text:
# Renormalizability and searching for 𝑍' gauge bosons

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Among various objectives of the recently finished LEP experiments an important place was devoted to searching for signals of new physics beyond the energy scale of the standard model (SM). Reports on these results are adduced partly in the literature . In the present note we are going to discuss the problem of searching for the heavy $`Z^{}`$ gauge boson. This particle is a necessary element of the different models extending the SM. Low limits on its mass following from the analysis of variety of popular models are found to be in the energy intervals 500–2000 GeV  (see Table 1 which reproduces Table 9 of Ref. ). As it is seen, the values of $`m_Z^{}`$ (as well as the parameters of interactions with the SM particles) are strongly model dependent. Therefore, it seems reasonable to find some model independent signals of this particle. To elaborate that general principles of field theory must be taken into consideration giving a possibility to relate the parameters of different scattering processes. Then, one is able to introduce variables, convenient for the model independent search for $`Z^{}`$ (or other heavy states). These ideas were used in  in order to introduce the model-independent sign definite variables for $`Z^{}`$ detection in scattering processes with $`\sqrt{s}500`$ GeV.

As it has been pointed out in , some parameters of new heavy fields can be related by using the requirement of renormalizability of the underlying model remaining in other respects unspecified. The relations between the parameters of new physics due to the renormalizability were called the renormalization group (RG) relations. In Ref.  the RG relations for the low-energy couplings of the SM fields to the heavy neutral gauge boson ($`Z^{}`$ boson) have been derived. They predict two possible types of $`Z^{}`$ particles, namely, the chiral and the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ ones. Each type is described by a few couplings to the SM fields. Therefore, taking into account the RG correlations between the $`Z^{}`$ couplings, one is able to introduce observables which uniquely pick up the $`Z^{}`$ virtual state . In the present paper we discuss these observables and the possibility of searching for $`Z^{}`$ at the present day and future $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders.

## 2 $`Z^{}`$ COUPLINGS TO FERMIONS

As it was pointed out in Ref. , to derive RG correlations between the parameters of the $`Z^{}`$ interactions with light particles one must specify the model describing physics at low energies. For instance, the minimal SM with the one scalar doublet can be chosen. However, due to the lack of information about scalar fields, models with an extended set of light scalar particles can be also considered. Below we choose the two-Higgs-doublet model (THDM)  as the low-energy theory (notice, the minimal SM is the particular case of the THDM).

To derive the RG relations one has to introduce the parametrization of $`Z^{}`$ couplings to the SM fields. Since we are going to account of the $`Z^{}`$ effects in the low-energy $`e^+e^{}\overline{f}f`$ processes in lower order in $`m_Z^{}^2`$, the linear in $`Z^{}`$ interactions with the SM fields are of interest, only. The renormalizability of the underlying theory and the decoupling theorem  guarantee the dominance of renormalizable $`Z^{}`$ interactions at low energies. The interactions of the non-renormalizable types, generated at high energies due to radiation corrections, are suppressed by the inverse heavy mass. The SM gauge group $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ is considered as a subgroup of the underlying theory group. So, the mixing interactions of the types $`Z^{}W^+W^{}`$, $`Z^{}ZZ`$, … are absent at the tree level. Such conditions are usually used in the literature  and lead to the following parametrization of the linear in $`Z^{}`$ low-energy vertices:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left|\left(D_\mu ^{\mathrm{ew},\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{i\stackrel{~}{g}}{2}}\stackrel{~}{Y}(\varphi _i)\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu \right)\varphi _i\right|^2+`$ (1)
$`i{\displaystyle \underset{f=f_L,f_R}{}}\overline{f}\gamma ^\mu \left(D_\mu ^{\mathrm{ew},f}{\displaystyle \frac{i\stackrel{~}{g}}{2}}\stackrel{~}{Y}(f)\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu \right)f,`$
where $`\varphi _i`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ are the scalar doublets, $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is the charge corresponding to the $`Z^{}`$ gauge group, $`D_\mu ^{\mathrm{ew},\varphi }`$ and $`D_\mu ^{\mathrm{ew},f}`$ are the electroweak covariant derivatives, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu `$ denotes the massive $`Z^{}`$ field before the spontaneous breaking of the electroweak symmetry, and the summation over the all SM left-handed fermion doublets, $`f_L=\{(f_u)_L,(f_d)_L\}`$, and the right-handed singlets, $`f_R=(f_u)_R,(f_d)_R`$, is understood. Diagonal $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(\varphi _i)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(f_L)`$ and numbers $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(f_R)`$ are unknown $`Z^{}`$ generators characterizing the model beyond the SM.

The one-loop RG relations for the above introduced $`Z^{}`$ vertices (1) have been obtained in Ref. . As it was shown, two different types of the $`Z^{}`$ generators are compatible with the renormalizability of the underlying theory. The first type, called the chiral $`Z^{}`$, describes the $`Z^{}`$ boson which couples to the SM doublets, only. The corresponding generators have the zero traces:

$`\stackrel{~}{Y}(\varphi _i)=\stackrel{~}{Y}_\varphi \left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (4)
$`\stackrel{~}{Y}(f_L)=\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,f_u}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (7)
$`\stackrel{~}{Y}(f_R)=0.`$ (8)
The second type is the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson:

$`\stackrel{~}{Y}(\varphi _i)=\stackrel{~}{Y}_\varphi \left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (11)
$`\stackrel{~}{Y}(f_L)=\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,f}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (14)
$`\stackrel{~}{Y}(f_R)=\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,f}+2T_f^3\stackrel{~}{Y}_\varphi ,`$ (15)
where $`T_f^3`$ is the third component of the fermion weak isospin. The relations (11) ensure, in particular, the invariance of the Yukawa terms with respect to the effective low-energy $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ subgroup corresponding to the $`Z^{}`$ boson. As it follows from the relations, the couplings of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ to the axial-vector fermion currents have the universal absolute value proportional to the $`Z^{}`$ coupling to the scalar doublets.

The derived relations (4)–(11) are model-independent ones. They hold in the THDM as well as in the minimal SM. As it is seen from relations (4)–(11), only one parameter for each SM doublet remains arbitrary. The rest parameters are expressed through them. A few number of independent $`Z^{}`$ couplings gives the possibility to introduce the observables convenient for detecting uniquely the $`Z^{}`$ signals in experiments. In what follows, we consider the searching for the $`Z^{}`$ at future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders and treating the obtained at LEP data taking into account the RG relations (4)–(11).

## 3 $`Z^{}`$ SIGNALS AT FUTURE $`e^+e^{}`$ COLLIDERS

The model-independent $`Z^{}`$ searches at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders are intensively discussed in the literature (see, for instance, the reports ). The LEP experiments at energies $`\sqrt{s}200`$ GeV were completed recently. The analysis of the obtained data will constrain, in particular, the possible $`Z^{}`$ signals. In this regard, the RG relations (4)–(11) can be used to introduce the observables convenient for the detection of the $`Z^{}`$ signals in the electron-positron annihilation into the fermion pairs . Before discussing the LEP case, we consider the observables for future linear colliders with the center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}500`$ GeV. At energies $`\sqrt{s}500`$ GeV the observables can be simplified significantly, since the $`Z`$-boson mass can be neglected and all the $`Z^{}`$ effects can be described by the four-fermion contact interactions induced by the heavy $`Z^{}`$ exchange. The magnitude of these contact interactions is independent of the center-of-mass energy, therefore any value of $`\sqrt{s}`$ gives predictions close to the $`m_Z0`$.

Consider the process $`e^+e^{}V^{}\overline{f}f`$ ($`fe,t`$) with the neutral vector boson exchange ($`V=A,Z,Z^{}`$). We assume the non-polarized initial- and final-state fermions. Since the $`t`$ quark is not considered, the fermions can be treated as massless particles, $`m_f0`$. In this approximation the left-handed and the right-handed fermions can be substituted by the helicity states, which we mark as $`\lambda `$ and $`\xi `$ for the incoming electron and the outgoing fermion, respectively ($`\lambda ,\xi =L,R`$).

The differential cross section of the process $`e^+e^{}V^{}\overline{f}f`$ deviates from its SM value by a quantity of order $`m_Z^{}^2`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _f}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi s}}\text{Re}[𝒜_{\mathrm{SM}}^{}`$
$`\times (𝒜_Z^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒜_Z}{d\theta _0}}|_{\theta _0=0}\theta _0)],`$
$`𝒜_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_A+𝒜_Z(\theta _0=0),`$ (16)
where $`\theta `$ denotes the angle between the momentum of the incoming electron and the momentum of the outgoing fermion, $`𝒜_V`$ is the Born amplitude of the process, and $`\theta _0m_W^2/m_Z^{}^2`$ is the $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$ mixing angle. The leading contribution comes from the interference between the $`Z^{}`$ exchange amplitude, $`𝒜_Z^{}`$, and the SM amplitude, $`𝒜_{\mathrm{SM}}`$, whereas the $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$ mixing terms are suppressed by the additional small factor $`m_Z^2/s`$. Notice that the deviation $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _f/d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ depends on the center-of-mass energy through the quantity $`m_Z^2/s`$, only.

To take into consideration the correlations (4), (11) let us introduce the observable $`\sigma _f(z)`$ defined as the difference of cross sections integrated in some ranges of the scattering angle $`\theta `$, which will be specified below :

$`\sigma _f(z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _z^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _f}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle _1^z}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _f}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (17)
$`=`$ $`\sigma _f^T\left[A_f^{FB}\left(1z^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{z}{4}}\left(3+z^2\right)\right],`$
where $`z`$ stands for the boundary angle, $`\sigma _f^T`$ denotes the total cross section and $`A_f^{FB}`$ is the forward-backward asymmetry of the process. The idea of introducing the $`z`$-dependent observable (17) is to choose the value of the kinematic parameter $`z`$ in such a way that to pick up the characteristic features of the $`Z^{}`$ signals. In the next sections we will consider the deviations from the SM predictions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _f(z)`$, induced by the chiral and the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ bosons.

