format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

Important aspects of modern physics depend very much on our understanding of nonequilibrium phenomena.

Many years of development of out of equilibrium thermal field theory (TFT)  have resulted in slow but steady progress .

For almost equilibrated systems, at infinite time after switching on the interaction, a number of results are valid at the lowest order in the gradient expansion : the cancellation of collinear  and pinching singularities , the extension of the hard thermal loop (HTL) approximation  to out of equilibrium , and applications to heavy-ion collisions .

For some problems, e.g., heavy-ion collisions, the above limitations are undesired. If one wants to consider large deviations from equilibrium, one should go beyond the gradient expansion. One cannot wait infinitely long as these systems go apart after a very short time, probably without reaching the stage of equilibrium. In nuclear collisions, short-time scale features have been studied in a number of papers .

One of the characteristic features of out of equilibrium TFT is the appearance of mixed products of retarded and advanced propagators. In a formulation similar to equilibrium TFT, which use Keldysh time-path these terms have led to pinching singularities (or ill-defined $`\delta ^2`$ expressions). Many attempts to get rid of these can be classified as attempts within the zeroth order in the gradient expansion and as attempts to go beyond.

The first group of papers$`^{\text{[18, 19, 16, 21, 23]}}`$, although successful in eliminating pinching in some cases (in the single self-energy insertion contributions to the Keldysh component of the propagator in theories like QED and QCD , but not in multiple self-energy insertions), do not solve the problem of pinching in the theories like $`\varphi ^3`$, $`\varphi ^4`$, nor in the theory describing the $`\rho \pi `$ interaction.

The second group of papers  use the finite switching-on time integration path (see Fig. 1). In these approaches, the seminal terms (the terms growing infinitely with $`X_0`$) appear instead of pinching .

In our recent paper  we have studied out of equilibrium thermal field theories with switching on the interaction occurring at finite time. We observe that many of the functions, appearing in the low orders of the perturbation expansion, belong to the class of projected functions (PF in further text) or Wigner transforms of projected functions (WTPF). These functions have particularly simple multiplication rules. However, WTPF are completely determined by their $`X_0+\mathrm{}`$ limit and, thus, cannot be carriers of relaxation phenomena. Furthermore, we observe that the functions capable of carrying relaxation phenomena (non-WTPF) emerge in the expressions containing mixed products (i.e., products of retarded and advanced propagators and self-energies). It is important to note that the non-WTPF contribution emerges even in the case when the time path is not ”pinched” by two infinitely close poles; it is enough that the poles (or more complicated singularities) are situated on the opposite sides of the integration path. This means that the calculation with resummed propagators with complex poles (if we manage to have such!) will as well produce non-WTPF terms and generate relaxation.

In the present paper we develop these ideas further. In particular, to predict the time dependence of the system, one has to use equal-time Green functions. These are obtained by inverse Wigner transform (simple integration over energy in the case of equal time). The result of this operation is that all terms originating from WTPF are constants in time (and equal to zero in most cases), and only the non-WTPF terms contribute to time variation. As these are generated by mixed products, the pinching phenomenon is being promoted from an obstacle to the central feature of out-of-equilibrium thermal field theories.

In the present paper, after a short recapitulation of earlier results (Sec. II), we introduce (Sec. II.1) the function $`sign(p_0,\omega _p)`$, which is the generalization of the $`sign(p_0)`$ function. Especially in the case of particles with spin one use the adventages of the function $`sign(p_0,\omega _p)`$ to obtain the expressions ”manifestly” retarded or advanced. In Sec. II.2 we establish the connection between two-point functions and equal-time functions (number operator, etc.), and prove that time-dependent contributions to equal-time functions come solely from non-WTPF.

In Sec. III we analyze pinching phenomenon in some detail. We further reduce the case of naive pinching (product of only a retarded and an advanced component), to the problem of pinching between two infinitely close poles. For short times, our calculation confirms the existence of the contributions linear in $`X_0`$. At very long times, the contribution evolves to the usual pinching singularity.

In Schwinger-Dyson equations (Sec.IV) the Keldysh component of self-energy always appears between the powers of retarded and advanced propagators . One easily finds that the mathematical expression corresponding to such a product is well defined even for multiple self-energy insertion contributions (Sec. IV.1). In the single self-energy insertion case (Sec. IV.2), one obtains two contributions. The one corresponding to pinching in the Keldysh time path approach, owing to the ”$`ϵ`$”-shift becomes just the usual WTPF consisting of only one type of R/A components of the propagator and self-energy. The other contribution is non-FTPF; it generates nontrivial $`X_0`$ dependence.

In this paper it is important to preserve strict ”$`ϵ`$” bookeeping the importance of which has been known since the discussion on the proper analytical continuation between the imaginary time formalism and the R/A approach  in the real time formalism at equilibrium.

Our approach is an alternative to the dynamical renormalization group (DRG) approach . Whereas we find the way to work with Feynman diagrams in the energy-momentum space and do not use the gradient expansion (at least in the low orders of the perturbation expansion), in the DRG approach one relies more on the differential equations with the gradient expansion as necessary tool. Nevertheless, the results (in our case, the results of the research in progress) are sometimes very similar. For a better understanding, one should compare the time dependence of specific processes calculated using both methods.

## 2 Out of equilibrium setup

In our previous paper  we have formulated the approach appropriate for the dynamical situation arising when the system starts its evolution at finite time (for simplicity, we take $`t_i=0`$). In this formulation, the time integration follows the finite switching-on time path (see Fig. 1).

To understand the limitations coming from the finite switching-on time, we start with the two-point function $`G(x,y)`$. The quantities $`x`$ and $`y`$ are four-vector variables with time components in the range $`0<x_0,y_0<\mathrm{}`$. We define the Wigner variables $`s`$ (relative space-time, relative variable) and $`X`$ (average space-time, slow variable) as usual:

$`X={\displaystyle \frac{x+y}{2}},s=xy,`$ (2.1)
$`G(x,y)=G(X+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}},X{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}).`$ (2.2)
The lower limit on $`x_0`$, $`y_0`$ implies conditions on $`X_0`$ and $`s_0`$: $`0<X_0,2X_0<s_0<2X_0`$. The two-point function can be expressed in terms of the Wigner transform (i.e., the Fourier integral with respect to $`s_0,s_i`$):

$`G(X+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}},X{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}})=(2\pi )^4{\displaystyle d^4pe^{i(p_0s_0\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{s})}G(p_0,\stackrel{}{p};X)}.`$ (2.3)
Here

$`G(p_0,\stackrel{}{p};X)={\displaystyle _{2X_0}^{2X_0}}𝑑s_0{\displaystyle d^3se^{i(p_0s_0\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{s})}G(X+\frac{s}{2},X\frac{s}{2})}.`$ (2.4)
We have found that the low orders in the perturbation expansion are characterized by the appearance of very special two-point functions, we call them projected functions. Projected functions (truncated, “mutilated function” ) possess the following properties: the function does not change with $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ (homogeneity assumption), it is a function of ($`s_0,\stackrel{}{s}`$) within the interval $`2X_0<s_0<2X_0`$ and identical to zero outside the interval:

$`F(X+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}},X{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}})=\mathrm{\Theta }(X_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(2X_0s_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(2X_0+s_0)\overline{F}(s_0,\stackrel{}{s})`$ (2.5)
$`\overline{F}(s_0,\stackrel{}{s})=\underset{X_0\mathrm{}}{lim}F(X+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}},X{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}).`$ (2.6)
The projected function can be viewed as the projection of the whole function $`F_{\mathrm{}}(s_0,\stackrel{}{s})=F(s_0,\stackrel{}{s})`$ (i.e. the function defined at $`X_0=+\mathrm{}`$ which uses the whole $`s_0`$ axis as a carrier) to its finite carrier. The projection operator is $`P_{X_0}(s_0)=\mathrm{\Theta }(X_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(2X_0s_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(2X_0+s_0)`$: $`F_{X_0}=P_{X_0}(s_0)F_{\mathrm{}}`$. The Wigner transform of the projected function (WTPF) at the given time $`X_0`$ may be obtained using the Wigner transform of the projected function (WTPF) at the time $`X_0=+\mathrm{}`$.

$`F_{\mathrm{}}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s_0{\displaystyle d^3se^{i(p_0s_0\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{s})}F(s_0,\stackrel{}{s})},`$ (2.7)
and the projection operator $`P_{X_0}`$

$`F_{X_0}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p_0^{}P_{X_0}(p_0,p_0^{})F_{\mathrm{}}(p_0^{},\stackrel{}{p}),`$ (2.8)
where

$`P_{X_0}(p_0,p_0^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{\Theta }(X_0){\displaystyle _{2X_0}^{2X_0}}𝑑s_0e^{is_0(p_0p_0^{})}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{\Theta }(X_0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(2X_0(p_0p_0^{})\right)}{p_0p_0^{}}}`$ (2.9)
is the Fourier transform of the projector and the inverse transform is given by

$`E^{is_0p_0^{}}\mathrm{\Theta }(X_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(2X_0+s_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(2X_0s_0)={\displaystyle 𝑑p_0e^{is_0p_0}P_{X_0}(p_0,p_0^{})}.`$ (2.10)
The assumption of the homogeneity in space coordinates excludes any dependence on $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ and we omit it as an argument of the function.

It is important to note that

$`\underset{X_0\mathrm{}}{lim}P_{X_0}(p_0,p_0^{})=\underset{X_0\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(2X_0(p_0p_0^{})\right)}{p_0p_0^{}}}=\delta (p_0p_0^{}),`$ (2.11)
and

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0P_{X_0}(p_0,p_{01})}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{2iX_0(p_op_{0,1})}1}{p_op_{0,1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2iX_0(p_0p_{0,1})}1}{p_0p_{0,1}}}\right)=1.`$ (2.12)
The last equality is obtained by closing the integration path in the first term from above and in the second term from below.

Evidently, there is a hierarchy of the $`P_{X_0}`$ projectors:

$`P_{X_{0,M}}(p_0,p\mathrm{"}_0)={\displaystyle 𝑑p_0^{}P_{X_0}(p_0,p_0^{})P_{X_0^{}}(p_0^{},p\mathrm{"}_0)},X_{0,M}=min(X_0,X_0^{}).`$ (2.13)
For further analysis, the analytic properties of the WTPF in the $`X_0\mathrm{}`$ limit as a function of complex energy are very important. We define the following properties: (1) the function of $`p_0`$ is analytic above (below) the real axis, (2) the function goes to zero as $`|p_0|`$ approaches infinity in the upper (lower) semiplane. The choice above (below) and upper (lower) refers to R (A) components. It is easy to recognize that the properties (1) and (2) are just the definition of the retarded (advanced) function. However, it is nontrivial, and not always true, that the functions with the R (A) index satisfy them.

Important examples of projected functions satisfying assumptions (1) and (2) are poles in the energy plane, retarded, advanced, and Keldysh components of free propagators, and one-loop self-energies.

