text:
# Magnetic transport in a straight parabolic channel

## 1 Introduction

The problem of magnetic transport goes back to the early eighties of the last century \[Ha, MS\]. Then it was found that the transport can be achieved in a system with a homogeneous magnetic field if boundaries are present. These so called edge currents found numerous applications in solid-state physics. Recently it has been shown that that such a type of transport exists even when the boundary is replaced by a periodic array of point obstacles \[U, EJK\]; in this case the propagation along the array is a purely quantum effect.

On the other hand, it was also recognized that a suitable translationaly symmetric variation of the magnetic field itself can induce transport. A simple and transparent example of such a variation is provided by a step of the magnetic field intensity. As with the conventional edge states, the propagation here can be understood also at the classical level, since the cyclotronic radius at both sides of the step is different – see \[CFKS, Sec. 6.5\]. Similarly the transport can exist in the case when the magnetic field has the same asymptotics in both directions perpendicular to the field variation \[Iw, MP, EK\].

It is naturally of both theoretical and practical interest to understand how such a magnetic transport is influenced by various perturbations. Recently several studies treated the problem of edge-current stability with respect to a sufficiently weak “random” perturbation (i.e., a deterministic bounded potential of an arbitrary shape). The particle was at that supposed to be confined in a semi-infinite region by either a smooth potential wall which vanishes in one half-plane and rapidly increases in the other \[MMP\], or by a Dirichlet boundary \[BP, FGW\]. The proofs were based on commutator methods. In \[MMP\] it was shown, using a version of the virial theorem, that in certain parts of the spectrum the Hamiltonian of the particle cannot have any eigenstates, so that the spectrum is there purely continuous. In \[BP, FGW\] the Mourre theory of positive commutators was used to prove that for energy intervals away of the Landau levels the spectrum remains purely absolutely continuous, i.e. that the transport survives in the presence of an impurity potential. Moreover, the argument of \[FGW\] works under weaker conditions and extends the result to more general planar domains containing an open wedge.

On the other hand, much less is known about the situation when the particle is confined from both sides. It is true, of course, that many numerical studies of such systems which model various quantum wires can be found in the physical literature, but rigorous results are scarce. This is our motivation to consider such a potentially confined channel. For the sake of simplicity we suppose that the channel is straight and the potential is parabolic with constant strength along the axis. This is certainly a reasonable model which has the advantage that it allows us to solve the unperturbed problem analytically. We prove two types of results.

First, if a bounded potential $`W`$ periodic in the longitudinal direction is added, the bottom of the spectrum remains absolutely continuous for weak enough perturbations. On one hand, we discuss the number of gaps in such a continuous spectrum as a function of the strength of the confining potential. On the other hand, we prove that if $`W`$ depends only on the longitudinal or on the transverse variable, the whole spectrum remains absolutely continuous, independently of the strength of the potential.

Second, if the perturbation $`W`$ is no longer assumed to be periodic, we prove that a part of the spectrum remains absolutely continuous provided $`W`$ is small in a suitable sense and satisfies a weak “localization” condition.

Let us describe in more details the results and the contents of the paper. The unperturbed Hamiltonian will be

$$H_0=H_L(B)+\omega ^2y^2,$$
(1.1)
where $`H_L(B)=p_y^2+(p_x+By)^2`$ is the free magnetic Hamiltonian with homogeneous magnetic field $`B`$. The last operator corresponds to the Landau gauge, which we will use throughout the paper.

In the following two sections we analyze periodic perturbations, i.e. the structure of the spectrum of

$$H=H_0+W$$
(1.2)
where the potential $`W(x,y)`$ is $`\mathrm{}`$-periodic in $`x`$. The periodicity enables us to use the Bloch decomposition and to write the generalized eigenfunctions of $`H_0`$ in the form

$$\psi _m(x)\phi _n(y,m+\theta )$$
(1.3)
where $`m`$, $`n𝐍_0`$, and $`\theta `$ is the corresponding Bloch parameter running through the Brillouin zone $`[\pi /\mathrm{},\pi /\mathrm{})`$. In the absence of perturbation it is straightforward to see that the spectrum is purely absolutely continuous and includes all energies in the interval $`[\sqrt{B^2+\omega ^2},\mathrm{})`$. Perturbation theory then shows that for any $`E>0`$, the part of the spectrum inside the interval $`[\sqrt{B^2+\omega ^2}W,E]`$ is still purely absolutely continuous, provided $`W`$ is small enough.

Next using an appropriately modified Thomas argument – cf. \[Tm\] and the generalization in \[RS, Sec. XIII.16\] – we will prove in Theorem 2.1 that the whole spectrum of $`H`$ remains purely absolutely continuous if $`W(x,y)W(x)`$ depends on $`x`$ only and is essentialy bounded. The same is true if $`W(x,y)W(y)`$ depends on the transverse variable only and is essentially bounded.

Finally, we address the question about the number of open gaps in the spectrum. One can find a partial answer using properties of the function $`W_0:=(\phi _0,W(,y)\phi _0)`$ which represents the projection of the potential onto the lowest transverse mode. If the latter is non-constant, the one-dimensional Schrödinger operator $`K=_x^2+W_0(x)`$ on $`L^2()`$ has by \[RS, Thm. XIII.90\] a purely absolutely continuous spectrum with open gaps – at least one but generically infinitely many. We will show in Section 3 that these gaps persist in the spectrum on the operator (1.2) provided the coupling constant of the confinement is large enough, see Theorem 3.1. Therefore, such a channel can have generically any finite number of open gaps for any bounded $`x`$-periodic perturbation, provided it is confining enough.

Non-periodic perturbations require a different technique. In the last part of this paper, Section 4, we address this question in a similar way to that of the papers mentioned above, namely by using a Mourre operator related to a distinguished classical quantity. Recall that the central point of the Mourre theory is to find a suitable self-adjoint conjugate operator $`A`$ such that in certain states the expectation value of $`[H_0+W,iA]`$ will have a definite sign. Classically, it amounts to finding an observable increasing in time. This motivated the choice of the conjugate operator in \[BP, FGW\] where the classical particle followed the boundary counterclockwise and therefore propagated in a definite direction. Accordingly, the coordinate parallel to the boundary gave a conjugate operator with the needed properties.

By contrast, in our case there are two “boundaries” which allow for classical motion in both directions along the $`x`$ axis. Of course, they are edges with a grain of salt, since their “distance” depends on the particle energy.

Little is known so far about the stability of transport in systems without a preferred direction. The existing results always assume in some form that the “opposite” edge currents can be placed at arbitrarily large distance to prevent their destructive interference. This is the case for domains containing wedges in \[FGW\] which we mentioned earlier. Another example is the recent paper \[FM\], which studies the nature of the spectrum of random Schrödinger operator with magnetic field in a finite macroscopic system. The particle is supposed to be confined in one direction by two smooth boundaries separated by a distance equal to $`L`$, and the other direction is $`L`$ periodic. It is then shown that for $`L`$ large enough there exist realizations of random potentials such that the spectrum in the vicinity of Landau levels contains both current carrying states and localized states. Roughly speaking, this is due to decoupling of bulk and edge states in the limit of large $`L`$. It is also announced, that away from the Landau levels there are the current carrying states only. Notice that the transverse distance in \[FM\] may grow slower, say as $`L^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha (0,1)`$, but it cannot be kept constant.

In models of a channel with a fixed cross section there is no external parameter to control the decoupling, and it is not a priori clear how the spectrum will behave. We start the Mourre analysis by solving the classical problem in the absence of the potential $`W`$. The trajectories turn out to be drifting ellipses. We take the $`x`$-coordinate of the ellipse center multiplied by the corresponding momentum component as the quantity to determine the conjugate operator. This allows us to find that under suitable smallness assumptions about $`W`$ there are intervals separated from the modified Landau levels where the spectrum contains no eigenvalues or even, under stronger hypothesis on $`W`$, remains absolutely continuous. Unfortunately, the assumptions include finiteness of $`sup|x_xW(x,y)|`$ respectively $`sup|x^2_x^2W(x,y)|`$ which can be regarded as a sort of localization requirement. Of course, many “non-local” potentials fit in, say those with different limits as $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$, and any powerlike decay at large $`|x|`$ will do, however, the said condition excludes the most typical random potentials in the form of a sum of randomly placed copies of a single-impurity potential. For such potentials we establish the existence of transport only in the situation when the “dirty” part of the channel has a finite length, see Theorem 4.3. We also discuss the behaviour of our model in the limit of strong confinement, i.e. when $`\omega \mathrm{}`$.

More than that, we show in Section 4.3 that any Mourre operator quadratic in the canonical variables will lead here to the same restriction. Hence an attempt to establish for a “fixed-width” channel a result comparable to \[BP, FGW\] by the conjugate-operator method has to employ another $`A`$. Obvious candidates are those which combine first order canonical variable with a (sign-changing) localization of the particle in the vicinity of the edges. However, attempts in this direction we are aware of have not been successful so far and the problem remains open.

## 2 Periodic perturbations

In this section we first give explicit expressions for the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of $`H_0`$, which is possible due to the specific choice of our confinement potential. Then, as mentioned above, we will investigate the nature of the spectrum when we add a periodic perturbation.

