text:
# Abelian complex structures on solvable Lie algebras

## 1. Introduction

An abelian complex structure on a real Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ is an endomorphism of $`𝔤`$ satisfying

(1)
$$J^2=I,[Jx,Jy]=[x,y],x,y𝔤.$$

If $`G`$ is a Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ these conditions imply the vanishing of the Nijenhuis tensor on the invariant almost complex manifold $`(G,J)`$, that is, $`J`$ is integrable on $`G`$.

Our interest arises from properties of the complex manifolds obtained by considering this class of complex structures on Lie algebras. For instance, an abelian hypercomplex structure on $`𝔤`$, that is, is a pair of anticommuting abelian complex structures, gives rise to an invariant weak HKT structure (see  and ).

Abelian complex structures on Lie algebras were first considered in  where a construction is given starting with a 2-step nilpotent Lie algebra and applying successively a “doubling” procedure. It follows from results of  that $`𝔞𝔣𝔣()`$, the Lie algebra of the affine motion group of $``$, is the unique $`4`$-dimensional Lie algebra carrying an abelian hypercomplex structure. In  the particular class of H-type Lie algebras was studied in detail and a precise answer was given to the question of when such an algebra admits an abelian complex structure.

It was proved in  that a real Lie algebra admitting an abelian complex structure is necessarily solvable. In the present article we give a characterization of the solvable Lie algebras admitting an abelian complex structure in terms of certain affine Lie algebras $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$, $`A`$ a commutative algebra (Theorem 3.8). These affine Lie algebras are natural generalizations of $`𝔞𝔣𝔣()`$ and the corresponding Lie groups are complex affine manifolds. It turns out, using the classification given in , that all $`4`$-dimensional Lie algebras carrying abelian complex structures are central extensions of affine Lie algebras.

In § 4 we study obstructions to the existence of abelian complex structures.

## 2. Complex structures on affine Lie algebras

A complex structure on a real Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ is an endomorphism $`J`$ of $`𝔤`$ satisfying

(2)
$$J^2=Id,J[x,y][Jx,y][x,Jy]J[Jx,Jy]=0,x,y𝔤.$$

Note that complex Lie algebras are those for which the endomorphism $`J`$ satisfies the stronger condition

(3)
$$J^2=Id,J[x,y]=[x,Jy],x,y𝔤$$

By a hypercomplex structure we mean a pair of anticommuting complex structures.

A rich family of Lie algebras carrying complex structures is obtained by considering a finite dimensional real associative algebra $`A`$ and $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ the Lie algebra $`AA`$ with Lie bracket given as follows:

$$[(a,b),(a^{},b^{})]=(aa^{}a^{}a,ab^{}a^{}b),a,b,a^{},b^{}A.$$

Let $`J`$ be the endomorphism of $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ defined by

(4)
$$J(a,b)=(b,a),a,bA.$$

A computation shows that $`J`$ defines a complex structure on $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$. Note that when $`A`$ is a vector space with the trivial product structure $`ab=0,a,bA`$ one obtains the abelian Lie algebra $`^n^n`$ with the standard complex structure $`J(a,b)=(b,a).`$ Furthermore, if one assumes the algebra $`A`$ to be a complex associative algebra, this extra assumption allows us to equip $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ with a pair of anti-commuting complex structures. Indeed, the endomorphism $`K`$ on $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ defined by $`K(a,b)=(ia,ib)`$ for $`a,bA`$ satisfies (2) and since $`JK=KJ`$, $`J`$ and $`K`$ define a hypercomplex structure.

###### Proposition 2.1.

$`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ carries a natural hypercomplex structure for any complex associative algebra $`A`$.

The Lie groups having Lie algebras $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ carry invariant complex affine structures. Indeed, the bilinear map $``$ given by $`_{(a,b)}(c,d)=(ac,ad)`$ satisfies

$$_{(a,b)}J(c,d)=J_{(a,b)}(c,d),_{(a,b)}(c,d)_{(c,d)}(a,b)=[(a,b),(c,d)]$$

and $`R((a,b),(c,d))=0`$ where

$$R((a,b),(c,d))=_{[(a,b),(c,d)]}[_{(a,b)},_{(c,d)}]$$

is the curvature tensor. In particular, using results of Boyom , any such simply connected Lie group can be embedded as leaf of a left invariant lagrangian foliation in a symplectic Lie group.

## 3. Abelian complex structures

An abelian complex structure on a real Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ is an endomorphism of $`𝔤`$ satisfying

(5)
$$J^2=I,[Jx,Jy]=[x,y],x,y𝔤.$$

By an abelian hypercomplex structure we mean a pair of anticommuting abelian complex structures.

We observe that one can rewrite condition (2) as follows

(6)
$$J([x,y][Jx,Jy])=[Jx,y][x,Jy]x,y𝔤.$$

Thus, abelian complex structures are integrable. Moreover, from (6) one has that if $`[x,y][Jx,Jy]0`$ for some $`x,y`$ then the commutator subalgebra has dimension $`2`$. In particular, if $`𝔤`$ is a real Lie algebra with $`1`$-dimensional commutator $`[𝔤,𝔤]`$ then every complex structure on $`𝔤`$ is abelian (compare with Proposition 4.1 in ).

There exist algebraic restrictions to the existence of abelian complex structures. We recall the following result

###### Proposition 3.1 ().

Let $`𝔤`$ be a real Lie algebra admitting an abelian complex structure. Then $`𝔤`$ is solvable.

Given a complex structure $`J`$ on a Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, the endomorphism $`J`$ extends to the complexification $`𝔤^{}=𝔤i𝔤`$ giving a splitting

$$𝔤^{}=𝔤^{1,0}𝔤^{0,1}$$

where

$$𝔤^{1,0}=\{XiJX:X𝔤\}\mathrm{and}𝔤^{0,1}=\{X+iJX:X𝔤\}$$

are complex Lie subalgebras of $`𝔤^{}`$. Using (5) one verifies that abelian complex structures are those for which the subalgebras $`𝔤^{1,0}`$ and $`𝔤^{0,1}`$ are abelian, and conversely.

In order to give another characterization of abelian complex structures we need first to consider the following general class of complex structures on matrix algebras.

Let $`V`$ be a real vector space, $`dimV=2n`$, and fix a complex endomorphism $`I`$ of $`V`$ (i.e. $`I^2=Id`$). Let us denote by $`L_I`$, (resp. $`R_I`$) the endomorphism of $`𝔤𝔩(V)`$ defined as $`L_I(u)=Iu`$ (resp. $`R_I(u)=uI`$), $`u𝔤𝔩(V)`$. It is straightforward to show that $`L_I`$ (resp. $`R_I`$) defines a complex structure on $`𝔤𝔩(V)`$, that is, it satisfies (2). Moreover, the subalgebra $`𝔤𝔩_{}(V)`$ of endomorphisms of $`V`$ commuting with $`I`$ is $`L_I`$ and $`R_I`$ invariant and the restriction of $`L_I`$ or $`R_I`$ to this subalgebra satisfies (3).

Consider next an arbitrary Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ and assume that $`J`$ is an endomorphism of $`𝔤`$ satisfying $`J^2=Id`$. In particular, $`dim𝔤=2n`$. Consider on $`𝔤^{}`$ the induced endomorphism, that we denote also by $`J`$, given by $`J\alpha =\alpha J,\alpha 𝔤^{}`$. According to the previous observation, $`R_J`$ is integrable on $`𝔤𝔩(𝔤)`$ and $`L_J`$ is integrable on $`𝔤𝔩(𝔤^{})`$. It follows after a computation that $`J`$ is an abelian complex structure on $`𝔤`$ if and only if the adjoint representation $`\text{ad}:(𝔤,J)(𝔤𝔩(𝔤),R_J)`$ is holomorphic, that is, $`\text{ad}(Jx)=R_J(\text{ad}(x))`$ for all $`x𝔤`$. Equivalently, the coadjoint representation $`\text{ad}^{}:(𝔤,J)(𝔤𝔩(𝔤^{}),L_J)`$ is holomorphic, that is, $`\text{ad}^{}(Jx)=L_J(\text{ad}^{}(x))`$ for all $`x𝔤`$. This paragraph can be summarized as follows:

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`J`$ be a complex structure on the real Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

$`i)J`$ is abelian.

$`ii)`$ The complex subalgebras $`𝔤^{1,0}`$ and $`𝔤^{0,1}`$ of $`𝔤^{}`$ are abelian.

$`iii)`$ The adjoint representation ad$`:(𝔤,J)(𝔤𝔩(𝔤),R_J)`$ is holomorphic.

$`iv)`$ The coadjoint representation $`\text{ad}^{}:(𝔤,J)(𝔤𝔩(𝔤^{}),L_J)`$ is holomorphic.

### 3.1. Examples

The simplest examples of non abelian Lie algebras carrying abelian complex structures are provided by

1. $`𝔞𝔣𝔣()`$, the Lie algebra of the affine motion group of $``$ (the bidimensional non-abelian Lie algebra), $`𝔞𝔣𝔣()=span\{x,y\}`$, with bracket $`[x,y]=x`$ and $`J`$ given by $`Jx=y`$ and
2. $`\times 𝔥_n`$, where $`𝔥_n`$ stands for the $`2n+1`$dimensional Heisenberg Lie algebra, $`\times 𝔥_n=span\{w,z,x_i,y_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, with non zero bracket $`[x_i,y_i]=z`$ and $`J`$ given by $`Jz=w`$, $`Jx_i=y_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

The Lie algebras introduced in i) and ii) have one dimensional commutator. Moreover, every Lie algebra with one dimensional commutator is a trivial central extension of one of these (see Theorem 4.1 in ). Hence we obtained the following result:

###### Proposition 3.3.

Every even dimensional Lie algebra with one dimensional commutator carries an abelian complex structure.

The next family of examples will play a crucial role in the characterization given in Theorem 3.8.

1. Consider the Lie algebra $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ defined in §2 where $`A`$ is a commutative algebra. Let $`J`$ be the complex structure on $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ defined by equation (4). Then one verifies that $`J`$ is an abelian complex structure. We note that when $`A=`$ or $`A=`$, we obtain the Lie algebra of the affine motion group of either $``$ or $``$. Moreover, if $`A`$ is a complex commutative algebra then the complex structure $`K(a,b)=(ia,ib)`$ which anticommutes with $`J`$ is also abelian, hence in this case we obtain an abelian hypercomplex structure.

###### Proposition 3.4.

If $`A`$ is a complex commutative algebra then the natural hypercomplex structure on $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ is abelian.

The $`4`$-dimensional Lie algebras admitting abelian complex structures are essentially affine algebras $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ for some commutative algebra $`A`$ (see Proposition 3.7). In the general situation these algebras are also involved as building blocks (Theorem 3.8).

A particular case of the construction just considered occurs when one assumes $`A`$ to be the set of complex matrices of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& a_1& a_2& \mathrm{}& a_{k1}& a_k\\ 0& 0& a_1& \mathrm{}& a_{k2}& a_{k1}\\ [1.5]6\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& a_1& a_2\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& a_1\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

$`A`$ is commutative and $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ is $`k`$-step nilpotent, therefore existence of abelian complex structures imposes no restriction on the degree of nilpotency (compare with ).

###### Proposition 3.5.

For any positive integer $`k`$ there exists a $`k`$-step nilpotent Lie algebra carrying an abelian hypercomplex structure.

We observe that all known examples of Lie algebras carrying abelian complex structures are two-step solvable, but we do not know if this holds in general.

### 3.2.  Main theorem

In this section we give a characterization of solvable Lie algebras admitting abelian complex structures. It is our aim to show that the building blocks of such algebras are the affine algebras considered in §3.1 iii).

###### Proposition 3.6.

Let $`𝔰`$ be a solvable Lie algebra with an abelian complex structure $`J`$ admitting a decomposition $`𝔰=𝔲+J𝔲`$ with $`𝔲`$ an abelian ideal. Then $`(𝔰/𝔷,J)`$ is holomorphically isomorphic to $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ for some commutative algebra $`A`$.

###### Proof.

We note first that if $`𝔰`$ is as in the statement then $`𝔲J𝔲𝔷`$, $`𝔷`$ the center of $`𝔰`$. Indeed, if $`x=Jx^{}𝔲J𝔲`$ then $`[x,u]=0,u𝔲`$, and

$$[x,Ju]=[Jx^{},Ju]=[x^{},u]=0,u𝔲$$

showing that $`x𝔷`$.

