format: text

text:
# Algebraic Quantization of the Closed Bosonic String 11footnote 1The article is based on the diploma thesis of the first author (C.M.) [1] under the supervision of K. Pohlmeyer, Universität Freiburg, completing a project by the second author (K.-H.R.) lying dormant since around 1987.

## 1 Introduction

Fock space quantization of String Theory is notoriously beset with tachyons and anomalies. This fact is responsible for the need of supersymmetry and extra dimensions whose introduction and interpretation have triggered several “string revolutions” with a vast range of speculative implications . Yet, these features tend to obliterate the underlying simple idea of String Theory . In this article, we prefer to cling to that simple idea, viewed as a model for a consistent quantum theory of extended objects with a presumed relevance to gauge theories , without ambitions towards a Theory of Everything.

The present article demonstrates the viability (with a proviso, see below) of an alternative approach to (bosonic closed) string quantization initiated in  (and pursued in ) which does not suffer from the drawbacks mentioned above. This approach differs in at least three essential aspects from the conventional one. The first is the interpretation and quantum theoretical implementation of the constraints . Second, it strives to capture the observable features of the classical theory (and only these) in terms of classically reparametrization invariant quantities (the observables of the string), and to quantize only those. A complete system of classical observables has been identified , see Sect. 2 below.

The third substantial distinction of the present approach concerns the concept of quantization. It is understood in a purely algebraical sense by consistently promoting Poisson brackets to commutators, that is, without constructing a Hilbert space representation at the same time. The representation problem is thus detached from the construction of the quantum algebra, and this opens the possibility of finding inequivalent physical (positive energy) representations of the same quantum algebra (superselection sectors). The constraints on the classical dynamical variables  will be implemented in terms of the appropriate eigenspaces of Casimir operators of the quantum algebra (rather than using some elimination prescription). In this way, they determine the physical representations \[10, and private communication by K. Pohlmeyer\].

The Poisson algebra $`𝔥`$ of the classical string observables exhibits a rich algebraic structure, involving an infinite number of polynomial relations among multiple Poisson brackets of its generators . The presence of these polynomial relations severely complicates the algebraic construction of the quantum algebra.

An intrinsic approach to algebraic quantization has been pursued in . It assigns a quantum counterpart to each classical generator, and a quantum polynomial relation to each classical polynomial relation. One admits observable subleading terms of order $`\mathrm{}`$ or higher (quantum corrections) to the relations, restricted by the grading of the classical algebra. In order to determine the quantum corrections, one requires a maximum of structural similarity with the classical algebra; in particular, the commutator of a quantum relation with an observables must not generate any new relations without a classical counterpart (the principle of correspondence) .

With these postulates and Poincaré covariance as guiding principles, one proceeds degree by degree in the inherent algebraic grading. It has been shown  that in $`1+3`$ dimensions and up to degree 5, all quantum corrections can be consistently and almost uniquely determined. Three free parameters survive a highly overdetermined non-linear system of conditions at this degree.222The complexity of the problem is illustrated by the number of 106.089 relations at degree $`5`$ among 2.337 invariants of degree $`5`$ (in $`1+3`$ dimensions) .

It remains unsatisfactory, of course, (and impracticable on the long run), to proceed degree by degree. The aim of the present article is to establish the existence of a consistent quantization prescription to all degrees.

We succeed to do so with the only proviso that, in the final step of our construction, we extrapolate an algebraic feature of the classical algebra apparent at lower degrees ($`7`$), and assume its persistence to all degrees. Sect. 6 is devoted to the discussion of this “quadratic generation property”, which would follow from a structural property of the underlying (explicitly known) infinite-dimensional Lie algebra. Numerical tests of this linear problem have found their limitation due the rapid growth of this graded Lie algebra , while structural arguments available so far are only partial .

We pursue an extrinsic approach, which is slightly against the spirit outlined above. The idea of such an approach is to take advantage of an embedding of the classical observables into an auxiliary “ambient” Poisson algebra in which (i) the polynomial relations among the observables are identities in terms of independent (but non-observable) variables, and for which (ii) a standard quantization procedure is available. As an analogy from mechanics, instructive for this and the following (though infinitely simpler), the reader is invited to think of the relation

$$\{A,B\}^216AB=0$$

which turns into an identity if one embeds $`A=P^2`$, $`B=Q^2`$ into the canonical Poisson algebra generated by $`P`$ and $`Q`$. Identities in the classical ambient algebra will acquire quantum corrections of order $`\mathrm{}`$ or higher in the quantized algebra.

The quantum observables are then sought as elements of the non-commutative quantized ambient algebra, e.g., by the specification of an embedding prescription (such as a suitable factor ordering) for the expression of a generating set of observables in terms of the non-observable quantized variables. Thus, classical polynomial relations involving multiple Poisson brackets of the generators naturally give rise to the corresponding polynomial relations in the quantum algebra involving multiple commutators of the generators, exhibiting quantum corrections. These quantum corrections, of course, a priori belong to the ambient algebra.

The principle of correspondence in this case stipulates that they must be quantum observables, since otherwise the quantized theory would have new observables without a classical counterpart. The problem is thus to establish the existence of an embedding prescription such that the quantum corrections to the polynomial relations are observables. Once this has been achieved, the quantum algebra of observables is well defined and obeys the principle of correspondence. The remaining challenge of finding and classifying positive energy Hilbert space representations concerns only this algebra and not the quantized ambient algebra which need not be represented.

In the standard approach, the ambient algebra is obtained by canonical quantization of the string’s Fourier modes in a given parametrization. It has been shown, however, that this choice, together with frequency normal ordering, produces non-invariant quantum corrections to reparametrization invariant relations  (apart from the well known violation of Poincaré covariance in that approach) and thus violates the principle of correspondence.

The ambient algebra which we choose in this article, is the envelopping algebra of an infinite-dimensional Lie algebra (with respect to the Poisson bracket). Its generators are the components of an infinite set of Lorentz tensors (“monodromy variables”) which depend on the string parametrization only through the choice of a reference point on the string’s world surface.

The classical observables are represented as polynomials in the independent monodromy variables. It follows that multiple Poisson brackets among observables, and polynomials therein, are also polynomials in these variables. The polynomial relations defining the classical algebra of observables are, when expressed as polynomials in the monodromy variables, identities. (In fact, this is how the polynomial relations were originally derived in .)

The quantum ambient algebra is defined by promoting the classical Poisson bracket of the Lie algebra to a commutator, and passing to the universal envelopping algebra. The quantum algebra of observables is defined as the kernel of a suitable derivation, acting on this non-commutative algebra. The quantum counterparts of the classical observable generators are identified as non-commutative polynomials annihilated by the derivation. This implies that all their multiple commutators and non-commutative polynomials therein also belong to the kernel. In particular, the quantum corrections obtained by replacing in the classical polynomial relations classical generators by quantum generators, Poisson brackets by commutators, and commutative products by non-commutative ones with any choice of factor ordering, belong to the kernel and hence indeed are also observables.

This approach results in a consistent covariant quantization of the string observables in any dimension, complying with the principle of correspondence, provided we may take for granted the quadratic generation property.

## 2 Outline of the classical structure

With the left-moving and right-moving modes ($`\pm `$) of every classical solution $`x_\mu (\tau ,\sigma )`$ of the closed bosonic string in $`D`$ space-time dimensions, one can associate two Lax pairs . These are systems of linear partial differential matrix equations whose integrability conditions are equivalent to the Nambu-Goto equation of motion. They involve $`D`$ arbitrary $`n\times n`$ matrices $`T^\mu `$, $`\mu =0\mathrm{}D1`$, of arbitrary size $`n`$. The spectra of the corresponding monodromy matrices $`\varphi _T^\pm `$ are reparametrization invariant non-local functionals of the world surface. The observables of the classical bosonic string are obtained by variation with respect to the parameter matrices.

We describe the salient algebraic structures of the classical observables (invariants). More detailed formula will be given in Sect. 4.

2.1. Invariants :

Since the size $`n`$ of the parameter matrices $`T^\mu `$ is arbitrary, there are infinitely many free parameters. Varying $`\text{Tr }(\varphi _T^\pm \mathrm{𝟏}_n)=_{N=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒵_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^\pm \text{Tr }T^{\mu _1}`$ $`\mathrm{}T^{\mu _N}`$ with respect to the matrices $`T^\mu `$, one obtains two infinite systems of reparametrization invariant observables $`𝒵_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^\pm `$ (henceforth called invariants). They are explicitly given as iterated integrals over left- and right-moving modes of the canonical string variables, $`u_\mu ^\pm (\tau ,\sigma )=p^\mu \pm _\sigma x^\mu `$,

$$𝒵_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^\pm =𝔷_N_{\sigma <\sigma _N<\mathrm{}<\sigma _1<\sigma +2\pi }𝑑\sigma _1\mathrm{}𝑑\sigma _Nu_{\mu _1}^\pm (\tau ,\sigma _1)\mathrm{}u_{\mu _N}^\pm (\tau ,\sigma _N)$$
(2.1)
where $`𝔷_N`$ denotes the sum over the cyclic permutations of the Lorentz indices. They do not depend on the choice of the reference point $`(\tau ,\sigma )`$ in the formula.

The invariants are reparametrization invariant functionals of the string’s world surface. Their values, together with the infinitesimal generators of Lorentz boosts, locally determine the world surface up to translations in the direction of the string’s momentum.

With respect to their canonical Poisson bracket (see below) and their multiplication as functionals they form a Poisson algebra, the classical algebra of observables. The invariants $`𝒵_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^+`$ and $`𝒵_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^{}`$ associated with left and right moving modes, respectively, constitute two Poisson commuting subalgebras $`𝔥^+`$ and $`𝔥^{}`$ which are isomorphic up to a global sign in the structure constants.

The invariants are Lorentz tensors $`𝒵_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^\pm `$ of any rank $`N1`$. The vector invariants $`𝒫_\mu =𝒵_\mu ^+=𝒵_\mu ^{}`$ (arising at first order in $`T^\mu `$) are the components of the total momentum of the string. These are the only invariants which are common to both systems $`𝔥^\pm `$ of invariants. The remaining invariants of either system are algebraically independent of those of the other system, and each system involves infinitely many algebraically independent ones. Thus, the quantum algebra $`\widehat{𝔥}^{()}`$ will be the opposite algebra of $`\widehat{𝔥}^{(+)}`$. In the sequel, we describe the left-moving one, and omit the distinguishing superscript $`+`$.

2.2. Monodromy variables (truncated tensors) :

In order to analyse the structure of the classical algebra of observables, the invariants were expressed as polynomials in another set of Lorentz tensors, called truncated tensors in . In the following, we shall prefer the term monodromy variables. They are generated by the logarithm $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_T(\tau ,\sigma )=_{N=1}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t(\tau ,\sigma )T^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}T^{\mu _N}`$ of the monodromy matrix, which (unlike the trace) depends on the choice of a reference point $`(\tau ,\sigma )`$ on the string’s world surface. Therefore, the monodromy variables $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t`$ are not completely reparametrization invariant. Their dependence on the string coordinates is given by

$`_\sigma _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t(\tau ,\sigma )`$ $`=u_{\mu _1}(\tau ,\sigma )_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t(\tau ,\sigma )u_{\mu _N}(\tau ,\sigma )_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{N1}}^t(\tau ,\sigma )`$
$`_\tau _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t(\tau ,\sigma )`$ $`=\gamma (\tau ,\sigma )_\sigma _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t(\tau ,\sigma ),`$ (2.2)
where $`u_\mu (\tau ,\sigma )`$ are the canonical string variables and $`\gamma `$ is an arbitrary function, which reflects the choice of a gauge.

The monodromy variables $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t`$ at any fixed point $`(\tau ,\sigma )`$ are algebraically independent functionals up to linear relations involving sums over “shuffle permutations” of their indices according to eq. (4.2) below.

