text:
# The asymptotic relative entropy of entanglement

## Abstract

We present an analytical formula for the asymptotic relative entropy of entanglement w.r.t. PPT states for Werner states of arbitrary dimension. We then demonstrate its validity using methods from convex optimization. This is the first case in which the asymptotic value of a subadditive entanglement measure has been calculated.

The systematic investigation of quantum entanglement is a major goal of quantum information theory . In the study of entanglement manipulation one considers the interconversion of different forms of entanglement by means of local quantum operations and classical communication (LQCC). For pure bi-partite states entanglement manipulation in both the finite and asymptotic limits is quite well understood. For pure states necessary and sufficient conditions for the local interconvertibility of entangled states are known. In the asymptotic limit of infinitely many copies of a pure state, a single number, the von Neumann entropy of a subsystem, appropriately quantifies the degree of entanglement .

Much less is known about the entanglement of mixed states. One approach is to define entanglement measures, which are functions of a state that cannot increase under local operations and provide constraints on possible local entanglement manipulation protocols. These measures prove to be useful mathematical and conceptual tools, and have interesting links with other areas such as the study of channel capacities . A number of such measures have been proposed, most notably the entanglement of formation , the distillable entanglement , and the relative entropy of entanglement . The distillable entanglement is defined as the asymptotic number of pure maximally entangled states that can be obtained via LQCC from a supply of a given state. For mixed states the distillable entanglement is exceedingly difficult to compute as it is defined as an asymptotic quantity referring to infinitely many copies of a quantum state. Therefore, upper bounds on the distillable entanglement, in particular other entanglement measures, are of major practical use. One such entanglement measure is the relative entropy of entanglement, defined as

$$E_R(\sigma )=\underset{\rho 𝒟}{\mathrm{min}}S(\sigma ||\rho ),$$
(1)
for states $`\sigma `$, where $`𝒟`$ is the set of states with positive partial transpose (PPT states), and $`S(\sigma ||\rho )=\text{tr}[\sigma \mathrm{lg}\sigma \sigma \mathrm{lg}\rho ]`$ ($`\mathrm{lg}`$ signifies $`\mathrm{log}_2`$). This function essentially quantifies the distinguishability of $`\sigma `$ from the set of PPT states. The set $`𝒟`$ can also be taken to be the set of separable states . However, the set of PPT states is much easier to characterise, and the resulting measure provides a tighter bound to the distillable entanglement, one that is actually attained on pure states and certain mixed states .

In general, efficient protocols for entanglement manipulation require an asymptotic number of copies of the initial state. Therefore, to address any question related to asymptotic entanglement manipulation, one will instead have to consider asymptotic versions of the entanglement measures. For a given measure of entanglement $`E`$, the asymptotic version $`E^{\mathrm{}}`$ is defined as the average entanglement per copy in the asymptotic limit ,

$$E^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma )=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{E(\sigma ^n)}{n}.$$
(2)
For example, the asymptotic cost of creating a mixed state by LQCC from a supply of pure maximally entangled states is given by the asymptotic entanglement of formation . However, such asymptotic entanglement measures are difficult to compute, and so far this task has not been accomplished except for the very rare occasions where the measure in question is known to be additive.

In this Letter we present a general formula for the asymptotic relative entropy of entanglement for an important class of bi-partite states, namely the Werner states of arbitrary dimension . These states are the only states that are invariant under local unitaries of the form $`UU`$. They can be conveniently formulated in terms of the projectors $`\pi _0`$ ($`\pi _1`$) on the symmetric (antisymmetric) subspaces of a Hilbert space $`=^d^d`$. Denoting the permutation operator that interchanges the subsystems as $`\pi `$, the projectors can be expressed as $`\pi _0=(𝟙+\pi )/\mathrm{𝟚}`$ and $`\pi _1=(𝟙\pi )/\mathrm{𝟚}`$. A general Werner state is of the form $`\sigma (p)=p\sigma _1+(1p)\sigma _0`$, $`p[0,1]`$, where $`\sigma _0=\pi _0/\text{tr}[\pi _0]`$ and $`\sigma _1=\pi _1/\text{tr}[\pi _1]`$. Appropriately exploiting the symmetry of this state is one of the key ingredients to the proof of the main statement of this Letter. We formulate this main result as a theorem.
Theorem. For states in $`^d^d`$ of the form $`\sigma (p)=p\sigma _1+(1p)\sigma _0`$ with $`p(1/2,1]`$, $`E_R^{\mathrm{}}`$ w.r.t. PPT states is given by

$`E_R^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma (p))=\{\begin{array}{cc}1H(p),\hfill & p\frac{d+2}{2d}\hfill \\ & \\ \mathrm{lg}\frac{d+2}{d}+(1p)\mathrm{lg}\frac{d2}{d+2},\hfill & p>\frac{d+2}{2d}\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
where $`H(p)=p\mathrm{lg}p(1p)\mathrm{lg}(1p)`$.

It is interesting to note from this formula that $`E_R^{\mathrm{}}`$ never exceeds the logarithm of the negativity . Curiously, $`E_R^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma (p))`$ is a convex function of $`p`$, whereas numerics show that $`E_R(\sigma (p)^n)/n`$ is not convex for any finite number $`n>1`$. It is also intriguing that this formula is exactly the same as that from a different optimization problem considered by Rains , where he minimizes the function $`B(\rho ,\sigma )=S(\rho ||\sigma )+\mathrm{log}|\sigma ^\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$ over all states $`\sigma `$. Rains’ quantity is also an upper bound to the distillable entanglement. However, it is not a convex function, which makes its minimization difficult due to the possibility of local minima. This applies especially in the asymptotic limit as the additivity properties of $`B(\rho ,\sigma )`$ are unknown.

Proof: The proof proceeds in two stages. First we provide an upper bound on $`E_R(\sigma ^n)/n`$ for any number of copies $`n`$, by presenting a trial optimal state. Then we derive a lower bound for $`E_R(\sigma ^n)/n`$ using convex optimization methods. We conclude by showing that the two bounds coincide in the asymptotic limit $`n\mathrm{}`$.

Upper bound: We consider a situation where we hold $`n`$ copies of a Werner state $`\sigma (p)`$. Following the work of Ref. , we will make heavy use of symmetry. In Refs.  it has been shown that if a state is invariant under a certain symmetry group, then one can restrict the minimization in Eq. (1) to those PPT states that are also invariant under the same group. As $`\sigma (p)`$ is invariant under the group $`G`$ of local unitaries of the form $`UU`$, the state $`\sigma (p)^n`$ is invariant under $`G^n`$. This implies that the optimal PPT state for $`\sigma (p)^n`$ can be chosen to be a convex sum of the $`2^n`$ possible $`n`$-fold tensor products of $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma _1`$,

$$\eta =\underset{f=0}{\overset{2^n1}{}}x_f(\sigma _{f_1}\sigma _{f_2}\mathrm{}\sigma _{f_n}),$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{}{x}=(x_0,\mathrm{},x_{2^n1})^T`$ forms a probability distribution, and $`f_i\{0,1\}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, is the $`i`$-th digit in the binary representation of $`f`$. Furthermore, as the state $`\sigma ^n`$ is invariant under any permutation of the $`n`$ copies, we can add the constraint that $`x_l=x_m`$ if the number of 1’s in the binary representations of $`l`$ and $`m`$ are the same.

We will consider trial states of the form $`_iw_i(u_i\sigma _1+v_i\sigma _0)^n`$ , which automatically satisfy this constraint. Such states correspond to:

$$\stackrel{}{x}=\underset{i}{}w_i\left(\begin{array}{c}u_i\\ v_i\end{array}\right)^n$$
(8)
where the $`u_i(v_i)`$ component is the weight of $`\sigma _1(\sigma _0)`$, $`u_i+v_i=1`$ and $`_iw_i=1`$ (and therefore $`_jx_j=1`$).

We will need to know the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of $`\eta `$ in order to ensure that it is PPT. Ignoring degeneracy, there are only two eigenvalues of the partial transpose of the Werner state $`\sigma (p)`$. It is easy to show that they are non-negative iff the following two component vector is non-negative:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& (d1)/(d+1)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 1p\end{array}\right)=T\left(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 1p\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
Similarly, it can easily be shown that $`\eta `$ will be a PPT state iff the $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ in the following equation are non-negative vectors:

$$\stackrel{}{y}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& (d1)/(d+1)\end{array}\right)^n\stackrel{}{x}=T^n\stackrel{}{x}$$
(10)
Subject to this condition we need to calculate the relative entropy between the $`n`$-copy Werner state $`\sigma (p)^n`$ and this generalized Werner state $`\eta `$. This is given by:

$`S`$ $`(\sigma (p)^n||\eta )/n`$ (12)
$`=H(p)(1/n){\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}C_n^kp^{nk}(1p)^k\mathrm{lg}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}w_iu_i^{nk}v_i^k.`$
At this point, we notice that since the second term in Eq. (12) is the average of the function

$$\xi (nk)=(1/n)\mathrm{lg}\underset{i}{}w_iu_i^{nk}v_i^k$$
(13)
over a binomially distributed variable $`k`$, the value can be substituted by $`\xi (np)`$ when we take the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$ .

Since $`E_R^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma (p))`$ is the minimal value of $`S(\sigma (p)^n||\eta )/n`$ over all possible PPT states $`\eta `$, any such PPT state $`\eta `$ will give us an upper bound for $`E_R^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma (p))`$. In particular, for the vector $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ we propose a mixture of two $`n`$-fold Kronecker powers:

$$\stackrel{}{x}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}w_i\left(\begin{array}{c}1a_i\\ a_i\end{array}\right)^n,$$
(14)
where $`0w_i1`$, $`w_1=1w_2`$, $`0a_11/2`$ and $`1/2a_21`$. Proper values for the parameters need to be selected, to ensure that the corresponding state $`\eta `$ will be PPT. Inspired by numerical results, we consider two separate intervals for $`p`$ in Eq. (6); $`1/2p(d+2)/(2d)`$, and $`(d+2)/(2d)p1`$.