Let $`A=\{ad(Jx):x𝔲\}`$ and let $`f:𝔰𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ be defined by

$$f(x+Jy)=(ad(Jy),ad(Jx)).$$

If $`x^{}+Jy^{}=x+Jy`$ then both, $`J(x^{}x)`$ and $`J(y^{}y)`$, belong to $`𝔷`$, hence $`f`$ is well defined. Clearly, $`𝔷`$ is contained in the kernel of $`f`$, since $`x+Jy𝔷`$ implies that $`x`$ and $`Jy`$ are in $`𝔷`$. Conversely, if $`ad(Jy)=0=ad(Jx)`$, then $`x`$ and $`Jy`$ are in $`𝔷`$ since $`J`$ is abelian. We verify next that $`f`$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism. If $`x+Jy,x^{}+Jy^{}𝔰`$, then

$$f[x+Jy,x^{}+Jy^{}]=(0,ad(J([x,Jy^{}]+[Jy,x^{}]))).$$

On the other hand,

$$[(ad(Jy),ad(Jx)),(ad(Jy^{}),ad(Jx^{}))]=(0,ad(Jy)ad(Jx^{})|_𝔲ad(Jy^{})ad(Jx)).$$

Now,

$`ad(J([x,Jy^{}]+[Jy,x^{}]))|_𝔲`$ $`=`$ $`ad([x,Jy^{}]+[Jy,x^{}])J|_𝔲`$
$`=`$ $`ad(Jy)ad(Jx^{})|_𝔲ad(Jy^{})ad(Jx)|_𝔲`$
since $`ad(Jx)J|_𝔲=0`$ for $`x𝔲`$, and

$$ad(J([x,Jy^{}]+[Jy,x^{}]))|_{J𝔲}=0=ad(Jy)ad(Jx^{})|_{J𝔲}ad(Jy^{})ad(Jx)|_{J𝔲}.$$

Therefore,

$$ad(J([x,Jy^{}]+[Jy,x^{}]))=ad(Jy)ad(Jx^{})ad(Jy^{})ad(Jx)$$

showing that $`f`$ induces a Lie algebra isomorphism between $`𝔰/𝔷`$ and $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$. Moreover, $`f`$ is holomorphic since

$$fJ(x+Jy)=f(y+Jx)=(ad(Jx),ad(Jy)).$$

We show next, using a case by case verification, that the $`4`$-dimensional Lie algebras admitting abelian complex structures are fully described by the previous proposition, that is, they are central extensions of affine algebras.

### 3.3.  The 4-dimensional case

The $`4`$-dimensional solvable Lie algebras $`𝔰`$ carrying complex structures were classified in  when $`dim[𝔰,𝔰]2`$ and in  when dimension of $`dim[𝔰,𝔰]=3`$. From this classification one verifies that the complex structures such that $`𝔰^{1,0}`$ and $`𝔰^{0,1}`$ are abelian occur only when $`dim[𝔰,𝔰]2`$ (this also follows from Proposition 4.1 below). They all appear in the classification given in  and are denoted by $`S_1,S_2,S_8,S_9,S_{10},S_{11}`$ there. We list them below:

1. $`S_0`$ : $`𝔰=^4`$.
2. $`S_1`$ : $`𝔰=𝔥_1`$, a direct sum of ideals, where $`𝔥_1`$ is the 3-dimensional Heisenberg algebra (see example 3.1 ii).
3. $`S_2`$: $`𝔰=𝔞𝔣𝔣()^2`$, a direct sum of ideals.
4. $`S_8`$: $`𝔰=𝔞𝔣𝔣()𝔞𝔣𝔣()`$, a direct sum of ideals.
5. $`S_9`$: $`𝔰=𝔞𝔣𝔣()^2`$, a semidirect sum (adjoint representation)
6. $`S_{10}`$:$`𝔰=𝔞𝔣𝔣()𝔞𝔣𝔣()`$, a semidirect product of algebras (adjoint representation).
7. $`S_{11}`$: $`𝔰=𝔞𝔣𝔣()`$, the complexification of $`𝔞𝔣𝔣()`$.

The above Lie algebras, modulo their center, coincide with $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ for certain commutative algebras $`A`$ which are listed below:

1. $`S_0`$ : $`A=0`$ with the trivial structure.
2. $`S_1`$ : $`A=`$, $``$ with the trivial structure.
3. $`S_2`$: $`A=`$, $``$ with the standard structure.
4. $`S_8`$: $`A=\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& b\end{array}\right),a,b\}`$.
5. $`S_9`$: $`A=\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ b& a\end{array}\right),a,b\}`$.
6. $`S_{10}`$: $`A=\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& a\end{array}\right),a,b\}`$.
7. $`S_{11}`$: $`A=`$ , $``$ with the standard structure.

The above paragraph can be summarized as follows:

###### Proposition 3.7.

Let $`𝔰`$ be a $`4`$-dimensional Lie algebra admitting an abelian complex structure. Then $`𝔰/𝔷`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A)`$ for some commutative algebra $`A`$.

The next example shows that Proposition 3.6 does not exhaust the class of Lie algebras carrying abelian complex structures.

### 3.4. Example

Let $`𝔰=x_1y_1\mathrm{}x_ky_k𝔳`$ with $`dim𝔳=2n`$, $`k,n1`$. Fix a real endomorphism $`J`$ of $`𝔰`$ such that $`J^2=I`$ and

(7)
$$Jx_j=y_j,j=1,\mathrm{},k,J𝔳𝔳.$$

Let $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_k`$ be a commutative family of endomorphisms of $`𝔳`$ satisfying

$$T_iT_j=T_iJ|_𝔳T_jJ|_𝔳\text{for all }i,j.$$

This condition is satisfied, for instance, if $`T_i`$ commutes with $`J|_𝔳`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. Define a bracket on $`𝔰`$ as follows

(8)
$$[x_j,v]=T_jJv,[y_j,v]=T_jv\text{for all }v𝔳$$

and extend it by skew-symmetry. It turns out that $`𝔰`$ equipped with this bracket is a Lie algebra and $`J`$ becomes an abelian complex structure on $`𝔰`$. Observe that $`𝔰`$ is not in general an affine algebra, but it has the following property: there exists a $`J`$-stable ideal $`𝔰_1=𝔳`$ isomorphic to $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(^n)`$ such that $`𝔰/𝔰_1`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(^k)`$, where both, $`^n`$ and $`^k`$, are equipped with the trivial algebra structure. The general situation is described by the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3.8.

Let $`𝔰`$ be a real Lie algebra and let $`J`$ be an abelian complex structure on $`𝔰`$. Then there exists an increasing sequence $`\{0\}=𝔰_0𝔰_1\mathrm{}𝔰_{r1}𝔰_r=𝔰`$ of $`J`$-stable ideals of $`𝔰`$ such that $`𝔰_j/𝔰_{j1}`$ is holomorphically isomorphic to a central extension of $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A_j)`$ with the abelian complex structure given by equation (4), for some commutative algebra $`A_j`$, $`1jr`$.

###### Proof.

We proceed by induction on $`dim𝔰`$. The theorem is trivially satisfied if $`dim𝔰=2`$. If $`dim𝔰>2`$, we assume that the theorem is true for all Lie algebras of dimension strictly less than $`dim𝔰`$. Since $`J`$ is abelian, $`𝔰`$ must be solvable (Proposition 3.1). Let $`𝔲`$ be a non zero abelian ideal in $`𝔰`$, then $`𝔰_1=𝔲+J𝔲`$ is a solvable Lie algebra satisfying the hypothesis of Proposition 3.6. Hence $`𝔰_1`$ is holomorphically isomorphic to a central extension of $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(A_1)`$ with the abelian complex structure given by equation (4) for some commutative algebra $`A_1`$. If $`𝔰_1=𝔰`$ we are done. Otherwise, since $`𝔰_1`$ is a $`J`$-invariant ideal of $`𝔰`$, the inductive hypothesis applies to the Lie algebra $`𝔰/𝔰_1`$ with the induced abelian complex structure. ∎

## 4. Some obstructions

As a consequence of Proposition 1.5 in , if $`𝔫`$ is a nilpotent Lie algebra admitting an abelian complex structure then $`[𝔫,𝔫]`$ must have codimension $`3`$. On the other hand, we exhibited in §3.4 solvable Lie algebras $`𝔰`$ with $`[𝔰,𝔰]`$ of codimension $`2k`$, $`k1`$, admitting abelian complex structures. The following result implies that if $`[𝔰,𝔰]`$ has codimension $`1`$ and $`dim𝔰>2`$ then abelian complex structures do not exist on $`𝔰`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`𝔰`$ be a solvable Lie algebra such that $`[𝔰,𝔰]`$ has codimension $`1`$ in $`𝔰`$. If $`𝔰`$ admits an abelian complex structure then $`𝔰`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔞𝔣𝔣()`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`J`$ be an abelian complex structure on $`𝔰`$ and set

$$𝔰=a𝔫$$

where $`𝔫=[𝔰,𝔰]`$ and $`a`$ can be chosen so that $`Ja𝔫`$. Then

(9)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝔫& =\text{Im}\text{ad}(a)+[𝔫,𝔫]=\text{Im}\text{ad}(Ja)+[𝔫,𝔫]\hfill \\ & =[a,Ja]+\text{Im}\text{ad}(Ja)|_𝔫+[𝔫,𝔫]=[a,Ja]+[𝔫,𝔫]\hfill \end{array}$$

and we get $`𝔫^{}[𝔫,𝔫^{}]`$, hence $`𝔫^{}=[𝔫,𝔫^{}]`$. Now, $`𝔫`$ is nilpotent, so we must have $`𝔫^{}=\{0\}`$ and therefore $`𝔫=[a,Ja]`$. This implies the result.

As a consequence of the above proposition we obtain a large family of Lie algebras which do not carry abelian complex structures. In fact, consider a nilpotent Lie algebra $`𝔫`$, $`dim𝔫>1`$, admitting a non-singular derivation $`D`$ and set $`𝔰=a𝔫`$ where the action of $`a`$ on $`𝔫`$ is given by $`D`$. It follows from the proposition that there is no abelian complex structure on $`𝔰`$. A particular case of this construction is given by Damek-Ricci extensions of H-type Lie algebras (see ). In particular, the solvable Lie algebras corresponding to the rank one symmetric spaces of non-compact type  do not admit abelian complex structures, though it is well known that they do admit complex structures (equation (2)).

Abelian complex structures are frequent on two-step nilpotent Lie algebras (see  and ), but even in this case we have the following restriction:

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`𝔫`$ be a two-step nilpotent Lie algebra such that $`2dim[𝔫,𝔫]=n(n1)`$, where $`n=dim𝔫dim𝔷3`$ and $`𝔷`$ is the center of $`𝔫`$. Then $`𝔫`$ does not admit an abelian complex structure.

###### Proof.

We assume that $`𝔫`$ admits an abelian complex structure $`J`$. Fix a Hermitian inner product $`,`$ on $`𝔫`$ and consider the orthogonal decomposition $`𝔫=𝔷𝔳`$. Being $`J`$ abelian, it follows that both, $`𝔷`$ and $`𝔳`$, are $`J`$-stable. Define a linear map $`j:𝔷`$ End $`(𝔳)`$, $`zj_z`$, where $`j_z`$ is determined as follows:

(10)
$$j_zv,w=z,[v,w],v,w𝔳.$$

Observe that $`j_z,z𝔷`$, are skew-symmetric so that $`zj_z`$ defines a linear map $`j:𝔷𝔰𝔬(𝔳)`$ and the restriction of $`j`$ to $`[𝔫,𝔫]`$ is injective. It follows from Lemma 1.1 in  that $`J`$ commutes with $`j_z`$ for all $`z𝔷`$, which is a contradiction. In fact, our assumption on $`dim[𝔫,𝔫]`$ says that the map $`j:𝔷𝔰𝔬(𝔳)`$ is surjective. Therefore, since $`n3`$, the only endomorphisms of $`𝔳`$ commuting with all $`j_z`$, $`z𝔷`$, are real multiples of the identity. ∎

Recall that a two-step nilpotent Lie algebra $`𝔫`$ is said to be free, of rank $`n`$, when $`𝔷=[𝔫,𝔫]`$ and $`2dim𝔷=n(n1)`$, where $`n=dim𝔫dim𝔷`$. The above result says that the free two-step nilpotent Lie algebras of rank $`n3`$ do not admit abelian complex structures.

