text:
# A Theory for Quantum Accelerator Modes in Atom Optics

## 1 Introduction

The kicked rotor is a standard system used in the investigation of classical Hamiltonian chaos and its manifestations in quantum mechanical systems . The motion is classically described by the Standard Map. The size of the chaotic component in the phase space of this map increases with the driving strength, and when the latter is sufficiently strong unbounded diffusion in action space takes place. Important deviations are however found for some values of the driving strength , due to the onset of so-called accelerator modes, that produce linear, rather than diffusive, growth of momentum along orbits in a set of positive measure. Quantization imposes remarkable modifications. For typical parameter values, the classical diffusion is quantally suppressed by a mechanism that is similar to Anderson localization in disordered solids . The accelerator modes decay in time due to quantum tunneling . Quantum resonances are found when the natural frequency of the rotor is commensurate with the frequency of the driving . The quasienergy states are then extended in angular momentum, leading to ballistic (i.e., linear) growth of the latter in time.

The quantal suppression of classical diffusive transport first observed in the quantum kicked rotor is actually a more general phenomenon, now known as dynamical localization. Theoretical predictions  prompted the first experimental observations of this phenomenon for microwave driven Hydrogen and Hydrogen like atoms.

The most direct experimental realization of the quantum kicked rotor is achieved in the field of atom optics, by a technique pioneered by Raizen and coworkers . Laser-cooled Atoms (first Sodium and later Cesium) are driven by application of a standing electromagnetic wave. The frequency of the wave is slightly detuned from resonance, so a dipole moment is induced in the atom. This moment couples with the driving field, giving rise to a net force on the center of mass of the atoms, proportional to the square of the electric field . As the wave is periodic in space, the atom is thus subjected to a periodic potential. The wave is turned on and off periodically in time, and the time it is on is much shorter then the time it is off. A realization of a periodically kicked particle is then obtained. In real experiments the duration of the kicks is always finite, setting a bound on the the momentum range wherein the $`\delta `$-kicked model is applicable. At very large momentum the driving becomes adiabatic, leading to trivial classical and quantum localization in momentum .

The basic difference between the kicked particle and the kicked rotor is that the momentum of the particle is not discrete as is the angular momentum of the rotor. As we shall review in Sect.(2.2) , this difference is circumvented by Bloch theory. The spatial periodicity of the driving only allows for transitions between momenta that differ by integer multiples of $`\mathrm{}G`$, with $`2\pi G^1`$ the spatial period of the driving potential. This implies conservation of quasi-momentum. The particle wavepacket is a continuous superposition of states with given quasi-momenta. The dynamics at any one fixed quasi-momentum is that of a rotor, which however differs from the standard kicked rotor because of a constant shift in the angular momentum eigenvalues, proportional to the given quasi-momentum. This modification of the kicked rotor dynamics is formally the same as that produced by a Aharonov-Bohm flux threading the rotor. It does not crucially affect dynamical localization , so the latter carries over to the particle dynamics. In experiments  it is found that for typical values of the parameters, an initial narrow gaussian distribution around zero momentum spreads into an exponential distribution, characteristic of dynamical or Anderson localization.

The difference between the rotor’s and the particle’s dynamics due to the presence of a continuum of quasi-momenta is indeed crucial in what concerns quantum resonances at “commensurate” values of the kicking period, because these only occur at special values of quasi-momentum. Therefore, nearly all quasi-momenta involved in a particle’s wave packet would not be in resonance . In this paper we present an exact calculation, showing that the quadratic spread in momentum grows in this case linearly in time, in contrast to the situation found for the kicked rotor, where this spread is quadratic in time. A more detailed analysis of the kicked particle dynamics at resonance will be presented elsewhere .

In the above discussed experiments, gravity had but negligible effects, as driving of the atoms took place in the horizontal direction. In recent experiments , that provide the subject of the theoretical analysis of the present paper, atoms were driven in the vertical direction, and gravity was found to produce remarkable effects. In the vicinity of the resonant frequencies of the kicked rotor, a new type of ballistic spread in momentum was experimentally observed . A fraction of the atoms are steadily accelerated, at a rate which is faster or slower than the gravitational acceleration depending on what side of the resonance the driving frequency is. Such atoms are exempt from the diffusive spread that takes place for the other atoms, and their acceleration depends on the difference between the driving and the resonant frequencies. 111The main experimental results are clearly presented in Figs 4 and 13 of Ref. . In ref.  a physical explanation was given, and it was stressed that the phenomenon is resemblant of the accelerator modes in the Standard Map. The accelerating parts of the distributions were hence termed “quantum accelerator modes”, at once emphasizing that resemblance, and their purely quantal nature; in fact, they have no classical counterpart in the classical dynamics of the kicked particles in gravity.222 For some parameter values, the latter dynamics does exhibit accelerator modes, which are however unrelated to the experimentally observed ones.

In this paper we present a theory that explains the experimental results in terms of the exact quantum equations of motion, and allows for further predictions. The main result is that the quantum accelerator modes in presence of gravity do indeed correspond to accelerator modes of a classical map. This map is not, however, the one given by the proper classical limit $`(\mathrm{}0)`$. It emerges of a quasi-classical asymptotics, where the small parameter is not $`\mathrm{}`$ but rather the detuning of the kicking frequency from the resonance of the kicked rotor. Though a formally simple variant of the Standard Map, it is endowed with a rich supply of accelerator modes and complex bifurcation patterns.

Our analysis starts from the time-dependent Schrodinger equation for the kicked particle in the laboratory frame. A simple gauge transform reduces the corresponding Floquet operator to that of a particle kicked by a potential, that is quasi-periodic (and not just periodic) in space (Sect.(2.1)). The corresponding incommensuration parameter adds to the kicking period, in building a formidable mathematical problem. In particular, quasi-momentum is not conserved, preventing implementation of the Bloch theory. Moving to a free-falling frame removes this difficulty and restores decomposition into independent rotor problems, at the price of time-dependent Floquet operators (Sect.(2.3)). On such operators we work out the mentioned quasi-classical approximation at small detuning from resonance.

Variants of the kicked-rotor, in which some parameter was allowed to change with time, have been considered earlier , the issue being what degree of uncorrelatedness in the time-dependence is sufficient to destroy localization. For the quasi-periodic dependence of the present model, this issue is as yet unsolved, and depends on incommensuration properties. In a mathematical aside of this work, we prove that in the presence of gravity and at resonant values of the kicking period the particle energy (in the falling frame) grows linearly in time, in sufficiently incommensurate cases at least.

## 2 Discrete-Time Quantum Dynamics

The dynamics of the atoms that are falling as a result of gravity and are kicked by the external field is modeled by the time-dependent Hamiltonian:

$$\widehat{H}(𝚝)=\frac{\widehat{P}^2}{2M}Mg\widehat{X}+\kappa \mathrm{cos}(G\widehat{X})\underset{t=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\delta (𝚝tT),$$
(1)
where $`𝚝`$ is the continuous time variable, the integer variable $`t`$ counts the kicks, $`\widehat{P},\widehat{X}`$ are the momentum and the position operator respectively, $`M`$ is the mass of the atom, $`2\pi G^1`$ is the spatial period of the kicks, $`\kappa `$ is the kick strength, and $`T`$ is the kicking period in time. The positive $`x`$direction is that of the gravitational acceleration. Without changing notations, we rescale momentum $`\widehat{P}`$ in units of $`\mathrm{}G`$, position $`\widehat{X}`$ in units of $`G^1`$, and mass in units of $`M`$. Then the energy $`E`$ comes in units of $`\mathrm{}^2G^2/M`$, and time $`𝚝`$ in units of $`M/(\mathrm{}G^2)`$. The reduced Planck constant is equal to $`1`$, and the Hamiltonian takes the following form:

$$\widehat{H}(𝚝)=\frac{\widehat{P}^2}{2}\frac{\eta }{\tau }\widehat{X}+k\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{X})\underset{t=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\delta (𝚝t\tau ),$$
(2)
where:

$$k=\frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{}}\tau =\frac{\mathrm{}TG^2}{M},\eta =\frac{MgT}{\mathrm{}G},$$
(3)
In the above defined units, $`\eta /\tau `$ is the gravitational acceleration. The dynamics is fully characterized by the dimensionless parameters $`k,\tau ,\eta `$.

In the following Dirac notations will be used: e.g., $`\psi (x)=x|\psi `$ and $`\psi (p)=p|\psi `$ will denote the wave function in the position and in the momentum representation respectively.

### 2.1 Floquet operators.

The quantum evolution over a sequence of discrete times spaced by one period of the external periodic driving is obtained by repeated application of the Floquet operator. This is the single unitary operator which gives the evolution from any instant to the next one in the given sequence of times. Our discrete times will be the kicking times themselves 333Other choices lead to different Floquet operators, which are nonetheless unitarily equivalent to the present one.. Throughout the following, time is a discrete variable, given by the kick counter $`t`$. As the state discontinuously changes at the kicking times, we further specify the state at time $`t`$ to be the one immediately after  the $`t`$th kick. The Floquet operator $`\widehat{U}`$ is then found by integrating the Schrödinger equation (with the Hamiltonian (2)) from t$`=0_+`$ to t$`=\tau _+`$:

$$\widehat{U}=\widehat{K}\widehat{F}=e^{ik\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{X})}\widehat{F},$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{K}`$ describes the kick, and $`\widehat{F}`$ describes free fall inbetween kicks. With the present units, the energy eigenfunctions $`u_E(p)=p|E`$ of the particle in the gravity field read  :

$$u_E(p)=\left(\frac{\tau }{2\pi \eta }\right)^{1/2}e^{i\frac{\tau }{\eta }(Ep\frac{p^3}{6})}.$$

Therefore, apart from a constant phase factor,

$`p^{}|\widehat{F}|p^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑Ee^{iE\tau }u_E(p^{})u_E^{}(p^{\prime \prime })}`$
$`=`$ $`\delta (p^{}p^{\prime \prime }\eta )e^{i\frac{\tau }{2}(p^{}\frac{\eta }{2})^2}`$
Moreover,

$$p|e^{ik\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{X})}|p^{}=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}K_n\delta (pp^{}n)$$

where $`K_n=(i)^nJ_n(k)`$ and $`J_n(k)`$ are the Bessel functions of the 1-st kind. Replacing in (4) we get the explicit form of the propagator in the laboratory frame:

$$(\widehat{U}\psi )(p)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}K_ne^{i\frac{\tau }{2}(pn\frac{\eta }{2})^2}\psi (pn\eta ).$$
(5)
Note that $`K_n=K_n`$. A more transparent formulation is gained by introducing the operators:

$$\widehat{R}=e^{i\tau \widehat{P}^2/2},\widehat{S}=e^{i\eta \widehat{X}/2}$$

One may then write:

$$\widehat{U}=\widehat{S}\widehat{K}\widehat{R}\widehat{S}=\widehat{S}^{}\widehat{U}^{}\widehat{S},\widehat{U}^{}=\widehat{S}^2\widehat{K}\widehat{R}$$
(6)
Thus $`\widehat{U}`$ only differs by a unitary transformation (in fact a gauge transformation) from $`\widehat{U}^{}`$, which has the simple form:

$$\widehat{U}^{}==e^{i(\eta \widehat{X}k\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{X}))}e^{i\tau \widehat{P}^2/2}$$
(7)
Thus formulated, the problem is that of a particle freely moving on a line, except for time-periodic kicks. The spatial dependence of the kicks is periodic when $`\eta `$ is rational, quasi-periodic otherwise.