For the first interval, set $`w_1=0`$ and $`a_2=1/2`$, so that $`x_k=2^n`$ for all $`k`$. This state gives us an upper bound that equals $`E_R`$ for one copy of $`\sigma (p)`$

$$E_R^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma (p))\frac{S(\sigma (p)^n||\eta )}{n}=1H(p).$$
(15)
Now consider the second interval. We will set

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(d+2)(1p)}{d+24p}},a_2={\displaystyle \frac{1+d(d+2)a_1}{d+24a_1}}`$ (16)
$`w_1`$ $`=`$ $`1w_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+z^n}},z=(d+24a_1)/d.`$ (17)
We calculate $`T^n\stackrel{}{x}`$:

$`\stackrel{}{y}=T^n\stackrel{}{x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}w_i\left(\begin{array}{c}2a_i1\\ 12a_i/(d+1)\end{array}\right)^n`$ (20)
so that, with the values of Eq. (16)

$$y_k=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}w_i(2a_i1)^{n\mathrm{\#}(k)}\left(1\frac{2a_i}{d+1}\right)^{\mathrm{\#}(k)},$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\#}(k)`$ is the number of 1’s in the binary representation of $`k`$. It is easy to check using Eq. (16) that $`y_k`$ is always non-negative.

As a consequence, by taking into account the discussion after Eq. (12) and the notation introduced in Eq. (8), the upper bound for $`n\mathrm{}`$ reads

$`E_R^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma (p))`$ $``$ $`H(p)\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{lg}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}w_iu_i^{pn}v_i^{(1p)n}\right)^{1/n}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`H(p)\mathrm{lg}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_1^n+t_2^n}{q_1^n+q_2^n}}\right)^{1/n}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`H(p)\mathrm{lg}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{max}(t_1,t_2)}{\mathrm{max}(q_1,q_2)}}`$ (24)
with

$`t_1`$ $`=`$ $`d(d2)^p(d+2)^{1p}(1p)^{1p}p^p`$ (25)
$`t_2`$ $`=`$ $`(d2+d^2(1p))^p(d^2pd2)^{1p}`$ (26)
$`q_1`$ $`=`$ $`d^24\text{and}q_2=d(d+24p).`$ (27)
It is easy to check that for $`p(d+2)/(2d)`$ (the second interval), both $`t_1t_2`$ and $`q_1q_2`$. So we obtain:

$$E_R^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma (p))H(p)\mathrm{lg}\frac{t_1}{q_1}=\mathrm{lg}\frac{d2}{d}+p\mathrm{lg}\frac{d+2}{d2}.$$
(28)
In the other regime, $`p(d+2)/(2d)`$, the bound obtainable from Eq. (24) is worse than Eq. (15). This ends the proof of the upper bound.

Proof of lower bound: We now proceed to find a lower bound on $`E_R`$. To do this, we will use the idea of Lagrange duality . To calculate $`E_R^{\mathrm{}}`$ we need to solve the optimization problem

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_R(\sigma (p)^n)}{n}}=\underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{\mathrm{min}}\{H(p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\stackrel{}{z}^T\mathrm{lg}\stackrel{}{x}\}`$ (29)
$`\text{with}\stackrel{}{x}0,T^n\stackrel{}{x}0,{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{2^n1}{}}}x_k=1,`$ (30)
where $`\stackrel{}{z}^T=(p,1p)^n`$. This is a convex optimization problem, so it is possible to consider the so-called dual problem. It is a basic result in convex optimization theory that the optimal (maximal) $`g`$-value of the dual problem is a lower bound on the optimal (minimal) value of the primal problem, which is just what we are looking for (see  for a general description of duality in optimization).

The dual problem can be obtained as follows. First form the Lagrangian by multiplying the constraints with Lagrange multipliers and adding them to the objective function:

$`(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{\lambda },\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`H(p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\stackrel{}{z}^T\mathrm{lg}\stackrel{}{x}`$ (32)
$`\stackrel{}{\lambda }^TT^n\stackrel{}{x}+\nu ({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{2^n1}{}}}x_k1).`$
The constraint $`\stackrel{}{x}0`$ is not included explicitly, as it just determines the domain of the function $`\mathrm{lg}`$. Note that $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ must exhibit the same copy-permutation symmetry as $`\stackrel{}{x}`$. Because the constraint associated to $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ is an inequality, we have to introduce the constraint $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }0`$. The dual function is now given by

$$g(\stackrel{}{\lambda },\nu )=\underset{\stackrel{}{x}0}{inf}(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{\lambda },\nu ),$$
(33)
and the dual optimization problem is:

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{\lambda },\nu }{\mathrm{max}}g(\stackrel{}{\lambda },\nu ),\stackrel{}{\lambda }0,$$
(34)
including any other constraints on the domain of $`g`$.

For our problem, the dual function can be calculated explicitly. The derivative of the Lagrangian w.r.t. $`x_k`$ is

$$\frac{}{x_k}=\frac{1}{n\mathrm{ln}2}\frac{z_k}{x_k}\left(\stackrel{}{\lambda }^TT^n\right)_k+\nu .$$
(35)
The Lagrangian reaches an extremum (minimum) at

$$\widehat{x}_k=\frac{1}{\mu _k}\frac{z_k}{n\mathrm{ln}2},$$
(36)
where $`\mu _k=\nu \left(T^n\stackrel{}{\lambda }\right)_k`$ and we have exploited the symmetry of $`T`$. The dual function is

$`g(\stackrel{}{\lambda },\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{ln}(n\mathrm{ln}2)}{n\mathrm{ln}2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{2^n1}{}}}z_k\mathrm{lg}\mu _k\nu `$ (37)
where we have used that $`\stackrel{}{z}^T=(p,1p)^n`$, which implies that $`_{k=0}^{2^n1}z_k\mathrm{lg}z_k=nH(p)`$ . As stated before, $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ must be non-negative, and inspecting the domain of $`g(\stackrel{}{\lambda },\nu )`$ yields an additional constraint that the $`\mu _k`$ be non-negative.

Now, any acceptable assignment of values to $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ and $`\nu `$ gives a lower bound to $`E_R^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma (p))`$. Again we consider the two $`p`$-intervals of Eq. (6). For $`p(d+2)/(2d)`$ we propose

$`\nu ^1`$ $`=`$ $`1/(n\mathrm{ln}2)`$ (38)
$`\stackrel{}{\lambda }^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^1}{d^n}}\left(\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ d+1\end{array}\right)^n\left(\begin{array}{c}d+12dp\\ d+1\end{array}\right)^n\right).`$ (43)
After a short calculation we obtain $`\mu _k=\nu ^12^np^{n\mathrm{\#}(k)}(1p)^\mathrm{\#}(k)`$ . This gives a feasible point of the dual problem, because both $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ and $`\mu _k`$ as given here are non-negative. The value of $`g`$ using these assignments is $`g(\stackrel{}{\lambda }^1,\nu ^1)=1H(p).`$

For the second interval, $`pp^{}=(d+2)/(2d)`$, we replace $`p`$ by $`p^{}`$ in Eq. (38), giving

$`\nu ^2=\nu ^1,\stackrel{}{\lambda }^2={\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{d^n}}\left(\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ d+1\end{array}\right)^n\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ d+1\end{array}\right)^n\right).`$ (48)
We now obtain $`g(\stackrel{}{\lambda }^2,\nu ^2)=\mathrm{lg}\frac{d+2}{d}+(1p)\mathrm{lg}\frac{d2}{d+2}.`$

As the two lower bounds $`g(\stackrel{}{\lambda }^1,\nu ^1)`$ and $`g(\stackrel{}{\lambda }^2,\nu ^2)`$ coincide with the two upper bounds (Eqs. (15) and (28)), the proof of the Theorem is now complete.

The remarkable behavior of $`E_R^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma (p))`$ is shown in Fig. 1 for several values of $`d`$. The nonlinear behavior for small values of $`p`$ goes over into a linear dependence on $`p`$ above the threshold value $`p^{}=(d+2)/2d`$. An immediate consequence of the result is that there are no inseparable Werner states with zero entanglement cost—a similar conclusion could not be drawn from Rains’ bound as it is not an asymptotic quantity. It is astonishing that, as long as $`pp^{}`$, $`E_R^{\mathrm{}}`$ is invariant under the strongly irreversible operation of twirling, mapping Werner states on $`^2^2`$ to Werner states on $`^d^d`$ .

Interestingly, the dependence of $`E_R^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma (p))`$ on $`p`$ is quite similar to the conjectured behavior of the entanglement of formation for a single copy of an isotropic state : there, one can also distinguish between two regimes, and for larger values of the weight $`F`$ of the maximally entangled state in the isotropic state the dependence of the entanglement of formation is conjectured to be linearly dependent on $`F`$.

In this Letter we have concentrated on the important class of Werner states. With similar methods, one can also investigate other classes with high symmetry. It is hoped that this work can significantly contribute to the quest for a better understanding of the asymptotic regime of entanglement.

We would like to thank R.F. Werner and D. Jonathan for fruitful discussions, and E. Rains for drawing to our attention possible connections with . This work was partially supported by EPSRC, The Leverhulme Trust, DFG, the European Union EQUIP project& the ESF QIT program and grants MEC (AP99), IUAP-P4-02 and GOA-Mefisto-666 .


format: text

text:
# Mass generation for non-Abelian antisymmetric tensor fields in a three-dimensional space-time

## Abstract

Starting from a recently proposed Abelian topological model in (2+1) dimensions, which involve the Kalb-Ramond two form field, we study a non-Abelian generalization of the model. An obstruction for generalization is detected. However we show that the goal is achieved if we introduce a vectorial auxiliary field. Consequently, a model is proposed, exhibiting a non-Abelian topological mass generation mechanism in $`D=3`$, that provides mass for the Kalb-Ramond field. The covariant quantization of this model requires ghosts for ghosts. Therefore in order to quantize the theory we construct a complete set of BRST and anti-BRST equations using the horizontality condition.

PACS 11.15.-q, 11.10.Kk,12.90.+b

Antisymmetric tensor gauge fields provide a natural extension of the usual vector gauge fields, appearing as mediator of string interaction and having an important key role in supergravity. Also, they are fundamental to the well known topological mass generation mechanism  for Abelian vector boson in four dimensions, through a BF term . This term is characterized by the presence of an antisymmetric gauge field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ ( Kalb-Ramond field) and the field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }.`$ Non-Abelian extensions of models involving antisymmetric gauge fields in four dimensional space-time were introduced first by Lahiri  and later by Hwang and Lee , in the context of topologically mass generation models. Both procedures requires the introduction of an auxiliary vector field, justified by the need to untie the constraint between two and three form curvatures $`F`$ and $`H`$, and to the better of our knowledge, that is the first approach in the literature to considering invariant non-Abelian field strength for an antisymmetric tensor gauge field. A non-Abelian theory involving an antisymmetric tensor field coupled to a gauge field appears as an alternative mechanism for generating vector bosons masses, similar to the theory of a heavy Higgs particle. It is worth to mention a generalization to a compact non-Abelian gauge group of an Abelian mechanism in the context of non-Abelian quantum hair on black holes .