The Wigner transform of the convolution product of two-point functions

$`C=ABC(x,y)={\displaystyle 𝑑zA(x,z)B(z,y)}`$ (2.14)
is given by the gradient expansion (note that we have assumed the homogeneity in space coordinates, which excludes any dependence on $`\stackrel{}{X}`$):

$`C_{X_0}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})=e^i\mathrm{}A_{X_0}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})B_{X_0}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p}),\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_{X_0}^A_{p_0}^B._{p_0}^A_{X_0}^B).`$ (2.15)
A much simpler expression is valid for $`A`$ and $`B`$ being projected functions:

$`C_{X_0}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})={\displaystyle 𝑑p_{01}𝑑p_{02}P_{X_0}(p_0,\frac{p_{01}+p_{02}}{2})\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{ie^{iX_0(p_{01}p_{02}+iϵ)}}{p_{01}p_{02}+iϵ}A_{\mathrm{}}(p_{01},\stackrel{}{p})B_{\mathrm{}}(p_{02},\stackrel{}{p})}.`$ (2.16)
Under the assumption that $`A`$ or $`B`$ satisfy (1) and (2) ($`A`$ as advanced or $`B`$ as retarded) Eq. (2.16) can be integrated even further. We obtain

$`C_{X_0}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0^{}P_{X_0}(p_0,p_0^{})A_{\mathrm{}}(p_0^{},\stackrel{}{p})B_{\mathrm{}}(p_0^{},\stackrel{}{p})}.`$ (2.17)
The convolution product of two two-point functions which are WTPF’s and satisfy (1) and (2) is also a WTPF. This product is then expressed through the projection operator acting on a simple product of two WTPF’s given at $`X_0=\mathrm{}`$.

As expected, in the $`X_0=\mathrm{}`$ limit, Eq.(2.17) becomes a simple product

$`\underset{X_0\mathrm{}}{lim}C_{X_0}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})=A_{\mathrm{}}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})B_{\mathrm{}}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (2.18)
At finite $`X_0`$, Eq.(2.17) exhibits a smearing of energy (as much as it is necessary to preserve the uncertainty relations).

The product of $`n`$ two-point functions is obtained by repeating the above procedure:

$`C_{X_0}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(dp_{0,j})dp_{0,n}P_{X_0}(p_0,(p_{0,1}+p_{0,n})/2)}`$ (2.19)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(A_{j,\mathrm{}}(p_{0,j},\stackrel{}{p}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{p_{0,j}p_{0,j+1}+iϵ}}\right)e^{iX_0(p_{0,1}p_{0,n}+i(n1)ϵ)}A_{n,\mathrm{}}(p_{0,n},\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (2.20)
We note here: the condition that the intermediate products should also be projected functions requires that at least n-1 of the functions in the product should satisfy assumptions (1) and (2) (the retarded should be on the right-hand side and the advanced on the left-hand side, and the function that eventually does not satisfy (1) and (2) should be inbetween). However, this is not the order in which the components appear in the Schwinger-Dyson equation.

Then one can perform all integrations except one to obtain

$`C_{X_0}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})={\displaystyle 𝑑p_{0,1}P_{X_0}(p_0,p_{0,1})\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}A_{j,\mathrm{}}(p_{0,1},\stackrel{}{p})}.`$ (2.21)
### 2.1 Function $`sign(p_0,\omega _p)`$, propagator and self-energy

For the retarded (advanced) and Keldysh components of the bare propagator one obtains (owing to the relation (2.8) it is enough to give their form at infinite time $`X_0=+\mathrm{}`$):

$`G_{R(A),\mathrm{}}(p)=(G_{1,1}+G_{1,2(2,1)})_{\mathrm{}}(p)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{p^2m^2\pm 2iϵp_0}}.`$ (2.22)
$`G_{K,\mathrm{}}(p)=(G_{1,1}+G_{2,2})_{\mathrm{}}(p)=2\pi [1+2f(\omega _p)]\delta (p^2m^2).`$ (2.23)
Our ”” components coincide with the usual Keldysh-integration-path propagators. These expressions are easily generalized to the case of other spin and statistic assignment.

The Keldysh component as a function of $`p_0`$ does not satisfy assumptions (1) and (2), however, we can decompose it into the sum of functions which satisfy them either as retarded or as advanced functions. This trick we repeat below in the case of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K`$. To do so we start with an identity:

$`\delta (xy)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}\gamma ({\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}})[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{xy+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{xyiϵ}}]+𝒪(ϵ^2),`$ (2.24)
where $`\gamma (1)=1`$, otherwise, $`\gamma (x/y)`$ is only weakly constrained: it should be analytic around $`x/y=1`$. Equation (2.24) is used to generate the following identity:

$`\delta (p_0^2\omega _p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}sign(p_o,\omega _p)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0^2\omega _p^2+2iϵp_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0^2\omega _p^22iϵp_0}}]+𝒪(ϵ^2).`$ (2.25)
In the above identity we have substituted the usual $`sign(p_0)`$ function by a new (user friendly) function $`sign(p_0,\omega _p)`$, which we specify as an alternative between

$`sign(p_0,\omega _p)=sign(p_o),{\displaystyle \frac{p_0}{\omega _p}},{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p}{p_0}},\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_0}{\omega _p}}\right)^3,\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p}{p_0}}\right)^3,\mathrm{}`$ (2.26)
Evidently, the function $`sign(p_0,\omega _p)`$ at $`p_0=\pm \omega _p`$ for all offered possibilities reduces to $`sign(p_0)`$ and the identity is valid. The choice of the appropriate form of $`sign(p_0,\omega _p)`$ should guarantee that in the perturbative expansion integrals over $`p_0`$ converge (in such a way that two terms in Eq. (2.27), $`G_{K,R}`$ and $`G_{K,A}`$, could be treated separately) at $`|p_0|=\mathrm{}`$ and no additional singularities appear at finite $`p_0`$ (especially not at $`|p_0|=0`$). This choice might be different for different terms. The difference between any two choices (when multiplied by $`\delta (p_0^2\omega _p^2)`$) is $`𝒪`$$`(ϵ^2)`$. In the absence of pathology, this difference vanishes in the $`ϵ0`$ limit. The usual $`sign(p_0)`$ (first, not a recommended  choice), owing to its nonanalytic nature, has prevented the use of Cauchy integrals in the expressions containing $`G_{K,R,\mathrm{}}`$. The choice $`\frac{p_0}{\omega _p}`$ is a default choice, one uses it if the integrals converge. The choice $`\frac{\omega _p}{p_0}`$ is useful; with respect to the default choice, it reduces the power of $`p_0`$ by two units; if there is a factor $`p_0`$ in the integrand, this choice will not produce extra singularities at $`p_0=0`$. Similarly one can decide on the use of other choices. Having made proper choices, in the loop integration one can integrate over $`p_0`$ as first. This will result in manifestly retarded (advanced) functions. The $`ϵ`$ parameter, which regulates these expressions, should be kept uniformly finite during the calculations, and the limit $`ϵ0`$ should be taken last of all . This specially means that $`lim_{X_0\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(X_0ϵ)=0`$ and the terms containing this factor vanish in the $`X_0\mathrm{}`$ limit. Now we can write

$`G_{K,\mathrm{}}(p)=G_{K,R,\mathrm{}}(p)+G_{K,A,\mathrm{}}(p),`$ (2.27)
$`G_{K,R(A),\mathrm{}}(p)=(1+2f(\omega _p))sign(p_0,\omega _p)G_{R(A),\mathrm{}}(p).`$ (2.28)
To discuss the amputated one-loop self-energy, we start with (spin and internal symmetry indices are suppressed)

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x,y)=ig^2S(x,y)D(x,y),`$ (2.29)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{R(A)}(p)=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1,1}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1,2(2,1)})(p),`$ (2.30)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{R(A),\mathrm{}}(p)=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{ig^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}[h(k_0,\omega _k)+h(p_0k_0,\omega _{pk})]D_{R(A),\mathrm{}}(k)S_{R(A),\mathrm{}}(pk)F},`$ (2.31)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K(p)=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22})(p)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{K,R}(p)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{K,A}(p)`$ (2.32)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{K,R(A),\mathrm{}}(p)={\displaystyle \frac{ig^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}[1+h(k_0,\omega _k)h(p_0k_0,\omega _{pk})]}`$ (2.33)
$`D_{R(A),\mathrm{}}(k)S_{R(A),\mathrm{}}(pk)F,`$ (2.34)
where $`D`$ and $`S`$ are bare scalar propagators, $`h(k_0,\omega _k)=sign(k_0,\omega _k)1+2f(\omega _p)]`$ and the factor $`F=F(k_0,|\stackrel{}{k}|,p_0,|\stackrel{}{p}|,\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p},\mathrm{})`$ includes the information about spin and internal degrees of freedom ($`F=1`$ if all particles are scalars).

In the calculation of R, A, and K components of self-energy we use general expressions given by Eqs. (II.23)-(II.25) of Ref. . For particles with spin it is the appropriate choice of $`sign(k_0,\omega _k)`$ that makes the integral over $`k_0`$ convergent term-by-term. Then the integrals over $`D_RS_A`$ and $`D_AS_R`$ vanish; we are thus left with the pure RR(AA) cotribution to the R(A) component.

General analytic properties of the expressions of the type (2.29) are well known: there are discontinuities (cuts) along the real axis (or, better to say, displaced from the real axis by $`iϵ`$ ($`+iϵ`$) for the retarded (advanced) component), starting at thresholds for various real processes.

### 2.2 Equal-time two-point functions

To define single-particle observables one has to study reduction of two-point functions to equal time ($`x_0=y_0=t`$ or $`X_0=t`$, $`s_0=0`$) . These can be obtained by inverse Wigner transform as

$`G(t,0,\stackrel{}{p})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0G_{X_0=t}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})}.`$ (2.35)
As an example of equal-time two-point function one can study the number operator. To define it, we start with the Keldysh component of the propagator:

$`G_K(x,y)=G_{1,2}(x,y)+G_{2,1}(x,y)=<\varphi (x)\varphi (y)+\varphi (y)\varphi (x)>,`$ (2.36)
$`G_K(X_0,s_0,\stackrel{}{p})={\displaystyle d^3se^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{s}}G_K(X+\frac{s}{2},X\frac{s}{2})}=(2\pi )^1{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0e^{ip_0s_0}G_{X_0,K}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})}.`$ (2.37)
At $`x_0=y_0=t`$ (i.e., $`s_0=0`$; $`X_0=t`$) one finds (under the usual assumption that $`<aa>`$ and $`<a^+a^+>`$ terms vanish), the relation between the number operator and the Keldysh component of the propagator is

$`<2N_\stackrel{}{p}(t)+1>=\omega _pG_K(t,0,\stackrel{}{p})={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0G_{t,K}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})}.`$ (2.38)
Further single-particle observables are generated with the help of $`<N_t>`$. In the case of bare fields, one obtains as expected:

$`<2N_\stackrel{}{p}^0+1>={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0G_{X_0,K}^0(p)}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0𝑑p_0^{}P_{X_0}(p_0,p_0^{})G_K^0(p_0^{},\stackrel{}{p})}`$ (2.39)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0^{}G_K^0(p_0^{},\stackrel{}{p})}=Im({\displaystyle 𝑑p_0^{}\frac{p_0^{}}{\pi }\frac{1+2f(\omega _p)}{p_0^2\omega _p^2+2iϵp_0^{}}}),`$ (2.40)
$`=1+2f(\omega _p).`$ (2.41)
The time independence of the right-hand side of relation (2.39) is a special case of a more general feature.

An equal-time two-point function coming from a retarded WTPF may be obtained with the help of Eqs. (2.35), (2.8), and(2.12) as (to avoid problems with $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$’s, we understand here that setting $`s_0=0`$ is achieved by the limiting procedure $`lim_{s_0+0}`$):

$`G_R(t,0,\stackrel{}{p})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0G_{X_0,R}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})}`$ (2.42)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0𝑑p_{01}P_{X_0}(p_0,p_{01})G_{\mathrm{},R}(p_{01},\stackrel{}{p})}`$ (2.43)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_{01}G_{\mathrm{},R}(p_{01},\stackrel{}{p})}=const(\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (2.44)
The integral over the WTPF $`G_{X_0,R}`$ does not change with time as the right-hand side refers to $`\mathrm{}`$ and not to $`X_0`$.It is even vanishing for expressions containing two or more bare retarded propagators in the product, as one can easily see by closing the path of integration over $`p_{0,1}`$ in Eq. (2.42) from above. One obtains the same result for the advanced function by closing the integration path from below.