The Hamiltonian of the system we are interested in is thus of the following form,

$$H=_y^2+(i_x+yB)^2+\omega ^2y^2+W(x,y)\mathrm{on}L^2(^2),$$
(2.4)
where $`W`$ is bounded and $`\mathrm{}`$-periodic in $`x`$. The scaling

$$x,y\lambda x,\lambda y,B\lambda ^2B,\omega \lambda ^2\omega ,W\lambda ^2W$$

gives $`H\lambda ^2H`$. Without loss we can thus assume $`\mathrm{}=2\pi `$. By \[RS, Thm. X.34\], $`H`$ is e.s.a. on $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^2)`$. We use the periodicity of $`W`$ and apply the Bloch decomposition in $`x`$ writing

$$H=_{|\theta |1/2}^{}H(\theta )d\theta $$
(2.5)
where $`H(\theta )`$ has the form (2.4) on $`L^2([0,2\pi ]\times )`$ with the boundary conditions

$$_x^j\psi (2\pi ,y)=e^{i\theta 2\pi }_x^j\psi (0+,y),j=0,1.$$
(2.6)
Let us now turn to the properties of the fiber operator

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_0(\theta )=_y^2+(i_x+yB)^2+\omega ^2y^2.$$
(2.7)
After transferring $`\theta `$ from the boundary conditions to the operator we find that $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0(\theta )`$ is unitarily equivalent to

$$H_0(\theta )=(i_x+By+\theta )^2_y^2+\omega ^2y^2\mathrm{on}L^2([0,2\pi ]\times )$$
(2.8)
with periodic boundary conditions at $`x=0`$ and $`x=2\pi `$. We exhibit below a complete set of eigenvectors in

$$D_e\{fW^{2,2}([0,2\pi ])|f(0)=f(2\pi ),f^{}(0)=f^{}(2\pi )\}S()$$
(2.9)
where $`S()`$ denotes the set of Schwarz function, showing that $`H_0(\theta )`$ is essentially self adjoint on $`D_e`$. Next we show that $`H_0(\theta )`$ is a holomorphic family of type A in the sense of Kato. Let $`H_0(0)`$ is self-adjoint on its domain $`D`$ and let us formally expand the operator $`H_0(\theta )`$ as

$$H_0(\theta )=(i_x+By)^2_y^2+\omega y^2+2\theta (i_x+By)+\theta ^2.$$
(2.10)
We note that $`(i_x+By)`$ is symmetric on $`D_e`$ and denote the resolvent by $`R_0(\theta ,z)=(H_0(\theta )z)^1`$. Now, for any $`\phi D_e`$

$`(i_x+By)\phi ^2\phi |H_0(0)\phi =R_0(0,z)(H_0(0)z)\phi |H_0(0)\phi `$
$`R_0(0,z)H_0(0)\phi ^2+|z|\phi |R_0(0,\overline{z})H_0(0)\phi `$
$`C(z)H_0(0)\phi ^2+|z|^2C(z)\phi ^2,`$ (2.11)
where $`C(z)=O(1/\mathrm{}z)`$, as $`\mathrm{}z\mathrm{}`$, $`|\mathrm{}z|<\mathrm{}`$. From Theorem V.4.4 p.288 in \[Ka\], we deduce that that $`(i_x+By)`$ is relatively bounded with respect to $`H_0(0)`$ on $`D_e`$, with arbitrarily small relative bound (to this end, take $`|\mathrm{}z|`$ large enough). Hence the domain of $`H_0(\theta )`$ coincides with $`D`$ for any complex $`\theta `$, and the expansion (2.10) shows that the vector $`H_0(\theta )\psi `$ is holomorphic in $`\theta `$ for any $`\psi D`$. That means $`H_0(\theta )`$ is a self-adjoint holomorphic family of type A in the whole complex plane, see \[Ka\], pp. 375 and 385. The same is true for the perturbed operator

$$H(\theta )=H_0(\theta )+W(x,y)$$
(2.12)
when $`W`$ is bounded.

In order to find the spectrum of $`H_0(\theta )`$ we introduce the basis

$$\psi _m(x)=(2\pi )^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(imx)$$
(2.13)
and get the decomposition

$`H_0(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m𝐙}{}}|\psi _mH_0^m(\theta )\psi _m|`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m𝐙}{}}|\psi _m\left[(m+By+\theta )^2_y^2+\omega ^2y^2\right]\psi _m|,`$
where $`H_0^m(\theta )=\psi _m|H_0(\theta )\psi _m`$. By a unitary transform inducing a $`(\theta +m)`$-dependent shift of the argument we find that $`H_0^m(\theta )`$ is unitarily equivalent to

$$h_m(\theta )=_u^2+\alpha ^2u^2+\beta (m+\theta )^2,$$
(2.15)
with $`\alpha =\sqrt{B^2+\omega ^2}`$, $`\beta =\omega ^2/(B^2+\omega ^2)`$, and $`u=y+B(m+\theta )/(B^2+\omega ^2)`$. This operator is clearly analytic in $`\theta `$. Therefore we get the spectrum

$$\sigma (H_0^m(\theta ))=\left\{\alpha (2n+1)+\beta (m+\theta )^2\right\}=\left\{E_n(\theta +m)\right\}_{n𝐍_0},$$
(2.16)
where the corresponding eigenfunctions of $`H_0^m(\theta )`$, $`\phi _n^{m+\theta }(y)`$, are translates of the usual harmonic oscillator states $`\phi _n(u)`$. More precisely, if $`V_{\theta +m}`$ is the unitary operator from $`L^2(_y)`$ to $`L^2(_u)`$ defined by

$$(V_{\theta +m}f)(u)=f(uB(m+\theta )/(B^2+\omega ^2)),$$
(2.17)
then $`V_{\theta +m}H_0^mV_{\theta +m}^1=h_m(\theta )`$ and $`\phi _n^{m+\theta }(y)=(V_{\theta +m}^1\phi _n)(y)`$. For a later purpose, let us also introduce the unitary operator $`V(\theta )`$ from $`L^2(_x\times _u)`$ to $`L^2(_x\times _y)`$ given as

$$V(\theta )=\underset{m𝐙}{}V_{\theta +m}.$$
(2.18)
Let us turn to

$$H(\theta )=H_0(\theta )+W(x,y)\mathrm{on}L^2([0,2\pi ]\times )$$
(2.19)
with periodic boundary conditions at $`x=0`$ and $`x=2\pi `$. Since $`W`$ is bounded, it is relatively compact w.r.t. $`H_0(\theta )`$ and the essential spectrum of $`H(\theta )`$ is thus the same as that of $`H_0(\theta )`$. It follows that $`\sigma (H(\theta ))`$ is discrete. The corresponding eigenvalues are analytic functions of $`\theta `$, we denote them as $`E_j(\theta )`$.

At this point, we see that for any $`E^{}>0`$, and uniformly in $`|\theta |<1/2`$, there are finitely many eigenvalues of $`H_0(\theta )`$ $`E_{n,m}(\theta )=\alpha (2n+1)+\beta (m+\theta )^2`$ below $`E^{}`$. These eigenvalues being are branches of analytic functions in $`\theta `$ may display finitely many crossings with one another. The same is true for those of the perturbed operator $`H(\theta )`$. In order to exclude the possibility for a perturbed eigenvalue to be constant in $`\theta `$, it is enough to impose that the perturbation be smaller than half the smallest variation of the finitely many arcs of analytic functions free from crossings below $`E`$. Therefore, below $`E=E^{}W`$, the eigenvalues of $`H(\theta )`$ cannot be constant and we have

###### Proposition 2.1

For any $`E>0`$, the spectrum of the Hamiltonian $`(\text{2.4})`$ is purely absolutely continuous below $`E`$ if $`W_{\mathrm{}}`$ is small enough.

Let us turn to the case where $`W`$ depends on $`x`$ only. We are interested in the properties of the eigenvalues of $`H_0^m(\theta )`$, which coincide with those of $`h_m(\theta )`$. As the eigenfunctions of $`h_m(\theta )`$ are independent of $`m+\theta `$, it is easier to deal with this operator as $`\theta `$ becomes complex than with $`H_0^m(\theta )`$. We define

$$h_0(\theta )=V(\theta )H_0(\theta )V^1(\theta ),$$
(2.20)
then we have the relation

$$(h_0(\theta )+1)^1^2=\underset{m𝐙}{sup}r_m(\theta )r_m(\theta )^{},r_m(\theta ):=(h_m(\theta )+1)^1$$
(2.21)
When $`\theta `$ becomes complex, in which case we will write $`\theta =\theta _1+i\theta _2`$, the resolvent $`r_m(\theta )`$ remains compact and $`r_m(\theta )^{}=(h_m(\overline{\theta })+1)^1`$ so that

$$r_m(\theta )r_m(\theta )^{}=\underset{n𝐍_0}{sup}\frac{1}{|E_n(\theta +m)+1|^2},$$
(2.22)
since the basis $`\left\{\phi _n(u)\right\}_{n𝐍_0}`$ remains orthonormal for complex $`\theta `$. Then one can show that this norm goes to zero as $`\theta \mathrm{}`$ in some direction of the complex plane, uniformly in $`m`$. Indeed, from (2.16) we get

$`r_m(\theta )r_m(\theta )^{}`$ (2.23)
$`=\underset{n𝐍_0}{sup}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[\alpha (2n+1)+\beta ((m+\theta _1)^2\theta _2^2)+1]^2+[2\beta \theta _2(m+\theta _1)]^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[2\beta \theta _2(m+\theta _1)]^2}},`$
which goes to zero as $`\theta _2\mathrm{}`$ uniformly in $`m`$ provided $`\theta _1`$ is not an integer.

Furthermore, from the fact that $`h_0(\theta )`$ is a self-adjoint holomorphic family of type A it follows that $`(h_0(\theta )+1)^1`$ is compact either for all $`\theta `$ or for no $`\theta `$ – cf. \[Ka, Thm. VII.2.4\]. We have already seen that $`(h_0(\theta )+1)^1`$ is compact for $`\theta `$ real, so it is compact also for $`\theta `$ complex. Thus $`(h_0(\theta )+1)^1(h_0^{}(\theta )+1)^1`$ is a compact self-adjoint operator, and since the family $`\left\{\phi _n(u)\right\}_{n𝐍_0}`$ still forms a complete orthonormal basis in $`L^2()`$, the eigenvalues of $`h_0(\theta )`$ retain the form (2.16). Hence one has

$$(h_0(\theta )+1)^1(h_0(\overline{\theta })^{}+1)^1=(h_0(\theta )+1)^1^2\frac{1}{\beta ^2\theta _2^2},$$
(2.24)
where we have chosen for simplicity $`\theta _1=1/2`$.

The perturbed fiber operator is

$$h(\theta )=h_0(\theta )+V(\theta )W(x)V^1(\theta )=h_0(\theta )+W(x)$$
(2.25)
The point is now to show, that the eigenvalues $`E_j(\theta )`$ of $`h(\theta )`$ are not constant in $`\theta `$. Then the same is true, for $`\theta `$ real, also for the eigenvalues of

$$H(\theta )=H_0(\theta )+W(x,y)$$
(2.26)
and this yields the absolute continuity of (2.4).

