coprime to 2.3.5.7=210) are prime. By inspection all $`2n`$ in interval \[22 .. 222\] are covered by prime pair sums, of which those $`2n<210`$ involve no carry.

The known Bertrand’s Postulate is useful (Chebyshev 1850, simplified by S.Pillai 1944) to prove a complete cover of even naturals:

BP (Bertrand’s Postulate): For each $`n>1`$ there is at least one prime between $`n`$ and $`2n`$.

Notice that Pillai’s proof  has an induction base of $`2n60`$ (see present lemma 4.2). In order to guarantee prime summands, consider only pair sums of units $`u<(p_{k+1})^2`$, the smallest composite in $`G(k)`$. In fact using $`p_{k+1}<2p_k`$ by Bertrands Postulate (BP), the smaller interval $`p_k<u<2(p_{k+1})`$ already suffices. Successive $`k`$ yield $`2n`$ in overlapping intervals by $`BP`$, thus covering all $`2n`$ beyond the induction base $`k`$=3. The next lemma is readily verified, regarding the absence of a carry for $`k>3`$.

###### Lemma 4.4

For (natural) units in $`G(k)`$ and prime pairsums 2n in $`2p_{k+1}2n<(p_{k+1})^2`$ : no carry is produced for $`k4`$ since sum upperbound $`(p_{k+1})^2<m_k((p_{4+1})^2=121<m_4=210`$).

Notice that for initial $`G(2)=\{1,5\}`$ mod 6 (table 2) the baseprimes 2 and 3 are not used in pair sum residues $`G(2)+G(2)=\{2,6,10\}`$. Considering $`2n>4`$ (re Goldbach’s conjecture): non-prime 1 is avoided by $`6=3+3`$ and $`8=5+3`$, the only $`2n`$ requiring 3. Moreover, 12=5+7 and 16=5+11 are the only extension pair sums $`<30`$ with one summand of carry=0, thus requiring baseprime 5 of $`G(3)`$.

## 5 Proving $`GC`$ by induction, or by reduction and contradiction

Approach : Consider $`G(k)`$ (sect. 4) as set of ’natural units’ $`<m_k`$ congruent to the units in group $`G_1(k)`$ of residues mod $`m_k`$, as defined in the previous section. In other words, consider only the principle values in $`G(k)`$ of the residue units in $`G_1(k)`$. Let $`2n`$ be small enough, namely $`2p_{k+1}2n<(p_{k+1})^2`$ with necessarily only prime unit summands. There are two ways of proving $`GC`$: either a direct proof by induction over $`k3`$ of primesums $`2n<(p_{k+1})^2`$ in $`G(k)+G(k)`$, or an indirect proof by finite reduction of $`GR(k)`$ (thm 3.1) and contradiction to $`S_0(3)`$ (lemma 4.2). A direct proof, restricting $`GR(k)`$ to the following primepair sums (item 3), would consist of the next five steps:
1. As summands use the principle value set $`G(k)`$ of the prime units in $`G_1(k)`$.
2. Complete inspection of $`GC`$ for $`k=3`$ (lemma 4.2).
3. Primesums $`2n<(p_{k+1})^2`$ in $`G(k)+G(k)`$ for $`k>`$3 yield no carry (lemma 4.4).
4. Successive such restricted intervals of $`2n`$ intersect (Bertrand’s Postulate).
5. The union over $`k3`$ of such primesums $`2n`$ in $`G(k)+G(k)`$ yield $`GC`$.

Using theorem 3.1 ($`GR`$) and lemma 4.1 an indirect proof by finite reduction: $`S_0(k+1)S_0(k)`$ and contradiction to lemma 4.2$`S_0(3)`$ covers $`E(3)`$ \] runs as follows.

###### Theorem 5.1

(Goldbach’s Conjecture) Each $`2n>4`$ is a sum of two odd primes.