This is a very important result, but is by no means surprising: the projected function is completely determined by its form at $`X_0=+\mathrm{}`$ If it were to describe irreversible processes, it would violate causality. Now we may conclude that one really needs non-WTPFs to describe the time dependence of single-particle observables. These will emerge as a by-product of pinching.

## 3  Examples of pinching

### 3.1 Naive pinching with retarded and advanced propagators

The naive pinching singularity is represented by (at $`X_0=\mathrm{}`$)

$`G_{pinch}=G_RG_A,`$ (3.1)
where $`G_{R(A)}`$ is given by (2.22). One can decompose $`G_{R(A),\mathrm{}}`$ into the sum of two poles

$`G_{R(A),\mathrm{}}(p)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\omega _p}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0\pm iϵ\omega _p}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0\pm iϵ+\omega _p}}\right),`$ (3.2)
so it is enough to study pinching between two infinitely close poles.

### 3.2  Pinching between two infinitely close poles

We assume the contribution of the pole infinitely close to the real axis:

$`𝒢_{R(A),\mathrm{},pole}(p_0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0\overline{p}_0\pm i\mu }},`$ (3.3)
where $`\overline{p}_0`$ is real and $`\mu >ϵ/2`$. It satisfies assumptions (1) and (2) with the $`+`$ sign as retarded function, and with the $``$ sign as advanced functions.

The product $`G_{R,pole}G_{A,pole}`$ is easily obtained by substituting $`G_{R(A),\mathrm{},pole}`$ into (2.16). We choose new variables $`P_0=(p_{01}+p_{02})/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=p_{01}p_{02}`$, and integrate over $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ (care is necessary as $`ϵ`$ and $`\mu `$ are both infinitely small quantities) to obtain

$`C_{X_0}(p_0)={\displaystyle 𝑑P_0P_{X_0}(p_0,P_0)\frac{1}{P_0\overline{p}_0+i\mu iϵ/2}\frac{1}{P_0\overline{p}_0i\mu +iϵ/2}}`$ (3.4)
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑P_0P_{X_0}(p_0,P_0)\frac{1}{\overline{p}_0p_0}\left(\frac{e^{2iX_0(P_0\overline{p}_0+i\mu iϵ/2)}}{2(P_0\overline{p}_0+i\mu )iϵ}+\frac{e^{2iX_0(P_0\overline{p}_0i\mu +iϵ/2)}}{2(P_0\overline{p}_0i\mu )+iϵ}\right)}.`$ (3.5)
The first term is the projected function; in the $`X_0\mathrm{}`$, limit it becomes a usual example of pinching. The second term consists of two non-WTPF pieces.

Further integration gives (after introducing $`\rho =\mu ϵ/2`$)

$`C_{X_0}(p_0)={\displaystyle \frac{1e^{2X_0\rho }\mathrm{cos}2X_0(p_0\overline{p}_0)}{(p_0\overline{p}_0+i\rho )(p_0\overline{p}_0i\rho )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho e^{2X_0\rho }\mathrm{sin}2X_0(p_0\overline{p}_0)}{(p_0\overline{p}_0+i\rho )(p_0\overline{p}_0i\rho )(p_0\overline{p}_0)}}.`$ (3.6)
Expression (3.6) can be studied at different times. At very very large, but finite time (i.e., such that $`\kappa /\rho \mathrm{exp}(2X_0\rho )<<1`$, where $`\kappa `$ is a typical energy scale of the problem) one can ignore the $`exp(2X_0\rho )`$ terms and obtains the usual Keldysh-path pinching. Needless to say, as $`\rho `$ is arbitrarily small, the time should be ”arbitrarily very very” large.

Ignoring the intermediate scales, we come to the finite-time scale. At this scale $`X_0\rho <<1`$ and the exponential can be substituted by ”$`1`$”. For large times ($`X_0>>\kappa ^1`$), one can approximate

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2X_0(p_0\overline{p}_0)}{p_0\overline{p}_0}}\pi \delta (p_0\overline{p}_0),`$ (3.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho \mathrm{sin}2X_0(p_0\overline{p}_0)}{(p_0\overline{p}_0+i\rho )(p_0\overline{p}_0i\rho )(p_0\overline{p}_0)}}2\pi X_0\delta (p_0\overline{p}_0),`$ (3.8)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p_0f(p_0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2X_0(p_0\overline{p}_0)}{(p_0\overline{p}_0)^2}}\pi X_0f(\overline{p}_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒫}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p_0{\displaystyle \frac{f(p_0)f(\overline{p}_0)}{(p_0\overline{p}_0)^2}}.`$ (3.9)
Finally, one obtains

$`{\displaystyle C_{X_0}(p_0)f(p_0)𝑑p_0}4\pi X_0f(\overline{p}_0)+{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0𝒫\frac{f(p_0)f(\overline{p}_0)}{(p_0\overline{p}_0)^2}}.`$ (3.10)
In this expression there is a term proportional to $`X_0\delta (p_0\overline{p}_0)`$ (seminal term according to some authors).

As expected, naive pinching at finite times gives contributions proportional to $`X_0`$; at ”very very large” times it develops usual pinching singularities.

## 4 Elimination of pinching in Schwinger-Dyson equations

We write the Schwinger-Dyson equations in the form

$`𝒢_R=G_R+iG_R\mathrm{\Sigma }_R𝒢_R,𝒢_A=G_A+iG_A\mathrm{\Sigma }_A𝒢_A,`$ (4.1)
$`𝒢_K=iG_R\mathrm{\Sigma }_K𝒢_A+iG_K\mathrm{\Sigma }_A𝒢_A+iG_R\mathrm{\Sigma }_R𝒢_K.`$ (4.2)
We can expand Eqs. (4.1) to obtain ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{K,R}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{K,A}`$):

$`𝒢_R={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(G_Ri\mathrm{\Sigma }_R)^nG_R,`$ (4.3)
$`𝒢_K={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}G_{K,n},`$ (4.4)
$`G_{K,n}=(G_Ri\mathrm{\Sigma }_R)^nhG_R+hG_A(i\mathrm{\Sigma }_AG_A)^n`$ (4.5)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}G_R(i\mathrm{\Sigma }_RG_R)^p(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,R}+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,A})(i\mathrm{\Sigma }_AG_A)^{np1},`$ (4.6)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,R(A)}=h\mathrm{\Sigma }_{R(A)}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{K,R(A)}`$. Equations (4.3) are the forms in which pinching appears in out of equilibrium thermal field theories.

In fact, expression (4.3) is, term by term, free of pinching. To see this, one chooses a typical term containing $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,R}`$ (the terms containing $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,A}`$ are then obtainable by complex conjugation). For fixed $`n`$ and $`m=np1`$, one can perform all integrations between either $`RR`$ or $`AA`$ factors (note the bookkeeping of $`ϵ`$’s)

$`𝒢_{K,R,n,m}=(G_Ri\mathrm{\Sigma }_R)^nG_R(i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,R})(G_Ai\mathrm{\Sigma }_A)^mG_A,`$ (4.7)
$`𝒢_{X_0,K,R,n,m}={\displaystyle 𝑑p_{0,1}𝑑q_{0,1}P_{X_0}(p_0,\frac{p_{0,1}+q_{0,1}}{2})}`$ (4.8)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(G_{\mathrm{},R}(p_{0,1}+i2jϵ)i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{},R}(p_{0,1}+i(2j+1)ϵ)\right)G_{\mathrm{},R}(p_{0,1}+i2nϵ)`$ (4.9)
$`(i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{},K,R}(p_{0,1}+i(2n+1)ϵ)){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iX_0(p_{01}q_{01}+i2(m+n+1)ϵ)}}{p_{01}q_{01}+i2(m+n+1)ϵ}}G_{\mathrm{},A}(q_{0,1}i2mϵ)`$ (4.10)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{m1}{}}}\left(i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{},A}(q_{0,1}i(2m2l1)ϵ)G_{\mathrm{},A}(q_{0,1}i2(ml1)ϵ)\right).`$ (4.11)
Owing to the poles of $`G_R`$ and the cuts of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{K,R}`$ below the real axis, and the divergence of the $`e^{iX_0p_{0,1}}`$ factor when $`Imp_{0,1}+\mathrm{}`$, the integral over $`p_{0,1}`$ ( for similar reasons, also the integral over $`q_{0,1}`$) cannot be evaluated analytically. To find the analytical properties of $`𝒢_{K,R,n,m}`$, we have to study integrals of the type

$`_{X_0}(p_{0,1},ϵ,r)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑q_{0,1}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iX_0q_{0,1}}}{p_{0,1}q_{0i,1}+irϵ}}F_{\mathrm{},A}(q_{0,1}),`$ (4.12)
where $`r>1`$. The function F possesses the singularities only within the strip $`ϵ<Imq_{0,1}<rϵ`$ and vanishes when $`|q_{0,1}|\mathrm{}`$ outside the strip.Thus it satisfies assumptions (1) and (2) in the lower semiplane.It is easy to see that for $`Imp_{0,1}>0`$ or $`Imp_{0,1}<crϵ`$, where $`c>0`$ is a small finite number, the integration path can be shifted down away from the strip with singularities. The integration over $`q_{0,1}`$ is regular even in the $`ϵ0`$ limit, and $`(p_{0,1})`$ represents the function analytical in $`p_{0,1}`$ for $`p_{0,1}`$ outside the strip $`crϵ<Imp_{0,1}<0`$ and satisfying $`|Imp_{0,1}|<\mathrm{}`$.

Also in the integration over $`p_{0,1}`$ along the real axis, all ”nearby” singularities are confined within the strip below the real axis and one can move the integration path for the $`p_{0,1}`$ integration uphill to obtain regular integrals. Thus there is no pinching in the $`p_{0,1}`$ integration.

Owing to the fact that the factor $`P_{X_0}(p_0,\frac{p_{0,1}+q_{0,1}}{2})=\frac{1}{i\pi }\frac{e^{iX_0(2p_0p_{0,1}q_{0,1})}e^{iX_0(2p_0p_{0,1}q_{0,1})}}{2p_0p_{0,1}q_{0,1}}`$ is regular at $`2p_0p_{0,1}q_{0,1}=0`$ and for all $`p_0`$, $`p_{0,1}`$, and $`q_{0,1}`$ satisfying $`|Imp_0|`$,$`|Imp_{0,1}|`$, and $`|Imq_{0,1}|<\mathrm{}`$, its presence in (4.7) will not change our conclusion that $`𝒢_{X_0,R,n,m}`$ as represented in (4.7) is free from pinching.

Thus we have shown that pinching is absent from the contributions to $`𝒢_K`$ with an arbitrary number of self-energy insertions.

In the single self-energy insertion approximation, one can perform the proof in more detail.

### 4.1 Elimination of pinching in the single-self-energy insertion approximation

The single-self-energy-insertion approximation to the Keldysh component of the propagator is expressed as  (we treat only the scalar case, superscript ”$`0`$” bare, superscript ”$`1`$” one-loop contribution)

$`G_K=G_{Kp,R}^1+G_{Kp,A}^1+G_{Kr}^0+G_{Kr}^1+\mathrm{},`$ (4.13)
$`G_{Kp,R}^1=iG_R\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,R}G_A,G_{Kp,A}^1=iG_R\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,A}G_A,`$ (4.14)
$`G_{Kr}^0+G_{Kr}^1=h(G_RG_A)+iG_Rh\mathrm{\Sigma }_RG_R`$ (4.15)
$`iG_Ah\mathrm{\Sigma }_AG_A.`$ (4.16)
In expression (4.13), $`G_{Kp,R}^1`$ and $`G_{Kp,A}^1`$ are potentially ill-defined, while $`G_{Kr}^0`$ and $`G_{Kr}^1`$ are explicitly free from pinching.

