format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a beautiful paper, Susskind  has proposed a matrix model of the Chern-Simons type in the study of Quantum Hall Effect. In his approach, the coordinates $`\{x^a(t)\}(a=1,2)`$ of the two dimensional multi-electron system are represented by the infinite-sized hermitian matrices $`\widehat{x}^a(t)(a=1,2)`$. The matrices evolve in time under the influence of the Lorentz force given by the strong magnetic field $`B`$ which is supplied from outside in the normal direction to the two dimensional sample of the quantum Hall effect. Due to the Pauli’s exclusion principle it is well known that each electron doing the cyclotron motion cannot overlaps with each other. Susskind has introduced this exclusion principle by the following constraint condition in the matrix form:

$$[\widehat{x}^a,\widehat{x}^b]=i\theta ϵ^{ab}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}},$$
(1)
where $`ϵ^{ab}`$ denotes the usual antisymmetric tensor, and $`2\pi \theta `$ is the mean area to be occupied by an electron, namely, the inverse of the number density $`\rho `$ of the electron,

$$2\pi \theta =\rho ^1.$$
(2)
An analogy in quantum mechanics tells that $`\theta `$ plays the role of $`\mathrm{}`$, so that the minimum area to be occupied by an electron in the ”phase space” $`(x^1,x^2)`$ becomes naturally $`2\pi \theta `$ as is required.

The quasi-electron or the quasi-hole in the quantum Hall system is given, respectively, by the surplus or the deficit of area $`q`$ occupied by the electrons . If this area is fixed by the quantization condition of the magnetic flux passing through the area, we have

$$eBq=2\pi \times n(n:\text{integer}),$$
(3)
so that the charge of the quasi-electron or the quasi-hole is quantized in the unit of $`\nu e`$:

$$e_{qeorqh}=\nu e\times n(n:\text{negative or positive integer}),$$
(4)
where $`\nu `$ is the filling fraction. It measures how many electrons exist in the area through which the unit quantum of magnetic flux penetrates, that is,

$$\nu =\rho \frac{2\pi }{eB}.$$
(5)
Now the surplus or deficit area reads from Eq. (3) as

$$q=2\pi \theta \nu \times n.$$
(6)
This Susskind approach is reformulated using finite-sized matrix with an additional boundary field in , and it is pointed out there that the finite matrix model becomes identical to the solvable Calogero model. This finite matrix model for the quantum Hall effect is further developed by introducing the coherent states, using which the relation between the physical states of the matrix model and the Laughlin’s wave functions is studied .

The solution of the constraint equation for the quasi-electron or the quasi-hole is already known in , but the exciton solution of having both quasi-electron and quasi-hole at the same time is not known. We may recognize that in order to find the exciton solution in the matrix model, we have to give up the hermiticity of the operators and introduce the ”unphysical” negative probability. This reminds the introduction of positron (the hole or the anti-particle of electron) to solve the negative energy difficulty in QED. There, the annihilation of the ”unphysical” electron with negative energy is replaced by the creation of the physical positron (hole) with positive energy. Namely, there is a possibility in our problem that the surplus (quasi-electron) and the deficit (quasi-hole) of area are realized by the electron and the hole fields separately. ( See the details in Appendix).

With this motivation, we introduce in this paper two kinds of matrices, the matrices for electrons $`\widehat{x}_e^a(t)`$, and those for the holes $`\widehat{x}_h^a(t)`$ from the beginning, and study the exciton solution and its dispersion relation. We consider here the infinite matrix case of Susskind without introducing the boundary field as in . Introduction of both electron and hole fields gives two sets of creation and annihilation operators $`(a_e,a_e^{})`$, and $`(a_h,a_h^{})`$. This is also beneficial to understand the Laughlin wave functions . Having these two sets of creation and annihilation operators, the Hamiltonian $`H`$ and the 3rd component of the angular momentum of the quantum Hall effect $`M`$ are given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\omega _e(a_e^{}a_e+1/2)_i+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\omega _h(a_h^{}a_h+1/2)_i+\text{Coulomb potentials},`$ (7)
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(a_e^{}a_e)_i{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(a_h^{}a_h)_i,`$ (8)
where the cyclotron frequencies are given by

$$\omega _e=eB/m_e,\text{and}\omega _h=eB/m_h,$$
(9)
with the effective masses $`m_e`$ and $`m_h`$ for electron and hole, respectively. In this paper, we always set $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and $`c=1`$.

If the Coulomb potentials can be ignored, the single particle eigenstates are given by

$$|m,n>(a_h^{})^m(a_e^{})^n|0;0>.$$
(10)
Then, for the N electron system, the Laughlin wave function $`\psi _m`$ of the filling fraction $`\nu =1/m`$ is given by a certain antisymmetrization in the product of the single particle wave functions:

$`\psi _m`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(a_{hi}^{}a_{hj}^{}\right)^m|0,\mathrm{},0;0,\mathrm{},0>`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{i\}}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(ϵ^{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_N}(a_{hi_1}^{})^0(a_{hi_2}^{})^1(a_{hi_3}^{})^2\mathrm{}(a_{hi_N}^{})^{N1}\right)^m|0,\mathrm{},0;0,\mathrm{},0>,`$
where the second expression is by the van der Monde determinant. The important point to be stressed here is the following: To obtain the less filling fraction states without increasing the Landau levels, we have to excite not the electron quanta but the ”hole quanta”. Since if $`\omega _e\omega _h`$ holds or if we do not care about the hole energy, the excitation of the holes do not change the energy, but increases the absolute value of the angular momentum. Electron with higher angular momentum is moving on a circle with the $`|M|`$ times larger radius, reducing the filling number, or in other words, the $`m`$ excitations of the holes cancel the minimum sized $`m`$ cyclotron motions of electrons, remaining the large sized cyclotron motion with lower filling number.

In the next section, we introduce the two component matrix model and obtain the exciton solution classically. Quantization is examined using two kinds of descriptions called ”1d” and ”2d” pictures. In Sec. 3, physical states of the model are studied at the quantum level. The energy of the exciton and its dispersion relation is studied in Sec. 4. The last section is devoted to discussion.

## 2 Two Component Matrix Model of Quantum Hall Effect and its Exciton Solution

As was stated in the introduction, we start with two component matrix model of the Chern-Simons type, by introducing two independent matrices for electrons and holes. It gives simply the motion under the Lorentz force caused by external magnetic field. Then the starting Lagrangian is written as follows:

$`L_0={\displaystyle }dt{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{2}}ϵ_{ab}[Tr\{(\dot{\widehat{x}}_e^a+i[\widehat{x}_e^a,\widehat{A_0}])\widehat{x}_e^b\}`$
$`Tr\{(\dot{\widehat{x}_h^a}+i[\widehat{x}_h^a,\widehat{A_0}])\widehat{x}_h^b\}2\theta Tr\{\widehat{A_0}\}].`$ (13)
Hereafter, we will specify the infinite sized matrix variables by putting the hat on them.

In the above Lagrangian, an auxiliary gauge potential $`\widehat{A_0}`$ is introduced so as to give the reasonable constraint coming from the Pauli’s exclusion principle. From the starting Lagrangian the constraint condition is obtained as the equation of motion for $`\widehat{A}_0`$:

$$[\widehat{x}_e^1,\widehat{x}_e^2][\widehat{x}_h^1,\widehat{x}_h^2]=i\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}.$$
(14)
This constraint means that the area occupied by electrons contributes positively to the constraint, while that by holes does negatively, so that the minimum value of the difference of two (phase space) areas is to be $`2\pi \theta `$.

To see the meaning of the constraint condition more clearly, it is helpful to consider the limit of $`\theta 0`$, in a similar way to the classical limit of $`\mathrm{}0`$ in quantum mechanics. Then, the infinite matrices, $`\widehat{x}_e`$ and $`\widehat{x}_h`$ become the (”classical”) functions of ”phase space” variables $`(y^1,y^2)`$ and $`t`$, namely, $`x_e=x_e(t,y^1,y^2)`$ and $`x_h=x_h(t,y^1,y^2)`$. This is the continuous fluid description of the quantum hall effect, where the position of the electron fluid $`x_e^a`$ and that of the hole fluid $`x_h^a`$ are described by the original position at $`t=0`$, namely, $`(y^1,y^2)`$.

At the same time, the commutator becomes $`i\theta `$ times the Poisson bracket(Jacobian of the ”phase space” variables), and the $`Tr`$ becomes the ”phase space” integral. Therefore, in this continuous limit, the constraint becomes

$$\frac{(x_e^1,x_e^2)}{(y^1,y^2)}\frac{(x_h^1,x_h^2)}{(y^1,y^2)}=1$$

.

This shows that the volume occupied by the electron fluid minus that by the hole fluid is always equal to the original volume labeled by $`(y^1,y^2)`$, showing the incompressible fluid. As is seen from the expression, the constraint condition permits many solutions having the equal difference, but the hole fluid represents the deficit of the electron fluid, so that the difference gives the density of the electron fluid itself which is kept constant except at the position of quasi-electron or quasi-hole.

If the fractional surplus of area $`q=2\pi \nu `$ discussed in Eq.(6) occurs at the quasi-particle’s excitation position and the deficit of the same area occurs at the quasi-hole’s excitation position, we have the classical exciton solution. As is mentioned in the Introduction and the supplement given in Appendix, to express the solution, we introduce two kinds of lowering operators in the matrix space, $`\widehat{b}`$ and $`\widehat{d}`$. If the infinite dimensional vector space on which all the matrices operate is spanned by $`\{|0>,|1>,\mathrm{}\}`$, then $`\widehat{b}`$ and $`\widehat{d}`$ are defined as follows:

$`\widehat{b}^{}|n>`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{n+1+\nu }|n+1>`$
$`\widehat{b}|n>`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{n+\nu }|n1>\text{for}n0,`$
$`\widehat{b}|0>`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (15)
and

$`\widehat{d}^{}|n>`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{n+1\nu }|n+1>`$
$`\widehat{d}|n>`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{n\nu }|n1>\text{for}n0,`$
$`\widehat{d}|0>`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (16)
Then, the classical exciton solution $`(\widehat{z}_e,\widehat{z}_h)_{cl}`$ in the complex notation is obtained:

$`(\widehat{z}_e)_{cl}`$ $``$ $`(\widehat{x}_e^1+i\widehat{x}_e^2)_{cl}=z_e(t)\widehat{1}+\sqrt{2\theta }\widehat{b},`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`z_e(t){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|n><n|+\sqrt{2\theta }{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{n+\nu }|n1><n|,`$
$`(\widehat{z}_h)_{cl}`$ $``$ $`(\widehat{x}_h^1+i\widehat{x}_h^2)_{cl}=z_h(t)\widehat{1}+\sqrt{2\theta }\widehat{d}^{},`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`z_h(t){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|n><n|+\sqrt{2\theta }{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{n\nu }|n><n1|.`$
where $`z_e(t)`$ and $`z_h(t)`$ denote the center of mass coordinates of the quasi-electron and quasi-hole, respectively, in the complex notation. The solution gives

$$[\widehat{x}_e^1,\widehat{x}_e^2]=i\theta (\widehat{1}+\nu |0><0|)$$
(19)
at the location of the quasi-electron, and

$$[\widehat{x}_h^1,\widehat{x}_h^2]=i\theta (\widehat{1}\nu |0><0|),$$
(20)
at the location of the quasi-hole, so that the constraint(14) is satisfied where the exciton is located. On the other locations there is no surplus or deficit of area, so that the coordinates are taken to be either $`(\widehat{z}_e)_{cl}`$ or $`(\widehat{z}_h)_{cl}`$ with $`\nu =0`$

In the above description we have repeatedly specified the locations where the constraint is satisfied, saying ”at the location of the quasi-electron, or at the location of the quasi-hole, or on the other locations”. The reason for this specification is as follows: In the contineous limit, the constraint holds separately for each portion $`(y^1,y^2)`$ of the fluid. That is, the constraint holds at each location separately. In the discretised version of using matrices, however, the concept of the location becomes obscure. To overcome this situation, we introduce into the solution, the center of mass coordinates, $`z_e(t)`$ and $`z_h(t)`$, proportional to the unit matrix $`\widehat{1}`$. These center of mass coordinates play the role of $`y`$ in the contineous limit. Therefore, we require the constraint condition to hold separately for different values of these center of mass coordinates. We consider the exciton solution in which the center of the mass coordinates for the quasi-electron (location of the surplus of area) and the quasi-hole (location of the deficit of area) are separated sufficiently, so that it is also reasonable to require that at the location of the quasi-particle, the constraint is satisfied by the electron part only, while at the location of the quasi-hole, it is satisfied by the hole part only.