### 3.1 Chiral $`Z^{}`$

In case of the chiral $`Z^{}`$ the deviation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _f(z)`$ can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _f(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}\stackrel{~}{g}^2}{32m_Z^{}^2}}(𝒢_1^f(z,s)\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,f}\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,e}`$ (18)
$`+𝒢_2^f(z,s)\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,f}\stackrel{~}{Y}_\varphi `$
$`+𝒢_3^f(z,s)\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,e}\stackrel{~}{Y}_\varphi ),`$
where $`\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}`$ is the fine structure constant, and $`𝒢_i^f(z,s)`$ are the factors dependent on the SM parameters, only. The leading contribution to the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _f(z)`$ comes from the first term in the sum, since the functions $`𝒢_2^f(z,s)`$ and $`𝒢_3^f(z,s)`$ originate from $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$ mixing and contain the additional small factor $`m_Z^2/s`$. So, for the center-of-mass energies $`\sqrt{s}500`$ GeV the deviation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _f(z)`$ is computed to within 2% in the form:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _f(z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}\stackrel{~}{g}^2}{32m_Z^{}^2}}𝒢_1^f(z,s)\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,f}\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,e},`$
$`𝒢_1^f(z,s)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4T_f^3N_f}{3}}\left(1+|Q_f|+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (19)
$`\times \left(1zz^2{\displaystyle \frac{z^3}{3}}\right),`$
where $`N_f`$ is the number of colors, $`Q_f`$ is the fermion charge in the positron charge units, and dots stand for the terms of order $`O(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,m_Z^2/s)`$ ($`\theta _W`$ is the Weinberg angle).

As it is seen, the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _f(z)`$ is proportional to the same polynomial in $`z`$ for any final fermion state. As a consequence of these factorization, the observable $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _f(z)`$ is completely determined by the deviation of the total cross section. This is the distinguished property of the chiral $`Z^{}`$ signal.

Comparing the deviations $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _f(z)`$ for the fermions which belong to the same left-handed isodoublet, $`\{f_u,f_d\}`$, one finds that the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{f_u}(z)/\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{f_d}(z)`$ is independent of the boundary angle $`z`$. It equals to 5/4 for quarks and 1/2 for leptons in lower order in small parameters $`14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W0.08`$ and $`m_W^2/s`$.

At $`z=2^{2/3}10.5874`$ the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _f(z)`$ becomes zero. In other words, the chiral $`Z^{}`$ signal can be kinematically suppressed by choosing this value of the boundary angle. On the other hand, among the deviations $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _f(z)`$ computed at different boundary angles $`z`$, the deviation of the total cross section is maximal.

### 3.2 Abelian $`Z^{}`$

Now, let us consider the observables for the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ signals at future linear colliders. In this case the quantity (17) can be written as follows

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _f(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}\stackrel{~}{g}^2}{16m_Z^{}^2}}(_0^f(z,s)a_Z^{}^2`$ (20)
$`+_1^f(z,s)v_Z^{}^fv_Z^{}^e+_2^f(z,s)v_Z^{}^f|a_Z^{}|`$
$`+_3^f(z,s)v_Z^{}^e|a_Z^{}|).`$
where $`v_Z^{}^f(\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,f}+\stackrel{~}{Y}_{R,f})/2`$ and $`a_Z^{}^f(\stackrel{~}{Y}_{R,f}\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,f})/2=T_f^3\stackrel{~}{Y}_\varphi `$ are the $`Z^{}`$ couplings to the vector and the axial-vector fermion currents. Functions $`_i^f(z,s)`$ are determined by the SM quantities and depend on the fermion type throw the charge $`Q_f`$ and the number of colors $`N_f`$, only. They are independent of the fermion generation. The leading contributions to the lepton factors $`_2^l(z,s)=_3^l(z,s)`$ equal to zero. So, by choosing the boundary angle $`z^{}`$ to be the solution to the equation $`_1^l(z^{},s)=0`$, one can switch off three lepton factors $`_i^l(z,s)`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ simultaneously. Note that the function $`z^{}(s)`$ is the decreasing function of energy. This is shown in Fig. 1 for energies $`\sqrt{s}=200`$–700 GeV.

By choosing $`z=z^{}`$, we obtain the sign definite observable

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}\stackrel{~}{g}^2}{16m_Z^{}^2}}_0^l(z^{},s)a_Z^{}^2`$ (21)
$``$ $`0.10{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}\stackrel{~}{g}^2\stackrel{~}{Y}_\varphi ^2}{16m_Z^{}^2}}<0.`$
The quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$ is negative and the same for the all types of SM charged leptons. This is the model-independent signal of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson.

For the energy values in the range $`\sqrt{s}500`$ GeV one also is able to introduce the sign definite observables for the quarks of the same generation:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _q(z^{})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{q_u}+0.5\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{q_d}`$ (22)
$``$ $`2.45\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})<0.`$
Thus, the signal of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson can be detected from the quark variables $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{q_u}(z^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{q_d}(z^{})`$ which are dependent. Moreover, they are related to the lepton observable $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$. Possible values of the quark variables in the plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{q_u}(z^{})`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{q_d}(z^{})`$ are to be at a straight line crossing the axes in the points $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{q_u}(z^{})=2.45\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{q_d}(z^{})=4.9\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$, respectively (see Fig. 2). As the chiral $`Z^{}`$ boson is concerned, experimental data have to be at some point on the different straight line $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{q_u}(z^{})=5\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{q_d}(z^{})/4`$. This fact is very important distinguishable feature of the variables $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _q(z^{})`$, which select the $`Z^{}`$ boson signals in the processes $`e^+e^{}\overline{f}f`$. As a result, introduced observables are perspective in the model-independent searching for the $`Z^{}`$ signals at future linear colliders.

## 4 $`Z^{}`$ SIGNALS AT LEP ENERGIES

Now, let us discuss the applicability of the introduced observables to analyse the LEP data. At the LEP center-of-mass energies $`\sqrt{s}200`$ GeV the effects of the $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$ mixing become more pronounced and the observables (18) and (20) become more complicated. In what follows, we consider the lepton observables $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z)`$, only. Some lepton factors $`𝒢_i^l(z)`$ and $`_i^l(z)`$, entering the quantities (18) and (20), are dependent: $`𝒢_2^l(z,s)=𝒢_3^l(z,s)`$ and $`_2^l(z,s)=_3^l(z,s)`$. In Figs. 34 we compare the factors for the chiral $`Z^{}`$ and the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ computed at the energies $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV and $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV.

As it is seen, at the LEP energies the contributions of the chiral factors $`𝒢_2^l(z)=𝒢_3^l(z)`$ are of order 10–15% of $`𝒢_1^l(z)`$. Therefore, they cannot be omitted, as it was resonable done for energies $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV. These contributions spoil the factorization of the dependence on the boundary angle $`z`$ for the observable $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z)`$. Therefore, the proportionality of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z)`$ to the total cross-section deviation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l^T`$ does not hold.

In Fig. 4 we show the factors $`_i^l(z,s)`$ computed at energies $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ and 500 GeV. As it is occurred, the only factor $`_0^l(z)`$ at $`a_Z^{}^2`$ changes significantly. Other functions $`_1^l(z,s)`$, $`_2^l(z,s)=_3^l(z,s)`$ contribute less than 2%. Hence, as the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ is concerned, one is able to introduce the sign-definite lepton observables $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$ at the LEP energies. These observables differ from ones at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV by the larger value of the boundary angle $`z^{}=0.366`$ ($`z^{}=0.317`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV).

In fact, the quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$ depend on one unknown $`Z^{}`$ parameter, $`\stackrel{~}{g}^2\stackrel{~}{Y}_\varphi ^2/m_Z^{}^2`$, only:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})0.528\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}\stackrel{~}{g}^2\stackrel{~}{Y}_\varphi ^2}{16m_Z^{}^2}.$$
(23)
Moreover, this parameter determines the deviation of the $`\rho `$-parameter, $`\rho m_W^2/(m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W)`$, from unit :

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}^2\stackrel{~}{Y}_\varphi ^2}{m_Z^{}^2}\frac{4\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}{m_W^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}\left(\rho 1\right).$$
(24)
As a result, the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ signal is described by the model-independent relations:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\mu (z^{})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\tau (z^{})`$ (25)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.528\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2}{4m_W^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\left(\rho 1\right)<0.`$
Hence, there are three different sign-definite observables to measure only one parameter of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson. This one-parametric dependence of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ signal gives a possibility to derive severe model-independent constraints on the $`Z^{}`$ couplings. Thus, the observables $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$ were found to be the most sensitive for the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ searches when one treats the LEP data.

The present investigation shown that the necessary condition of the renormalizability of the underlying theory, formulated in relations (4) and (11), gives the possibility to determine a number of specific correlations between different scattering processes and to introduce the model-independent observables convenient in searching for signals of the chiral and the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ bosons both at future $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders and at energies of LEP.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In its simplest form, noncommutative geometry is characterized by a pair of coordinates which do not commute in the same sense that canonically conjugate positions and momenta do not commute in quantum mechanics,

$$[x,y]=i\theta ,$$
(1)
where $`\theta `$ is a dimensionful parameter. Over the past few years, it has become increasingly apparent that noncommutative geometry plays an important role in string theory . However, such a commutation relation also appears in a much simpler context, that of charged particles in a strong magnetic field.