To see what happens in full detail, we start with the contribution containing $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,R}`$ (we do not indicate explicitly the dependence on $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ on the right-hand sides of the following equations):

$`G_{Kp,R}^1=iG_R\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,R}G_A,`$ (4.17)
$`G_{X_0,Kp,R}^1(p_o,\stackrel{}{p})=i{\displaystyle 𝑑p_{01}𝑑p_{02}𝑑p_{03}P_{X_0}(p_0,\frac{p_{01}+p_{03}}{2})G_R(p_{01})\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{e^{iX_0(p_{01}p_{02}+iϵ)}}{p_{01}p_{02}+iϵ}}`$ (4.18)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{},K,R}(p_{02}){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iX_0(p_{02}p_{03}+iϵ)}}{p_{02}p_{03}+iϵ}}G_A(p_{03}),`$ (4.19)
Here we can integrate over $`p_{02}`$ by closing the integration path from above. The only singularity closed in the integration path is situated at $`p_{01}+iϵ`$. The result is (note the care for $`ϵ`$’s):

$`G_{X_0,Kp,R}^1(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})=i{\displaystyle 𝑑p_{01}𝑑p_{03}P_{X_0}(p_0,\frac{p_{01}+p_{03}}{2})G_R(p_{01})}`$ (4.20)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{},K,R}(p_{01}+iϵ){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iX_0(p_{01}p_{03}+2iϵ)}}{p_{01}p_{03}+2iϵ}}G_A(p_{03}),`$ (4.21)
Now one can integrate over $`p_{03}`$ by closing the integration path from above. The singularities closed within the path are situated at $`p_{01}+2iϵ`$ and at $`\pm \omega _p+iϵ`$.

$`G_{X_0,Kp,R}^1(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})=i{\displaystyle 𝑑p_{01}P_{X_0}(p_0,p_{01})G_R(p_{01})\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{},K,R}(p_{01}+iϵ)G_A(p_{01}+2iϵ)}`$ (4.22)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega _p}}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_{01}G_R(p_{01})\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{},K,R}(p_{01}+iϵ)\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{1}{}}\lambda P_{X_0}(p_0,\frac{p_{01}+\lambda \omega _p}{2})\frac{e^{iX_0(p_{01}\lambda \omega _p+iϵ)}}{p_{01}\lambda \omega _p+iϵ}}.`$ (4.23)
By inspecting the definitions of $`G_R`$ and $`G_A`$ in (2.22), one observes that $`G_A(p_{01}+2iϵ)=G_R(p_{01})`$, so that all functions appearing in (4.22) are retarded. There is no pinching, but we have obtained functions depending directly on time $`X_0`$, i.e., non-WTPF functions, which one cannot convolute further in an elegant way we have used here.

One can do the same with the term containing $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,A}`$, but now one has to integrate over $`p_{02}`$ by closing the path from below, and over $`p_{01}`$ again closing path from below, the result is (now one needs $`G_R(p_{03}2iϵ)=G_A(p_{03})`$)

$`G_{X_0,Kp,A}^1(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})=i{\displaystyle 𝑑p_{03}P_{X_0}(p_0,p_{03})G_R(p_{03}2iϵ)\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{},K,A}(p_{01}+iϵ)G_A(p_{01})}`$ (4.24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega _p}}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_{03}\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{1}{}}\lambda P_{X_0}(p_0,\frac{p_{03}+\lambda \omega _p}{2})\frac{e^{iX_0(p_{03}\lambda \omega _piϵ)}}{p_{03}\lambda \omega _piϵ}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{},K,A}(p_{03}iϵ)G_A(p_{03})}.`$ (4.25)
Now we add $`G_{Kr}`$ to (4.22) and (4.24) and obtain (we can ignore ”the surplus of $`ϵ`$” in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,R(A)}`$)

$`G_{X_0,K}^1(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})=2Im({\displaystyle }dp_{01}P_{X_0}(p_0,p_{01})G_R(p_{01},\stackrel{}{p})\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{},K,R}(p_{01},\stackrel{}{p})G_R(p_{01},\stackrel{}{p})`$ (4.26)
$`+i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega _p}}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_{01}G_R(p_{01},\stackrel{}{p})\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{},K,R}(p_{01},\stackrel{}{p})}`$ (4.27)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{1}{}}}\lambda P_{X_0}(p_0,{\displaystyle \frac{p_{01}+\lambda \omega _p}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{e^{iX_0(p_{01}\lambda \omega _piϵ)}}{p_{01}\lambda \omega _p+iϵ}}).`$ (4.28)
This expression is a function of two variables, $`p_0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. It is the generalization of the usual mass shell condition. For fixed $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, it offers information about the shape of the distribution of particles as a function of time. If we are not interested in the shape of the distribution, we can integrate over $`p_0`$. The result is a one-loop contribution to the number operator. It tells us about the time dependence of the occupancy of a given set of particle states characterized by fixed $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. As the first term in Eq. (4.26) is a retarded function, it vanishes after integration. Thus the projected function does not change the integrated distribution function! It only redistributes the given contribution within the shape. The function is symmetric under the change $`p_0p_0`$; thus division by $`2`$ is equivalent to the projection to positive frequencies.

Yhe second term can be rearranged to obtain ($`X_0=t`$)

$`<2N_\stackrel{}{p}(t)+1>=<2N_\stackrel{}{p}^0(t)+1>+<2N_\stackrel{}{p}^1(t)>+\mathrm{}`$ (4.29)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0G_{X_0,K}^0(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0G_{X_0,K}^1(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})}`$ (4.30)
$`=1+2f(\omega _p)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\pi }}Im({\displaystyle }dp_{01}G_R(p_{01})\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{},K,R}(p_{01})G_R(p_{01})`$ (4.31)
$`[1e^{iX_0(p_{01}+iϵ)}(\mathrm{cos}X_0\omega _p+i{\displaystyle \frac{p_{0,1}}{\omega _p}}\mathrm{sin}X_0\omega _p)]).`$ (4.32)
The term proportional to 1 in braces is added for convenience; it vanishes upon integration over $`p_{01}`$ in the upper hemisphere. The fact that WTPF do not contribute to Eq. (4.29) throws a new light on our approach: pinchlike contributions ( i.e., those containing convolution products of both retarded and advanced components) are necessary to obtain nontrivial time dependence. As this fact will reappear in other expressions (even the calculation of retarded and advanced components from two-loop or more complicated Feynman diagrams) we may conclude that, indeed, pinchlike expressions represent ”the body of evidence” that very important information is left ”ill-defined” in the formulation using the Keldysh time path.

To understand the meaning of (4.29) we have to compare it with Eq. (10) from  (see also ) for ”enhanced photon production from quark-gluon plasma - finite-lifetime effect”:

$`<N_\stackrel{}{p}^1(t)>=<N_\stackrel{}{p}(0)>+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi (2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p_{01}R(p_{01}){\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}[(p_{01}\omega _p)t]}{\pi (p_{01}\omega _p)^2}}.`$ (4.33)
The differences are: 1) In this paper we treat only the scalar case. To adopt it for vector photons and spinor quarks, we have to substitute $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p_0)2\mathrm{\Sigma }^T(p_0)`$ (T for projection of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to its transverse part, factor 2 for two transverse degrees of freedom). 2) Wang and Boyanovsky use $`R(p_0)=Im\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_<(p_0)`$, while we prefer the Keldysh component $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,R(A)}(p_0)`$. The difference is a WTPF, so it does not contribute. However, there is the term with $`Re\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{K,R(A)}(p_0)`$, which is not present in (4.33). It gives rise to extra oscilations. 3) We have used $`\omega _p^2G_R(p_o,\stackrel{}{p})^2`$, while in (4.33) one finds $`(p_{01}\omega _p)^2`$. Owing to this difference their integrand is no longer symmetric under the change $`p_{01}p_{01}`$. This will be more important for contributions from larger $`|p_{01}\omega _p|`$. This difference seems to come from the approximations intrinsic to the dynamical renormalisation group approach. 4) Nevertheless an approximate analytical calculation using HTL self-energies as input to photon-quark-antiquark analog (4.29) and to (4.33)  gives almost identical results.

## 5 Conclusions

We have studied out of equilibrium thermal field theories with switching on the interaction occurring at finite time. We have continued to study formulation exploiting the concept of projected function (PF) and Wigner transform of projected function (WTPF),for which convolution products between these functions can be achieved in a closed form without use of the gradient expansion. Many of the functions, appearing in the low orders of the perturbation expansion (bare propagators, one-loop self-energies, retarded and advanced components of resummed propagator, …) belong to the class of PF or WTPF. However, WTPF’s are completely determined by their $`X_0+\mathrm{}`$ limit and, thus, cannot be the carriers of relaxation phenomena. Furthermore, we have observed that the functions capable of carrying relaxation phenomena (non-WTPF) emerge in the expressions containing mixed products (i.e., the products of retarded and advanced propagators and self-energies; ill-defined in the usual formulation with the Keldysh time-path). In particular, to predict the time dependence of the system, one has to use equal-time Green functions (particle number, etc.). These are obtained by inverse Wigner transform (simple integration over energy in the case of equal time). The result of this operation is that all terms originating from WTPF’s will be constants in time (and equal to zero in most cases), and only non-WTPF terms contribute to time variation. As these are generated in mixed products, the pinching phenomenon is being promoted from an obstacle to the central feature of out of equilibrium thermal field theories.

We have analyzed pinching phenomenon in some details. A general feature here is that in the expressions containing pinching in the Keldysh time-path formulation, simple products of retarded and advanced components become double integrals of corresponding quantities.

In the case of naive pinching (product only of retarded and andvanced component), at short times, our calculation confirms the existence of contributions linear in $`X_0`$. At very large times the contribution evolves to the usual pinching singularity. In this case pinching singularity appears as an artifact of the limiting procedure $`X_0\mathrm{}`$.

In Schwinger-Dyson equations the Keldysh component of self-energy always appears between the powers of retarded and advanced propagators. One easily finds that the mathematical expression corresponding to such a product is well defined even for multiple self-energy insertion contributions. We have studied single self-energy insertion in more detail. We have obtained non-WTPF contribution that generates nontrivial $`X_0`$ dependence.

In the case of production of photons from QCD plasma (finite-lifetime effect), approximate analytic results from our approach are almost identical to those obtained by S. -Y. Wang and D. Boyanovsky, who use the dynamical renormalization group approach.

We may conclude that, indeed, out of equilibrium TFT, using the finite-time path and the recognition of basic quantities as WTPF’s, retain all good properties of the Keldysh-time-path formulation (energy-momentum space description, Feynman diagrams), while removing the problem of illdefined quantities.

Acknowledgments I am especially indebted to Rolf Baier for many stimulating discussions. I also acknowledge financial support from the A. von Humboldt foundation. This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia under contract No. 00980102.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1: Finite switching-on time path.


text:
# 𝑁 D0-branes and 𝐷̄0-branes in the background independent string field theory.

## 1 Introduction

Around the year ’92-’93 the formulation of the string field theory known as a background independent string field theory (BSFT)  was proposed. In the recent papers  (For the world-sheet approach to this problem, see ) the BSFT was used in the analysis of the tachyon condensation on the unstable D-brane systems in string theories (For review and extensive list of references, see ). It was shown that BSFT is very effective tool for the study of this problem since in the process of the tachyon condensation only tachyon field acquires nonzero vacuum expectation value. In particular, it was shown that:

* The condensation to the closed string vacuum and to lower dimensional branes involves excitations of only one mode of string field-tachyon.
* The exact tachyon potential can be computed in BSFT and its qualitative features agree with the Sen conjecture .
* The exact tachyon profiles corresponding to the tachyon condensation to the lower dimensional D-brane give rise to descent relations between the tensions of various branes  which again agree with those expected .