We use Thomas argument – \[Tm\] and \[RS, Sec. XIII.16\] – and assume that some $`E_j(\theta )`$ is equal to $`E_0`$ for all $`\theta `$. From the above analysis it follows that $`E_0`$ is an eigenvalue of $`h(\theta )`$ also for all complex $`\theta `$, and therefore

$$(h(\theta )+1)^1(E_0+1)^1$$
(2.27)
On the other hand, a standard argument based on the resolvent identity shows that for $`W(x)(h_0(\theta )+1)^1<1`$ (i.e. $`\theta _2`$ large enough – cf. (2.24)) is

$$(h(\theta )+1)^1\frac{(h_0(\theta )+1)^1}{1W(x)(h_0(\theta )+1)^1}$$
(2.28)
so $`(h(\theta )+1)^10`$ as $`\theta _2\mathrm{}`$ by (2.24). In this way we get a contradiction with (2.27), so no $`E_j()`$ can be constant.

Finally, we note also that if $`W(x,y)W(y)`$ is bounded and depends on $`y`$ only, we get by simple manipulations that $`H`$ is unitarily equivalent to

$$H_{pR}^{}H(p)dp$$
(2.29)
where

$$H(p)=_y^2+\alpha ^2y^2+p^2\frac{\omega ^2}{B^2+\omega ^2}+W(ypB/(B^2+\omega ^2)).$$
(2.30)
As $`W`$ is bounded, we see that the analytic eigenvalues $`\{e_n(p)\}_{n𝐍}`$ of $`H(p)`$ tend to $`\alpha (2n+1)+p^2\frac{\omega ^2}{B^2+\omega ^2}`$ as $`p\mathrm{}`$. Therefore they cannot be constant and the spectrum of $`H`$ is purely absolutely continuous also.

This allows us to make the following claim

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`W_1(x)L^{\mathrm{}}()`$ be periodic in $`x`$ and $`W_2(y)L^{\mathrm{}}()`$. Then the spectra of both operators

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`_y^2+(i_x+yB)^2+\omega ^2y^2+W_1(x)`$ (2.31)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`_y^2+(i_x+yB)^2+\omega ^2y^2+W_2(y)`$ (2.32)
are purely absolutely continuous for any $`\omega 0`$.

## 3 Open gaps

The result of previous section shows that the absolute continuity of the bottom of the spectrum of the magnetic Hamiltonian in the presence of a parabolic confinement is not affected by a small bounded $`x`$-periodic perturbation. Of course, one would like to know how the spectrum looks like as a set, in particular how many gaps can open as a consequence the perturbation. We now show that for a non-constant $`W(,y)`$ there are generically many gaps in the spectrum of $`H`$ provided the coupling constant of the confinement is large enough.

We start again with the fiber Hamiltonian

$$H(\theta )=_y^2+(i_x+yB)^2+\omega ^2y^2+W(x,y)$$
(3.33)
on $`L^2([0,2\pi ]\times )`$ with the boundary conditions (2.6). We introduce a new variable $`s`$ by

$$s=\sqrt{\alpha }y,\alpha :=\sqrt{B^2+\omega ^2}$$
(3.34)
and the orthonormal basis on $`L^2()`$

$$\phi _n(s)=C_n\mathrm{exp}(s^2/2)H_n(s),C_n=(1/\pi )^{1/4}(2^nn!)^{1/2},n𝐍_\mathrm{𝟎}$$
(3.35)
Let us introduce some more notations,

$`W_{n,m}^{(\alpha )}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(\phi _n,W\phi _m)={\displaystyle _{}}\phi _n(s)\phi _m(s)W(x,s/\sqrt{\alpha })ds,nm`$
$`W_n^{(\alpha )}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(\phi _n,W\phi _n)={\displaystyle _{}}\phi _n(s)\phi _n(s)W(x,s/\sqrt{\alpha })ds`$ (3.36)
The matrix elements of $`H(\theta )`$ in the basis (3.35) are then the operators on $`L^2([0,2\pi ])`$ given by

$`H_{n,m}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{n,m}\left[\alpha (2n+1)+K_n(\theta )\right]+W_{n,m}^{(\alpha )}(x)(1\delta _{n,m})`$ (3.37)
$``$ $`\delta _{n+1,m}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2(n+1)}{\alpha }}}iB_x\delta _{n1,m}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2n}{\alpha }}}iB_x,`$
where we define $`K_n(\theta )`$ as

$$K_n(\theta )=_x^2+W_n^{(\alpha )}(x)$$
(3.38)
with the domain

$$D(\theta )=\left\{fW_{2,2}[0,2\pi ];f(2\pi )=e^{2\pi i\theta }f(0),f^{}(2\pi )=e^{2\pi i\theta }f^{}(0)\right\}$$

By \[RS, Sec. XIII.16\] for each $`n𝐍_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ the operator $`K_n(\theta )`$ has a purely discrete spectrum, and none of their eigenvalues is constant in $`\theta `$. We will denote the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of $`K_n(\theta )`$ by

$$ϵ_k(n,\theta );\psi _k^n(x,\theta ),k,$$
(3.39)
respectively, where for any fixed $`\theta `$ and $`n`$ the functions $`\psi _k^n(x,\theta )`$ form an orthonormal basis in $`L^2[0,2\pi ]`$. It is shown in \[RS, Thm. XIII.91\] that for a non-constant $`W_n`$ at least one gap is present in the spectrum of

$$K_n:=_{|\theta |1/2}^{}K_n(\theta )d\theta $$

In other words, there exists some $`j`$ such that

$$\underset{|\theta |1/2}{sup}ϵ_j(n,\theta )<\underset{|\theta |1/2}{inf}ϵ_{j+1}(n,\theta )$$
(3.40)
We are particularly interested in the spectrum of $`H_{0,0}`$, the direct integral from $`H_{0,0}(\theta )`$ over $`\theta `$, which contains at least one gap if $`W_0^{(\alpha )}`$ is not constant.

It follows from (3.37) that taking $`\alpha `$ large enough, this gap will not be covered by the spectra of the other diagonal elements of $`H_{n,m}(\theta )`$. Then one needs only show that this gap remains open after taking into account the off-diagonal elements of $`H_{n,m}(\theta )`$. To see that, we apply perturbation theory. As unperturbed operator we take

$$H^D(\theta )=\underset{n𝐍_\mathrm{𝟎}}{}H_{n,n}(\theta )\mathrm{on}L^2[0,2\pi ]\times l_2$$
(3.41)
with eigenvalues and eigenvectors given by

$$\alpha (2n+1)+ϵ_k(n,\theta ),\psi _k^n(x,\theta )\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)$$
(3.42)
respectively, where $`1`$ stands in the $`n`$-th row. Moreover, we have

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $`H^{OD}(\theta )=H(\theta )H^D(\theta )`$. Then

$$H^{OD}(\theta )(H^D(\theta )+i)^1=𝒪(1/\alpha ),\mathrm{as}\alpha \mathrm{}$$
(3.43)
uniformly in $`\theta `$.

Proof: For

$$W^D=\underset{n𝐍_\mathrm{𝟎}}{}W_n^\alpha (x)$$

we define $`W^{OD}=WW^D`$. Then

$$W^{OD}(H^D(\theta )+i)^12W_{\mathrm{}}(H^D(\theta )+i)^1=𝒪(1/\alpha )$$
(3.44)
as $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ since $`\mathrm{dist}(\sigma (H^D(\theta )),i)`$ grows linearly with $`\alpha `$.

Let us now take $`n`$ fixed. For the other elements of $`H^{OD}(\theta )`$, i.e. the last two terms on the r.h.s. of (3.37), we have

$$\left(i_x\pm \sqrt{\alpha (2n+1)}\right)^2>0,\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}i\sqrt{\alpha (2n+1)}_x_x^2+\alpha (2n+1)$$
(3.45)
so that as quadratic forms on $`D(\theta )`$

$$\frac{B^2}{\alpha }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(n+1)_x^2\frac{B^2}{\alpha ^2}(_x^2+\alpha (2n+1))^2$$
(3.46)
Then, in the sense of (3.43),

$`|\psi _n\psi _n|iB\alpha ^{1/2}\sqrt{2(n+1)}_x|\psi _{n+1}\psi _{n+1}|(H^D(\theta )+i)^1`$ (3.47)
$`=iB\alpha ^{1/2}\sqrt{2(n+1)}_x(H_{n+1,n+1}(\theta )+i)^1`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\alpha }}(_x^2+\alpha (2n+1))(_x^2+W_{n+1}^\alpha \alpha (2n+3)+i)^1`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\alpha }}\left(1+W_{n+1}^\alpha (_x^2+W_{n+1}^\alpha +\alpha (2n+3)+i)^1\right)=𝒪(1/\alpha )`$
as $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$, uniformly in $`n`$. Inequality (3.44) and the Schur condition, \[Ka, Ex. III.2.3\], then give the statement of the Lemma.

Now the resolvent identity in combination with (3.43) implies

$`(H(\theta )+i)^1(H^D(\theta )+i)^1=`$ (3.48)
$`=`$ $`(H(\theta )+i)^1H^{OD}(\theta )(H^D(\theta )+i)^10\mathrm{as}\alpha \mathrm{}`$
so that $`H^D(\theta )`$ converges to $`H(\theta )`$ in norm resolvent sense, uniformly in $`\theta `$. From perturbation theory, see \[Ka, Thm. IV.2.25\], we thus get the convergence of spectra of $`H^D(\theta )`$ and $`H(\theta )`$. It follows that for large enough $`\alpha `$, keeping $`B`$ fixed, the gap between $`ϵ_j(0,\theta )`$ and $`ϵ_{j+1}(0,\theta )`$ will be open also in the spectrum of $`H`$. The argument works for any fixed $`j`$, i.e. sending $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ we can keep any finite family of gaps contained in $`\sigma (H_{0,0})`$ open. We have thus proven

###### Theorem 3.1

Let $`W(x,y)L^{\mathrm{}}(^2)`$. Denote by $`N(H)`$ and $`N(H_{0,0})`$ the number of open gaps in the spectrum of $`H`$ and $`H_{0,0}`$ respectively. If $`N(H_{0,0})`$ is finite, then $`N=N(H_{0,0})`$ holds for $`\omega `$ large enough; in particular, an open gap exists for a sufficiently strong confinement whenever the function $`W_0`$ is non-constant. If $`N(H_{0,0})=\mathrm{}`$, then to any positive integer $`n`$ there is $`\omega (n)`$ such that

$$N(H)n$$

holds for all $`\omega \omega (n)`$.