## References

1. M. L. Barberis, I. G. Dotti Miatello and R. J. Miatello, On certain locally homogeneous Clifford manifolds, Ann. Glob. Anal. Geom. 13 (1995), 289–301.
2. M. L. Barberis and I. Dotti Miatello, Hypercomplex structures on a class of solvable Lie groups, Quart. J. Math. Oxford (2), 47 (1996), 389–404.
3. M. L. Barberis, Hypercomplex structures on four dimensional Lie groups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 125 (4) (1997), 1043–1054.
4. M. L. Barberis, Abelian hypercomplex structures on central extensions of H-type Lie algebras, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 158 (2001), 15–23.
5. N. Boyom, Varietes symplectiques affines, Manuscripta Math. 64, (1989), 1–33.
6. E. Damek, F. Ricci, Harmonic analysis on solvable extensions of H-type groups, J. Geom. Anal. 2 (1992), 213–248.
7. I. Dotti and A. Fino, Hyper-Kähler torsion structures invariant by nilpotent Lie groups, to appear in Classical Quantum Gravity.
8. I. Dotti and A. Fino, Hypercomplex nilpotent Lie groups, preprint.
9. G. Grantcharov and Y. S. Poon, Geometry of Hyper-Kähler connections with torsion, Comm. Math. Phys. 213 (1) (2000), 19–37.
10. E. Heintze, On homogeneous manifolds of negative curvature, Math. Ann. 211 (1974), 23–34.
11. G. Ovando, Invariant complex structures on solvable real Lie groups, Manuscripta Math. 103 (2000), 19–30.
12. S. Salamon, Complex structures on nilpotent Lie algebras, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 157 (2001), 311–333.
13. J. E. Snow, Invariant complex structures on four dimensional solvable real Lie groups, Manuscripta Math. 66, (1990), 397–412.


format: text

text:
# Magnetization process for a quasi-one-dimensional 𝑆=1 antiferromagnet

## I Introduction

Low-dimensional quantum spin systems with the spin gap have attracted much interest recently. In particular, the Haldane system with integer spin @ has been studied extensively. Haldane  The origin of the Haldane spin-gap phase is now understood well in terms of the valence-bond-solid (VBS) picture. VBS  Theoretical investigations have been extended @to more realistic systems, including e.g. the bond alternation, Affleck ; Singh ; Yamamoto ; Yasuda ; Kim ; Koga ; Kato ; Totsuka ; Tone\_1 ; Hida\_1  the interchain coupling, Yasuda ; Kim ; Koga ; Sakai\_0 ; Sakai\_1  the single-ion anisotropy,Tone\_1 ; Hida\_1 ; Sakai\_0 ; Sakai\_1 ; Sakai\_2 ; Dterm  etc.

In particular, the interchain coupling, which may trigger the quantum phase transition to a magnetically ordered phase, is indispensable to explain the ground state of some $`S=1`$ compounds such as $`\mathrm{CsNiCl}_3`$,CsNiCl3  $`\mathrm{NENP}`$,NENP  $`\mathrm{PbNi}_2\mathrm{V}_2\mathrm{O}_8`$,ANi2V2O8  $`\mathrm{SrNi}_2\mathrm{V}_2\mathrm{O}_8`$.ANi2V2O8  Theoretically, Sakai and TakahashiSakai\_0  studied the effects of the interchain coupling on the Haldane system by combining the exact diagonalization method with the interchain mean-field theory, and thus obtained the phase diagram for the quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) system. More quantitative treatments were later given by the series expansion method Koga  and also by the quantum Monte Carlo simulations. Yasuda ; Kim

Some striking phenomena for the quantum phase transition found under an applied magnetic field have further stimulated the study on such Q1D spin systems. Most interesting may be the plateau formation in the magnetization curve at some fractional value of the full moment. Also, a long-range order induced by a magnetic field gives another interesting paradigm of the quantum phase transition, which has been observed in some materials such as NDMAZ, NDMAZ  NDMAP, NDMAP  NTEAP NTEAP  and NTENP. NTENP ; Narumi\_2

In this paper, we study magnetic properties of a Q1D $`S=1`$ Heisenberg antiferromagnet with bond alternation by combining the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) with the interchain mean-field theory.Sakai\_0 ; Sakai\_1 ; MF1/2  We clarify how the interchain coupling affects the magnetization curve with particular emphasis on the properties around the plateau. The effect of single-ion anisotropy is also discussed, which sometimes plays an essential role to understand low-energy properties of Q1D $`S=1`$ compounds.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the model Hamiltonian for a Q1D $`S=1`$ system, and briefly outline the numerical procedure. In Sec. III, we present the results, and discuss magnetic properties of the Q1D system. Furthermore the effect of single-ion anisotropy is discussed in Sec. IV. It is shown that the magnetization curve exhibits distinct behaviors depending on the relative direction between single-ion anisotropy and an applied magnetic field. Brief summary is given in Sec. V.

## II  Model and Numerical Method

In order to study a Q1D $`S=1`$ antiferromagnet in an applied magnetic field $`H`$, we consider the following Hamiltonian,

$``$ $`=`$ $`J{\displaystyle \underset{j,i}{}}\{1(1)^i\delta \}𝑺_{j,i}𝑺_{j,i+1}`$ (2)
$`+J^{}{\displaystyle \underset{<j,j^{}>,i}{}}𝑺_{j,i}𝑺_{j^{},i}H{\displaystyle \underset{j,i}{}}S_{j,i}^z,`$
where $`𝑺_{j,i}`$ is the $`S=1`$ spin operator at the $`i`$-th site in the $`j`$-th chain. The summation with $`<j,j^{}>`$ is taken over all the pairs of the nearest-neighbor chains. Here $`\delta `$ is the bond alternation parameter and $`J(J^{})`$ the intra-chain (inter-chain) antiferromagnetic coupling. We set $`J=1`$ and $`g\mu _B=1`$, for convenience.

We discuss magnetic properties of the above Q1D spin model by combining DMRG White ; Nishino  with the interchain mean-field theory.Sakai\_0 ; Sakai\_1 ; MF1/2  To deal with the effects of the interchain coupling in the presence of a magnetic field, we introduce two kinds of mean fields as $`<S_i^x>(1)^im_s`$ and $`<S_i^z>m_u`$, where $`m_s(m_u)`$ is the staggered (uniform) moment induced by the interchain coupling and the applied magnetic field. We thus end up with the 1D Hamiltonian,

$`_{MF}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\{1(1)^i\delta \}𝑺_i𝑺_{i+1}`$ (4)
$`\left(Hh_u\right){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}S_i^zh_s{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(1)^iS_i^x.`$
Here $`h_s`$ and $`h_u`$ are the effective internal fields, which are defined as $`h_s=z_{}J^{}m_s`$ and $`h_u=z_{}J^{}m_u`$ respectively, where $`z_{}`$ is the number of the adjacent chains. The staggered (uniform) magnetization per site $`m_s`$ ($`m_u`$) is written down as

$`m_s`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _s(h_s,h_u,\delta ,H),`$ (5)
$`m_u`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _u(h_s,h_u,\delta ,H),`$ (6)
where the functions $`\varphi _s`$ and $`\varphi _u`$ can be determined from the magnetization for the effective spin chain with both of the uniform and staggered fields. Since the mean-field Hamiltonian (4) is given as a function of $`Hh_u`$, it is convenient to rewrite the staggered magnetization as

$`m_s`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _s(h_s,\delta ,\stackrel{~}{H}),`$ (7)
where the effective field is defined as $`\stackrel{~}{H}=Hh_u`$. By solving the equation with the self-consistent condition $`h_s=z_{}J^{}m_s`$, we can discuss the quantum phase transition from the spin-gap phase to a magnetically ordered phase. Namely, if this self-consistent equation has a finite $`m_s`$, a long-range order is induced by the interchain coupling. Otherwise, the staggered field induced by the interchain coupling becomes irrelevant, and thereby the spin-gap phase still persists against a magnetically ordered phase. The critical value $`J_c^{}`$ for the phase transition is given in terms of the zero-field staggered susceptibility as,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{}J_c^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _s}{h_s}}|_{h_s0}.`$ (8)
This completes the formulation of the interchain mean-field treatment.

We conclude this section by giving an explicit form of the staggered magnetization $`\varphi _s`$ for the single chain case, which will play a key role in the following analysis. We calculate $`\varphi _s`$ by means of the infinite DMRG method, which enables us to treat 1D spin systems even when the total $`S^z`$ is not a conserved quantity.

In Fig. 1, we summarize characteristic profiles of the staggered magnetization $`\varphi _s`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ being fixed. When $`\stackrel{~}{H}=0`$, the system has the triplet-excitation gap over the dimer-singlet ground state stabilized by the bond alternation $`(\delta =0.5)`$. In fact, the magnetization curve in staggered fields has a finite derivative at the origin, as seen from the solid line in Fig. 1, implying that the dimerized ground state is stable up to a certain critical value. The introduction of an external field decreases the spin gap, and eventually triggers the quantum phase transition to a gapless phase (so-called Tomonaga-Luttinger phase) at $`\stackrel{~}{H}=1.5`$, which is accompanied by the divergence of the spin susceptibility shown as the dashed line in Fig. 1. It is seen that the staggered susceptibility takes a finite value again in the large field region ($`\stackrel{~}{H}=2.5`$), implying that the spin gap phase with the magnetization plateau is stabilized, for which a finite interchain coupling is necessary to destroy the spin-gap state.

## III Effects of the interchain coupling

We now discuss how the interchain coupling affects the magnetization process in the Q1D system, following the procedure outlined above. In the following we will explicitly use the bare external field $`H`$ instead of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ ($`H=\stackrel{~}{H}+h_u`$).

In Fig. 2, we show the magnetization curve calculated for the Q1D system, which is compared with that for the pure 1D case ($`J^{}=0`$).

Note that the ground-state for the 1D case is either in the singlet-dimer phase ($`\delta >0.25`$) or in the Haldane phase ($`\delta <0.25`$). We show the magnetization for the dimer-singlet phase ($`\delta =0.5`$) as an example, since that for the Haldane phase exhibits a similar behavior. Let us begin with the magnetization for the 1D case. Since the system is in the singlet-dimer phase with the spin excitation gap, the uniform magnetization does not appear up to the critical field $`H_{c0}`$. Beyond the critical field, the magnetization begins to increase and the system enters the Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid phase, which is immediately driven to a magnetically ordered phase upon introducing the interchain coupling. Further an increase in the field drives the system to another plateau state at $`m_u=1/2`$. This spin-gap phase with $`m_u=1/2`$ is expected to be stable against the introduction of the interchain coupling. However, it should be noticed that the spin-gap vanishes at both ends of the magnetization plateau, so that the width of the plateau should be considerably reduced by the interchain coupling. We can see that this is indeed the case for the results in Fig.2.

To see the above behavior in more detail, we show the phase diagram for the Q1D spin system with the interchain coupling $`z_{}J^{}=0`$ and $`0.04`$ in Fig. 3.

Note that our phase diagram for the isolated chain ($`z_{}J^{}=0`$) agrees fairly well with that already obtained by the exact diagonalization method. Tone\_1  Let us consider how the interchain coupling affects the plateau region with $`m_u=1/2`$, which is stabilized by the bond alternation. As seen from Fig. 3, the region of this phase is extended with increasing $`\delta `$. On the other hand, when the interchain coupling is introduced, the quantum fluctuation stabilizing the plateau is suppressed, and thus the region for the $`m_u=1/2`$ plateau is reduced.

We note here that the phase diagram obtained here is qualitatively valid except for an extreme case, $`\delta 1`$, where the system is approximately described by an assembly of isolated dimers for $`J^{}=0`$. When a finite interchain coupling $`J^{}`$ is introduced for such almost isolated dimers, the system first forms the ladders rather than the chains for two-dimension. In this case, our approach based on the interchain mean-field theory may not be sensible. To treat the critical phenomena in this region, we need more precise treatment beyond mean-field theory, which is now under consideration.

Before closing this section, a brief comment is in order for the magnetization process in the Q1D Haldane system with a ferromagnetic interchain coupling, $`J^{}<0`$. By rewriting the effective Hamiltonian, the critical points of the system with the ferromagnetic interchain couplings are given as,

$`H_{c0}^{}(J^{}=|J^{}|)=H_{c0}^{}(J^{}=|J^{}|)`$ (9)
$`H_{c1,c2}^{}(J^{}=|J^{}|)=H_{c1,c2}^{}(J^{}=|J^{}|)z_{}|J^{}|`$ (10)
$`H_s^{}(J^{}=|J^{}|)=H_s^{}(J^{}=|J^{}|)2z_{}|J^{}|.`$ (11)
As easily seen from these formulae, the width of the plateau $`H_{c2}^{}H_{c1}^{}`$ does not depend on the sign of $`J^{}`$ in the framework of our mean-field treatment.