For a single particle of unit charge moving in two dimensions under the influence of a constant magnetic field, the Lagrangian is given by

$$L=\frac{m}{2}(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2)+\frac{1}{2}B(\dot{x}y\dot{y}x).$$
(2)
It is well known that the eigenstates of this system lie in Landau levels, degenerate sets of states at energies given by $`E_n=(n+\frac{1}{2})\frac{B}{m}`$. In each level, the degeneracy is equal to one state for each unit of area defined by the inverse density of flux quanta. In the limit of very large magnetic field, particles are restricted to the lowest Landau level, and the physics may be described by ignoring the first term in (2). Canonically quantizing the resulting system, we are led to precisely the commutation relation (1) with $`\theta `$ replaced by $`\frac{1}{B}`$. Thus, the two dimensional coordinate space becomes the phase space for the system and gives a simple realization of a noncommutative geometry.

The physics of electrons in the lowest Landau level exhibits many fascinating properties. In particular, when the electron density lies at certain rational fractions of the density corresponding to a fully filled lowest Landau level, the electrons condense into special incompressible fluid-like states whose excitations exhibit such unusual phenomena as fractional charge and fractional statistics. These states also have a gap in their excitation spectrum which gives rise to the experimentally observed fractional quantum Hall effect (for a recent review, see  and references therein). For the filling fractions $`1/k`$, the physics of these states is accurately described by certain wavefunctions proposed by Laughlin, and more general wavefunctions may be written down describing the various types of excitations about the Laughlin states.

Given that the first quantized system of a particle in a strong magnetic field naturally realizes a noncommutative space, it is interesting to speculate that the second-quantized field theory description of the Quantum Hall fluid for various filling fractions might involve a noncommutative field theory. In a recent paper by Susskind , this possibility was put forward in a precise conjecture, that the Laughlin state of electrons at filling fraction $`1/k`$ is precisely described by the noncommutative version of $`U(1)`$ Chern-Simons theory at level $`k`$. Subsequently, Polychronakos  proposed that a particular matrix regularized version of this level $`k`$ noncommutative Chern-Simons theory could be used to describe a finite number of electrons in a “droplet” of the Quantum Hall fluid at filling fraction $`1/k`$.

In this paper, we cement the connection between noncommutative Chern-Simons theory and the Laughlin theory of the Quantum Hall fluid. Specifically, write down the complete set of exact wavefunctions of the Polychronakos model and show that they are in one-to-one correspondence with wavefunctions describing excitations of a filling fraction $`1/k`$ Quantum Hall droplet in the Laughlin theory (the Hilbert spaces are isomorphic and the energy levels are the same). By taking the limit of a large number of electrons, this should imply that the filling fraction $`1/k`$ Quantum Hall fluid of infinite extent is well described by the noncommutative $`U(1)`$ Chern-Simons theory at level $`k`$, as conjectured by Susskind.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2, we review some basic properties of charged fermions in the lowest Landau level. We review Laughlin’s wavefunctions for the filling fraction $`\nu =1/k`$ states as well as the more general wavefunctions describing excitations about these states. In section 3, we describe the noncommutative Chern-Simons theory and its matrix description, and review some of the evidence put forward by Susskind that this theory describes the fractional quantum Hall fluid. In section 4, we present the finite dimensional matrix Chern-Simons theory proposed by Polychronakos and review its quantization. Section 5 contains the main results of this paper: we write down explicitly the wavefunctions for a complete minimal basis of energy eigenstates for the theory and show that they are in one-to-one correspondence with wavefunctions describing excitations of a quantum Hall droplet described by the Laughlin theory at $`1/k`$. In section 6, we offer some concluding remarks.

## 2 Charged particles in the lowest Landau level

In this section, we review some aspects of the physics of charged fermions in a strong magnetic field. We recall Laughlin’s wavefunctions describing particles in the lowest Landau level at filling fractions $`1/k`$ as well as the more general wavefunctions describing excitations about these states.

We begin by considering a single particle of mass $`m`$ and unit charge in a magnetic field $`B`$. It is convenient to break the degeneracy arising from translation invariance, so we also include a harmonic oscillator potential (which we may take to be arbitrarily weak). The complete Lagrangian is then given (in the radial gauge $`A_i=\frac{1}{2}Bϵ^{ij}x^j)`$ by

$$L=\frac{m}{2}\dot{x}_i^2+\frac{B}{2}ϵ^{ij}\dot{x}_ix_j\frac{1}{2}\kappa x_i^2.$$
(3)
The energy eigenstates for this system may be determined exactly. In the limit $`m0`$ (equivalent to strong magnetic field), the wavefunctions whose energies remain finite relative to the ground state energy may be labeled by an integer $`n0`$ and are given by

$$\stackrel{}{x}|n=\sqrt{\frac{B^{n+1}}{2^{n+1}\pi n!}}z^ne^{\frac{B}{4}|z|^2}$$
(4)
where $`z=x+iy`$. These have energies $`E_n=\frac{\kappa }{B}(n+\frac{1}{2})`$.

Another way to arrive at these states is by taking $`m=0`$ at the start. Then the canonical commutation relations give

$$[x,y]=\frac{i}{B}$$
(5)
and the Hamiltonian is that of a Harmonic oscillator,

$$H=\frac{\kappa }{B}(a^{}a+\frac{1}{2})$$

where we have defined $`a=\sqrt{\frac{B}{2}}(x+iy)`$ so that $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ have the usual commutation relations of creation and annihilation operators. The eigenstates, again labeled by $`n`$, are of course

$$|n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}(a^{})^n|0$$
(6)
with energies as above.

It will be helpful to understand the precise relationship between these wavefunctions (6), which depend only on a single variable, and those in (4) which depend on two coordinates . In the reduced system, we may define a coherent state basis $`|z`$ by $`a|z=z|z`$. In this basis, we have $`z|n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}z^n`$, so we see that the analytic part of the lowest Landau level wavefunctions (4) should be identified with the coherent state wavefunction $`z|\psi `$ in the system with reduced phase space.

In the second picture, it is valuable to note that the hamiltonian $`H`$ is proportional to the radius squared operator, $`H=\frac{1}{2}\kappa R^2`$ and also generates rotations (because of the commutation relation (5)). Thus, the state labeled by $`n`$ has energy, angular momentum and $`R^2`$ all proportional to $`n`$.

Consider now the system of $`N`$ fermions, each described by the Lagrangian (3) in the limit of large magnetic field (we assume for now that their interactions may be ignored). The wavefunctions must be completely antisymmetric and it is easy to see that an orthogonal basis of energy eigenstates is provided by the set of wavefunctions

$$|\{n_i\}=ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}a_{i_1}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_N}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_N}|0,$$
(7)
where $`n_1<n_2<\mathrm{}<n_N`$. These correspond to states with one particle in each of the energy levels labeled by $`n_i`$, so the total energy is $`E=\frac{\kappa }{B}(\frac{N}{2}+n_i)`$. In the original two dimensional language, these may be written as

$$\stackrel{}{x}|\{n_i\}=ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}z_{i_1}^{n_1}\mathrm{}z_{i_N}^{n_N}e^{\frac{B}{4}{\scriptscriptstyle |z_i|^2}}.$$
(8)
The ground state corresponds to choosing $`n_i=i1`$, so that the $`R^2`$ expectation value for the outermost particle is $`R^2=\frac{2}{B}(N\frac{1}{2})`$. The disc bounded by this radius contains $`N`$ quanta of flux (the density of flux quanta is $`B/2\pi `$), so we see that the ground state corresponds to a circular “quantum hall droplet” with filling fraction $`\nu =1`$. Since the number of states per unit area in the lowest Landau level is equal to the number of flux lines per unit area, this ground state droplet is maximally dense and therefore incompressible. This may be seen directly by noting that the size of the droplet is independent of the strength of the harmonic oscillator potential. As a result, the external potential we have introduced should not significantly affect the physics of the droplet.

Using Fact 1 from the appendix, we may rewrite the $`\nu =1`$ ground state wavefunction $`|\psi _1|n_i=i1`$ in a more standard form,

$$\stackrel{}{x}|\psi _1=\left(\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}(z_iz_j)\right)e^{\frac{B}{4}{\scriptscriptstyle |z_i|^2}}.$$
(9)
As required by antisymmetry, the wavefunction vanishes as any two particles become coincident. This also ensures that the wavefunction will continue to provide a good description in the presence of repulsive interparticle interactions as long as they are sufficiently weak/short-ranged.

Systems of electrons in a strong magnetic field also condense into special incompressible states at certain rational filling fractions, giving rise to the fractional quantum Hall effect. Generalizing the $`\nu =1`$ ground state wavefunction (9), Laughlin  proposed that for $`\nu =1/k`$, these fractional Quantum hall states could be accurately described by wavefunctions

$`\stackrel{}{x}|\psi _{1/k}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}}(z_iz_j)^k\right)e^{\frac{B}{4}{\scriptscriptstyle |z_i|^2}}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\left(ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}z_{i_1}^0\mathrm{}z_{i_N}^{N1}\right)^ke^{\frac{B}{4}{\scriptscriptstyle |z_i|^2}}.`$
It is easy to see that the highest power of a given $`z_i`$ appearing (proportional to the radius squared of the droplet) is $`k(N1)`$, so this state has an electron density of $`1/k`$ times the $`\nu =1`$ ground state, as required. The presence of an additional factor $`(z_iz_j)^{k1}`$ for each pair of particles relative to the $`\nu =1`$ state (and therefore an additional phase of $`(1)^{k1}`$ when the particles are interchanged) may be understood to arise from interparticle interactions which result in the binding of $`k1`$ flux lines to each electron, forming a “composite fermion” . This helps to minimize the repulsive Coulomb potential, as is evident from the rapid vanishing of the wavefunction as any two particles approach each other. The resulting composite fermions are weakly interacting and feel a reduced net magnetic field corresponding to the unattached flux lines. The density of composite fermions is precisely equal to the density of these unattached flux lines, so the $`\nu =1/k`$ state may be interpreted as the $`\nu =1`$ state of the composite fermions. It is important to note that $`k`$ must be an odd integer in order to preserve the fermionic statistics of the particles (reflected in the antisymmetry of the wavefunction).