So far we have considered the Lagrangian $`L_0`$ which is the sum of Lorentz force term under the constant magnetic field and the constraint from the Pauli principle. As is well known Lorentz force acts perpendicular to the direction of motion, so that it does not contribute to the energy. Therefore, if the constraint condition is fulfilled, the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ corresponding to the original $`L_0`$ vanishes;

$$H_0=0.$$
(21)
This vanishingness of the Hamiltonian is convenient to study electrons in the lowest Landau level, but to study the excited states or the fractionally filling states, it is necessary to include the Landau level excitation energies as in Eqs.(1) and (LABEL:sec1.12). There are two ways to include such excitation modes. The first standard way is to add the kinetic energy of the 2 dimensional electrons and holes by

$$L_1(2d)=\frac{1}{2}m_eTr(\dot{\widehat{x}}_e^a)^2+\frac{1}{2}m_hTr(\dot{\widehat{x}}_h^a)^2+(\text{ Coulomb potentials}),$$
(22)
which we call the ”2d” description. The second way is to introduce the two dimensional potentials by

$$L_1(1d)=\frac{1}{4m_e}(eB)^2Tr(\widehat{x}_e^a)^2+\frac{1}{4m_h}(eB)^2Tr(\widehat{x}_h^a)^2+(\text{ Coulomb potentials}),$$
(23)
which we call the ”1d” description.

Next, we discuss the meaning of and the relationship between these two different descriptions. In the following we consider the quantum theory, in which we describes the quantum operators in terms of capital letters. Using this convention, the conjugate momenta $`\widehat{P}_e^a`$ and $`\widehat{P}_h^a`$ in the first description are given by

$`m_e\dot{\widehat{X}}_e^a`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{P}_e^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}eBϵ_{ab}\widehat{X}_e^b,`$
$`m_h\dot{\widehat{X}}_h^a`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{P}_h^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}eBϵ_{ab}\widehat{X}_h^b,`$ (24)
and the Hamiltonian for this system becomes

$$H(2d)=\frac{1}{2m_e}Tr\left(\widehat{P}_e^a\frac{1}{2}eBϵ_{ab}\widehat{X}_e^b\right)^2+\frac{1}{2m_h}\left(\widehat{P}_h^a+\frac{1}{2}eBϵ_{ab}\widehat{X}_h^b\right)^2+(\text{Coulomb potentials}).$$
(25)
Here, we introduce the creation and annihilation operators by

$`\widehat{A}_e`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{eB}}}\left(\widehat{P}_e^1i\widehat{P}_e^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{eB}}{2}}\left(\widehat{X}_e^1i\widehat{X}_e^2\right)\right],`$
$`\widehat{A}_e^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{eB}}}\left(\widehat{P}_e^1+i\widehat{P}_e^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{eB}}{2}}\left(\widehat{X}_e^1+i\widehat{X}_e^2\right)\right].`$ (26)
and

$`\widehat{A}_h`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{eB}}}\left(\widehat{P}_h^1+i\widehat{P}_h^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{eB}}{2}}\left(\widehat{X}_h^1+i\widehat{X}_h^2\right)\right]`$
$`\widehat{A}_h^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{eB}}}\left(\widehat{P}_h^1i\widehat{P}_h^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{eB}}{2}}\left(\widehat{X}_h^1i\widehat{X}_h^2\right)\right]`$ (27)
They satisfy the following quantum commutation relations,

$`[[(\widehat{A}_e)_{mn},(\widehat{A}_e^{})_{n^{^{}}m^{^{}}}]]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{mm^{^{}}}\delta _{nn^{^{}}}`$
$`[[(\widehat{A}_h)_{mn},(\widehat{A}_h^{})_{n^{^{}}m^{^{}}}]]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{mm^{^{}}}\delta _{nn^{^{}}},`$ (28)
based on

$$[[(\widehat{X}_{e(h)})_{nm},(\widehat{P}_{e(h)})_{m^{^{}}n^{^{}}}]]\mathrm{@}=i\delta _{nn^{^{}}}\delta _{mm^{^{}}}.$$
(29)
Here the quantum commutator is specified by $`[[O,O^{^{}}]]`$, in order not to be confused with the commutator in the sense of the matrices, following . The latter commutator is considered to be that in the ”isospace”, or in the ”space of flavors”. Then, the Hamiltonian becomes

$$\widehat{H}(2d)=\omega _eTr(\widehat{A}_e^{}\widehat{A}_e)+\omega _hTr(\widehat{A}_h^{}\widehat{A}_h)+(\text{zero point energy+ Coulomb potentials}),$$
(30)
which is a reasonable one giving Landau levels with proper cyclotron frequencies given in the previous section.

Now, we come to the second description. In this description, $`\widehat{x}_e^2`$ and $`\widehat{x}_h^2`$ are the coordinates, but can be considered as the conjugate momenta of $`\widehat{x}_e^1`$ and $`\widehat{x}_h^1`$, respectively. Denoting $`\widehat{X}_e\widehat{X}_e^1`$ and $`\widehat{X}_h\widehat{X}_h^1`$, the conjugate momenta are given by

$`\widehat{P}_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{2}}(\widehat{X}_e^2),`$
$`\widehat{P}_h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{2}}(\widehat{X}_h^2).`$ (31)
Then, the Hamiltonian in this description becomes the one dimensional harmonic oscillators:

$`H(1d)`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_e}}\widehat{P_e}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(eB)^2}{4m_e}}\widehat{X_e}^2\right)+Tr\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_h}}\widehat{P_h}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(eB)^2}{4m_h}}\widehat{X_h}^2\right)`$ (32)
$`+`$ $`(\text{Coulomb potentials}).`$
If we introduce the creation and annihilation operators by

$`\widehat{A}_e`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{eB}\left(\widehat{X}_e^1+i\widehat{X}_e^2\right)\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{eB}\left(\widehat{X}_e+i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}\widehat{P}_e\right)\right],`$
$`\widehat{A}_e^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{eB}\left(\widehat{X}_e^1i\widehat{X}_e^2\right)\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{eB}\left(\widehat{X}_ei{\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}\widehat{P}_e\right)\right],`$ (33)
and

$`\widehat{A}_h`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{eB}\left(\widehat{X}_h^1i\widehat{X}_h^2\right)\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{eB}\left(\widehat{X}_h+i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}\widehat{P}_h\right)\right],`$
$`\widehat{A}_h^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{eB}\left(\widehat{X}_h^1+i\widehat{X}_h^2\right)\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{eB}\left(\widehat{X}_hi{\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}\widehat{P}_h\right)\right].`$ (34)
Then, the Hamiltonian in this second description reads

$`H(1d)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _eTr\left(\widehat{A}_e^{}\widehat{A}_e\right)+\omega _hTr\left(\widehat{A}_h^{}\widehat{A}_h\right)`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`(\text{zero point energy+ Coulomb potentials}).`$
Therefore, the final Hamiltonians and their eigen-values of these two descriptions are shown to be equivalent at the quantum mechanics.

We have said ”equivalent” here, but as one can understand well, the 1d system and the 2d system are different dynamical systems, having different degrees of freedom. Only thing we have claimed here is that these 1d and 2d systems play effectively the equivalent roles in the calculation of the energy levels quantum mechanically.

To understand the physical correspondence between these two descriptions, it is better to examine both pictures semi-classically. Let us simplify the infinite matrix to a single component one including only the electron, and study the semi-classical motions without Coulomb potentials. Here, the simplified Hamiltonian $`H_s`$ of the ”2d” picture and ”1d” picture are respectively,

$`H_s(2d)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_e{\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2}{}}(\dot{x}^a)^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_e}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2}{}}\left(p^a{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{2}}ϵ_{ab}(x^bx_{cm}^b)\right)^2,`$ (36)
$`H_s(1d)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(eB)^2}{4m_e}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2}{}}(x^ax_{cm}^a)^2={\displaystyle \frac{(eB)^2}{4m_e}}(xx_{cm})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_e}}(pp_{cm})^2,`$ (37)
where the variables with the suffix ”cm” denote the values of them at the center of the cyclotron motion. Let us start with the ”2d” picture. It gives a cyclotron motion under the constant magnetic field, namely,

$`x^1`$ $`=`$ $`x_{cm}^1+r_{2d}\mathrm{sin}(\omega _et),`$
$`x^2`$ $`=`$ $`x_{cm}^2+r_{2d}\mathrm{cos}(\omega _et).`$ (38)
Its energy is

$$H_s(2d)=\frac{1}{2}m_e(r_{2d})^2\omega _e^2=\omega _e(n+1/2),$$
(39)
where the quantization can be considered as the quantization of the angular momentum,

$$M=m_e(r_{2d})^2\omega _e=2n+1(n:\text{integer}).$$
(40)
In the second ”1d” picture, it gives a one dimensional harmonic oscillator of a point particle with mass $`m_e/2`$ and spring constant $`(eB)^2/2m_e`$, namely

$$xx_{cm}=r_{1d}\mathrm{sin}(\omega _et),$$
(41)
having the same frequency as in the ”2d” picture. The corresponding momentum is given by

$$x^2x_{cm}^2\frac{2}{eB}(pp_{cm})=r_{1d}\mathrm{cos}(\omega _et),$$
(42)
so that we have the circular motion in the $`(x^1,x^2)`$ space, or equivalently the elliptic motion in the one dimensional ”phase space” of $`(x,p)`$. The energy of the ”1d” picture reads

$$H_s(1d)=\frac{1}{4}m_e(r_{1d})^2\omega _e^2=\omega _e(n+1/2),$$
(43)
where the latter identity is considered to be the quantization for the phase space area, namely,

$$\pi (r_{1d})^2=2\pi (r_{2d})^2=2\pi (2n+1)(eB)^1.$$
(44)
Since the expressions of energies are identical in equation (39)and (43), two radii $`r_{1d}`$ and $`r_{2d}`$ are related as

$$r_{1d}=\sqrt{2}r_{2d}.$$
(45)
In conclusion, there are two equivalent (”1d” and ”2d” ) pictures to describe the cyclotron motion under the constant magnetic field, and the relationship between these two pictures are as follows: The phase space trajectory of the ”1d” picture is equivalent to the real space trajectory of the ”2d” picture, and the quantization of the phase space area in the ”1d” picture corresponds to the quantization of the angular momentum in the ”2d” picture.