The bracket among the monodromy variables induced by the canonical bracket between left and right moving modes violates the Jacobi identity due to the singular behaviour of the canonical bracket. But it can be modified so as to restore the Jacobi identity, and without affecting the Poisson bracket among the invariants (which are polynomials in the monodromy variables) \[7, p. 615\]. In compact notation for the generating functionals, the (modified) Poisson bracket is given by

$`\{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_S`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\\ ,\end{array}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_T\}=`$ (2.3)
$`=\text{Tr }\left([ST,ST]_X\right)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_X|_{X=S+T}[ST,\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_S\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_T]`$
where the matrices $`S^\mu `$ and $`T^\mu `$ are understood as $`S^\mu \mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}T^\mu `$, and the differential operator $`\text{Tr }(Y_X)`$ acts as the substitution of $`Y^\mu `$ for $`X^\mu `$ in a derivational manner. For a more explicit formula in terms of the components, see eq. (4.3) below. Equipped with this bracket, the linear span $``$ of the monodromy variables $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t`$ at any fixed point $`(\tau ,\sigma )`$ is an infinite-dimensional Lie algebra. Its symmetric envelopping algebra $`𝒮()`$ is therefore canonically a Poisson algebra.

The classical invariants are the reparametrization invariant polynomials in the monodromy variables $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t(\tau ,\sigma )`$, characterized by the condition

$$_\sigma 𝒵=0.$$
(2.4)
Each of them is a linear combination of tensor components $`𝒵_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}`$ of the form given in eq. (4.4). Their linear span $`𝔥`$ is in fact closed under multiplication and under Poisson brackets (extended to $`𝒮()`$ by the Leibniz rule). In other words, $`𝔥`$ is the Poisson subalgebra of $`𝒮()`$ given by

$$𝔥=\text{Ker }_\sigma 𝒮().$$
(2.5)
2.3. Homogeneity and grading :

The Poisson algebra $`𝒮()`$ possesses two gradings: one with respect to the order $`N1`$ in the spectral parameters $`T^\mu `$ (i.e., the total Lorentz tensor rank disregarding possible contractions), and one with respect to the order $`K1`$ as a polynomial in the monodromy variables.

Both the rank and the order are additive with respect to the product, whereas the Poisson bracket reduces the total rank by two and the total order by 1. The two gradings can be unified to a single grading with respect to the degree $`l=NK11`$, which is additive under the Poisson bracket whereas the product of two elements of degrees $`l`$ and $`l^{}`$ is of degree $`l+l^{}+1`$:

$$𝒮()=\underset{l1}{}𝒮()^{(l)},\begin{array}{c}𝒮()^{(l)}𝒮()^{(l^{})}𝒮()^{(l+l^{}+1)}\hfill \\ \{𝒮()^{(l)},𝒮()^{(l^{})}\}𝒮()^{(l+l^{})}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.6)
The spaces $`𝒮()^{(l)}`$ are spanned by spanned by all monomials of order $`K`$ in components of $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t`$ with total tensor rank $`N`$ and $`NK1=l`$.

The homogeneous parts and the parts of fixed tensor rank of each invariant polynomial in the monodromy variables are separately invariant. The gradings of $`𝒮()`$ therefore give rise to gradings of $`𝔥`$. In particular, with $`𝔥^{(l)}=𝔥𝒮()^{(l)}`$, one has the grading with respect to the degree

$$𝔥=\underset{l1}{}𝔥^{(l)},\begin{array}{c}𝔥^{(l)}𝔥^{(l^{})}𝔥^{(l+l^{}+1)}\hfill \\ \{𝔥^{(l)},𝔥^{(l^{})}\}𝔥^{(l+l^{})}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.7)
The subalgebra $`𝒮()^{(1)}=𝔥^{(1)}`$ consists of the polynomials in the components of the total momentum $`𝒫_\mu =_\mu ^t=𝒵_\mu `$. Except for this algebra of central elements acting on each of them as multipliers, the subspaces $`𝒮()^{(l)}`$ and $`𝔥^{(l)}`$ are finite-dimensional.

The components $`𝒫_\mu `$ are central in the Lie algebra $``$ and hence in the Poisson algebra $`𝔥`$. As a function on the classical phase space, $`𝒫_\mu `$ takes values in the closed forward light-cone, with light-like values only on rather singular configurations. In the sequel, we shall regard the mass square $`𝒫_\mu 𝒫^\mu `$ as a number $`m^2`$, i.e., each algebra is tacitly understood as a quotient by the relation $`𝒫_\mu 𝒫^\mu =m^2`$, and $`m^2`$ is assumed $`>0`$.333The reason for excluding the massless case (for the time being) is that in order to generate the Poisson algebra (Sect. 2.4 below), it is sometimes necessary to divide by $`m^2`$. (One may as well add an element $`m^2`$ to the algebra $`𝒮()`$ which satisfies the obvious relations.) All formulae derived in the center of mass system in the previous literature can then be easily cast into covariant form. For a manifestly covariant treatment, see .

The invariants of degree $`l=0`$ act by Poisson brackets on $`𝔥`$ as infinitesimal Lorentz transformations belonging to the stabilizer subgroup SO(3) of the vector $`𝒫_\mu `$. Thus the invariants of fixed degree can be classified according to the representations (multiplets) of SO(3) and parity, which considerably facilitates the investigation of the algebra .

2.4. Generating invariants and polynomial relations :

An algebraic basis of $`𝔥`$ containing infinitely many algebraically independent invariants has been identified \[7, Sect. IV\] with the aid of the monodromy variables. However, it turns out that there is no algebraic basis of invariants whose linear span is a Lie algebra. Instead, the Poisson bracket between two basis invariants generically is a polynomial in basis invariants. Hence the Poisson algebra $`𝔥`$ of classical string observables is not the symmetric envelopping algebra of a Lie algebra.

The grading of $`𝔥`$ with respect to the degree $`l`$ suggests investigating its generation via the Poisson bracket, such that every invariant can be represented as a polynomial in the generating invariants and their multiple Poisson brackets. It is known that, as a Poisson algebra, $`𝔥`$ is not generated by its elements of lowest degrees $`l1`$ \[7, p. 622\]. But there is considerable evidence (for $`m^2>0`$, and at least in $`1+2`$ and $`1+3`$ dimensions ) that it can be generated by elements which are quadratic in the monodromy variables. We shall take this quadratic generation property (hypothesis) for granted in the final step of our construction (Prop. 4), and refer to Sect. 6 for a discussion of this issue.

More specifically, in $`1+3`$ dimensions, the generating invariants consist of the multiplet $`J_1`$ of generators of the little group $`SO(3)`$ (degree 0), three multiplets $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$, $`T_2`$ of degree 1 and an infinite series $`_{(l)}`$ of Poisson commuting Lorentz scalars, one at each odd degree $`l`$. All these generators are quadratic polynomials in the monodromy variables.

The generators do not generate $`𝔥`$ freely. There is an infinite number of polynomial relations among multiple Poisson brackets of generating invariants. These relations are identities in $`𝒮()`$ (i.e., as polynomials in the monodromy variables, and also as functionals of the canonical string variables). In particular, they are homogeneous in the degree.

The polynomial relations constitute a Poisson ideal $``$ in the symmetric envelopping algebra $`𝒮(𝔉)`$ of the free Lie algebra $`𝔉`$ of the generators. The classical algebra of string observables $`𝔥`$ is the quotient of $`𝒮(𝔉)`$ by this ideal. The knowledge of the ideal $`𝒮(𝔉)`$ (or a set of generating elements) therefore determines $`𝔥`$.

2.5. Additional structure :

A maximal subalgebra $`𝔄𝔥`$ of invariants with vanishing Poisson brackets has been identified in . It is generated by a Cartan subalgebra of the degree $`0`$ invariants and infinitely many Lorentz (pseudo) scalars. The latter are obtained by varying the generating functionals $`\text{Tr }(\mathrm{log}\varphi _{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }})^K`$, where $`T^\mu =\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ a matrix representation of the Lorentzian Clifford algebra in $`D`$ dimensions, with respect to the single parameter $`\lambda `$. Pseudoscalars arise only in odd space-time dimensions.

The scalar generators $`_{(l)}`$ belong to this abelian algebra $`𝔄`$. The following remarkable feature has been observed. Let $`𝔘`$ be the subalgebra of $`𝔥`$ generated by the (finite) set of the remaining generators $`J_1`$, $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$, $`T_2`$. If $`m^2>0`$, the generators $`_{(l)}`$ can be modified to generators $`_0^{(l)}`$ within $`𝔄`$ in such a way that their linear span $`𝔞𝔄`$, acting by Poisson brackets on $`𝔘`$, takes $`𝔘`$ into itself,

$$\{𝔞,𝔘\}𝔘.$$
(2.8)
This observation has been verified in $`d=1+3`$  and $`d=1+2`$ (unpublished) by explicit calculations up to considerable degree, but a complete proof is lacking due to the highly non-trivial combinatorics involved.

Assuming that these properties are confirmed at all degrees, then the Poisson ideal $`𝒮(𝔉)`$, which determines the classical algebra $`𝔥`$ as discussed in Sect. 2.4, acquires further structure. It is generated by

$``$ the Poisson ideal in the symmetric envelopping algebra of the free Lie algebra with finitely many generators $`J_1`$, $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$, $`T_2`$ which determines the Poisson algebra $`𝔘`$. This ideal can be given by a set of generating polynomial relations.

$``$ the relations stating the Poisson commutativity of the linear space $`𝔞`$.

$``$ the commutative Poisson action of $`𝔞`$ on the Poisson algebra $`𝔘`$, defining a semidirect product $`𝔞𝔘𝔥`$. The corresponding ideal is generated by the Poisson brackets between the basis elements $`_0^{(l)}`$ of $`𝔞`$ and the generators $`J_1`$, $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$, $`T_2`$ of $`𝔘`$, taking values in $`𝔘`$.

The details of the general structures outlined above may depend on the space-time dimension $`D`$. They can be found in the given references. The relevant ones will be introduced more explicitly in the next sections.

## 3 Algebraic quantization: the general strategy

3.1. The intrinsic approach to string quantization

The intrinsic approach to the quantization of the string observables, advocated by Pohlmeyer et al. , consciously avoids all reference to non-invariant monodromy variables $`^t`$ and proceeds directly from the Poisson algebra of classical invariants $`𝔥`$ or equivalently, from the Poisson ideal $`𝒮(𝔉)`$ defining it.

The polynomial nature of the relations generating the ideal $``$ gives rise to non-trivial self-consistency problems in the course of quantization: the non-commutative quantum algebra should be the quotient of the universal (i.e., non-commutative) envelopping algebra $`𝒰(\widehat{𝔉})`$ of the free Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔉}`$ of the quantum generating invariants by the ideal of the quantized polynomial relations. This quantum ideal should exhibit a maximum of structural similarity with the classical ideal.

Thus, in order to define the quantum algebra, the infinite set of generating quantized polynomial relations has to be specified in the universal envelopping algebra $`𝒰(\widehat{𝔉})`$. These may differ from the classical generating relations only by quantum corrections of lower degree, expressible in terms of quantum generators (respecting spin and parity). The quantum corrections are strongly constrained by the postulate (principle of correspondence), that commutators between quantum relations and quantum generators must not produce new quantum relations (of order $`\mathrm{}`$) without a classical counterpart.

This, completely intrinsic, strategy has been pursued in refs.  and has been shown to be self-consistent in a highly non-trivial manner up to degree five (in $`1+3`$ dimensions).

3.2. The new approach to string quantization

We propose, in order to quantize $`𝔥`$, to quantize in a first step the Lie algebra $``$ of monodromy variables by replacing the Poisson bracket (4.3) by $`i\mathrm{}`$ times the commutator, and its symmetric envelopping algebra $`𝒮()`$ by the universal envelopping algebra $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$ of the quantized Lie algebra $`\widehat{}`$. The grading of $`𝒮()`$ by the degree does not survive the quantization because an evaluated commutator has lower degree than the corresponding difference of products (i.e., quantum corrections have lower degree). The remnant of the grading $`𝒮()=_l𝒮()^{(l)}`$ is thus a filtration

$$𝒰(\widehat{})=\underset{l1}{}𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)},\begin{array}{c}𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l^{})}𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l+l^{}+1)}\hfill \\ [𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)},𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l^{})}]𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l+l^{})}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.1)
$`𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}`$ is spanned by all non-commutative monomials of order $`K`$ in components of $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t`$ with total tensor rank $`N`$ and $`NK1l`$. The inclusions $`𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l1)}𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}`$ take care of the ambiguities concerning the grading of quantum polynomials when relations $`[A,B]=ABBA`$ are taken into account.