Based on this composite fermion picture, the general set of wavefunctions describing excitations of the $`\nu =1/k`$ state should be obtained from the $`\nu =1`$ wavefunctions (8) simply by multiplying by the factor $`(z_iz_j)^{k1}`$ corresponding to the flux attachment. Equivalently, the wavefunctions describing excitations of the $`1/k`$ state may be taken to be the subset of energy eigenstates states spanned by the basis (8) which contain a zero of order at least $`k`$ when any pair of particles become coincident.

Using the harmonic oscillator representation (which will be most convenient for our later comparison), a minimal basis of wavefunctions describing excitations of the $`\nu =1/k`$ state in the Laughlin theory is therefore given by

$$|\{n_i\},k=ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}a_{i_1}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_N}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_N}(ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}a_{i_1}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}\mathrm{}a_{i_N}^{}{}_{}{}^{N1})_{}^{k1}|0$$
(11)
where $`n_i`$ are integers such that $`0n_1<\mathrm{}<n_N`$. The energies of these states is given by $`E(\{n_i\},k)=\frac{\kappa }{B}(\frac{N}{2}(1+(k1)(N1))+n_i)`$

Using Fact 2 from the appendix, it is not difficult to see that another minimal basis of wavefunctions is given by

$$|\{c_i\},k=(a_i^{}{}_{}{}^{N})^{c_N}\mathrm{}(a_i^{})^{c_1}(ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}a_{i_1}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}\mathrm{}a_{i_N}^{}{}_{}{}^{N1})^k|0$$
(12)
where $`c_i`$ are arbitrary non-negative integers and the energy of these states is $`E=\frac{\kappa }{B}(\frac{N}{2}(1+k(N1))+mc_m)`$.

In section 5, we will construct two bases of the wavefunctions for the finite $`N`$ matrix noncommutative Chern-Simons theory and see that they have a structure almost identical to the two bases constructed here. In preparation for this, we provide a brief review in the next two sections of the noncommutative Chern-Simons theory, its matrix decription, and the finite dimensional matrix version proposed by Polychronakos.

## 3 Noncommutative Chern-Simons theory

Chern-Simons theory with gauge group U(1) on noncommutative two-dimensional space is described by an action

$$S=\frac{k}{4\pi }d^3xϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\left(A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda +\frac{2}{3}A_\mu A_\nu A_\lambda \right).$$

where

$$fg=e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta ϵ^{ij}_i^f_j^g}fg$$

This theory is invariant under arbitrary noncommutative gauge transformations (trivial at infinity) given by

$$A_\mu U^1A_\mu U+iU^1_\mu U$$

as long as $`k`$ (the level) is an integer . Note that the appearance of a cubic term in the action and the quantization of the level occurs even for the case of $`U(1)`$, unlike in the commutative theory.

The theory may be written in an equivalent form by choosing the gauge $`A_0=0`$ in which case the action becomes

$$S=\frac{k}{4\pi }d^3xϵ^{ij}A_i_tA_j$$
(13)
while the equation of motion for $`A_0`$ must be imposed as a constraint,

$$F_{ij}=_iA_j_jA_iiA_iA_j+iA_jA_i=0$$
(14)
It turns out that this action and constraint also arise from a matrix model in $`0+1`$ dimensions, given by

$$S=\frac{k}{\theta }𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ij}DX^iX^j\right)+k𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}(A)$$
(15)
where X and A are hermitian matrices . The action is invariant under gauge transformations

$$X^iU^1X^iU,AU^1AU+iU^1_tU$$

as long as $`U`$ is taken to be trivial at $`t=\pm \mathrm{}`$ and $`k`$ is an integer. We may choose the gauge $`A=0`$ in which case the action becomes

$$S=\frac{k}{\theta }𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ij}\dot{X}^iX^j\right)$$
(16)
while the equation of motion for A is

$$[X^1,X^2]=i\theta \text{1}\text{ }\text{1}$$
(17)
which must be taken as a constraint (note that the commutator here is a matrix commutator). This has no solutions for finite dimensional matrices (as may be seen by taking the trace), thus, we must take $`X^i`$ to be infinite dimensional. A particular solution is $`X^i=y^i`$, where $`y^1`$ and $`y^2/\theta `$ are the usual matrices representing $`x`$ and $`p`$ in the harmonic oscillator basis. Expanding the action (16) and constraint (17) about this classical solution, $`X^i=y^i+\theta ϵ^{ij}A_j`$ and considering $`A_j`$ to be functions of the noncommuting coordinates $`y^i`$ gives precisely the Lagrangian (13) with the constraint (14).111This step requires making the transition from the operator formalism for fields on noncommutative space to the representation in terms of ordinary functions multiplied by the star products. Explicitly, we have
$$[y_i,f]i\theta ϵ_{ik}_kf,\mathrm{Tr}(f_1\mathrm{}f_n)\frac{1}{2\pi \theta }d^2x(f_1\mathrm{}f_n)$$
For more details of the relationship between these two representations, see for example . Thus, the matrix model (15), expanded about the background $`X^i=y^i`$ is equivalent to the noncommutative $`U(1)`$ Chern-Simons theory. To be precise, we should restrict to fluctuations $`A_i`$ about the background described by compact operators (this is equivalent to the condition that the fields vanish at infinity in the field theory language) with a similar condition on the allowed gauge transformations . Interestingly, the same matrix model expanded about a different background $`X^i=y^i\text{1}\text{ }\text{1}_{N\times N}`$ gives the $`U(N)`$ noncommutative Chern-Simons theory (this highlights the need to restrict the allowed $`X`$’s to a specific subset of all hermitian matrices before the matrix model gives a well defined theory).

Starting from the matrix action (16), canonical quantization gives the commutation relations

$$[X_{mn}^1,X_{pq}^2]=i\frac{\theta }{k}\delta _{mq}\delta _{np}.$$

Thus, we may choose the wavefunction to be a function of the matrix $`X=X^1`$ and represent $`X^2`$ as

$$X_{mn}^2=\frac{\theta }{k}i\frac{}{X_{nm}}.$$

The constraint (17) should then be imposed as an operator constraint on the wavefunction. With the proper operator ordering, the left side of (17) generates $`U(N)`$ transformations on the wavefunction , and it follows that the constraint is equivalent to the condition

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(U^1XU)=(\mathrm{det}U)^k\mathrm{\Psi }(X).$$
(18)
Since the Hamiltonian for the theory is zero, this equation provides all the information about the allowed wavefunctions.222However, as discussed above, we must be careful to restrict to an appropriate subset of allowed $`X`$’s and $`U`$’s before the theory is well defined.

Because the matrices are infinite dimensional, it is difficult to determine solutions to this constraint or even to understand whether it has well defined solutions without some sort of regularization. However, as pointed out in  this constraint already provides some direct evidence for a connection with the Laughlin states. Specifically, if $`U`$ is taken to be a permutation matrix which would permute two elements of a diagonal matrix, then we have $`\mathrm{det}(U)=1`$, so (18) indicates that the wavefunction obeys fermionic statistics for odd values of $`k`$ and bosonic statistics for even values of $`k`$. Identifying $`k`$ with the inverse filling fraction in the Laughlin theory, this gives precisely the relation between statistics and filling fraction obeyed in the Laughlin wavefunctions.

In order to proceed further, it is very helpful to work with a regulated version of the theory that is consistent with finite dimensional matrices. Such a theory has been proposed by Polychronakos . In the next section, we review his construction, and in section 5 determine the complete set of allowed wavefunctions for the theory.

## 4 Finite N Matrix Chern-Simons theory

In , Polychronakos proposed a modification of the action (16) to make it consistent with matrices of arbitrary finite dimension $`N`$. He suggested that the resulting action should provide a description of the states of a quantum hall droplet of finite extent composed of $`N`$ electrons. Further, he showed that many of the expected excitations of a quantum hall droplet, including area-preserving boundary excitations and quasiholes with fractional charge $`1/k`$, appear naturally in the model.

The action proposed by Polychronakos is

$$S=\frac{k}{2\theta }𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left(ϵ^{ij}DX^iX^j\omega X_i^2\right)+i𝑑t\mathrm{\Psi }^{}D\mathrm{\Psi }+k𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}(A).$$

Relative to the orginal matrix model (16), there are two additional terms. The first is a potential term $`\omega X_i^2`$ analogous to the harmonic oscillator potential considered in section 2. Again, this serves to break the degeneracy arising from translation invariance and also provides a Hamiltonian for the theory that selects a unique ground state.

The other new term involves complex bosons $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ transforming in the fundamental representation of the gauge group. With the additional $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ term, the constraint becomes

$$[X^1,X^2]_{mn}+\frac{i\theta }{k}\mathrm{\Psi }_m\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}=i\theta \delta _{mn}.$$
(19)
This is now consistent with finite dimensional $`X^i`$ since the left side is no longer traceless. For $`N\times N`$ matrices the trace of this equation gives

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_m=Nk.$$
(20)
As demonstrated in  the constraints may be explicitly solved classically by using the $`U(N)`$ symmetry to make $`X^1`$ diagonal and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ real. The resulting system, with no remaining gauge symmetry apart from the permutations, contains $`N`$ real degrees of freedom, the same number as $`N`$ electrons in the lowest Landau level.333In fact, as discussed in  the theory obtained in this way is precisely the Calogero model for $`N`$ particles in one dimension.