Kalb-Ramond fields arise naturally in string coupled to the area element of the two-dimensional worldsheet  and a string Higgs mechanism was introduced by Rey in Ref. .

Recently, we have shown a topological mass generation in an Abelian three-dimensional model involving a two form gauge field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and a scalar field $`\phi `$, rather than the usual Maxwell-Chern-Simons model . The action for the model just mentioned reads as

$$S_{inv}^A=d^3x\left(\frac{1}{12}H_{\mu \nu \alpha }H^{\mu \nu \alpha }+\frac{1}{2}_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi +\frac{m}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha }B_{\mu \nu }_\alpha \phi \right),$$
(1)
where $`H_{\mu \nu \alpha }`$ is the totally antisymmetric tensor $`H_{\mu \nu \alpha }=_\mu B_{\nu \alpha }+_\alpha B_{\mu \nu }+_\nu B_{\alpha \mu }`$.

The action (1), is invariant under the transformation

$$\delta \phi =0,\delta B_{\mu \nu }=_{[\mu }\omega _{\nu ]}\text{ ,}$$
(2)
and its equations of motion give the massive equations

$$(\mathrm{}+m^2)_\mu \phi =0,(\mathrm{}+m^2)H_{\mu \nu \alpha }=0.$$
(3)
The model described by action (1) can be consistently obtained by dimensional reduction of a four-dimensional $`BF`$ model if we discard the Chern-Simons-like terms .

The purpose of this Brief Report is to construct a non-Abelian version of the action (1). The only possibility is via an introduction of an auxiliary vector field, as we have proved in Ref.  using the method of consistent deformations. We obtain here the BRST and anti-BRST equations by applying the horizontality condition, including an auxiliary vectorial field, which allows the sought non-Abelian generalization. In this way, it is put in more rigorous grounds the need to add an auxiliary field. In addition, we show a non-Abelian topological mass generation mechanism for the Kalb-Ramond field in three dimensions.

It is interesting to remark that the introduction of an one form gauge connection $`A`$ is required to go further in the non-Abelian generalization of our model (1), although our original Abelian action (1) does not contain this field. Note that, as pointed out by Thierry-Mieg and Ne’eman  for the non-Abelian case, the field strength for $`B`$ is***Here and in the rest of the paper, in order to handle BRST transformations, we use differential forms formalism for convenience.

$$H=dB+[A,B]DB,$$
(4)
where $`d=dx^\mu (/x^\mu )`$ is the exterior derivative.

Resorting to Ref. , we can define a new $``$ given by

$$=dB+[A,B]+[F,C],$$
(5)
where $`C`$ is the one form auxiliary field required and $`F=dA+AA`$.

The obstruction to the non-Abelian generalization lies only on the kinetic term for the antisymmetric field, but the topological term must be conveniently redefined. So the non-Abelian version of the action (1) can be written as

$$_{M_3}Tr\left\{\frac{1}{2}^{}+m\phi +\frac{1}{2}D\phi ^{}D\phi \right\},$$
(6)
where $``$ is the Hodge star operator.

The action above is invariant under the following transformations:

$$\delta A=D\theta ,\delta \phi =[\theta ,\phi ],\delta B=D\mathrm{\Lambda }+[\theta ,B],\delta C=\mathrm{\Lambda }+[\theta ,C],$$
(7)
where $`\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are zero and one form transformation parameters respectively.

Here we shall use a formalism developed by Thierry-Mieg et al.  in order to obtain the BRST and anti-BRST transformation rules. In general lines, we follow closely the treatment of Refs.  or , since the new object introduced here, namely the scalar field, does not modify the approach.

The presence of a scalar field in topological invariants is not so uncommon. A three-dimensional Yang-Mills topological action was proposed by Baulieu and Grossman  for magnetic monopoles by gauge fixing the following topological invariant:

$$S_{top}=_{M_3}Tr\left\{FD\phi \right\}.$$
(8)
In the work of Thierry-Mieg and Ne’eman , a geometrical BRST quantization scheme was developed where the base space is extended to a fiber bundle space so that it contains unphysical (fiber-gauge orbit) directions and physical (space-time) directions. Using a double fiber bundle structure Quiros et al.  extended the principal fiber bundle formalism in order to include anti-BRST symmetry. Basically the procedure consists in extending the space-time to take into account a pair of scalar anticommuting coordinates denoted by $`y`$ and $`\overline{y}`$ which correspond to coordinates in the directions of the gauge group of the principal fiber bundle. Then the so-called ”horizontality condition” is imposed. This condition enforces the curvature components containing vertical (fiber) directions to vanish. So only the horizontal components of physical curvature in the extended space survive.

Let us define the following form fields in the extended space and valued in the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ of the gauge group:

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\phi ,$$
(9)
$$\stackrel{~}{A}A_\mu dx^\mu +A_Ndy^N+A_{\overline{N}}d\overline{y}^{\overline{N}}A+\alpha +\overline{\alpha },$$
(10)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +B_{\mu N}dx^\mu dy^N+B_{\mu \overline{N}}dx^\mu d\overline{y}^{\overline{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_{MN}dy^Mdy^N`$ (12)
$`+B_{M\overline{N}}dy^Md\overline{y}^{\overline{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_{\overline{M}\overline{N}}d\overline{y}^{\overline{M}}d\overline{y}^{\overline{N}}`$
$``$ $`B\beta \overline{\beta }+\gamma +h+\overline{\gamma },`$ (13)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{C}C_\mu dx^\mu +C_Ndy^N+C_{\overline{N}}d\overline{y}^{\overline{N}}C+c+\overline{c}.$$
(14)
Note that we identify the components in unphysical directions with new fields, namely, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`c`$ ($`\overline{\alpha }`$, $`\overline{\beta }`$ and $`\overline{c}`$) as anticommuting ghosts (antighosts) and the commuting ghosts (antighost) $`\gamma `$ and $`h`$ ( $`\overline{\gamma }`$ ). Since $`B`$ has 3 degrees of freedom in 3 dimensions, the number of d.o.f. described by the set of fields $`B,`$ $`\beta ,`$ $`\overline{\beta },`$ $`\gamma ,`$ $`\overline{\gamma },`$ and $`h`$ is 3-3-3+1+1+1=0. Obviously, the scalar field $`\phi `$ has only one d.o.f.

The curvatures 2 form $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ and 3 form $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ in the fiber-bundle space are

$$\stackrel{~}{F}\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{A}+\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A},$$
(15)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{B}+[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B}]+[\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{C}],$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{~}{d}=d+s+\overline{s}.`$ The exterior derivatives in the gauge group directions are denoted by $`s=dy^N(/y^N)`$ and $`\overline{s}=d\overline{y}^{\overline{N}}(/\overline{y}^{\overline{N}}).`$

It is important to remark here that since we are focusing a mass generation mechanism or, in other words, the action (6), the extra symmetries which appear in the pure topological model have no room in the present discussion.

The horizontality condition, or equivalently, the Maurer-Cartan equation for the field strength $`F`$ can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{F}\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{A}+\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A}=F,$$
(17)
and for the 3 form $``$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{B}+[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B}]+[\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{C}]=.$$
(18)
Also we can impose the horizontality condition for the one form $`D\phi `$, which may be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{D}\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\stackrel{~}{d}\phi +[\stackrel{~}{A},\phi ]=D\phi .$$
(19)
By expanding both sides of Eq. (17) over the pairs of two forms, one can obtain the following transformation rules:

$`sA_\mu =D_\mu \alpha \text{ },\text{ }\overline{s}A_\mu =D_\mu \overline{\alpha },`$

$$s\alpha =\alpha \alpha \text{ },\text{ }\overline{s}\overline{\alpha }=\overline{\alpha }\overline{\alpha },$$
(20)
$`s\overline{\alpha }+\overline{s}\alpha =\alpha \overline{\alpha }.`$

In order to close the algebra, we introduce an extra scalar commuting field $`b`$ valued in the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ such that

$$s\overline{\alpha }=b,$$
(21)
and consequently

$$\overline{s}\alpha =b\overline{\alpha }\alpha \text{ , }\overline{s}b=\overline{\alpha }b,sb=0.$$
(22)
On the other hand, expanding Eq. (18) over the basis of 3 forms yields

$`sB_{\mu \nu }=[\alpha ,B_{\mu \nu }]D_{[\mu }\beta _{\nu ]}+[F_{\mu \nu },c]\text{ },\text{ }\overline{s}B_{\mu \nu }=[\overline{\alpha },B_{\mu \nu }]D_{[\mu }\overline{\beta }_{\nu ]}[F_{\mu \nu },\overline{c}],`$

$`s\beta _\mu =[\alpha ,\beta _\mu ]+D_\mu \gamma \text{ , }\overline{s}\overline{\beta }_\mu =[\overline{\alpha },\overline{\beta }_\mu ]+D_\mu \overline{\gamma },`$

$$s\overline{\beta }_\mu +\overline{s}\beta _\mu =[\alpha ,\overline{\beta }_\mu ][\overline{\alpha },\beta _\mu ]+D_\mu h,$$
(23)
$`s\gamma =[\alpha ,\gamma ]\text{ },\text{ }\overline{s}\overline{\gamma }=[\overline{\alpha },\overline{\gamma }],`$

$`\overline{s}\gamma +sh=[\alpha ,h][\overline{\alpha },\gamma ]\text{ , }s\overline{\gamma }+\overline{s}h=[\overline{\alpha },h][\alpha ,\overline{\gamma }].`$Note that when we treat two odd forms, the $`[`$ , $`]`$ must be reading as an anticommutator.