The quantum algebra $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ of the invariants will be a subalgebra of $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$ with a corresponding filtration through $`\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)}=\widehat{𝔥}𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}`$,

$$\widehat{𝔥}=\underset{l1}{}\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)},\widehat{𝔥}^{(l1)}\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)},\begin{array}{c}\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)}\widehat{𝔥}^{(l^{})}\widehat{𝔥}^{(l+l^{}+1)}\hfill \\ [\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)},\widehat{𝔥}^{(l^{})}]\widehat{𝔥}^{(l+l^{})}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(3.2)
For the purpose of constructing this subalgebra $`\widehat{𝔥}`$, it is not sufficient to specify the quantum counterparts of the generating invariants as elements of $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$ such that they coincide with the classical invariants in $`𝒮()`$ as the factor ordering and quantum corrections of order $`\mathrm{}`$ are ignored in $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$. The difficulty is due to the polynomial relations among the quantum generating invariants (and their commutators), which must hold in $`\widehat{𝔥}`$. Since $`\widehat{𝔥}𝒰(\widehat{})`$, they must be identities in $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$. But by construction, they hold in $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$ only up to quantum corrections of order $`\mathrm{}`$ or higher. The principle of correspondence would be violated unless these quantum corrections are also polynomials in the quantum generators. Otherwise there would be elements of the quantum algebra without classical counterpart. To implement this property required by the principle of correspondence, using an ansatz for the quantum corrections to the quantum generators, would require to actually compute the quantum corrections to infinitely many polynomial relations.

We circumvent this difficulty by defining the algebra of the quantum invariants at one stroke as the subalgebra of $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$ which is annihilated by a suitable derivation $`\delta `$:

$$\widehat{𝔥}:=\text{Ker }\delta 𝒰(\widehat{})$$
(3.3)
where $`\delta `$ maps $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$ into another auxiliary algebra $`𝒰()`$. This quantum condition is modelled after the classical condition (2.4), (2.5). The property of $`\delta `$ as a derivation ensures that its kernel $`\text{Ker }\delta `$ is an associative, filtered algebra (Prop. 2). Then, it suffices to identify the quantum counterparts of the classical generating invariants as elements of $`\text{Ker }\delta `$, and verify that they generate $`\text{Ker }\delta `$ (the principle of correspondence, Prop. 4). From this knowledge one concludes that the correction terms in the quantum polynomial relations belong to $`\text{Ker }\delta `$, and thus are again quantum invariants, without the need to actually compute them. The principle of correspondence will be established (Prop. 4) in the form of linear isomorphisms between the classical spaces $`𝔥^{(l)}`$ and the quotients of the filtered spaces $`\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)}/\widehat{𝔥}^{(l1)}`$.

These steps result in a consistent algebraic quantization of the reparametrization invariant observables of the closed bosonic string in any space-time dimension. We shall show that they can be achieved provided the quadratic generation property is true.

Explicit calculations  in $`1+3`$-dimensional space-time show complete agreement with the intrinsic approach of ref.  (with the intrinsically so far undetermined parameters taking specific values). In particular, the additional structures outlined in Sect. 2.5, $`\{𝔄,𝔄\}=0`$ and $`\{𝔞,𝔘\}𝔘`$, also hold as commutator relations in the quantum algebra $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ as far as they could be checked, cf. also Sect. 7 and note added in proof.

## 4 Construction of the quantum algebra

We want to construct the quantum algebra of observables according to the strategy just outlined. In order to focus our attention on the relevant algebraic structures, we proceed from an abstract description of the Lie algebra $``$ and the classical Poisson algebra $`𝔥`$ based on the results of . It does not refer to the interpretation of the algebra elements as functionals of the string’s world surface, but completely takes into account their algebraic aspects. Along the way, we provide the necessary details omitted in Sect. 2.

Let $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_{D1}`$ be a basis of $`^D`$. A shuffle sum is a sum over basis vectors of $`^N^D`$ of the form

$`e_{}^{N}{}_{\overline{){\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _K}{\mu _{K+1}\mathrm{}\mu _N}}}}{}^{}:={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔖_N\\ \pi ^1(1)<\mathrm{}<\pi ^1(K)\\ \pi ^1(K+1)<\mathrm{}<\pi ^1(N)\end{array}}{}}e_{\mu _{\pi (1)}}\mathrm{}e_{\mu _{\pi (N)}}`$ (4.1)
$`(0KN).`$
Let $`V_N`$ be the subspaces of $`^N^D`$ spanned by all shuffle sums with $`1K<N`$, and $`p_N:^N^D^N^D/V_N`$ the canonical projections onto the quotient spaces $`^N^D/V_N`$. We identify the monodromy variables with the components of the tensors $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t=p_N(e_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}e_{\mu _N})`$, i.e., they satisfy the defining linear relations

$$_{\overline{){\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _K}{\mu _{K+1}\mathrm{}\mu _N}}}}^t=0(1K<N).$$
(4.2)
Their linear span $`=_{N=1}^{\mathrm{}}^N^D/V_N`$ equipped with the bracket

$`\{_\mu ^t,_\nu ^t\}`$ $`=\{_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t,_\nu ^t\}=0,`$ (4.3)
$`\{_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t,_{\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _M}^t\}`$ $`=2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^{Nn+m}\eta _{\mu _n\nu _m}_{\overline{){\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{n1}}{\mu _N\mathrm{}\mu _{n+1}}}}\overline{){\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\nu _{m1}\mathrm{}\nu _1}{\nu _{m+1}\mathrm{}\nu _M}}}}^t,`$
is an infinite-dimensional Lie algebra, graded with respect to the degree $`l=N2`$. The second formula holds for $`N2`$, $`M2`$, and cannot be extended to $`N=1`$ or $`M=1`$ without violating the Jacobi identity. Instead, by the first formula, $`_\mu ^t𝒫_\mu `$ are central elements of $``$.

The bracket canonically extends to the symmetric envelopping algebra $`𝒮()`$ of $``$, which becomes a Poisson algebra. $`𝔥𝒮()`$ is the subspace spanned by the polynomials (invariants) of the form

$`𝒵_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{K=1}{\overset{N}{}}}𝒵_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^{(K)}`$ (4.4)
$`𝒵_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^{(K)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{K!}}𝔷_N\left({\displaystyle \underset{1a_1<\mathrm{}<a_{K1}<N}{}}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{a_1}}^t_{\mu _{a_1+1}\mathrm{}\mu _{a_2}}^t\mathrm{}_{\mu _{a_{K1}+1}\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t\right)`$
where $`𝔷_N`$ denotes the sum over the cyclic permutations of the Lorentz indices. This space $`𝔥`$ is in fact a Poisson subalgebra of $`𝒮()`$.

We capture the characterization of the invariants by their reparametrization invariance, eqs. (2) and (2.4), with the help of the linear map $``$ which maps $``$ into $`^D`$ by

$$(𝒫_\mu ):=0,(_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t):=e_{\mu _1}_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _N}^te_{\mu _N}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{N1}}^t.$$
(4.5)
$``$ extends canonically to a derivation $``$ from the commutative algebra $`𝒮()`$ into the commutative algebra $`𝒮(^D)`$ (along the injection homomorphism from $`𝒮()`$ into $`𝒮(^D)`$). The invariants are exactly those elements of $``$ which are annihilated by $``$:

$$𝔥=\text{Ker }()𝒮()$$
(4.6)
cf. (2.5).

This abstract description of the classical algebra of string observables is the starting point for its quantization. As the monodromy variables $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t`$ form a Lie algebra, they can easily be quantized by defining the commutator as $`i\mathrm{}`$ times the Lie bracket $`\{,\}`$. We call this Lie algebra $`\widehat{}`$. By the theorem of Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt, the universal envelopping algebra $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$ is an associative filtered algebra.

We want to parallel the prescription (4.6) by “quantizing” the derivation $``$. But whereas a linear map defined on a Lie algebra (considered as a linear space) extends canonically to a derivation on its symmetric envelopping algebra, the same is not true for an extension to the universal envelopping algebra, unless the map has the property of a derivation with respect to the Lie bracket. For this reason, we first need an extension of the Lie bracket on $`\widehat{}`$ to a Lie bracket on the auxiliary space $`:=^D\widehat{}`$ by defining suitable commutation relations between the elements of $`\widehat{}`$ and $`^D`$, with respect to which the “quantized” map $`\delta :\widehat{}𝒰()`$ is a derivation. Then $`\delta `$ extends to $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$, and we can define the quantum algebra of observables $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ as its kernel within $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$.

Proposition 1: 1. The bracket $`[,]:\times `$ on the auxiliary space $`:=^D\widehat{}`$

$`[_I^t,_J^t]:=i\mathrm{}\{_I^t,_J^t\},`$ $`[e_\mu ,e_\nu ]:=0`$ (4.7)
$`[_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t,e_\mu ]:=0(N2),`$ $`[_{\mu \nu }^t,e_\kappa ]:=2i\mathrm{}(\eta _{\nu \kappa }e_\mu \eta _{\mu \kappa }e_\nu )`$
is a Lie bracket. As a Lie algebra, $``$ is a semidirect sum of $`\widehat{}`$ with the abelian Lie algebra $`^D`$.

2. The linear map $`\delta `$ from $`\widehat{}`$ into the universal envelopping algebra $`𝒰()`$,

$`\delta (_\mu ^t)`$ $`:=0`$ (4.8)
$`\delta (_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t)`$ $`:=\frac{1}{2}[e_{\mu _1},_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t]_+\frac{1}{2}[e_{\mu _N},_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{N1}}^t]_+(N2),`$
where $`[,]_+`$ denotes the anti-commutator in $`𝒰()`$, is well-defined and has the property of a derivation:

$$\delta ([A,B])=[\delta (A),B]+[A,\delta (B)]A,B.$$
(4.9)
It extends canonically to a derivation $`\delta :𝒰(\widehat{})𝒰()`$ (along the injection homomorphism).

Comment: Whereas the map $`\delta `$ is obviously a quantum analogue of a corresponding classical structure (the derivative $`_\sigma `$, eq. (2), or equivalently the map $``$, eq. (4.5)), the same is not true for the extension of the Lie bracket. The canonical bracket between $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t(\tau ,\sigma )`$ and $`u_\mu (\tau ,\sigma )`$ is ill-defined and violates the Jacobi identity. Therefore, the success of our quantum prescription is a rather non-trivial feature.

Proof: 1. As the monodromy variables with the bracket $`\{,\}`$ form a Lie algebra, it is sufficient to prove the Jacobi identity for multiple commutators involving the basis vectors of $`^D`$. This can be explicitly verified from the above definitions and the definition of the Poisson bracket, eq. (4.3).

2. $`\delta `$ is well-defined if it respects the linear dependencies (4.2) among the monodromy variables. This is verified by straightforward calculation using recursive relations for the shuffle sums following from their definition (4.1):

$`0=_{\overline{){\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _K}{\mu _{K+1}\mathrm{}\mu _N}}}}^t`$ $`=_{\mu _1\overline{){\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _K}{\mu _{K+1}\mathrm{}\mu _N}}}}^t+_{\mu _{K+1}\overline{){\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _K}{\mu _{K+2}\mathrm{}\mu _N}}}}^t`$
$`=_{\overline{){\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{K1}}{\mu _{K+1}\mathrm{}\mu _N}}}\mu _K}^t+_{\overline{){\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _K}{\mu _{K+1}\mathrm{}\mu _{N1}}}}\mu _N}^t.`$ (4.10)
The derivation property of $`\delta `$ is obtained with a rather lengthy but equally straightforward calculation  from the definition (4.7) of the Lie bracket together with (4). The case $`N=2`$ has to be treated separately. Q.E.D.