Remark: It is also clear from the above given argument, that taking $`\omega `$ large enough gives us the absolute continuity of $`\sigma (H)`$ in the bottom of the spectrum. More precisely, in the interval $`[inf\sigma (H_{0,0}),inf\sigma (H_{1,1})]`$.

## 4 Transport in presence of localized <br>perturbations

As we have indicated in the introduction, we turn now to situations when the perturbation is not periodic, but bounded and localized in a sense to be precised below. In this case we have

$$H=H_0+W=_y^2+(i_x+yB)^2+\omega ^2y^2+W(x,y)\mathrm{on}L^2(^2)$$
(4.49)
with $`W(x,y)L^{\mathrm{}}(^2)`$. By \[RS, Chap. X\] the Hamiltonian (4.49) is e.s.a. on $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^2)`$. For later purposes we notice that $`S(^2)`$, the Schwarz functions, is also a core for $`H`$. This follows from the fact, that $`H`$ is clearly symmetric on $`S(^2)`$ and $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^2)`$ is included in $`S(^2)`$. The question is the following: in what part of the spectrum and under which conditions does transport survive in the presence of the impurity potential $`W(x,y)`$?

Instead of the Bloch decomposition we now employ the commutator method. The point is to find a suitable conjugate operator $`A`$ which satisfies the Mourre estimate

$$E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)[H,iA]E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)\kappa E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)$$
(4.50)
for some strictly positive constant $`\kappa `$. Here $`E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$ is the spectral projection of $`H`$ on the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then, under some regularity assumptions on $`H`$, we can obtain the absence of point spectrum in the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ using the Virial Theorem, \[GG\]

###### Theorem 4.1 (Virial)

Let $`H,A`$ be self-adjoint operators on $`L^2(^2)`$ and assume that $`H`$ is of class $`C^1(A)`$, i.e. there is $`z\rho (H)`$ such that

$$te^{itA}(zH)^1e^{itA}$$
(4.51)
is of class $`C^1`$ in the strong operator topology. Then

$$(\psi ,[H,iA]\psi )=0$$

for any eigenfunction $`\psi `$ of $`H`$.

Under stronger hypothesis on $`H`$, we can apply the Mourre theorem – cf. \[Mo\],\[ABG\] – and exclude even the possibity of singular continuous spectrum in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For a precise statement of the Mourre Theorem, we have the formulation from \[Sa1, Sa2\].

###### Theorem 4.2 (Mourre)

Let $`H,A`$ be self-adjoint operators on $`L^2(^2)`$ and assume that

1. There is $`\alpha >0`$ such that $`H`$ is of class $`C^{1+\alpha }(A)`$, i.e. $`H`$ is $`C^1(A)`$ and the derivative of $`(\text{4.51})`$ is Hölder continuous of order $`\alpha `$.
2. $`H`$ and $`A`$ satisfy the estimate $`(\text{4.50})`$ for an open interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\kappa >0`$.

Then the spectrum of $`H`$ in the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is purely absolutely continuous.

Remark: We shall use the last theorem with $`\alpha =1`$, which corresponds to the original formulation given in \[Mo\], see also \[CFKS, Thm. 4.9\].

The classical counterpart of the positive commutator (4.50) is an observable which increases in time. To find a suitable candidate for the conjugate operator in our case, let us therefore discuss first the classical dynamics of the unperturbed system.

### 4.1 Classical solution in the absence of perturbation

We will denote the position vector of the particle by $`(x(t),y(t))`$. In the absence of $`W(x,y)`$ the classical Hamiltonian is of the form

$$H_{cl}=(p_x+yB)^2+p_y^2+\omega ^2y^2$$
(4.52)
where

$$p_x(t)=\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}(t)y(t)B,p_y(t)=\frac{1}{2}\dot{y}(t)$$
(4.53)
From Hamilton’s equations we thus get

$$\dot{p}_x(t)=0,\dot{p}_y(t)=\dot{x}(t)B2\omega ^2y(t)$$
(4.54)
Given initial conditions $`x(0),y(0),p_x(0),p_y(0)`$, the solution of (4.54) reads

$`x(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2\alpha ^2}}p_y(0)\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha t)+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\alpha }}\left(y(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{4\alpha ^2}}p_x(0)\right)\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha t)`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}p_x(0)t{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\alpha ^2}}+x(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2\alpha ^2}}p_y(0)`$
$`y(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\alpha )^1p_y(0)\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha t)+\left(y(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{4\alpha ^2}}p_x(0)\right)\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha t){\displaystyle \frac{B}{\alpha ^2}}p_x(0)`$
$`p_x(t)`$ $`=`$ $`p_x(0)`$
$`p_y(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_y(0)\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha t)\alpha \left(y(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{4\alpha ^2}}p_x(0)\right)\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha t)`$ (4.55)
Note that the momentum $`p_x`$ is preserved since the free Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ commutes with $`x`$-translations, see (4.54). It is easy to see that the classical trajectory is now given by an ellipse, with the position vector of its center being

$$S(t)=[2p_x(0)t\frac{\omega ^2}{\alpha ^2}+x(0)+\frac{B}{2\alpha ^2}p_y(0),\frac{B}{\alpha ^2}p_x(0)],$$
(4.56)
so that as long as $`\omega 0`$, i.e. the confinement is present, the center of the ellipse is moving along the $`x`$ axis with the constant velocity and in the direction given by a sign of the initial momentum $`p_x(0)`$. Note also, that the two ellipses which correspond to the motions in opposite directions are mutually shifted by $`\frac{2B}{\alpha ^2}p_x(0)`$.

A classical observable whose absolute value is increasing in time is thus the $`x`$ component of $`S(t)`$, which can be written as

$$S_x(t)=x(t)+\frac{B}{\alpha ^2}p_y(t).$$
(4.57)
However, since we need something which has a definite sign independently of the initial conditions, we multiply (4.57) by $`p_x(t)`$; then

$$_t(p_x(t)S_x(t))=2p_x^2(0)\frac{\omega ^2}{\alpha ^2}>0.$$
(4.58)
In other words, the corresponding quantum mechanical conjugate operator can be chosen in the form

$$A=\frac{1}{2}(i_xxix_x)\frac{B}{\alpha ^2}_x_y.$$
(4.59)
### 4.2 Absence of eigenvalues and absolute continuity

Now we are going to show that under some regularity and decay assumptions on $`W`$ the absolutely continuous spectrum of the free Hamiltonian persists in some parts of the spectrum of $`H`$. In particular, this makes scattering on the impurity in our parabolic channel possible.

The conditions we impose on $`W(x,y)`$ then are as follows:

* $`W_0:=W_{\mathrm{}}<\alpha ,W_0^{}:=x_xW_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}`$
* $`WC^2(^2)`$ and

$$_x^2W_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{},_y^2W_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{},_x_yW_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{},x^2_x^2W_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}$$

Before looking for the Mourre estimate, we check the regulariry of the map (4.51).

First we state an auxiliary Lemma, which is proven in the Appendix.

###### Lemma 4.1

There exists a number $`c`$ such that

* $`_y^2R_0(\lambda )c`$
* $`_x^2R_0(\lambda ),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}y_xR_0(\lambda ),y^2R_0(\lambda )c\frac{1+\alpha ^2}{\omega ^2}`$
* $`_x_yR_0(\lambda )c\sqrt{\frac{1+\alpha ^2}{\omega ^2}}`$

where $`R_0(\lambda )=(H_0+\lambda )^1,\lambda 0`$.

Now we show that under the assumption $`(a)`$ one can apply the Virial Theorem to a pair of operators $`H,A`$.

###### Lemma 4.2

Let $`W(x,y)`$ satisfy the condition $`(a)`$. Then $`H`$ is of class $`C^1(A)`$.

Proof: By \[GG\] and \[ABG, Thm. 6.3.4\] to show that $`H`$ is $`C^1(A)`$, it is enough to prove that

* $`e^{itA}`$ preserves $`D(H)`$,
* There is a constant $`c`$ such that

$$|(H\phi ,A\phi )(A\phi ,H\phi )|c(H\phi ^2+\phi ^2),\phi D(H)D(A).$$

Since $`W`$ is bounded, the domain of $`H`$ coincides with that of $`H_0`$ and we can thus check the condition $`(1)`$ only for $`D(H_0)`$. Let $`D`$ be a core for $`H_0`$. It follows from \[ABG, Lem. 7.6.5\], that to prove $`(1)`$ it suffices to show, in addition to $`(2)`$, that

* for $`uD`$ and $`t`$, $`e^{itA}uD`$ and $`sup_{|t|1}H_0e^{itA}u<\mathrm{}`$.
* the derivative $`_te^{itA}H_0e^{itA}u|_{t=0}[H_0,iA]u`$ exists weakly for each vector $`uD`$.

To begin with, we notice that $`A`$ being quadratic in momentum and position, we know by \[Hag, Thm. 3.4\] that the unitary propagator $`U(t)=e^{itA}`$ is such that

$$U(t):S(^2)S(^2)$$

Now, $`S(^2)`$ is a core for $`H_0`$, so the first part of (i) is satisfied. To see how $`U(t)`$ acts on the function from $`S(^2)`$, we apply a partial Fourier transformation in $`y`$, and denote the transformed operators by $`\widehat{H_0}`$ and $`\widehat{A}`$. It can be directly checked, that for any $`\psi (x,y)S(^2)`$

$$e^{it\widehat{A}}\widehat{\psi }(x,k)=e^{t/2}\widehat{\psi }(e^txk\mu (1e^t),k)$$
(4.60)
where $`\widehat{\psi }(x,k)=_y\psi (x,y)`$ and $`\mu :=\frac{B}{\alpha ^2}`$.