The action of $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ upon $`c`$, $`\overline{c}`$ and $`C`$ is not defined in Eq.(23). However, the condition (18) leads us to

$$\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{D}\stackrel{~}{C}=B+DC.$$
(24)
The condition (24) yields the BRST and anti-BRST transformations for the auxiliary field $`C`$ and its ghosts $`c`$ and $`\overline{c}`$:

$`sC_\mu =[\alpha ,C_\mu ]+D_\mu c+\beta _\mu \text{ , }\overline{s}C_\mu =[\overline{\alpha },C_\mu ]+D_\mu \overline{c}+\overline{\beta }_\mu ,`$

$$sc=[\alpha ,c]\gamma \text{ , }\overline{s}\overline{c}=[\overline{\alpha },\overline{c}]\overline{\gamma },$$
(25)
$`s\overline{c}+\overline{s}c=[\overline{\alpha },c][\alpha ,\overline{c}]h.`$

However, as usual, the action of $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ on the ghosts and antighosts is not completely specified by Eqs. (23) and (25). Therefore, a set of additional fields is required, namely, a commuting vector field $`t_\mu ,`$ two anticommuting scalar fields $`\omega `$ and $`\overline{\omega }`$ and a commuting scalar field $`n`$. These fields are used to solve Eqs. (23). Then, we get

$`s\overline{\beta }_\mu =t_\mu ,\overline{s}\beta _\mu =t_\mu [\alpha ,\overline{\beta }_\mu ][\overline{\alpha },\beta _\mu ]+D_\mu h,`$

$`sh=\omega ,\overline{s}\gamma =\omega [\alpha ,h][\overline{\alpha },\gamma ],`$

$`s\overline{\gamma }=\overline{\omega },\overline{s}h=\overline{\omega }[\alpha ,\overline{\gamma }][\overline{\alpha },h],`$

$$s\overline{c}=n,\overline{s}c=n[\alpha ,\overline{c}][\overline{\alpha },c]h,$$
(26)
$`st_\mu =s\omega =s\overline{\omega }=sn=0,`$

$`\overline{s}t_\mu =[\overline{\alpha },t_\mu ][D_\mu \alpha ,\overline{\gamma }]D_\mu \overline{\omega }[\overline{\beta }_\mu ,t],\overline{s}n=[\overline{\alpha },n][\overline{c},b]+\overline{\omega },`$

$`\overline{s}\omega =[\overline{\alpha },\omega ][\alpha \alpha ,\overline{\gamma }][\alpha ,\overline{\omega }][h,b],\overline{s}\overline{\omega }=[\overline{\alpha },\overline{\omega }][\overline{\gamma },b].`$The nilpotency of the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ operators was used to obtain the last eight relations.

Finally, by expanding Eq. (19), we obtain

$$s\phi =[\alpha ,\phi ],\overline{s}\phi =[\overline{\alpha },\phi ].$$
(27)
Therefore, a complete set of BRST and anti-BRST equations, namely, Eqs. (20-22), (25-27), and (23), associated with the classical symmetry defined by Eq. (7), was obtained.

It is important to point out the difference between the fields which do not belong to the principal fiber bundle expansion of the ”physical ” fields ($`b,t_\mu ,n,\omega `$ and $`\overline{\omega }`$) (introduced in order to complete the BRST/anti-BRST algebra) and the auxiliary one form field $`C`$ introduced in order to overcome the obstruction to the non-Abelian generalization. Note that here the a priori introduction of the auxiliary field $`C`$, was necessary in order to fix the BRST and anti-BRST transformation rules. Furthermore, the obstruction to non-Abelian generalization of the four-dimensional BF model, namely, the existence of the constraint $`[F,^{}H]=0,`$ appears in the context of our model as $`[F,^{}Hm\phi ]=0`$, as can be seen from the equations of motion of the action (6), considered in the absence of the auxiliary field.

The simplest scenario to study mass generation is to consider the equations of motion of the action (6). For convenience, we define a new one form field as $`KD\phi `$. Therefore, the equations of motion can be written as

$$D^{}=mK,D^{}K=m.$$
(28)
Equations (28) can be combined into the following second order equations:

$$\left(D^{}D^{}+m^2\right)=0,\left(D^{}D^{}+m^2\right)K=0.$$
(29)
Considering only linear terms for the fields, we get

$$\left(d^{}d^{}+m^2\right)H=0,\left(d^{}d^{}+m^2\right)d\phi =0,$$
(30)
which are similar to the Eqs. (3), and exhibit mass generation for $`H`$ and $`\phi .`$

On the other hand, by looking to the pole structures of the propagators of the model, mass generation can also be established. In order to obtain them, we use the action (6) added with convenient gauge fixing terms, namely

$`S_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{M_3}}Tr\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^{}+m\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D\phi ^{}D\phi +`$ (32)
$`𝒥\text{ }^{}B+j\text{ }^{}\phi +J^{}M+J_p^{}p+p^{}dM+M^{}dB\},`$
where $`𝒥`$, $`J`$ , $`J_p`$ and $`j`$ are currents related to the fields $`B,`$ $`M,`$ $`p`$ and $`\phi `$ respectively, which generate propagators in the path integral formulation. The Lagrange multiplier fields $`M`$ and $`p`$ are introduced in order to implement the Landau gauge fixing.

Therefore, the tree-level effective propagators for the Kalb-Ramond and scalar fields are

$$<\phi \phi >_{a,b}=\frac{\delta _{ab}}{p^2m^2},$$
(33)
and

$$<BB>_{a\mu \nu ,b\rho \sigma }=\frac{\delta _{ab}}{p^2m^2}\left[g_{\mu [\rho }g_{\sigma ]\nu }\frac{g_{\mu [\rho }p_{\sigma ]}p_\nu }{p^2}+\frac{g_{\nu [\rho }p_{\sigma ]}p_\mu }{p^2}\right],$$
(34)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are group indices, and $`\mu ,\nu ,\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ are space-time indices. It is interesting to note that, here, the gauge field $`B`$ ”eats ” the scalar field (not a Higgs field, however) and acquires a longitudinal degree of freedom and a mass. The inverse process is possible too.

In this work we have succeeded in extending a tridimensional Abelian topological model to the non-Abelian case. The model considered here couples a second rank antisymmetric tensor field and a scalar field in a topological way. We introduce two new fields in the model in order to obtain the pursued non-Abelian version. One field is a one form gauge connection ( $`A`$ ) which allows us to define a Yang-Mills covariant derivative. The other auxiliary field ($`C`$ ) is a vectorial one, which is required in order to resolve the constraint that prevents the correct nonabelianization.

A formal framework to consider the introduction of these fields and the consequent new symmetries, is furnished by BRST and anti-BRST transformation rules, which are obtained using the horizontality condition. Although quite similar to other topological models, it is worth to mention that, in this case, we have constructed transformation rules for the Kalb-Ramond field, for two one form fields and for a scalar field.

Here is worthwhile to mention that a similar mass generation model was presented by Jackiw and Pi in Ref. , where a non-Abelian version of the mixed Chern-Simons term was considered. However, a one form field was declared to carry odd parity, so preserving the parity of the model. Besides, due to the parity constraint, the Jackiw-Pi model has less gauge symmetries than ours, and in these two features resides the essential difference between the models considered. Furthermore, once Jackiw and Pi change the two form field by one form field they have not the obstruction to non-abelianization of the kinetic term detected by Lahiri (four-dimensional case) and us (three-dimensional case).

Finally, the topological mass generation mechanism for an Abelian model found out in a previous paper was extended for the non-Abelian case, and we end up with an effective theory describing massive Kalb-Ramond gauge fields in $`D=3`$ space-time.

We conclude mentioning the possible relevance of the present discussion to string theory. Indeed, the Kalb-Ramond field couples directly to the worldsheet of strings, and bosonic string condensation into the vacuum realize the Higgs mechanism to the Kalb-Ramond gauge field . Therefore an alternative scenario to give mass to the Kalb-Ramond field in the context of strings may be an interesting continuation of our present results.

This work was supported in part by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico-CNPq and Fundação Cearense de Amparo à Pesquisa-FUNCAP.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Noncommutative spaces, within the formulation of the deformation quantization through Moyal product, have been receiving increasing attention in field theories on $`R^d`$, string theories, in which they arise naturally as D-brane configuration spaces, and M-theory.

There has been considerable progress towards the direction of understanding the interplay between the UV and IR divergencies steming from the underlying noncommutativity of scalar field theories on flat space-time. Some authors partially motivated by the suggestion of  on the possible stringy origin of the intriguing UV/IR mixing, have explored the relationship between noncommutative field theory and string theory .

In string theory it was realized recently that the introduction of a constant $`B`$-field gives rise to noncommutative string position operators. The multiloop amplitudes were computed for this noncommutative bosonic string in .

The appearance of noncommutative spaces triggered the reformulation of Quantum Mechanics . In this set up the one dimensional Schrödinger equation was replaced by the $``$-genvalue equation, while the wave functions became Wigner functions. The ordinary product was replaced by the pivotal associative noncommutative $``$-product.

In the present work we consider the $``$-genvalue problem for the n-dimensional noncommutative harmonic oscillator. It is shown that again the $``$-genvalue problem is equivalent to the Schrödinger problem in an appropriate representation. The energy eigenvalues and eigenfunctions are determined as functions of the noncommutativity parameters.

The case of the two dimensional harmonic oscillator is examined thoroughly. The angular momentum operator is derived in the rotationally symmetric case. It is shown that the $``$-genvalues for this operator contain, apart from the usual angular momentum, a term that depends on the energy difference of the oscillations in the two dimensions. This is to be interpreted as the angular momentum of the system.

In the asymmetric case critical values of the parameters arise. For these values the energy spectrum becomes infinitely degenerate at every level. This problem can be identified with the noncommutative Landau problem.

The paper is organized as follows:

In section 2 we summarize known results namely the definition of the Moyal product of functions in phase-space through the Weyl ordering prescription and the equivalence of the stationary $``$-genvalue problem to the corresponding Schrödinger problem.

Section 3 is dedicated to the study of the two-dimensional harmonic oscillator for nontrivial commutation relations. The $``$-genvalues and functions are determined for the corresponding Hamiltonian by solving the imaginary and real part equations.

In section 4 the $``$-genvalue problem for the Hamiltonian and the angular momentum in two-dimensions is investigated. It is shown, that the Schrödinger problem in suitably transformed phase-space variables is equivalent to the $``$-genvalue problem. Furthermore the $``$-genvalue problem for the angular momentum enables one to calculate the eigenvalues of the associated operator.

In section 5 the existence of rotationally symmetric $``$-genfunctions impose constraints on the possible commutation relations for the n-dimensional harmonic oscillator. In two-dimensions these constraints are solved explicitly and the $``$-genvalue problem for the Hamiltonian is solved. The angular momentum operator, which is the generator of rotations, is constructed and its $``$-genvalues are computed.

Finally section 6 copes with the most general commutation relations one can possibly encounter. We show that it is possible, through orthogonal transformations, to bring the matrix realizing the commutation relations into a symplectic form. In this way we can give explicit results for the energy levels, eigenfunctions and the $``$-commutation relation of creation and annihilation operators for the n-dimensional harmonic oscillator. As a non-rotationally symmetric application we consider the noncommutative Landau problem and find a critical point for the magnetic field at which the energy levels are infinitely degenerate . As a further application the three-dimensional noncommutative harmonic oscillator is considered.