The problem of tachyon condensation was also studied from the point of view of Witten’s open string field theory  (For recent discussion see  and for the review and extensive list of references, see ). In contrast with BSFT, the tachyon condensation in general involves giving the expectation values of infinite number of component fields. As a consequence, only approximate results are available.

In  the problem of the tachyon condensation was studied from different point of view 111The same problem has been already studied in terms of the low energy effective action in  and in the framework of the effective action obtained from BSFT theory in .. Namely, we started with the system of $`N`$ D-instantons in bosonic theory or with the system of $`N`$ non-BPS D-instantons in Type IIA theory and studied the emergence of higher dimensional D-branes in this system. We have shown that all even dimensional D-brane arise naturally through the standard matrix theory construction  . However to describe odd dimensional D-branes the tachyon field should be turned on and then in the process of the tachyon condensation  all odd dimensional D-branes emerged.

In this paper we extend this approach to the case of the system of $`N`$ D0+$`\overline{D}0`$-branes ($`D\overline{D}`$0-system.) The general $`D\overline{D}`$ system has been recently studied in  and we use results obtained there in our calculations. In fact, $`D\overline{D}`$ system seems to contain much more information about the tachyon condensation than non-BPS D-branes since all non-BPS D-branes can arise as a particular projection from $`D\overline{D}`$ system . For that reason it seems to be natural to ask the question whether it is possible to describe all D-branes from $`N`$ $`D\overline{D}`$0 branes in type IIA theory. We will show in this paper that this is really possible.

The organisation of the paper is as follows. In the next section we present the partition function on the disk for $`N`$ $`D\overline{D}`$9-branes which, thanks to the recent conjecture , should be identified with the space-time action in BSFT. Our form of the boundary interaction can be considered as a slight modification of the action given in . In order to show that this boundary term gives correct results we will argue that the action for $`D\overline{D}`$ system reduces to the action for D9-branes without the tachyon field and to the action for non-BPS D9-brane after orbifolding projection .

In (3) section we will review the approach presented in  on the example of $`N`$ non-BPS D0-branes.

In (4) section we will turn to the main theme of this paper that is the emergence of all D-branes from the system of $`N`$ $`D\overline{D}`$0-branes in type IIA theory. We will show that all Dp-branes naturally emerge either directly in the standard matrix theory construction or through the tachyon condensation worked out in . We will also discuss other possibilities of the emergence of D-branes that are based on nontrivial gauge fields on the world-volume of $`D\overline{D}`$ system. Unfortunately, this possibility does not seem to lead to the free boundary theory so that it is difficult to study it in the BSFT theory.

In conclusion (5) we will discuss some open problems and possible extension of this work.

## 2 $`D\overline{D}`$-system

In this section we will consider $`D\overline{D}`$ system from the point of view of BSFT following recent papers . The general construction of the BSFT for $`N`$ D-branes and antibranes was given in  which we will closely follow. The starting point of the BSFT for $`D\overline{D}`$ system is the partition function on the disk

$$S(A,A^{},T)=Z(A,A^{},T)=<\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{P}\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^{2\pi }𝑑\widehat{\tau }M(A,A^{},T)\right)>,$$
(1)
where the symbol $`\widehat{P}`$ is defined as

$$\widehat{P}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\widehat{\tau }M(\widehat{\tau })}}=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\widehat{\tau }_1\mathrm{}𝑑\widehat{\tau }_N\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{\tau }_{12})\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{\tau }_{23})\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{\tau }_{N1,N})M(\widehat{\tau }_1)M(\widehat{\tau _2})\mathrm{}M(\widehat{\tau }_N),$$
(2)
and where $`d\widehat{\tau }=d\tau d\theta ,\widehat{\tau }_{12}=\tau _1\tau _2\theta _1\theta _2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a step function whose expansion is equal to $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{\tau }_1\widehat{\tau }_2)=\theta (\tau _1\tau _2)\delta (\tau _1\tau _2)\theta _1\theta _2`$. The matrix $`M`$ describes general boundary interaction. In situation, when we confine to the gauge fields and tachyon, it has a form

$$M(A,A^{},T)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}iA_\mu (𝐗)D𝐗^\mu & \overline{T}(𝐗)\\ T(𝐗)& iA_\mu ^{}(𝐗)D𝐗^\mu \end{array}\right),𝐗^\mu =X^\mu +\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\theta \psi ^\mu ,$$
(3)
where $`A_\mu `$ is a gauge field in the adjoint representation of the gauge group $`U(N)`$ living on the world-volume of $`N`$ D9-branes, $`A_\mu ^{}`$ is a gauge field in the adjoint representation of the gauge group $`U(N)`$ living on the world-volume of $`N`$ $`\overline{D}`$9-branes and $`T`$ is a tachyon field in $`(N,\overline{N})`$ representation of the gauge group $`U(N)\times U(N)`$ 222For simplicity we will consider the configurations with the equal number branes and antibranes. The generalisation to the more general case is trivial.. The previous form of the boundary interaction corresponds to the system of $`N`$ D9-branes and antibranes, generalisation to the lower dimensional case is straightforward. In (3) we presume that off-diagonal terms have odd grading. In other words, the form of (3) has a property similar to the superconnection  (For detailed discussion of the relation between superconnection and BSFT, see ). In order to show that (3) defines correctly BSFT action for $`D\overline{D}`$9-system we express the partition function in the more familiar form using elegant formalism reviewed in  which allows us to rewrite the path-ordered trace in terms of the integral over fermionic fields

$$S=<\mathrm{exp}\left(𝑑\widehat{\tau }\left[\widehat{\overline{\eta }}_aD\widehat{\eta }^a+\widehat{\overline{\eta }}_aM_b^a\widehat{\eta }^b\right]\right)>=<e^I>,$$
(4)
where we have introduced fermionic superfields $`\overline{\widehat{\eta }}_a=\overline{\eta }_a+\theta \overline{\chi }_a,\widehat{\eta }^a=\eta ^a+\theta \chi ^a,a=1,\mathrm{},2N`$ living on the boundary of the disk. Firstly we perform the integration over $`\theta `$. In order to do that we expand $`M`$ as $`M=M_0+\theta M_1`$ with

$$M_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}A_\mu \psi ^\mu & \overline{T}(X)\\ T(X)& i\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}A_\mu ^{}\psi ^\mu \end{array}\right),$$
(5)
and

$$M_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i(A_\mu (X)_\tau X^\mu +\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )\psi ^\mu \psi ^\nu )& _\mu \overline{T}(X)\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\psi ^\mu \\ _\mu T(X)\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\psi ^\mu & i(A_\mu ^{}(X)_\tau X^\mu +\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}(_\mu A_\nu ^{}_\nu A_\mu ^{})\psi ^\mu \psi ^\nu )\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
Then

$$𝑑\tau 𝑑\theta \overline{\widehat{\eta }}_aM_b^a\widehat{\eta }^b=𝑑\tau (\overline{\eta }_aM_{0b}^a\chi ^b\overline{\chi }_aM_{0b}^a\eta ^b+\overline{\eta }_aM_{1b}^a\eta ^b).$$
(7)
In the previous expression we have used the crucial fact that $`M_0`$ anticommutes with $`\theta `$ which is a consequence of the presence of the fermionic field $`\psi `$ on the main diagonal of $`M_0`$ and the presumption that off-diagonal elements have odd grading so that anticommute with fermionic fields. We must also stress that in $`M_1`$ the off-diagonal terms have a even grading thanks to odd grading of $`T`$ and odd grading of $`\psi `$. We then obtain

$$I=𝑑\tau \left(\overline{\eta }_a_\tau \eta ^a\overline{\chi }_a\chi ^a\overline{\eta }_aM_{0b}^a\chi ^b\overline{\chi }_aM_{0b}^a\eta ^b+\overline{\eta }_aM_{1b}^a\eta ^b\right).$$
(8)
We can integrate out the auxiliary fields $`\overline{\chi }_a,\chi ^a`$ with the result

$$\overline{\chi }_b=\overline{\eta }_aM_{0b}^a,\chi ^a=M_{0b}^a\eta ^b,$$
(9)
and consequently (8) is equal to

$$I=𝑑\tau \left(\overline{\eta }_a_\tau \eta ^a+\overline{\eta }_a(M_{0c}^aM_{0b}^c+M_{1b}^a)\eta ^b\right),$$
(10)
with

$$M_{0c}^aM_{0b}^c=(M_0^2)_b^a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]\psi ^\mu \psi ^\nu +\overline{T}T& i\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}(\overline{T}A_\mu ^{}A_\mu \overline{T})\psi ^\mu \\ i\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}(TA_\mu A_\mu ^{}T)\psi ^\mu & \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}[A_\mu ^{},A_\nu ^{}]\psi ^\mu \psi ^\nu +T\overline{T}\end{array}\right).$$
(11)
We must stress that odd grading of off-diagonal elements ($`T`$) is crucial for the emergence of the correct form of the covariant derivative. Then (10) is equal to

$`I={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left(\overline{\eta }_a_\tau \eta ^a+\overline{\eta }_a_b^a\eta ^b\right)},_b^a=M_{1b}^a+(M_0^2)_b^a,`$
$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i(A_\mu _\tau X^\mu +\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}F_{\mu \nu }\psi ^\mu \psi ^\nu )+\overline{T}T& \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\overline{D_\mu T}\psi ^\mu \\ \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}D_\mu T\psi ^\mu & i(A_\mu ^{}_\tau X^\mu +\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}F_{\mu \nu }^{}\psi ^\mu \psi ^\nu )+T\overline{T}\end{array}\right),`$ (14)
with

$`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu i[A_\mu ,A_\nu ],F_{\mu \nu }^{}=_\mu A_\nu ^{}_\nu A_\mu ^{}i[A_\mu ^{},A_\nu ^{}],`$
$`D_\mu T=_\mu T+i(TA_\mu A_\mu ^{}T),\overline{D_\mu T}=_\mu \overline{T}+i(\overline{T}A_\mu ^{}A_\mu \overline{T}).`$
As in  we perform some simple tests that will show that (2) could really be the correct form of the action for $`D\overline{D}`$ system. Firstly, for $`T=0`$ we expect that the partition function will be equal to the sum of two independent partition functions for $`N`$ D9-branes and $`N`$ $`\overline{D}9`$-branes. In this case $``$ is block diagonal and when we express the integral over $`\eta ,\overline{\eta }`$ in terms of the path-ordered trace then the partition function is a sum of two independent terms corresponding to $`N`$ D9-branes and $`N`$ $`\overline{D}`$9-branes respectively

$$S_{D+\overline{D},T=0}=\underset{D,\overline{D}}{}<\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\tau \left[A_\mu (X)_\tau X^\mu +\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}F_{\mu \nu }\psi ^\mu \psi ^\nu \right]\right)>.$$
(17)
The more nontrivial task is to show that (2) reduces to the partition function for a non-BPS D9-brane through the orbifolding projection $`(1)^{F_L}`$  that acts on the tachyon and gauge fields as