## 3 Physical States of the Quantized Matrix Model

In this section we will study what kinds of physical states are allowed, after quantizing the two component matrix model in the second description, i.e., in the ”1d” picture, in the study of the quantum Hall effect.

In case of having a classical solution such as the exciton solution, we expand the fields around the classical solutions $`(\widehat{x}_e^a)_{cl}`$ and $`(\widehat{x}_h^a)_{cl}`$, and the quantum fluctuations denoted by the capital letters $`\widehat{X}_e^a`$ and $`\widehat{X}_h^a`$ as:

$`\widehat{x}_e^a`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{x}_e^a)_{cl}+\widehat{X}_e^a`$
$`\widehat{x}_h^a`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{x}_h^a)_{cl}+\widehat{X}_h^a.`$ (46)
The canonical commutation relations of the ”1d” picture can be written as

$$[[(\widehat{X_e^1})_{mn},(\widehat{X_e^2})_{n^{^{}}m^{^{}}}]]=i\mathrm{}\frac{2}{eB}\delta _{mm^{^{}}}\delta _{nn^{^{}}},$$
(47)
$$[[(\widehat{X_h^1})_{mn},(\widehat{X_h^2})_{n^{^{}}m^{^{}}}]]=i\mathrm{}\frac{2}{eB}\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{nn^{^{}}},$$
(48)
and the conjugate momenta $`\widehat{P}_e`$ and $`\widehat{P}_h`$ of $`\widehat{X}_e(\widehat{X}_e^1)`$ and $`\widehat{X}_h(\widehat{X}_h^1)`$ are

$`(P_e)_{nm}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{2}}(\widehat{X}_e^2)_{nm}=i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{X}_e)_{mn}}},`$ (49)
$`(P_h)_{nm}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{2}}(\widehat{X}_h^2)_{nm}=i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{X}_h)_{mn}}}.`$ (50)
In this case the constraint condition of the two component matrix model given in Eq.(14), can be naturally decomposed into the purely classical part,

$$[(\widehat{x}_e^1)_{cl},(\widehat{x}_e^2)_{cl}][(\widehat{x}_h^1)_{cl},(\widehat{x}_h^2)_{cl}]=i\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}},$$
(51)
the mixed part of classical and quantum effects,

$$[(\widehat{x}_e^1)_{cl},\widehat{X}_e^2]+[\widehat{X}_e^1,(\widehat{x}_e^2)_{cl}][(\widehat{x}_h^1)_{cl},\widehat{X}_h^2][\widehat{X}_h^1,(\widehat{x}_h^2)_{cl}]=0,$$
(52)
and the purely quantum part,

$$[\widehat{X}_e^1,\widehat{X}_e^2][\widehat{X}_h^1,\widehat{X}_h^2]=0.$$
(53)
Here, it is better to comment on the symmetry of our system for both the hydrodynamical model and the matrix model of the quantum Hall effect. In the contineous limit of $`\theta 0`$, our system becomes the fluid dynamics, having the gauge symmetry called the ”area-preserving diffeomorphism”: $`(x_e^1,x_e^2)(x_{}^{1}{}_{e}{}^{},x_{}^{2}{}_{e}{}^{})`$ and $`(x_h^1,x_h^2)(x_{}^{1}{}_{h}{}^{},x_{}^{2}{}_{h}{}^{})`$, having the following invariance for the ”Poisson brackets”,

$$\frac{(x_e^1,x_e^2)}{(y^1,y^2)}\frac{(x_h^1,x_h^2)}{(y^1,y^2)}=\frac{(x_{}^{1}{}_{e}{}^{},x_{}^{2}{}_{e}{}^{})}{(y^1,y^2)}\frac{(x_{}^{1}{}_{h}{}^{},x_{}^{2}{}_{h}{}^{})}{(y^1,y^2)}$$

. Under this gauge transformation, the constraint condition is invariant. When moving to the matrix model of the quantum Hall effect, the gauge symmetry of area preserving differomorphism becomes the unitary transformation for the matrices. This is easily understood if we recognize that $`\theta `$ plays the role of $`\mathrm{}`$ in quantum mechanics and that the limit $`\theta 0`$ corresponds to the classical limit of quantum mechanics. Area-preserving diffeomorphism in the quantum Hall fluid corresponds to the canonical transformation preserving the ”phase space area” in quantum mechanics. The canonical transformation becomes the unitary transformation in quantum mechanics, so that the matrix version of our symmetry is the invariance under the $`SU(\mathrm{})`$ transformation, namely,

$`\widehat{x_e}`$ $``$ $`\widehat{x_e}^{}=U\widehat{x_e}U^1,`$
$`\widehat{x_h}`$ $``$ $`\widehat{x_h}^{}=U\widehat{x_h}U^1,`$
$`\widehat{A}`$ $``$ $`\widehat{A}^{}=U\widehat{A}U^1,`$ (54)
where $`U`$ is an arbitrary $`SU(\mathrm{})`$ matrix. The invariance of our two matrix model under this $`SU(\mathrm{})`$ symmety can be checked directly from the original action in Eq. (13). In this paper this symmetry is somtimes called ”gauge symetry” or ”area-preserving diffeomorphisms”. The ”gauge fixing” stated above is the fixing of the arbitrariness with respect to the $`SU(\mathrm{})`$ symmetry.

The vanishingness of the purely classical part is guaranteed by the classical constraint condition. Therefore, the remaining sum of the mixed part of classical and quantum effects and the purely quantum part vanishes. The vanishingness of the mixed part can be chosen as gauge condition (the background gauge condition). To quantize with this gauge condition of the fluctuations around the classical solution (such as our exciton solution), we have to extract properly the collective coordinates (i.e.the center of mass coordinates and others) of the classical solution from the quantum fluctuations . We leave this problem for a future study, and naively consider the quantization procedure here in order to obtain the allowed physical states.

Then, the quantum constraint operator is equal to the constraint operator of the purely quantum part given by,

$`\widehat{G}_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`([\widehat{X}_e^1,\widehat{X}_e^2])_{mn}([\widehat{X}_h^1,\widehat{X}_h^2])_{mn}`$ (55)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}\{(\widehat{X}_e)_{mk}(\widehat{P}_e)_{nk}(\widehat{P}_e)_{km}(\widehat{X}_e)_{kn}`$
$`(\widehat{X}_h)_{mk}(\widehat{P}_h)_{nk}+(\widehat{P}_h)_{km}(\widehat{X}_h)_{kn}\},`$
the discretized version of the generators of the ”area-preserving diffeomorphisms” in the quantum Hall fluid. The ”area” means the area occupied by the electron fluid minus that of the hole fluid. Now, the physical states $`|phys>>`$ in our quantized two component matrix model should satisfy the following constraint:

$$\widehat{G}_{mn}|phys>>=0.$$
(56)
The physical states of the two component matrix model are spanned without the Coulomb interactions by the creation operators of electron and holes in the ”1d” picture, namely, $`\widehat{A}_e^{}`$ and $`\widehat{A}_h^{}`$ in Eqs. (33) and (34) defined in the last section. In terms of these creation operators the constraint operator $`\widehat{G}_{mn}`$ can be written as

$`\widehat{G}_{mn}=i\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{eB}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\{(\widehat{A}_e^{})_{kn}(\widehat{A}_e)_{mk}`$ $``$ $`(\widehat{A}_e^{})_{mk}(\widehat{A}_e)_{kn}`$
$`+(\widehat{A}_h^{})_{kn}(\widehat{A}_h)_{mk}`$ $``$ $`(\widehat{A}_h^{})_{mk}(\widehat{A}_h)_{kn}\},`$ (57)
$`=i\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{eB}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\{(\widehat{A}_e^{})_{kn}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{A}_e^{})_{km}}}`$ $``$ $`(\widehat{A}_e^{})_{mk}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{A}_e^{})_{nk}}}`$
$`+(\widehat{A}_h^{})_{kn}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{A}_h^{})_{km}}}`$ $``$ $`(\widehat{A}_h^{})_{mk}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{A}_h^{})_{nk}}}\},`$ (58)
where the normal ordering is taken for the constraint operator.

The meaning of the constraint operator $`\widehat{G}_{mn}`$ is the following: It creates the difference of two states obtained by performing the following two replacements on the creation operators defining a state. The first one is obtained by replacing the (k, m) component of the creation operators by their (k, n) component for every k-th row with a common coefficient. The second one replaces the (n, k) component of the creation operators by their (m, k) component for every k-th column with a common coefficient. Then, we can prove the following formula for an integer positive power of $`p`$:

$`\widehat{G}_{mn}(\widehat{A}^p)_{ij}=\delta _{jm}(\widehat{A}^^p)_{in}\delta _{in}(\widehat{A}^p)_{mj}.`$ (59)
Therefore, the above meaning of how the constraint operator works is valid also for the cluster of $`\widehat{A}^p`$. When the constraint operator acts on a certain determinant, it replaces m-th column by its n-th column, or n-th row by its m-th row, leading the determinant to vanish. Also the constraint operator acting on the trace $`Tr(\widehat{A}^p)`$ leads to vanish.

Therefore, the following state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>>|(m;p_1,p_2,\mathrm{};q);(n;p_1^{^{}},p_2^{^{}},\mathrm{};q^{^{}})>>`$ can be proved to be a physical state:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }>>|(m;p_1,p_2,\mathrm{};q);(n;p_1^{^{}},p_2^{^{}},\mathrm{};q^{^{}})>>`$ (60)
$``$ $`Tr\left(\widehat{A}_h^{}\right)^q{\displaystyle \underset{\{i\}}{}}\left(ϵ_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_N}(\widehat{A}_h^{})_{1,i_1}^{p_1}(\widehat{A}_h^{})_{2,i_2}^{p_2}\mathrm{}\right)^m`$
$`\times `$ $`Tr\left(\widehat{A}_e^{}\right)^q^{^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i\}}{}}\left(ϵ_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_N}(\widehat{A}_e^{})_{1,i_1}^{p_1^{^{}}}(\widehat{A}_e^{})_{2,i_2}^{p_2^{^{}}}\mathrm{}\right)^n|0>>,`$
where all the indices $`(m;p_1,p_2,\mathrm{};q);(n;p_1^{^{}},p_2^{^{}},\mathrm{};q^{^{}})`$ are positive integers, and $`|0>>`$ denotes the ground state. If the Coulomb potentials can be ignored and if $`\omega _e\omega _h`$ holds or we do not care about the hole energy (the same assumption which is imposed in the introduction to get the Laughlin states), the following state is the special example of the above mentioned physical states:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{LL}>>_m|(m;1,2,\mathrm{};0);(0;0,0,\mathrm{};0)>>`$ (61)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{i,j\}}{}}\left(ϵ_{i_1i_2i_3\mathrm{}}ϵ_{j_1j_2j_3\mathrm{}}(\widehat{A}_h^{})_{i_1,j_1}^0(\widehat{A}_h^{})_{i_2,j_2}^1(\widehat{A}_h^{})_{i_3,j_3}^2\mathrm{}\right)^m|0>>.`$
Although the nature of this state is not clear now, we are tempting to expect that this state plays a similar important role as is done by the Laughlin state, in the matrix formulation of the quantum Hall effect. Therefore we call this the Laughlin like states (LL) denoted by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{LL}>>_m`$.