## 2 Overview of the Wigner functions and the $``$-genvalue problem

Let us start with a classical Hamiltonian $`H(q,p)=p^2/2m+V(q)`$ in one dimension. Upon quantization the canonical variables $`q,p`$ become operators $`\widehat{q},\widehat{p}`$ satisfying the canonical commutation relations $`[\widehat{q},\widehat{p}]=i\mathrm{}`$. Consider now monomials of the form $`q^mp^n`$ with m, n positive integers. To define the corresponding operator product it is possible to use the Weyl ordering prescription :

$`\widehat{W}(q^mp^n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ k\end{array}\right)\widehat{p}^{nk}\widehat{q}^m\widehat{p}^k`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\left[e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{^2}{qp}}q^mp^n\right]_{q\widehat{q},p\widehat{p}}`$ (4)
according to which the $`\widehat{W}(q^mp^n)`$ operator is symmetrized in $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ by use of Heisenberg’s commutation relation. This regularization scheme can be extended to act on arbitrary power series functions $`f(q,p)`$ through linearity. Thus, Weyl ordering is an invertible map from the space of functions on the phase-space to the space of quantum operators. We can use now Weyl ordering to define a new product between functions on the phase-space , :

$`f(q,p)g(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`W^1(W(f)W(g))`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`f(q,p)e^{i\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{}_q\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_q\right)}g(q,p)`$
$`=`$ $`f(q+i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\stackrel{}{}_p,pi{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\stackrel{}{}_q)g(q,p).`$
This is the celebrated Moyal product which enjoys the properties of noncommutativity, associativity and uniqueness.

In phase-space one can define Wigner quasi-distribution functions to calculate matrix elements of observables. The time-independent Wigner function corresponding to a pair of eigenstates $`|\psi _n>`$, $`|\psi _m>`$ of the Schrödinger problem, $`\widehat{H}|\psi _n>=E_n|\psi _n>`$, is represented in two phase-space dimensions by:

$`f_{mn}(q,p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑ye^{iyp}<q\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}y|\psi _n><\psi _m|q+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}y>}=f_{nm}^{}(q,p)`$ (6)
where $``$ stands for complex conjugation. In this case, one can show by employing the classical Hamiltonian and the definition of the star product (5) that Wigner functions obey the $``$-genvalue equations:

$`H(q,p)f_{mn}(q,p)=E_nf_{mn}(q,p);f_{mn}(q,p)H(q,p)=E_mf_{mn}(q,p).`$ (7)
In (6) for complete sets $`|\psi _n>`$ one can also derive that:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}f_{mn}(q,p)f_{mn}^{}(q^{},p^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\delta (qq^{})\delta (pp^{})`$ (8)
which enables the construction of arbitrary phase-space functions in terms of $`f_{mn}(q,p)`$.

For the diagonal case ($`m=n`$ in (6)) one can prove that the Wigner functions satisfy the diagonal $``$-genvalue equation:

$`H(q,p)f_n(q,p)=f_n(q,p)H(q,p)=E_nf_n(q,p)`$ (9)
Furthermore, the real solutions of (9) are required to be of the Wigner type for the wavefunctions of $`\widehat{H}|\psi _n>=E_n|\psi _n>`$. So, instead of solving the Schrödinger equation one can try to solve the $``$-genvalue equation to determine directly the diagonal Wigner functions and the corresponding energy spectrum. The orthogonality relation satisfied by those functions takes the form:

$`f_mf_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\delta _{m,n}f_m.`$ (10)
## 3 The two-dimensional harmonic oscillator

In this case we have four coordinates $`(q_i,p_j)`$, with $`i,j=1,2`$, in phase space. The free Hamiltonian for this model is:

$`H(q_i,p_j)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left(q_i^2+p_i^2\right)`$ (11)
where, without loss of generality, parameters have been absorbed in the phase-space variables. Quantum Mechanically, the position and momentum operators satisfy the Heisenberg commutation relations. Here we will extend this realization to include nontrivial commutation relations for $`q_1,q_2`$ and $`p_1,p_2`$:

$`[q_i,p_j]=i\mathrm{}\delta _{ij};[q_1,q_2]=i\theta ;[p_1,p_2]=i\theta `$ (12)
where $`\theta `$ is a real constant. The related star product takes the form:

$`=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\stackrel{}{}_{q_1},& \stackrel{}{}_{p_1},& \stackrel{}{}_{q_2},& \stackrel{}{}_{p_2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \mathrm{}& \theta & 0\\ \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \theta \\ \theta & 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \theta & \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\stackrel{}{}_{q_1}& & & \\ \stackrel{}{}_{p_1}& & & \\ \stackrel{}{}_{q_2}& & & \\ \stackrel{}{}_{p_2}& & & \end{array}\right)\right].`$ (22)
The resulting $``$-genvalue equation is:

$`[`$ $`\left(q_1+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}_{p_1}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\theta }{2}}_{q_2}\right)^2+\left(p_1{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}_{q_1}{\displaystyle \frac{i\theta }{2}}_{p_2}\right)^2`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`(q_2+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}_{p_2}{\displaystyle \frac{i\theta }{2}}_{q_1})^2+(p_2{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}_{q_2}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\theta }{2}}_{p_1})^2]f(q_1,p_1,q_2,p_2)=2Ef(q_1,p_1,q_2,p_2).`$
Equation (23) splits into an equation for the imaginary part,

$`\left[\mathrm{}(p_1_{q_1}q_1_{p_1})+\mathrm{}(p_2_{q_2}q_2_{p_2})+\theta \left(q_2_{q_1}q_1_{q_2}\right)+\theta \left(p_1_{p_2}p_2_{p_1}\right)\right]f=0`$ (24)
and an equation for the real part:

$`\left[\left(q_1^2+p_1^2+q_2^2+p_2^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2)}{4}}\left(_{q_1}^2+_{p_1}^2+_{q_2}^2+_{p_2}^2\right)\right]f=2Ef.`$ (25)
Equation (24) admits a solution of the form $`f(z)`$ with $`z=2(q_1^2+p_1^2+q_2^2+p_2^2)=4H`$. The real part equation (25) transforms to the ordinary differential equation:

$`\left[z_z^2+2_z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2)}}\left(E{\displaystyle \frac{z}{4}}\right)\right]f(z)=0.`$ (26)
The problem with this reduction is the inconsistency underlying the number of degrees of freedom. We started with the two dimensional harmonic oscillator and we ended up with one oscillation equation. So we need to search for a set of transformations that will preserve the number of degrees of freedom. The appropriate transformations are:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\overline{q_1}=q_1& \overline{p_1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}}(\mathrm{}p_1+\theta q_2)\\ \overline{q_2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}}(\mathrm{}q_2\theta p_1)& \overline{p_2}=p_2.\end{array}`$ (29)
The imaginary part equation is then written as:

$`\left[\left(\overline{p}_1_{\overline{q}_1}\overline{q}_1_{\overline{p}_1}\right)+\left(\overline{p}_2_{\overline{q}_2}\overline{q}_2_{\overline{p}_2}\right)\right]f=0.`$ (30)
This implies that $`f`$ is a function of $`z_1=2(\overline{q}_1^2+\overline{p}_1^2)`$ and $`z_2=2(\overline{q}_2^2+\overline{p}_2^2)`$. The real part equation transforms under the new variables into:

$`\left[z_1_{z_1}^2+_{z_1}+z_2_{z_2}^2+_{z_2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2)}}\left(E{\displaystyle \frac{(z_1+z_2)}{4}}\right)\right]f(z_1,z_2)=0.`$ (31)
The diagonal $``$-genfunctions $`f_{nm}(z_1,z_2)`$ associated with this equation are determined through products of Laguerre polynomials:

$`f_{nm}(\stackrel{~}{z}_1,\stackrel{~}{z}_2)=e^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_2)}L_n(\stackrel{~}{z}_1)L_m(\stackrel{~}{z}_2)`$ (32)
where:

$`L_m(\stackrel{~}{z}_i)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m!}}e^{\stackrel{~}{z}_i}{\displaystyle \frac{d^m}{d^m\stackrel{~}{z}_i}}\left(e^{\stackrel{~}{z}_i}\stackrel{~}{z}_i^m\right)`$ (33)
and $`L_0(\stackrel{~}{z_i})=1`$, $`L_1(\stackrel{~}{z_i})=1\stackrel{~}{z_i}`$, $`L_2(\stackrel{~}{z_i})=12\stackrel{~}{z_i}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{z_i}^2}{2},\mathrm{}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{z_i}=z_i/\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}`$. The energies corresponding to these $``$-genfunctions are:

$`E_{nm}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}\left(n+m+1\right).`$ (34)
The annihilation and creation operators are given in terms of the transformed variables as:

$`a_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\overline{q}_i+i\overline{p}_i)a_i^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\overline{q}_ii\overline{p}_i).`$ (35)
It is possible to express these operators in terms of the original variables by reversing our transformations. They satisfy the following modified commutation relations

$`a_ia_j^{}a_j^{}a_i=\delta _{ij}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}`$ (36)
and $`a_if_{00}(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i)=0`$. So they generate the $``$-Fock space of states as follows:

$`f_{nm}a_1^na_2^mf_{00}a_2^ma_1^n.`$ (37)
The Hamiltonian takes the following form in terms of annihilation-creation operators:

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left(a_i^{}a_i+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}}{2}}\right).`$ (38)
## 4 Quantum Mechanics and the $``$-genvalue problem in 2D

In the one dimensional case the $``$-genvalue equation is equivalent to the Schrödinger equation, as was shown in . However, in the two dimensional case one has to search for a suitable representation of the commutation relations before writing down an equation. This problem can be overcome for the harmonic oscillator of section 3 by using the transformations (29), to transform the commutation relations to two sets of Heisenberg commutation relations with $`\mathrm{}`$ replaced by $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}`$. The Schrödinger equation with respect to the new variables becomes:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left(\widehat{\overline{q}}_i^2+\widehat{\overline{p}}_i^2\right)\psi (\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i)=E\psi (\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i)`$ (39)
and its eigenfunctions are given by:

$`\psi _{nm}(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i)=\psi _n(\overline{q}_1,\overline{p}_1)\psi _m(\overline{q}_2,\overline{p}_2)`$ (40)
where $`\psi _n`$ are the usual eigenfunctions of the one dimensional harmonic oscillator. This equation splits into two one-dimensional harmonic oscillator equations. Making use of the one-dimensional equivalence of the Schrödinger problem to the $``$-genvalue problem we obtain that equation (39) (with $`\mathrm{}`$ replaced by $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}`$) is equivalent to:

$`H(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i)\overline{}f(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i)=f(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i)\overline{}H(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i)=Ef(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i).`$ (41)
The $`\overline{}`$-product, which is the transformed version of the $``$-product defined in (22), is:

$`\overline{}=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{q}_i}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{p}_i}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{p}_i}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{q}_i})\right].`$ (42)
Going back to the original variables the Schrödinger problem is translated into the $``$-genvalue problem of section 3. The diagonal Wigner functions are given in terms of the wave functions by:

$`f(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_j)`$ $`=`$ $`f(\overline{q}_1,\overline{p}_1)f(\overline{q}_2,\overline{p}_2)`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑y_1𝑑y_2e^{iy_1\overline{p}_1}e^{iy_2\overline{p}_2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}(\overline{q}_i\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}y_i)\mathrm{\Psi }_i(\overline{q}_i+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}y_i)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑y_1𝑑y_2e^{iy_1\overline{p}_1}e^{iy_2\overline{p}_2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_i}.`$
Expressing the Wigner functions in the original variables one has: $`f_0(q_i,p_i)f(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i)`$.