* By inspection (lemma 4.2) $`GC`$ holds for $`4<2n<m_3=30`$ ($`k`$=3). Now assume $`GC`$ to fail for an even primepair sum $`2n<(p_{k+1})^2`$ in $`S_c(k)G(k)+G(k)`$, to guarentee prime summands (by eqn(4)). Then lemma 4.1: $`G(k+1)G(k)`$ mod $`m_k`$ implies $`2nc.m_k`$ to be missing as primepair sum from $`S_0(k)`$, making it incomplete by lemma 4.3. This in turn, by $`G(k)G(k1)`$ mod $`m_{k1}`$, reduces to incomplete $`S_0(k1)`$, etcetera, down to incomplete $`S_0(3)`$, contradicting lemma 4.2. Notice that $`S_0(3)`$ contains only primepair sums, by eqn(4). Combining this with the overlap (by Bertrand’s Postulate) of prime summand intervals for successive $`k`$, hence also of pairsum intervals $`2p_{k+1}2n<(p_{k+1})^2`$ for $`k3`$, it follows that Goldbach’s Conjecture holds. $`\mathrm{}`$

Regarding the values of prime summands that suffice to cover all even naturals, the following can be said. Notice that in table 2 (for $`2n<30`$) only primes $`pp_k`$ are required to represent $`2n2p_k`$ in most cases. However, exeptions occur if prime gap $`p_{k+1}p_k>2`$. Then $`2n+2`$ requires a prime $`p_{k1}`$ or smaller: the larger the gap the smaller $`p_{ki}`$ is required. See for instance (table 2): $`2n=2p_k+2=16,28,40`$ for $`p_k=7,13,19`$ respectively, which require $`p_{k1}`$ as Goldbach summand, due to a gap $`p_{k+1}p_k=4`$ (versus gap 2 in cases $`p_k=5,11,17`$).

## 6 Conclusions

Balanced analysis of multiplication and addition in relation to each other, with finite square-free moduli $`2\mathrm{}p_k`$ yields a fruitful analysis of prime sums (Goldbach), similar to that with prime power moduli mod $`p^k`$ for $`p`$-th power sums (Fermat , Waring ). In both approaches the careful extension of residues with a $`carry`$ is essential for transferring additive structural results to integers. This ’residue-and-carry’ method, as used for proving FLT  and Goldbach’s Conjecture, is based on unique number representation by residue and carry: using the associative (semigroup) properties of the residue closure, combined with an induction proof by carry extension. As such it could well serve as a generic method to solve other hard problems in elementary number theory .

In fact, the semigroup $`Z_m`$(.) of multiplication mod $`m`$ is formed by the endomorphisms of the additive cyclic group $`Z_m`$(+) generated by 1. So $`Z_m(.)=endo[Z_m(+)]`$ where (.) distributes over (+), suggesting a strong link between these two operations, evident from the derived additive fine structure of $`Z_{m_k}`$ for squarefree modulus $`m_k`$. A two-dimensional table of prime pair sums revealed additive properties of $`2n<m_3=30`$ as basis for the analysis, hard to find otherwise.

The product $`m_k`$ of the first $`k`$ primes as modulus restricts all primes between $`p_k`$ and $`m_k`$ to the group $`G_1`$ of units. The additive structure of $`Z`$(.) mod $`m_k`$ was analysed, and extended to positive integers by considering the principle values (naturals) of residues, starting with $`k`$=3 ($`Z_{30}`$). Units group $`G_1(k)`$, and the additive properties of the Boolean lattice $`BL`$ of idempotents of $`Z_{m_k}`$(.) play an essential role.