A simple calculation then gives

$`e^{it\widehat{A}}\widehat{H}_0e^{it\widehat{A}}\widehat{\psi }(x,k)=`$ (4.61)
$`=`$ $`a(t)_x^2\widehat{\psi }(x,k)+b(t)_x_k\widehat{\psi }(x,k)\alpha ^2_k^2\widehat{\psi }(x,k)+k^2\widehat{\psi }(x,k)`$
where

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2t}\left(1+2Be^t\mu (1e^t)+\alpha ^2e^{2t}\mu ^2(1e^t)^2\right)`$
$`b(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^t\left(2B+2\alpha ^2e^t\mu (1e^t)\right)`$ (4.62)
are both $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$, so that the second part of $`(i)`$ and $`(ii)`$ hold.

Moreover, it is easily seen from (4.60) that $`U(t)`$ is strongly differentiable on $`S(^2)`$. It follows then from \[RS, Thm. VIII.10\] that $`A`$ is essentialy self-adjoint on $`S(^2)`$.

This allows us to verify the condition $`(2)`$ only on functions in $`S(^2)`$. First we notice that $`H`$ can be written as

$$H=\left(i_x\frac{B}{\alpha }+y\alpha \right)^2\beta _x^2_y^2+W(x,y)$$
(4.63)
reminding that

$$\beta =\frac{\omega ^2}{\alpha ^2}$$

Then for any $`\phi S(^2)`$

$`|(H\phi ,A\phi )(A\phi ,H\phi )||(\phi ,2\beta _x^2\phi )|`$
$`+\mu |(W\phi ,_x_y\phi )(W\phi ,_x_y\phi )|+|(\phi ,(_xW)x\phi )|`$
$`2|(\phi ,H_0\phi )|+2\mu W_0\phi _x_y\phi +\phi ^2W_0^{}`$ (4.64)
On the other hand we have

$`i_x\phi ^2`$ $``$ $`\beta ^1\phi H_0\phi \beta ^1\phi (H\phi +W_0\phi )`$
$`i_y\phi ^2`$ $``$ $`\phi H_0\phi \phi (H\phi +W_0\phi )`$ (4.65)
and since $`H\alpha W_0>0`$ holds by assumption, also

$$\phi (\alpha W_0)^1H\phi $$
(4.66)
Moreover, it follows from Lemma 4.1, that

$$_x_y\phi \mathrm{const}H_0\phi $$
(4.67)
Using all the inequalities we can find some large enough constant $`c`$, depending on $`\alpha `$ and $`W_0`$, such that

$$|(H\phi ,A\phi )(A\phi ,H\phi )|c(H\phi ^2+\phi ^2)$$
(4.68)
proving thus $`(2)`$.

Finally, $`(2)`$ in combination with \[ABG, Lem. 7.6.5\] shows that $`e^{it\widehat{A}}`$ preserves $`D(\widehat{H_0})`$. That is, for any $`\psi (x,y)D(H_0)`$ we have $`e^{it\widehat{A}}\widehat{\psi }(x,k)D(\widehat{H}_0)`$ and

$$e^{itA}\psi (x,y)=_y^1e^{it\widehat{A}}\widehat{\psi }(x,k)_y^1D(\widehat{H}_0)=D(H_0)$$
(4.69)
which completes the proof of the Lemma.

The hypothesis of the Mourre theorem require a slightly stronger regularity of $`H`$. We will impose some additional assumptions on $`W(x,y)`$.

###### Lemma 4.3

Assume $`(a)`$ and $`(b)`$. Then $`H`$ is $`C^2(A)`$.

Proof: We will prove the statement of the Lemma separately for $`H_0`$ and $`W`$.
First we prove that $`H_0`$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}(A)`$. We work in the Fourier picture, as above. Consider

$$\widehat{H}_0(t)=e^{it\widehat{A}}\widehat{H}_0e^{it\widehat{A}},$$
(4.70)
self adjoint on $`D(\widehat{H_0})`$ for any $`t`$ and, for $`\lambda >W+1`$,

$$\widehat{R}_0(t)=e^{it\widehat{A}}(\widehat{H_0}+\lambda )^1e^{it\widehat{A}}.$$
(4.71)
As $`\widehat{R}_0(t+t_0)=e^{it_0\widehat{A}}\widehat{R}_0(t)e^{it_0\widehat{A}}`$, it is enough to check differentiability at $`0`$. From the resolvent identity on $`(\widehat{H}_0+1)S(^2)`$ and (4.61), we get

$`\widehat{R}_0(t)\widehat{R}_0(0)=\widehat{R}_0(t)(\widehat{H}_0(t)\widehat{H}_0)\widehat{R}_0(0)`$
$`=\widehat{R}_0(t)(\stackrel{~}{a}(t)_x^2+\stackrel{~}{b}(t)_x_k)\widehat{R}_0(0)`$
$`\widehat{R}_0(t)B(t)`$ (4.72)
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}(t)`$ are both $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`𝒪(t)`$ as $`t0`$. It is proven in the Appendix, see Lemma 4.1, that $`_x^2\widehat{R}_0(0)`$ and $`_x_k\widehat{R}_0(0)`$ are bounded. Therefore the operator $`B(t)`$ is bounded, $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`B(t)0`$ in norm as $`t0`$.

With the properties of $`B(t)`$ listed above, we deduce that in a neighbourhood of $`t=0`$

$$\widehat{R}_0(t)=\widehat{R}_0(0)(𝕀B(t))^1$$
(4.73)
which is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ in norm, since $`B`$ is, and we can conclude that $`H_0`$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}(A)`$.
To show that $`(H_0+W)C^2(A)`$ it is sufficient by \[Mo\], \[CFKS, Thm. 4.9\] and Lemma 4.2 to find some $`c>0`$ such that

$$(\phi ,[[W,iA],iA]\phi )c(H\phi ^2+\phi ^2)$$
(4.74)
for any $`\phi D(H)D(A)`$. Expanding the second commutator in (4.74) we write for any $`\phi S(^2)`$

$`(\phi ,[[W,iA],iA]\phi )=(\phi ,x(_xW)\phi )+(\phi ,x^2(_x^2W)\phi )`$
$`+i\mu [2(x(_xW)\phi ,_x_y\phi )2(_x_y\phi ,x(_xW)\phi )]`$
$`+i\mu [(_x_y\phi ,W\phi )(\phi ,W_x_y\phi )]\mu ^2((_x_yW)\phi ,_x_y\phi )`$ (4.75)
$`\mu ^2[(_x_y\phi ,(_x_yW)\phi )(_x,(_y^2W)_x\phi )(_y\phi ,(_x^2W)_y\phi )]`$
Now we can follow the proof of Lemma 4.2 and using the assumption $`(b)`$ we get the following bound

$`|(\phi ,[[W,iA],iA]\phi )|\phi ^2x^2_x^2W_{\mathrm{}}+W_0^{}\phi (\phi +4_x_y\phi )`$
$`+2\mu W_0\phi _x_y\phi +\mu ^2_y^2W_{\mathrm{}}_x\phi ^2`$
$`+\mu ^2_x^2W_{\mathrm{}}_y\phi ^2++2\mu ^2_x_yW_{\mathrm{}}_x_y\phi \phi `$
$`\mathrm{const}(H\phi ^2+\phi ^2)`$ (4.76)
where the last inequality is justified by Lemma 4.1.

In order to prove the Mourre estimate (4.50) we will proceed in two steps. First, we find a positive lower bound on the contribution to the commutator coming from $`H_0`$. Secondly, we control the contribution from $`W`$ so that we preserve the sought positivity of $`[H_0+W,iA]`$. The former is done in

###### Lemma 4.4

Let $`\alpha >\delta >0`$ and define

$$I(\alpha ,\delta ):=\underset{n𝐍_0}{}[(2n+1)\alpha \delta ,(2n+1)\alpha +\delta ]$$
(4.77)
Then for any $`EI(\alpha ,\delta )`$ there exists an open interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ such that

$$E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)[H_0,iA]E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)\delta E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)$$

holds for $`W_0`$ small enough.

Proof: We define an operator

$$H_L(\alpha )=\left(i_x\frac{B}{\alpha }+y\alpha \right)^2_y^2$$
(4.78)
which is unitarily equivalent to the Landau Hamiltonian with the magnetic field of a strength $`\alpha `$, so that $`\sigma (H_L(\alpha ))=\{(2n+1)\alpha \}_{n𝐍_0}`$. It follows that

$$[H_0,iA]=2\beta _x^2=2(H_0H_L(\alpha ))$$
(4.79)
Now, fix $`\lambda I(\alpha ,\delta )`$ and let us denote by $`n_0(\lambda )`$ the largest natural number for which $`\alpha (2n_0(\lambda )+1)\lambda `$. The spectral family of $`H_0`$ is thus given by

$$E_0(\lambda )=\underset{nn_0(\lambda )}{}P_n\chi _t([0,\lambda \alpha (2n+1)))$$
(4.80)
where $`P_n`$ is the projection on the $`n^{th}`$ Landau level of $`H_L(\alpha )`$ and $`\chi _t`$ is the spectral projection of $`\beta _x^2`$.