$`T=\overline{T},A_\mu =A_\mu ^{}D_\mu T=_\mu Ti[A_\mu ,T],\overline{D_\mu T}=_\mu Ti[A_\mu ,T],`$
$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i(A_\mu _\tau X^\mu +\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}F_{\mu \nu }\psi ^\mu \psi ^\nu )+TT& \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}D_\mu T\psi ^\mu \\ \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}D_\mu T\psi ^\mu & i(A_\mu _\tau X^\mu +\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}F_{\mu \nu }\psi ^\mu \psi ^\nu )+TT\end{array}\right).`$ (20)
We again rewrite the path integral over $`\eta ,\overline{\eta }`$ as a path-ordered trace and then express $``$ as

$$=1_{2\times 2}_1+\sigma _1_2,\sigma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(22)
It is clear that the trace over $`2N\times 2N`$ matrices is the same as the trace over $`N\times N`$ matrices $`_{0,1}`$ and the trace over $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`1,\sigma _1`$

$$\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{Tr}_N\mathrm{Tr}_{2\times 2}.$$
(23)
When we convert the trace over $`N\times N`$ matrices into the path integral over fermions it is clear that now we only need $`N`$ fermionic fields $`\eta ^a,\overline{\eta }_a`$. To proceed further we must express the $`2\times 2`$ matrices as fermionic fields. We will mainly follow . Consider the basic fermionic quantum system, two states $`|,|+`$ with raising operator $`\xi `$ and lowering operator $`\overline{\xi }`$

$$\xi |=0,\overline{\xi }|=|+,\xi |+=|,\overline{\xi }|+=0,\{\xi ,\overline{\xi }\}=1,\xi ^2=\overline{\xi }^2=0.$$
(24)
Then immediately follows that $`\xi ,\overline{\xi }`$ have a matrix representation in the basis $`|,|+`$ 333$`\sigma _1,\sigma _2`$ are ordinary Pauli matrices $`\sigma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right)`$.

$$\xi =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _1+i\sigma _2),\overline{\xi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _1i\sigma _2).$$
(25)
We see that we can replace $`\sigma _1`$ in the partition sum with $`\sigma _1=\xi +\overline{\xi }`$ and the trace with the path-integral over fermionic fields $`\xi ,\overline{\xi }`$. More precisely, when we insert $`𝑑\tau \overline{\xi }_\tau \xi `$ into the action $`I`$ we obtain

$`I={\displaystyle }d\tau (\overline{\eta }_a_\tau \eta ^a+\overline{\xi }_\tau \xi i\overline{\eta }_a(A_{\mu b}^a_\tau X^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}F_{\mu \nu b}^a\psi ^\mu \psi ^\nu )\eta ^b+`$
$`+\overline{\eta }_aT_c^aT_b^c\eta ^b(\xi +\overline{\xi })\overline{\eta }_a\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}D_\mu T_b^a\psi ^\mu \eta ^b).`$
It is important to stress that thanks to the replacement $`\sigma _1`$ with the fermionic operator $`\xi +\overline{\xi }`$ the tachyon field $`T(X)`$ should be regarded as a field with even grading. The integration over $`\xi ,\overline{\xi }`$ gives

$$\xi =\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\frac{1}{_\tau }\left(\overline{\eta }_aD_\mu T_b^a\psi ^\mu \eta ^b\right),\overline{\xi }=\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\frac{1}{_\tau }\left(\overline{\eta }_aD_\mu T_b^a\psi ^\mu \eta ^b\right),$$
(27)
so that

$$\overline{\xi }_\tau \xi (\xi +\overline{\xi })\overline{\eta }D_\mu T\psi ^\mu \eta =\alpha ^{}\frac{1}{_\tau }(\overline{\eta }D_\mu T\psi ^\mu \eta )(\overline{\eta }D_\nu T\psi ^\nu \eta )=\alpha ^{}(\overline{\eta }D_\mu T\psi ^\mu \eta )\frac{1}{_\tau }(\overline{\eta }D_\nu T\psi ^\nu \eta ),$$
(28)
where in the last step we have used the anticommuting property of fermionic fields. Finally, $`S`$ is equal to

$`S=<e^I>=<\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }d\tau \{\overline{\eta }_a_\tau \eta ^ai\overline{\eta }_a(A_{\mu b}^a_\tau X^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}F_{\mu \nu b}^a\psi ^\mu \psi ^\nu )\eta ^b+`$
$`+\overline{\eta }_aT_c^aT_b^c\eta ^b+\alpha ^{}\left(\overline{\eta }_aD_\mu T_b^a\psi ^\mu \eta ^b\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\tau }}\left(\overline{\eta }_aD_\nu T_b^a\psi ^\nu \eta ^b\right)\})>,`$
which is in agreement with the partition function for $`N`$ non-BPS D9-branes given in . In the next section we use this partition function for $`N`$ non-BPS D0-branes to review the results presented in .

## 3 D-branes from $`N`$ non-BPS D0-branes

In this section we will construct all D-branes from $`N`$ non-BPS D0-branes in type IIB theory in the same way as in . We start with the action (2). Using transformation properties of the gauge fields and covariant derivatives under T-duality

$`A_I(X^\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }_I(X^0),I,J=1,\mathrm{},9,_\tau X^I_nX^I,T(X^\mu )T(X^0),`$
$`F_{IJ}i[\mathrm{\Phi }_I,\mathrm{\Phi }_J],F_{0I}D_0\mathrm{\Phi }_I,D_IT=i[\mathrm{\Phi }_I,T],`$
we obtain the partition function for $`N`$ non-BPS D0-branes. It is important to stress that all background fields $`A_0,\mathrm{\Phi }_I,T`$ are functions of $`X^0(\tau )`$ only since this is the string coordinate with the Neumann boundary condition. In the following we will work with the time independent background field so that they are not functions of $`X^0`$ and we also use gauge invariance to eliminate the gauge field $`A_0`$. Then the BSFT action for $`N`$ non-BPS D0-branes is

$`S(\mathrm{\Phi },T)=<e^I>=<\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }d\tau (\overline{\eta }_a_\tau \eta ^ai\overline{\eta }_a(\mathrm{\Phi }_{Ib}^a_nX^Ii{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_I,\mathrm{\Phi }_J]_b^a\psi ^I\psi ^J)\eta ^b+`$
$`+\overline{\eta }_aT_c^aT_b^c\eta ^b\left(\overline{\eta }_a[\mathrm{\Phi }_I,T]_b^a\psi ^I\eta ^b\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\tau }}\left(\overline{\eta }_a[\mathrm{\Phi }_J,T]_b^a\psi ^J\eta ^b\right)))>.`$
We will show that the tachyon condensation in the action given (3) can describe all D-branes in type IIB theory, following . Let us consider the background configuration in the form

$$T=0,[\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_b]=i\theta _{ab},a=1,\mathrm{},2p,\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =0,\alpha =2p+1,\mathrm{},9.$$
(32)
Then the fermionic term in (3) is equal to

$$i\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}[\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_b]\psi ^a(\tau )\psi ^b(\tau )=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a(\tau )\psi ^b(\tau )1_{N\times N}.$$
(33)
We see that this term is proportional to the unit matrix so that the following expression can be taken out the trace

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\tau \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a(\tau )\psi ^b(\tau )\right).$$
(34)
The bosonic part can be worked out exactly as in  and we briefly review this calculation. From (32) we see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ are equivalent to the quantum mechanics operators with nontrivial commuting relations. Then we can use the well known relation between the trace over Hilbert space and the path integral

$$\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\tau H(\tau )\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\tau \left[p(\tau )\dot{q}(\tau )H(p(\tau ),q(\tau ))\right]\right),$$
(35)
with $`\dot{q}=_\tau q`$ and where $`p`$ is a momentum conjugate to $`q`$. In our case, the Hamiltonian is

$$H(\tau )=\mathrm{\Phi }_a_nX^a(\tau ).$$
(36)
with the operators $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$. Then we can rewrite the trace in (3) as a path integral (For the time being we omit the fermionic term which is proportional to the unit matrix)

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{2p}{}}[\varphi _a]\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\tau (\frac{1}{2}\varphi _a(\tau )\theta ^{ab}\dot{\varphi }_b(\tau )+\varphi _a(\tau )_nX^a(\tau ))\right),$$
(37)
with $`\theta _{ac}\theta ^{cb}=\delta _a^b`$. We can easily perform the integration over $`\varphi `$

$`{\displaystyle [d\varphi _a]\mathrm{exp}\left(𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}\left[\frac{1}{2}\varphi _a(\tau ^{})\mathrm{}(\tau ^{},\tau )^{ab}\varphi _b(\tau )\varphi _a(\tau )i_nX^a(\tau )\right]\right)}=`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}_nX^a(\tau )\mathrm{}(\tau ,\tau ^{})_{ab}^1_nX^b(\tau ^{})}\right),\mathrm{}(\tau ^{},\tau )^{ab}=i\delta (\tau ^{}\tau )\theta ^{ab}`$
with

$$\mathrm{}(\tau ,\tau ^{})_{ab}^1=\theta _{ab}\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{n}e^{in(\tau \tau ^{})}.$$
(39)
We expand the string field as

$$X^a(\tau ,\rho )=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\underset{n=\mathrm{},n0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\rho ^nX_n^ae^{in\tau },_nX^a(\tau ,\rho =1)=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\underset{n=\mathrm{},n0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}nX_n^ae^{in\tau }.$$
(40)
Note that there is no zero mode thanks to the Dirichlet boundary conditions. Then (3) is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}_nX^a(\tau )\mathrm{}(\tau ,\tau ^{})_{ab}^1_nX^b(\tau ^{})}=\alpha ^{}\pi {\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}m\theta _{ab}X_m^aX_m^b,`$
that agrees precisely with the expression

$$S=\frac{i}{2}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\tau F_{ab}X^a(\tau )\dot{X}^b(\tau )=\pi \alpha ^{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}nF_{ab}X_n^aX_n^b,F_{ab}=\theta _{ab},$$
(42)
arising from the term

$$S_A=i_0^{2\pi }𝑑\tau A_a(X^a)_\tau X^a(\tau ).$$
(43)
As a result, we have obtained the partition sum on the disk for a D2p-brane in the presence of the gauge field $`F_{ab}`$

$$e^I=\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\tau \left[A_a(X)_\tau X^a(\tau )+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}F_{ab}\psi ^a(\tau )\psi ^b(\tau )\right]\right),F_{ab}=_aA_b_bA_a=\theta _{ab}.$$
(44)
Consequently the action is equal to  444We consider Minkowski space-time with the metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$.

$$S(F)=Z(F)=<e^I>=\sqrt{2}T_{2p}𝑑td^{2p}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab})}.$$
(45)
In order to describe odd dimensional D-branes we should include the tachyon in the boundary action and calculate its condensation. Let us consider the ansatz

$$T=u\mathrm{\Phi }_2,[\mathrm{\Phi }_x,\mathrm{\Phi }_y]=iϵ_{xy}\theta ,,x,y=1,2,[\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_j]=i\theta _{ij},i,j=3,\mathrm{},2p,$$
(46)
so that $`\theta `$ in $`[\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_b]=i\theta _{ab}`$ has a form

$$\theta =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \theta & 0\\ \theta & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \theta _{ij}\end{array}\right),i,j=3,\mathrm{},2p.$$
(47)
Then (3) is equal to

$`S=<e^I>=<{\displaystyle }[d\varphi _a]\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }d\tau [i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi _a\theta ^{ab}\dot{\varphi }_b+`$
$`\alpha ^{}u^2\theta ^2\psi ^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\tau }}\psi ^1u^2(\varphi _2)^2+i\varphi _a_nX^a+{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^{}}{2}}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b])>.`$
We can take out the following expression from the path integral over $`\varphi `$

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(𝑑\tau \left[\alpha ^{}u^2\theta ^2\psi ^1\frac{1}{_\tau }\psi ^1+\frac{i\alpha ^{}}{2}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b\right]\right).$$
(49)
Next calculation is the same as the case with vanishing tachyon field. The $`i,j=3,\mathrm{},2p`$ components give the same result as in the case of even dimensional D-brane without exciting tachyon and the integration over $`x,y=1,2`$ gives