The lower semilattice of $`BL`$ is multiplicative, since the $`meet`$ glb($`a,b`$) of two idempotents is their product. The additive properties of $`BL`$ were analysed, regarding the $`join`$ lub($`a,`$b) in the upper semilattice. Although $`BL`$ is not closed under (+) mod $`m_k`$, this yields the next main results :

Lem 2.1: Each complementary pair of idempotents in $`Z_{m_k}`$(.) sums to 1 mod $`m_k`$

Cor 2.1: Congruent max cycles $`2^{}(2+h)^{}`$ in $`G_2G_1`$ , with $`h^2h=m_k/2`$

Lem 3.2: Each even \[odd\] idempotent $`e^2e`$ has $`e`$+1 in $`G_1`$ \[in $`G_2`$\]

Thm 3.1: Each residue $`2n`$ mod $`m_k`$ is a sum of two units : Goldbach for Residues $`GR(k)`$

Consider principle value set $`G(k)`$ of units mod $`m_k`$ in group $`G_1(k)`$.

Eqn(4): Restrict $`2nG(k)+G(k)`$ to prime sums $`2p_{k+1}2n<(p_{k+1})^2`$.

Lem 4.1: Epimorphism $`G_1(k+1)G_1(k)`$ mod $`m_k`$.

Thm 5.1: Goldbach Conjecture $`GC`$ holds, via a proof by finite reduction:
$`incompleteS_0(k+1)incompleteS_0(k)`$ and contradiction to complete $`S_0(3)`$.

## References

1. T.Apostol: ”Introduction to Analytical Number Theory” thm 10.4-6, Springer Verlag 1976.
2. N.Benschop: ”The semigroup of multiplication mod $`p^k`$, an extension of Fermat’s Small Theorem, and its additive structure”, Semigroups and Applications p7, Prague, July’96.
3. N.Benschop: ”Additive structure of the Group of units mod $`p^k`$, with Core and Carry concepts for extension to integers”, Acta Mathematica Univ. Bratislava (nov.2005)
http://pc2.iam.fmph.uniba.sk/amuc/\_vol74n2.html (pp169-184, incl. direct FLT proof)
4. G.Birhoff, T.Bartee: ”Modern Applied Algebra”, McGraw-Hill, 1970.
5. A.Clifford, G.Preston: ”The Algebraic Theory of Semigroups”, Vol.I,
AMS survey #7, p130-135, 1961.
6. S.Schwarz: ”The Role of Semigroups in the Elementary Theory of Numbers”,
Math.Slovaca V31, N4, pp369-395, 1981.
7. K.Chandrasekharan: ”Introduction to Analytic Number Theory” (Ch.7 - Thm 4),
Springer Verlag, 1968.
8. N.Benschop: ”Powersums representing residues mod $`p^k`$, from Fermat to Waring”,
Computers and Mathematics, with Applications, V39 (2000) N7-8 pp253-261.


text:
# Mean-field theory of magnetic properties of MnxIII1-xV semiconductors

## 1 Introduction

Experiments  in MnxIII1-xV diluted magnetic semiconductors (DMS) have demonstrated that these ferromagnets have remarkably square hysteresis loops with coercivities typically $`40\mathrm{O}\mathrm{e}`$, and that the magnetic easy axis is dependent on epitaxial growth lattice-matching strains. The physical origin of the anisotropy energy in our model is spin-orbit coupling in the valence band. Our work is based on six band envelope function description of the valence band holes and a mean-field treatment of their exchange interactions with $`\mathrm{Mn}^{++}`$ ions. Even in the mean-field theory, we find that the magnetic anisotropy physics of these materials is rich and we predict easy axis reorientations as a function of sample parameters including hole density or epitaxial growth lattice-matching strains. Similar conclusions have been presented in a closely related, independent study . A formal theory of magnetic anisotropy in cubic semiconductor DMS is derived in Section 2. Numerical results for typical experimental samples are presented in Section 3.