## IV Effects of single-ion anisotropy

In this section, we discuss the effect of single-ion anisotropy with the Hamiltonian, $`_D=D_i(S_i^\alpha )^2`$. We consider two cases of anisotropy with respect to the direction of an applied magnetic field, i.e. $`DH`$ ($`\alpha =y`$) and $`DH`$ ($`\alpha =z`$). By choosing the $`x`$-axis as the axis for the magnetic order, we discuss the magnetic properties of the Q1D system.

To begin with, let us consider a simple system in the isolated-dimer limit with $`(\delta ,J^{})=(1,0)`$, which provides us with some insight into the role of single-ion anisotropy. The magnetization curves for $`D=0.5`$ are shown as the broken line ($`DH`$) and the solid line ($`DH`$) in Fig.4. Note that the magnetization shows jumps in a magnetic field, reflecting the isolated dimer-singlet ground state When $`DH`$, the plateaus with $`m_u=0`$, $`1/2`$ and $`1`$ appear in the magnetization process clearly. On the other hand, in the case of $`DH`$, the plateau is not exactly flat but is smeared by the Van Vleck contribution, as seen from the enlarged picture in the inset. This is because the total $`S^z`$ is not a conserved quantity for the case of $`DH`$ even for $`h_s=0`$, which is in contrast to the case of $`DH`$. We also find that the width of the $`m_u=1/2`$ plateau is increased (decreased) upon introducing anisotropy, $`DH`$ ($`DH`$). Therefore, the observation of the plateau structure may be somewhat difficult for $`DH`$ in generic Q1D spin systems, because of shrinking of the width as well as smearing due to the Van Vleck term.

Keeping the above properties in mind, we now consider the magnetization process for the pure 1D as well as the Q1D systems. The numerical results are summarized in Fig. 5. Shown in Fig. 5(a) are the magnetization curves for $`DH(D=0.5)`$ and $`\delta =0.5`$, Since the presence of anisotropy, $`DH`$, has a tendency to stabilize the $`m_u=1/2`$ plateau, as mentioned above, thus increasing the plateau width compared with the isotropic case $`D=0`$ (see Fig. 2). It is also seen that the plateau state is rather stable against the introduction of the interchain coupling.

In Fig. 5 (b), we show the magnetization curves for the case of $`DH`$ with bond alternation $`\delta =0.7`$. In contrast to the above $`DH`$ case, the plateau is indeed obscured both for the 1D (solid line) and Q1D systems (dashed line), which is due to the Van Vleck contribution. Therefore, in order to obtain the phase transition point correctly, it is necessary to consider another proper quantity characterizing the transition clearly. For this purpose, we evaluate the staggered magnetization in the $`x`$-axis. The calculated results for a single-chain system are plotted (broken line) together with the uniform magnetization (solid line) in Fig. 6. We note that a negligibly small staggered field $`h_s=1.0\times 10^5`$ is added to stabilize the spontaneous staggered magnetization. It is seen that although the plateaus at $`m_u=0,1/2`$ and $`1`$ are vague, the phase transition point can be determined clearly at which the staggered magnetization vanishes. This is used to determine the phase diagram for the case of $`DH`$.

Finally, we show the $`\delta `$-$`H`$ phase diagram for $`DH`$ and $`DH`$ in Fig. 7 (a) and (b). In these figures, the solid and broken lines give the phase diagrams for an isolated 1D chain and weakly coupled chains, respectively. We note that when $`J^{}=H=0`$, the quantum phase transition between the Haldane phase and the singlet-dimer phase occurs at the critical point $`\delta _c0.23`$ for $`D=0.5`$. Tone\_1 ; Hida\_1  In the case of $`DH`$, the effects of the interchain couplings are analogous to those for the $`D=0`$ case (see Fig. 3). On the other hand, when the system has anisotropy in the $`y`$-direction, i.e. $`DH`$, the phase diagram exhibits a quite different feature in contrast to the $`DH`$ case. In particular, the $`m_u=1/2`$ plateau region is reduced considerably both for the pure 1D as well as the Q1D systems.

## V Summary

We have studied the magnetization process for a Q1D $`S=1`$ antiferromagnet with bond alternation. By combining the density matrix renormalization group method with the interchain mean-field treatment, the magnetic properties have been discussed. It has been shown that the introduction of the interchain coupling enhances the antiferromagnetic correlation, thereby reducing the width of the plateau in the magnetization curve.

We have also discussed the effects of single-ion anisotropy, which sometimes plays an important role for understanding experimental findings in $`S=1`$ spin systems. It has been clarified that the magnetization curves exhibit distinct behaviors depending on the relative direction between single-ion anisotropy and an applied field. In particular, we have found that the magnetization plateau in the case of $`DH`$ is rather unstable against the interchain coupling, and also suffers from the smearing effect due to the Van Vleck contribution, making the experimental observation somewhat difficult.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Y. Narumi and K. Kindo for valuable discussions. This work was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan. A part of computations was done at the Supercomputer Center at the Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo and Yukawa Institute Computer Facility. A. Kawaguchi was supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


text:
# On the relation between the Maxwell system and the Dirac equation

## 1 Introduction

The relation between the two most important in mathematical physics first order systems of partial differential equations is among those topics which attract attention because of their general, even philosophical significance but at the same time do not offer much for the solution of particular problems concerning physical models. The Maxwell equations can be represented in a Dirac like form in different ways (e.g., , , ). Solutions of Maxwell’s system can be related to solutions of the Dirac equation through some nonlinear equations (e.g., ). Nevertheless, in spite of these significant efforts there remain some important conceptual questions. For example, what is the meaning of this close relation between the Maxwell system and the Dirac equation and how this relation is connected with the wave-particle dualism. In the present article we propose a simple equality involving the Dirac operator and the Maxwell operators (in the sense which is explained below). This equality establishes a direct connection between solutions of the two systems and moreover, we show that it is valid when a quite natural relation between the frequency of the electromagnetic wave and the energy of the Dirac particle is fulfilled. Our analysis is based on the quaternionic form of the Dirac equation obtained in  and on the quaternionic form of the Maxwell equations proposed in  (see also ). In both cases the quaternionic reformulations are completely equivalent to the traditional form of the Dirac and Maxwell systems.

## 2 Preliminaries

The algebra of complex quaternions is denoted by $`()`$. Each complex quaternion $`a`$ is of the form $`a=_{k=0}^3a_ki_k`$ where $`\{a_k\}`$, $`i_0`$ is the unit and $`\{i_k|k=1,2,3\}`$ are the quaternionic imaginary units:

$$i_0^2=i_0=i_k^2;i_0i_k=i_ki_0=i_k,k=1,2,3;$$

$$i_1i_2=i_2i_1=i_3;i_2i_3=i_3i_2=i_1;$$

$$i_3i_1=i_1i_3=i_2.$$

The complex imaginary unit $`i`$ commutes with $`i_k`$, $`k=\overline{0,3}`$.

We will use the vector representation of complex quaternions: $`a=Sc(a)+Vec(a)`$ , where $`Sc(a)=a_0`$ and $`Vec(a)=\stackrel{}{a}=_{k=1}^3a_ki_k`$. That is each complex quaternion is a sum of its scalar part and its vector part. Complex vectors we identify with complex quaternions whose scalar part is equal to zero. In vector terms, the multiplication of two arbitrary complex quaternions $`a`$ and $`b`$ can be written as follows:

$$ab=a_0b_0<\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b}>+\left[\stackrel{}{a}\times \stackrel{}{b}\right]+a_0\stackrel{}{b}+b_0\stackrel{}{a},$$

where

$$<\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b}>:=\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}a_kb_k$$

and

$$[\stackrel{}{a}\times \stackrel{}{b}]:=\left|\begin{array}{ccc}i_1\hfill & i_2\hfill & i_3\hfill \\ a_1\hfill & a_2\hfill & a_3\hfill \\ b_1\hfill & b_2\hfill & b_3\hfill \end{array}\right|^3.$$

We shall consider continuously differentiable $`()`$valued functions depending on three real variables $`x=(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$. On this set the well known (see, e.g., , , ) Moisil-Theodoresco operator is defined by the expression

$$D:=\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}i_k_k,\text{where }_k=\frac{}{x_k}.$$

The action of the operator $`D`$ on an $`()`$valued function $`f`$ can be written in a vector form:

$$Df=div\stackrel{}{f}+gradf_0+rot\stackrel{}{f}.$$
(1)
That is, $`Sc(Df)=div\stackrel{}{f}`$ and $`Vec(Df)=gradf_0+rot\stackrel{}{f}`$. In a good number of physical applications (see  and ) the operators $`D_\alpha =D+M^\alpha `$ and $`D_\alpha =DM^\alpha `$ are needed, where $`\alpha `$ is a complex quaternion and $`M^\alpha `$ denotes the operator of multiplication by $`\alpha `$ from the right-hand side: $`M^\alpha f=f\alpha `$. Here we will be interested in two special cases when $`\alpha `$ is a scalar, that is $`\alpha =\alpha _0`$ or when $`\alpha `$ is a vector $`\alpha =\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$. The first case corresponds to the Maxwell equations and the second to the Dirac equation.

## 3 The Dirac equation

Consider the Dirac equation in its covariant form

$$(\mathrm{}(\frac{\gamma _0}{c}_t+\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _k_k)+imc)\mathrm{\Phi }(t,x)=0.$$

For a wave function with a given energy we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,x)=q(x)e^{i\frac{}{\mathrm{}}t}`$, where $`q`$ satisfies the equation

$$(\frac{i}{c\mathrm{}}\gamma _0+\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _k_k+\frac{imc}{\mathrm{}})q(x)=0.$$
(2)
Denote

$$𝔻:=\frac{i}{c\mathrm{}}\gamma _0+\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _k_k+\frac{imc}{\mathrm{}}.$$

Let us introduce an auxiliary notation $`\stackrel{~}{f}:=f(t,x_1,x_2,x_3)`$. The transformation which allows us to rewrite the Dirac equation in a quaternionic form we denote as $`𝒜`$ and define in the following way . A function $`\mathrm{\Phi }:^3^4`$ is transformed into a function $`F:^3()`$ by the rule

$`F`$ $`=𝒜[\mathrm{\Phi }]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2)i_0+i(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_3)i_1`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_3)i_2+i(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2)i_3).`$
The inverse transformation $`𝒜^1`$ is defined as follows

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒜^1[F]=$$

$$(i\stackrel{~}{F}_1\stackrel{~}{F}_2,\stackrel{~}{F}_0i\stackrel{~}{F}_3,\stackrel{~}{F}_0i\stackrel{~}{F}_3,i\stackrel{~}{F}_1\stackrel{~}{F}_2).$$

Let us present the introduced transformations in a more explicit matrix form which relates the components of a $`^4`$-valued function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with the components of an $`()`$-valued function $`F`$:

$$F=𝒜[\mathrm{\Phi }]=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill i& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill i\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill i& \hfill i& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0\\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1\\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2\\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_3\end{array}\right)$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒜^1[F]=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& \hfill i& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill i\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill i\\ \hfill 0& \hfill i& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{F}_0\\ \stackrel{~}{F}_1\\ \stackrel{~}{F}_2\\ \stackrel{~}{F}_3\end{array}\right).$$

We have the following important equality

$$D_\stackrel{}{\alpha }=𝒜\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3𝔻𝒜^1,$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }:=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(i\frac{}{c}i_1+mci_2)`$. This equality shows us that instead of equation (2) we can consider the equation

$$D_\stackrel{}{\alpha }f=0$$
(4)
and the relation between solutions of (2) and (4) is established by means of the invertible transformation $`𝒜`$: $`f=𝒜q`$.

## 4 The Maxwell equations

We will consider the time-harmonic Maxwell equations for a sourceless isotropic homogeneous medium

$$rot\stackrel{}{H}=i\omega \epsilon \stackrel{}{E},$$
(5)
$$rot\stackrel{}{E}=i\omega \mu \stackrel{}{H},$$
(6)
$$div\stackrel{}{E}=0,$$
(7)
$$div\stackrel{}{H}=0.$$
(8)
Here $`\omega `$ is the frequency, $`\epsilon `$ and $`\mu `$ are the absolute permittivity and permeability respectively. $`\epsilon =\epsilon _0\epsilon _r`$ and $`\mu =\mu _0\mu _r`$, where $`\epsilon _0`$ and $`\mu _0`$ are the corresponding parameters of a vacuum and $`\epsilon _r`$, $`\mu _r`$ are the relative permittivity and permeability of a medium.