To understand the physical meaning of the states, the coordinate representation of the physical state or the wave function of it is useful. This direction is already studied using the coherent state methods in the finite matrix model . In our case, we can express the two sets of the creation and annihilation operators, $`(\widehat{A}_e,\widehat{A}_e^{})`$ and $`(\widehat{A}_h,\widehat{A}_h^{})`$ by the real coordinates $`\widehat{X}\widehat{X}_e^1`$ and $`\widehat{Y}\widehat{X}_h^2`$, or by the complex coordinates $`\widehat{Z}\widehat{X}+i\widehat{Y}`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{Z}}\widehat{X}i\widehat{Y}`$ as follows:

$`(\widehat{A}_e)_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{eB}\left((\widehat{X})_{mn}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{X})_{nm}}}\right)`$
$`(\widehat{A}_e^{})_{nm}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{eB}\left((\widehat{X})_{nm}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{X})_{mn}}}\right)`$ (62)
$`(\widehat{A}_h)_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{eB}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}(i){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{Y})_{nm}}}i(\widehat{Y})_{mn}\right)`$
$`(\widehat{A}_h^{})_{nm}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{eB}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}(i){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{Y})_{mn}}}+i(\widehat{Y})_{nm}\right)`$ (63)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{A}_e\widehat{A}_h)_{mn}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{eB}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{\overline{Z}})_{nm}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{eB}(\widehat{Z})_{mn}\right)\widehat{A}_{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{A}_e^{}\widehat{A}_h^{})_{nm}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{eB}}}(1)\times 2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{Z})_{mn}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{eB}(\widehat{\overline{Z}})_{nm}\right)\widehat{A}_{}^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{A}_e+\widehat{A}_h)_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{eB}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{Z})_{nm}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{eB}(\widehat{\overline{Z}})_{mn}\right)\widehat{A}_+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{A}_e^{}+\widehat{A}_h^{})_{nm}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{eB}}}(1)\times 2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta (\widehat{\overline{Z}})_{mn}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{eB}(\widehat{Z})_{nm}\right)\widehat{A}_+^{}`$
Then, the wave functions of the physical states mentioned above can be obtained by acting successively the creation operators of electrons and holes in the real or the complex representations, on the ground state $`|0>>`$ given by

$$|0>>\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{1}{4}(eB)Tr(\widehat{Z}\widehat{\overline{Z}})\}.$$
(66)
The structure of the physical states is identical to the Laughlin’s case which we can find in, but having some differences, namely, the complex coordinates are replaced by the matrices, as well as the antisymmetrization of the wave function to grantee the Fermi statistics is naturally replaced by the physical state condition or by the invariance under the discrete version of the area preserving diffeomorphisms.

## 4 Exciton Energy

In this section, we come back to the original problem of the exciton, the neutral excitation of quantm Hall effect, having both quasi-electron with charge $`\nu e`$ and quasi-hole with charge $`\nu e`$. Based on the discussion given in the last section on the physical states, we will study the energy of the exciton under the given background quantum state. As such a background state we examine a rather general physical state of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>>=|(m;p_1,p_2,\mathrm{};q);(n;p_1^{^{}},p_2^{^{}},\mathrm{};q^{^{}})>>`$ given in Eq.(60) and its special case of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{LL}>>_m`$, the Laughlin-like state.

Energy of the exciton consists of self-energies of both quasi-electron and quasi-hole, and of the attractive Coulomb potential energy between them. We do not include the Coulomb self-energies of the individual quasi-electron and quasi-hole as usual, since they are probably negligible small compared to their kinetic energies in the strong magnetic field $`B`$. Let us start with the following Hamiltonian adequate for the evaluation of the exciton energy, namely,

$`H_{exc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(e^{(0)}B)^2}{4m_e^{(0)}}}Tr{\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2}{}}\left(\widehat{x_e}^a(\widehat{x_e}^a)_{cm}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(e^{(0)}B)^2}{4m_h^{(0)}}}Tr{\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2}{}}\left(\widehat{x_h}^a(\widehat{x_h}^a)_{cm}\right)^2`$ (67)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(e^{(0)})^2}{4\pi \epsilon ^{(0)}}}Tr\left({\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2}{}}\left(\widehat{x}_e^a\widehat{x}_h^a\right)^2\right)^{1/2}.`$
We consider the initial parameters of charge $`e^{(0)}`$, masses of electron and hole, $`m_e^{(0)}`$ and $`m_h^{(0)}`$, and dielectric constant $`\epsilon ^{(0)}`$ to be something like the ”bare” quantities. They will be adjusted later by the ”renormalization” in order to reproduce the physics of the exciton.

As was discussed before in equation (46), the coordinates are described as the sum of the classical configurations and the quantum fluctuations, or in terms of the complex variables,

$`\widehat{z}_e`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{z}_e)_{cl}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{eB}}}\widehat{A}_e,`$
$`\widehat{z}_h`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{z}_h)_{cl}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{eB}}}\widehat{A}_h^{},`$ (68)
where $`(\widehat{z}_e)_{cl}`$ and $`(\widehat{z}_h)_{cl}`$ are those given in Eqs.(17) and (18), derived from the constraint condition giving the deficit and the surplus of ”area” $`q=2\pi \theta ^{(0)}\nu `$. Here, we start with the ”bare” variable $`\theta ^{(0)}`$, but consider $`\nu `$ as a physical parameter from the beginning, not to be renormalized. Then, in the lowest perturbation theory in quantum mechanics, the exciton energy under the given background quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>>`$ can be expressed by the expectation value:

$$E_{exc}=\frac{<<\mathrm{\Psi }|H_{exc}|\mathrm{\Psi }>>}{<<\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }>>}.$$
(69)
The corrections of self-energies will appear in the cyclotron radius squared. There are two kinds of corrections: One kind of corrections originates from the noncommutativity of space (Pauli principle) at the individual location of quasi-electron or quasi-hole, and is expanded in $`\theta ^{(0)}`$, while the other one comes from the quantum corrections from the background states and is expanded in $`1/e^{(0)}B`$, so that we have

$`Tr{\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2}{}}\left(\widehat{x_e}^a(\widehat{x}_e^a)_{cm}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`|z_e(z_e)_{cm}|^2(Tr\widehat{1})+\theta ^{(0)}Tr(\widehat{C}_{NC(e)})+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{e^{(0)}B}}Tr(\widehat{C}_{Q(e)}),`$
(70)
$`Tr{\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2}{}}\left(\widehat{x}_h^a(\widehat{x}_h^a)_{cm}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`|z_h(z_h)_{cm}|^2(Tr\widehat{1})+\theta ^{(0)}Tr(\widehat{C}_{NC(h)})+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{e^{(0)}B}}Tr(\widehat{C}_{Q(h)}).`$
Here the noncommutative corrections $`\widehat{C}_{NC(e)}`$ and $`\widehat{C}_{NC(h)}`$, and the quantum corrections $`\widehat{C}_{Q(e)}`$ and $`\widehat{C}_{Q(h)}`$ are given by

$`Tr(\widehat{C}_{NC(e)})`$ $``$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}<n|\widehat{b}\widehat{b}^{}+\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}|n>,`$ (72)
$`Tr(\widehat{C}_{NC(h)})`$ $``$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}<n|\widehat{d}\widehat{d}^{}+\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d}|n>,`$ (73)
and

$`Tr(\widehat{C}_{Q(e)})`$ $``$ $`Tr\left(\widehat{A_e}\widehat{A_e}^{}+\widehat{A_e}^{}\widehat{A_e}\right).`$ (74)
$`Tr(\widehat{C}_{Q(h)})`$ $``$ $`Tr\left(\widehat{A_h}\widehat{A_h}^{}+\widehat{A_h}^{}\widehat{A_h}\right).`$ (75)
To estimate the Coulomb potential energy, we further expand the matrix version of the distance squared between quasi-electron and quasi-hole around the mean distance squared between them, namely, $`|z_ez_h|^2`$, and keep the lowest order corrections. Then, we have

$`Tr\left({\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2}{}}\left(\widehat{x}_e^a\widehat{x}_h^a\right)^2\right)^{1/2}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|z_ez_h|}}\left\{Tr(\widehat{1})+{\displaystyle \frac{(1/2)}{|z_ez_h|^2}}\left(\theta ^{(0)}Tr\left(\widehat{C}_{NC(e\&h)}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{e^{(0)}B}}Tr(\widehat{C}_{Q(e)}+\widehat{C}_{Q(h)})\right)\right\},`$
where the noncommutative correction $`Tr\left(\widehat{C}_{NC(e\&h)}\right)`$ given by

$`Tr\left(\widehat{C}_{NC(e\&h)}\right)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}<n|\{(\widehat{b}\widehat{b}^{}+\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b})`$ $`+`$ $`(\widehat{d}\widehat{d}^{}+\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d})`$
$`(\widehat{b}\widehat{d}+\widehat{d}\widehat{b})`$ $``$ $`(\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{d}^{}+\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{b}^{})\}|n>,`$ (77)
represents the noncommutativity of space (Pauli principle) having the correlation between quasi-electron and quasi-hole locations. While the quantum corrections in this case come from both quantum states of electrons and holes, namely, $`Tr(\widehat{C}_{Q(e)}+\widehat{C}_{Q(h)})`$.

In estimating the trace of the infinite-sized matrix we are using so far, it may be possible to use a fancy technique of the $`\zeta `$ function regularization, using such as Riemann’s and Epstein’s $`\zeta `$ functions . Here we adopt a most naive method, however, by introducing a cutoff $`N`$ on the size of the matrix, while keeping $`N`$ large but not infinite. We denote the corresponding regularized trace as $`Tr_N`$, which is obtained by replacing the infinite sum $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`Tr`$ by the finite sum $`_{n=0}^N`$. Then, we have the following results: For the noncommutativity corrections, we obtain

$`Tr_N(\widehat{C}_{NC(e)})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}\right)(n+\nu )=(N+1)^2+\nu (2N+1),`$ (78)
$`Tr_N(\widehat{C}_{NC(e)})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}\right)(n\nu )=(N+1)^2\nu (2N+1),`$ (79)
$`Tr_N(\widehat{C}_{NC(e\&h)})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}\right)(n+\nu )+\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}\right)(n\nu )`$ (80)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}\right)\left(\sqrt{(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})^2(\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})^2}+\sqrt{(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})^2(\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})^2}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(\nu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+\frac{1}{2}}}+\mathrm{}`$
$``$ $`2(\nu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})\mathrm{ln}N,`$ (81)
where we have to note that in the third trace, $`(N+1)^2`$ terms cancel completely, and $`\mathrm{ln}N`$ contribution remains in the large $`N`$ limit. As for the quantum corrections, they consist of the number operators, so that in the lowest order we can easily obtain by using

$`C_Q^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{<<\mathrm{\Psi }|Tr_N(\widehat{C}_Q)||\mathrm{\Psi }>>}{<<\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }>>}}`$ (82)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{modes}{}}\left(2\times (\text{number of excited quanta})+1\right).`$ (83)
As an example, for a general state of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>>=|(m;p_1,p_2,\mathrm{};q);(n;p_1^{^{}},p_2^{^{}},\mathrm{};q^{^{}})>>`$we have

$`C_{Q(h)}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(m{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}p_i+(N+1)q\right)+(N+1)^2,`$ (84)
$`C_{Q(e)}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(n{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}p_i^{^{}}+(N+1)q^{^{}}\right)+(N+1)^2.`$ (85)
For the Laughlin-like state of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{LL}>>_m=|(m;0,1,2,\mathrm{};q);(0;0,0,\mathrm{};0)>>`$, we have