As discussed in , a useful way to understand the relationship of this theory to the original Chern-Simons theory is to note that in a particular gauge, we may solve the trace part of constraint (20) by taking

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_i=(0,0,\mathrm{},\sqrt{kN}).$$

The resulting theory, with the harmonic oscillator potential taken to zero, retains a $`U(N1)\times U(1)`$ symmetry, and is described by the Lagrangian (16) and the constraint (17) modified so that the $`(N,N)`$ entry of the right hand side becomes $`i\theta (1N)`$. This is essentially the minimal modification of the original matrix Chern-Simons theory to make it consistent with finite dimensional matrices. In the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ limit, the constraint equation formally goes over to the original one (17) so it seems reasonable to claim that the $`N=\mathrm{}`$, $`\omega 0`$ limit of the Polychronakos model is noncommutative Chern-Simons theory. Alternately, we may think of this limit as a particular way of giving a well defined definition of non-commutative Chern-Simons theory.

Let us now consider the finite matrix Chern-Simons theory quantum mechanically, following . Rather than solving the constraint before quantization, we will proceed by first quantizing the theory and then applying the constraints as operator conditions on the wavefunction. It is convenient to introduce the matrix $`A\sqrt{\frac{k}{2\theta }}(X+iY)`$. Then the canonical commutation relations give

$$[A_{ij},A_{kl}^{}]=\delta _{il}\delta _{jk}[\mathrm{\Psi }_i,\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}]=\delta _{ij}.$$

Thus, we have $`N^2`$ creation and annihilation operators coming from the $`A`$’s and $`N`$ creation and annihilation operators coming from the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$’s. The hamiltonian is given by

$$H=\omega (\frac{N^2}{2}+𝒩_A)$$
(21)
where $`𝒩_A=A_{ij}^{}A_{ji}`$ is the number operator associated with the $`A`$’s. Thus, energy eigenstates will be linear combinations of terms with a fixed number of $`A^{}`$ creation operators acting on the Fock space vacuum. Examining the trace part of the constraint (20), we see that the left hand side is simply the number operator $`𝒩_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ associated with the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ creation and annihilation operators, so all wavefunctions must have a fixed number $`Nk`$ of $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ creation operators acting on the Fock space vacuum. Finally, as shown in , the traceless part of the constraint (19) demands that the wavefunction be invariant under $`SU(N)`$ transformations, under which the creation operators transform in the adjoint and antifundamental,

$$A^{}UA^{}U^{},\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}U^{}.$$
(22)
Therefore, as pointed out in  the problem reduces to a group theory problem of determining all ways of combining $`Nk`$ antifundamentals (symmetrized) and any fixed number of adjoints to form a singlet of $`SU(N)`$. In the next section we solve this problem explicitly and write down the complete set of wavefunctions for the model. We will see that they bear a striking resemblance to the Laughlin-type wavefunctions considered in section 2 and then argue that the two systems are in fact equivalent.

## 5 Determining the wavefunctions

From the results of the previous section, any wavefunction describing an energy eigenstate will be a sum of terms of the form

$$A^{}{}_{j_1}{}^{i_1}\mathrm{}A^{}{}_{j_M}{}^{i_M}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}{}_{l_1}{}^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}{}_{l_{Nk}}{}^{}|0$$

with $`Nk`$ creation operators $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ and a fixed number $`M`$ of $`A^{}`$ creation operators acting on the Fock space vacuum, such that the set of terms forms a singlet under the $`SU(N)`$ transformations (22). Here, we have written fundamental indices as upper indices and antifundamental indices as lower indices. The problem of forming a singlet out of the $`Nk`$ antifundamentals and $`M`$ adjoints is basically just a matter of contracting all the indices using the invariant tensors of $`SU(N)`$. In particular, we may contract any upper index with any lower index using $`\delta _j^i`$, or we may contract any set of N lower indices (or N upper indices) with an $`N`$-index completely antisymmetric $`ϵ`$ tensor. We may place the further restriction that only one type of epsilon tensor may appear (either upper or lower index) since the product of an upper index epsilon tensor and a lower index epsilon tensor may be rewritten as a sum of products of $`2N`$ delta functions.

Let us consider first the indices on the $`Nk`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$s. The lower index on each $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ must contract either with the upper index on an $`A^{}`$ or with an epsilon tensor. If the $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ contracts with an $`A^{}`$, the resulting object will again have a single lower index. Repeating this logic, we conclude that each $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ will contract with some number of $`A^{}`$s and that the resulting object will have its single lower index contracted with an (upper index) epsilon tensor.

On the other hand, consider a given upper index on an epsilon tensor. This will be contracted either with a $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ or with the lower index on an $`A^{}`$, leaving another upper index. In the second case, the new upper index will either contract with a $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ or another $`A^{}`$, etc…, so it is clear that a given upper index on an epsilon tensor will contract with some number of $`A^{}`$s and then with a $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$.

The previous two paragraphs show that the lower indices on the $`Nk`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$s and the upper indices on the epsilon tensors (there must be $`k`$ of them) must pair up completely (with arbitrary numbers of intermediate $`A^{}`$s) giving $`k`$ blocks of the form

$$ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{n_1})_{i_1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{n_N})_{i_N}.$$
(23)
Because of the antisymmetry of the $`ϵ`$ tensor, this expression will vanish unless all of the $`n_i`$’s are different, so without loss of generality, we may take $`0n_1<\mathrm{}<n_N`$ in each of the blocks.

We have now accounted for all $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$s and epsilon tensors, but we may have some additional $`A^{}`$s with indices contracted amongst themselves. Such terms will be generated by products of $`\mathrm{Tr}(A^{}),\mathrm{},\mathrm{Tr}(A^{}{}_{}{}^{N})`$.444Note that $`det(A^{})`$ as well as traces of higher powers of $`A^{}`$ may be written in terms of these. Thus, a given singlet wavefunction may also include a set of $`A^{}`$s of the form

$$(\mathrm{tr}A^{}{}_{}{}^{N})^{c_N}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{tr}A^{})^{c_1}.$$
(24)
To summarize, a general $`SU(N)`$ singlet energy eigenstate wavefunction will be built out of terms with identical numbers of $`A^{}`$s each containing $`k`$ blocks of the form (23) plus a block of the form (24) acting on the Fock space vacuum. Actually, this description is rather redundant, and using Fact 3 from the appendix, it is straightforward to obtain the following two minimal bases of these singlet energy eigenstate wavefunctions.

The first basis is obtained by restricting to $`c_i=0`$ in (24), taking $`n_i=i1`$ in $`k1`$ of the blocks (23) and taking $`n_i`$ arbitrary (but distinct) in the $`k`$th block to get

$$|\{n_i\},k=ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{n_1})_{i_1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{n_N})_{i_N}\left(ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{0})_{i_1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{N1})_{i_N}\right)^{k1}|0;.$$
(25)
where $`0n_1<\mathrm{}<n_N`$. From (21), we find that these states have energy levels $`E(\{n_i\},k)=\omega (\frac{N}{2}(N+(k1)(N1))+n_i)`$.

An alternative basis is obtained by fixing $`n_i`$ at their minimum values $`n_i=i1`$ in each block (23) and taking $`c_i`$ arbitrary in (24),

$$|\{c_i\},k=(\mathrm{tr}A^{}{}_{}{}^{N})^{c_N}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{tr}A^{})^{c_1}\left(ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{0})_{i_1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{N1})_{i_N}\right)^k|0.$$
(26)
The energy levels for these states are given by $`E(\{c_m\},k)=\omega (\frac{N}{2}(N+k(N1))+mc_m)`$. It is not difficult to verify that these energy levels and degeneracies precisely match those of (25).

Each of these bases realize precisely the known energy levels and degeneracies of the model (given in  and references therein), so we may conclude that each gives a minimal basis of linearly independent energy eigenstate wavefunctions.

We now compare the states (25) and (26) to the Laughlin-type wavefunctions (11) and (12) respectively that we constructed in section 2. We see that the states have been labeled in an identical fashion, and that states with the same label have the same energy level relative to the respective ground states (with the identification $`\omega =\frac{\kappa }{B}`$). More strikingly, the similarly labeled states have almost precisely the same form. In particular, the formal substitution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}1,A_{ij}^{}\delta _{ij}a_i^{}`$ maps a given state in (25) or (26) precisely to the similarly labeled state in (11) or (12).

This comparison makes it obvious that the level $`k`$ finite matrix Chern-Simons theory has exactly the same energy levels and the same number of states at each energy level as the theory of $`N`$ composite fermions in the lowest Landau level. This guarantees that the two theories are equivalent, since for each energy level, we can find an orthogonal basis of wavefunctions in each of the theories and then define an isomorphism that maps the orthogonal bases into each other. In this way, we generate an isomorphism between the Hilbert spaces in the two theories that preserves the inner product structure and maps the respective Hamiltonians into each other. In other words, the finite $`N`$, level $`k=2p+1`$ matrix Chern-Simons theory is precisely equivalent to the theory of $`N`$ (noninteracting) composite fermions with $`2p`$ attached flux lines in the Lowest Landau level, which is believed to accurately describe the filling fraction $`1/k`$ state of $`N`$ electrons and its excitations.555The equivalence has been established with the inclusion of a harmonic oscillator potential in each model to break the translation invariance, but the strength of this may be taken to zero if desired.

It should be noted that despite the formal similarity between the bases (25), (26) and (11), (12), the similarly labeled states do not precisely map into one another under the isomorphism. This may be seen by comparing inner products of similarly labeled states in the two theories.666An additional subtlety, pointed out to us by A. Polychronakos, is that because of the well known quantum mechanical level shift for Chern-Simons theory, the matrix Chern-Simons model at level $`k`$ should be identified with the quantum Hall states at filling fraction $`1/(k+1)`$, rather than $`1/k`$. However, the equivalence between energy levels and degeneracies guarantees that an isomorphism exist. Given the explicit wavefunctions we have derived, it is possible to construct such an isomorphism explicitly.

In any case, the ground state wavefunctions map into one another, so the Laughlin wavefunction for filling fraction $`1/(k+1)`$ (see previous footnote) is equivalent to the wavefunction

$$|0_k=\left(ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{0})_{i_1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{N1})_{i_N}\right)^k|0$$

of the matrix Chern-Simons theory.