To continue consider an open interval $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=(Eϵ,E+ϵ)`$ with $`ϵ`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}I(\alpha ,\delta )`$. For the spectral projection of $`H_0`$ on the interval $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ we then get

$`E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)`$ $`=`$ $`E_0(E+ϵ)E_0(Eϵ)`$ (4.81)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nn_0(E)}{}}P_n\chi _t([E(2n+1)\alpha ϵ,E(2n+1)\alpha +ϵ))`$
and this gives us the lower bound on $`E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)[H_0,iA]E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)`$ in the form

$`E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)[H_0,iA]E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)=E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)(2\beta _x^2)E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{nn_0(E)}{}}P_n\chi _t([E(2n+1)\alpha ϵ,E(2n+1)\alpha +ϵ)))(2\beta _x^2)`$
$`P_n\chi _t([E(2n+1)\alpha ϵ,E(2n+1)\alpha +ϵ)))E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\delta `$ (4.82)
Applying the argument of \[FGW\] this result can be extended to $`H`$. For $`I(\alpha ,\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ we decompose $`E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$ as

$$E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)=E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)+(1E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0))E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)$$

and since $`E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)`$ commutes with $`[H_0,iA]`$ we get

$`E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)\left([H_0,iA]2\delta \right)E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)=`$
$`=E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)([H_0,iA]2\delta )E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$
$`+E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)([H_0,iA]2\delta )(1E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0))E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$ (4.83)
From this one easily obtains the following inequality

$`E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)\left([H_0,iA]2\delta \right)E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$
$`E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)([H_0,iA]2\delta )E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0)E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$
$`([H_0,iA]2\delta )(1E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0))E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$ (4.84)
where the first term on the r.h.s. is non-negative. From Lemma 4.1 we know that

$$\beta _x^2H_0^1\beta C(\omega ,B)=c\frac{1+\alpha ^2}{\alpha ^2}$$
(4.85)
where $`c`$ is a numerical constant. We can thus follow \[FGW\] and claim that the second term is bounded from above by

$`2\beta C(\omega ,B)H_0(1E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0))(H_0E)^1(H_0E)E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$
$`+2\delta H_0^1H_0(1E_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(H_0))(H_0E)^1(H_0E)E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$
$`2(\delta \alpha ^1+\beta C(\omega ,B))(1+Eϵ^1)(|\mathrm{\Delta }|+W_0)`$ (4.86)
so that for

$$(|\mathrm{\Delta }|+W_0)<\frac{\delta }{2(\delta \alpha ^1+\beta C(\omega ,B))(1+Eϵ^1)}$$
(4.87)
is

$$E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)([H_0,iA]2\delta )E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)\delta $$

and hence

$$E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)[H_0,iA]E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)\delta E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)$$
(4.88)
what we set out to prove.

Armed with these Lemmas we are in position to prove the Mourre estimate for $`H`$.

###### Lemma 4.5

Let $`EI(\alpha ,\delta +ϵ)`$. Assume moreover that

$`(I)W_0<{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2(\delta \alpha ^1+\beta C(\omega ,B))(1+Eϵ^1)}}`$
$`\mathrm{and}`$
$`(II)W_0^{}+B\alpha ^2\sqrt{cC(\omega ,B)}W_0(E+W_0)<\delta /2`$
Then there is an open interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ such that

$$E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)[H,iA]E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)\delta /2E_\mathrm{\Delta }(H)$$
(4.90)
Proof: Consider again some open interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1E`$, see Fig. 1, and a state $`\psi =E_{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}(H)\psi `$. We mimick the argument used in the proof of Lemma 4.2 and keeping in mind that $`(HE)\psi |\mathrm{\Delta }_1|\psi `$ we get

$`|(\psi ,[W,iA]\psi )|`$ $``$ $`W_0^{}\psi ^2+2B\alpha ^2W_0_x_y\psi \psi `$
$``$ $`W_0^{}\psi ^2+B\alpha ^2\sqrt{cC(\omega ,B)}W_0(E+W_0+|\mathrm{\Delta }_1|)\psi ^2`$
where we have used the fact that $`2_x_yH_0^1\sqrt{cC(\omega ,B)}`$, see Lemma 4.1.

By letting $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_1|0`$ we get from (4.5) the upper bound on the contribution from $`W(x,y)`$:

$$|(\psi ,[W,iA]\psi )|<\delta /2\psi ^2$$
(4.92)
On the other hand by Lemma 4.4 for $`W_0`$ sufficiently small there is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2E`$ such that

$$(\psi ,[H_0,iA]\psi )\delta \psi ^2$$
(4.93)
for $`\psi =E_{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}(H)\psi `$.

To complete the proof it sufficies to take $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$.

Note that once the condition (4.5) holds for some $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$, it holds also for all $`E\stackrel{~}{E}`$. This leads us to the following definition:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(E,\alpha ,\delta +ϵ):=\{\lambda |\lambda E,\lambda I(\alpha ,\delta +ϵ)\}$$
(4.94)
Now we are ready to state our main result.

###### Theorem 4.3

Assume $`W_0=W_{\mathrm{}}<\alpha ,W_0^{}=x_xW_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}`$ and that the assupmtions of Lemma $`(\text{4.5})`$ are satisfied for some $`ϵ`$ and $`EI(\alpha ,\delta +ϵ)`$. Then

* $`H`$ has no eigenvalues in the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E,\alpha ,\delta +ϵ)`$,
* if in addition $`WC^2(^2)`$ and

$$_x^2W_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{},_y^2W_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{},_x_yW_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{},x^2_x^2W_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{},$$

then the spectrum of $`H`$ in the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E,\alpha ,\delta +ϵ)`$ is purely absolutely continuous.

Proof: Application of the Virial respectively Mourre Theorem and Lemmas 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5.

Remark: Theorem 4.3 does not exclude the possibility that the spectrum of $`H`$ is empty in the considered interval. However, it follows from the standard perturbative argument that since the spectrum of $`H_0=HW`$ includes whole the interval $`[\alpha ,\mathrm{})`$ this cannot happen for $`W_0`$ small enough.

Let us now consider the following scaling:

$$E=E_0\alpha ,\delta =\delta _0\alpha ,ϵ=ϵ_0\alpha $$

where $`E_0,\delta _0,ϵ_0`$ are fixed. From $`(I)`$ we then get

$$W_0<\frac{\delta _0ϵ_0\alpha }{2(\delta _0+c\frac{1+\alpha ^2}{\alpha ^2})(ϵ_0+E_0)}\mathrm{},\mathrm{as}\omega \mathrm{}$$
(4.95)
and similarly from $`(II)`$

$$W_0^{}<\alpha \delta _0/2cB\alpha ^2\sqrt{\frac{1+\alpha ^2}{\alpha ^2}}W_0(E_0\alpha +W_0)\mathrm{},\mathrm{as}\omega \mathrm{}$$
(4.96)
In other words, for $`\omega `$ sufficiently large there is some interval in between the modified Landau levels, in which the transport survives whenever $`W_0,W_0^{}<\mathrm{}`$. We thus have

###### Corollary 4.1

Let $`E_0,\delta _0,ϵ_0`$ be fixed and assume that both $`W_0`$ and $`W_0^{}`$ are finite. Then the statements of Theorem 4.3 hold in the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha E_0,\alpha (\delta _0+ϵ_0))`$ provided $`\omega `$ is large enough.

On the other hand, in the high energy limit the behaviour of the bound $`(I)`$ is as $`E^1`$. Accordingly, Theorem 4.3 proves the absence of eigenvalues respectively absolute continuity only in a finite number of intervals. In this sence our result is comparable with those of \[FGW, BP\], where the upper bound on the size of perturbation is also $`𝒪(E^1)`$ as $`E\mathrm{}`$. For comparison we note that the same bound on $`W_{\mathrm{}}`$ obtained in \[MMP\] is decreasing with energy as $`E^4`$.

### 4.3 The positivity of $`[H_0,iA]`$: more general approach

As we have seen above, the condition $`W_0^{}<\mathrm{}`$ which doesn’t allow us to consider non-localized perturbations, e.g. random, comes from the fact that our conjugate operator includes the dilation generator $`xp_x`$. Let us now show that, for $`A`$ being a quadratic function of $`(x,y,p_x,p_y)`$, the presence of this term is necessary if one requires $`[H_0,iA]`$ to be definitly positive.

We take $`A`$ in the form

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}\alpha _{j,k}_{x_j}_{x_k}+i{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}\beta _{j,k}(x_k_{x_j}+_{x_j}x_k)`$ (4.97)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}\gamma _{j,k}x_jx_k+i{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\delta _j_{x_j}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}ϵ_jx_j`$
where $`j,k=1,2`$. Assume that the “bad” term is absent, i.e. $`\beta _{1,1}=0`$. The straightforward computation then gives

$`[H_0,iA]`$ $`=`$ $`4B\alpha _{1,2}p_1^2+2(B\alpha _{2,2}\beta _{1,2}\beta _{2,1})p_1p_24\beta _{2,2}p_2^2+4\gamma _{1,2}x_1p_2`$ (4.98)
$`+`$ $`(2\gamma _{1,1}+B\beta _{2,1})(x_1p_1+p_1x_1)+4(\alpha ^2\alpha _{1,2}+\gamma _{1,2}B\beta _{2,2})x_2p_1`$
$`+`$ $`2(2\alpha ^2\alpha _{2,2}+2\gamma _{2,2}B\beta _{2,1})(x_2p_2+p_2x_2)`$
$`+`$ $`4(\alpha ^2\beta _{2,1}+B\gamma _{1,1})x_1x_2+4(\alpha ^2\beta _{2,2}+B\gamma _{1,2})x_2^2+i(ϵ_1p_1+ϵ_2p_2)`$
$`+`$ $`2\delta _2\alpha ^2x_22i(\gamma _{1,1}+\gamma _{2,2}+\alpha ^2\alpha _{2,2})`$
First of all notice that since $`H_0`$ is purely quadratic, the linear terms of $`A`$ produce again only linear terms in $`[H_0,iA]`$ and we can thus leave them out without loss of generality. The cenral point is that, due to the translation invariance in $`x`$, the term proportional to $`x_1^2`$ is missing in $`[H_0,iA]`$. This means that if we want $`[H_0,iA]`$ to be definitely positive, we have to make the terms with $`x_1`$ vanish:

$$\gamma _{1,2}=0,2\gamma _{1,1}+B\beta _{2,1}=0,\alpha ^2\beta _{2,1}+B\gamma _{1,1}=0$$
(4.99)
But now $`x_2^2`$ and $`p_2^2`$ have necessarily opposite signs, so that we need also $`\beta _{2,2}`$ to be zero, which implies that $`x_2^2`$ is absent as well. Following the argument given above for $`x_1^2`$ we get

$$\alpha _{1,2}=0,2\alpha ^2\alpha _{2,2}+2\gamma _{2,2}B\beta _{2,1}=0$$
(4.100)
and we are left with

$$2(B\alpha _{2,2}\beta _{1,2}\beta _{2,1})p_1p_2$$

which cannot be definite positive.