$`C_{Q(h)}^{(0)}(LL)`$ $`=`$ $`2m{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}n+(N+1)^2=mN(N+1)+(N+1)^2,`$ (86)
$`C_{Q(e)}^{(0)}(LL)`$ $`=`$ $`(N+1)^2.`$ (87)
Now, we can write down the exciton energy in the large $`N`$ limit in the following:

$`H_{exc}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(e^{(0)}B)^2}{4m_e^{(0)}}}\left\{(N+1)|z_e(z_e)_{cm}|^2+\theta ^{(0)}\left((N+1)^2+\nu (2N+1)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{e^{(0)}B}}C_{Q(e)}^{(0)}\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(e^{(0)}B)^2}{4m_h^{(0)}}}\left\{(N+1)|z_h(z_h)_{cm}|^2+\theta ^{(0)}\left((N+1)^2\nu (2N+1)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{e^{(0)}B}}C_{Q(h)}^{(0)}\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(e^{(0)})^2}{4\pi \epsilon ^{(0)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|z_ez_h|}}\left\{(N+1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{|z_ez_h|^2}}\left(\theta ^{(0)}(\nu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})\mathrm{ln}N+\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_{Q(e)}^{(0)}+C_{Q(h)}^{(0)}}{e^{(0)}B}}\right)\right)\right\}.`$
There are various infinities in this expression in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$, since we have not started with the correct normalizations for the infinite coordinate matrices. Therefore, we ”renormalize”, or in other words, simply change of the normalization for various ”bare” parameters to reproduce the physics of the exciton. Namely, we impose the following:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(e^{(0)})^2}{4m_e^{(0)}}}(N+1)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu e)^2}{4m_{qe}}},`$ (89)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(e^{(0)})^2}{4m_h^{(0)}}}(N+1)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu e)^2}{4m_{qh}}},`$ (90)
$`\theta ^{(0)}(N+1)`$ $``$ $`\theta ,`$ (91)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(e^{(0)})^2}{4\pi \epsilon ^{(0)}}}(N+1)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu e)^2}{4\pi \epsilon }},`$ (92)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(0)}}{(N+1)}}e,`$ (93)
where $`e,m_{qe},m_{qh},\theta ,\epsilon `$ are physical parameters, representing the unit charge, the effective mass of the quasi-electron, the effective mass of the quasi-hole, the noncommutativity parameter, and the effective dielectric constant of quasi-electron and quasi-hole in the quantum Hall medium, respectively.

In terms of these physical parameters, exciton energy can be written as

$`E_{exc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu eB)^2}{4m_{qe}}}\left(|z_e(z_e)_{cm}|^2+\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}C_{Q(e)}\right)`$ (94)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu eB)^2}{4m_{qh}}}\left(|z_h(z_h)_{cm}|^2+\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}C_{Q(h)}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu e)^2}{4\pi \epsilon |z_ez_h|}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{eB|z_ez_h|^2}}\left(C_{Q(e)}+C_{Q(h)}\right)+\mathrm{}\right).`$
The Coulomb potential term in the above equation can also be approximately given by the following expression:

$$\frac{(\nu e)^2}{4\pi \epsilon \left(|z_ez_h|^2+\frac{2}{eB}\left(C_{Q(e)}+C_{Q(h)}\right)\right)^{1/2}}.$$
(95)
In the above expressions, $`C_{Q(eorh)}`$ is the renormalized coefficient representing the quantum corrections defined by

$$C_{Q(eorh)}\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{C_{Q(eorh)}^{(0)}}{(N+1)^2}.$$
(96)
For a general state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>>`$, we have

$`C_{Q(h)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{m_ip_i}{(N+1)^2}}+1,`$ (97)
$`C_{Q(e)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{n_ip_i^{^{}}}{(N+1)^2}}+1.`$ (98)
For most of the states, $`C_{Q(eorh)}=1`$, meaning that only the zero point energies of the electron or the hole contribute to this number, but for the Laughlin like state, however, the number becomes $`C_{Q(h)}(LL)=m+1`$ and $`C_{Q(e)}(LL)=1`$.

What happens physically for the exciton energy? As was pointed out previously, all the corrections coming from both the noncommutativity (Pauli principle) and the quantum effects simply modify the relevant lengths squared. The cyclotron radius squared of the quasi-electron or the quasi-hole is modified by the amount $`\theta +2C_{Q(eorh)}/(eB)`$, which implies the minimum length squared of the cyclotron radius. In this way, both the noncommutativity and the quantum effects set the the minimum area in the quantum Hall effect. From the semi-classical discussions given in Sec. 1 and 2, we know for a simplest case,

$`\pi (r_{1d}^2)_{min}=2\pi (r_{2d}^2)_{min}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \theta (\text{noncommutativity or Pauli principle}),`$ (99)
$`\pi (r_{1d}^2)_{min}=2\pi (r_{2d}^2)_{min}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}(2n+1)(\text{quantum effects}).`$ (100)
Our result in Eqs.(94) and (95) shows that these two kinds of effects of keeping the distance squared to be non-vanishing work also in our two component matrix model describing the quantum Hall effect. You can recognize that there is no $`\theta `$ term dominantly in the relative distance squared between quasi-electron and quasi-hole in Eqs.(94) and (95). This is mathematically achieved by $`lim_N\mathrm{}(\mathrm{ln}N)/(N+1)=0`$, but is physically acceptable, since no Pauli principle works between electrons and holes. Thus quantum effects work reasonably on the distance squared of the cyclotron radius of quasi-electron and of quasi-hole, as well as the distance squared between quasi-electron and quasi-hole. These consist of centrifugal force in the higher excitation modes and of the uncertainty from the zero point oscillations both of which are included in the number $`C_Q`$. in Eqs.(97) and (98).

Next, we derive the dispersion relation of the exciton from the above formula in Eq.(94). The dispersion relation is that of the energy in terms of the total momentum $`P_{exc}`$ of the exciton. Therefore, we should express the cyclotron radii and the distance between quasi-electron and quasi-hole in terms of $`P_{exc}`$. Classical picture of the exciton is the following: Lorentz forces causing the cyclotron motions of quasi-electron and quasi-hole are balanced by the Coulomb attraction, so that the three relevant vectors $`\stackrel{}{x}_e(\stackrel{}{x}_e)_{cm}`$, $`\stackrel{}{x}_h(\stackrel{}{x}_h)_{cm}`$, and $`\stackrel{}{x}_e\stackrel{}{x}_h`$ are on the same line. Here, $`(\stackrel{}{x}_e)_{cm}`$ and $`(\stackrel{}{x}_h)_{cm}`$ represent the center of the cyclotron motions. Then, both quasi-electron and quasi-hole move with the same velocities in the perpendicular direction to this line, forming a bound state of the exciton.

From the discussion in Sec. 2, the magnitude of the cyclotron momentum of the quasi-electron and quasi-hole $`p_{qe}`$ and $`p_{qh}`$ are given, respectively, by

$`p_{qe}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{qe}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|z_e(z_e)_{cm}|\omega _{qe}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\nu eB)|z_e(z_e)_{cm}|,`$ (101)
$`p_{qh}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{qh}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|z_h(z_h)_{cm}|\omega _{qh}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\nu eB)|z_h(z_h)_{cm}|,`$ (102)
where the $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ is necessary to consider the motion in the ”2d” picture. Force balancing is realized at the equilibrium configurations (classical solutions) of $`E_{exc}`$ in the classical approximation. These equilibrium configurations give

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu eB)^2}{2m_{qe}}}|z_e(z_e)_{cm}|={\displaystyle \frac{(\nu e)^2}{4\pi \epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|z_ez_h|^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{(\nu eB)^2}{2m_{qh}}}|z_h(z_h)_{cm}|.`$ (103)
Therefore, in terms of the total momentum of the exciton $`P_{exc}`$, length squared can be expressed using Eqs.(101),(102) and (103) as follows:

$`|z_e(z_e)_{cm}|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}m_{qe}}{\nu eBM}}P_{exc},`$ (104)
$`|z_h(z_h)_{cm}|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}m_{qh}}{\nu eBM}}P_{exc},`$ (105)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|z_ez_h|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \epsilon B}{\sqrt{2}\nu eM}}P_{exc},`$ (106)
where $`M=m_{qe}+m_{qh}`$ is the total mass of the exciton.

Now, we obtain the dispersion relation of the exciton as follows:

$`E_{exc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(P_{exc})^2}{2M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu eB)^2}{4m_{qe}}}\left(\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}C_{Q(e)}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu eB)^2}{4m_{qh}}}\left(\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{eB}}C_{Q(h)}\right)`$ (107)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu e)^2\sqrt{\frac{4\pi \epsilon B}{\nu eM}}}{4\pi \epsilon }}\sqrt{P_{exc}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{eB}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \epsilon B}{\nu eM}}P_{exc}\left(C_{Q(e)}+C_{Q(h)}\right)+\mathrm{}\right),`$
where the Coulomb potential term can be also approximated with Eq.(95) as follows:

$$\frac{(\nu e)^2}{4\pi \epsilon }\left(\frac{P_{exc}}{\frac{\nu eM}{4\pi \epsilon B}+\frac{2}{eB}\left(C_{Q(e)}+C_{Q(h)}\right)P_{exc}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(108)
This dispersion curve behaves $`ab\sqrt{P_{exc}}`$ for small $`P_{exc}`$ with the certain constants $`(a,b)`$ and approaches to the classical dispersion relation $`P_{exc}^2/2M`$ for large $`P_{exc}`$. It takes a minimum point in between suggesting a roton excitation, or in other words the existence of a stable distance between the quasi-electron and quasi-hole, since the exciton energy can be written also as a function of the distance. More detailed study is of course necessary to compare our results including the dispersion curve of the exciton to the experiments.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we propose a two component matrix model in the study of quantum Hall effect, in which two different infinite-sized matrices are prepared for the coordinates of electrons and holes, separately. They evolve in time under the influence of the external magnetic field by the Lorentz force or the Chern-Simons type interactions.

We generalize the constraint condition of Susskind , giving the Pauli principle for electrons and holes, in our model. We adopt in this paper a constraint under which the difference of areas occupied by electrons and holes preserves. Accordingly, the surplus and the deficit of area can be realized separately, by using the electron matrix and the hole matrix. Then, the exciton solution of having both quasi-electron and quasi-hole is naturally obtained as a solution of the constraint condition.

We study the quantization procedure of the matrix model naively by expanding the matrices around the classical solution of the exciton, and have given rather general physical states at the quantum level. They includes the Laughlin-like state as a special example.

We estimate the energy of the exciton as a function of the coordinates of the locations of the quasi-electron and the quasi-hole, and afterwards the relation is rewritten as a function of the total momentum of the exciton, leading to the dispersion relation. In the calculation, there appear two kinds of corrections to the cyclotron radius squared of quasi-electron and quasi-hole, and to the distance squared between quasi-electron and quasi-hole. One of the corrections comes from the noncommutativity of space or the Pauli principle, while the other one comes from the quantum effects. The latter corrections are related to the number of excited quanta in the background quantized state. The dispersion relation of the exciton obtained in this way gives a minimum, suggesting the possible magnetoroton mode or the existence of a stable distance between quasi-electron and quasi-hole.