Next let us investigate what happens with the angular momentum. The operator that commutes with the Hamiltonian and generates rotations in the original variables is:

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}}\left[\mathrm{}(q_1p_2q_2p_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}(p_1^2q_1^2+p_2^2q_2^2)\right].`$ (44)
Transforming this to the new variables gives:

$`\overline{L}(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_j)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}}\left[\mathrm{}(\overline{q}_1\overline{p}_2\overline{q}_2\overline{p}_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\left(\overline{q}_2^2+\overline{p}_2^2\overline{q}_1^2\overline{p}_1^2\right)\right].`$ (45)
The angular momentum $``$-genvalue equation becomes:

$`L`$ $`(q_i,p_i)f_0(q_i,p_i)=\overline{L}(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i)\overline{}f(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i)`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{(\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2)}}[\mathrm{}[\overline{q}_1(\overline{p}_2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{q}_2})\overline{q}_2(\overline{p}_1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{q}_1})]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}[\overline{q}_2^2+(\overline{p}_2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{q}_2})^2\overline{q}_1^2(\overline{p}_1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{q}_1})^2]]`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑y_1𝑑y_2e^{iy_1\left(\overline{p}_1+\frac{i}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{q}_1}\right)}e^{iy_2\left(\overline{p}_2+\frac{i}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{q}_2}\right)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_i}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{(\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2)}}{\displaystyle 𝑑y_1𝑑y_2e^{iy_1\overline{p}_1}e^{iy_2\overline{p}_2}}`$
$`\times `$ $`[\mathrm{}[(\overline{q}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}y_1)(i_{y_2}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{q}_2})`$
$``$ $`(\overline{q}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}y_2)(i_{y_1}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{q}_1})]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}[(\overline{q}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}y_2)^2+(i_{y_2}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{q}_2})^2`$
$``$ $`(\overline{q}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}y_1)^2(i_{y_1}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{q}_1})^2]]{\displaystyle }_{i=1}^2\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\left(\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2\right)}}\left[\mathrm{}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}m_z+\theta \left(E_2E_1\right)\right]f(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_j).`$
Here we have used $`p_ie^{iy_ip_i}=i_{y_i}e^{iy_ip_i}`$ and partial integration has been performed. Note that:

$$\left(_{y_i}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}\stackrel{}{}_{\overline{q}_i}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left(\overline{q}_i\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}}{2}y_i\right)=0.$$

The discrete values $`m_z`$ are the eigenvalues of the angular momentum for the commutative two dimensional harmonic oscillator:

$`\widehat{L}\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_j)=\left(\widehat{\overline{q}}_1\widehat{\overline{p}}_2\widehat{\overline{q}}_2\widehat{\overline{p}}_1\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i)=\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2}m_z\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i).`$ (47)
What we have essentially proven is that the solution of the $``$-genvalue problem for the angular momentum is equivalent to the solution of the eigenvalue problem for the angular momentum operator. In the noncommutative case we pick an extra new term that depends on the energy difference of the two oscillations and the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$.

## 5 Rotationally symmetric case

Up to this point we have considered only the case where $`q_i`$ commute with $`p_j`$, for $`ij`$ and the $`q_i`$, $`p_j`$ behave symmetrically, that is $`[q_1,q_2]=[p_1,p_2]`$. Lets consider the more general situation where the commutation relations are governed by a general antisymmetric matrix $`M`$. In this case the $``$-product reads:

$`=\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left[\stackrel{}{}_I^TM_{IJ}\stackrel{}{}_J\right]`$ (48)
where $`_I^T=(_{q_I},_{p_I})`$, and $`M_{IJ}=M_{JI}^T`$ are $`2\times 2`$ matrices. Here the summation convention is assumed. The imaginary part of the $``$-genvalue equation now becomes:

$`X_I^TM_{IJ}_Jf=0`$ (49)
where $`X_I^T=(q_I,p_I)`$. If $`ff(X_I^TX_I)`$ then this equation is satisfied provided that $`M`$ is antisymmetric. Interestingly enough, if one starts with the $``$-genvalue problem for this $`f`$, ignoring the commutation relations, equation (49) would require that the matrix $`M`$ be antisymmetric.

The real part equation turns into the form:

$`\left[X_I^TX_I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(M_{IK_1}_{K_1})^T(M_{IK_2}_{K_2})\right]f=2Ef.`$ (50)
Again demanding $`f=f(X_I^TX_I)`$ we are led to:

$`X_I^TX_If(X_I^TX_I){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr(M_{IK}M_{IK})f^{}(X_I^TX_I)X_{K_1}^TM_{IK_1}^TM_{IK_2}X_{K_2}f^{\prime \prime }(X_I^TX_I)=2Ef(X_I^TX_I).`$ (51)
If this equation is to have rotationally symmetric solutions we need:

$`M_{IK_1}^TM_{IK_2}=\alpha \delta _{K_1K_2}I`$ (52)
with $`I`$ the identity matrix.

Condition (52) can be solved explicitly in the case of four phase-space dimensions. The most general matrix $`M`$ that admits rotationally symmetric $``$-genfunctions is given by:

$`M_{11}=\pm M_{22}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right);M_{12}=M_{21}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\theta & \varphi \\ \pm \varphi & \theta \end{array}\right)`$ (57)
where the two signs correspond to the two possible solutions that exist. We are going to examine more closely the first case, since the second can be treated on equal footing. In the present case the transformations that lead to the Heisenberg commutation relations are: $`\overline{X}=R^TX`$, where $`R`$ is given by:

$`R=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\varphi ^2}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2+\varphi ^2}}& 0& 0& \frac{\theta }{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2+\varphi ^2}}\\ \frac{\theta \varphi }{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2+\varphi ^2}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\varphi ^2}}& \frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\varphi ^2}}& 0& \frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2+\varphi ^2}}\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ \frac{\mathrm{}\theta }{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2+\varphi ^2}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\varphi ^2}}& \frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\varphi ^2}}& 0& \frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2+\varphi ^2}}\end{array}\right)`$ (62)
Certainly these transformations are not unique. They are defined up to symplectic rotations which preserve both the Hamiltonian and the commutation relations in the transformed variables.

The angular momentum is found to be:

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2+\varphi ^2}}\left[\mathrm{}(q_1p_2q_2p_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}(p_1^2q_1^2+p_2^2q_2^2)\varphi (p_1q_1+p_2q_2)\right]`$ (63)
and in the transformed variables is reexpressed as:

$`\overline{L}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2+\varphi ^2}}\left[\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\varphi ^2}(\overline{q}_1\overline{p}_2\overline{q}_2\overline{p}_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}(\overline{q}_1^2+\overline{p}_1^2\overline{q}_2^2\overline{p}_2^2)\right].`$ (64)
Again the $``$-genvalue problem for the Hamiltonian is the same as the Schrödinger problem with $``$-genvalues $`E_{n_1,n_2}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2+\varphi ^2}(n_1+n_2+1)`$. The same equivalence is valid for the angular momentum $``$-genvalue problem producing the $``$-genvalues

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{\left(\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2+\varphi ^2\right)}\left[\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\varphi ^2}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+\theta ^2+\varphi ^2}m_z+\theta \left(E_1E_2\right)\right].$$

In the limit $`\theta ,\varphi 0`$ we can recover from these expressions the usual ones.

## 6 General Case

Let us assume now that the matrix $`M`$ used to define the commutation relations is a general antisymmetric matrix. The following lemma holds :

###### Lemma 1

Let $`(V,\omega )`$ be a symplectic vector space and $`g:V\times VR`$ be an inner product. Then there exists a basis $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_n`$, $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ of $`V`$ which is both $`g`$-orthogonal and $`\omega `$-standard. Moreover, this basis can be chosen such that $`g(u_j,u_j)=g(v_j,v_j)`$ for all j.

This means that it is possible, by rescaling, to find an orthogonal transformation $`R`$ so that:

$`R^TMR=J(M)`$ (65)
where

$`J(M)_{IJ}=\alpha _I\delta _{IJ}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (68)
From (48) we see that if we make the transformation $`\overline{X}=R^TX`$ , then the matrix $`M`$ in the $``$-product is replaced by $`J(M)`$ and the Hamiltonian remains invariant because the transformation is orthogonal. So the $``$-genvalue problem now becomes:

$`\overline{H}\overline{}f=Ef`$ (69)
where $`\overline{}`$ is

$`\overline{}=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{}{\overline{}}_I^TJ(M)_{IK}\stackrel{}{\overline{}}_K\right].`$ (70)
The imaginary part equation (49) becomes:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\alpha _i(\overline{q}_i_{\overline{p}_i}\overline{p}_i_{\overline{q}_i})f(\overline{q}_i,\overline{p}_i)=0`$ (71)
where $`\alpha _i=\alpha _I`$. This equation is satisfied by $`ff(z_i)`$ where $`z_i=2(\overline{q}_i^2+\overline{p}_i^2)`$. For this $`f`$, the real part equation takes the form:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left[z_i_{z_i}^2+_{z_i}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _i^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{z_i}{4}}E_i)\right]f(z_i)=0`$ (72)
where $`E=_iE_i`$. This equation can be separated into a set of equations for each $`z_i`$. Solving these equations we get the eigenvalues $`E_i=\alpha _i(n_i+1/2)`$ and the eigenfunctions:

$`f_{n_i}(z_i)=e^{\frac{1}{2\alpha _i}z_i}L_{n_i}(z_i/\alpha _i).`$ (73)
The overall eigenfunctions are products of the $`f_{n_i}(z_i)`$. The annihilation and creation operators again take the form (35). They satisfy the following commutation relations:

$`a_ia_j^{}a_j^{}a_i=\alpha _i\delta _{ij}`$ (74)
ans the Hamiltonian becomes:

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(a_i^{}a_i+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i}{2}}\right).`$ (75)
Again, the $``$-genvalue problem is equivalent to the Schrödinger problem in the transformed variables. This means that it is also equivalent in the original variables, if one uses the representation for the original variables that result from the usual representation of the transformed ones.