### 2.2 Quasi-momentum and Kicked Rotors.

If $`\eta =0`$, then (7) is formally similar to the Kicked Rotor model , from which it however differs in one crucial respect: whereas the latter has the kicked particle moving on a circle, (7) has the particle moving on a line instead. A link between the two models is established by the spatial periodicity of the kicking potential. We review this well-known construction, because it plays a fundamental role in this paper.

At $`\eta =0`$ the evolution operator $`\widehat{U}`$ commutes with spatial translations by multiples of $`2\pi `$. As is well known from Bloch theory, this enforces conservation of quasi-momentum. In our units, this is given by the fractional part of momentum, and will be denoted by $`\beta `$. We then introduce a family of fictitious rotors (particles moving on a circle) parametrized by $`\beta [0,1)`$, with angle coordinate $`\theta `$ (henceforth named $`\beta `$rotors), and denote $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta `$ their states. For integer $`n`$ we denote $`|n`$ the angular momentum eigenstates of these rotors so that in the $`\theta `$ representation $`\theta |n=(2\pi )^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(in\theta )`$. To states $`|\psi `$ of the particle we associate states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta `$ of the $`\beta `$rotors as follows:

$$\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\underset{n}{}n+\beta |\psi e^{in\theta }.$$
(8)
In the angular momentum representation,

$$n|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta =n+\beta |\psi $$
(9)
Note that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta `$ is not necessarily normalized to $`1`$, even if $`|\psi `$ is. Conversely, the state of the particle is retrieved from the $`\beta `$rotor states via

$$p|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta \theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta e^{in\theta },n=[p],\beta =\{p\}.$$
(10)
where $`[p],\{p\}`$ denote the integer and the fractional part of the momentum $`p`$ respectively. Using (10) and Poisson’s summation formula, one obtains the wave function in the $`x`$representation:

$$x|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}dpe^{ipx}p|\psi =_0^1d\beta e^{i\beta x}x\text{mod}(2\pi ))|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta .$$
(11)
Fixing a sharp value of $`\beta `$ yields a spatially extended state (a Bloch wave ) for the particle, even with a normalizable rotor wave function.

It follows from (5) and (9) (with $`\eta =0`$) that as $`|\psi `$ evolves into $`\widehat{U}^t|\psi `$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta `$ in turn evolves into $`\widehat{𝒰}_\beta ^t|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta `$, where:

$$\widehat{𝒰}_\beta =(\widehat{𝒦}\widehat{}_\beta ),n|\widehat{𝒦}|m=K_{nm},n|\widehat{}_\beta |m=\delta _{nm}e^{i\frac{\tau }{2}(\beta +m)^2}.$$
(12)
Eqn. (12) may also be written as follows:

$$\widehat{𝒰}_\beta =e^{ik\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\theta })}e^{i\frac{\tau }{2}(\widehat{𝒩}+\beta )^2}.$$
(13)
where $`\widehat{𝒩}=_nn|nn|`$ is the angular momentum operator: $`\widehat{𝒩}=i\frac{d}{d\theta }`$ in the $`\theta `$representation, At $`\beta =0`$, eqn. (13) is the standard Floquet operator of the Kicked Rotor. At $`\beta 0`$ one obtains a variant of the Kicked Rotor, which has also been studied, $`\beta `$ being typically given the physical meaning of an external magnetic flux.

We have thus shown that in the presence of conserved quasi-momentum the particle dynamics can be determined as follows: given an initial particle (pure) state $`|\psi (0)`$ one first computes the corresponding rotor states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (0)`$ as above described. These separately evolve into $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (t)`$ at time $`t`$. The particle state $`|\psi (t)`$ is finally reconstructed using (10). The process of decomposing the particle dynamics in a bundle of rotors will henceforth be named “the Bloch-Wannier fibration”. It is the quantal counterpart of the classical process of “folding back” the particle trajectory onto a circle, by taking the $`x`$coordinate mod$`(2\pi )`$.

The kinetic energy of the particle at time $`t`$ is:

$`(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑pp^2|\psi (p,t)|^2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\beta (n+\beta )^2|\psi (n+\beta ,t)|^2`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}d\beta {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\theta \left\{\right|{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\theta }}\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (t)|^2+\beta ^2|\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (t)|^2+`$
$``$ $`2i\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (t)|\theta {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\theta }}\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (t)\}`$
In the case of unbounded propagation in momentum space, it is the 1st term within the curly brackets which yields the dominant contribution at large $`t`$ (the 2-nd is bounded by $`1`$, the 3-d is order of square root of the 1-st.). Note that the 1-st term is the average over $`\beta `$ of the $`\beta `$ rotors kinetic energy.

### 2.3 Motion in the falling frame.

In the case of nonzero gravity, quasi momentum is not conserved any more because the kicking potential in (7) is not periodic (unless $`\eta `$ is rational). However, a quasi-momentum -conserving evolution is restored by the substitution :

$$\psi _f(p,t)=p+t\eta |\widehat{U}^t|\psi ),$$

Since $`\eta `$ is the momentum gained over one period due to gravity, this amounts to measuring momentum in the free-falling frame (recall that the positive $`x`$direction is that of gravitational acceleration).

From (5) it follows that

$$\psi _f(p,t+1)=\underset{n}{}K_ne^{i\frac{\tau }{2}(pn+t\eta +\frac{\eta }{2})^2}\psi _f(pn,t).$$
(15)
that may be rewritten as :

$$|\psi _f(t+1)=\widehat{U}_f(t)|\psi _f(t),\widehat{U}_f(t)=e^{ik\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{X})}e^{i\frac{\tau }{2}(\widehat{P}+t\eta +\frac{\eta }{2})^2}.$$
(16)
The operator $`\widehat{U}_f(t)`$ describes up to a constant phase the evolution from (continuous) time $`𝚝=(t\tau )_+`$ to time $`(𝚝+\tau )_+`$ under the time-dependent Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_f(𝚝)=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{P}+\frac{\eta }{\tau }𝚝)^2+k\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{X})\underset{t=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\delta (𝚝t\tau ),$$
(17)
that describes the motion in the falling frame. This Hamiltonian is related to that in eqn.(2) by the gauge transformation $`e^{i\eta \widehat{X}𝚝/\tau }`$. The classical dynamics corresponding to (16) is given by the area-preserving, time-dependent map in the $`(x,p)`$ plane:

$$p_{t+1}=p_t+k\mathrm{sin}(x_{t+1}),x_{t+1}=x_t+\tau (p_t+t\eta +\frac{\eta }{2}).$$
(18)
Since $`\mathrm{}=1`$ in our units, the classical limit is approached as

$$k\mathrm{},\tau 0,\eta \mathrm{},k\tau \text{const.}0,\eta \tau \text{const.}0.$$
(19)
The evolution (15) only mixes momenta which differ by integers: hence, quasi-momentum is conserved, so the Bloch-Wannier fibration can be fully implemented, as described in the previous Section. Eqn.(12) now becomes:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (t)=\underset{r=0}{\overset{t1}{}}\widehat{𝒰}_\beta (r)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ,\widehat{𝒰}_\beta (r)=\widehat{𝒦}\widehat{}_\beta (r)$$
(20)
(all operator products ordered from right to left), where

$$n|\widehat{𝒦}|m=K_{nm},n|\widehat{}_\beta (r)|m=\delta _{nm}e^{i\frac{\tau }{2}(\beta +m+r\eta +\eta /2)^2}.$$
(21)
Consequently, in the falling frame,

$$\widehat{𝒰}_\beta (t)=e^{ik\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\theta })}e^{i\frac{\tau }{2}(\widehat{𝒩}+\beta +\eta t+\eta /2)^2}.$$
(22)
## 3 Features of Quantum Dynamics in the falling frame.

The theoretical importance of the Kicked Rotor model lies with its asymptotic properties in time. Best known among these are dynamical localization, and quantum resonances. Though not crucial to current experiments, the long-time asymptotics is an important theoretical question for the present models, too. Apart from resonances, we do not attempt at a thorough theoretical analysis of this issue, which is likely to critically depend on the arythmetic type of $`\tau ,\eta ,\beta `$. Though some results in this respect will be presented later, we mostly focus on intermediate-time features of the quantum dynamics, directly connected to experimental findings.

In this section the falling frame is constantly used, without any further reference to the laboratory frame. The suffix f will be omitted in order to simplify notations.

### 3.1 Resonances

#### 3.1.1 Zero Gravity

If the kicking period $`\tau `$ is commensurate to $`4\pi `$, that is $`\tau =4\pi p/q`$ with $`p,q`$ relatively prime integers, and in addition $`\beta =m/(2p)`$ with $`m<2p`$ an integer, then the $`\beta `$Kicked Rotor exhibits the phenomenon of Quantum Resonance . In that case, indeed, the rotor dynamics commutes with translations in momentum by multiples of $`q`$. This typically results in band (absolutely continuous) quasi-energy spectrum and ballistic spread of the rotor wave packet in the momentum representation. For special values of $`q`$ the bands may however be flat. This is the case when $`q=2`$; the ballistic spread is then only observed at $`\beta =1/2`$, while at $`\beta =0`$ the dynamics is sharply localized in momentum (“anti-resonance”), as can be seen from (13), making use of the fact that $`e^{i\pi ln^2}=e^{i\pi ln}`$ holds for integer $`l`$ and $`n`$. The width of the quasi-energy bands rapidly decreases as the order $`q`$ of the resonance increases. Ballistic motion is then observed only after quite long times. This places high-order resonances beyond experimental observation. Our discussion is mostly focused on the main resonances ($`q=1,2`$).