## 2 Formal theory

In zero external fields the Hamiltonian for the valence band electrons interacting with localized $`d`$ electrons on the Mn++ ions can be written as

$$H=H_L+J_{pd}\underset{i,I}{}𝐒_I𝐬_i\delta (𝐫_i𝐑_I),$$
(1)
where $`i`$ labels a valence band hole and $`I`$ labels a magnetic ion, $`𝐒_I`$ is a localized spin, $`𝐬_i`$ is a hole spin, and $`H_L`$ is a six-band envelope-function Hamiltonian  for the valence bands. In III1-xMnxV semiconductors, the four $`j=3/2`$ bands are separated by a spin-orbit splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{so}`$ from the two $`j=1/2`$ bands. In the relevant range of hole and $`\mathrm{Mn}^{++}`$ densities, no more than four bands are ever occupied. Nevertheless, mixing between $`j=3/2`$ and $`j=1/2`$ bands does occur, and it can alter the balance of delicate cancellations which often controls the net anisotropy energy. The exchange interaction between valence band holes and localized moments is believed to be antiferromagnetic , i.e. $`J_{pd}>0`$. For GaAs, experimental estimates  of $`J_{pd}`$ fall between $`0.04\mathrm{eVnm}^3`$ and $`0.15\mathrm{eVnm}^3`$, with more recent work suggesting a value toward the lower end of this range.

In the mean-field theory  the valence band hole experience an effective field which depends on the average magnitude, $`M`$, and orientation, $`\widehat{M}`$, of the localized moments:

$$𝐡_{MF}(M)=J_{pd}N_{Mn}M\widehat{M}h\widehat{M}$$
(2)
where $`N_{Mn}=N_I/V`$ is the number of magnetic impurities per unit volume. The magnetic anisotropy in the absence of strain is well described by a cubic harmonic expansion truncated at sixth order, an approximation commonly used in the literature  on magnetic materials. The corresponding cubic harmonic expansion for total energy of a system of non-interacting fermions with single-particle Hamiltonian $`H_Lh\widehat{M}𝐬`$ is

$`E_b(\widehat{M})`$ $`=`$ $`E_b(100)+K_1^{ca}(\widehat{M}_x^2\widehat{M}_y^2+\widehat{M}_y^2\widehat{M}_z^2`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{M}_x^2\widehat{M}_z^2)+K^{ca}_2\widehat{M}_x^2\widehat{M}_y^2\widehat{M}_z^2.`$
The cubic anisotropy coefficients are related to total energies for $`\widehat{M}`$ along the high symmetry crystal directions by following expressions:

$`K_1^{ca}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(E_b110E_b100)}{V}}`$
$`K_2^{ca}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{27E_b11136E_b110+9E_b100}{V}}.`$ (4)
The MBE growth techniques produce $`\mathrm{III}_{1x}\mathrm{Mn}_x\mathrm{V}`$ films whose lattices are locked to those of their substrates. X-ray diffraction studies  have established that the resulting strains are not relaxed by dislocations or other defects, even for thick films. Strains in the $`\mathrm{III}_{1x}\mathrm{Mn}_x\mathrm{V}`$ film break the cubic symmetry assumed in Eq. (3). However, the influence of MBE growth lattice-matching strains on the hole bands of cubic semiconductors is well understood  and we can use the same formal mean-field theory to account for strain effects on magnetic anisotropy.