As $`\delta `$ extends to a derivation on the universal envelopping algebra $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$, products and commutators of any two elements in its kernel are also annihilated by $`\delta `$. Hence its kernel $`\text{Ker }\delta `$ is a subalgebra of $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$:

Proposition 2: The kernel $`\widehat{𝔥}=\text{Ker }\delta 𝒰(\widehat{})`$ of the derivation $`\delta `$ is an associative non-commutative subalgebra of $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$.

It will be shown in the next section that $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ is a filtered algebra and its filtration is compatible with the grading of the classical algebra $`𝔥`$. Furthermore, it satisfies the principle of correspondence in the sense of an association between classical invariants and quantum invariants up to order $`\mathrm{}`$, which respects both products and brackets.

## 5 The Principle of Correspondence

As discussed in section 2, the classical Poisson algebras of monodromy variables, $`𝒮()=_l𝒮()^{(l)}`$, and of invariants, $`𝔥=_l𝔥^{(l)}`$, are graded with respect to the degree $`l1`$, and

$$𝔥^{(l)}=\text{Ker }𝒮()^{(l)}.$$
(5.1)
Since the underlying Lie algebra for the commutative envelopping algebra $`𝒮()`$ is the same as for the non-commutative envelopping algebra $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$ (except for the factor $`i\mathrm{}`$), the latter exhibits a corresponding filtration $`𝒰(\widehat{})=_l𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}`$ with $`𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l1)}𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}`$, cf. eq. (3.1). The subspaces $`𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}`$ are spanned by all non-commutative monomials of order $`K`$ in components of $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t`$ with total tensor rank $`N`$ and $`NK1l`$.

Due to the fact that a commutator $`[A,B]`$ is of lower degree than the individual products $`AB`$, $`BA`$, the quotient spaces are naturally isomorphic to the classical spaces of degree $`l`$ in $`𝒮()`$:

$$𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}/𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l1)}𝒮()^{(l)}.$$
(5.2)
The corresponding statements hold also for the commutative and non-commutative envelopping algebras $`𝒮(^D)`$ and $`𝒰()`$, where we assign the degree $`l=1`$ to the generators of $`^D`$. The derivation $`\delta `$ takes $`𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}`$ to $`𝒰()^{(l1)}`$.

We denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l)}`$ the canonical projection from $`𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}`$ to $`𝒮()^{(l)}`$, and use the same symbol for its continuation to $`𝒰()^{(l)}`$. In particular, applied to a non-commutative polynomial, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l)}`$ is insensitive to the order of factors. We have Proposition 3: The following intertwining rules hold for all $`A𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}`$, $`B𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l^{})}`$

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l+l^{}+1)}(AB)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l)}(A)\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l^{})}(B),`$ (5.3)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l+l^{})}([A,B])`$ $`=i\mathrm{}\{\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l)}(A),\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l^{})}(B)\},`$ (5.4)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l1)}\delta (A)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l)}(A).`$ (5.5)
Proof: Due to the parallelism between the very definitions of the classical and quantum operations (product, bracket, and derivation) on $``$ resp. $`\widehat{}`$, their continuations to $`𝒮()`$ resp. $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$ differ only by the necessity of factor ordering for the latter. Thus, ignoring factor ordering and terms of lower degree (in particular commutators) by means of the projections, takes the quantum operations to the classical operations. Q.E.D.

Because of its definition as the kernel of a derivation, the quantum algebra $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ of invariants inherits the filtration, as anticipated in eq. (3.2):

$$\widehat{𝔥}=\underset{l1}{}\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)},\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)}=\text{Ker }\delta 𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}.$$
(5.6)
Corollary: The projections $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l)}`$ map the spaces of quantum observables $`\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)}`$ injectively into the spaces of classical observables $`𝔥^{(l)}`$. Non-commutative multiplication and commutators are mapped to commutative multiplication and Poisson brackets.

Proof: By eq. (5.5), the image of $`\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)}=\text{Ker }\delta 𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}`$ belongs to $`\text{Ker }𝒮()^{(l)}`$ which equals $`𝔥^{(l)}`$. The projection is injective on $`\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)}`$ because it is injective on $`𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}`$. The other statements are just reformulations of eqs. (5.3), (5.4). Q.E.D.

Thus, if we show that $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l)}`$ is also surjective onto $`𝔥^{(l)}`$, we have linear isomorphisms between the classical and quantum observables, preserving the pertinent algebraic structures up to quantum corrections. Hence every element of $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ corresponds to a classical invariant in leading order of $`\mathrm{}`$.

Proposition 4: 1. For each classical invariant $`𝒵_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^{(2)}`$ of polynomial order $`K=2`$, the corresponding quantum invariant defined by

$$\widehat{𝒵}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}𝔷_N\left(\underset{1a<N}{}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _a}^t_{\mu _{a+1}\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t\right)𝒰(\widehat{})^{(N3)}$$
(5.7)
lies in the kernel of derivation $`\delta `$.

2. Thus, by the quadratic generation hypothesis, all classical generators have their quantum counterparts in $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ given by eq. (5.7).

3. Using the generation of the classical algebra of observables, this defines linear assignments $`\alpha ^{(l)}:𝔥^{(l)}\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)}`$, such that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l)}\alpha =\mathrm{id},$$
(5.8)
and all elements of the form

$`\alpha ^{(l+l^{}+1)}(AB)\alpha ^{(l)}(A)\alpha ^{(l^{})}(B)`$ (5.9)
$`\text{or}\alpha ^{(l+l^{})}(i\mathrm{}\{A,B\})[\alpha ^{(l)}(A),\alpha ^{(l^{})}(B)]`$ (5.10)
with $`A𝔥^{(l)}`$, $`B𝔥^{(l^{})}`$, are annihilated by $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l+l^{}+1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l+l^{})}`$, respectively.

4. The projections $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l)}`$ are surjective.

Proof: Statement 1 is shown to be true by straightforward calculation using the definition of the derivation $`\delta `$ and of the bracket $`[,]`$ between $`^D`$ and $`\widehat{}`$. Statement 2 is obvious.

The assignment $`\alpha `$ is obtained as follows. Represent an element of $`𝔥^{(l)}`$ as a polynomial in the generators and their multiple Poisson brackets, i.e., as an element of the Poisson algebra $`𝒮(𝔉)`$ (cf. Sect. 2.4), applying any convention regarding the addition of polynomial relations (of the same degree) from the ideal $``$. Replace in this polynomial every monomial by a corresponding product of multiple commutators of the quantum generators according to the previous statements, applying any convention regarding factor ordering. The resulting polynomial is an element of $`𝒰(\widehat{})^{(l)}`$, and because $`\delta `$ is a derivation which annihilates the quantum generators, this polynomial is also annihilated by $`\delta `$ and belongs to $`\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)}`$. Applying the projection $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l)}`$ restores the classical original polynomial thanks to Prop. 3, proving eq. (5.8). In particular, all ambiguities due to the conventions above are annihilated by the projection, because commutators in $`\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)}`$ belong to $`\widehat{𝔥}^{(l1)}`$, and because the polynomial relations hold in $`𝔥`$. The other asserted properties of $`\alpha ^{(l)}`$ are then fulfilled by construction, because the two terms to be compared just correspond to two different conventions for the assignment $`𝔥^{(l)}\widehat{𝔥}^{(l)}`$.

Eq. (5.8) implies surjectivity of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l)}`$ by $`𝔥^{(l)}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{(l)}(\alpha ^{(l)}(𝔥^{(l)}))`$. Q.E.D.

With Prop. 4, we have achieved the principle of correspondence for the relation between the filtered quantum algebra $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ and the graded classical algebra $`𝔥`$.

Comment: The quantum invariants of order 2 are obtained as symmetrized quadratic polynomials in the quantum monodromy variables. The same holds not true for quantum invariants of higher order, since non-commutative readings of eq. (4.4) for $`K>2`$ in general do not belong to $`\text{Ker }\delta `$. Instead, quantum invariants of higher order must be defined through the generating property by the embeddings $`\alpha ^{(l)}`$.

## 6 The quadratic generation property

The assumed validity of the quadratic generation property of the classical algebra $`𝔥`$ (cf. Sect. 2.4) enters our construction of the quantum algebra only in Prop. 4. We want to emphasize that even if this hypothesis should fail, it would be sufficient for the construction if for any other system of generating invariants the quantum counterparts in $`\text{Ker }\delta `$ could be given.

By an argument given in \[7, Sect. IV\], the quadratic generation property would follow from a related property of the Lie algebra $``$ (given below). There is considerable evidence for the latter property to hold in any dimension, although partial general arguments given so far are not yet conclusive . Explicit verification at least up to degree 7 is available in 1+3 dimensions \[12, p. 28\].

The relevant property of $``$ is most conveniently formulated in the center of mass frame $`𝒫_\mu =(m,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ where there is an association between an algebraic basis of $`𝔥`$ (“standard invariants”) and the components of $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t`$ with $`\mu _10`$, $`\mu _N0`$. The latter elements of $``$ span a Lie subalgebra $`_0`$. The “exceptional” elements $`_i_{i0\mathrm{}0i}^t`$ of odd rank $`N=l+2`$ cannot be generated by Poisson brackets within $`_0`$ \[7, Sect. IV\].444This circumstance explains the necessity of including, among the generators of $`𝔥`$, the scalars $`_{(l)}`$ of odd degree $`l`$, which have a non-vanishing “leading” contribution proportional to the exceptional elements. The hypothesis is that the elements of $`_0`$ of degree $`l1`$ together with the infinite series of exceptional elements generate $`_0`$. Because the corresponding standard invariants are quadratic \[7, Sect. IV\], this property of $`_0`$ entails the desired quadratic generation property for $`𝔥`$.

Substantiating the expectation (spurred by extensive experience with this algebra) that this property of the classical algebra holds in general, would complete the construction of the quantum algebra in any dimension.

## 7 Additional structures

We include some partial results concerning the persistence in the quantum algebra $`𝔥`$ of the classical structures $`\{𝔄,𝔄\}=0`$ and $`\{𝔞,𝔘\}𝔘`$, mentioned in Sect. 2.5. Although the survival of these additional structures in the quantum theory is highly desirable, it is not a prerequisite for the quantization of the string according to the prescription $`\widehat{𝔥}=\text{Ker }\delta `$.

We shall prove the quantum commutativity of the quadratic elements of the abelian subalgebra $`\widehat{𝔄}`$ at any degree. These invariants are obtained from the generating functional $`\text{Tr }(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }})^2`$ by variation with respect to the parameter $`\lambda `$, where the matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ satisfy the Clifford algebra $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu +\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =2\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$. We exploit the closed formula (2.3) for the Lie bracket on $``$ which we expect to be a convenient tool for further structural study.

The Clifford algebra implies the identity

$$[[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta ][\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^\beta ],\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{𝟏}]=8[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha ,\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ].$$
(7.1)
For $`S^\mu =\lambda (\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{𝟏})`$ and $`T^\mu =\kappa (\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )`$, this identity entails

$$[ST,S^\mu T^\mu ]=[W,S^\mu +T^\mu ]$$
(7.2)
with $`W=\lambda \kappa \frac{\lambda ^2+\kappa ^2}{\lambda ^2\kappa ^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha )\frac{1}{4}\frac{\lambda ^2\kappa ^2}{\lambda ^2\kappa ^2}([\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta ][\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^\beta ])`$. By the latter identity, the (otherwise unwieldy) differential term in the expression (2.3) for the bracket between the generating functionals becomes

$`\text{Tr }\left([W,X]_X\right)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_X|_{X=S+T}`$ $`=[W,\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_X|_{X=S+T}]`$
$`=[W,\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_S+\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_T],`$ (7.3)
and (2.3) acquires the form without a differential term

$`\{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\\ ,\end{array}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }}\}=`$ (7.4)
$`=[W,\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }}][V,\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }}]`$
with $`V=\lambda \kappa (\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha )`$, and $`W`$ as above.