Since the quadratic growth of energy at resonant values of $`\tau `$ requires a sharp value of quasi-momentum (hence an extended particle state in position), it cannot be observed in the particle wave packet long-time dynamics, not even at resonant values of $`\tau `$. Nevertheless, with a generic choice of the initial wavepacket, a resonant effect is still manifest, in the form of linear asymptotic growth of the particle energy. This is qualitatively understood as follows. At time $`t`$, rotors whose quasi-momenta lie within $`1/t`$ of the resonant value(s) are still mimicking the resonant growth of energy $`t^2`$. Assuming a smooth initial distribution of quasi-momenta, such rotors enter the average over $`\beta `$ (14) with a weight $`1/t`$. This directly leads to the linear growth of $`(t)`$. The latter can also be rigorously proven, and the proportionality factor computed. This is done in the Appendix, under the hypothesis that the initial wave function of the particle is such that $`\psi |\widehat{X}^{2\alpha }|\psi <\mathrm{}`$ for some $`\alpha >1`$.

#### 3.1.2 Nonzero gravity

The $`\beta `$rotor dynamics at resonant values of $`\tau `$ in the presence of gravity is a nontrivial mathematical problem, which may give rise to different types of quantum transport depending on the arythmetic type of $`\eta `$.

In the Appendix we prove that for $`\tau =2l\pi `$ ,($`l`$ integer), and for all irrational $`\eta `$ in a set of full Lebesgue measure, the energy $`(t)`$ (in the falling frame) grows like $`k^2t/4`$, under the hypothesis that the initial wave function satisfies $`\psi |\widehat{X}^{2\alpha }|\psi <\mathrm{}`$ for some $`\alpha >1`$.

### 3.2 Accelerator Modes

#### 3.2.1 Quantum Rotor Dynamics near Resonance.

We shall now analyze the quantum dynamics at values of $`\tau `$ close to the resonant values $`2\pi l`$ ($`l>0`$ integer) and for large kicking strength $`k`$. We hence assume $`\tau =2\pi l+ϵ`$ with $`l`$ integer and $`|ϵ|<<1`$, and rescale $`k=\stackrel{~}{k}/|ϵ|`$. Replacing in (21) and noting $`e^{i\pi ln^2}=e^{i\pi ln}`$ we get:

$$m|\widehat{}_\beta (t)|n=\delta _{mn}e^{i\frac{\tau }{2}(\beta +t\eta +\eta /2)^2}e^{i(ϵ\frac{n^2}{2}+n(\pi l+\tau \beta +\tau t\eta +\tau \frac{\eta }{2}))}$$

whence it follows that (apart from an irrelevant phase factor)

$$\widehat{𝒰}_\beta (t)=e^{\frac{i}{|ϵ|}\stackrel{~}{k}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }}e^{\frac{i}{|ϵ|}\widehat{}_\beta (\widehat{I},t)}$$
(23)
where444The integer time variable $`t`$ is fixed on both sides, and the 2nd exponential on the right hand side is that of a constant operator.

$$\widehat{I}=|ϵ|\widehat{𝒩}=i|ϵ|\frac{d}{d\theta },\widehat{}_\beta (\widehat{I},t)=\frac{1}{2}\text{sign}(ϵ)\widehat{I}^2+\widehat{I}(\pi l+\tau (\beta +t\eta +\frac{\eta }{2})),$$
(24)
If $`|ϵ|`$ is assigned the role of Planck’s constant, then (23),(24) is the formal quantization of either of the following classical (time-dependent) maps :

$$I_{t+1}=I_t+\stackrel{~}{k}\mathrm{sin}(\theta _{t+1}),\theta _{t+1}=\theta _t\pm I_t+\pi l+\tau (\beta +t\eta +\eta /2)\text{mod}(2\pi )$$
(25)
where $`\pm `$ has to be chosen according to the sign of $`ϵ`$.555 The double sign would not appear if $`ϵ`$ were used as the “Planck constant”, rather than $`|ϵ|`$. In this way the sign of $`I`$ would be reversed with respect to that of physical momentum whenever $`ϵ<0`$. The small $`|ϵ|`$ asymptotics of the quantum $`\beta `$ rotor is thus equivalent to a quasi-classical approximation based on the “classical” dynamics (25). We emphasize that “classical” here is not related to the $`\mathrm{}0`$ limit but to the limit $`ϵ0`$ instead. The two limits are actually incompatible with each other except possibly when $`l=0`$ (see (19)). For the sake of clarity the term “$`ϵ`$classical” will be used in the following.

#### 3.2.2 $`ϵ`$Classical rotor dynamics.

Changing variable to $`J_t=I_t\pm \pi l\pm \tau (\beta +\eta t+\eta /2)`$ removes the explicit time dependence of the maps (25), yielding:

$$J_{t+1}=J_t+\stackrel{~}{k}\mathrm{sin}(\theta _{t+1})\pm \tau \eta ,\theta _{t+1}=\theta _t\pm J_t.$$
(26)
These area-preserving maps are $`2\pi `$\- periodic in $`J`$ and $`\theta `$, so they define smooth, area-preserving maps of the 2-torus parametrized by $`𝒥=J`$ mod$`(2\pi )`$, $`\vartheta =\theta `$ mod$`(2\pi )`$. Such “toral maps” are conjugated to each other under $`𝒥2\pi 𝒥`$ mod$`(2\pi )`$, $`\vartheta \vartheta +\pi `$ mod$`(2\pi )`$. They differ from the Standard Map by the constant drift $`\eta \tau `$.

Let $`𝒥_0,\vartheta _0`$ be a period-$`𝔭`$ fixed point of either toral map. Iterating (26) with $`J_0=𝒥_0,\theta _0=\vartheta _0`$, at $`t=𝔭`$ one obtains:

$$J_𝔭=J_0+2\pi 𝔧,\theta _𝔭=\theta _0+2\pi n$$
(27)
for some integers $`𝔧,n`$. The points $`(𝒥_t,\vartheta _t)`$ with $`0t𝔭1`$ are period-$`𝔭`$ fixed points themselves, and define a period-$`𝔭`$ periodic orbit of the toral map, which is primitive if all such points are distinct.

Period-$`1`$ fixed points are given on the 2-torus by $`𝒥_0=0`$, $`\vartheta _0=\theta _𝔧`$, where

$$\mathrm{sin}(\theta _𝔧)=\frac{2\pi 𝔧\tau \eta }{\stackrel{~}{k}}$$
(28)
and $`𝔧`$ is any integer such that:

$$\stackrel{~}{k}\pm \tau \eta 2\pi 𝔧\stackrel{~}{k}\pm \tau \eta .$$
(29)
No such point exists if $`\stackrel{~}{k}<\tau \eta <\pi `$; two (at least) exist (that is, (28) is solvable for at least one value of the integer $`𝔧`$) whenever $`\stackrel{~}{k}\pi `$. Two period-$`1`$ fixed points with $`𝔧=0`$ exist whenever $`\stackrel{~}{k}\tau \eta `$. In order for the period-$`1`$ fixed points (28) to be stable it is required that:

$$4<\pm \stackrel{~}{k}\mathrm{cos}(\vartheta _0)<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
(30)
From (29), (30) it follows that for any integer $`𝔧`$ each map (26) has exactly one stable period-$`1`$ fixed point on the 2-torus, given by (28) if, and only if,

$$\stackrel{~}{k}_{min}^{(𝔧,\pm )}<\stackrel{~}{k}<\stackrel{~}{k}_{max}^{(𝔧,\pm )},\stackrel{~}{k}_{min}^{(𝔧,\pm )}=|2\pi 𝔧\tau \eta |,\stackrel{~}{k}_{max}^{(𝔧,\pm )}=\sqrt{16+(2\pi 𝔧\tau \eta )^2}.$$
(31)
At $`\stackrel{~}{k}=\stackrel{~}{k}_{max}^{𝔧,\pm }`$ such fixed points turn unstable and bifurcations occur. This is shown in Fig.1 for a case with $`𝔧=0`$. At $`\stackrel{~}{k}=\stackrel{~}{k}_{max}^{0,}=4.037`$ a stable period-$`2`$ orbit appears. This becomes in turn unstable at $`\stackrel{~}{k}4.490`$, and a stable period-$`6`$ orbit is left . The size of the islands rapidly decreases through the sequence of bifurcations. At $`\stackrel{~}{k}=5`$ no significant stability islands are any more visible; at $`\stackrel{~}{k}=5.741`$ and at $`\stackrel{~}{k}=6.825`$ stable period-1 points with $`𝔧=1`$ and $`𝔧=1`$ respectively appear. The rise and fall of these, and of subsequent higher-$`𝔧`$ period-1 points as well, are ruled by (31). Further examples of period-1 fixed points, and bifurcations thereof, are illustrated in Fig.2.

Examples of primary (that is, not born of period-1 points by bifurcation) higher-period stable orbits are shown in Fig.3. Generally speaking, the presence of two independent parameters ($`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ and $`\tau \eta `$) in the maps produces a remarkable variety of stable periodic orbits of higher periods, depending on the parameter values in complicated ways. Figs.1, 2 and 3 provide but a partial view of such complexity. They were singled out because they pertain to experimentally relevant parameter ranges; see the discussion in sect.(3.2.6). In particular, the value $`\eta /\tau =0.01579`$ constantly used in this paper is that of experiments in .

#### 3.2.3 $`ϵ`$Classical Accelerator Modes.

Primitive periodic orbits of the toral maps yield families of accelerator orbits of the original dynamics (25), marked by linear average growth of momentum with time:

$$\theta _{𝔭t}=\theta _0=\vartheta _0\text{mod}(2\pi ),I_{t𝔭}=I_0+a𝔭t,$$
(32)
where

$$I_0=𝒥_0\pi l\tau (\beta +\frac{\eta }{2})+2\pi m,a=\frac{2\pi 𝔧}{𝔭}\tau \eta .$$
(33)
with $`m`$ any integer, and $`𝒥_0,\vartheta _0`$ a period-$`𝔭`$ fixed point. If such accelerator orbits are stable, then they are surrounded by islands of positive measure in phase space, also leading to ballistic (linear) average growth of momentum in time. These are named accelerator modes.