We have examined two different descriptions of the quantum Hall effect semi-classically, namely, the ”1d” picture and the ”2d” picture. Some of the correspondence between these two pictures are given. In this respect it is interesting to study the Calogero type ”1d” description corresponding to our matrix model. We will come back to this problem in the near future.

Our study of the quantum Hall effect using the two component matrix model is still at a primitive stage. More elaborate approximation methods developed for example in  and  should be incorporated, before doing the numerical comparison of this work with the exciton experiments in the quantum Hall effect.

At the final stage of this work we have found a paper  which studies the same topics as ours (the exciton problem), using the noncommutative Chern-Simons action. This is the other way to incorporate Pauli principle in the quantum Hall effect than our matrix model. Relation between both methods is to be clarified.

Appendix:A
Difficulty of having exciton solution in the one matrix model

In the introduction we have discussed the difficulty of having exciton solution in the usual one matrix model. To supplement the discussion there we make a comment here on a possible ”exciton solution” in the one matrix model. The fact that this ”solution” violates the property of hermiticity was a motivation of the authors to introduce the two matrix model in this paper.

From the Susskind paper , we know that the solution in Eqs.(15) gives a quasi-particle having the surplus of the area,

$$[\widehat{b},\widehat{b}^{}]=1+\nu |0><0|.$$
(109)
To add a quasi-hole and obtain an exciton solution, we need to generate the deficit of area for the quasi-hole, in addition to the surplus of area for the quasi-particle. For this purpose, we span the infinitedimensional vector space by $`\{|\mathrm{}>,\mathrm{},|1>,|0>,|1>,\mathrm{},|\mathrm{}>\}`$, and assume the operators $`\widehat{b}`$ and $`\widehat{b}^{}`$ to satisfy the usual relation \[ Eqs.(15) \] in Section 2 for the quasi-particle, as well as the following new relation for the quasi-hole:

$`\widehat{b}^{}|1>`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\widehat{b}^{}|1n>`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{n\nu }|n>\text{for}n1,`$
$`\widehat{b}|1n>`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{n+1\nu }|2n>\text{for}n0.`$ (110)
Then, we have a ”solution” , satisfying

$$[\widehat{b},\widehat{b}^{}]=1+\nu |0><0|\nu |1><1|,$$
(111)
giving both the surplus and the deficit of area, so that this solution seems to be a correct exciton solution.

However, we can immediately recognize that the hermitian conjugation property between $`\widehat{b}`$ and $`\widehat{b}^{}`$ is violated for the hole part by the existence of the extra ”i” in Eq. (110). That is, the following relations which should be hermitian conjugate with each other, $`\widehat{z}\widehat{x}^1+i\widehat{x}^2=\sqrt{2\theta }\widehat{b}`$ and $`\widehat{z}^{}\widehat{x}^1i\widehat{x}^2=\sqrt{2\theta }\widehat{b}^{}`$, become inconsistent.

Here, we can find that the state $`|n>`$ with negative $`n`$ can be considered as the negative ”energy levels below the Dirac sea”, and in such a case the creation and annihilation operators for the negative ”energy levels”should be replaced by the annihilation and creation operators of the anti-particles, respectively. Hence, we introduce the operators of the anti-particles (holes), $`\widehat{d}`$ and $`\widehat{d}^{}`$, defined by

$`\widehat{d}`$ $`=`$ $`i\widehat{b}^{},`$
$`\widehat{d}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i\widehat{b},`$ (112)
and discard the negative ”energy levels”, by replacing them by the positive ”energy levels” as $`|1n>|n>(n0)`$. Then the relation in Eq. (110) is transformed to the relation \[Eqs. (16)\] given in Section 2.

At this stage the wrong hermiticity for the hole part is properly recovered,and we arrive at the two matrix models of Section 2. Namely, corresponding to the different sets of operators $`(\widehat{b},\widehat{b}^{})`$ and $`(\widehat{d}^{},\widehat{d})`$, we have to preparefrom the beginning, the different matrices, $`\widehat{x}_e`$ and $`\widehat{x}_h`$ for electron (particle) and hole (anti-particle), respectively. In this prescription, the degrees of freedom is not doubled, since what we have done is only to use the different operators to express the negative ”energy levels”.

## Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to Kenzo Ishikawa for his series of lectures on quantum Hall effect, and Bunji Sakita for his seminar at Ochanomizu U.. We also give our thanks to Hiromi Yakazu for her initial collaboration. One of the author (A.S.) is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education and Science (No.11640262). The other one (B.P.M.) is supported by the JSPS postdoctral fellowship (No. P01022).


text:
# Microlensing Maps for the Milky Way Galaxy

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Microlensing surveys of the Galaxy are important because they delineate the mass distribution directly. The total number of events identified by the OGLE and MACHO collaborations towards the Galactic Bulge now exceeds a thousand (e.g., Wozniak et al. 2001; Alcock et al. 2000). The identification of events towards spiral arms has been reported by the EROS and OGLE collaborations (Mao 1999; Derue et al. 2001). Maps of optical depth as a function of Galactic latitude and longitude were first drawn by Evans (1994). Subsequently, a number of authors emphasised the importance of exploiting information on the spatial variation of the optical depth (e.g., Han & Gould 1995; Zhao, Spergel & Rich 1996; Gyuk 1999).

Microlensing searches are being done, or will be done in the near future, in almost any longitude direction. The first of the next generation experiments is the OGLE III venture (see “http://sirius.astrouw.edu.pl/ ogle/”) which uses an 8k MOSAIC camera with a field of view equal to $`35^{}\times 35^{}`$. The future holds still greater promise with the advent of the new class of survey telescopes like the VST (“http://www.eso.org/projects/vst/”) and VISTA (“http://www.vista.ac.uk”). VISTA has a field of view of 2.25 square degrees in the optical, while the VST has a smaller, but still substantial, field of view of 1 square degree. So, there is a need for large-scale maps of both the microlensing optical depth and the mean timescale for the Galaxy. These maps can be used to pick target fields, to plan search methodologies for future experiments and to assess what can be learnt about the structure of the Milky Way from the distribution of microlensing events.

## 2 MAPS OF THE GALAXY

We study three models of the inner Galaxy. The starting point of all three models is the same, namely the infrared surface brightness maps seen by the DIRBE instrument on the COBE satellite. The first is the model of Binney, Gerhard & Spergel (1997), which is partially revised in Bissantz et al. (1997). Here, the observed luminosity at $`240`$ microns, which is dominated by thermal emission from dust, is used to deduce the three-dimensional spatial distribution of the dust. This gives a short, flattened, cuspy bar with axis ratio $`1:0.3:0.3`$ and with a viewing angle $`\varphi _0=20^{}`$. The second is the model of Freudenreich (1998). Here, a mask of areas believed to be contaminated with dust is constructed from maps of color variations. The mask is used to excise portions of the DIRBE data and the remainder of the data is fitted. Note that the mask removes almost all of the data within $`|b|<5^{}`$ for longitudes within $`90^{}`$ of the Galactic Center (see Figure 1 of Freudenreich’s paper). This gives an extended, diffuse, swollen bar with axis ratio $`1:0.37:0.27`$ and with a viewing angle $`\varphi _0=14^{}`$. The disk has a central hole with a radius of $`3`$ kpc. The third is the E2 model of Dwek et al. (1995), as partially revised by Stanek et al. (1997). The density contours are stratified on concentric ellipses with axis ratio $`1:0.42:0.28`$ with a viewing angle $`\varphi _0=24^{}`$. In correcting for dust, Dwek et al. assumed a uniform foreground screen. The bar is less massive and less elongated than Freudenreich’s and the disk does not have a central hole. To ensure a fair comparison, all three models are normalized to have the same total mass of $`1.5\times 10^{10}\mathrm{M}_{}`$ within 2.5 kpc. Optical depths scale in rough proportion with total mass, and so our results can be easily converted to other preferred values. The three models are illustrated in Figure 1. Cuts through the principal plane of the bar and along the line of sight to the Galactic Center are shown. Table 1 shows the masses of the components in the three models. Freudenreich’s bar is the most massive, Binney et al.’s the least massive.

EROS and OGLE are looking towards spiral arms. Accordingly, we include the effects of spiral arms in our calculations. We assume that the inner spiral pattern is two-armed and given by multiplying the density by eqn (2) of Binney et al. (1997), namely

$$1+ϵ\mathrm{cos}^6(\varphi 0.95(rr_{\mathrm{min}})\varphi _0),ϵ=\mathrm{tanh}(rr_{\mathrm{min}}).$$
(1)
Here, $`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is proportional to the length of the bar and is 1.5 kpc for Binney et al.’s bar, 2.25 kpc for Freudenreich’s and 1.7 kpc for Dwek et al.’s. This density factor is applied between $`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{max}}=3.5`$ kpc. The outer spiral pattern is four-armed and given by $`1+2ϵ\mathrm{cos}^6(2\varphi 1.1(rr_{\mathrm{min}})15^{})`$ between $`r_{\mathrm{min}}=4.1`$ kpc and $`r_{\mathrm{max}}=8.5`$ kpc. The phase and the wavenumber of the inner and outer spirals are chosen to match the longitudes of the principal spiral arms given by Englmaier (2000). The arm/interarm contrast is 2 for the inner and 3 for the outer spiral (cf. Rix & Rieke 1993). This is reasonable for a young population, but an overestimate for old low mass stars that may make up the bulk of the lensing population. Our results on the effects of spirality are upper limits.

Microlensing maps show contours of the source-averaged microlensing optical depth $`\tau `$ computed via (Kiraga & Paczyński 1994)

$$\tau =\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho (D_\mathrm{s})\tau (D_\mathrm{s})D_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2+2\beta }𝑑D_\mathrm{s}}{_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho (D_\mathrm{s})D_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2+2\beta }𝑑D_\mathrm{s}},$$
(2)
where $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ is the source distance and $`\rho `$ is the density of deflectors. For red clump stars, $`\beta 0`$; for main sequence stars, $`\beta 1`$. Red clumps stars are bright and distinctive residents of the bar (e.g., Paczyński & Stanek 1998). Figure 2 shows contours of optical depth to the red clump in the three models. The dotted contours show the effect of including the spiral structure. The amplification caused by spirality varies according to the line of sight but it is typically $`20\%`$. Of the three, Binney et al.’s gives the least symmetric microlensing map, especially close to the Galactic plane where the gradients are very steep. Freudenreich’s is the most symmetric, as it possesses the smallest viewing angle. The boxes mark the two locations where the optical depth of bar stars has been measured. The first is $`\mathrm{}=3.9^{},b=3.8^{}`$ where Popowski et al. (2000) report $`2.0\pm 0.4\times 10^6`$ for the optical depth to the red clump stars. The second is $`\mathrm{}=2.68^{},b=3.35^{}`$ where Alcock et al. (2000) report $`3.2\pm 0.5\times 10^6`$ for the optical depth to bar stars. The value of the optical depth at $`\mathrm{}=3.9^{},b=3.8^{}`$ contributed by each component in the three models is recorded in Table 2. Freudenreich’s model is in good agreement with the two measurements of optical depth to the bar sources.