The expansion of the generating functional $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ simplifies considerably, because by virtue of the shuffle symmetries of the tensors $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}^t`$, only multiple commutators of Clifford matrices contribute to $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, which can be worked out \[9, Sect. II\]:

$$\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}=_\mu (\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu +_{\mu \nu }(\lambda )\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu ],$$
(7.5)
where $`_\mu `$ and $`_{\mu \nu }`$ are certain $``$-valued power series in the parameter $`\lambda `$, involving only odd and even powers of $`\lambda `$, respectively. Hence

$$\text{Tr }(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }})^2=_\mu (\lambda )^\mu (\lambda )2_{\mu \nu }(\lambda )^{\mu \nu }(\lambda ).$$
(7.6)
The Poisson bracket (7.4) between $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ can now be used to derive the brackets among the power series $`_\mu `$ and $`_{\mu \nu }`$. They read (after quantization)

$`[_\mu (\lambda ),_\nu (\kappa )]`$ $`=8i\mathrm{}\lambda ^3\kappa ^3{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2_{\mu \nu }(\lambda )\kappa ^2_{\mu \nu }(\kappa )}{\lambda ^2\kappa ^2}}`$ (7.7)
$`[_\tau (\lambda ),_{\mu \nu }(\kappa )]`$ $`=2i\mathrm{}\eta _{\tau \mu }\lambda ^3\kappa ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^1_\nu (\lambda )\kappa ^1_\nu (\kappa )}{\lambda ^2\kappa ^2}}(\mu \nu )`$
$`[_{\sigma \tau }(\lambda ),_{\mu \nu }(\kappa )]`$ $`=2i\mathrm{}\eta _{\tau \mu }\lambda ^2\kappa ^2{\displaystyle \frac{_{\sigma \nu }(\lambda )_{\sigma \nu }(\kappa )}{\lambda ^2\kappa ^2}}(\mu \nu )(\sigma \tau ).`$
(The denominators always divide the power series in the numerator.)

Now, the quantum commutator between $`\text{Tr }(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }})^2`$ and $`\text{Tr }(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }})^2`$ given by eq. (7.6), can be evaluated with eq. (7.7). One finds that the resulting cubic terms again arrange into commutators, which can in turn be evaluated with eq. (7.7). The resulting quadratic terms once more arrange into commutators, which can be evaluated and finally vanish.

We conclude that the infinite series of quantized invariants generated by $`\text{Tr }(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }})^2`$ commute among each other.

Unfortunately, this kind of argument fails for higher powers of $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, because the traces $`\text{Tr }(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }})^K`$ do not belong to the kernel of $`\delta `$, and the general form of the necessary quantum corrections is not clear to us. The reason for the complication comes from the commutator in

$$\delta \mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}=\lambda [e_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ,\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}]$$
(7.8)
which is both with respect to the Clifford matrices and with respect to the quantum operators in $``$, so that the matrix trace of a commutator does not vanish. Yet, we expect that there should be a likewise simple argument as in the classical case, giving rise to an equally large infinite system of commuting quantum observables.

The case of the semidirect action of $`𝔞`$ on $`𝔘`$ (cf. Sect. 2.5) appears much more difficult since it is still not well understood even at the classical level. It has been verified in the quantum algebra by explicit calculation in $`1+3`$ dimensions up to degree 4  but a general proof is still lacking both for the quantum and the classical case (see note added in proof).

## 8 Conclusion

We have established a rather simple characterization of the quantum algebra of the gauge invariant observables of the closed bosonic string in any dimension, as the kernel of a suitable derivation

$$\widehat{𝔥}=\text{Ker }\delta 𝒰(\widehat{}).$$
(8.1)
$`\delta `$ is defined on the universal envelopping algebra $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$ of an infinite-dimensional Lie algebra $`\widehat{}`$ with values in $`𝒰()`$ where $``$ is a Lie algebra extension of $`\widehat{}`$. The only possible loophole in the argument is the lacking proof of an apparent structural property of the underlying classical theory, which is required for the proper correspondence with the quantum algebra.

In Sect. 7, we gave some first results which indicate that also the “additional structures” mentioned in Sect. 2.5 are respected by quantization.

The present algebraic definition of the quantum algebra bears some obvious resemblance with the BRST quantization scheme, where the derivation $`\delta _{\mathrm{BRST}}`$, given by the commutator with a BRST charge $`Q`$, determines the gauge invariant observables as its kernel. In the case at hand, however, $`\delta `$ is given just as a derivation which is not implemented as a commutator. This suffices to ensure that $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ is an algebra. (It is also a * algebra, if one treats the generators of the Lie algebras $`\widehat{}`$ and $``$ as hermitean.)

We consider the quantized ambient algebras $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$ and $`𝒰()`$ only as auxiliary tools in order to establish the existence of $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ with the desired properties. A representation of $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ does not presuppose a representation of $`\widehat{}`$, and in particular no “charge” operator which would implement $`\delta `$. We doubt the existence of such an object since $`\delta `$ as a map from $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$ to $`𝒰()`$ has no sensible extension to its image. It is likewise not meaningful to talk about $`\delta `$-invariant states.

The search for Hilbert space representations of the quantum string is therefore an independent problem. It should not be biased by any features of the ambient algebra $`𝒰(\widehat{})`$ unless they are intrinsic to $`\widehat{𝔥}`$. The construction (classification) of representations of $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ is an exciting challenge for the future.

Acknowledgements. One of the authors (C.M.) wishes to thank Prof. K. Pohlmeyer, supervisor of her diploma thesis at the Physics Department of Freiburg University. Both of us are grateful for his critical comments on a preliminary version of the manuscript.

Note added in proof. A failure of the semidirect product structure $`[𝔞,𝔘]𝔘`$ in the intrinsic approach to quantization was reported recently in .


text:
# Interaction-driven effects on two-component Bose-Einstein condensates

## Qualitative analysis—

In order to study qualitatively how the species rearrange themselves inside the condensate when varying the relative interparticle strength $`u_{1,2}`$, we make use of the Thomas Fermi (TF) approximation, which consists of neglecting the kinetic energy, and thus removing the laplacian terms in Eqs. (1). We will consider a system in which both components are in an axially symmetric trap and the $`|2`$ component has the minimum shifted in the $`z`$ direction by a value $`d`$. We make a change of variables according to $`\sqrt{(M/2)}\omega _z\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}`$, where $`\omega _r`$ and $`\omega _z`$ are the trap angular frequencies in the $`r`$ and $`z`$ coordinate, respectively. Futhermore, by defining the aspect ratio $`\lambda =\omega _r/\omega _z`$, the potentials $`V_i`$, written in cylindrical variables, read

$$V_1=\lambda ^2r^2+z^2$$
(2)
and

$$V_2=\lambda ^2r^2+(z+d)^2.$$
(3)
The sign of the determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_{1,1}u_{2,2}u_{1,2}^2`$ defines two different features for the distribution of particles. When $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$ and $`u_{1,2}`$ is small, there exists a large coexistence region. As $`u_{1,2}`$ is increased this region decreases. At $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, a phase separation takes place reducing the coexistence region to an interface. We shall consider the cases $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$ separately.

## Coexistence $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$

The solution of Eqs. (1) in the TF approximation can be easily obtained and has the following different expressions depending on whether there exists any overlap between the wave functions of both species.

a) In the region where only one wave function is non vanishing ( $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|^20`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_k|^2=0`$, for $`ik`$) the TF equations are decoupled and the solution reads

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mu _1\lambda ^2r^2z^2\right]/(G_{1,1}N_1),`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mu _2\lambda ^2r^2(z+d)^2\right]/(G_{2,2}N_2).`$ (4)
b) In the region where both wave functions are non vanishing $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|^2>0`$, the solution may be written after some algebra as:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[R_1^2\lambda ^2r^2\left(z{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1d}{1\beta _1}}\right)^2\right]B_1u_{2,2},`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[R_2^2\lambda ^2r^2\left(z+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{1\beta _2}}\right)^2\right]B_2u_{1,1},`$ (5)
with

$`R_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _1\beta _1\mu _2}{(1\beta _1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1d^2}{(1\beta _1)^2}},`$
$`R_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2\beta _2\mu _1}{(1\beta _2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2d^2}{(1\beta _2)^2}},`$ (6)
where $`\beta _1=u_{1,2}/u_{2,2}`$, $`\beta _2=u_{1,2}/u_{1,1}`$ and $`B_i=(1\beta _i)/(UN_i\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

The surfaces $`𝒮`$1 and $`𝒮`$2, defined by equating the expression inside the square bracket in $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2|^2`$ of Eq. (5) respectively to zero, determine the boundary of the coexistence region. It may be seen that these surfaces are ellipsoids centered in $`d_1=\beta _1d/(1\beta _1)`$ and $`d_2=d/(1\beta _2)`$ along the $`z`$-axis, respectively. It is worth mentioning that this result does not depend on any other quantity, as for example the number of particles or the frequencies of the trapping potential. The factor $`1\beta _i`$ in the denominator makes these displacements diverge when $`\beta _i`$ is close to unity, and one can guess that for these values, some dramatic effects in the redistribution of particles could take place, as we shall discuss later.

## Phase separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$

For these interaction strengths, in the Thomas-Fermi approximation, the species are confined to two separated regions within the condensate. The boundary surface $`𝒮`$s between these two regions may be obtained by equating the pressure da99

$$P_i=\frac{G_{i,i}}{2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|^4$$
(7)
on both sides of the interface, yielding

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2=\sqrt{\frac{G_{2,2}}{G_{1,1}}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_2|^2.$$
(8)
Assuming that the wave functions on each side are given by the expression (4) and defining $`a=\sqrt{G_{2,2}/G_{1,1}}`$, the interface obtained is

$$R_s^2\lambda ^2r^2\left(z+\frac{d}{1a}\right)^2=0$$
(9)
with

$$R_s^2=\frac{\mu _2a\mu _1}{(1a)}+\frac{ad^2}{(1a)^2}.$$
(10)
This surface is an ellipsoid whose center is displaced in $`d_s=d/(1a)`$ along the $`z`$-axis. Note that the quantities $`R_s`$ and $`d_s`$ do not depends on $`u_{1,2}`$. It is easy to prove that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ the surfaces verify $`𝒮`$$`{}_{1}{}^{}𝒮`$$`{}_{2}{}^{}𝒮`$s.

In what follows we consider only $`\lambda =1`$ in which case the surfaces $`𝒮`$i are spheres with radii $`R_i`$.

In the TF approximation, the density contours $`\rho _i=|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|^2`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ inside the coexistence region are spherical surfaces with radii $`R<R_i`$ ( $`R>R_i`$) if $`\beta _i<1`$ ($`\beta _i>1`$) centered in $`d_i`$.

## Numerical results—

On the one hand, we compute the displacements $`d_i`$ and radii $`R_i`$ in the Thomas-Fermi approximation. Note that these radii depend on the chemical potentials, and thus also on both the number of particles and the trap frequencies. On the other hand, in order to obtain the exact densities, we solved the Gross-Pitaevskii equations, using a steepest descent method.

In particular, we used the relative intraparticle interaction strength of atoms of 87Rb in the two different hyperfine states given, within a $`1.2`$% of error, in Ref. ma98 , $`u_{1,1}=1`$ and $`u_{2,2}=0.94`$. We chose a trapping potential with an angular frequency $`\omega _r=2\pi \times 7.8`$ Hz, and set the number of particles of each species $`N_1=N_2=1`$$`\times `$$`10^7`$.