As an example of a non-rotationally symmetric case let us consider the noncommutative Landau problem. Assume for convenience that $`\mathrm{}=1`$. Here the commutation relations are:

$`[q_i,p_j]=i\delta _{ij};[q_1,q_2]=i\theta ;[p_1,p_2]=iB.`$ (76)
The star operator is:

$`=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\stackrel{}{}_{q_1},& \stackrel{}{}_{p_1},& \stackrel{}{}_{q_2},& \stackrel{}{}_{p_2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& \theta & 0\\ 1& 0& 0& B\\ \theta & 0& 0& 1\\ 0& B& 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\stackrel{}{}_{q_1}& & & \\ \stackrel{}{}_{p_1}& & & \\ \stackrel{}{}_{q_2}& & & \\ \stackrel{}{}_{p_2}& & & \end{array}\right)\right].`$ (86)
The $`\alpha _I`$ take the form:

$`\alpha _\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sqrt{(\theta B)^2+4}\pm (\theta +B)\right).`$ (87)
These $`\alpha _\pm `$ correspond to the frequencies of the Landau harmonic oscillator. In this case there is no degeneracy in the $`\alpha _\pm `$ as opposed to the rotationally symmetric case.

The transformation matrix R that corresponds to this case is

$`R=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{\alpha _{}(1+B\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{})}{\sqrt{(1B\theta )^2+\alpha _{}^2(1+B\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{})^2}}& 0& \frac{\alpha _+(1B\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_+)}{\sqrt{(1B\theta )^2+\alpha _+^2(1B\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_+)^2}}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{}^2}}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_+^2}}\\ 0& \frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{}}{\sqrt{1+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{}^2}}& 0& \frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_+}{\sqrt{1+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_+^2}}\\ \frac{1B\theta }{\sqrt{(1B\theta )^2+\alpha _{}^2(1+B\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{})^2}}& 0& \frac{1B\theta }{\sqrt{(1B\theta )^2+\alpha _+^2(1B\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_+)^2}}& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (92)
where we have assumed that $`B\theta <1`$ and

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sqrt{(\theta B)^2+4}\pm (\theta B)\right).`$ (93)
Note that if $`B\theta =1`$ then the fourth row in the transformation matrix becomes zero, so the transformation becomes degenerate, which is not permitted. So there is a critical value for the magnetic field $`B_0=1/\theta `$. At $`B_0`$ the frequency $`\alpha _{}=0`$, so there is an infinite degeneracy at the energy levels, corresponding to the excitations of the $`\alpha _{}`$ oscillator. This problem was solved through a series of transformations in , without resorting to the $``$-genvalue formalism.

As a further example consider the case of the noncommutative Landau problem with the additional commutation relations $`[q_1,p_2]=i\varphi _1`$ and $`[p_1,q_2]=i\varphi _2`$. In this case the frequencies become:

$`\alpha _\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sqrt{(B\theta )^2+4+(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)^2}\pm \sqrt{(B+\theta )^2+(\varphi _1\varphi _2)^2}\right)`$ (94)
and a degeneracy is produced provided that:

$`B\theta \varphi _1\varphi _2=1.`$ (95)
Note that in this case the matrix M in the $``$-product becomes degenerate again.

As a final example consider the six phase space dimensional case. The commutation relations we consider are found to be:

$`[q_i,p_j]=i\delta _{ij};[q_1,q_2]=i\theta _3;[q_1,q_3]=i\theta _2;[q_2,q_3]=i\theta _1.`$ (96)
All other commutation relations are trivial. Now the frequencies $`\alpha _I`$ are

$`\alpha _{1,2}=\sqrt{1+\theta _1^2+\theta _2^2+\theta _3^2},\alpha _3=1.`$ (97)
There is twofold degeneracy for the first frequency. The transformation matrix in this case is:

$`R=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\frac{\theta _1\theta _3}{\alpha \beta }& \frac{\theta _2}{\beta }& 0& \frac{\theta _1\theta _3}{\alpha \beta \gamma }& 0& \frac{\theta _1}{\gamma }\\ \frac{\theta _2}{\alpha \beta }& 0& \frac{\theta _1\theta _3}{\beta \gamma }& \frac{\theta _2\gamma }{\alpha \beta }& \frac{\theta _1}{\gamma }& 0\\ \frac{\theta _2\theta _3}{\alpha \beta }& \frac{\theta _1}{\beta }& 0& \frac{\theta _2\theta _3}{\alpha \beta \gamma }& 0& \frac{\theta _2}{\gamma }\\ \frac{\theta _1}{\alpha \beta }& 0& \frac{\theta _2\theta _3}{\beta \gamma }& \frac{\theta _1\gamma }{\alpha \beta }& \frac{\theta _2}{\gamma }& 0\\ \frac{\beta }{\alpha }& 0& 0& \frac{\beta }{\alpha \gamma }& 0& \frac{\theta _3}{\gamma }\\ 0& 0& \frac{\beta }{\gamma }& 0& \frac{\theta _3}{\gamma }& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (104)
where

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1+\theta _1^2+\theta _2^2+\theta _3^2}`$
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\theta _1^2+\theta _2^2}`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\theta _1^2+\theta _2^2+\theta _3^2}.`$


text:
# Acknowledgements

## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank W. Kluźniak and J. Kowalski-Glikman for valuable comments.


text:
# Deformation and Flow of a Two-Dimensional Foam Under Continuous Shear

thanks: Also at Université Louis Pasteur and Institut Universitaire de France

## Abstract

We investigate the flow properties of a two-dimensional aqueous foam submitted to a quasistatic shear in a Couette geometry. A strong localization of the flow (shear banding) at the edge of the moving wall is evidenced, characterized by an exponential decay of the average tangential velocity. Moreover, the analysis of the rapid velocity fluctuations reveals self-similar dynamical structures consisting of clusters of bubbles rolling as rigid bodies. To relate the instantaneous (elastic) and time-averaged (plastic) components of the strain, we develop a stochastic model where irreversible rearrangements are activated by local stress fluctuations originating from the rubbing of the wall. This model gives a complete description of our observations and is also consistent with data obtained on granular shear bands by other groups.

Cellular materials, such as foams, concentrated emulsions, slurries, or granular materials, exhibit rheological properties that cannot be understood within the scope of standard solid or liquid mechanics Sollich et al. (1997); Langer and Liu (2000); Liu and Nagel (1998). For such systems, thermal energies are orders of magnitude lower than the typical energy required to relax the structural arrangements of their components; under small forces, the material remains trapped in a metastable configuration and exhibits a solid-like behavior. When submitted to a large enough stress however, it can be driven through a sequence of new metastable configurations, giving rise to a macroscopic flow. But the resulting flow field may still differ a lot from what would be expected for a molecular liquid.

Dry sand slowly flowing down an hourglass provides a simple example of such abnormal flow behaviors: the flow splits into a plug-like central region and a strongly sheared thin layer at the wall - a few particles wide - where most of the dissipative process occurs Pouliquen and Gutfraind (1996). This spontaneous localisation of the strain in narrow regions of the material (the so-called shear bands) can be observed in many other situations such as shear, surface, or convective flows for instance Howell et al. (1999); Mueth et al. (2000); Komatsu et al. (2001); knight et al. (1996). Shear banding actually controls most of the practical situations one has to face in soil mechanics and industrial handling of grains, and is also relevant to pyroclastic flows in geology (for a review on granular matter see de Gennes (1999)). This question has recently received a lot of attention from physicists, both theoretically and experimentally Torok et al. (2000); Debrégeas and Josserand (2000), but a clear picture has not emerged yet.

By contrast, the possibility of shear banding in foams has been mostly ignored in the literature, and numerical or theoretical studies usually assume shear flows in foams to be uniform Langer and Liu (2000); Durian (1995). The assumption that shear banding is unique to granular matter can be misleading because it suggests that some peculiar aspects of granular flows, such as solid friction, particle rotation or dilatancy, are required to derive a shear band model.

In this Letter, we report the formation of shear bands in aqueous foams. We believe that foams may shed light on the dynamics of granular systems by evidencing the minimal set of ingredients needed to get shear banding. To that extent, foams constitute a much simpler model than granular systems since the basic bubble/bubble interactions which control the mechanical properties of the material are well known: elastic (stored) energy is related to an increase of the total interfacial area when the bubbles are distorted whereas dissipated energy is associated with neighbors swapping events ($`T_1`$ processes) inducing flows in the liquid films and vertices (for a review on foams, see Weaire and Hutzler (1999)).

In order to probe the microdynamics of the foam, one needs to track the trajectory of each bubble during shearing. Since 3-D foams are inherently diffusive to light, we used a 2-D model foam - a monolayer of bubbles - submitted to a continuous slow shear in a Couette geometry. The setup was composed of an inner shearing wheel and an outer ring (of respective radius $`R_0=71`$mm and $`R_1=122`$mm) confined between two transparent plates separated by a $`2`$mm gap. To produce the foam, the cell was first hold vertically and partially filled with a controlled volume of soap/water solution. Bubbles were formed by blowing nitrogen gas through two small injection holes at different flow rates until the resulting foam reached the top of the cell. Once set horizontally, the foam rapidly attained a uniform wetness characterized by its liquid fraction $`0.01<\varphi <0.3`$ (Fig. 1). This foaming procedure was chosen because it produces bidisperse disordered foams and therefore eliminates crystallisation. The mean diameters within each of the two populations of bubbles were of the order of $`2`$ and $`2.7`$mm, with a mean deviation of $`0.2`$mm. These bubbles were large enough compared to the gap height so that they would not overlap and form a truly two-dimensional foam. To define a bubble scale, we measured the mean distance $`d`$ between first neighbors in the foam. In all experiments, $`d`$ lay between $`2.1`$ and $`2.5`$mm so that the gap between the wheel and the ring could accommodate from $`20`$ to $`25`$ rows of bubbles. The distance $`d`$ was evaluated several times during the experiment and found to be almost constant. Coarsening would eventually lead to a growth of the biggest bubbles at the expense of the smallest ones, but over a longer time. We also checked the absence of shear induced size segregation that might have occurred during the experiment.