$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}_nX^x(\tau )\mathrm{}(\tau \tau ^{})_{xy}^1_nX^y(\tau ^{})}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{}(\tau \tau ^{})_{xy}^1={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(E_n)_{xy}^1e^{in(\tau \tau ^{})},(E_n^1)_{xy}={\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^2}{n^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}u^2& \frac{n}{\theta }\\ \frac{n}{\theta }& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (52)
which together with the $`F_{ij}`$ and $`F_{xy}`$ terms gives the result

$`S=<e^I>=<\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }d\tau [(u^2(X^1)^2+\alpha ^{}u^2\psi ^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\tau }}\psi ^1)+`$
$`+iA_a(X^a)_\tau X^a+{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^{}}{2}}F_{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b])>,F_{ab}=\theta _{ab},`$
where we have made replacement $`u\theta u`$. Then it is easy to see that the tachyon condensation really leads to the emergence of odd dimensional D-brane exactly in the same way as in . The partition function is equal to

$$Z=K𝑑td^{2p1}xZ(a,v)_{fermi}\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})},v=\frac{4\pi \alpha ^{}u^2}{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta )^2}.$$
(55)
with

$$Z(a,v)_{fermi}=4^v\frac{Z_1(v)^2}{Z_1(2v)},Z_1(v)=\sqrt{v}e^{\gamma v}\mathrm{\Gamma }(v),$$
(56)
and where $`K`$ is a numerical factor that will be determined as in . When we calculate the partition sum for constant tachyon $`T=a1_{N\times N}`$ we obtain the exact tachyon potential $`e^{2\pi a^2}`$ multiplied with the DBI term $`\sqrt{det(\delta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab})}`$ arising from the partition sum calculated in the pure gauge field background. Then we can expect that for a slowly varying tachyon field the action corresponds to the non-BPS D2p-brane action

$$S=\sqrt{2}T_{2p}𝑑td^{2p}xe^{2\pi T^2}\sqrt{(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta )^2)det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}+O(T),$$
(57)
This action evaluated on the tachyon profile $`T=ux^1`$ should be equal to the partition sum in the limit $`u0`$. From this requirement we can determine the overall normalisation constant $`K`$. Then the action (57) evaluated on the tachyon profile $`T(x)=ux^1`$ is equal to

$`\sqrt{2}T_{2p}{\displaystyle 𝑑td^{2p1}x\sqrt{(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta )^2)det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}𝑑x^1e^{2\pi u^2(x^1)^2}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}T_{2p}{\displaystyle d^{2p1}x\sqrt{(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta )^2)det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}}.`$
On the other hand, in the limit $`u0`$ we have

$$Z(v)_{fermi}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{v}}+O(v),v0,$$
(59)
so that the partition function is equal to

$$S=K\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \alpha ^{}u^2}}𝑑td^{2p1}x\sqrt{(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta )^2)det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}$$
(60)
and consequently

$$K=T_{2p}\sqrt{2\pi \alpha ^{}}.$$
(61)
Using this result it is easy to see that the action arising from the tachyon condensation is equal to (In this case the tachyon condensation corresponds to $`u\mathrm{}`$ )

$`S=Z(\mathrm{})=\sqrt{2\pi \alpha ^{}}T_{2p}\sqrt{2\pi }{\displaystyle 𝑑td^{2p1}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}}=`$
$`=T_{2p1}{\displaystyle 𝑑td^{2p1}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}},`$
where we have used

$$Z(v)\sqrt{2\pi }+O(v^1),u\mathrm{}.$$
(63)
The result (3) is a correct value of the action for D(2p-1)-brane with the background gauge field strength $`F_{ij}`$. However, we must stress one important thing. It seems that in this approach we cannot construct space-time filling D9-brane as can be seen from (46). On the other hand we can construct the space-time filling unstable $`D\overline{D}`$9 system with equal gauge field background. Let us consider formally the same ansatz as (46)

$$T=u\mathrm{\Phi }_{10},[\mathrm{\Phi }_x,\mathrm{\Phi }_y]=iϵ_{xy}\theta ,,x,y=9,10,[\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_j]=i\theta _{ij},i,j=1,\mathrm{},8,$$
(64)
so that $`\theta `$ in $`[\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_b]=i\theta _{ab}`$ has a form

$$\theta =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\theta _{ij}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \theta \\ 0& \theta & 0\end{array}\right),i,j=1,\mathrm{},8.$$
(65)
Now $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{10}`$ is quantum mechanical operator without any space-time meaning. We see that we can perform the same calculation as above with the result

$`S=<e^I>=<\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }d\tau [(u^2(X^9)^2+\alpha ^{}u^2\psi ^9{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\tau }}\psi ^9)+`$
$`+iA_i(X^i)_\tau X^i+{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^{}}{2}}F_{ij}\psi ^i\psi ^j])>,F_{ij}=\theta _{ij},`$
where we have used the fact that there is no term proportional to $`_nX^{10}`$. Naively we could say that this action corresponds to space-time filling D9-brane. However we know that D9-brane is stable so that it does not contain tachyon in its spectrum. Moreover, we know that D8-brane that arises from the tachyon condensation in the previous expression in the limit $`u\mathrm{}`$ is unstable so that its tension is $`\sqrt{2}T_8`$. We also know that in the limit $`u\mathrm{}`$ we get the numerical value (63). From these facts we conclude that the normalisation constant in (3) is equal to $`2T_9`$. In other words, the action (3) corresponds to the partition sum for $`D\overline{D}`$9 system with equal gauge field background on their world-volumes as it will be clear from the analysis in the next section.

In order to describe single D9-brane in this approach we propose other process which unfortunately does not seem to have simple description in BSFT. We construct an infinite number of D7-branes through the tachyon condensation and then single D9-brane arises by ordinary matrix theory construction reviewed above. Unfortunately, the tachyon condensation in BSFT describing general configuration of D-branes seems to be difficult problem since the boundary theory is not free . For that reason we leave this issue for the future research.

## 4 $`D\overline{D}`$-system

The action proposed in (2) section corresponds to the space-time filling $`D\overline{D}`$9 system, for lower dimensional ones with $`x^\mu ,\mu =0,\mathrm{},p`$ Neumann boundary conditions and $`x^i,i=p+1,\mathrm{},9`$ Dirichlet boundary conditions the matrix $`M`$ has a form

$$M(A,\mathrm{\Phi },A^{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{},T)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}iA_\mu (𝐗^\mu )D𝐗^\mu i\mathrm{\Phi }_i(𝐗^\mu )\stackrel{~}{D}𝐗^i& \overline{T}(𝐗^\mu )\\ T(𝐗^\mu )& iA_\mu (𝐗^\mu )D𝐗^\mu i\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}(𝐗^\mu )\stackrel{~}{D}𝐗^i\end{array}\right),$$
(67)
where now $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}`$ describe transverse fluctuations of $`N`$ Dp-branes and $`\overline{D}`$p-branes respectively and where $`\stackrel{~}{D}=_\theta +\theta _n`$.

In the following we will consider $`N`$ $`D\overline{D}`$0 system in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. Now the gauge fields $`A_0,A_0^{}`$ are not dynamical fields and we can eliminate them thanks to the gauge invariance. Then $`M`$ has a form

$$M(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{},T)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\mathrm{\Phi }_I(𝐗^0)\stackrel{~}{D}𝐗^I& \overline{T}(𝐗^0)\\ T(𝐗^0)& i\mathrm{\Phi }_I^{}(𝐗^0)\stackrel{~}{D}𝐗^I\end{array}\right),I=1,\mathrm{},9.$$
(68)
Performing the same calculation as in (2) section we obtain T-dual version of the action (2) (We consider time-independent background fields)

$`S(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{},T)=<\mathrm{exp}\left(I(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{},T)\right)>,I={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left(\overline{\eta }_a_\tau \eta ^a+\overline{\eta }_a_b^a\eta ^b\right)},`$
$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i(\mathrm{\Phi }_I_nX^Ii\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}[\mathrm{\Phi }_I,\mathrm{\Phi }_J]\psi ^I\psi ^J)+\overline{T}T& i\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_I\overline{T}\overline{T}\mathrm{\Phi }_I^{})\psi ^I\\ i\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}(T\mathrm{\Phi }_I\mathrm{\Phi }_I^{}T)\psi ^I& i(\mathrm{\Phi }_I_nX^Ii\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}[\mathrm{\Phi }_I,\mathrm{\Phi }_J]\psi ^I\psi ^J)+T\overline{T}\end{array}\right).`$ (71)
To begin with, consider the configuration with the tachyon fields equal to the constant value $`T`$ and with all D0-branes sitting in the origin which corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^I,\mathrm{\Phi }^I=0`$. Then

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{T}T& 0\\ 0& T\overline{T}\end{array}\right).$$
(73)
Note that now the tachyon field is on the main diagonal so that it should be regarded as a field with even grading. Then we obtain

$$S=2T_0\mathrm{Tr}_{N\times N}e^{2\pi T\overline{T}}.$$
(74)
We see that the unstable $`D\overline{D}`$0-system corresponds to the tachyon value $`T=0`$ and the closed string vacuum to the value $`T=\mathrm{}`$. It is also clear that we can construct many configurations around the perturbative unstable vacuum $`T=0`$, for example

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }_i^1,\mathrm{\Phi }_j^1]=i\theta _{ij}^1,i,j=1,\mathrm{},2p_1,[\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2,\mathrm{\Phi }_j^2]=i\theta _{ij}^2,i,j=1,\mathrm{},2p_2$$
(75)
with the first commutator corresponding to D0-branes and the second one to $`\overline{D}`$0-branes. When we insert this ansatz into (4) we see that $``$ is again block diagonal and consequently the partition function reduces to two independent parts corresponding to the partition sum for $`D2p_1`$-brane and $`D2p_2`$-brane respectively

$$S_{D2p_1+D2p_2}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}<\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\tau \left[\mathrm{\Phi }_i^k_nX^i+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\theta _{ij}^k\psi ^i\psi ^j\right]\right)>.$$
(76)
Each partition function is equivalent to the partition function for $`D2p_{1,2}`$-brane with the background gauge field $`\theta _{ij}^{1,2}`$ as we have shown in . As we can expect from the general theory  this configuration either annihilates to the closed string vacuum or to the state with the lower dimensional D-brane charge. The final state of the configuration depends on the form of the background field strengths $`F^{1,2}=\theta ^{1,2}`$. It would be nice to study this process in the BSFT theory however it seems to be difficult task since the world-sheet theory is not free even in the case of the constant tachyon field. On the other hand, in  the lower dimensional D-branes emerge naturally from $`D\overline{D}`$ system even in the case of the vanishing gauge field. We can then expect that higher dimensional D-branes arise from $`D\overline{D}`$0 system in the similar manner.