Taking into account (1) we can rewrite this system as follows

$$D\stackrel{}{E}=i\omega \mu \stackrel{}{H},$$
(9)
$$D\stackrel{}{H}=i\omega \epsilon \stackrel{}{E}.$$
(10)
This pair of equations can be diagonalized in the following way  (see also ). Denote

$$\stackrel{}{\phi }:=i\omega \epsilon \stackrel{}{E}+\kappa \stackrel{}{H}$$
(11)
and

$$\stackrel{}{\psi }:=i\omega \epsilon \stackrel{}{E}+\kappa \stackrel{}{H},$$
(12)
where $`\kappa :=\omega \sqrt{\epsilon \mu }=\frac{\omega }{c}\sqrt{\epsilon _r\mu _r}`$ is the wave number. Applying the operator $`D`$ to the functions $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\psi }`$ one can see that $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ satisfies the equation

$$(D\kappa )\stackrel{}{\phi }=0,$$
(13)
and $`\stackrel{}{\psi }`$ satisfies the equation

$$(D+\kappa )\stackrel{}{\psi }=0.$$
(14)
Solutions of (13) and (14) are called the Beltrami fields (see, e.g., ).

## 5 The relation

In the preceding sections it was shown that the Dirac equation (2) is equivalent to the equation $`D_\stackrel{}{\alpha }f=0`$ with $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(i\frac{}{c}i_1+mci_2)`$ and the Maxwell equations (5)-(8) are equivalent to the pair of quaternionic equations $`D_\kappa \stackrel{}{\phi }=0`$ and $`D_\kappa \stackrel{}{\psi }=0`$. Now we will show a simple relation between these objects. Suppose that

$$\kappa ^2=\stackrel{}{\alpha }^2.$$
(15)
Let us introduce the following operators of multiplication

$$P^\pm :=\frac{1}{2\kappa }M^{\kappa \pm \stackrel{}{\alpha }}.$$

It is easy to verify that they are mutually complementary and orthogonal projection operators, and the following equality is valid

$$D_\stackrel{}{\alpha }=P^+D_\kappa +P^{}D_\kappa .$$
(16)
Moreover, as $`P^\pm `$ commute with $`D_{\pm \kappa }`$, we obtain that any solution of (4) is uniquely represented as follows

$$f=P^+\psi +P^{}\phi ,$$

where $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are solutions of (13) and (14) respectively but in general can be full quaternions not necessarily purely vectorial. In particular, we have that

$$f=P^+(i\omega \epsilon \stackrel{}{E}+\kappa \stackrel{}{H})+P^{}(i\omega \epsilon \stackrel{}{E}+\kappa \stackrel{}{H})=$$

$$i\omega \epsilon (P^+P^{})\stackrel{}{E}+\kappa (P^++P^{})\stackrel{}{H}=$$

$$\frac{i\omega \epsilon }{\kappa }\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{\alpha }+\kappa \stackrel{}{H}$$

is a solution of (4) if $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ are solutions of (5)-(8).

It should be noticed that (16) works in both directions. We have

$$D_\kappa =P^+D_\stackrel{}{\alpha }+P^{}D_\stackrel{}{\alpha }$$

and

$$D_\kappa =P^{}D_\stackrel{}{\alpha }+P^+D_\stackrel{}{\alpha }.$$

The fact that the Maxwell system reduces to equations (13) and (14), where the functions $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\psi }`$ are purely vectorial provokes the natural question whether it had any sense to consider full quaternions $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ and hence four-component vectors $`E`$ and $`H`$ or the nature definitely eliminated their scalar parts. Some arguments supporting the idea of nonzero scalar parts can be found, for example, in .

As we have seen equality (16) is valid under the condition (15). Let us analyze this condition. Note that

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }^2=<\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\alpha }>=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}(\frac{^2}{c^2}m^2c^2).$$

Thus (15) has the form

$$\kappa ^2=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}(\frac{^2}{c^2}m^2c^2)$$
(17)
or equivalently

$$(\mathrm{}\omega )^2\epsilon _r\mu _r=^2m^2c^4.$$

From this equation in the case $`\epsilon _r=\mu _r=1`$, that is for a vacuum, using the well known in quantum mechanics relation between the frequency and the impulse: $`\mathrm{}\omega =pc`$ we obtain the equality

$$^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4.$$
(18)
In general, if in (17) we formally use the de Broglie equality $`p=\mathrm{}\kappa `$, we again obtain the fundamental relation (18).

Thus relation (16) between the Dirac operator and the Maxwell operators is valid if the condition (17) is fulfilled which quite surprisingly is in agreement with (18).


text:
# TAUP-2694-02WIS/3/02-JAN-DPP On Reconciling Gottfried Sum Rule Violation with Cabibbo TheorySupported in part by grant from US-Israel Bi-National Science Foundation

## 1 Introduction

So far there has been no successful model for the flavor structure of the proton which is simultaneously consistent with three established experimental results:

1. The agreement of the data on weak semileptonic baryon decays produced by the conserved vector current with the predictions of Cabibbo theory. The vector matrix element is uniquely determined by Cabibbo theory in the $`SU(3)`$ symmetry limit.
2. The necessity for flavor $`SU(3)`$ breaking implied by the $`K\pi `$ mass difference and the mass difference between strange and nonstrange quarks and confirmed experimentally by the observation of a suppression of the strange component in the sea of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs in the nucleon. The strange quark contribution to the proton sea is already known from experiment to be reduced roughly by a factor of two from that of a flavor-symmetric sea .
3. The observed violation of the Gottfried sum rule (see  for a review). This requires an isovector component in the sea. Isospin invariance then immediately dictates that the proton wave function contains a valence neutron and a positively charged sea ($`u\overline{d}`$). A well-known implementation of such a fluctuation is $`pn\pi ^+`$. Had $`SU(3)`$ been unbroken, it would in turn require, in analogy with the isovector invariance, that the proton wave function contains a valence hyperon and a sea with net strangeness, like in $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+`$. There is little experimental support for the presence of such a component in the proton wave function. We thus see that the violation of the Gottfried sum rule provides additional substantial evidence of a significant $`SU(3)`$ breaking in the nucleon wave function.

There are models which are consistent with Cabibbo theory and $`SU(3)`$ breaking in the sea by assuming that only valence quarks contribute to hyperon decays and that the $`SU(3)`$ breaking occurs only in the sea and is the same for all baryons. One such model  for breaking $`SU(3)`$ via the mechanism (2) keeps all the good results of Cabibbo theory by introducing a flavor asymmetric sea with no net flavor quantum numbers into a baryon wave function whose valence quarks satisfy $`SU(6)`$ symmetry and whose sea is the same for all baryons. In ref.  it was shown that in this model all charged current matrix elements are given by the valence quarks. This provides an explicit justification for the hand-waving argument  in a proposed toy model that in the hyperon decay the sea behaves as a spectator. In particular, for the strangeness-changing vector charge producing the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}n`$ decay. But such models fail to account for the violation of the Gottfried sum rule.

Other models introduce the violation of the Gottfried sum rule by introducing a sea which is not isoscalar. These can incorporate the observed strange quark suppression in the sea, but so far only at the price of violating the predictions of Cabibbo theory for hyperon decays. They can be made consistent with Cabibbo theory by retaining full $`SU(3)`$ symmetry. But this cannot be consistent with the observed $`SU(3)`$ breaking effects. For example, if one postulates a pion cloud around the nucleon to explain the violation of the Gottfried sum rule, one is required by $`SU(3)`$ symmetry to also include a kaon cloud around a valence hyperon in the same wave function, and cannot explain the observed suppression of strange quarks in the sea.

We thus see that in any model which includes a pion cloud in the proton wave function, $`SU(3)`$ breaking must reduce the kaon cloud relative to the pion cloud from the value in the symmetry limit. This necessary breaking seems to have a serious effect on the matrix elements of the strangeness-changing current responsible for hyperon decays. The nature of this inconsistency is illuminated by noting that production of a state of strangeness +1 by the action of the $`SU(3)`$ generator $`V_+`$ ($`su`$ and $`\overline{u}\overline{s}`$) when acting on a “nucleon+pion” proton model wave function, indicates that this proton wave function is not a pure $`SU(3)`$ octet but contains a 27 admixture:

$$|N\pi |p\pi ^0:V_+|p\pi ^0=\mathrm{}+|pK^+$$
(1)
When $`SU(3)`$ symmetry is restored in this model wave function by adding the correct admixture of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }K`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }K`$ and $`p\eta _8`$ states to the wavefunction with the pion cloud, the action of the operator $`V_+`$ on these components produces the $`pK^+`$ state with just the right phase to cancel the $`pK^+`$ state produced on the nucleon-pion state.

We now wish to generalize the treatment for the case of the pion cloud to the general case of a physical proton wave function with a valence nucleon and a sea of quark-antiquark pairs in which the numbers of $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ are different and the difference is adjusted to fit the violation of the Gottfried sum rule. However, we wish to preserve isospin symmetry, which requires that a proton wave function with a valence proton and a sea that is not isoscalar must also have a component with a valence neutron and a sea which carries a positive electric charge to give the electric charge of the physical proton. We therefore include such components in our proton wave function. Similarly flavor $`SU(3)`$ symmetry would require including components with a valence hyperon and with an excess of strange $`\overline{s}`$ antiquarks in the sea to balance the valence strangeness of the hyperon. We do not wish to include such components because $`SU(3)`$ is experimentally known to be broken, and there is a deficiency of strange $`\overline{s}`$ antiquarks in the sea and not an excess. We therefore assume that our baryon wave functions have a sea which can contain $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs but no net strangeness; e.g they can contain pion clouds but no kaon clouds.

We shall now show that such baryon wave functions are not consistent with the predictions of Cabibbo theory for hyperon decays. The transition matrix elements for the weak vector semileptonic decays of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^o`$ hyperons to this proton wave function cannot give the results predicted by Cabibbo theory and which agree with experiment.

Let us write the general wave function for the physical proton as

$$|p_{phys}=\mathrm{cos}\xi |p_{val}\mathrm{SS}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\xi }{\sqrt{3}}[|p_{val}𝒗_o\sqrt{2}|n_{val}𝒗_+]$$
(2)
where $`p_{val}`$ and $`n_{val}`$ denote respectively valence proton and neutron, $`\mathrm{SS}`$ denotes an isoscalar sea of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs and $`𝒗_o`$ and $`𝒗_\pm `$ denote the three components of an isovector sea. The parameter $`\xi `$ determines the isospin asymmetry in the nucleon sea.

A basic ambiguity arises in any formulation which separates quarks into valence and sea, as there is no physical label on a given quark to specify whether it is a valence quark or a sea quark. We assume here that the valence and sea quarks have very different momentum distributions, with the valence quarks being “hard” and the sea quarks “soft”, and that the overlap region between the two momentum distributions is negligible. This classification can break down in matrix elements describing processes with high momentum transfer, where an initial quark with soft momentum can turn into a final quark with hard momentum and vice versa. However we are concerned here only with matrix elements having essentially zero momentum transfer and only require that the overlap region between valence and sea quark momentum distributions be negligibly small.

For a specific example we can write

$`|p_{phys}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\xi }{\sqrt{2}}}\left[|p_o(d\overline{d})_{\mathrm{SS}}+|p_o(u\overline{u})_{\mathrm{SS}}\right]+`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\xi }{\sqrt{6}}}\left[|p_o(d\overline{d})_𝒗|p_o(u\overline{u})_𝒗2|n_o(u\overline{d})_𝒗\right]`$
where $`p_o`$ denotes a valence proton surrounded by an isoscalar sea of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs which are inert and do not contribute to the violation of the Gottfried sum rule, nor to the weak strangeness-changing transitions, and similarly $`n_o`$ denotes a valence neutron surrounded by an isoscalar sea. The additional isoscalar and isovector $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs are expressed explicitly in states labeled by the subscripts $`\mathrm{SS}`$ and $`𝒗`$.