In Fig. 1 we show the Gross-Pitaevskii density contours $`\rho _i`$ in the $`y=0`$ plane, together with the Thomas-Fermi displacements $`d_i`$ and radii $`R_i`$, for $`d=0.4`$ $`\mu `$m. From the first to the last row we vary $`u_{1,2}`$ by less than $`10`$%. For $`u_{1,2}=0.93`$, which corresponds to the first row of the graph, it can be seen that a large coexistence region still exists. This region is given by the intersection of the circles defined by $`R_i`$ and $`d_i`$, which leaves outside only a little region on the top of the condensate filled with $`|1`$ type particles. It can also be seen that inside the coexistence region, the GP density contours are well-described by spherical surfaces centered in the points $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ for $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ respectively, as predicted with the TF approximation. For the second row we consider $`u_{1,2}=0.94`$, and with this value $`d_1`$ and $`R_1`$ diverge. The density contours inside the coexistence region are quite planar surfaces for the $`|1`$ component, as expected from the TF analysis because of the above-mentioned divergences. For $`u_{1,2}=0.96`$, which is displayed in the third row, three phases already exist: pure $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ components and a coexistence region. Once more, the contours seem to be in agreement with formulae (4) and (5) with only a small departure in the region next to the boundaries.

Phase separation occurs for $`u_{1,2}=\sqrt{0.94}`$, which corresponds to the fourth row, and thus the coexistence region is reduced to a surface. It is evident that although the GP solutions exhibit some overlap the general feature of the condensate is well-described by the TF approximation. Of course, if we take a smaller number of particles into account, the overlap will be greater. The last row corresponds to $`u_{1,2}=1`$ which is quite similar to the previous figure. This is due to the fact that formulae (9) and (10) do not depend on $`u_{1,2}`$, as we stated before.

In Fig. 2 we display the TF quantities, $`d_i`$ and $`R_i`$ together with the radius of the condensate $`R_{\text{TF}}`$ as functions of $`u_{1,2}`$. For $`u_{1,2}<0.9`$, all these quantities are smooth and monotonous functions, while in the interval displayed in the figure, the quantities related to $`|1`$ species exhibit an abrupt behavior. This effect suggests that if one wants to test experimentally the validity of the values of the interaction strengths within this interval by determining the displacements $`d_i`$, the error in their determination should not affect the desired quantities too much.

As a final illustration, in Fig. 3 we display the density contour for two different sets of relative scattering lengths to describe the interaction of the same two species of 87Rb. One set, which is assumed to be more accurate ha98 , is $`u_{1,1}=1,u_{1,2}=0.97`$ and $`u_{2,2}=0.94`$. However, to tell the truth, up to our knowledge, the error of $`u_{1,2}`$ is not given anywhere. For these values of the interaction strengths the determinant is negative ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=9`$$`\times `$$`10^4`$) and thus the system is phase separated, and hence the coexistence region in the Thomas Fermi approximation is reduced to an interface. The other, previously used, set of parameters es97  is $`u_{1,1}=1,u_{1,2}=108/109`$ and $`u_{2,2}=108.8/109`$, and verifies $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.6`$$`\times `$$`10^2`$. Since the determinant is positive a coexistence region exists. Moreover, $`\beta _1=0.99`$ is less than $`1`$, and the contours of the $`|1`$ component at the coexistence region are still concave upwards.

We used three different displacements $`d=0.4,1,1.5`$ $`\mu `$m for the trapping potentials. For the first set of interaction strengths the corresponding TF displacements are $`d_s=13,32,49`$ $`\mu `$m, respectively. While for the second set, the displacements are $`d_1=54,135,202`$ $`\mu `$m and $`d_2=44,109,163`$ $`\mu `$m. It may be seen that the distribution of particles is very different in both cases, especially for small displacements, and this fact can be used for testing experimentally the values of the scattering lengths. It is worth mentioning that in the experimental conditions of Ref. ha98 , as they obtain integrated densities, one cannot distinguish between a phase separated system ($`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$) and a system in which the components are overlapped ($`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$).

Finally, having in mind the relations $`\beta _1=d_1/(d+d_1)`$ and $`\beta _2=(d+d_2)/d_2`$, we wondered wether having the experimental density contours in a given plane, say $`y=0`$, one can accurately determine the scattering lengths (see definitions of $`\beta _i`$) by estimating the displacements $`d_i`$. In order to answer this question we have done the following test. We have used the information of the GP density contours assuming that they represent the exact experimental data. For a given density contour $`z(x)`$ in the $`y=0`$ plane we computed the slope $`b=z/x`$ at each point $`(x,z)`$ of the curve. Then we calculated the intersection point between the line perpendicular to the density contour and $`x=0`$, which gives the center of the spherical surface. This point is $`z_c=z+x/b`$. Plotting $`z_c`$ for points all over the $`|1`$ ($`|2`$) component contour we found well-defined plateaus at $`z_c=0`$ ( $`z_c=d`$) for points outside the coexistence region, and in $`z_c=d_1^{}`$ ( $`z_c=d_2^{}`$), where $`d_i^{}`$ are the estimates of the TF $`d_i`$. We used this information to determine the scattering lengths and found an error in their determination of about $`0.1`$%. Note that, even considering an error in $`z_c`$ of about 30 $`\mu `$m and using the expressions of $`\beta _i`$, the uncertainty in the value of $`u_{1,2}`$ turns out to be below 0.5%. A similar procedure could be carried out with experimental data.

In summary, we show that the distribution of components is strongly ruled by the interparticle interaction strength, and for the number of particles we have considered, the way the particles rearrange inside the condensate can be easily understood in terms of the Thomas-Fermi approximation. We also outline a possible procedure to experimentally determine the relative scattering lengths.


text:
# Staggered Flux Phase in a Model of Strongly Correlated Electrons

(February 11, 2002)

## Abstract

We present numerical evidence for the existence of a staggered flux (SF) phase in the half-filled two-leg t-U-V-J ladder, with true long-range order in the counter-circulating currents. The density-matrix renormalization-group (DMRG) / finite-size scaling approach, generalized to describe complex-valued Hamiltonians and wavefunctions, is employed. The SF phase exhibits robust currents at intermediate values of the interaction strength.

The zero-temperature phase diagram of the two-dimensional Hubbard model and its various extensions remains poorly understood. An intriguing possibility that has been the focus of considerable attention is known variously as the “orbital antiferromagnet”halperin ; OAF1 ; OAF2 , the “staggered flux” (SF) phaseAM ; MA ; ted ; ivanov ; leung ; didier , or the “d-density wave”chetan ; nayak . The state breaks both time-reversal and lattice translation symmetries; another phase, the “circulating current phase”varma , is similar but preserves translational symmetry. Such “hidden” forms of order could arise in the pseudogap phase of the cuprate superconductors, implying the existence of a quantum critical point and possibly also non-Fermi liquid behaviornayak ; varma . The SF phase competes against other better-known phases such as charge-density waves (CDW), spin-density waves (SDW), superconductivity (BCS), stripes, and Fermi liquids. It is important to ascertain whether or not such order can really occur in sensible microscopic models of correlated electrons. In this Letter we study numerically the simplest possible system that could support such a phase, namely an extended version of the Hubbard model on a two-leg ladder (see Fig. 1). Our approach extends to arbitrary interaction strength earlier analytical work by two of us that showed that the SF phase arises at weak-couplingjohn .

Ladder systems are of interest both because they are easier to understand theoretically than full two-dimensional lattices, and also because they are realized in naturedagotto . Although ladders are one-dimensional, true long-range order (LRO) in the orbital currents is possible at zero temperature because the currents break discrete symmetries. This is in contrast to spin-density wave or BCS superconducting order which break continuous symmetries and which therefore can at most exhibit quasi-LRO with power-law decay.

Away from half-filling, numerical studies of the t-J modelSWA ; Asle  and various extensions of ittroyer  on the two-leg ladder found no evidence for a SF phase. However, for weak interactions, tendencies towards SF ordering (not true LRO, but rather power-law decay of current-current correlation functions) have been found analytically both for the spinlessners-luther-kus  and spinfulschulz96  cases (see also Ref. orignac, ).

Here we will consider the half-filled two-leg ladder. We study an extended Hubbard model, the t-U-V-J model, defined on the two-leg ladder as follows:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =t,b}{}}\{t_{}(c_{i+1,\lambda }^\sigma c_{i,\lambda ,\sigma }+H.c.)+V_{}(n_{i+1,\lambda }1)(n_{i,\lambda }1)+J_{}\stackrel{}{S}_{i+1,\lambda }\stackrel{}{S}_{i,\lambda }\}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\{t_{}(c_{i,t}^\sigma c_{i,b,\sigma }+H.c.)+V_{}(n_{i,t}1)(n_{i,b}1)+J_{}\stackrel{}{S}_{i,t}\stackrel{}{S}_{i,b}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,\lambda }{\overset{L}{}}}(n_{i,\lambda }1)^2.`$
Here $`c_{i\lambda }^\sigma `$ creates an electron of spin $`\sigma =,`$ on site $`i`$ of leg $`\lambda =t,b`$ of the ladder. Operators $`n_{i,\lambda }c_{i,\lambda }^\sigma c_{i,\lambda ,\sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{S}_{i,\lambda }\frac{1}{2}c_{i,\lambda }^\alpha \stackrel{}{\sigma }_\alpha ^\beta c_{i,\lambda ,\beta }`$ are respectively the number and spin at site $`(i,\lambda )`$. There is an implicit sum over repeated raised and lowered spin indices. Particle-hole symmetry implies that the chemical potential $`\mu =0`$ when the system is half-filled, with $`n_{i,\lambda }=1`$ on each site.

For $`V_{}=J_{}=0`$ and $`J_{}=4(U+V_{})`$ the model has SO(5) symmetrySZH . The phase diagram of the SO(5)-symmetric model with $`t_{}=t_{}`$ was investigated in Ref. LBF98,  in the weak-coupling limit using a perturbative renormalization-group (RG) analysis combined with bosonization. One of the phases of the SO(5) model, located in the $`UV_{}`$ plane between the lines $`V_{}=2U`$ and $`V_{}5.7U`$ with $`V_{}>0`$ and $`U<0`$, was identified as having spin-Peierls (SP) order. However, a recent bosonization study by two of usjohn  revealed that this phase in actuality exhibits no dimerization, but instead is the SF phase with true LRO in the orbital currents. For a correct understanding of the problem it was essential to treat carefully the “Klein factors” that must be introduced to maintain anti-commuting statistics of the (bosonized) fermionic degrees of freedom.

Previous RG studies have shown that in weak coupling a rather generic ladder model flows to a manifold with SO(5) symmetry for a range of values of the model parametersLBF98 ; arrigoni . In agreement with these results, we have shown that there are RG flows towards the SF phase also when not too large non-SO(5)-invariant terms (such as $`J_{}`$ and $`V_{}`$) are added to the SO(5)-modelin\_preparation .

Weak-coupling RG is unreliable at intermediate interaction strengths. Instead we use the “infinite-size” version of the density-matrix renormalization-group (DMRG) algorithmwhite  to search for the ordered currents. The half-filled ladder is expected to be fully gapped over a large portion of the phase diagram; consequently (as shown below) the infinite-size algorithm is sufficiently accurate to obtain well-converged results. Each site of the ladder has a Hilbert space of dimension $`4`$, as the site can either be unoccupied, have a single electron of either up or down spin, or be doubly occupied. To employ the DMRG algorithm, we group pairs of sites connected by a rung into a single site of Hilbert space dimension $`D=4\times 4=16`$ (see Fig. 1). Errors in the calculation of observables introduced by the DMRG truncation of the Hilbert space can be systematically reduced by increasing the size $`M`$ of the Hilbert space retained in each of the two outer blocks up to limits imposed by computer memory and speed. The largest Hilbert space we use has $`M=150`$ with corresponding complex dimension $`M\times D\times D\times M=5,760,000`$.