To see directly the emergence of D-branes we should turn on the tachyon field. We restrict ourselves on the linear profile of the tachyon as in . Let us consider the ansatz

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_b]=i\theta _{ab},a,b=1,\mathrm{},2p,[\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{},\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{}]=i\theta _{ab},a,b=1,\mathrm{},2p,T=u^a\mathrm{\Phi }_a,$$
(77)
where $`u^a`$ are complex numbers. In other words, we presume that $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ are the same quantum mechanical operators. Then $``$ is equal to

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i(\mathrm{\Phi }_a_nX^a+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b)+u^au^b\mathrm{\Phi }_a\mathrm{\Phi }_b& \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\theta _{ab}u^a\psi ^b\\ \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\theta _{ab}u^a\psi ^b& i(\mathrm{\Phi }_a_nX^a+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b)+u^au^b\mathrm{\Phi }_a\mathrm{\Phi }_b\end{array}\right).$$
(78)
We rewrite the path integral over $`\eta `$ as the path-ordered trace. Then as in (2) section we can write $``$ as

$$=1_{2\times 2}_1(\mathrm{\Phi })_{N\times N}+_{2,2\times 2}1_{N\times N},$$
(79)
Now we can easily rewrite the first term in the form of the path integral over $`\varphi _a`$ so we obtain

$`<e^I>=<\mathrm{Tr}_{2\times 2}P{\displaystyle }[d\varphi _a]\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }d\tau [1_{2\times 2}(i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi _a\theta ^{ab}\dot{\varphi }_bu^au^b\varphi _a\varphi _b+i\varphi _a_nX^a)`$
$`\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\theta _{ab}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& u^a\psi ^b\\ u^a\psi ^b& 0\end{array}\right)+1_{2\times 2}i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b])>.`$ (82)
We propose the ansatz

$$T=\underset{x=1}{\overset{4}{}}u^xX_x,u^1=u_1,u^2=u^4=0,u^3=iu_3,[\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_b]=i\theta _{ab},a,b=1,\mathrm{},2p,$$
(84)
with

$$\theta _{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& \theta _1& 0& 0& 0\\ \theta _1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \theta _2& 0\\ 0& 0& \theta _2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& \theta _{ij}\end{array}\right),i,j=5,\mathrm{},2p.$$
(85)
We must stress that this is not the most general ansatz, rather this is the background for which we can explicitly calculate the BSFT action. Then

$$u_iu_j^{}\varphi ^i\varphi ^ju_1^2\varphi _1^2+u_3^2\varphi _3^2$$
(86)
and also

$$(E_n)_{xy}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}u_1^2& \frac{n}{\theta _1}& 0& 0\\ \frac{n}{\theta _1}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& u_2^2& \frac{n}{\theta _2}\\ 0& 0& \frac{n}{\theta _2}& 0\end{array}\right),det(E_{xy})=\frac{n^2}{\theta _1^2}\frac{n^2}{\theta _2^2},(E_n)_{xy}^1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \frac{\theta _1}{n}& 0& 0\\ \frac{\theta _1}{n}& \frac{\theta _1^2u_2^2}{n^2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{\theta _2}{n}\\ 0& 0& \frac{\theta _2}{n}& \frac{\theta _2^2u_2^2}{n^2}\end{array}\right).$$
(87)
Terms proportional to $`\theta _{ij}`$ give the standard result reviewed in previous parts. On the other hand, for $`x,y=1,\mathrm{},4`$ we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}_nX^x\mathrm{}(\tau \tau ^{})_{xy}^1_nX^y(\tau ^{})}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\theta _{xy}nX_n^xX_n^y`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,n0}{}}\left(\stackrel{~}{u}_2^2X_n^2X_n^2+\stackrel{~}{u}_4^2X_n^4X_n^4\right)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\tau \theta _{xy}X^x(\tau )\dot{X}^y(\tau ){\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\tau T(X)^2,`$
$`T(X)=\stackrel{~}{u}_2^2(X^2(\tau ))^2+\stackrel{~}{u}_4^2(X^4(\tau ))^2,\stackrel{~}{u}_2=\theta _1u_1,\stackrel{~}{u}_4=\theta _2u_3,`$
so we have

$`<e^I>=<\mathrm{Tr}_{2\times 2}P\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }d\tau [1_{2\times 2}(iA_a(X)_\tau X^a+{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^{}F_{ab}}{2}}\psi ^a\psi ^bT(X)^2)`$
$`\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \theta _{12}u^1\psi ^2i\theta _{34}u^3\psi ^4\\ \theta _{12}u^1\psi ^2+i\theta _{34}u^3\psi ^4& 0\end{array}\right)])>=<\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }d\tau [iA_a(X)_\tau X^a+`$ (91)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^{}F_{ab}}{2}}\psi ^a\psi ^bT(X)^2\overline{\xi }\dot{\xi }(\xi +\overline{\xi })\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\stackrel{~}{u}_2\psi ^2i\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}(\overline{\xi }\xi )\stackrel{~}{u}_4\psi ^4)])>,`$
where we have used the correspondence between fermionic fields $`\xi ,\overline{\xi }`$ and Pauli matrices which was explicitly demonstrated in (2) section. It is now easy to study the tachyon condensation, following . Firstly we integrate out the fermionic field $`\xi ,\overline{\xi }`$ which gives

$$\xi =\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\frac{1}{_\tau }(u_2\psi ^2+iu_4\psi ^4),\overline{\xi }=\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\frac{1}{_\tau }(u_2\psi ^2iu_4\psi ^4),$$
(93)
where we have renamed $`\stackrel{~}{u}_xu_x`$. Consequently we have

$`<e^I>=<\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }d\tau [iA_a_\tau X^a+{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^{}}{2}}F_{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b`$
$`T(X)^2\alpha ^{}(u_2^2\psi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\tau }}\psi ^2+u_4^2\psi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\tau }}\psi ^4)])>.`$
Now the calculation is the same as in the original papers . Thanks to the special form of the ansatz (77,84) the partition sum factorises into the subspaces labelled with the coordinates $`x^{1,2}`$, $`x^{3,4}`$ and $`x^{5,\mathrm{},2p}`$. Then we can use the approach outlined in the previous section with the result

$`S=K{\displaystyle 𝑑td^{2p2}xZ(v_1,v_2)e^{2\pi T\overline{T}}\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}},`$
$`Z(v_1,v_2)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}4^{v_{2i}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_1(v_{2i})^2}{Z_1(2v_{2i})}},Z_1(x)=\sqrt{x}e^{\gamma x}\mathrm{\Gamma }(x),v_{2i}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha ^{}u_{2i}^2}{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta _i)^2}}.`$
As usual we can expect that for a slowly varying tachyonic field this action reduces to the sum of two DBI actions for a D-brane and an anti-D-brane respectively. However thanks to the particular choose of the background fields these two actions are equal so that we expect that the action will have a form

$`S=2T_{2p}{\displaystyle 𝑑td^{2p}xe^{2\pi T\overline{T}}\sqrt{det(\delta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab})}}+O(T)=`$
$`=2T_{2p}{\displaystyle 𝑑td^{2p}xe^{2\pi T\overline{T}}\sqrt{(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta _1)^2)(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta _2)^2)}\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}}+O(T).`$
As in the previous section we should work out this action on the tachyon profile $`T\overline{T}=u_2^2(x^2)^2+u_4^2(x^4)^2`$ which gives

$`S=2T_{2p}{\displaystyle }dtd^{2(p1)}x\sqrt{(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta _1)^2)(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta _2)^2)}\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle }dx^2e^{2\pi u_2^2(x^2)^2}{\displaystyle }dx^4e^{2\pi u_4^2(x^4)^2}={\displaystyle \frac{T_{2p}}{u_2u_4}}{\displaystyle }dtd^{2p2}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab})}.`$
On the other hand, for $`u_i0`$ we have $`Z(v_1,v_2)\frac{2}{\sqrt{v_2v_4}}`$ and consequently (4) is equal to

$$S=\frac{K}{2\pi \alpha ^{}u_2u_4}𝑑td^{2p2}x\sqrt{((1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta _1)^2)(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta _2)^2)}\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}$$
(98)
Comparing these two expressions we obtain the value of the normalisation constant

$$K=2\pi \alpha ^{}T_{2p}.$$
(99)
Then it is easy to study the tachyon condensation. For $`u_2\mathrm{}`$ and $`u_4\mathrm{}`$ we have

$$4^v\frac{Z_1(v)^2}{Z_1(2v)}\sqrt{2\pi },v\mathrm{}$$
(100)
and consequently the action is equal to

$$T_{2p2}𝑑td^{2p2}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}$$
(101)
which is the correct value of the action for $`D_{2p2}`$-brane with the background gauge field $`F_{ij}`$. On the other hand, for $`u_20,u_4\mathrm{}`$ we have

$$Z(v_1,v_2)\frac{\sqrt{4\pi }}{\sqrt{v_2}}=\frac{\sqrt{1+(2\pi \theta _1)^2}}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}u_2}$$
(102)
so that

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}T_{2p1}}{\sqrt{2}u_2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑td^{2p2}x\sqrt{(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta _1)^2)det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}}=`$
$`=\sqrt{2}T_{2p1}{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑x^1e^{2\pi u_2^2(x^2)^2}d^{2p2}x\sqrt{(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta _1)^2)det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}}=`$
$`=\sqrt{2}T_{2p1}{\displaystyle 𝑑td^{2p1}x\sqrt{(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta _1)^2)det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}}`$
which is a correct action for non-BPS D(2p-1)-brane with the background gauge field $`F_{12}=\theta _1,F_{ij}`$. To conclude, we have shown in this section that Dp-branes, $`p6`$ naturally arise from $`N`$ D0 and $`\overline{D}0`$-branes in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ through the particular ansatz (84). We also see that (84) cannot lead to the emergence of D7, D8 and D9-brane since the maximal number of $`2p=8`$. In order to describe these D-branes we should proceed in the same way as was outlined in the end of the previous section. In order to describe non-BPS D9-brane we take the ansatz

$`[\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_b]=i\theta _{ab},a,b=1,\mathrm{},8,[\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{},\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{}]=i\theta _{ab},a,b=1,\mathrm{},8,`$
$`T=u\mathrm{\Phi }_{10},u=u^{},[\mathrm{\Phi }_9,\mathrm{\Phi }_{10}]=i\theta ,`$
with $`\theta `$ the same as in (65). When we insert this configuration into (4) $``$ is equal to

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i(\mathrm{\Phi }_a_nX^a+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b)+u^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{10}^2& \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\theta u\psi ^9\\ \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\theta u\psi ^9& i(\mathrm{\Phi }_a_nX^a+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b)+u^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{10}^2\end{array}\right).$$
(105)
We see that the previous expression is a special form of $``$ which we have discussed in (2) section and which leads to the partition sum for non-BPS D-brane through the $`(1)^{F_L}`$ orbifold projection. Then the previous expression naturally leads to the partition function for D9-brane whose boundary theory has two fix points: one corresponding to non-BPS D9-brane and the second one to BPS D8-brane. We see that D8 and D9-branes naturally arise from the $`D\overline{D}`$0 system. And finally, to describe D7-brane we can use a modification of (4) where we replace one part of the tachyon field (say $`T=u_3\mathrm{\Phi }^3`$) with $`T=u_9\mathrm{\Phi }^{10}`$ with the commutation relations between various $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’ the same as in (4). Then it is easy to see that the limit $`u_1,u_9\mathrm{}`$ leads to D7-brane exactly in the same way as we have shown in previous parts. We can then claim that all D-branes naturally emerge from $`D\overline{D}`$0 system.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we have studied the emergence of D-branes from $`N`$ of $`D\overline{D}`$0 system in type IIA theory, following our recent paper . We have seen that the $`D\overline{D}`$-system is very interesting and seems to be the most general unstable configuration in type IIA, IIB theories. Many problems and issues with these configurations have been considered recently in the papers . In this paper we have tried to show that the BSFT theory is also very useful tool for study the emergence of higher dimensional D-branes from lower dimensional ones.

However, many open question remains. We have seen that there is a problem with the tachyon condensation on the $`D\overline{D}`$-system with different gauge fields background. From the general arguments regarding tachyon condensation  we can expect that after the tachyon condensation either lower dimensional D-brane emerges or the system ends in the closed string vacuum according to the value of background gauge field. It would be nice to study this process directly in BSFT theory. It would be also nice to study the fluctuations around various nontrivial configurations which arise from the tachyon condensation in the BSFT approach. And finally, it should be addressed the question of the relation BSFT to the Matrix theory.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank Rikard von Unge for very helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Czech Ministry of Education under Contract No. 143100006.