The difference between the numbers of $`\overline{d}`$ and $`\overline{u}`$ antiquarks in the proton is given by

$`p_{phys}\left|\delta N(\overline{q})\right|p_{phys}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\xi }{\sqrt{3}}}Rep_{val}\mathrm{SS}\left|\delta N(\overline{q})\right|p_{val}𝒗_o+`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\xi n_{val}𝒗_+\left|\delta N(\overline{q})\right|n_{val}𝒗_+`$
where $`\delta N(\overline{q})N(\overline{d})N(\overline{u})`$. For the specific example (3)

$$N(\overline{d})N(\overline{u})=\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\xi \mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\xi $$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ denotes the overlap between the isoscalar and isovector states,

$$\mathrm{cos}\varphi p_o(d\overline{d})_{\mathrm{SS}}|p_o(d\overline{d})_𝒗$$
(6)
We note here that the difference between the number of $`\overline{d}`$ and $`\overline{u}`$ antiquarks in the proton has two contributions, one linear in the isospin asymmetry parameter $`\mathrm{sin}\xi `$ and one quadratic. The linear term may be crucial in allowing a small value of $`\mathrm{sin}\xi `$ to produce a violation of the Gottfried sum rule, while the violations of Cabibbo theory will be shown below to be quadratic in $`\mathrm{sin}\xi `$ and can therefore be much smaller. However, the linear term depends upon the overlap between an isoscalar sea and an isovector sea. This overlap vanishes if the isovector sea is due to a pion cloud, since there is no isoscalar partner to the pion. Therefore the relative magnitudes of the violations of the Gottfried sum rule and Cabibbo theory are model dependent and depend upon the relative magnitudes of the linear and quadratic terms.

An example of a model which is probably not realistic and would give such a linear term has a sea due to a vector meson cloud, rather than to a pion cloud. Here the isoscalar sea is due to the $`\omega `$ and the isovector to the $`\rho `$. Interference between the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ amplitudes can produce the linear term that violates the Gottfried sum rule.

We now examine the symmetry properties of this wave function to check that it indeed satisfies isospin symmetry and whether its manifest $`SU(3)`$ symmetry breaking must necessarily lead to violation of the predictions of Cabibbo theory.

We first construct the wave function for the physical neutron and check that these wave functions are a doublet of isospin 1/2 by applying the isospin raising and lowering operators $`I^\pm `$ to these wave functions,

$$|n_{phys}=I^{}|p_{phys}=\mathrm{cos}\xi |n_{val}\mathrm{SS}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\xi }{\sqrt{3}}[|n_{val}𝒗_o\sqrt{2}|p_{val}𝒗_{}]$$
(7)
For the specific example (3),

$`|n_{phys}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\xi }{\sqrt{2}}}\left[|n_o(d\overline{d})_{\mathrm{SS}}+|n_o(u\overline{u})_{\mathrm{SS}}\right]+`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\xi }{\sqrt{6}}}\left[|n_o(u\overline{u})_𝒗|n_o(d\overline{d})_𝒗2|p_o(d\overline{u})_𝒗\right]`$
$$I^+|p_{phys}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\xi }{\sqrt{6}}2[|p_o(u\overline{d})_𝒗|p_o(u\overline{d})_𝒗]=0$$
(9)
$$I^{}|n_{phys}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\xi }{\sqrt{6}}2[|n_o(d\overline{u})_𝒗|n_o(d\overline{u})_𝒗]=0$$
(10)
These wave functions satisfy the constraints of isospin, and the parameter $`\xi `$ can be fixed to satisfy the Gottfried sum rule.

We now investigate the action of the strangeness-changing components of the charged weak vector current on the proton wave function (3). At zero-momentum transfer, these are just the $`V`$-spin raising and lowering operators, denoted by $`V_\pm `$, which generate $`us`$ and $`\overline{s}\overline{u}`$ transitions at the quark level . The requirement that the proton and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are members of the same $`SU(3)`$ octet gives the two conditions:

$$V_+|p_{phys}=0$$
(11)
$$P(I=0)V_{}|p_{phys}=\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{phys}$$
(12)
where $`P(I=0)`$ denotes a projection operator which projects out the $`I=0`$ component of the wave function and $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{phys}`$ denotes the normalized physical $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ wave function. These two conditions required by Cabibbo theory were shown in ref.  to be manifestly violated by the proton wave function with a pion cloud.

The condition (11) is also seen to be violated by the physical proton wave function (3) used here, since

$$V_+|u\overline{u}=|u\overline{s};V_+|s\overline{s}=|u\overline{s}$$
(13)
When the sea is $`SU(3)`$ symmetric, the numbers of $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs are equal and the condition (11) is satisfied because the two terms in eq. (13) cancel. This cancellation no longer occurs when the numbers of $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ are unequal, as is required to fit the known suppression of the strange component in the nucleon sea .

We now attempt to bypass the $`SU(3)`$ breaking effects indicated by the violation of the condition (11) by constructing baryon wave functions such that the transition matrix elements between the physical baryon states satisfy $`SU(3)`$, even though the physical baryon wave functions are no longer members of the same $`SU(3)`$ octet; i.e. they contain admixtures of other representations.

We assume that all the baryon wave functions are constructed like $`|p_{phys}`$ having no valence hyperons and a sea which can contain $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs but no net strangeness; e.g they can contain pion clouds but no kaon clouds.

In order to examine closer the action of $`V_\pm `$ on the sea, we now define modified $`V`$-spin raising and lowering operators $`V_+^{val}`$ and $`V_{}^{val}`$, which by definition act only on the valence baryon component of the wave function and not on the sea quarks, therefore leaving the sea unchanged.

We now note that the operation of the strangeness-changing operators on a sea with no net strangeness creates a sea with nonvanishing strangeness. Since our baryon wave functions are constructed to have no net strangeness in the sea,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{phys}\left|[V_{}V_{}^{val}]\right|p_{phys}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{phys}^o\left|[V_{}V_{}^{val}]\right|p_{phys}=0.$$
(14)
This is seen in specific example where

$$[V_{}V_{}^{val}]|p_{phys}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\xi }{\sqrt{2}}|p_o(s\overline{u})_{\mathrm{SS}}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\xi }{\sqrt{6}}[|p_o(s\overline{u})_𝒗2|n_o(s\overline{d})_𝒗]$$
(15)
The RHS of eq (15) has a sea with nonvanishing strangeness.

Here our assumption neglecting the overlap region between the valence and sea quark momentum distributions is seen to be essential in any model which attempts to preserve the SU(3) relations of Cabibbo theory despite the large SU(3) breaking in the sea. The operator $`V_{}`$ acting on the proton sea can create a strange quark in a final hyperon, both via the $`u\overline{u}s\overline{u}`$ and the $`s\overline{s}s\overline{u}`$ transitions. Since the $`s\overline{s}`$ component in the proton sea is suppressed by SU(3) breaking, any contribution from these transitions to the matrix elements between physical nucleon and hyperon states will violate SU(3) in the physical matrix elements and violate Cabibbo theory. Thus it is necessary to assume that the SU(3) breaking remains in the sea and affects only the magnitude of a sea with nonvanishing strangeness which has no overlap with the baryon wave functions. Thus only valence quarks contribute to hyperon decays as in a previous toy model.

Under this assumption the transition matrix elements for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^op`$ decays are respectively $`p\left|V_+^{val}\right|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`p\left|V_+^{val}\right|\mathrm{\Sigma }^o`$. We now note that

$$|p\left|V_+^{val}\right|\mathrm{\Lambda }|^2+|p\left|V_+^{val}\right|\mathrm{\Sigma }^o|^2\underset{i}{}|p\left|V_+^{val}\right|i|^2=p\left|V_+^{val}V_{}^{val}\right|p$$
(16)
where the sum over $`i`$ denotes a complete set of states.

Since $`V_+^{val}|p=0`$, we can replace the product $`V_+^{val}V_{}^{val}`$ in (16) by the commutator,

$$|p\left|V_+^{val}\right|\mathrm{\Lambda }|^2+|p\left|V_+^{val}\right|\mathrm{\Sigma }^o|^2p\left|[V_+^{val},V_{}^{val}]\right|p=2p\left|V_z^{val}\right|p$$
(17)
Substituting the expression (3) for the physical proton wave function and noting that the eigenvalues of $`V_z^{val}`$ for the proton and neutron are respectively +1 and +(1/2), we obtain

$$|p\left|V_+^{val}\right|\mathrm{\Lambda }_o|^2+|p\left|V_+^{val}\right|\mathrm{\Sigma }^o|^22\mathrm{cos}^2\xi +\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\xi =2\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\xi $$
(18)
Thus the sum of the semileptonic vector decay rates for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^op`$ decays agrees with the value 2 predicted by Cabibbo theory only when $`\mathrm{sin}^2\xi =0`$, i.e. when there is no flavor asymmetry in the sea and the Gottfried sum rule is not violated.

We have shown that explaining the observed violation of the Gottfried sum rule while keeping the good results of the Cabibbo theory requires the introduction of net strangeness in the nucleon sea. The latter seems to be in conflict with experiment. There are two possible directions for avoiding this conflict.

1. It may not be a real conflict with the real data. This requires a quantitative analysis of how much violation of Cabibbo theory is allowed by the real data with real errors. The question remains of whether violations of both the Gottfried sum rule and Cabibbo theory can be consistent with present data. In that case better data to reduce the errors will be of interest. The answer to this question is model-dependent, since it depends upon the overlap (6) between isoscalar and isovector seas.
2. The second logical possibility, as unlikely as it may sound is that there may be a small component of “valence like” strange quarks in the proton. By “valence like” we mean quarks with large values of $`x`$, usually associated with valence components of the nucleon wave function. Of course the total number of strange plus anti-strange quarks remains zero, but the respective $`x`$ distributions might be very different. This can be checked by better measurements of the $`x`$-dependence of the strangeness in the proton. Indeed, there have been suggestions in the literature (see for example -), that the strange sea might exhibit a considerable degree of asymmetry. However, as far as we are aware, until now there has been no discussion of whether such an asymmetric strange sea is compatible with the successful Cabibbo theory. Here again quantitative limits are needed.

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by a grant from the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), Jerusalem, Israel, and by the Basic Research Foundation administered by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.


text:
# Reduction of XXZ model with generalized periodic boundary conditions

## 1 Introduction

The Hamiltonian of the anisotropic Heisenberg-Ising model, or the XXZ model, has the form

$$H_{XXZ}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\sigma _n^+\sigma _{n+1}^{}+\sigma _n^{}\sigma _{n+1}^++\frac{q+q^1}{4}\sigma _n^z\sigma _{n+1}^z\right).$$
(1)
We focus on the case where the module of the anisotropy parameter $`q`$ is equal to $`1`$, i.e., $`q=e^{i\eta }`$. We consider the generalized periodic (twisted) boundary conditions

$`\sigma _{N+1}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`q^{\pm 2\beta }\sigma _1^\pm `$ (2)
$`\sigma _{N+1}^z`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _1^z.`$
The spin projection $`S^z=\frac{1}{2}\sigma _1^z+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma _N^z`$, on the $`z`$ axis is conserved, i.e., $`[S^z,H_{XXZ}]=0`$. As established in , the energies of chains with different twist parameters are interconnected such that the energy spectrum in the chain with the twist parameter $`\beta `$ from the sector with $`S^z=\beta 1`$ contains the energy spectrum of the chain with the twist parameter $`\beta n`$ from the sector $`S^z=\beta 1+n`$, where $`n`$ is an integer, i.e.,

$$E_{S^z=\beta 1}^{(\beta )}=E_{S^z=\beta 1+n}^{(\beta n)}.$$
(3)
This properly follows from the quantum group symmetry $`\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{q}(\mathrm{sl}(2))`$. We say that ”one spectrum contains the other” because the number of vectors in the sector $`S^z=\beta 1+n`$ is smaller than in $`S^z=\beta 1`$.

The XXZ model is connected with the two dimensional classical statistical lattice six vertex model (the ice model) . The transfer matrix $`\widehat{t}_{1/2}(u)`$ of the six vertex model commutes with the Hamiltonian, $`[\widehat{t}_{1/2}(u),H_{XXZ}]=0`$, for all values of the spectral parameter $`u`$. This matrix also commutes with itself, $`[\widehat{t}_{1/2}(u),\widehat{t}_{1/2}(v)]=0`$, and is therefore a generating function of the commuting integrals of motion that are in involution. In particular, the Hamiltonian itself can be expressed through the logarithmic derivative of $`\widehat{t}_{1/2}(u)`$ as

$$H_{XXZ}=\frac{N}{2}\mathrm{cos}(\eta )+\mathrm{sin}(\eta )\frac{d}{du}\mathrm{log}\widehat{t}_{1/2}(u)|_{u=0}.$$
(4)
Formula (4) allows obtain the energy spectrum of the XXZ chain if the transfer matrix eigenvalues are known.