Questions of the spontaneous formation of order are addressed by the combined DMRG / finite-size scaling approach described in some detail in Ref. tsai, . Quantum-critical points have been studied with the method, and critical exponents have been obtained at percent-level accuracysenthil ; tsai . In the present case we induce symmetry breaking by applying a source current $`j_{SF}`$ to the left end rung of the ladder. Terms that induce Cooper-pair formation by breaking U(1) particle-number symmetry ($`j_{BCS}`$), induce CDW and SP order by breaking lattice reflection symmetries ($`j_{CDW/SP}`$), and induce a SDW through the application of a local magnetic field ($`j_{SDW}`$), are also added to the right end of the ladder (see Fig. 1):

$`HH`$ $`+`$ $`j_{SF}it_{}(c_{1,t}^\sigma c_{1,b,\sigma }H.c.)+j_{BCS}(c_{L,t}^{}c_{L,b}^{}c_{L,t}^{}c_{L,b}^{}+H.c.)`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`j_{CDW/SP}n_{L,t}+j_{SDW}S_{L,b}^z.`$
In addition to these explicit source terms, we note that the open boundary conditions on the ladder also act as O(1) source terms for a columnar dimer patterntsai . As the Hamiltonian is complex-valued when $`j_{SF}0`$, we generalize the DMRG code to handle complex-valued wavefunctions and reduced density matrices. This generalization comes at the cost of doubling the required memory, and slowing down both the sparse and the dense matrix diagonalization, but the cost is offset by the advantage that now we can access fully ordered ground states, well beyond linear response theory.

We calculate the expectation value of the current operators $`2t_{}\mathrm{Im}\{c_{i,t}^\alpha c_{i,b,\alpha }\}`$ and $`2t_{}\mathrm{Im}\{c_{i+1,\lambda }^\alpha c_{i,\lambda ,\alpha }\}`$ respectively on the central rungs and links of the ladder, checking that current is conserved (Kirchhoff’s junction rule) at the vertices in the central region; deviations are typically of order $`10^{11}`$ in units where $`t_{}=t_{}=1`$. We also monitor the Cooper pair amplitude, $`c_{i,t}^{}c_{i,b}^{}c_{i,t}^{}c_{i,b}^{}`$; the average magnitude of deviations in the electron hopping amplitudes $`c_{i,\lambda }^\sigma c_{j,\lambda ^{},\sigma }+H.c.`$ from their mean value; deviations in the electron occupancy from one, $`n_{i,\lambda }1`$; and the local spin density, $`S_{i,\lambda }^z`$.

First consider the pure minimal Hubbard t-U model with $`t_{}=t_{}=1`$, $`U=4`$, and $`V_{}=V_{}=J_{}=J_{}=0`$. As shown in the semilog plot of Fig. 2(a), applied source currents of $`j_{SF}=1`$ and $`0.01`$ induce currents on the four central rungs of the ladder that decrease exponentially as the ladder is enlarged via the DMRG algorithm, in agreement with the weak-coupling RG calculationLBF98 . Likewise we find no instabilities towards BCS, SP, CDW or SDW order. Instead the phase is a fully-gapped insulator qualitatively the same as that found in the Heisenberg antiferromagnet.

Next consider the effect of turning on interactions $`J_{}`$ and $`V_{}`$ along the rungs of the ladder. According to the phase diagram in Ref. LBF98, , for the case of exact SO(5) symmetry with $`J_{}=4(U+V_{})`$ the SF phase should occurjohn  in the weak-coupling limit for $`U<0`$ at $`V_{}/U=9/4`$. Fig. 2 shows that the SF phase does indeed arise at these ratios for intermediate interaction strength: For $`U=0.4`$, $`V_{}=0.9`$, and $`J_{}=2`$, a small source current induces orbital currents in the central region of the ladder that grow with increasing ladder length. The currents saturate to the same non-zero asymptotic value in the limit of large ladder length, regardless of the size of the source terms. There is good convergence with increasing block Hilbert space dimension $`M`$; the asymptotic value of the rung current for the most accurate truncation of $`M=150`$ is 0.8047 and differs by only 0.1% from the value obtained with $`M=100`$. The currents alternate in sign from rung to rung as expected in the SF phase. There are no other instabilities: As shown in Fig. 3 the BCS, SP, CDW, and SDW order parameters all vanish exponentially as the ladder is enlarged via the DMRG algorithm, consistent with the weak-coupling prediction. The excitation spectrum remains fully gapped; consequently the SF phase exists over a range of parameter space well beyond the region of exact SO(5) symmetry. For example, robust currents arise for $`U=0.5`$, $`V_{}=0.75`$, and $`J_{}=2`$, and also when interactions along the links are turned on, $`U=0.5`$, $`V_{}=V_{}=0.75`$, $`J_{}=2`$, and $`J_{}=0.5`$.

In the large-$`J_{}`$ limit, with ratios $`U/J_{}=1/4`$ and $`V_{}/J_{}=3/8`$ kept fixed, the ground state of the ladder consists of a direct product of spin-singlet dimers on each of the rungs, with no broken symmetriesSZH . We have verified that the orbital currents cease when the interaction strength is increased further to $`J_{}>2.5`$. We are carrying out a more extensive investigation of the phase diagram of model Eq. 1 by using the weak-coupling RG equations in combination with the DMRG / finite-size scaling methodin\_preparation .

It would be interesting to study the effects of doping away from half-filling. Numerical study of the doped SF phase would require the use of the more accurate “finite-size” DMRG algorithm, as either gapless excitations, or rich spatial structures such as stripes, are expected to occurWAS . One question to be answered is whether or not LRO in the currents can still arise at commensurate hole concentrations.

In summary we have shown that a phase of strongly correlated electrons exists in which currents form spontaneously in the half-filled two-leg ladder. At half-filling the SF phase is fully gapped, and thus is an insulator of the Mott-Hubbard type. Our results, suitably generalized to two or three spatial dimensions, may have application to several stoichiometric compounds that were recently proposed to be in the SF phasestoichiometric . It is also intriguing that the SF phase lies in between a checkerboard CDW phase, and the D-Mott phaseLBF98 ; john ; in\_preparation , as charge segration into stripes and d-wave superconductivity are two phases that occur in the high-Tc cuprates.

Note added: U. Schollwöck has recently used the “finite-size” version of the DMRG algorithm, generalized to complex-valued wavefunctions, to study the SO(5) ladder with the same parameters as Fig. 2. The value of the saturated rung current that he finds agrees quantitatively with our result.

We thank I. Affleck, L. Balents, S. Chakravarty, S. Kivelson, D.-H. Lee, P. Lee, D. Scalapino, U. Schollwöck, M. Troyer, S.-W. Tsai, C. Varma, and S. White for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the NSF under grant Nos. DMR-9712391, CDA-9724347, and PHY99-07949. J.O.F. was supported by the Norwegian Research Council, Grant No 142915/432, and A.S. by Grant No. 115541/410 Some computational work was carried out at Brown University’s Technology Center for Advanced Scientific Computing and Visualization.


text:
# Fact

Euler characteristic of the configuration space of a complex Published in Colloquium Mathematicum Volume 89, Issue 1, 2001

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification : 57

Światosław R. Gal

http://www.math.uni.wroc.pl/~sgal/

Abstract. A closed form formula (generating function) for the Euler characteristic of the configuration space of $`n`$ particles in a simplicial complex is given.

Introduction.

The Euler characteristic, being independent of the structure of a simplicial complex on a topological space, may be computed in terms of zeroth order data, i.e. the number of cells of each dimension. We prove that the Euler characteristics of configuration spaces may be computed in terms of first order data of the underlying space, i.e. the Euler characteristics of links of cells.

When computing the Euler characteristic of the configuration space on $`n`$ (ordered) particles in a simplicial complex $`X`$ we mimic the inductive approach which gives the desired formula in the case of manifolds. Consider the projection $`𝒞_n(X)X`$ onto the first particle. Even though this map is not in general a fibration, we can relate the Euler characteristics of the base, the total space and the fibers of this map. A major feature here is a very interesting measure on $`X`$.

Next we restate the formula as a differential equation for the exponential generating function, which is then solved explicitly.

The result (and overall strategy) generalizes a similar result for the case of graphs, which was known to M. W. Davis, H. Glover, T. Januszkiewicz and J. Światkowski around 1997.

0. Definitions and conventions.

For any topological space $`X`$ define the configuration space of $`n`$ (ordered) particles in $`X`$ as $`𝒞_n(X):=X^n\{\xi :\xi _i=\xi _j\text{ for some }ij\}`$; $`\xi _i`$ will be referred to as the $`i`$th particle of the configuration $`\xi `$. Define $`\chi _n(X):=\chi 𝒞_n(X)`$ to be the Euler characteristic of $`𝒞_n(X)`$.

A subspace $`SX`$ is collared if there is a tubular neighborhood $`VS\times (1,1)`$ of $`S`$ in $`X`$. We say that a complex $`Y`$ is obtained by C(ut)&P(aste) surgery from a complex $`X`$ if one can find a collared subcomplex $`SX`$ (one may think that $`X`$ is a barycentric subdivision of some complex $`Z`$ and $`S`$ is transversal to $`Z`$, i.e. when restricted to any cell of $`Z`$ it has codimension $`1`$) such that $`Y`$ can be obtained from $`X`$ by cutting along $`S`$ and then gluing again by some cellular automorphism of $`S`$. We define the C&P equivalence relation on the category of finite complexes as the equivalence relation generated by C&P surgery and subdivision. By $`CP`$ we denote the Grothendieck ring generated by C&P classes of finite complexes with disjoint union as sum and with Cartesian product as multiplication (the class of $`X`$ will be denoted $`[X]`$).

Similarly, in the topological category we define t(opological)C&P surgery,and the (topological) $`tCP`$ ring.

###### Fact

The Euler characteristic is tC&P invariant and may be regarded as a ring homomorphism $`\chi :tCPZ`$.

Proof : From the exact sequence of a pair it follows that $`\chi (X)=\chi (V)\chi (X,V)`$ and from the excision lemma $`\chi (X,V)=\chi (XS,VS`$). Since the pairs $`(XS,VS)`$ and $`(YS,VS)`$ are homeomorphic the proof is complete.

We will often use a special surgery (called an amputation): let $`AZ`$ be an open subset with collared boundary; take $`X=Z(I\times A)`$, $`S=A(\{1/2\}\times A)`$ and let the automorphism interchange both copies of $`A`$; then $`Y=(ZA)\overline{A}I`$, therefore $`[Z]=[ZA]+[\overline{A}][I\times A]`$.

1. The integral formula.

From now on, let $`X`$ denote a finite simplicial complex. Let $`CX`$ denote the cone over $`X`$. If $`\sigma `$ is a cell of $`X`$, define:

$``$$`d_\sigma `$ to be the dimension of $`\sigma `$,

$``$$`L_\sigma `$ to be the normal link of $`\sigma `$,

$``$$`\sigma `$ to be a sufficiently small contractible (open) neighborhood of the center of $`\sigma `$.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`\mu `$ be the measure1) on $`X`$ given by $`\mu (\sigma )=1\chi L_\sigma `$ for any cell $`\sigma `$. Then

$$\chi _n(X)=_X\chi _{n1}(X\sigma )\mu (\sigma ).$$
$`()`$
1) One should take the $`\sigma `$-algebra generated by the cells of $`X`$; on the other hand $`\mu `$ may be understood as a functional on the space of functions which are constant on each open cell.

Remark : The above formula is obvious when $`X`$ is a manifold, since then $`\pi `$ is a bundle and the Euler characteristic of the total space is the product of the Euler characteristics of the fiber and the base. In this special case ($``$) reads: $`\chi _n(X)=\chi _{n1}(XU)\chi (X)`$, where $`U`$ is a small open ball.

In the general case the fiber of $`\pi `$ changes when $`\xi _1`$ approaches faces of non-zero codimension. The idea of the proof is to write a deformation retraction that corrects the picture at the vertices, use amputation surgery, and continue inductively.

Proof of Theorem 1. : Consider on $`X`$ an auxiliary metric $`d`$ compatible with the simplicial structure, such that each cell is a regular simplex with a side of length $`8`$. Let $`B_\delta (x)`$ and $`B_\delta (A)`$ denote the open metric balls of radius $`\delta `$ around $`xX`$ and $`AX`$ respectively.