It is interesting to note that the equivalence we have described is related to the work of  on the Calogero model . They showed that the Calogero model for a certain range of parameters could be identified with the physics of anyons (particles with fractional statistics) in the lowest Landau level (originally conjectured in ). On the other hand, it has been shown  that the finite matrix models we have considered are equivalent to the Calogero model with certain discrete values of the parameters (though not values appropriate for describing anyons). Thus, the equivalence we have demonstrated is related to two previously known equivalences, though our system does not contain particles with fractional statistics, but rather composite fermions with a sort of “higher order” integer statistics (higher order zeros in the wavefunction when particles become coincident).

## 6 Discussion

We have established a precise equivalence between the finite $`N`$ matrix Chern-Simons theory and the theory of $`N`$ composite fermions in the lowest Landau level, believed to accurately describe the filling fraction $`1/k`$ fractional Quantum hall state of $`N`$ electrons. To be precise, the latter theory is defined to be the theory of $`N`$ non-interacting fermions in the lowest Landau level with the constraint that the wavefunctions have a zero of order $`k`$ whenever two of the particles become coincident.

In the large $`N`$ limit, the composite fermion theory should provide a good description of the $`\nu =1/k`$ quantum Hall fluid of infinite extent, since the boundary of the quantum Hall droplet goes off to infinity. On the other hand, as discussed in section 4, we expect that the large $`N`$ matrix Chern Simons theory (with the harmonic oscillator potential turned off) should be equivalent to the original noncommutative Chern-Simons field theory. Thus, as conjectured by Susskind, the noncommutative field theory at level $`k`$ provides a good description of the of the filling fraction $`1/k`$ state of electrons in a strong magnetic field, and in particular is precisely equivalent to the Laughlin theory (and its present understanding as describing noninteracting composite fermions in the lowest Landau level).

## Acknowledgements

We would especially like to thank Lenny Susskind for many valuable discussions out of which this project originated. We have also benefitted from discussions with Michal Fabinger, Matt Kleban, John McGreevy, and Nick Toumbas. M.V.R. would like to thank the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara for hospitality during the final stages of this work. The work of M.V.R. is supported in part by the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics and by NSF grant 9870115. The work of Simeon Hellerman is supported by the D.O.E. under contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and by a D.O.E. OJI grant.

## Appendix A Facts to obtain a minimal basis of wavefunctions.

In section 5, we derived an exhaustive set of wavefunctions describing energy eigenstates of the finite matrix Chern-Simons theory. In this appendix, we derive a number of facts that help to determine a minimal basis of these wavefunctions.
Fact 1: Defining

$$A(z)\underset{i<j}{}(z_iz_j)$$

we have

$$A(z)=ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}z_{i_1}^0\mathrm{}z_{i_N}^{N1}.$$

Proof: From the definition, it is clear that $`A`$ is the lowest order polynomial that is completely antisymmetric in its arguments, since any such polynomial must have a factor $`(z_iz_j)`$ for each $`ij`$. The second expression is also completely antisymmetric and has the same order, so it must equal $`A`$ up to a numerical factor which is easily checked to be 1.
Fact 2: Any polynomial

$$f(z)=ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}z_{i_1}^{n_1}\mathrm{}z_{i_N}^{n_N}$$
(27)
may be written as a sum of terms of the form

$$g(z)=S_N^{c_N}\mathrm{}S_1^{c_1}A(z)$$
(28)
where $`S_k=_iz_i^k`$. Conversely, any polynomial of the form (28) may be written as a sum of terms of the form (27).
Proof: The polynomial $`f(z)`$ is completely antisymmetric in its arguments, thus it vanishes when any two of its arguments are set equal. This implies that $`A`$ divides $`f`$, so $`f=SA`$ for some polynomial $`S`$. Since $`f`$ and $`A`$ are both totally antisymmetric, $`S`$ must be totally symmetric. It is not difficult to show that any symmetric polynomial $`S(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ may be written uniquely as a sum of terms of the form

$$S_N^{c_N}\mathrm{}S_1^{c_1}$$

where $`S_k=_iz_i^k`$. To prove the converse, we simply note that polynomials of the form (28) are completely antisymmetric and are thus allowed coherent state wavefunctions for n fermions in a harmonic oscillator potential. On the other hand, as pointed out in section 2, polynomials of the form (27) represent the coherent state wavefunctions for an orthogonal basis of such states.
Fact 3: Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ and $`A^{}`$ be an $`N`$-dimensional vector and an $`N\times N`$ matrix of commuting variables. Then any expression of the form

$$F(\mathrm{\Psi }^{},A^{})=ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{n_1})_{i_1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{n_N})_{i_N}$$
(29)
may be written uniquely as a sum of terms of the form

$$G(\mathrm{\Psi }^{},A^{})=(\mathrm{tr}A^{}{}_{}{}^{N})^{c_N}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{tr}A^{})^{c_1}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{0})_{i_1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A^{}{}_{}{}^{N1})_{i_N}$$
(30)
Conversely, any expression of the form (30) may be written uniquely as a sum of terms of the form (29).
Proof: First note that there is a one-to-one correspondence between expressions of the form (29) and polynomials of the form (27) obtained by taking the same $`n_i`$, and a one-to-one correspondence between expressions of the form (30) and polynomials of the form (28) obtained by taking the same $`c_i`$. By Fact 2, given any $`F`$, the corresponding polynomial $`f`$ may be written uniquely as a sum of terms of the form (28) which we denote $`g_i`$. We now prove that

$$F(\mathrm{\Psi }^{},A^{})=G_i(\mathrm{\Psi }^{},A^{})$$
(31)
where $`G_i`$ is the expression corresponding to $`g_i`$. First, note that for $`A_{ij}^{}=\delta _{ij}z_i`$ we have

$$F(\mathrm{\Psi }^{},A^{})=f(z_i)\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}=g_i(z_i)\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}=G_i(\mathrm{\Psi }^{},A^{}).$$
(32)
Next, let $`A^{}`$ be an arbitrary hermitian matrix of complex numbers. Then $`A^{}=UDU^{}`$ for some unitary matrix $`U`$ and real diagonal matrix $`D`$. It is straightforward to check using (32),

$$F(\mathrm{\Psi }^{},A^{})=F(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}U,D)=G_i(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}U,D)=G_i(\mathrm{\Psi }^{},A^{}).$$

Now, we have shown that (31) holds for arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ and any hermitian matrix $`A^{}`$. But both sides of (31) are simply finite polynomials in the components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ and $`A^{}`$ (and not their Hermitian or complex conjugates). Therefore the equivalence clearly cannot depend on $`A^{}`$ being Hermitian so it must hold for any numerical matrix $`A^{}`$ and vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$. This implies that the two polynomials are equivalent for all numerical values of their arguments, so we may conclude that (31) is true as an identity between polynomials of commuting variables. The fact that the decomposition (31) is unique follows immediately from the uniqueness in fact 2. Thus, any $`F`$ can be written uniquely as a sum of $`G`$s, and by an identical argument, we can show that any $`G`$ can be written uniquely as a sum of $`F`$’s.


text:
# Stability of narrow beams in bulk Kerr-type nonlinear media

## I Introduction

Self-focusing of optical beams in nonlinear media  is a subject of intensive study since the critical nature of this phenomenon (a collapse of the beam) has been identified in the first studies . Different theoretical approaches have been developed for the analysis of self-focusing, including the moment theory , variational method (see, e.g.,  and references therein), paraxial-ray approximation , ”adiabatic” description , etc. With a probability for a collapse, no stable self-trapped beams can exist in bulk Kerr-media. Therefore, a considerable part of the studies in the field has been directed towards finding mechanisms that limit the development of the collapse and thus provide for the existence of stable self-trapped beams in two transverse dimensions. It has been shown  that the saturation of the nonlinearity of the medium arrests the collapse and stable two-dimensional self-trapped beams can indeed exist in such media . The plasma generation by a self-focusing laser beam  through multiphoton and avalanche ionization, with its negative (exponential) contribution to the refractive index of the media, can also stop the collapse by leading to formation of filaments.

However, as it is pointed out in Ref. , the occurrence of the self-focusing in different media (gases, liquids, solids) makes it insufficient to identify a stabilizing effect for each separate case, and calls to search for universal, i.e., medium-independent, mechanisms which yield nonsingular behavior of the beams. In this connection, it is necessary to stress on that the dynamics of narrow beams described by the full system of the Maxwell‘s equations may be drastically different from the predictions of the usual parabolic nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) approximation valid for broad beams (see, e.g.,  and references therein). In fact, the Maxwell‘s equations implicitly contain few different mechanisms that can check the collapse of the narrow beams.

One of such mechanisms is nonparaxiality of the beam propagation, which becomes important at the advanced stages of the self-focusing. It was studied both numerically  and analytically , concluding that the nonparaxiality replaces the catastrophic focusing with a sequence of focusing-defocusing cycles. Beam filamentation due to the nonparaxiality was demonstrated as well .