## Appendix

Proof of Lemma 4.1: Application of a partial Fourier transform in $`x`$ shows that $`H_0`$ is unitarily equivalent to

$$\widehat{H_0}=_v^2+u^2+2Buv+\alpha ^2v^2=P^2+V(u,v)$$
(4.101)
where $`P:=i_v`$. We now mimick the argument used in \[BEH, Ex. 7.2.4\]. First of all note that since

$$u^2+2Buv+\alpha ^2v^2=(u+Bv)^2+\omega ^2v^2$$

we can write

$$V(u,v)=(V^{1/2}(u,v))^2$$

For $`\psi S(^2)`$

$`(P^2+V)\psi ^2=(\psi ,(P^4+V^2+P^2V+VP^2)\psi )`$
$`=(\psi ,(P^4+V^2+2PVP+[P,[P,V]])\psi )`$ (4.102)
Furthermore, we compute

$$[P,[P,V]]=[P,i_vV]=_v^2V=2\alpha ^2$$

Then

$$(P^2+V)\psi ^2=P^2\psi ^2+V\psi ^2+2V^{1/2}P\psi ^22\alpha ^2\psi ^2$$

so that

$$P^2\psi ^2+V\psi ^22\alpha ^2\psi ^2+(P^2+V)\psi ^2$$

Since both $`P^2,V`$ are closed we can follow the argument given in \[BEH, Ex. 7.2.4\] and claim that

$$D(P^2+V)=D(P^2)D(V)$$
(4.103)
Taking $`\widehat{R_0}(\lambda )=(\widehat{H_0}+\lambda )^1`$ for some $`\lambda >0`$ it then follows from closed graph Theorem that both

$$P^2\widehat{R_0}(\lambda ),V\widehat{R_0}(\lambda )$$

are bounded. More precisely, one can show that for any $`\psi S(^2)`$

$$P^2\widehat{R_0}(\lambda )\psi \sqrt{6}\psi ,V\widehat{R_0}(\lambda )\psi \sqrt{6}\psi $$
(4.104)
which proves $`(i)`$ To continue we note that $`V(u,v)`$ can be diagonalized by an orthogonal transform $`T`$ so that

$$V(u,v)=\lambda _+\widehat{u}^2+\lambda _{}\widehat{v}^2$$
(4.105)
where $`(\widehat{u},\widehat{v})=T(u,v)`$ and

$$\lambda _\pm =\frac{1+\alpha ^2\pm \sqrt{(1+\alpha ^2)^24\omega ^2}}{2}$$

Therefore we have

$`V(u,v)`$ $``$ $`\lambda _{}(u^2+v^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\alpha ^2)^2(1+\alpha ^2)^2+4\omega ^2}{1+\alpha ^2+\sqrt{(1+\alpha ^2)^24\omega ^2}}}(u^2+v^2)`$ (4.106)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{1+\alpha ^2}}(u^2+v^2)`$
From (4.101) we know that there exists a unitary operator $`U`$ such that

$$\widehat{H_0}=UH_0U^1$$

Now taking $`\phi =U\psi `$ we get

$$_x^2\psi =u^2\phi \frac{1+\alpha ^2}{\omega ^2}V\phi ,y^2\psi =v^2\phi \frac{1+\alpha ^2}{\omega ^2}V\phi $$
(4.107)
and

$$y_x\psi =uv\phi \frac{1}{2}\frac{1+\alpha ^2}{\omega ^2}V\phi $$
(4.108)
which gives us $`(ii)`$. Finally,

$$_x_y\psi ^2=(uP\phi ,uP\phi )P^2\phi u^2\phi c^2\frac{1+\alpha ^2}{\omega ^2}\widehat{H_0}\phi ^2$$
(4.109)
## Acknowledgement

Useful discussions with J.-M. Combes, N. Macris, and Ph. Martin are gratefully acknowledged. A. J. thanks the Doppler Institute, Czech Technical University, where this work has begun, for the hospitality. H. K. would like to thank his hosts at Institut Fourier in Grenoble for the warm hospitality extended to him. The research has been partially supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Academy of Sciences under the Contract A1048101 and by the program Tempra from Région Rhône-Alpes.


format: text

text:
# References

SPONTANEOUS VIOLATION OF LORENTZ AND CPT SYMMETRY

Don Colladay ***New College of the University of South Florida, Sarasota, FL, 34243.

1. INTRODUCTION

The standard model as well as many of its modern day extensions preserves Lorentz and CPT symmetry. In fact, symmetry under the Lorentz group is a basic assumption in virtually any fundamental theory used to describe elementary particle physics. Under very mild assumptions, the postulates of a point particle theory that preserves Lorentz invariance imply that CPT is also preserved .

In this proceedings, I will discuss the construction of quantum field theories that break Lorentz and CPT symmetry. There are both experimental and theoretical motivations to develop such theories.

Many sensitive experimental tests of Lorentz and CPT symmetry have been performed. For example, high precision tests involving atomic systems , clock comparisons , and neutral meson oscillations  provide stringent tests of Lorentz and CPT symmetry. Recently, a pendulum with a net macroscopic spin angular momentum has been constructed and used to investigate spin-dependent Lorentz and CPT violation . In the past, such experiments have placed bounds on phenomenological parameters that lack any clear connection with the microscopic physics of the standard model. One motivation of constructing a theory in the context of the standard model that allows for Lorentz and CPT violation is the desire to have a single theory within the context of conventional quantum field theory that could relate various experiments and be used to motivate future investigations.

This begs the question as to how such effects might arise naturally within the current framework of quantum field theory. The main idea is that miniscule low-energy remnant effects that violate fundamental symmetries may arise in theories underlying the standard model. One example is string theory in which nontrivial structure of the vacuum solutions may induce observable Lorentz and CPT violations .

Rather than attempting a construction based directly on a specific underlying model, such as string theory, we proceed using the generic mechanism of spontaneous symmetry violation to implement the breaking. Terms involving standard model fields that violate Lorentz and CPT symmetry are assumed to arise from a general spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism in which vacuum expectation values for tensor fields are generated in the underlying theory . The approach then is to construct all possible terms that can arise through spontaneous symmetry breaking that are consistent with the gauge invariance of the standard model and power-counting renormalizability. These conditions are imposed on the model to limit the deviation from the conventional standard model by preserving gauge symmetries and renormalizability. It is somewhat analogous to imposing R-parity in supersymmetry to eliminate pesky lepton number violating interactions.

The resulting terms lead to modified field equations that can be analyzed within the context of conventional quantum field theory. In this proceedings, I will develop the modified Feynman rules for a model theory and will explore some possible consequences for quantum electrodynamics. Other topics in Lorentz and CPT violation including a detailed analysis of causality and stability issues  and an investigation of effects on neutrino oscillations  are also being discussed at this meeting.

2. SPONTANEOUS BREAKING OF LORENTZ SYMMETRY

In this section, a general spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism is applied to the fermion sector to generate an example of the types of interactions that arise. The conventional mechanism of this type occurs in theories that contain scalar field potentials with nontrivial minima, such as the conventional Higgs mechanism of the standard model in which Yukawa couplings generate the fermion masses after spontaneous symmetry breaking of the scalar Higgs field. In conventional theories of this sort, internal symmetries of the original Lagrangian such as gauge invariance may be violated, but Lorentz symmetry is always maintained.

The key element in preserving Lorentz invariance when symmetry is broken spontaneously is the fact that a Lorentz scalar obtains an expectation value. Spontaneous Lorentz breaking may occur in a fundamental theory containing a potential for a tensor field that has nontrivial minima. For example, consider a lagrangian describing a fermion $`\psi `$ and a tensor $`T`$ of the form

$$=_0^{},$$
(1)
where

$$^{}\frac{\lambda }{M^k}T\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(i)^k\psi +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.+\mathrm{V}(\mathrm{T}).$$
(2)
In this expression, $`\lambda `$ is a dimensionless coupling constant, $`M`$ is some heavy mass scale of the underlying theory, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes a general gamma matrix element in the Dirac algebra, and $`V(T)`$ is a potential for the tensor field (indices are suppressed for notational simplicity). The potential $`V(T)`$ is assumed to arise in a more fundamental theory underlying the standard model. Note that terms contributing to $`V(T)`$ are precluded from conventional renormalizable four-dimensional field theories, making this type of violation impossible. However, these terms are naturally generated in the low-energy limit of more general theories such as string theory .

If the function $`V(T)`$ has nontrivial minima, a nonzero expectation value of $`T`$ will be generated in the vacuum. The lagrangian will then contain a term of the form

$$^{}\frac{\lambda }{M^k}T\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(i)^k\psi +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(3)
that is bilinear in the fermion fields and can violate Lorentz invariance and various discrete symmetries C, P, T, CP, and CPT.

3. RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM MECHANICS

To illustrate the techniques for treating terms of the form generated in Eq.(3), we examine a subset of all the possible terms. An example applicable to the standard model fermions is furnished by the choice $`k=0`$ (no derivatives) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma ^\mu `$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma ^5\gamma ^\mu `$, the most general nonderivative terms that violate CPT symmetry. With these restrictions, the model lagrangian for a single fermion $`\psi `$ becomes

$$=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\psi a_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi b_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \psi m\overline{\psi }\psi ,$$
(4)
where the parameters $`a_\mu `$ and $`b_\mu `$ are real constant coefficients that denote the tensor expectation values and coupling constants that are present in (3).

Several features of this theory can be immediately deduced from the structure of the lagrangian. First, the lagrangian is hermitian and therefore preserves probability. This means that conventional quantum mechanics can be used to evolve the particle states in time. The model lagrangian is invariant under translations and U(1) gauge transformations which leads to conservation of energy, momentum, and charge. The resulting Dirac equation

$$(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu a_\mu \gamma ^\mu b_\mu \gamma _5\gamma ^\mu m)\psi =0.$$
(5)
obtained by minimizing the variation of the action with respect to the fermion field is linear in $`\psi `$. Equation (5) can be solved exactly using the plane-wave solutions

$$\psi (x)=e^{\pm ip_\mu x^\mu }w(\stackrel{}{p}),$$
(6)
where $`p^0(\stackrel{}{p})E(\stackrel{}{p})`$ is the energy (defined as the magnitude of the eigenvalue of the hamiltonian acting on the state) determined by setting the determinant of the matrix acting on $`w(\stackrel{}{p})`$ equal to zero.