Even though all three models have the same total mass within 2.5 kpc, Freudenreich’s model has the higher optical depth because the bar is more extended. Notice that the shape of the contours in Figure 2 becomes very similar for all three models once $`|b|>4^{}`$. This makes it challenging to characterize the bar morphology on the basis of data from the observed fields. One qualm is that Freudenreich excised most of the DIRBE data within $`|b|<5^{}`$ of the Galactic plane. In this region, his model is entirely extrapolated from the light distribution at higher latitudes and so may be unreliable. Binney et al.’s model reproduces the strong concentration in the light near the Galactic plane. It lies within $`2\sigma `$ of Popowski et al.’s measurement when spiral structure is included. Dwek et al.’s model with spiral structure is just outside $`1\sigma `$. Can we modify Binney et al.’s model to reproduce the microlensing optical depth data? To get agreement with the data, the bar needs to be made both longer and fatter. For example, changing the axis ratio to $`1:0.6:0.4`$ (as originally envisaged in Binney et al. 1997) and increasing the total mass within 2.5 kpc by $`50\%`$ gives a model in reasonably good agreement (namely $`\tau =1.5\times 10^6`$ at $`\mathrm{}=3.9^{},b=3.8^{}`$ excluding spiral structure; this rises to $`1.8\times 10^6`$ when spiral structure is included).

Figure 3 shows the contours of optical depth to all sources in the inner Galaxy using Freudenreich’s bar. The Galactic disk has a sech-squared vertical profile with scaleheight 167 pc and an exponential horizontal profile with scalelength 2.5 kpc. The insets show the details of three areas towards the Scutum, Norma and Musca spiral arms that are being monitored by the EROS group. We see that there is a factor of $`6`$ variation in the optical depth across the EROS fields towards all three spiral arms. Freudenreich’s bar is so distended that it causes a thickening of the optical depth contours even at longitudes well away from the center. We can exploit the maps to estimate the number of ongoing microlensing events of stars brighter than 20th magnitude in the Milky Way. At any instant, there are $`1000`$ microlensing events, where we have allowed for extinction in the same manner as Belokurov & Evans (2002). Table 3 compares the predictions of the three models with the data provided by EROS. Notice that Freudenreich’s model is in excellent agreement with the data, except for the field $`\gamma `$ Norma, where the optical depth is about $`2\sigma `$ away from the data.

## 3 TIMESCALE MAPS

It is also interesting to build maps of the mean Einstein crossing timescale. We assume that the mass function of the bar (or disk) is a power-law between $`0.01\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and $`0.5\mathrm{M}_{}`$ with index $`1.33`$ (or $`0.54`$) as suggested by Zoccali et al. (2001). Let ($`x,y,z`$) define coordinates along the major, intermediate and minor axis of the bar. We calculate the average velocity dispersions required to reproduce the shape of Freudenreich’s bar guided by the tensor virial theorem (e.g., Han & Gould 1995, Blum 1996). We assume that stars on the front side of the bar move along the major axis with a streaming velocity of $`v_x=50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, while stars on the back side move with $`v_x=50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and we adjust the dispersion $`\sigma _x`$ to preserve the total kinetic energy required by the virial theorem. With these assumptions, the velocity distribution is Gaussian about the streaming velocity with dispersions $`\sigma _x=100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`\sigma _y=80\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`\sigma _z=68\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. For the disk lenses, the random component has $`\sigma _R=34\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`\sigma _\varphi =21\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`\sigma _z=18\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ about a mean velocity $`v_\varphi `$ of $`214\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (see e.g., Edvardsson et al. 1993; Belokurov & Evans 2002). Although small velocity perturbations will be associated with the spiral arms, these are neglected in our calculations.

Figure 4 shows contours of the mean timescale for events with sources and lenses in either the disk or Freudenreich’s bar, including (dotted lines) and excluding (full lines) the spiral structure. The mean timescale is shortest towards the Galactic Center and becomes longer at increasing Galactic longitudes. This is easy to understand because the motion of the lens is directed more and more along the line of sight at larger longitudes and so the transverse velocity is typically smaller. Notice that spiral structure has a dramatic effect on the mean timescale. For example, at Baade’s Window, the mean timescale is increased by a factor of $`100\%`$ on incorporating the effects of spirality. Figure 5 shows the inner $`20^{}\times 20^{}`$ in Freudenreich’s model including (dotted lines) and excluding (full lines) the effects of bar streaming. This detail is drawn for sources in the bar only, and so the asymmetry in the map is substantial. Streaming is an important effect because it removes kinetic energy from random motions and places it in systematic motions that are directed almost along the line of sight. There is a increasing gradient in the mean timescale from the near-side to the far-side of the bar. This is a geometric effect, in that lines of sight to the near-side are more nearly perpendicular to the major axis than lines of sight to the far-side. Popowski et al. (2000) report that about 40 % of the optical depth is in events with timescales $`>50`$ days and that this is at odds with standard Galactic models. By contrast, we find that long timescale events are to be expected when streaming is taken into account in the modelling.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

We have drawn large scale maps of the optical depth and timescale distribution for microlensing in the Galaxy. Freudenreich’s bar does give a reasonable representation of the microlensing data to the Bulge. It recovers the optical depth towards the spiral arms (with the exception of $`\gamma `$ Norma). However, Freudenreich’s model is hollow. Stars otherwise expected to be in the central parts of the disk can instead be used to augment the bar where they are efficient at microlensing.

As pointed out by Gould (1995), microlensing surveys in the K band would be very valuable to distinguish between models. This is all the more true given the capabilities of the new generation of survey telescopes. VISTA has a field of view of 0.5 square degrees in the K band. Assuming that the seeing is $`0.8^{\prime \prime }`$ in Chile and scaling the results of Gould (1995), then we estimate that VISTA will monitor $`1.5\times 10^6`$ stars in a single field of view for crowding-limited K band images towards the Bulge. This means that we are probing the luminosity function down to $`K16`$, assuming 3 magnitudes of extinction. Photometry accurate to $`3\%`$ for a $`K16`$ star will take $`1`$ minute on VISTA. Hence, a K band survey of a $`5^{}\times 5^{}`$ field close to the Galactic Center will take $`100`$ minutes every night, allowing 50 minutes for readout, slew and guide star acquisition time. So, a K band microlensing survey of the inner Galaxy is an attractive and feasible proposition with VISTA.

NWE is supported by the Royal Society and VB acknowledges financial help from the Dulverton Fund. We thank Bohdan Paczyński and Shude Mao for emphasizing to us the importance of large-scale maps, as well as James Binney for discussions on the structure of the Galactic bar. The anonymous referee is thanked for a helpful report.


text:
# Near Infrared observations of Soft X-ray selected AGNBased on observations performed at the 2.7m telecope of the McDonald Observatory, Texas

## 1 Introduction

Optical spectra of AGN exhibit many significant relationships. For example, increasing strength of Fe II emission from the broad line region (BLR) corresponds to decreasing width of H$`\beta `$ from the BLR, and decreasing strength of \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 emission from the narrow line region (NLR) (Boroson & Green 1992, Grupe et al. 1999). ROSAT (Trümper 1983), with its high sensitivity to soft X-rays, has played an important role in showing that these trends correspond to an increasing steepness of the soft X-ray spectra (Boller et al. 1996, Wang et al. 1996, Laor et al. 1997, Grupe et al. 1998a). Correlation analyses show that the dominant spectrum-to-spectrum variation in AGN samples can be reduced to a linear combination of these emission line and continuum parameters – the ‘First Principal Component’ (Boroson & Green 1992).

The ‘First Principal Component’ (or Eigenvector 1) almost certainly represents the Eddington ratio L/LEdd, where L is the bolometric luminosity, and LEdd is the upper limit to a Black Hole’s luminosity for which radiation forces on the accreting matter balance gravitational forces (e.g., Boroson 2002). Narrow Line Seyfert 1 nuclei (NLS1), with their steeper X-ray spectra, stronger Fe II, weaker \[O III\] emission and narrower H$`\beta `$ represent higher Eddington ratios, and are therefore suggested to be an earlier stage of activity (Grupe 1996, Grupe et al. 1999, Mathur 2000), or a rejuvenated phase of Seyfert 1 activity. The association between AGN activity and starbursts is well documented (e.g. Gonzáles Delgado 2001, Cid Fernandes et al. 2001 and references therein). Starbursts, perhaps triggered by galaxy mergers or interactions, are usually associated with fueling the central engine, although it has been suggested that AGN activity triggers the starbursts. The AGN-starburst connection has been demonstrated for Seyfert 2 galaxies where about 30-50% do show massive young stars within $``$ 300 pc of the center (Cid Fernandes et al. 2001). Consistent with this, Wills et al. (1999) suggested that starbursts could provide the high-column densities of dense, Fe-enriched gas suggested by Principal Component 1 spectra. Starburst galaxies are known to be bright in the infrared. Therefore we would expect to see higher IR luminosities in NLS1 than in broad line Seyfert 1s (BLS1). We found that soft X-ray selected AGN on the average show slightly higher IR luminosities than AGN from hard X-ray selected samples (Grupe et al. 1998a, Moran et al. 1996). However, among the most luminous infrared objects, the ultra-luminous IRAS galaxies (ULIRGs), AGN appear to be rare (Murphy et al. 2001) and recently Ivanov et al. (2000) found from a K-band spectroscopy study of 33 Seyfert galaxies that there is no evidence for strong starbursts among their sources. At optical/NIR wavelengths one way to indicate a starburst in nearby bright galaxies is to measure the strength of the CaII triplett ($`\lambda \lambda `$8498, 8542, 8662 Å; e.g. Terlevich et al. 1990). However, while in the optical it is not (easily) possible to distinguish between the activity from the nucleus itself and a circumnuclear starburst, it is (easier) in the infrared (e.g. Genzel & Cesarsky 2000, Laurent et al. 2000).

In principle, near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy provides a tool to distinguish between young and old starbursts by searching for strong hydrogen emission lines from young stars or CO absorption lines at 2.3$`\mu `$m from old stars (Heisler & De Robertis 1999). These CO absorption lines have been found to be common in obcured AGN while being absent in Seyfert 1s (Oliva et al. 1999).

We observed 19 sources of our complete sample of 113 soft X-ray selected AGN (Grupe et al. 2001) by NIR spectroscopy in the K-band. The sources were selected from the ROSAT All-Sky Survey (RASS, Voges et al. 1999) by their count rate and hardness ratio (Thomas et al. 1998, Grupe et al. 1998a). In this paper we present the results of a first observing run to study the soft X-ray selected AGN of our sample in the infrared. We have organized this paper as follows: In Sect. 2 we describe the observation and the data reduction and analysis, in Sect. 3 the results of our NIR study are presented, and are discussed in Sect. 4.

## 2  Observations and data reduction

The near-infrared spectroscopy of our AGN subsample used the CoolSpec spectrograph (Lester et al. 2000) on the 2.7m telescope at McDonald Observatory in Texas. We used grating #3310-FL-906 in the K-band in first order with a resolution $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$=268 and a 256$`\times `$256 NICMOS3 CCD ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ at 2.2$`\mu `$m$``$ 2.6 pixel). Table 1 lists all sources with the optical positions, redshifts, K magnitudes from the 2 Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) second incremental release catalogue, observed K magnitude Kobs, and observing dates and times. During the whole run the weather conditions were rather poor, therefore absolute flux calibrations are not very accurate. In order to obtain these we observed for each object a nearby bright star of spectral type A to G. The spectral types were taken from the Bright Source Catalogue, 5th revised edition (Hoffleit & Jaschek 1991). For some of our comparison stars the K magnitudes were known, for others the K magnitudes were derived from the B and V magnitudes using the relation V-K = (2.29$`\pm `$0.01)$`\times `$(B-V). This relation was obtained by fitting the colours in a sample of 196 infrared standard stars common to the list of Van der Bliek et al. (1996) and the Bright Star Catalogue, 5th Revised Ed. (Hoffleit & Jaschek 1991). These K magnitudes were converted into flux densities at 2.2 $`\mu `$m using the relation K = 14.0 - 2.5 log($`F_{2.2\mu }`$) (Van der Bliek et al. 1996) with the flux density in units of 10-15 W m-2 $`\mu `$m-1. The flux density distribution in our observing window was then computed from the flux density at 2.2 $`\mu `$m assuming a Rayleigh-Jeans tail for the spectral shape.