It was also shown that when the vector nature of the beam field is taken into regard along with the nonparaxiality , the peak intensity occuring in the self-focusing is almost ten times lower than that produced by the nonparaxiality alone for the same input beam, suggesting that other effects, which limit the self-focussing stronger than the nonparaxiality, could exist. Recent analysis  has demonstrated that the efficiency of the vector model in limiting the narrowing of the beam in the (1+1)-dimensional case is due not to the small longitudinal electric-field component but rather to a scalar term which is present in the model. This scalar term, accounting for the rate of the spatial variation of the nonlinear polarization, combines effects of nonlinearity and diffraction. A notation ”nonlinearly induced diffraction” was introduced  to stress on this factor which restricts the beam narrowing predicted by the usual NLS equation. In this connection it should be mentioned that a fundamental limit for the soliton width has been found  to exist in the ”subwavelength” range (beams with a transverse size comparable with or smaller than the carrier wavelength) due to the terms that come from Maxwell‘s equations but are absent in the usual (1+1)-dimensional NLS equation. Given the results in Ref.  and conclusions drawn in Refs. , the existence of a very narrow stable self-trapped beam in an ideal bulk Kerr-medium is still an open problem which needs to be addressed, which is the subject of the present work.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we derive, from the Maxwell‘s equations, an equation to govern the evolution of narrow (2+1)-dimensional beams in Kerr media. This is a very cumbersome generalization of the NLS equation, with extra terms representing three different effects: nonlinear diffraction, nonparaxiality, and the influence of the small longitudinal component of the electric field. In view of the very complex character of the equation, we also consider a simplified version, that keeps only the nonlinear diffraction as a new effect. In section 3, we develop a perturbation theory which treats all the new terms in both equations as a perturbation, which is true in the case when the beam is still relatively broad. Further analysis in section 4 shows that the effect produced by the nonlinear diffraction is much stronger than those generated by the nonparaxiality and longitudinal field, which justifies the use of the simplified equation, at least for beams that are not extremely narrow. Another noteworthy result of the perturbation theory is that, although the terms which modify the NLS equation destroy the circular symmetry of the beam, the deviation from the symmetry is, in fact, fairly weak. In section 5, we show that the perturbative approach also allows one to find an expression for the conserved power of the beam, which is not a trivial issue in the present model. Lastly, in section 6 we display result of direct numerical simulations of the beam propagation, starting from initial configurations predicted by the perturbation theory. The direct simulations are performed within the framework of the simplified equation only. As a result, we conclude that the beams never show collapse and are always stable, showing small internal vibrations, which are generated by a deviation of the initial configuration from an exact solitary-beam shape.

## II The beam propagation equation

We consider the propagation - along the $`z`$-axis - of a light-beam, extended in the ($`x`$, $`y`$)-plane, in a bulk isotropic Kerr-medium, characterized by the usual relation between the nonlinear polarization $`\stackrel{}{P}^{NL}`$ and electric filed $`\stackrel{}{E}`$, $`\stackrel{}{P}^{NL}=\epsilon _0\chi \left(E_x^2+E_z^2\right)\stackrel{}{E}`$, where $`\chi `$ is the $`\chi _{xxxx}=\chi _{zzzz}`$ component of the third-order susceptibility tensor . The wave equation,

$$^2\stackrel{}{E}(.\stackrel{}{E})=\frac{\epsilon _L}{c^2}\frac{^2\stackrel{}{E}}{t^2}+\mu _0\frac{^2\stackrel{}{P}_{NL}}{t^2},$$
(1)
combined with the relation

$$.\stackrel{}{E}=\frac{1}{\epsilon _0\epsilon _L}.\stackrel{}{P}_{NL},$$
(2)
yield a scalar nonlinear wave equation in the following form:

$`2i\beta {\displaystyle \frac{E}{z}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}E+{\displaystyle \frac{3\omega ^2\chi }{4c^2}}|E|^2E+{\displaystyle \frac{3\chi }{4\epsilon _L}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\left(|E|^2E\right)}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{^2E}{z^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2\chi }{2c^2\beta ^2}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{E}{x}}\right|^2E`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2\chi }{4c^2\beta ^2}}E^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{x}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{\epsilon _L}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{E^{}}{x}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{\epsilon _L}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|E|^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{x}}\right)=0.`$ (4)
In Eq.(3), $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the carrier wave, $`EE_x`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\left(^2/x^2\right)+\left(^2/y^2\right)`$ is the transversal Laplace operator, $`\epsilon _L`$ and $`\beta =\left(\omega /c\right)\epsilon _L`$ are the linear permittivity and the linear propagation constant (wavenumber), respectively. After rescaling $`2\beta xx`$, $`2\beta yy`$, $`2\beta zz`$, $`\gamma EE`$, with $`\gamma ^2=\left(3\omega ^2\chi \right)/\left(16\beta ^2c^2\right)`$, and some manipulation, Eq. (3) transforms into

$$i\frac{E}{z}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}E+|E|^2E+\frac{^2E}{z^2}+4\left|\frac{E}{x}\right|^2E\frac{4}{3}\frac{|E|^2}{x}\frac{E}{x}+\frac{16}{3}\frac{}{x}\left(E\frac{|E|^2}{x}\right)=0.$$
(5)
The modifications of the (2+1)-dimensional NLS equation involved in Eq. (5) stem from nonparaxiality (the fourth term) and nonlinear diffraction and longitudinal field component included in a combined manner in the last three terms. It makes sense to consider Eq. (5) parallel to its ”model,” simplified, version

$$i\frac{E}{z}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}E+|E|^2E+4\frac{^2\left(|E|^2E\right)}{x^2}=0,$$
(6)
where only the nonlinear diffraction \[the last term in Eq. (6)\] is taken into account to modify the NLS equation . The relevance of approximating Eq. (5) by Eq. (6) will be verified a posteriori.

## III Solitary-wave solutions and perturbation theory

Seeking for solitary-wave solutions to Eqs. (5) and (6) in the form $`E(x,y,z)=F(x,y)`$exp$`(i\mu z)`$, where $`\mu `$ is a nonlinear wavenumber shift of the solitary-wave solutions considered, one obtains

$$\left(1+aF^2\right)\frac{^2F}{x^2}+\frac{^2F}{y^2}kF+F^3+bF\left(\frac{F}{x}\right)^2=0.$$
(7)
In the case of Eq. (6), $`a=12`$, $`b=24`$, and $`k=\mu `$, while Eq. (5) corresponds to $`a=32/3`$, $`b=68/3`$ and $`k=\mu +\mu ^2`$. Besides the linear diffraction in the second ($`y`$-) transverse direction, Eq. (7) exactly coincides with the one-dimensional equation derived in Ref.  for both the vector nonparaxial model and for the scalar ”nonlinear diffraction” model.

Generally speaking, Eq. (7) must be solved numerically as it stands. However, for the case of small gradients a perturbation scheme can be developed, which simplifies the problem considerably. In fact, this implies seeking for first corrections to the usual broad solitons, generated by the new terms obtained from the Maxwell‘s equations. To this end, $`F(x,y)`$ and $`k`$ are presented in the form $`F(x,y)=F_0(x,y)+f(x,y)`$, $`k=k_0+\mathrm{\Delta }k`$, where $`f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ are the first order corrections, so that the substitution of this into Eq. (7) yields

$$\frac{^2F_0}{x^2}+\frac{^2F_0}{y^2}k_0F_0+F_0^3=0,$$
(8)
and

$$\frac{^2f}{x^2}+\frac{^2f}{y^2}+\left(3F_0^2k_0\right)f=\mathrm{\Delta }kF_0aF_0^2\frac{^2F_0}{x^2}bF_0\left(\frac{F_0}{x}\right)^2.$$
(9)
In Eq. (8), $`k_0=\mu _0`$ is the zeroth-order approximation for the nonlinear wavenumber shift. The transformation to the polar coordinates $`x=r\mathrm{cos}\phi ,y=r\mathrm{sin}\phi `$ transforms Eqs. (8) and (9) into

$$\frac{d^2F_0}{dr^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{dF_0}{dr}k_0F_0+F_0^3=0$$
(10)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2f}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2f}{\phi ^2}}+\left(3F_0^2k_0\right)f=\mathrm{\Delta }kF_0{\displaystyle \frac{aF_0^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2F_0}{dr^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{dF_0}{dr}}\right)`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{bF_0}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dF_0}{dx}}\right)^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{aF_0^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2F_0}{dr^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{dF_0}{dr}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{bF_0}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dF_0}{dr}}\right)^2\right]\mathrm{cos}2\phi ,`$ (12)
respectively. Equation (10), which is azimuthally symmetric, gives rise to the classical Townes soliton , while Eq. (10) generates a first-order correction to it. In Eq. (10) the variables can be separated by means of the substitution $`f(r,\phi )=f_0(r)+f_1(r)\mathrm{cos}2\phi `$, the resulting equations for $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$ being

$$\frac{d^2f_0}{dr^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{df_0}{dr}+\left(3F_0^2k_0\right)f_0=\mathrm{\Delta }kF_0\frac{aF_0^2}{2}\left(\frac{d^2F_0}{dr^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{dF_0}{dr}\right)\frac{bF_0}{2}\left(\frac{dF_0}{dr}\right)^2$$
(13)
$$\frac{d^2f_1}{dr^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{df_1}{dr}+\left(3F_0^2k_0\frac{4}{r^2}\right)f_1=\frac{aF_0^2}{2}\left(\frac{d^2F_0}{dr^2}\frac{1}{r}\frac{dF_0}{dr}\right)\frac{bF_0}{2}\left(\frac{dF_0}{dr}\right)^2.$$
(14)
Thus, the first-order perturbative solution to Eq. (7) amounts to solving three ordinary differential equations, viz., Eqs. (10), (13) and (14). This can be easily done by means of the shooting method . We supplement the equations with obvious boundary conditions that single out soliton solutions:

$$\frac{dF_0(r=0)}{dr}=\frac{df_0(r=0)}{dr}=\frac{df_1(r=0)}{dr}=0,$$

$$F_0(r=0)=A>0,f_0(r=0)=f_1(r=0)=0,$$

$$F_0(r\mathrm{})0,f_0\left(r\mathrm{}\right)0,f_1\left(r\mathrm{}\right)0.$$

## IV Results of the perturbation theory

The solution of Eq. (9) is the same as that obtained in Ref. . For this solution, $`k_0A^2/4.86`$, and the power $`P`$ that it carries is $`P=2\pi \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}rF_0^2𝑑r11.70`$, which is the known ”critical power” for the weak collapse in the two-dimensional NLS equation .