The general form of the resulting dispersion relation is complicated, so we content ourselves here by investigating the special case $`\stackrel{}{b}=0`$. The exact solutions for the energies are found to be

$$E_+(\stackrel{}{p})=\left[m^2+(|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{a}|\pm b_0)^2\right]^{1/2}+a_0,$$
(7)
$$E_{}(\stackrel{}{p})=\left[m^2+(|\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{a}|b_0)^2\right]^{1/2}a_0.$$
(8)
Some interesting consequences of the breaking is apparent. Note that the conventional energy degeneracy of the fermion and antifermion states is broken by $`a_\mu `$ while $`b_0`$ splits the degeneracy of the helicities. These energy splittings are indicative of the effect of the general Lorentz violating terms in the standard model extension. The corresponding spinor solutions form an orthogonal basis of states as a result of the hermiticity of the hamiltonian.

An interesting feature of the above dispersion relations is the modified relationship that exists between the velocity of a wave packet and its corresponding momentum. For instance, a wave packet formed from a superposition of positive helicity fermions with a four-momentum $`p^\mu =(E,\stackrel{}{p})`$ has a corresponding expectation value for the velocity operator $`\stackrel{}{v}=i[H,\stackrel{}{x}]=\gamma ^0\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ of

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{(|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{a}|b^0)}{(Ea^0)}\frac{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{a})}{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{a}|}.$$
(9)
Note that the velocity of the packet and the conserved momentum are not in the same direction. Examination of the velocity using a general nonzero $`b_\mu `$ reveals that $`|v_j|<1`$, and that the limiting velocity as $`\stackrel{}{p}\mathrm{}`$ is 1. This implies that effects due to the CPT violating terms are mild enough to preserve causality.111Note that while causality is preserved, there can be problems with stability at energies nearing the heavy mass scale of the underlying theory . Also see Kostelecký, these proceedings. This will be verified independently from the perspective of quantum field theory that will now be discussed.

4. CONSTRUCTION OF THE FREE FIELD THEORY

The approach to quantization taken here is similar to the conventional one in which the quantization conditions on the fields are deduced from the requirement of positivity of the energy. The wave function $`\psi `$ is expanded in terms of its four solutions as

$`\psi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{m}{E_u^{(\alpha )}}}b_{(\alpha )}(\stackrel{}{p})e^{ip_u^{(\alpha )}x}u^{(\alpha )}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{E_v^{(\alpha )}}}d_{(\alpha )}^{}(\stackrel{}{p})e^{ip_v^{(\alpha )}x}v^{(\alpha )}(\stackrel{}{p})],`$
and is promoted to an operator acting on a Hilbert space of basis states.

Translational invariance is used to define the conserved energy and momentum as

$$P_\mu =d^3x\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu ^0=d^3x\frac{1}{2}i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^0\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\psi .$$
(11)
The time component $`P_0`$ is interpreted as the energy (after normal ordering of the operators) and is positive definite (for $`|a^0|<m`$) provided the following anticommutation relations are imposed:

$`\{b_{(\alpha )}(\stackrel{}{p}),b_{(\alpha ^{})}^{}(\stackrel{}{p}^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^3{\displaystyle \frac{E_u^{(\alpha )}}{m}}\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}),`$
$`\{d_{(\alpha )}(\stackrel{}{p}),d_{(\alpha ^{})}^{}(\stackrel{}{p}^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^3{\displaystyle \frac{E_v^{(\alpha )}}{m}}\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}).`$ (12)
The resulting equal-time anticommutators of the fields are

$`\{\psi _\alpha (t,\stackrel{}{x}),\psi _\beta ^{}(t,\stackrel{}{x}^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}),`$
$`\{\psi _\alpha (t,\stackrel{}{x}),\psi _\beta (t,\stackrel{}{x}^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\{\psi _\alpha ^{}(t,\stackrel{}{x}),\psi _\beta ^{}(t,\stackrel{}{x}^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (13)
These relations show that conventional Fermi statistics remain unaltered by the CPT violation.

The conserved charge $`Q`$ and conserved momentum $`P_\mu `$ are now computed explicitly as

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}\left[\frac{m}{E_u^{(\alpha )}}b_{(\alpha )}^{}(\stackrel{}{p})b_{(\alpha )}(\stackrel{}{p})\frac{m}{E_v^{(\alpha )}}d_{(\alpha )}^{}(\stackrel{}{p})d_{(\alpha )}(\stackrel{}{p})\right]},`$ (14)
$`P_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{m}{E_u^{(\alpha )}}}p_{u\mu }^{(\alpha )}b_{(\alpha )}^{}(\stackrel{}{p})b_{(\alpha )}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{E_v^{(\alpha )}}}p_{v\mu }^{(\alpha )}d_{(\alpha )}^{}(\stackrel{}{p})d_{(\alpha )}(\stackrel{}{p})].`$
From these expressions, it is observed that the charge of the fermion is unperturbed and the energy and momentum satisfy the same energy-momentum relations that were found using relativistic quantum mechanics.

To preserve causality, it is necessary that the anticommutation relations of the fermion fields at unequal times are zero for spacelike separations. Explicit integration for the special case of $`\stackrel{}{b}=0`$ reveals that

$$\{\psi _\alpha (x),\overline{\psi }_\beta (x^{})\}=0,$$
(16)
for spacelike separations $`(xx^{})^2<0`$. This result indicates that physical observables separated by spacelike intervals will in fact commute. This agrees with our previous results regarding the velocity obtained using the relativistic quantum mechanics approach. An analysis of causality and stability issues for other Lorentz- and CPT-violating terms in the fermion sector of the standard model extension has recently been performed . Some similar issues pertaining to causality in the photon sector have subsequently been addressed .

Next, the issue of extending this free field theory to interacting theory is addressed. Much of the conventional formalism developed for perturbative calculations in conventional interacting field theory carries over essentially unchanged to the present case. The asymptotic in and out states are defined as in the usual case using the free field solutions. The LSZ reduction procedure is then used to express the transition-matrix elements in terms of Green’s functions for the theory. Dyson’s formalism is then used to express the time-ordered products of the interacting fields in terms of the asymptotic fields. Wick’s theorem remains unaffected by the modifications.

A central result is that the usual Feynman rules apply provided that the Feynman propagator is modified to

$$S_F(p)=\frac{i}{p_\mu \gamma ^\mu a_\mu \gamma ^\mu b_\mu \gamma _5\gamma ^\mu m+iϵ},$$
(17)
and the exact spinor solutions of the modified free fermion theory are used on external legs. The main reason that conventional techniques apply seems to be due to the fact that the Lorentz violating modifications are linear in the fermion fields.

5. QED EXTENSION AND THE PHOTON

In this section, some implications of Lorentz breaking for photon propagation are investigated. The conventional QED lagrangian is

$$_{\mathrm{electron}}^{\mathrm{QED}}=\frac{1}{2}i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{D_\mu }\psi m_e\overline{\psi }\psi \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu },$$
(18)
where $`\psi `$ is the electron field, $`m_e`$ is its mass, and $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ is the photon field strength tensor. When all possible Lorentz-violating contributions from spontaneous symmetry breaking consistent with gauge invariance and power-counting renormalizability are introduced into the standard model, the resulting modifications to the photon sector are

$$_{\mathrm{photon}}^{\mathrm{CPT}\mathrm{even}}=\frac{1}{4}(k_F)_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }F^{\kappa \lambda }F^{\mu \nu },$$
(19)
and

$$_{\mathrm{photon}}^{\mathrm{CPT}\mathrm{odd}}=+\frac{1}{2}(k_{AF})^\kappa ϵ_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }A^\lambda F^{\mu \nu }.$$
(20)
The parameters $`k_F`$ and $`k_{AF}`$ are fixed background fields related to vacuum expectation values of tensors coupled to the photon in the underlying theory. These two couplings are even and odd under CPT respectively. The CPT-odd terms have been treated in detail elsewhere . Here the special case of $`(k_{AF})^\mu =0`$ (no CPT-odd piece), and $`(k_F)_{0j0k}=\frac{1}{2}\beta _j\beta _k`$ is examined for the sake of a specific example.

The resulting modifications to the Maxwell equations are linear just as the modified Dirac equation is in the fermion case. Plane waves can therefore be used to solve the modified equations of motion. A solution exists provided $`p_\mu `$ satisfies

$`(p_o)^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (21)
$`(p_e)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{\beta }\times \stackrel{}{p}_e)^2}{1+\stackrel{}{\beta }^2}},`$ (22)
where $`p_o`$ denotes an ordinary mode and $`p_e`$ denotes an extraordinary mode of photon propagation. The ordinary mode propagates as a conventional photon, while the extraordinary mode has a modified dispersion relation.

For the special direction of propagation for which $`\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{p}=0`$, the ordinary mode is polarized with $`\stackrel{}{A}_o`$ along the direction of $`\stackrel{}{p}\times \stackrel{}{\beta }`$ while the extraordinary mode $`\stackrel{}{A}_e`$ is polarized along $`\stackrel{}{\beta }`$. Both polarizations are perpendicular to the momentum vector of the wave $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. The group velocities of wave packets $`\stackrel{}{v}_g\stackrel{}{}_pp^0`$ are calculated as

$$\stackrel{}{v}_{g,o}=\widehat{p},\stackrel{}{v}_{g,e}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\stackrel{}{\beta }^2}}\widehat{p}.$$
(23)
The extraordinary mode is seen to travel with a modified velocity that is slightly less than the velocity of the ordinary mode. As a result, an initially plane polarized wave will in general become elliptically polarized after traveling a distance

$$r\frac{\pi }{2\left(\sqrt{1+\stackrel{}{\beta }^2}1\right)p^0}\frac{\pi }{\stackrel{}{\beta }^2p^0},$$
(24)
where the approximation holds for $`\stackrel{}{\beta }^2k_F<<1`$. The magnetic field behaves analogously. Terms of this form can also have implications for photon birefringence. In particular they can contribute to polarization rotation from distant quasars .

REFERENCES