## 3 Numerical results

We turn now to a series of illustrative calculations intended to closely model the ground state of $`\mathrm{Ga}_{.95}\mathrm{Mn}_{.05}\mathrm{As}`$. For this Mn density and the smaller values of $`J_{pd}`$ favored by recent estimates, $`h=J_{pd}N_{Mn}J0.01\mathrm{Ry}`$ at zero temperature. This value of $`h`$ is not so much smaller than the spin-orbit splitting parameter in GaAs ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{so}=0.025`$ Ry), so that accurate calculations require a six band model. Even with $`x`$ fixed, our calculations show that the magnetic anisotropy of $`\mathrm{Ga}_{.95}\mathrm{Mn}_{.05}\mathrm{As}`$ ferromagnets is strongly dependent on both hole density and strain. The hole density can be varied by changing growth conditions or by adding other dopants to the material, and strain in a $`\mathrm{Ga}_{.95}\mathrm{Mn}_{.05}\mathrm{As}`$ film can be altered by changing substrates. The cubic anisotropy coefficients (in units of energy per volume) for strain-free material are plotted as a function of hole density in Fig. 1. The easy axis is nearly always determined by the leading cubic anisotropy coefficient $`K_1^{ca}`$, except near values of $`p`$ where this coefficient vanishes. As a consequence the easy-axis in strain free samples is almost always either along one of the cube edge directions ($`K_1^{ca}>0`$), or along one of the cube diagonal directions ($`K_1^{ca}<0`$). Transitions in which the easy axis moves between these two directions occur twice over the range of hole densities studied. (Similar transitions occur as a function of $`h`$, and therefore temperature, for fixed hole density.) Near the hole density 0.01 nm-3, both anisotropy coefficients vanish and a fine-tuned isotropy is achieved. The slopes of the anisotropy coefficient curves vary as the number of occupied bands increases from $`1`$ to $`4`$ with increasing hole density. This behavior is clearly seen from the correlation between oscillations of the anisotropy coefficients and onsets of higher band occupations.

Six-band model Fermi surfaces are illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3 by plotting their intersections with the $`k_z=0`$ plane at $`p=0.1\mathrm{nm}^3`$ for the cases of $`100`$ and $`110`$ ordered moment orientations. The dependence of quasiparticle band structure on ordered moment orientation, apparent in comparing these figures, should lead to large anisotropic magnetoresistance effects in $`\mathrm{III}_{1x}\mathrm{Mn}_x\mathrm{V}`$ ferromagnets. We also note that in the case of cube edge orientations, the Fermi surfaces of different bands intersect. This property could have important implications for the decay of long-wavelength collective modes.

In Fig. 4 we present mean-field theory predictions for the strain-dependence of the anisotropy energy at $`h=0.01\mathrm{Ry}`$ and hole density $`p=0.35\mathrm{nm}^3`$. According to our calculations, the easy axes in the absence of strain are along the cube edges in this case. This calculation is thus for a hole density approximately three times smaller than the Mn density, as indicated by recent experiments. The relevant value of the in-plane strain produced by the substrate-film lattice mismatch,

$$e_0=\frac{a_sa_f}{a_f},$$
(5)
depends on the substrate on which the epitaxial $`\mathrm{Ga}_{.95}\mathrm{Mn}_{.05}\mathrm{As}`$ film is grown. The most important conclusion from Fig. 4 is that strains as small as $`1\%`$ are sufficient to completely alter the magnetic anisotropy energy landscape. For example for (Ga,Mn)As on GaAs, $`e_0=.0028`$ at $`x=0.05`$, the anisotropy has a relatively strong uniaxial contribution even for this relatively modest compressive strain, which favors in-plane moment orientations, in agreement with experiment. A relatively small ($``$1 kJ m-3) residual plane-anisotropy remains which favors $`110`$ over $`100`$. For $`x=0.05`$ (Ga,Mn)As on a $`x=0.15`$ (In,Ga)As buffer the strain is tensile, $`e_0=0.0077`$, and we predict a substantial uniaxial contribution to the anisotropy energy which favors growth direction orientations, again in agreement with experiment. For the tensile case, the anisotropy energy changes more dramatically than for compressive strains due to the depopulation of higher subbands. At large tensile strains, the sign of the anisotropy changes emphasizing the subtlety of these effects and the latitude which exists for strain-engineering of magnetic properties.

## Acknowledgments

We acknowledge helpful discussions with T. Dietl, J. Furdyna, J. König, Byounghak Lee, and H. Ohno. The work was performed under NSF grants DMR-9714055 and DGE-9902579 and Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic grant OC P5.10.