We shall classify accelerator modes according to their order $`𝔭`$ and jumping index $`𝔧`$. By a $`(𝔭,𝔧)`$-accelerator mode we shall mean a mode, whose order and jumping index are given by the integers $`𝔭,𝔧`$ respectively.

#### 3.2.4 Quantum Accelerator Modes in Rotor Dynamics.

Initial physical momenta $`n_0=|ϵ|^1I_0`$ for $`ϵ`$classical accelerator modes are obtained from (33) for any $`0\beta <1`$ :

$$n_0=\frac{2\pi m+𝒥_0}{|ϵ|}\frac{\pi l}{ϵ}\frac{\tau }{ϵ}(\beta +\frac{\eta }{2})$$
(34)
If the stable islands associated with $`ϵ`$classical accelerator modes have a large area compared to $`|ϵ|`$, then they support a large number of quantum states. Thus they may trap some of the rotor’s wave packet and give rise to quantum accelerator modes traveling in physical momentum space with speed $`a/|ϵ|=\tau \eta /ϵ+2\pi 𝔧/(𝔭|ϵ|)`$. In order that such modes may be observed, the phase space distribution associated with the initial rotor state must significantly overlap the islands. Even in that case the modes will eventually decay due to quantum tunneling out of the classical islands.

This picture is confirmed by numerical simulations. Fig.4 shows the quantum phase-space evolution of a $`\beta `$rotor started in a coherent state centered at the position of the $`(1,0)`$\- accelerator mode generated by the fixed point shown in Fig.1 (left). The Husimi functions computed at subsequent times closely follow the motion of the $`ϵ`$classical mode.

In Fig.5 we compare quantum and $`ϵ`$-classical results after $`30`$ kicks, and different values of $`\tau `$ at fixed $`k`$ and $`\eta /\tau `$. In some of the examined $`\tau `$ range, two different $`ϵ`$-classical modes are simultaneously present, with different signs of the acceleration. In order to single out one of them, we have plotted the quantities $`E_\pm `$, which, in the classical case, are equal to the average energy after $`30`$ kicks, computed over those rotors in the ensemble which, at the given time, have a positive (respectively, negative) momentum. In the quantum case, they are equal to the energy, computed in the state obtained by projecting the rotor state over the positive (respe., negative) momenta. The main peak in the left-hand plot is due to a $`(1,0)`$ mode whose interval of existence and stability is, according to (31), $`1.043<\tau /(2\pi )<1.261`$. Both the classical and the quantum data sharply arise at the onset of the mode. The rise of the quantum data is actually milder, because the $`ϵ`$-classical island has to grow beyond a size $`ϵ`$ in order to be quantally significant (note that $`|ϵ|`$ increases on increasing $`\tau `$). As the stability border is approached, the island starts shrinking again, the classical and the quantum mode become less and less effective; the latter somewhat faster, for the just mentioned reasons. At the stability border, a $`(2,0)`$ classical mode is originated by bifurcation, which is in fact signalled by a tiny peak in the classical data; however, no similar quantum structure is observed. The small peak on the leftmost part is an accelerator mode itself, see Sect. (3.2.6).

At not really small values of the “Planck’s constant” $`ϵ`$, strong $`ϵ`$-classical modes still leave quantal signatures. The quantum-classical correspondence turns however loose, in interesting ways. This is illustrated in the right hand part of Fig.5. Now $`|ϵ|`$ decreases from left to right. The rightmost peak corresponds to a $`(3,1)`$ mode (see Sect. 3.2.6), faithfully reproduced by quantum data. The main classical peak is the $`(1,0)`$ mode, active for $`1.721<\tau /(2\pi )<1.862`$. A significant quantum mode is also observed, with remarkable differences, however. In particular, the quantum mode has its maximum at the very point where the $`(1,0)`$ $`ϵ`$-classical mode turns unstable, giving birth to a $`(2,0)`$ mode, as demonstrated in Fig.2 (right). Our explanation of this curious behaviour is as follows. When the stability island near a stable fixed points breaks at a bifurcation point, some remnants of its KAM structure nevertheless survive, in the form of broken tori (cantori). These provide but a partial barrier to classical motion, and allow for nonzero phase-area flux. If this flux is small compared to $`ϵ`$, then the cantorus quantally acts as if it were unbroken  . Then it may give rise to a quantum accelerator mode, much more effectively than one might guess looking at the small area of stability of the bifurcated higher-period orbits.

Though $`ϵ`$classical modes exist at any value of $`\beta `$, their location in the $`\beta `$-rotor’s phase-space changes with $`\beta `$ . Hence their impact on the quantum evolution of a rotor state is enhanced at those values of $`\beta `$ which afford maximal overlap of the mode with the given state. In particular, if $`\eta \tau <2\pi `$, and the $`\beta `$rotor is initially set in the $`n=0`$ momentum eigenstate, then the quantum $`(1,0)`$-accelerator modes are especially pronounced when $`\beta =l\pi /\tau \eta /2`$. Note that $`\beta `$ was not set to this value in the case of of Fig.4.

In the $`ϵ`$ semiclassical regime, accelerator modes exponentially decay in time due to quantum tunneling out of the classical islands, with decay rate $`\gamma _ϵ\mathrm{exp}(\text{const.}/|ϵ|)`$. The decay of quantum accelerator modes is numerically demonstrated in Fig.6.

#### 3.2.5 Quantum accelerator modes in Particle Dynamics.

Quantum Accelerator modes arise in the particle dynamics as well, just because such dynamics comes of a quantal superposition of $`\beta `$rotors. We shall presently discuss the small-$`ϵ`$ asymptotics of the particle dynamics. This will at once provide an alternative derivation of the $`ϵ`$-classical rotor dynamics, and a means of translating into particle dynamics the results established in the previous sections.

Let us consider the propagator from state $`|p`$ to state $`|x^{}`$ from (discrete) time $`t`$ to time $`t+1`$, for the particle dynamics (16). Let $`p=n+\beta `$ as usual, and $`x^{}=2m^{}\pi +\theta ^{}`$ with $`m^{}`$ integer and $`0\theta ^{}<2\pi `$. Then

$`x^{}|\widehat{U}(t)|p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi (\beta ,\theta ^{},t))`$ (35)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(ik\mathrm{cos}(\theta ^{})+in\theta ^{}+2im^{}\pi \beta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵn^2in\pi lin\tau (\beta +t\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}})\right),`$
where $`e^{i\pi ln^2}=e^{i\pi ln}`$ was used, and

$$\varphi (\beta ,\theta ^{},t)=\beta \theta ^{}\frac{\tau }{2}\left(\beta +t\eta +\frac{\eta }{2}\right)^2.$$
(36)
Next we introduce $`ϵ`$-classical scaled variables $`I=n|ϵ|`$, $`\stackrel{~}{k}=k|ϵ|`$, $`L^{}=2\pi m^{}|ϵ|`$, to be kept constant in the $`ϵ`$-classical limit. Then (35) rewrites as:

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{i\varphi (\beta ,\theta ^{},t)}e^{\frac{i}{|ϵ|}(\theta ^{},L^{},\beta ,I,t)},$$
(37)
where:

$$(\theta ^{},L^{},\beta ,I,t)=I\theta ^{}L^{}\beta \stackrel{~}{k}\mathrm{cos}(\theta ^{})\frac{1}{2}\text{sign}(ϵ)I^2I\left(\pi l+\tau (\beta +t\eta +\eta /2)\right).$$
(38)
Considering $`|ϵ|`$ as the Planck’s constant, and $`I,L^{}`$ as canonical momenta respectively conjugated to $`\theta ,\beta ^{}`$, the function $``$ is a generating function for the canonical transformation $`(\theta ,I,\beta ,L)(\theta ^{},I^{},\beta ^{},L^{})`$ given by:

$`\beta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{L^{}}}=\beta `$
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\beta }}=L^{}+\tau I`$
$`I^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^{}}}=I+\stackrel{~}{k}\mathrm{sin}(\theta ^{})`$
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{I}}=\theta ^{}\text{sign}(ϵ)I\pi l\tau (\beta +t\eta +\eta /2).`$ (39)
The second exponential in (37) is thus (apart from a constant prefactor) the $`ϵ`$-semiclassical propagator associated with the $`ϵ`$-classical map (3.2.5). The 3d and the 4th equation are just the $`ϵ`$-classical $`\beta `$-rotor dynamics. The first equation says that quasi-momentum is conserved, and the second yields the complete revolutions accumulated by the $`\beta `$-rotor from time $`t`$ to $`t+1`$; this quantity is formally conjugated to quasi-momentum.

However, (37) has the additional phase factor $`e^{i\varphi }`$, which is not $`ϵ`$-semiclassical, because $`\varphi `$ is not scaled by $`|ϵ|^1`$. While this factor is irrelevant for the fixed $`\beta `$ dynamics (and was in fact disregarded in sect. (3.2.1)), it cannot be neglected when studying the particle wavepacket dynamics, which requires integration over all values of $`\beta `$. Such integration causes $`ϵ`$-classical trajectories of different $`\beta `$-rotors to interfere. This interference is ruled by the true Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}=1`$, and cannot be suppressed by the $`ϵ0`$ limit. Unlike the $`\beta `$-rotor dynamics, the particle dynamics does not become “classical” in the $`ϵ0`$ limit.

As long as $`\beta `$ is fixed, the maps (3.2.5) yield, in the physical variables $`p,x`$ and at $`|p|,|x|>>1`$:

$`p_t`$ $`=`$ $`|ϵ|^1I_t+\beta p_0+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi 𝔧}{𝔭}}\tau \eta \right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{|ϵ|}},`$
$`x_t`$ $``$ $`|ϵ|^1L_tx_0+n_0\tau t+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi 𝔧}{𝔭}}\tau \eta \right){\displaystyle \frac{\tau t(t1)}{2|ϵ|}}`$ (40)
for a $`(𝔭,𝔧)`$\- accelerator mode (32) started at $`x_0`$, $`p_0`$.