The flux-calibrated spectrum of the AGN can then be calculated from the ratio of the observed spectra of AGN and comparison star, taking into account the different exposure times. The flux densities at 2.2$`\mu `$m thus obtained for our AGN were converted into K magnitudes using the relation given above. In Table 1 we list these K magnitudes together with those given in the 2MASS catalogue. In most cases the observed magnitude is less than the one given in the 2MASS, because the poor weather conditions are more likely to reduce the flux for the long exposures of the objects than for the short exposures of the comparison stars. In this way we can scale the observed AGN spectrum, to account for variations in the extinction between source and comparison star and we are able to get more reliable absolute infrared fluxes that can be compared to our measurements in the optical range. As listed in Table 1 for six sources K magnitudes were not yet available in the 2MASS. Therefore we give line fluxes in Table 2 only for those sources for which we could do the scaling as described above.

Wavelength calibrations were obtained by fitting a linear relation to the line positions of Argon, Neon, and Xenon. Sky subtraction was done by nodding the telescope between two positions in a star-sky-sky-star sequence. For our targets such a sequence took 8 min and was repeated several times, while for the bright comparison stars a much shorter exposure time of 4 to 20 s per sequence was sufficient.

## 3  Results

Figure 1 displays all NIR spectra of the 19 soft X-ray selected AGN we observed as well as a mean spectrum of the atmospheric absorption. Out of 12 sources with redshifts that put Pa$`\alpha `$ into the observable window the Pa$`\alpha `$ line was clearly detected in 11 cases. The much weaker Br$`\gamma `$ line should have been visible for 11 sources. Of those sources it was clearly detected in Mkn 766 and possibly in RX J0859+48, Mkn 110, CBS 126, and IRAS12397+3333. In the other 6 sources, where Br$`\gamma `$ is marked in the spectrum, it is not clear if this is noise or a real line. Therefore in Table 2 the Br$`\gamma `$ measurements of those sources are noted as upper limits. Upper limits were estimated from the noise peaks in the spectrum. Due to the redshift of the sources for only a few objects it is possible to get the Pa$`\alpha `$ as well as the Br$`\gamma `$ line.

Table 2 lists the results from the line measurements. The table contains the object name (as given in Table 1), the Seyfert type, the rest frame equivalent widths of Pa$`\alpha `$ and Br$`\gamma `$ and the rest frame FWHM(Pa$`\alpha `$). The FWHM(Pa$`\alpha `$) (in Å) was deconvolved by the spectral resolution of about 180 Å, using $`\mathrm{FWHM}(\mathrm{Pa}\alpha _{\mathrm{corr}})^2=\mathrm{FWHM}(\mathrm{Pa}\alpha _{\mathrm{observed}})^2180^2`$. The Pa$`\alpha `$ line widths are in agreement with other studies in the literature (e.g. Hines, 1991). The table also contains the line fluxes of Pa$`\alpha `$ and Br$`\gamma `$ and the Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ line ratio. The H$`\beta `$ line flux was measured from FeII subtracted optical spectra (Grupe et al. 1999). The cases are marked in the table, for which absolute fluxes can not be given, because no 2MASS data are available yet.

Two of the sources listed in Table 2 show exceptionally high Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ flux ratios, CBS 126 and RX J1355.2+5612. From the case B scenario (Hummer & Storey 1987) a Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ ratio=0.332 is expected. For only one AGN, Mkn 766 a flux ratio Br$`\gamma `$/H$`\beta `$ can be measured. For this AGN the Br$`\gamma `$/H$`\beta `$ flux ratio is about 3 times higher than expected for a case B (0.0275, Hummer & Storey, 1987).

## 4  Discussion and conclusions

The main motivation for our study of NIR spectra of soft X-ray selected AGN was to search for signatures of a young starburst. The idea is that NLS1 are young AGN and therefore should show a young starburst which should be visible in the NIR spectrum. Signs of this young starburst would be the detection of strong Pa$`\alpha `$ and/or Br$`\gamma `$ emission lines in excess of what is expected from the broad H$`\beta `$ and H$`\alpha `$ line emission.

CBS 126 and RX J1355.2+5612 are the only two sources which show very high Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ line rations. Both sources have an H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ ratio = 3.5 (Grupe et al. 1999). The internal reddening of the two sources is close to the average found for the whole sample (Grupe et al.1998b). Also the spectral analysis of the RASS data shows that the cold (neutral) absorption in soft X-rays is in agreement with no or minor intrinsic absorption. For RX J1355.2+5612 the signal-to-noise ratio at the Pa$`\alpha `$ line is very low and therefore the errors in the flux measurements are large. This explains the high ratio in this source. The situation is different for CBS 126. Even though the line might be slightly affected by the correction of the atmospheric absorption troughs at around 2$`\mu `$m, the line is still strong and the high flux ratio Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ seems to be real. Displaying the Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ ratio of CBS 126 in a H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ vs. Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\alpha `$ diagram (e.g. Lacy et al., 1982, Evans & Natta 1989, Thompson 1992) shows that CBS 126 is far off most sources towards a high Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\alpha `$ value. The other three sources for which the H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ ratio was available and a scaling of the spectrum by the 2MASS K magnitude was possible, RX J1007.1+2203, Ton 1388, and Mkn 478, are almost on the expected Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$=0.28 line in Fig. 2 in Lacy et al. (1982), which means they are not absorbed. Correcting CBS 126 for reddening reduces the Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\alpha `$ to 0.41, which is still a strong excess in the Pa$`\alpha `$ line. A possible explanation is that this is a contribution from a nuclear starburst. In order to verify this, observations on this object with higher resolution spectroscopy have to be performed.

The clearest detection of a Br$`\gamma `$ line was found in Mkn 766. For this source one has to take into account that it does show intrinsic optical reddening that may explain part of the high Br$`\gamma `$/H$`\beta `$ flux ratio. The H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ ratio is 5.9 (Grupe et al. 1998b) and its optical spectral slope $`\alpha _{\mathrm{opt}}`$ = 1.9, which is high compared to the rest of the sample ($`<`$$`\alpha _{\mathrm{opt}}`$$`>`$=1.0; Grupe et al. 1998b). It is also a source that shows a relatively high degree of polarization of 2.3% (Goodrich 1989), while most of the sources in our sample do not show significant polarization (Grupe et al. 1998b). Arguing also for a significant absorption in Mkn 766 is the finding of Lee et al. (2001) from X-ray spectra derived from CHANDRA’s LETG of a dusty warm absorber in MCG–6-30-15 which has a similar X-ray spectrum as Mkn 766. However, on the other hand, Branduardi-Raymont et al. (2001) argued from their X-ray spectroscopy studies with XMM-Newtons’s Reflection Grating Spectrometer (RGS, den Herder et al. 2001) that the X-ray spectral features of Mkn 766 and MCG–6-30-15 can not be explained by a dusty warm absorber alone and proposed that they are caused by gravitational redshift and relativistic broadening effects in the vicinity of a Kerr black hole.

The question remains, why the classical NLS1 in our sample, such as Mkn 478 or Mkn 493, showing strong FeII emission and weak \[OIII\], not show exceptionally strong NIR emission lines? The two sources that clearly have strong NIR emission line, CBS 126 and Mkn 766, are not classical NLS1. Both have strong \[OIII\], relatively weak FeII, and are both polarized in the optical. So far with our current data set of 19 sources, we cannot give a final answer to the question, simply for statistical reasons. Just recently, NIR spectra of two more NLS1 of our soft X-ray sample have been published, Mkn 335 and Mkn 1044 (Rodríguez-Ardila et al., 2002). Using their Pa$`\alpha `$ fluxes, we derived Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ ratios of 0.29 and 0.11, respectively. Taking the starburst galaxy sample of Coziol et al. (2001) for estimating what contribution we can expect from a usual starburst, the range of the equivalent widths EW(Br$`\gamma `$) is between 2Å-260 Å. Based on these values we can exclude a large starburst in any of AGN in our sample. We have to extend the NIR sample in order to derive a more secure answer about which class has strong NIR emission lines. This would bring us back to our original question about the age of an AGN. Maybe the classical NLS1 are not the youngest AGN and maybe that those AGN which show also stronger \[OIII\] would be younger. Two facts argue for this scenario: 1) starburst galaxies always show strong \[OIII\]/H$`\beta `$ ratio (e.g Osterbrock, 1989) and 2) recently Oshuga & Umemura (2001) suggested that Seyfert 2 galaxies are the younger AGN. In this case the strong starburst in classical NLS1 is already passed. If this is true we may ask what happens then to the only Seyfert 2 galaxy in our sample, IC 3599111Please note: IC 3599 can be classified as a Seyfert 1.9 galaxies based on higher resolution spectroscopy; Komossa & Bade, 1999). Shouldn’t we see also strong NIR emission lines in the spectrum of this AGN? The answer is in principle yes, but the H$`\beta `$ flux in this source is already rather low (see e.g. Grupe et al. 1995) and assuming a case B ratio of H$`\beta `$/Br$`\gamma `$=0.0275 (Hummer & Storey 1987) we end up with the upper limit we measured in this object. In other words, IC 3599 shows a line ratio as expected, but not stronger than this either. It is interesting to note that IC 3599 has shown a strong X-ray outburst followed by a response in its optical emission lines (Grupe et al. 1995; Brandt et al. 1995). We could have expected that when the light front passes through the center of the AGN that we would also see strong NIR lines in its spectrum. However, it seems that the light passed already the NIR emitting region. It would be interesting for future discoveries of X-ray transient AGN or galaxies to follow them also in the infrared in order to localize the NIR line emitting regions.

Our study of NIR spectra has shown that NIR spectroscopy of soft X-ray selected AGN gives interesting results. In 11 cases we were able to detect Pa$`\alpha `$ emission. However, a future task should be to complete the NIR observations for the whole sample to give a more secure statement of the development of AGN. Performing the spectroscopy with higher resolution would help to search for line asymmetries as they have been reported for H$`\beta `$ emission (e.g. Boroson & Green, 1992). However, often strong H$`\beta `$ asymmetries have been especially reported for those NLS1 with very strong FeII emission. Therefore the results of those H$`\beta `$ line measurements might be influenced by the contamination of the H$`\beta `$ line by FeII blends. The Pa$`\alpha `$ line is not affected by FeII contamination and therefore a possible line asymmetry can be studied more accurately than in the H$`\beta `$ line.

###### Acknowledgements.

We want to thank Dr. Bev Wills for her help with the observing run and her comments on this paper. We also want to thank Dr. Dan Lester for his help and support during the CoolSpec observing run. Many thanks also to Drs. Mario Gliozzi, Stefanie Komossa, and Wolfgang Brinkmann for their comments and suggestions on the manuscript. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The ROSAT project is supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF/DLR) and the Max-Planck-Society. This paper can be retrieved via WWW:
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/$``$dgrupe/research/refereed.html