We will denote by $`\pi :𝒞_n(X)X`$ the projection onto the first factor.

Let us define a projection $`p_k`$ onto the $`k`$ skeleton $`X^{(k)}`$ (it is defined only for some $`x`$ from $`X`$, namely for those which are close to $`X^{(k)}`$, and far from $`X^{(k1)}`$). We set $`p_k(x)`$ to be the point of $`X^{(k)}`$ nearest to $`x`$.

Put $`\epsilon :=1/8`$; define inductively sequences of spaces:

(1) $`A_k𝒞_n(X)`$ consists of the configurations such that $`dist(\xi _1,X^{(l)})\epsilon ^l`$ for $`l<k`$ (roughly speaking $`\xi _1`$ is far from $`X^{(k1)}`$).

(2) $`D_kA_k`$ consists of the configurations such that if $`dist(\xi _1,X^{(k)})<\epsilon ^k`$ then $`\xi _1`$ is the only particle in $`B_{\epsilon ^k}(p_k(\xi _1))`$.

For any $`\sigma `$ such that $`d_\sigma =k`$ put $`N_\sigma =B_{\epsilon ^k/2}(\sigma )\pi (D_k)`$ ($`N_\sigma `$ is homeomorphic to $`\sigma \times CL_\sigma `$, its boundary in $`\pi (D_k)`$ is homeomorphic to $`\sigma \times L_\sigma `$). Then $`\pi ^1(N_\sigma )D_k`$ is homeomorphic to the product $`N_\sigma \times 𝒞_{n1}(X\sigma )`$. Amputating all the $`N_\sigma `$’s we write

$$[D_k]=[E_k]+\underset{\sigma :d_\sigma =k}{}[\sigma ]([CL_\sigma ][L_\sigma \times I])[𝒞_{n1}(X\sigma )],$$

and thus

$$\chi D_k=\chi E_k+\underset{\sigma :d_\sigma =k}{}(1\chi L_\sigma )\chi _{n1}(X\sigma ),$$

where $`E_k=\pi ^1(XN_\sigma )D_k`$.

We will complete the proof when we show that $`\chi D_k=\chi E_{k1}`$. This will be done in two steps.

By polar coordinates on $`CY=[0,\delta ]\times Y/\{0\}\times Y`$ (we will also denote the class of $`\{0\}\times Y`$ by $`0`$) we mean a pair of functions: the modulus $`||:CY[0,t]`$, and the argument $`Arg:(CY0)Y`$ which are the projections onto factors.

Step 1. $`D_k`$ is a deformation retract of $`A_k`$ (thus $`\chi A_k=\chi D_k`$).

We can assume that $`\xi _1B_{\epsilon ^k}(\sigma )`$. Note that $`B_{\epsilon ^k}(p_k(\xi _1))`$ is a cone over its boundary (in $`X`$). Consider polar coordinates on it.

For configuration $`\xi `$ define $`\varrho :=\mathrm{min}\{d(\xi _i,p_k(\xi _1)):i>1\}`$. Both $`\xi _1`$ and some other particle are in $`B_{\epsilon ^k}(p_k(\xi _1))`$ iff $`\varrho <\epsilon ^k`$. If this is the case (if not, then $`\xi D_k`$) define $`r:=\mathrm{max}(\varrho ,d(\xi _1,p_k(\xi _1)))`$.

We need a continuous function $`n:[0,2\epsilon ^k]\times (0,\epsilon ^k][0,2\epsilon ^k]`$ such that $`n(,R)`$ is a homeomorphism (preserving endpoints) of $`[0,2\epsilon ^k]`$ for any $`R`$, $`n(R,R)=\epsilon ^k`$, and $`n(,\epsilon ^k)=id`$. An example of such a function is

$$n(t,R):=\frac{2\epsilon ^{2k}R^2}{R(2\epsilon ^kR)}t+\frac{R\epsilon ^k}{R(2\epsilon ^kR)}t^2.$$

Define

$$\lambda _{\xi ,\theta }(y):=\{\begin{array}{cc}n(|y|,(1\theta )r+\theta \epsilon ^k)\text{Arg}(y)\hfill & \text{if }yB_{\epsilon ^k}(p_k(\xi _1))\text{,}\hfill \\ y\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

For each $`\theta `$ this is a homeomorphism of $`X`$ continuously depending on $`\xi `$.

The desired deformation retraction is now given by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\theta (\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n):=(\lambda _{\xi ,\theta }(\xi _1),\mathrm{},\lambda _{\xi ,\theta }(\xi _n)).$$

Step 2. $`A_{k+1}`$ is a deformation retract of $`E_k`$ (thus $`\chi E_k=\chi A_{k+1}`$).

For simplicity of notation we will assume that $`B_{2\epsilon ^k}(\sigma )`$ is a metric product $`(\sigma \pi (D_k))\times CL_\sigma `$ (to do this one has to change the metric a bit in the neighborhood of $`\sigma `$). Consider polar coordinates on $`CL_\sigma `$.

We need a continuous function $`n:[\epsilon ^k,2\epsilon ^k]\times [0,\epsilon ^k/2)[\epsilon ^k,2\epsilon ^k]`$ such that $`n(,R)`$ is an embedding of $`[\epsilon ^k,2\epsilon ^k]`$ into itself, $`n(2\epsilon ^k,)=2\epsilon ^k`$, if $`R>0`$ then $`n(,R)>\epsilon ^k`$, and $`n(,0)=id`$. An example of such a function is

$$n(t,R):=\frac{\epsilon ^kR}{\epsilon ^k}t+\frac{2R}{\epsilon ^k}.$$

Define

$$\lambda _{\xi ,\theta }(y):=\{\begin{array}{cc}(p_k(y),n(|y|,\theta (\epsilon ^k|\xi _1|))\text{Arg}(y))\hfill & \text{if }yB_{2\epsilon ^k}(\sigma )\text{,}\hfill \\ y\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\zeta _\theta :=(p_k(\xi _1),(|\xi _1|+\theta (\epsilon ^k|\xi _1|))\text{Arg}(\xi _1)).$$

The desired deformation retraction is now given by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\theta (\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n):=(\zeta _\theta ,\lambda _{\xi ,\theta }(\xi _2),\mathrm{},\lambda _{\xi ,\theta }(\xi _n)).\text{}$$

2. Generating function

###### Definition

Let $`eu_X(t):=\chi _n(X)t^n/n!`$.

We use this particular generating function since it satisfies an interesting differential equation. Namely, it is clear that Theorem 1 can be restated as the differential equation

$$eu_X^{}=_Xeu_{X\sigma }\mu (\sigma ).$$
$`()`$
A preliminary step to solve $`()`$ is

###### Proposition 1

$`eu`$ is a group homomorphism of the additive group of $`CP`$ to the group of units $`Z[[t]]^\times `$.

Proof : First we prove that this is a homomorphism. For any configuration of $`n`$ particles in $`XY`$ there is a partition $`IJ=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that $`x_iX`$ for $`iI`$ and $`x_jY`$ for $`jJ`$, i.e.

$$𝒞_n(XY)\underset{IJ=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}𝒞_{\mathrm{\#}I}(X)𝒞_{\mathrm{\#}J}(Y).$$

Therefore

$$\frac{\chi _n(XY)}{n!}=\frac{1}{n!}\underset{k}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)\chi _k(X)\chi _{nk}(Y)=\underset{k}{}\frac{\chi _k(X)}{k!}\frac{\chi _{nk}(Y)}{(nk)!}.$$

We prove inductively that $`\chi _n`$ is C&P invariant. Let $`Y`$ be obtained from $`X`$ by C&P surgery along $`S`$. To show that $`\chi _n(X)=\chi _n(Y)`$ using $`()`$, it is sufficient to check that for any simplex $`\sigma `$ its measure in $`X`$ and $`Y`$ is the same, and $`X\sigma `$ and $`Y\sigma `$ are C&P related. This is obvious when $`\sigma `$ is not in $`S`$. If $`\sigma `$ does belong to $`S`$ then its link in $`X`$ is the same as a link in $`Y`$ (it is the suspension of a link in $`S`$), the second statement follows from the fact that a neighborhood of $`S`$ is isomorphic to $`S\times (0,1)`$, and $`\sigma `$ can be pushed away from $`S`$ by some automorphism of $`S\times (0,1)`$ which is the identity near the ends of the interval. Then we can apply C&P surgery along $`S`$ and eventually move $`\sigma `$ back.

3. Explicit formula for $`eu`$.

###### Proposition 2

$$\frac{eu_{CX}(t)}{eu_{X\times I}(t)}=1+(1\chi X)t.$$

Remark : The results of the previous sections are still valid if we assume that cells of $`X`$ are products of simplices. Therefore we can put a product structure on $`X\times I`$. The cells of $`CX`$ are cones of cells of $`X`$ and their sides.

Proof of Proposition 2. : Let $`\varrho `$ be a cell of $`CX`$ different from the vertex of the cone. Then

$$[CX\varrho ]=[CX]+[X\times I\varrho ][X\times I],$$

i.e.

$$eu_{CX\varrho }=\frac{eu_{CX}}{eu_{X\times I}}eu_{X\times I\varrho }.$$

If $`\varrho `$ is a vertex of a cone then $`CX\varrho =X\times I`$. Combining the above equalities with ($``$) we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill eu_{CX}^{}& =(1\chi X)eu_{X\times I}+_{X\times [0,1)}\frac{eu_{CX}}{eu_{X\times I}}eu_{X\times I\varrho }\mu (\varrho )\hfill \\ & =(1\chi X)eu_{X\times I}+\frac{eu_{CX}eu_{X\times I}^{}}{eu_{X\times I}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The last equality follows since $`\mu (\sigma \times \{1\})=0`$ (the link is a cone) and the integral may be taken over $`X\times I`$. Eventually we obtain

$$\left(\frac{eu_{CX}}{eu_{X\times I}}\right)^{}=1\chi X.\text{}$$

###### Theorem 2

Let $`X`$ be a complex. For any cell $`\sigma `$ let $`d_\sigma `$ and $`v_\sigma `$ denote respectively the dimension of $`\sigma `$ and the Euler characteristic of the normal link $`L_\sigma `$ of $`\sigma `$. Then

$$eu_X(t)=\underset{\sigma }{}(1+(1)^{d_\sigma }(1v_\sigma )t)^{(1)^{d_\sigma }}.$$
$`(1)`$
Proof : Apply $`eu`$ to the equality $`[X\sigma ]=[X]+[\sigma \times I][\overline{\sigma }]`$, and integrate it over $`X`$ to obtain

$$eu_X^{}=eu_X_X\frac{eu_{\sigma \times I}}{eu_{\overline{\sigma }}}\mu (\sigma ).$$

Since $`\overline{\sigma }=C\sigma `$, we apply Proposition 2:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (\mathrm{log}eu_X)^{}(t)& =_X\frac{1}{1+(1\chi \sigma )t}\mu (\sigma )\hfill & (2)\hfill \\ & =_X\frac{\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{log}(1+(1\chi \sigma )t)}{1\chi \sigma }\mu (\sigma ).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Also $`\sigma `$ is the $`d_\sigma `$-fold suspension of $`L_\sigma `$, so $`1\chi \sigma =(1)^{d_\sigma }(1v_\sigma )`$. Therefore, rewriting the right hand side we have

$$(\mathrm{log}eu_X)^{}(t)=\underset{\sigma }{}(1)^{d_\sigma }\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{log}(1+(1)^{d_\sigma }(1v_\sigma )t),$$

which proves the theorem.

Note : When $`\chi \sigma =1`$, the corresponding summand in $`(2)`$ is $`0`$ and the factor in $`(1)`$ is $`1`$.

Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to my advisor Tadeusz Januszkiewicz for suggesting the project and help throughout. I thank Jan Dymara for carefully reading the paper and for his help in improving the presentation.

Institute of Mathematics, University of Wrocław, Pl. Grunwaldzki 2/4, 50-384 Wrocław, Poland, e-mail : sgal@math.uni.wroc.pl