Fig.7 shows the quantum evolution of a particle started at $`t=0`$ in the coherent state centered at the $`(1,0)`$-accelerator mode $`p_0=0`$, $`x_0=0.42`$. The phase-space distribution splits, the righmost part of it moving with constant acceleration $`\tau \eta /ϵ`$. This is the effect of the accelerator mode.

A conceptually simpler situation is met when the initial state of the particle is an incoherent mixture of plane waves, for in that case no interference occurs between different $`\beta `$rotors. Let the initial particle state be described in the falling frame by the statistical operator:

$$\widehat{\rho }(0)=𝑑pf(p)|pp|,f(p)0,𝑑pf(p)=1.$$
(41)
Each plane wave has a well-defined quasi-momentum, so it is equivalent to a unique $`\beta `$rotor in the angular momentum eigenstate specified by the integer part of the momentum of the wave. Therefore, the statistical ensemble (41) is equivalent to a statistical ensemble of $`\beta `$-rotors. At any given quasi-momentum $`\beta `$, the state of the rotor is described by the statistical operator $`\widehat{\rho }_\beta =(P(\beta ))^1_nf(n+\beta )|nn|`$; the distribution of quasi-momenta is further given by $`P(\beta )=_nf(n+\beta )`$. The momentum distribution for the particle is given at time $`t`$ by

$$f(p,t)=P(\beta )n|\widehat{\rho }_\beta (t)|n$$
(42)
where $`\beta =\{p\}`$, $`n=[p]`$, and $`\widehat{\rho }_\beta (t)`$ evolves according to the $`\beta `$-rotor dynamics (20). The distribution in momentum is then $`ϵ`$-quasi classically that of an ensemble of classical rotors evolving according to (25).

#### 3.2.6 Spectroscopy of accelerator modes.

In the experiments described in refs., the initial state of the falling atoms is satisfactorily described, according to the same references, by (41), with $`f(p)`$ a Gaussian of rms deviation $`2.55`$ (in our units) centered at $`p=0`$. In Figs. 8 and 9 we show numerical results obtained with the same choice of the initial state. Such results provide further evidence of accelerator modes, including higher order ones, which were not previously identified. The Figures were produced by computing the evolution of an ensemble of $`50`$ rotors with the mentioned initial distribution over $`60`$ kicks, for different values of the period $`\tau `$ near the main resonances $`\tau =2\pi `$, $`\tau =4\pi `$, and $`k=0.8\pi `$. As $`\eta /\tau `$ was kept fixed at the physical value $`0.01579`$, $`\eta `$ also varied with $`\tau `$. Fig.8 is analogous to the experimentally obtained Fig.2 in ref.  (with some differences in units and in parameter values, though).

The final distribution of momenta is represented by shades of grey in the $`(p,\tau )`$ plane, darker zones corresponding to higher probability. The hyperbolic-like structures near $`\tau =2\pi ,4\pi `$ are signatures of quantum accelerator modes. At any $`\tau `$ where they are visible, they are in fact located at the momentum values reached at $`t=60`$ by certain accelerator modes, started at $`t=0`$ with $`n_00`$. Such values are theoretically predicted by eqs.(32). The $`ϵ`$-classical $`(𝔭,𝔧)`$-mode started at $`t=0`$ with $`I_0=n_0|ϵ|`$ is located at time $`t`$ at the momentum:

$$nn_0t\frac{\tau \eta }{ϵ}+t\frac{2\pi 𝔧}{𝔭|ϵ|}.$$
(43)
Replacing $`ϵ=\tau 2\pi l`$ ($`l=1,2`$ for Fig.8 and Fig.9 respectively), and $`\eta =0.01579\tau `$, one obtains a curve $`n=n(\tau )`$ for any chosen time $`t`$ and for any chosen $`n_0,𝔭,𝔧`$. Such curve is then observable, if a mode with the chosen $`𝔭`$,$`𝔧`$ exists, which significantly overlaps the initial distribution. The narrow distribution of initial momenta legitimates the choice $`n_0=0`$; although other small values of $`n_0`$ are involved, they just result in a thickening of the curves.

Well-marked (1,0) modes are observed in both Figures. The intervals of existence and stability of the $`ϵ`$-classical $`(1,0)`$ modes predicted by (31) are $`0.745<\tau /(2\pi )<0.963`$ and $`1.043<\tau /(2\pi )<1.261`$ for the case of Fig.8. The $`(1,0)`$ mode in Fig.9 is the same as in Fig.5; in most of its range the $`ϵ`$-classical structure is like the one shown in Figs.2 and 5. It has both a $`(1,1)`$ stable orbit and a $`(2,0)`$ stable orbit originated by bifurcation. The $`(1,1)`$ theoretical curve mostly lies at negative values of $`p`$ off the scale of the figure, and no significant trace of it was detected in our quantum computation, indicating that the island was too tiny compared to the relatively large values of $`|ϵ|`$. We therefore explain the large $`(1,0)`$ structure obaserved by the same quantal mechanism discussed in sect. (3.2.4), namely localization by cantori.

Higher-order modes $`(10,\pm 1)`$ and $`(5,\pm 2)`$ are observed close to $`\tau =2\pi `$ and $`\tau =4\pi `$ respectively. The corresponding $`ϵ`$-classical modes are shown in Fig.3. The small, yet well marked, structure produced by the $`(10,1)`$ mode near $`2\pi `$ is also visible in experimental data in . The correspondence of the $`(5,2)`$\- and $`(10,1)`$-modes with the curves (43) is remarkably evident at longer times, see the insets in Figs.8 and 9.

In Figs.8 and 9 other higher-order modes are visible, too. These were identified by first fitting the observed structure with a curve (43), and then checking that the $`ϵ`$-classical phase space really displays, in the relevant $`\tau `$ range, a stable orbit with the found $`𝔭,𝔧`$. A few of these left but a dim trace in Figs.8 and 9. This may be due on one hand to mutual interference of different modes when they coexist in the same $`\tau `$-range, and on the other hand to the small number of rotors used in the computation. For such reasons, Figs.8 and 9 do not probably account for all the accelerator modes which are excited in their respective parameter ranges.

Generally speaking, the family of higher-order modes that are potentially observable in Figures like 8 and 9 (and in experiments as well) is probably much richer than shown here. These might be exposed by varying parameters, and also by a fine scan of smaller $`ϵ`$ ranges. It looks likely that momentum distributions at relatively short times, of the type shown in Figs.8 and 9, can be altogether described by accelerator mode spectroscopy, i.e identification of accelerator modes and analysis of their mutual interference. Such a systematic analysis is beyond the scope of this work.

## 4 Concluding remarks.

1) The above theory of accelerator modes hinges on reduction to independent kicked rotors models, wherein such modes admit a natural interpretation in terms of classical trajectories. It is the conservation of quasi-momentum that allows for such reduction. Accelerator modes in particle dynamics are a purely quantal effect, in fact a remarkable manifestation of the conservation of quasi-momentum (in the falling frame).

2) The fact that the intermediate-time dynamics is dominated by a discrete set of modes, which exponentially decay in time, bears a distinct resemblance to the Wannier-Stark problem of a Bloch particle in a constant field . How far this analogy carries is, in our opinion, a very interesting question.

3) The time-dependent variants of the Kicked Rotor model examined in this paper also raise other important theoretical questions, which were not addressed in this paper. These are about the long-time asymptotics of the dynamics, and the localization-delocalization issue in particular.

4) In the experiments  the initially prepared states form an incoherent superposition of momentum eigenstates, and of quasimomentum states. Therefore the results of the of the calculations for the $`\beta `$-rotors explain the experiments. The particle nature (compared to the rotor) is important only for initial coherent superpositions of momentum eigenstates. It will of great interest if this point is explored experimentally.

## 5 Appendix: Resonances in the presence of Gravity

In this appendix we assume $`\tau =2\pi l`$, with $`l0`$ integer. We denote $`\psi (x)=x|\psi `$ the wave function of the particle in the position representation, and $`(t)`$ the kinetic energy at time $`t`$ (in the falling frame).

Proposition: Let $`𝑑x|x|^{2\alpha }|\psi (x)|^2<+\mathrm{}`$ for some $`\alpha >1`$. Then:

(I) If $`\eta =0`$ :

$$(t)=(0)+\frac{k^2Dt}{4}+O(t^\lambda ),\lambda =\text{max}\{2\alpha ,\frac{1}{2}\}$$

where:

$$D=\frac{1}{l}\underset{n=0}{\overset{l1}{}}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta |\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\beta _n}|^2,\beta _n=\frac{n}{l}+\frac{l}{2}\text{mod}(1).$$
(44)
(II) If $`\eta 0`$ satisfies a Diophantine condition, that is, there are constants $`c,\gamma >0`$ so that for all integer $`p,q`$ :

$$\left|\eta \frac{p}{q}\right|cq^{2\gamma }$$
(45)
then:

$$(t)=(0)+\frac{k^2t}{4}+O(t^\sigma ),\sigma =\text{max}\{2\alpha +\gamma ,\frac{1}{2})$$
(46)
Remarks:

1. The quasi-momenta $`\beta _n`$’s in part (I) are exactly those yielding quadratic growth of the $`\beta `$rotor energy.

2. Part (II) ensures that, for all $`\eta `$ in a set of full measure, the energy grows diffusively with coefficient $`k^2/4`$.