Solutions to Eqs. (13) and (14) are displayed in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b), respectively. The solutions marked by ”NLD” pertain to the case of $`a=12`$, $`b=24`$, which corresponds to the simplified equation (6), and those marked by ”vector” pertain to $`a=32/310.67`$, $`b=68/322.67`$, which correspond to the full equation (5). For comparison, the zeroth-order solution (the Townes soliton) is shown in Fig. 1(c). It is obvious that the nonlinear diffraction is the main factor which causes deviations from the solution of the NLS equation and the effect of the longitudinal field component is quite small.

In Fig. 2, results for the half-widths $`R_x`$, $`R_y`$ of the beam (defined at half-maximum of its amplitude) are shown. It can again be concluded that the nonlinear diffraction term is the main reason which restricts the narrowing of the Townes soliton with the increase of its on-axis intensity (denoted as ”standard” in Fig. 2). The influence of the longitudinal field component shows up into a small reduction of the effect of the nonlinear diffraction. It is also worth noting that the half-width $`R_x`$ in the direction of the main electric-filed component ($`x`$) is much more affected by the nonlinear-diffraction term than that ($`R_y`$) in the other transverse direction ($`y`$). The latter feature characterizes an effective $`anisotropy`$ induced by the new terms. Note that deviations from the circular symmetry of a beam propagating according to an equation similar to Eq. (5) was reported in Refs..

The comparison of the contributions to the nonlinear wavenumber shift $`\mu `$ stemming from nonparaxiality, nonlinear diffraction and longitudinal electric field offers an additional way to estimate a relative strength of effects generated by these factors. In the case when the simplified model (6) is used, which keeps the nonlinear diffraction but neglects the nonparaxiality and the influence of the longitudinal field, i.e., $`a=12`$ and $`b=24`$ in Eq. (7), the result is $`\mu _{NLID}\frac{A^2}{4.86}+\frac{A^4}{1.74}`$ up to the $`A^4`$-order. On the other hand, the full model corresponding to Eq. (5), i.e., with $`a=32/3`$ and $`b=68/3`$ in Eq. (7), yields $`\mu _{VN}\frac{A^2}{4.86}+\frac{A^4}{1.74}\left(1\frac{1}{20.52}\frac{1}{13.57}\right)`$. The first correction in the parenthesis is due to the vectorial structure of the field, and the second one is an effect of the nonparaxiality. This result demonstrates, that within the framework of the first-order perturbation theory, the contribution to the nonlinear wavenumber shift stemming from the nonlinear diffraction exceeds those originating from nonparaxiality and longitudinal field component by approximately 13 and 20 times, respectively, thus validating the use of Eq. (6) instead of the full equation (5) for the study of the solitary waves.

## V An approximate power-conservation law

According to the results of the perturbation theory for the case of small gradients (Figs. 1 and 2), the deviation of the shape of the beam from the circular symmetry is small (although existing). Introducing the polar coordinates into Eq. (6) and assuming weak dependence of the field envelop on the angular variable $`\phi `$, one obtains

$$i\frac{E}{z}+\left(\frac{^2}{r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{r}\right)\left(E+2|E|^2E\right)+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{^2E}{\phi ^2}+|E|^2E+2\mathrm{cos}2\phi \left(\frac{^2}{r^2}\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{r}\right)\left(|E|^2E\right)=0.$$
(15)
Multiplying Eq. ($`\text{15})`$ by $`\left(E^{}+|E|^2E^{}\right)`$, subtracting the complex conjugate and integrating over the transversal plane while keeping the first order corrections only, a power conservation law in the form

$$\frac{dP}{dz}\frac{d}{dz}\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}r\left(|E|^2+|E|^4\right)𝑑r𝑑\phi =0$$
(16)
is obtained. Note that the second term in the integrand is due to the nonlinear diffraction which comes to involve the power density associated with the nonlinear polarization into the power conservation law.

In Fig. 3 the dependence of the power invariant, given by Eq. (14), on the on-axis intensity of the beam is shown. For comparison, the same dependence for the case of the standard NLS equation ($`\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}r|E|^2𝑑r𝑑\phi `$) is also presented. It is evident that the solitary waves studied here exist for power levels above the critical. The fact that the power is a growing function of the on-axis intensity suggests stability for the solitary wave solutions (see also the discussions in Ref.  in the case of the scalar nonparaxial model).

## VI Numerical simulations of the beam propagation

As Fig. 3 shows, the presence of nonlinear diffraction increases the power necessary for self-trapping (i.e., the power at which the diffraction and nonlinearity balance each other). This is demonstrated by the numerical simulations displayed in Fig. 4(a), where an initial configuration in the form of the Townes soliton, see Eq. ($`\text{10})`$, propagates according to the Eq. (6). We do not simulate the full equation ($`\text{5})`$, which has an extremely complex form, since the results presented above strongly suggest that the simplified equation (6) may describe essential features of the beam dynamics quite adequately. Figure 4 shows that in this case the beam diffracts away, while, as it is well known, the usual NLS equation predicts collapse for the same initial conditions \[see Fig. 4(c)\]. In Fig. 4(b), the approximate invariant given by Eq. ($`\text{16})`$ and the invariant of the NLS equation in its standard form, $`\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|E|^2𝑑x𝑑y`$, are shown vrs. the propagation distance for the case when Eq. (6) is solved. The fact that the NLS invariant increases when the beam diffracts can be explained in the following way. As it has been mentioned above, the full invariant, given by Eq. ($`\text{16})`$, takes into account the power density associated with both the linear and nonlinear polarization of the medium and is conserved, provided the gradients remain small enough. When the beam diffracts, the contribution of the nonlinear polarization decreases, transferring the power it carries to the linear-polarization part, which therefore increases in accord with what is seen in Fig. 4(b). When the beam is self-focusing, the computations show that the NLS invariant decreases, as one should expect.

In order to test directly the dynamical properties of the solitary waves in the present model (first of all, their $`stability`$ against the collapse), equation ($`\text{6})`$ is solved numerically with initial conditions produced by the perturbation scheme developed above \[i.e., the solitary-wave solutions generated by Eqs. (10) - ($`\text{14})`$ have been used as initial configurations\]. Figure 5 shows results for the evolution of the beam intensity and of the approximate power invariant given by Eq. (16). For comparison, the usual NLS invariant is also displayed. As is seen in Fig. 5, the beams experience periodic focusing and defocusing with a relatively small amplitude of the corresponding internal vibrations, rather than the collapse that would occur in the case of the NLS equation. The period of the oscillations rapidly decreases with the increase of the input power.

The results presented in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b) are in a qualitative agreement with those in Ref.  where the non-catastrophycal propagation of Gaussian beams within the scalar nonparaxial model has been obtained. The soliton-like propagation studied later  within the same model shows the same type of oscillating behaviour. The influence of the deviations of the initial conditions from the exact soliton-like solution has been also checked. It seems that the vibrations obtained within the nonparaxial model in Refs.  and here, in a model which stresses on the nonlinearly induced diffraction, are general behaviour which is a leftover of the former collapse instability.

The oscillations observed here can be related to the fact that the initial conditions, predicted by the perturbation theory, generate a nearly-solitonic (but fairly stable) beam, rather than an exact stationary soliton (cf. a similar situation in the multidimensional model with the quadratic nonlinearity ). However as the power of the beam decreases and, accordingly, the beam radius increases, the accuracy of the perturbation theory improves, hence the discrepancy between the exact stationary self-trapped beams and those predicted by the perturbative approach should decrease, i.e., lower-power beams should oscillate with a smaller amplitude. This, however, is not the case. A closer look at Fig. 5 shows that when the power is increased \[from (a) to (b)\], the relative amplitude of the oscillations decreases slightly. To check this trend, some results for the beam propagation at lower power levels are presented in Fig. 6. The three different curves in this figure correspond to initial conditions in which, respectively, 6, 14, and 20 digits after the decimal point are kept to accurately implement the prediction provided by the perturbation theory. The corresponding exact values of the power are also given for each case. It is well seen from Fig. 6 that the evolution of the beam is quite sensitive to fine details of the initial conditions. In order to achieve stationary propagation, the initial conditions must be set with a very high accuracy, especially for lower power beams. It turns out that the latter (wide) beams are more sensitive to small deviations of their initial shape from exact solitary waves than the higher power (narrow) beams. So, we infer that, quite naturally, the stabilizing effect provided by the nonlinear diffraction gets enhanced with the decrease of the beam size and the growth of its power.

## VII Conclusions

Propagation of (2+1)-dimensional narrow beams in Kerr self-focusing media is studied on the basis of an extended version of the NLS equation derived directly from the Maxwell‘s equations. As this equation is very cumbersome, we also studied, in parallel to it, its simplified version which keeps the most essential new term, viz., the one accounting for nonlinear diffraction. The full equation contains, besides the nonlinear diffraction term, terms generated by a deviation from the paraxial approximation and by a longitudinal electric-field component in the beam. Solitary-wave solutions to both the full and simplified equations are found, first, by means of a perturbation theory which assumes that the new terms are still small, provided that the beam is not too narrow. Within the framework of the perturbative approach, small (but explicit) deviations of the beam from circular symmetry are found, and the power-conservation law is derived in an explicit form. It is shown that the nonlinear diffraction affects the stationary beams much stronger than the nonparaxiality and longitudinal field. Stability of the beams is tested by direct simulations of the simplified equation, with initial configurations taken as predicted by the perturbation theory. Numerically generated solitary beams are found to be always stable and never sliding into collapse, although they display periodic internal vibrations, whose amplitude decreases with the increase of the beam power.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is supported by the National Fund for Scientific Research (project $`n^0`$ F-911) and by the Foundation for Scientific Research at Sofia University (project $`n^0`$ 326/2000).