Shearing was induced by rotating the inner wheel at constant velocity $`V_{wheel}`$ using a stepper motor. To avoid slippage at the wheel and the ring, their sides were teeth shaped so that the first and last rows of bubbles would remain irreversibly attached to the walls. To eliminate transient effects, we ran the experiment a full round before taking data. The motion of 1000 to 1500 bubbles was then recorded using a CCD digital camera positioned over the setup. In a typical experiment, 3000 images were taken corresponding to a total displacement of $`600d`$ of the wheel edge. The apparent centers of mass of the bubbles were subsequently tracked by image analysis (IDL software). To reduce the effect of the viscous friction between the bubbles and the confining plates, we restricted our study to quasistatic flows. We focused on average velocity measurements as a probe of shear rate dependence: we found that in the range $`0<V_{wheel}<0.7`$mm.s-1, the velocity profiles were similar apart from an overall scale factor. All experiments were performed in the quasistatic regime at $`V_{wheel}=0.25`$mm.s-1. In the following, all velocities and distances are normalized by $`V_{wheel}`$ and $`d`$ respectively. We note $`\omega _0=V_{wheel}/d`$ the characteristic frequency of the shear.

Figure 2(A) shows the decay of the average tangential velocity $`v_\theta (r)`$ with the distance $`r`$ to the shearing wheel for different liquid fractions $`\varphi `$ (see Figure 1(C) for variables definition). Averaging was performed over the tangential coordinate $`r_\theta `$ and time $`t`$, yielding smooth and reproducible profiles, although the instantaneous flow is strongly intermittent. The reduced velocity is found to approach $`1`$ at $`r0`$ confirming the absence of slip at the edge of the wheel. At larger $`r`$, the profiles exhibit an exponential decay :

$$v_\theta (r)\mathrm{exp}(r/\lambda )$$
(1)
with a width $`\lambda `$ depending on $`\varphi `$. The curve $`\lambda `$ versus $`\varphi `$, presented on Figure 2(B), shows two plateaus at low and high volume fraction. The transition between these two regimes occurs around $`\varphi ^{}=0.12`$ which qualitatively marks the limit between dry foams with polygonal bubbles for $`\varphi <\varphi ^{}`$ and wet foams with undeformed bubbles for $`\varphi >\varphi ^{}`$. In both cases, the rapid decay of the mean velocity over a few bubble diameters, establishes the existence of shear banding in foams. The exponential shape of the velocity profile, observed in all experiments, appears as a robust feature which was also observed in comparable experiments performed on 2-D granular materials Howell et al. (1999); Pouliquen and Gutfraind (1996); Losert et al. (2000).

Beyond these time averaged profiles, the present setup allows measurements of the short timescale fluctuations of the bubbles velocities. A mere observation of the video sequences reveals brief oscillations of clusters of bubbles of various radial extension, rotating together as rigid bodies as shown in Figure 3. These dynamical structures are ephemeral and disappear after the wheel edge has moved by roughly one bubble diameter (this was checked by measuring time correlations of the velocity which we found decay to $`0`$ in a time of the order of $`1/\omega _0`$). To quantitatively probe these coherent moves, we studied the spatial correlations of the instantaneous velocity field. We focused on the radial component $`v_r`$ which has a zero time average and therefore gives a better signal to noise ratio (qualitatively, similar results were found when using $`v_\theta v_\theta `$ instead of $`v_r`$). Figure 4(A) shows the correlation function $`g_r(\mathrm{\Delta }r_\theta )=v_r(r,r_\theta ).v_r(r,r_\theta +\mathrm{\Delta }r_\theta )/v_r^2(r)`$ for different values of $`r`$ from $`1`$ to $`10`$, at a volume fraction $`\varphi =0.20`$. Regardless of $`r`$, $`g_r`$ decreases with $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_\theta `$ from $`1`$ to a negative value then slowly relaxes to $`0`$. The length $`\xi (r)`$ for which $`g_r`$ reaches $`0`$ defines a typical correlation length of the velocity field at a distance $`r`$. In Figure 4(B), $`r_\theta `$ has been rescaled by $`r`$. All the curves then collapse on a single one, which demonstrates a linear increase of $`\xi (r)`$ with the radial distance $`r`$: $`\xi (r)=\alpha r`$. Motivated by the observation of oscillating clusters, we modeled the flow field as a superimposition of rotating blocks of bubbles of various sizes (see figure caption for details) which allowed us to obtain a good fit of the master curve (Figure 4(B)). Similar results were obtained at all volume fractions, but the coefficient $`\alpha `$ was found to decrease with $`\varphi `$.

It is crucial to note that the velocity field which yields the measured correlation functions mainly corresponds to reversible movements of the bubbles centers, and thus probes the elastic deformation of the foam rather than the plastic flow. The quantity $`\sqrt{<v_r^2>}/<v_\theta >`$ provides a good estimate of the ratio of reversible to irreversible moves of the bubbles occurring upon shearing. This quantity is larger than $`1`$ beyond the first attached row of bubbles, and gets larger than $`10`$ beyond the fifth row. The correlation measurements thus reveal that the instantaneous stress field is spatially correlated.

This peculiar characteristic of the foam deformation field can actually be understood under the scope of linear elasticity, by simply modeling the foam as an isotropic elastic medium. During the initial loading, a uniform mean stress $`\overline{\sigma }`$ develops in the material (we neglect the radial geometry since the wheel radius is much larger than the shear band width). In the steady state, this uniform stress persists in average but is locally modulated by a fluctuating stress field $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (t)`$ of mean value $`0`$ associated with the continuous rubbing of the wheel teeth. At each location $`(r=0,r_\theta =i)`$ on the wheel edge, the foam is indeed submitted to a localized perturbative stress $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _i(t)`$ of variance $`s_0=\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _0^2`$ varying at a frequency $`\omega _0`$ which elastically propagates into the material. These multiple noise sources add up to produce a stress fluctuation at a position $`(r,r_\theta )`$ of amplitude (see for instance Johnson (1985)):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _r(r_\theta ,t)\underset{i}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _i(t)}{\sqrt{r^2+(r_\theta i)^2}}$$
(2)
Assuming the noise sources to be uncorrelated ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _i(t)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _j(t)=0`$ for $`ij`$), the resulting stress coherence length, at a distance $`r`$, takes the form $`\xi (r)=\alpha r`$, in agreement with our experimental findings. We interpret the different observed values for $`\alpha `$ as a signature of the anisotropy of the foam due to its initial loading. This is consistent with the observation of large values of $`\alpha `$ for the driest foams where the largest uniform deformation is first produced. From Eq. 2, we are also able to compute the variance of the fluctuating stress $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _r(t)`$ as:

$$<\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _r^2>=s(r)\frac{s_0}{\alpha r}$$
(3)
At this point, we wish to relate the fluctuating stress field $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _r(t)`$ to the measured average flow profile presented before, by taking into account the plastic property of the foam. Our approach mostly follows a model proposed by Pouliquen and Gutfraind Pouliquen and Gutfraind (1996) based on Eyring’s activated process theory Glasstone et al. (1941) to describe chute flows of granular materials. In the present description, the variance of the local stress fluctuation $`s(r)`$ plays the role of a temperature allowing plastic flow to occur. The moving boundary acts as a “hot wall”, exciting internal deformation modes of the material in the form of self-similar rotating clusters. When the fluctuating stress overcomes a certain yield stress $`\sigma _y`$, the structure plastically yields. The yielding rate in the material by unit of time and space thus writes : $`\omega =\omega _0P(\sigma >\sigma _y)`$ where $`P(\sigma )`$ is the density probability of stress. The stress at a distance $`r`$ is a sum of $`r`$ random variables (see Eq. 2) so that $`P(\sigma (r))`$ is a gaussian distribution centered on $`\overline{\sigma }`$ of variance $`s(r)`$. Using Eq. 3, the yielding rate at a distance $`r`$ reads:

$$\omega (r)=\omega _0P(\sigma (r)>\sigma _y)=\omega _0\left(1\mathrm{erf}\sqrt{\frac{r}{\lambda }}\right)$$
(4)
with

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{\alpha }\frac{2s_0}{\left(\sigma _y\overline{\sigma }\right)^2}$$
(5)
Each failure increments the average velocity gradient by $`1`$ in reduced unit, so that the constitutive equation for the flow writes $`\frac{v_\theta \left(r\right)}{r}\omega (r)/\omega _0`$ with the boundary conditions $`v_\theta (0)=1`$ and $`v_\theta (\mathrm{})=0`$. A very good approximate function to the integral of $`\omega (r)`$ is given by a pure exponential so that $`v_\theta (r)\mathrm{exp}(r/\lambda )`$.

This model gives the right form of the tangential velocity decay. An outcome of the model is contained in Eq. 5 which relates the $`\alpha `$ coefficient to the plastic flow decay length $`\lambda `$ in the foam. Experimentally, we found $`\alpha \lambda =1.02\pm 0.08`$ ($`\lambda `$ ranging from 1 to 2), which would suggest that $`s_0/(\sigma _y\overline{\sigma })^2`$ is independent of the liquid fraction $`\varphi `$. This quantity is indeed self-adjusted via $`\overline{\sigma }`$ in the transient regime to allow enough rearrangements to occur.

In conclusion, we have observed shear banding in dry and wet 2-D foams under continuous slow shear and we have probed the associated elastic deformations of the foam, characterized by brief, collective oscillations of self-similar blocks of bubbles. We have developed a stochastic model which relates the plastic flow to the stress fluctuations experienced by the foam. The main characteristics of the flow (rapid decay of the average velocity over a few bubbles, large velocity fluctuations) are very similar to what is commonly observed in granular systems, suggesting that the proposed mechanism could remain valid for granular systems. As already mentioned, the predicted exponential velocity decay has been observed in various 2-D granular shear bands Pouliquen and Gutfraind (1996); Howell et al. (1999); Komatsu et al. (2001). Moreover, the velocity profile in 3-D has been shown to obey a gaussian decay in the limit of disordered and non spherical grains Mueth et al. (2000). This functional form for the velocity profile immediately follows from the modification of Eq. 3 in 3-D which then writes $`s(r)\frac{s_0}{\alpha ^2r^2}`$ yielding a gaussian decay for $`v_\theta `$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to D. Mueth for helping us with the image analysis. We wish to thank A. Kabla, S. Roux and C. Josserand for stimulating discussions.