Proof: Numerical constants will share the common notation $`C`$ whenever their exact value is irrelevant. From (21),

$$n|\widehat{}_\beta (t)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (t)=e^{i\pi ln(1+2\beta +2t\eta +\eta )}e^{i\varphi (\beta ,\eta ,t)}n|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (t)$$

The explicit form of the phase $`\varphi `$ is not important for our present purposes. Further,

$$\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (t+1)=\theta |\widehat{𝒦}\widehat{}_\beta (t)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (t)=e^{i\varphi (\beta ,\eta ,t)}e^{ik\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}\theta abt|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (t),$$

where:

$$a=\pi l(1+2\beta +\eta ),b=2\pi l\eta .$$
(47)
It follows that:

$$\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (t)=e^{i\varphi (\beta ,\eta ,t)}e^{ikF(\theta ,\beta ,t)}\theta at\frac{b}{2}t(t1)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (0)$$

where:

$$F(\theta ,\beta ,t)=\underset{r=0}{\overset{t1}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta rarbt+r^2b/2+rb/2)$$

We now use eqn.(14). As already remarked, the dominant contribution is given by the 1st term on the rhs, corrections being on the order of square root of that term. We hence restrict to that term. After substituting the above equations, it takes the form:

$$\frac{1}{2}_0^1𝑑\beta _0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta \left|\frac{d}{d\theta }\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (t)\right|^2=_0(t)+_1(t)+_2(t),$$
(48)
having denoted

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_0(t)& =& \frac{1}{2}_0^1𝑑\beta _0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta |g^{}(\theta ,t)|^2,\\ _1(t)& =& \frac{k^2}{2}_0^1𝑑\beta _0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta F^{}_{}{}^{}2(\theta ,\beta ,t)|g(\theta ,t)|^2,\\ _2(t)& =& k\mathrm{}_0^1𝑑\beta _0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta iF^{}(\theta ,\beta ,t)g^{}(\theta ,t)g^{}(\theta ,t)\\ g(\theta ,t)& =& \theta tabt^2/2+bt/2|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (0)\end{array}$$

(primes denote differentiation with respect to $`\theta `$). An obvious shift in $`\theta `$ shows that

$$_0(t)=\text{const}=_0(0).$$
(49)
Moreover, from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality it follows that:

$`|_2(t)|`$ $``$ $`k\left({\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\beta {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\theta F^{}_{}{}^{}2(\theta ,\beta ,t)|g(\theta ,t)|^2\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\beta {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\theta |g^{}(\theta ,t)|^2\right)^{1/2}`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`2_1(t)^{1/2}_0(0)^{1/2}`$
The dominant contribution to $`(t)`$ is thus given by $`_1(t)`$, so $`_0`$, $`_2`$ will not be considered until the end of the proof. After an obvious change of variables,

$$_1(t)=\frac{k^2}{2}_0^1𝑑\beta _0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta \left(\underset{r=1}{\overset{t}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\theta +ra+br^2/2br/2)\right)^2|\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (0)|^2.$$
(51)
We rewrite the square of the sum as a double sum, then apply standard trigonometric formulae, and finally replace $`a,b`$ by (47), leading to :

$$_1(t)=\frac{k^2}{2}_0^1𝑑\beta _0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta |\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (0)|^2\left(A_1(\beta ,t)A_2(\beta ,\theta ,t)\right)$$
(52)
with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A_1(\beta ,t)& =& \frac{1}{2}\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{t}{}}()^{(r+s)l}\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi l\beta (rs)+\pi l\eta (r^2s^2)\right),\\ A_2(\beta ,\theta ,t)& =& \frac{1}{2}\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{t}{}}()^{(r+s)l}\mathrm{cos}\left(2\theta +2\pi \beta (r+s)+\pi l\eta (r^2+s^2)\right).\end{array}$$

Now we expand $`|\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (0)|^2`$ in Fourier series:

$$|\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (0)|^2=\underset{M,N}{}c(M,N)e^{2\pi iM\beta }e^{iN\theta }$$
(53)
Replacing in (52) we obtain

$$_1(t)=\frac{1}{2}\pi k^2\mathrm{}(B_1B_2),$$
(54)
where:

$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r,s=1}{\overset{t}{}}}c(l(rs),0)()^{(rs)l}e^{i\pi l\eta (r^2s^2)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1t}{\overset{t1}{}}}c(lj,0)()^{lj}e^{i\pi l\eta j^2}{\displaystyle \underset{r=\text{max}(1,j+1)}{\overset{\text{min}(t,j+t)}{}}}e^{2\pi il\eta rj},`$
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r,s=1}{\overset{t}{}}}c(l(r+s),2)()^{l(r+s)}e^{i\pi l\eta (r^2+s^2)}`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{2t}{}}}c(lj,2)()^{lj}e^{i\pi l\eta j^2}{\displaystyle \underset{r=\text{max}(1,jt)}{\overset{\text{min}(t,j1)}{}}}e^{2\pi il\eta r(rj)}.`$
With the help of the Lemma proven in the end of this section, $`B_2`$ is bounded by :

$$\underset{j=2}{\overset{1+t}{}}|c(lj,2)|(j1)+\underset{j=t+2}{\overset{2t}{}}|c(lj,2)|(2tj+1)C\underset{j=2}{\overset{2t}{}}(j1)j^\alpha +Ct\underset{j=t+2}{\overset{2t}{}}j^\alpha =O(t^{2\alpha }).$$

Here and in the following $`O(t^x)`$ has to be read as $`O(\mathrm{log}t)`$, $`O(1)`$ whenever $`x=0`$, $`x<0`$ respectively. In order to estimate $`B_1`$ we distinguish two cases;

Case I: $`\eta =0`$.

$`B_1={\displaystyle \underset{j=1t}{\overset{t1}{}}}c(lj,0)()^{lj}(t|j|)`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}()^{lj}c(lj,0)+O(t^{2\alpha })`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Dt}{2\pi }}+O(t^{2\alpha })`$
where

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi {\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}()^{lj}c(lj,0)`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{l}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{l1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c(j^{},0)e^{\pi ij^{}(2n/l+l)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{l1}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\theta |\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\beta _n}|^2,\beta _n={\displaystyle \frac{n}{l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{2}}\text{mod}(1).`$
We next substitute (57) and (58) in (54), and then in (48). Recalling (49),(50), and the remark preceding (48) leads to (44).

Case II: $`\eta `$ a Diophantine irrational. The sum (5) is written in the form

$$B_1=c(0,0)t+S$$

where $`S`$ is the contribution of all $`j0`$ terms. It can be bounded as

$`|S|`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t1}{}}}|c(jl,0)|{\displaystyle \frac{2}{|\mathrm{sin}(\pi l\eta j)|}}`$ (59)
$``$ $`C{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t1}{}}}|c(jl,0)|j^{1+\gamma }=O(t^{2\alpha +\gamma }).`$
where (45) was used. The normalization of the wavefunction implies $`c(0,0)=1/(2\pi )`$. Substituting in (54) leads to (46) after the same concluding steps as in Case I above. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma. Under the hypotheses of the Proposition, and with $`c(M,N)`$ defined as in (53), $`|c(M,N)|=O(|M|^\alpha )`$ as $`M\mathrm{}`$.

Proof. From the Bloch-Wannier fibration (8) it follows that, if $`|M|1`$, then:

$`|c(M,N)|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left|{\displaystyle 𝑑x\psi ^{}(x+M\pi )\psi (xM\pi )e^{iNx}}\right|`$ (60)
$``$ $`C|M|^\alpha {\displaystyle 𝑑x|\psi ^{}(x+M\pi )\psi (xM\pi )|Q(x,M)}`$
where $`Q(x,M)=(1+(x+M\pi )^2)^{\alpha /2}(1+(xM\pi )^2)^{\alpha /2}(4\pi ^2M^2)^{\alpha /2}`$. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality then yields :

$$|c(M,N)|C|M|^\alpha 𝑑x|\psi (x)|^2(1+x^2)^\alpha <\mathrm{},$$

as the convergence of the integral was assumed in the Proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

Acknowledgments. This research was supported in part by PRIN-2000: Chaos and localisation in classical and quantum mechanics, by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), by the US National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949, by the Minerva Center of Nonlinear Physics of Complex Systems, by the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems in Dresden, and by the fund for Promotion of Research at the Technion. Useful discussions with M. Raizen, M. Oberhaler and Y. Gefen are acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The evaluation of the path-integral for any field theory, essentially involves a rotation to Euclidean signature space-times. This renders the complex measures and oscillatory weight factors $`𝒟ge^{ıS}`$ real and the functional integral computable. One then Wick rotates back in the final answer to get Lorentzian quantities, or invoke the Osterwalder-Schraeder theorems. The usual methods used for field theories in flat space-times are difficult to extend to gravity as there is no distinguished notion of time. There have been attempts to define a Euclidean gravitational path-integral and relate them to Lorentzian quantities. Initially complex weights were replaced by real Boltzmann weights and the sum performed over all possible Riemannian metrics . This prescription is ad hoc as there is no a priori relation between the Lorentzian and Riemannian sums. However, if one believes that Lorentzian quantities are the relevant physical quantities, then a prescription must exist for identifying the corresponding Euclidean metrics to be summed over. The usual Wick rotations pertain to static metric solutions of Einstein’s equations. Given the time coordinate, $`t`$, Wick rotation amounts to going to the space of complex metrics, and integrating over the imaginary time axis. As evident, this prescription cannot be directly extended to a non-perturbative configuration space path integral where there is a priori no distinguished notion of time.

The solution to this problem was proposed in , where one gauge fixes the metric and performs a Wick rotation on the space of gauge fixed metrics. This ‘non-perturbative’ Wick rotation is a first step in mapping Lorentzian path-integrals to Euclidean path-integrals, in configuration space. The mapping crucially does not involve a complexification of space-time and maps the real Lorentzian metrics to corresponding real Riemannian metrics in the path-integral. To verify that our proposal works, we discuss some examples where an explicit answer can be obtained. In particular we show how in 2 dimension, the only case where the ‘non-perturbative’ sector can be explicitly evaluated, a correct 2-loop answer is obtained. We show how the rotation relates the Lorentzian and Euclidean sectors of the theory. A completely independent evaluation of the Euclidean path integral in 2 dimensions would include ‘baby universes’ and hence not satisfy the stringent causality requirements which the Lorentzian histories have to satisfy. We first define the path-integral in Lorentzian space, gauge fix the path-integral, Wick rotate to Euclidean space to perform the computations. We also restrict the topology of the manifold to be fixed. The Faddeev-Popov determinant which arises due to gauge fixing gives the effective action in proper-time coordinates with the only degree of freedom being $`g_{11}`$ component of the metric. Using a heuristic argument by coupling 2 dimensional gravity to matter, we show that this component of the metric has the product form $`g_{11}=\gamma (t)\gamma (x)`$. This immediately reduces the problem to that of quantum mechanics, and the zeta function regularisation of the Faddeev-Popov determinant gives the effective action as a quantum mechanical action. The path-integral can be explicitly evaluated once this is determined. We then rotate the final result to obtain the physical Lorentzian answer. The answer obtained in the end is same as that obtained in a discretized evaluation of the path-integral . A continuum calculation of the path-integral in proper-time coordinates had been previously obtained in . Our approach is along the formalism of , where we derive the effective action from the Faddeev-Popov determinant arising in the measure unlike . Note the choice of gauge the Proper-time gauge plays a crucial role in all our arguments on the Wick Rotation as Lorentzian concepts like causality are manifest, which restricts the path-integral.