There exists an infinite family of commuting transfer matrices $`t_j(u)`$, where $`j=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{}`$. These matrices satisfy the infinite system of recursive functional fusion relations

$`\widehat{t}_{1/2}(u(j+1/2)\eta )\widehat{t}_j(u)`$ $`=`$ $`t_0(u(j+1)\eta )\widehat{t}_{j1/2}(u+\eta /2)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`t_0(uj\eta )\widehat{t}_{j+1/2}(u\eta /2),`$
where $`t_0(u)=\mathrm{sin}^N(u+\eta /2)`$. In this article, we prove that in the case where the anizotropy parameter is the root of unity, $`q^{p+1}=1`$, the transfer matrix in the representations with the spin $`j=p/2`$ has zero eigenvalues on the Bethe eigenvectors if the twist parameter $`\beta `$ and the sector $`S^z=s`$ satisfy the conditions

$$(1)^{2\beta }=(1)^N,|s|<\mathrm{min}(\beta ,p+1\beta )mod(p+1)$$
(6)
Once the eigenvalue of $`t_{p/2}(u)`$ vanishes, the infinite system of functional fusion relations (5) is truncated and becomes a functional equation with respect to $`t_{1/2}(u)`$. Solving this functional equation, it is possible to obtain the $`XXZ`$ energy spectrum through formula (4). We let the symbol $`V_{p,\beta s}`$ denote the set of the Bethe eigenvectors on which $`t_{p/2}(u)`$ has zero eigenvalues. In this article, $`V_{p,\beta s}`$ is fully determined in the terms of the generators of the quantum algebra $`\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{q}(\mathrm{sl}(2))`$. We call the $`XXZ`$ model reduced onto the set $`V_{p,\beta s}`$ the reduced $`XXZ`$ model. The energy spectrum of the reduced $`XXZ`$ model can be obtained by solving the functional equations for the transfer matrix of the siz-vertex model.

In Sec. 2, we prove the existence of the Bethe vectors on which the functional fusion relations are truncated if conditions (6) are satisfied. All such vectors are identified in Sec. 3, where we define $`V_{p,\beta s}`$ in terms of the generators of the quantum algebra $`\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{q}(\mathrm{sl}(2))`$. In Appendix A, we derive the formula for the transfer matrix $`t_{p/2}(u)`$. The transfer matrix eigenvalues and the energy spectrum of the reduced $`XXZ`$ model for the case where the anisotropy parameter $`q^4`$ is equal to $`1`$ are explicitly calculated in Appendix B.

## 2 Zero eigenvalues

We prove the existence of zero eigenvalues of the transfer matrix $`t_{p/2}(u)`$ assuming that $`q^{p+1}=1`$ and conditions (6) are satisfied. The transfer matrix of the siz-vertex model corresponding to the $`XXZ`$ model Hamiltonian with twisted boundary conditions has the form

$$\widehat{t}_{1/2}(u)=tr\left(q^{\beta \sigma ^z}R_N(u)\mathrm{}R_1(u)\right),$$
(7)
where the $`R`$-matrix is

$$R_n(u)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{sin}(u+\frac{1}{2}(1+\sigma _n^z)\eta )& \mathrm{sin}(\eta )\sigma _n^{}& & \\ \mathrm{sin}(\eta )\sigma _n^+& \mathrm{sin}(u+\frac{1}{2}(1\sigma _n^z)\eta )& & \end{array}\right).$$
(8)
The well-known procedure of the algebraic Bethe anzatz (quantum inverse scattering method)  leads to the transfer matrix eigenvalues expressed through the roots $`\{v_m\}`$ of the Bethe equations,

$`t_{1/2}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`q^\beta t_0(u+\eta /2){\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(uv_m\eta )}{\mathrm{sin}(uv_m)}}`$
$`+`$ $`q^\beta t_0(u\eta /2){\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(uv_m+\eta )}{\mathrm{sin}(uv_m)}},`$
where $`n=\frac{N}{2}s`$ is the number of the flipped spins in the sector $`S^z=s`$, and $`t_0(u)`$ is the transfer matrix in the representation with the spin $`j=0`$. The Bethe equations are equivalent to the conditions that the transfer matrix eigenvalues determided by Eq. (2) have no poles in the complex plane of the variable $`u`$. In the variables

$$Q(u)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{sin}(uv_m).$$
(10)
Eq. (2) is equivalent to the Baxter $`T`$-$`Q`$-equation

$$t_{1/2}(u)Q(u)=q^\beta t_0(u+\eta /2)Q(u\eta )+q^\beta t_0(u\eta /2)Q(u+\eta ).$$
(11)
As shown in , it is convenient to interpret this equation as a discrete realization of a second-order differential equations . In additions to the functions $`Q(u)`$, this equation should then have a second lineary independent solution $`P(u)`$ with the same eigenvalue of the transfer matrix $`t(u)`$. The transfer matrix eigenvalues can be expressed through the eigenvalues of the Baxter operator $`Q(u)`$ and the operator $`P(u)`$

$`t_j(u)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{(2j1)\beta }f(u(j1/2)\eta )\times `$
$`\times `$ $`[Q(u(j+1/2)\eta )P(u+(j+1/2)\eta )`$
$``$ $`Q(u+(j+1/2)\eta )P(u(j+1/2)\eta )],`$
where the function $`f(u)`$ is quasiperiodic,

$$f(u+\eta )=q^{2\beta }f(u).$$
(13)
This function is introduced for convenience (the function $`\stackrel{~}{P}(u)=f(u)P(u)`$ could be introduced instead). Because the functions $`t_j(u)`$ satisfy the same functional fusion relation (5), we conclude that these functions are some eigenvalues of the corresponding transfer matrices $`\widehat{t}_j(u)`$.

We now consider the case $`q^{p+1}=1`$, where $`p`$ is a natural number. For the transfer matrix in the representation with the spin $`j=p/2`$, we have

$$t_{p/2}(u+\frac{\pi }{2})=(1)^\beta f(u)[P(u+\pi )Q(u)P(u)Q(u+\pi )].$$
(14)
It then follows that if the functions $`Q(u)`$ and $`P(u)`$ satisfy the relation

$$\frac{P(u+\pi )}{P(u)}=\frac{Q(u+\pi )}{Q(u)},$$
(15)
then the eigenvalue of the transfer matrix $`t_{p/2}(u)`$ is zero.

By analogy with the procedure in , we can express the function $`P(u)`$ through the function $`Q(u)`$. We use the expansion

$$\frac{t_0(u)}{Q(u+\eta /2)Q(u\eta /2)}=R(u)+q^\beta \frac{A(u+\eta /2)}{Q(u+\eta /2)}q^\beta \frac{A(u\eta /2)}{Q(u\eta /2)},$$
(16)
where $`R(u)`$ is a trigonometric polynomial of the order $`N2n`$, uniquely determined through the known trigonometric polynomials $`t_0(u)`$ and $`Q(u)`$, and the order of the polinomial $`A(u)`$ is smaller than $`n`$. Further, we use another expansion,

$$R(u)=q^\beta F(u+\eta /2)q^\beta F(u\eta /2).$$
(17)
It is now easy to verify that the function $`P(u)`$ is determined by the expression

$$P(u)=\frac{1}{f(u)}(Q(u)F(u)+A(u)).$$
(18)
This expression implies the following constraint imposed on the values of the twist parameter $`\beta `$ in the boundary conditions of the $`XXZ`$ model:

$$(1)^{2\beta }=(1)^N.$$
(19)
This means that if the length of the spin chain of atoms is even, then the number $`\beta `$ must be integer, and if the length is odd, the number must be half-integer. No truncation of the functional relations occurs for other values of $`\beta `$. Representation (17) of the function $`R(u)`$ and $`F(u)`$ in terms of the functions $`F(u)`$ in which $`F(u)`$ behaves exactly as $`R(u)`$ under the argument shift $`uu+\pi `$ exists if the inequality

$$\underset{m=s}{\overset{+s}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\pi \frac{m+\beta }{p+1})0,$$
(20)
holds, becase this product appears in the denominator if $`F(u)`$ is expanded in the Fourier series. The variable $`m`$ takes either integer or half-integer values from $`s`$ to $`+s`$. Depending on whether the chain length is even or odd, the numbers $`\beta `$ and $`s`$ are either both integer or both half-integer, and their sum or difference is therefore always integer. Condition (20) is satisfied if

$$|s|<\mathrm{min}(\beta ,p+1\beta )mod(p+1).$$
(21)
Hence, analyzing the second lineary independent solution of the Baxter equation, we conclude that for the anisotropy parameter equal to the root of unity, $`q^{p+1}=1`$, the transfer matrix with the spin $`j=p/2`$ in the sector $`S^z=s`$ has zero eigenvalues if conditions (19) and (21) are satisfied.

## 3 Algebraic structure

Above, we proved the existence of vectors such that functional relations (5) restricted to these vectors are truncated and have form of a closed system of equations for the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix $`t_{1/2}(u)`$. In this section, we find all vectors from the space of states of the model that satisfy this condition.

As mentioned above, the connection between the energies of the chains with different twist parameters (3) exists because of the presence of the quantum group symmetry $`\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{q}(\mathrm{sl}(2))`$. The generators of this symmetry are the operators $`S^z`$, $`X`$ and $`X^t`$, where

$$X=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}q^{\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _1^z+\mathrm{}+\sigma _{n1}^z)}\sigma _n^+q^{\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _{n+1}^z+\mathrm{}+\sigma _N^z)}$$
(22)
It is easy to verify that $`X^{p+1}=0`$ for $`q^{p+1}=1`$.

The operator $`X`$ acting on a vector from the sector $`S^z=s`$ transforms this vector to a vector from sector $`S^z=s+1`$: $`[S^z,X]=X`$. Acting with this operator on the Hamiltonian, we obtain

$$XH_{XXZ}^{(\beta )}H_{XXZ}^{(\beta 1)}X=(\mathrm{})(1q^{2(S^z\beta +1)}).$$
(23)
In this formula and in Eq. (32) below, the dots stand for a finite number of operators whose explicit form is cumbersome and irrelevant to this consideration. Formula (23) proves relation (3). A similar relation holds for the transfer matrix.

The six vertex model transfer matrix related to the $`XXZ`$ Hamiltonian is expressed through the matrix elements of the monodromy matrix $`L(u)=R_N(u)\mathrm{}R_1(u)`$,

$$t_j(u)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{2j+1}{}}q^{2\beta (j+1n)}L_n^n(u).$$
(24)
The $`R`$-matrix in the representation $`\frac{1}{2}j`$ on lattice site with the number $`a`$ has the form

$$R_a(u)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{sin}(u+(\frac{1}{2}+\widehat{H}_a)\eta )& \mathrm{sin}(\eta )\widehat{F}_a& & \\ \mathrm{sin}(\eta )\widehat{E}_a& \mathrm{sin}(u+(\frac{1}{2}\widehat{H}_a)\eta )& & \end{array}\right).$$
(25)
The operators $`\widehat{E}`$, $`\widehat{F}`$, and $`\widehat{H}`$ have the matrix elements

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\pi _j(\widehat{H})_n^m=(j+1n)\delta _{m,n},& m,n=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}j+1.& & \\ \pi _j(\widehat{E})_n^m=\omega _m\delta _{m,n1},& \pi _j(\widehat{F})_n^m=\omega _n\delta _{m1,n},& & \end{array}$$
(26)
where $`\omega _n=\sqrt{[n]_q[2j+1n]_q}`$ In this formula, we use the standard notation $`[x]_q=(q^xq^x)/(qq^1)`$. In particular, the operator $`H`$ for $`j=1/2`$ is $`\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^z`$, and the operators $`E`$ and $`F`$ are respectively $`\sigma ^+`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$. (i.e., the generators of the quantum algebra $`\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{q}(\mathrm{sl}(2))`$: $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{E}]=\widehat{E}`$, $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{F}]=\widehat{F}`$, $`[\widehat{E},\widehat{F}]=[2\widehat{H}]_q`$).