The following section is a detailed discussion of the Wick rotation proposed in , and the reason for it being non-perturbative is pointed out. The discussions in this section are similar as those in . The third section enumerates the applications. An explicit calculation of the two dimensional path-integral is given, and there is a short review of the conformal mode cancellation of  to complete our argument. We end with a discussion.

## 2 The Non-perturbative ‘Wick Rotation’

Since the perturbative path integral does not define a fundamental theory of quantum gravity, we have to consider, non-perturbative evaluations (see  for recent examples). As there is no distinguished notion of time in gravity, definition of Euclidean path-integral is not well defined. A non-perturbative Wick rotation however can be implemented on the space of gauge fixed metrics as shown in . Here, after fixing the gauge in the Lorentzian path integral, the appropriate gauge-invariant metrics are written in coordinates with a distinguished time . We then ‘Wick rotate’ in the time-like component of the gauge invariant metric. To implement this, we need to identify a suitable gauge, and the proper-time gauge precisely fits in. Here the notion of time is distinguished, and causality is manifest. Our construction, including the ‘Wick rotation’, is non-perturbative and background-independent.

Our gauge is defined by the use of Gaussian normal coordinates, where the $`d`$-dimensional metric takes the form

$$ds^2=ϵdt^2+g_{ij}dx^idx^j,ϵ=\pm 1,i=1,2,\mathrm{},d1,$$
(1)
singling out a proper time $`t`$. The value $`ϵ=1`$ corresponds to Lorentzian-signature metrics. Our generalized Wick rotation consists in mapping

$$ϵϵ,$$
(2)
while keeping $`g_{ij}`$ unchanged. It has the following properties:

* Real Lorentzian metrics are mapped to real Euclidean metrics, thus making the DeWitt metric and associated scalar products well-defined. Note that this is unlike the prescriptions used in  where complexification of the metric occurs. This is necessary for us as we need not only the action to be real but also the De-Witt metric $`G^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ in the configuration space of metrics, and the associated scalar products $`<h,h>=d^4x\sqrt{g}h_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }h_{\rho \sigma }`$ to be real too. A simple illustrative example is that of the de Sitter metric (foliated by flat hypersurfaces),

$$ds^2=ϵdt^2+e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }t}d\stackrel{}{x}^2,$$
(3)
which is also a solution to the Einstein equations. The standard rotation $`tit`$ takes this to a complex-Euclidean metric. Not only that, the scalar product defined above is clearly complex for d=4. The Gaussian normalisation conditions used to define the correct measure in the form

$$𝒟h\mathrm{exp}^{<h,h>}=1$$
(4)
will no longer have a real exponent, and hence the ‘Euclideanised’ integrals will also be ill defined. The Wick rotation to real Riemannian metrics which is achieved in (2) is a necessity here.
* The initial motivation for Wick rotation is of course the replacement of complex amplitudes in the path-integral by real weights. This is very well achieved in our prescription. The Complex amplitudes which appears in the path integral can be written in this gauge as $`\mathrm{e}^{i\sqrt{ϵ}S_ϵ}|_{ϵ=1}`$, with the action S as:

$$S_ϵ[g]=\frac{ϵ}{16\pi G}d^dx\sqrt{detg_{ij}}\left({}_{}{}^{(d1)}R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{ϵ}{4}G_{(2)}^{ijkl}(_0g_{ij})(_0g_{kl})\right),$$
(5)
where $`G^{ijkl}=(g^{ik}g^{jl}+g^{il}g^{jk}+Cg^{ij}g^{kl})/2`$ is the DeWitt metric defined on the functional space of metrics and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the cosmological constant. (The one-parameter ambiguity $`C`$ gets fixed by the form of the kinetic term in the action to $`C=2`$.) Now clearly, the Wick rotation prescription given as $`ϵϵ`$ helps in mapping the complex weights to real Boltzmann weights $`\mathrm{e}^{S_{eu}}`$.
* The map is one-to-one and onto the space of gauge-fixed Euclidean metrics. We assume that metrics of the form (1) are in a suitable sense dense in the quotient of metrics modulo diffeomorphisms, see  for a detailed discussion.
* The non-perturbative nature of our Wick rotation becomes manifest when we look at solutions to Einstein’s equations. In general, Lorentzian solutions of the Einstein equations are not mapped to solutions of the Einstein equations in Euclidean space by (2). In proper-time coordinates, as written in (1), the entire $`ϵ`$ dependence can be absorbed into a rescaling of the time coordinate by $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$ (See Appendix A). Thus Lorentzian and Euclidean solutions ($`g_{ij}^L(\tau ,r)=g_{ij}^E(\tau ,r)`$) have the same functional dependence on the scaled parameter $`\tau =\sqrt{ϵ}t`$, however, $`ϵϵ`$ would implement the change $`tıt`$. Note that in our proposal for the Wick rotation, we assume that $`g_{ij}`$ is independent of $`ϵ`$. Thus we are essentially not looking at Classical metrics, or Saddle points of the path-integral. The usual ‘common-sense’ associated with Einstein’s equation solutions cannot be implemented in our space of metrics.
* Another positive point of this Wick rotation, is the fact that since $`g_{ij}(t)`$ remains unchanged, whatever properties the Lorentzian metric has as a function of Lorentzian time are retained in the Euclidean case. As an example, the metric for desitter space (foliated by spheres, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$) is:

$$ds^2=dt^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2t(d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi d\mathrm{\Omega }^2)$$
(6)
The standard $`tit`$ would give,

$$ds^2=dt^2+\mathrm{cos}^2t(d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi d\mathrm{\Omega }^2)$$
(7)
which is pathological at $`t=\pm \pi /2`$.

However, our Wick rotation gives

$$ds^2=dt^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2t(d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi d\mathrm{\Omega }^2)$$
(8)
with the result that the Euclidean metric is not pathological at $`t=\pm \pi /2`$. Hence, once we have fixed the configuration space of metrics for the Lorentzian case, we can retain the mapped Euclidean set of metrics in the sum.

The prescription (2) and the $`tit`$ agree only in a few cases, for example, the Minkowski and Schwarzschild metrics (which are static). If we were primarily interested in a perturbative treatment around given classical solutions, we might worry about the second last property. However, we need a Wick rotation that works on the space of all gauge fixed metrics, since this is the space we wish to sum over in the non-perturbative path integral, for given initial and final boundaries.

We conclude that in a non-perturbative context the prescription $`ϵϵ`$ is perfectly well-defined, and clearly preferred to a rotation to imaginary (proper) time.

## 3 Applications

The Wick rotation discussed in the previous section has to be implemented in a actual path integral to illustrate that it actually works. 2 dimensions is simplest to start with, and a full non-perturbative path-integral can be evaluated.

### 3.1 PI in 2 dim

The exact integral in 2 dimensions, helps in illustrating our Wick rotation, which is specific to the proper-time gauge we have chosen. We define the path-integral in two dimensional Lorentzian geometry before ‘Wick rotating’ to Euclidean space-times. The choice of our gauge helps us in realising Lorentzian conditions manifestly e.g.
1)The existence of a global proper-time coordinate ensures that Topology is restricted (eg: formation of baby Universe would require a degenerate metric at the point of splitting, with the light cones pointing towards different time directions subsequently. See for reference .)
2)Since propagator is evaluated between proper-time slices with the proper-time flowing from $`[0,T]`$, causality is manifest in this gauge.

The path-integral is

$$Z=𝒟g_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{P}J\mathrm{exp}(ıS)$$
(9)
where J is the Faddeev-Popov determinant (FP) which arises due to the gauge fixing to a metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{P}`$. After determining the dependence of the FP on the metric variable (which in two dimensions has only one free component), one proceeds to evaluate the entire path-integral. (Here we have removed the diffeomorphism degrees of freedom.)

The gauge fixed metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{P}(t,x)`$ has the following form:

$$ds^2=ϵdt^2+\gamma (t,x)dx^2,$$
(10)
with $`\gamma (t,x)`$ being the $`g_{11}`$ component of the metric. Before we start with evaluation of the P.I., we look at the classical phase space in proper-time coordinates. Given the two dimensional classical action $`S=\sqrt{g}R+\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{g}`$, ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant), one has to impose the constraint $`T_{01}=0`$, to determine the classical configuration space(Appendix B). Imposing this condition reduces the configuration space such that $`_t_x\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\gamma }(t,x)=0`$, and hence $`\gamma =\gamma (t)\gamma (x)`$. With the above variables, the problem reduces to one of quantum mechanics. This restriction, is also closely related to the restriction to cylinder topology. As seen in discrete calculations , one essentially studies correlations of loops $`\sqrt{\gamma }𝑑x=l(t)`$ in time, with the space direction integrated out. (One can attribute this to Lorentzian cobordism which restricts possible classical geometries between two given boundary data in 2 dimensions. For discussions on these issues see ).

It is an interesting exsersice to determine the behaviour of 2-dim gravity coupled to matter fields in this gauge. Using a heuristic argument, we demonstrate how quantisation in this gauge is different from a ab initio quantisation in conformal gauge.

As explained in  the matter integral can be done exactly, and the effective energy momentum tensors determined. In other words: $`<T_{\mu \nu }>=\frac{\delta F}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}`$, with

$`Z^M={\displaystyle 𝒟X\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu X_\nu X)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(F)`$ (11)
The conformal anomaly (in Euclidean space) is given as

$$g^{\mu \nu }<T_{\mu \nu }>=(\frac{D}{24\pi })\left[R(\xi )+constant\right]$$
(12)
The $`D`$ denotes the number of scalar fields. Note, the presence of the conformal anomaly does not break the diffeomorphism invariance of the quantum effective action. Now, we impose the constraint in proper-time gauge such that $`<T_{01}>=0`$. This can be implemented in the effective action by using the following property:

$$g_{01}=h_{01}$$
(13)
such that

$$\frac{\delta Z^M}{\delta h_{01}}|_{h_{01}=0}=<T_{01}>=0$$
(14)
This restriction in proper-time gauge immediately implies that the correlations are important only across two proper-time slices. Let us try to see what this implies for conformal gauge. The transformations which take the conformal set of coordinates to the proper-time coordinates are as given below. The metric in conformal gauge can be written in terms of $`(\xi _0,\xi _1)`$ coordinates as the following:

$$ds^2=e^{2\varphi (\xi )}\left(ϵd\xi _0^2+d\xi _1^2\right)$$
(15)
Where $`\varphi `$ denotes the conformal mode and the $`ϵϵ`$ denotes a corresponding mapping to Euclidean metrics in conformal gauge. This mapping is of course not equivalent to the mapping defined in the proper-time gauge. For simplicity at present we take the $`ϵ`$ to be same. The coordinate transformations are very simple, and gives a relation between the derivatives of the coordinates as (see Appendix B):

$`ϵ\dot{t}^2+t^{}_{}{}^{}2`$ $`=`$ $`ϵe^{2\varphi }`$ (16)
$`ϵ\dot{x}^2+x^{}_{}{}^{}2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\varphi )}{\gamma }}`$ (17)
with $`\dot{t}=\pm \sqrt{\gamma }x^{},t^{}=\pm \sqrt{\gamma }\dot{x}`$ (18)
(Where $`\dot{t}`$ denotes differentiation of t with respect to $`\xi _0`$ and $`x^{}`$ denotes differentiation of $`x`$ with respect to $`\xi _1`$). This coordinate transformation can be implemented on the energy momentum tensors in (12).