Using the Yang-Baxter equation

$$(R_{\frac{1}{2}j})_{bm}^{an}(uv)(L_{\frac{1}{2}})_c^b(u)(L_j)_k^m(v)=(L_j)_m^n(v)(L_{\frac{1}{2}})_b^a(u)(R_{\frac{1}{2}j})_{ck}^{bm}(uv),$$
(27)
as in , we obtain the commutation relations between the matrix elements of the monodromy matrix and the operators $`S^z`$ and $`X`$,

$`q^{S^z}L_k^n`$ $`=`$ $`q^{nk}L_k^nq^{S^z},`$ (28)
$`XL_k^n(u)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{2(j+1)nk}L_k^n(u)X`$
$`+`$ $`\omega _{k1}e^{+iu}q^{j+1n}L_{k1}^n(u)q^{S^z}`$
$``$ $`\omega _ne^{+iu}q^{j+2k}L_k^{n+1}(u)q^{+S^z}.`$
To obtain commutation relations (28), we consider the monodromy matrix $`(L_{1/2})_k^n(u)`$ as $`ui\mathrm{}`$. The matrix element $`(L_{1/2})_2^1(u)`$ is proportional to the operator $`X`$. We then pass to the limit $`ui\mathrm{}`$ in Yang-Baxter equation (27). Commutation relations (28) allow expressing the transfer matrix itself through the operator $`X`$. The formula for the transfer matrix with the spin $`j=p/2`$ in the sector $`S^z=s`$ is (see Appendix A)

$`t_{p/2}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r,k=0}{\overset{p}{}}}X^r\widehat{M}_{rk}X^k,`$ (29)
where

$`\widehat{M}_{rk}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^r\omega ^1e^{ipu}q^{2s(2\beta +1rk)p/22k}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}}q^{(2(\beta s)+rk)n}C_r^nC_k^{pn}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{prk}{}}}\lambda _{m,prk}(L_{p/2})(u)_{prkm}^1X^{prkm},`$
$`\omega =_{k=1}^{2j}\omega _k`$, the numbers $`C_n^N`$ are the $`q`$-binomial coefficients

$$C_n^N=\frac{1}{[n]_q!}[N]_q[N1]_q\mathrm{}[N+1n]_q=\frac{[N]_q!}{[n]_q![Nn]_q!},$$

and the variables $`\lambda _{m,prk}`$ are determined by the formula

$$\lambda _{m,m^{}}=e^{imu}q^{p/2+1+s+(m^{}m)(m^{}+s3p/21)}C_m^m^{}\underset{l=1}{\overset{m}{}}\omega _{m^{}l}.$$

As can be seen from formula (29), the transfer matrix $`t_{p/2}(u)`$ is expressed through of monomials of the form $`X^r\widehat{M}_{rk}X^k`$.

We now investigate the numbers $`r`$ and $`k`$ for which the operator $`\widehat{M}_{rk}`$ is nonzero in the case where $`q^{p+1}=1`$. The operator $`\widehat{M}_{rk}`$ is proportional to the sum of the $`q`$-binomial coefficients

$`f_{rk}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}}C_r^nC_k^{pn}q^{n(2l+rk)},`$ (31)
where $`l=\beta s`$. Unfortunately, we failed to obtain an expression for the coefficients $`f_{rk}`$ in a closed form. We therefore analyzed sum (31) numerically. We verified the hypothesis that for $`q^{p+1}=1`$, the coefficients $`f_{rk}`$ are nonzero only in the closed domain $`r+kp`$ and ($`r>pl`$ or $`k>l1`$).

Hence, the transfer matrix $`t_{p/2}(u)`$ can be expressed as

$$t_{p/2}(u)=X^{p+1l}(\mathrm{})+(\mathrm{})X^l$$
(32)
and therefore vanishes on the cohomologies

$$V_{p,l}=KerX^l/ImX^{p+1l}.$$
(33)
This means that $`t_{p/2}(u)`$ has zero eigenvalues on the eigenvectors $`v`$ form the sector $`S^z=s`$ that are annihilated by the operator $`X^l`$,

$$X^lv=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(34)
and cannot be expressed in the form $`X^{p+1l}\chi `$, where $`\chi `$ is again vector,

$$vX^{p+1(\beta s)}\chi .$$
(35)
We have thus identified all vectors on vich the transfer matrix $`t_{p/2}(u)`$ has zero eigenvalues and, as mentioned above, recursive system (5) takes the form of a closed system of equations on the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix $`t_{1/2}(u)`$.

An example illustrating how the truncated functional relations can be used is given in Appendix B. Specifically, the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix and the Hamiltonian are obtained there for the case $`q^4=1`$.

## 4 Appendix A

Formula (29) can be directly derived by using commutation relations (28), but this way is rather wearisome. The difficulties are connected with the action of the operator $`X`$ on $`L_k^n(u)`$ resulting in the appearance of two terms in the right-hand side, namely, $`L_{k1}^n(u)`$ and $`L_k^{n+1}(u)`$. The calculation, however, can be simplified. We note that the commutation relations for $`X`$ and $`L_k^n(u)`$ are formally equivalent to the commutation relations for $`X`$ and the auxiliary operator $`\psi ^n(u)q^{nS^z}\psi _m(u)q^{mS^z}`$, where the auxiliary objects $`\psi `$ commute with $`X`$ according to the rule

$`X\psi _j^nq^{j+12n}\psi _j^nX`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _ne^{iu}q\psi _j^{n+1}`$ (36)
$`X\psi _n^jq^{j+12n}\psi _n^jX`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{n1}e^{iu}\psi _{n1}^j`$
$`q^{S^z}\psi _j^n`$ $`=`$ $`q^{nj1}\psi _j^nq^{S^z}`$
$`q^{S^z}\psi _n^j`$ $`=`$ $`q^{j+1n}\psi _n^jq^{S^z}`$
With this definition of the auxiliary objects $`\psi `$, the correspondence rule

$`(L_j)_k^n(u)`$ $``$ $`\psi _j^n(u)q^{nS^z}\psi _k^j(u)q^{kS^z},`$ (37)
can be formulated. The symbol $``$ means that the commutation relations for the variables $`X`$ and $`F(L_k^n)`$, where $`F`$ is an arbitrary function, are exactly the same as those for $`X`$ and $`F(\psi ^n(u)q^{nS^z}\psi _k(u)q^{kS^z})`$. The commutation relations for the latter variables, however, are easier to obtain because commutation relations (36) are simpler than relations (28). Hence, the symbol $``$ in the Eq. (37) should be interpretted as ”transforms as”. Hereinafter, we use the equality sign instead of the symbol ”$``$” for simplicity.

Relations (36) can be rewritten as

$`\psi _j^n`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega _{n1}q)^1e^{iu}(X\psi _j^{n1}q^{j+12(n1)}\psi _j^{n1}X)`$ (38)
$`\psi _n^j`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega _{n+1})^1e^{iu}(X\psi _{n+1}^jq^{j+12(n+1)}\psi _{n+1}^jX).`$
These simple recursive relations allow expressing $`\psi ^n`$ through $`\psi ^1`$ and $`\psi _n`$ through $`\psi _{2j+1}`$. The solution of thes equations have the forms

$`\psi _j^n`$ $`=`$ $`a_n{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(1)^rq^{r(j+1n)}C_r^{n1}X^{n1r}\psi ^1X^r`$ (39)
$`\psi _n^j`$ $`=`$ $`b_n{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{2j+1n}{}}}(1)^kq^{k(j+1+n)}C_k^{2j+1n}X^{2j+1nk}\psi _{2j+1}X^k,`$
where the coefficients are

$`a_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}(e^{iu}q^1\omega _n^1)`$ (40)
$`b_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2j+1n}{}}}(e^{iu}\omega _{2j+1k}^1).`$
The transfer matrix is

$`t_j(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{2j+1}{}}}q^{2\beta (j+1n)}(L_j)_n^n(u)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{2j+1}{}}}q^{2\beta (j+1n)}\psi _j^n(u)q^{nS^z}\psi _n^j(u)q^{nS^z}.`$
According to formulas (39), we obtain

$`t_{p/2}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^1e^{ipu}q^{2sp(2\beta +1)/2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{pn}{}}}(1)^rq^{pr/2(p/2+2)k}`$ (42)
$`\times `$ $`q^{n(2(\beta s)+rk)}C_r^nC_k^{pn}X^r\left(\psi ^1X^{prk}\psi _{p+1}\right)X^k.`$
It remains to remove the auxiliary operators $`\psi ^1`$ and $`\psi _{p+1}`$ that participate in the formula in the form $`\psi ^1X^{prk}\psi _{p+1}`$. To do this, we commute the operators $`X^{prk}`$ and $`\psi _{p+1}`$. Using (36), it is easy to prove by the induction that

$`\psi _j^AX^M\psi _B^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}}e^{imu}q^{(Mm)(j+1+m2B)+A(j+1B+m)}C_m^M`$ (43)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\omega _{Bl}\right)L(u)_{Bm}^Aq^{(A+Bm)S^z}X^{Mm}.`$
Using this formula and taking the relation $`[S^z,X]=X`$ into account, we obtain expression (29) for $`t_{p/2}(u)`$. Only $`X`$ and $`L`$ participate in the final formula; the auxiliary objects $`\psi `$ are no longer needed.

## 5 Appendix B

We obtain the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix and the Hamiltonian for $`q^4=1`$. We have

$`t_{3/2}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (44)
$`t_{1j}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\frac{N}{2}+\beta s}t_j(u+\pi /2).`$
To simplify the calculation, we introduce the function $`S_N(u)(2)^{N/2}t_{1/2}(u\eta /2)`$. The dunctional relations become

$$S_N(u+\frac{\pi }{8})S_N(u\frac{\pi }{8})=\mathrm{cos}^N(2u)(1)^{\frac{N}{2}+l}\mathrm{sin}^N(2u).$$
(45)
Equation (45) contains the numbers $`N`$ and $`l=\beta s`$. We obtain four different equations, depending on whether these numbers are even or odd. Correspondigly, we obtain four different solutions:

$`S_{4M}^{\{n\}}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}}(1+(1)^{n_m}\mathrm{cos}(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{2m1}{4M}})\mathrm{cos}(4u)),`$ (46)
$`S_{4M+2}^{\{n\}}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(2u)\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}}(1+(1)^{n_m}\mathrm{cos}(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{2m}{4M+2}})\mathrm{cos}(4u)),`$
$$S_{4M1}^{\{n\}}(u)=e^{iu}(i)^{M1/2}\times $$

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{2M1}{}}(e^{(1)^{n_m}\frac{i\pi m}{4M1}}\mathrm{sin}(2u+\frac{\pi }{4})ie^{(1)^{n_m}\frac{i\pi m}{4M1}}\mathrm{sin}(2u\frac{\pi }{4})),$$

$$S_{4M+1}^{\{n\}}(u)=e^{iu}(i)^M\times $$

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{2M}{}}(e^{(1)^{n_m}\frac{i\pi m}{4M+1}}\mathrm{sin}(2u+\frac{\pi }{4})ie^{(1)^{n_m}\frac{i\pi m}{4M+1}}\mathrm{sin}(2u\frac{\pi }{4})),$$

In this formula, the set $`\{n_m\}`$ is any set of numbers equal to either $`0`$ or $`1`$, for example, $`\{0,1,0,\mathrm{},0,1\}`$. We interpret them as the fermion occupation numbers. The functions written above satisfy the equation

$$S_{4M+\delta }(u+\frac{\pi }{8})S_{4M+\delta }(u\frac{\pi }{8})=\mathrm{cos}^{4M+\delta }(2u)+i^\delta \mathrm{sin}^{4M+\delta }(2u).$$
(47)
Hence, we obtained the solutions only for the case where $`\beta s`$ is an odd number. For the energy eigenvalues, we obtain

$`E_{4M}^{\{n\}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4M}{2\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^{n_m}\mathrm{cos}(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{2m1}{4M}}),`$ (48)
$`E_{4M+2}^{\{n\}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4M+2}{2\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(12{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^{n_m}\mathrm{cos}(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{m}{2M+1}})\right),`$
$`E_{4M1}^{\{n\}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4M1}{2\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(i+2i{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{2M1}{}}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{2i(1)^{n_m}\pi m}{4M1}})\right),`$
$`E_{4M+1}^{\{n\}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4M+1}{2\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(i+2i{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{2M}{}}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{2i(1)^{n_m}\pi m}{4M+1}})\right).`$
Although the imaginary unit explicitly participates in the last two formulas, the energy $`E`$ is real in all the cases because the imaginary parts cancel each other in the sum. For spin chains whose length are even, $`N=4M`$ and $`N=4M+2`$, we obtain $`2^M`$ energy levels. For spin chains whose length are odd, $`N=4M1`$ and $`N=4M+1`$, we respectively obtain $`2^{2M1}`$ and $`2^{2M}`$ eigevalues.

### Acknowledgments

The authors thank M. Yu. Lashkevich for the useful comments and fruitful discussions. This work is partially supported by RFBR 01-02-16686 and 00-15-96579, CRDF RP1-2254 and INTAS-00-00055.