To quantise in conformal gauge, one imposes the constraint $`<T_{01}^{CF}>=0`$, and one can use the diffeomorphism transformation to see what it implies in the proper-time coordinates. Using the coordinate transformations, one finds:

$$<T_{01}>^{CF}=\dot{x}x^{}\left(ϵ<T_{00}>\frac{1}{\gamma }<T_{11}>\right)=0$$
(19)
Where $`<T_{01}>=0`$ has been implemented. Clearly for the above to be correct, one is left with the following options:

$`\dot{x}=0,`$ $`\mathrm{or}`$ $`x^{}=0\mathrm{or}`$ (20)
$`ϵ<T_{00}>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}<T_{11}>`$ (21)
The last condition is disallowed from equations which arise determining the energy momentum tensors due to (12) and the conservation equations $`^\mu <T_{\mu \nu }>=0`$ (Appendix B).

It also happens that when we continue to Lorentzian signature by (17),the condition $`x^{}=0`$ is not possible. What we have left is $`\dot{x}=0`$ and hence by (18), $`t^{}=0`$, which implies again that $`\gamma =\gamma (x)\gamma (t)`$ and $`\varphi (\xi )=\varphi (\xi _0)`$. Note in principle we should have used the inverse transformations, i.e. transformed $`<T_{01}>=0`$ to conformal gauge, but conclusions would have been same.

An ab initio quantisation in conformal gauge would not have the reduced the conformal mode to be time dependent, and yielded the same result. Thus our choice of gauge on which we can implement the Lorentzian conditions in a manifest manner, is crucial.

The path integral takes the following form in the proper-time gauge:

$$Z=𝒟\gamma J(ϵ,\gamma )e^{i\sqrt{ϵ}\mathrm{\Lambda }{\scriptscriptstyle d^2x\sqrt{\gamma }}}.$$
(22)
The Wick rotation which takes $`ϵϵ`$ is very simple , and we compute the entire path integral calculation in Euclidean space. Albeit hereafter the computations are similar to a Euclidean P.I, one must realise that an ab initio calculation in Conformal gauge Euclidean P. I. would not have resulted in the same answer, unless one implemented the Lorentzian conditions and rotated the corresponding proper-time obtained as a function of the conformal mode.

The main task is the evaluation of the Faddeev-Popov determinant J and it’s dependence on $`\gamma `$. To evaluate the determinant explicitly, we refer to  and use the Gaussian normalisation condition to fix the exact value. We expand the metric around the diffeomorphism orbits:

$$\delta g_{\mu \nu }=\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{PT}}+_\mu \xi _\nu +_\nu \xi _\mu =\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{PT}}+(L\xi )_{\mu \nu }$$
(23)
For our purposes we set C=0, a value predetermined by the action we have chosen. (Note that this is very specific to 2-dimensions)

(23) is then used in:

$$𝒟\delta g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}(<\delta g,\delta g>)=1$$

Denoting the Jacobian of the transformation as $`J`$, the induced measure on the tangent space is determined. Note that since the exponent is diffeomorphism invariant, we determine the scalar product at the base point on the gauge slice. As given in Appendix C, the Faddeev-Popov determinant can be written as a product of three scalar determinants. This follows as after a few redefinitions as in Appendix C, the entire exponent can be written as a sum of complete squares.

$$𝒟\delta g_{11}𝒟\xi _0𝒟\xi _1\mathrm{exp}[d^2x\left(\delta g_{11}(_{11})\delta g_{11}+\xi _0^{}(_0)\xi _0^{}+\xi _1^{}(_1)\xi _1^{}\right)]$$
(24)
Where the vectors have been re-defined in order to complete the squares as given in Appendix C. The Gaussian integrals can now be done to yield the appropriate Jacobians in tangent space. The Jacobians evaluated here also determine the measure in base functional space. The Faddeev-Popov determinant is obtained as a product of three scalar determinants.

$$J^2=det_\mathrm{S}(_0)det_\mathrm{S}(_1)det_\mathrm{S}(_{11})$$
(25)
where the explicit expressions for the $`_0,_1,_{11}`$ are given as in Appendix C. Being the simplest, we concentrate on $`_0`$ first.

$$det_\mathrm{S}(_0)=det_\mathrm{S}\left[4(_0^{}_0+\frac{1}{2\gamma }_1^{}_1+\frac{(\dot{ln\gamma })^2}{4})\right]$$
(26)
The operator in the above is thus:

$$P=\sqrt{\gamma }\left[4(_0^{}_0+\frac{1}{2\gamma }_1^{}_1+\frac{(\dot{ln\gamma })^2}{4})\right]\delta (tt^{})\delta (xx^{})$$
(27)
The determinant of this operator then satisfies the following eigenvalue equation:

$$P\psi =n\sqrt{\gamma }\psi $$
(28)
where the eigenfunctions $`\psi `$ with eigenvalues n, have to satisfy appropriate boundary conditions on $`t=0`$ and $`t=T`$ surfaces. We impose Dirichlet boundary conditions, and as shown below, assume that the operator equation can be solved by a separation of variables. Once the separable solutions are found, any other solution can be expressed as a linear combination of them . To achieve separability of the solution, we write the operator equation in the following form

$$4\frac{\gamma (t)}{\psi (t)}\left(_0^{}_0+\frac{(\dot{ln\gamma })^2}{4}\right)\psi (t)n\gamma (t)=\frac{1}{2\psi (x)\gamma (x)}\left(_1^{}_1\right)\psi (x).$$
(29)
What is evident from the above is the fact that the above equation is easily separable in the variables but with the consequence that the eigenvalue $`n`$ depends on the time dependent operators only. This is a clear indication of the reduction of the system to a quantum mechanical system with the reduced action depending only on the time coordinate. (The effective action is derived from $`J=\mathrm{\Pi }n`$. Also the splitting we found in $`\gamma =\gamma (t)\gamma (x)`$ contributes crucially to our conclusion.) The eigenvalue equation for the $`t`$ dependent part becomes now

$$4\gamma (t)\left((_0+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma })_0\right)\psi (t)+\gamma (t)(\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma })^2\psi (t)n\gamma (t)\psi (t)=\alpha \psi (t)$$
(30)
where $`\alpha `$ is a positive constant independent of $`t,x`$.

Finding the effective action hence reduces to the problem of finding the determinant of the operator

$$4(_0^{}_0)+(\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma })^2+\frac{\alpha }{\gamma }.$$
(31)
In order to determine the above, we perform a zeta function regularisation. We follow  to perform this. Since it is difficult to evaluate the exact determinant, we try to guess the dependence on the $`\gamma (t)`$, by assuming that the effective action has the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝑑t\left(f(\gamma )(_0\gamma )^2+V(\gamma )\right)$$
(32)
with $`f(\gamma )`$ an arbitrary function. Thus, for configurations which have $`\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma }=0`$, we recover $`V(\gamma _0)`$, where $`V(\gamma _0)`$ is the potential depending on the constant value $`\gamma _0`$. In other words the potential is simply given by the zeta function regularisation of the operator in (31) with the value of $`\gamma _0`$:

$$𝑑tV(\gamma _0)=\zeta ^{}(0)$$
(33)
Note that the metric in (10) is still non-constant due to the dependence on $`\gamma (x)`$.

Thus, we consider the operator for $`\gamma _0`$ which reduces to the following form

$$4_0^2+\frac{\alpha }{\gamma _0}$$
(34)
The Heat Kernel for this operator satisfies the following equation:

$$(4_0^2\frac{\alpha }{\gamma _0})G(t,t^{},\tau )=_\tau G$$
(35)
with the boundary condition that

$$G(t,t^{},\tau =0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }_0}\delta (tt^{})$$
(36)
(the metric in this direction is flat) The heat Kernel $`G(t,t^{},\tau )`$ can be solved to give:

$$G(t,t^{},\tau )=\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{4\tau \gamma _0}}e^{\frac{(tt^{})^2}{16\tau }\frac{\alpha }{\gamma _0}\tau }$$
(37)
The $`\zeta `$ function is thus:

$$\zeta (s)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \tau ^{s1}𝑑t\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{4\tau }}e^{\frac{\alpha }{\gamma _0}\tau }$$
(38)
The $`𝑑t`$ is not infinite, and cancels with the volume element in the LHS of (33). The task thus reduces to the determination of

$$\zeta ^{}(0)=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}\left(\frac{\gamma _0}{\alpha }\right)^{s1/2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\gamma _0}{\alpha }\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }(s1/2)\mathrm{\Psi }(s)\right]|_{s=0}$$
(39)
At this juncture, we keep only finite terms as $`s0`$, and hence only the term proportional to $`\mathrm{\Psi }(s)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$ of the above expression. It is easily justifiable as the rest of the terms, due to the pole of $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$, at $`s0`$ contribute vanishingly to $`e^{\zeta ^{}(0)}`$.

The potential has a dependence of the form:

$$𝑑tV(\gamma _0)𝑑t\sqrt{\gamma _0}\frac{1}{\gamma _0}$$
(40)
Next we look at the operator $`_1`$, which has the form as given in the Appendix:

$$_1=\frac{4}{\gamma ^2}_1^0\left(1+(\frac{_1^0}{\gamma })^1_1^1\right)$$
(41)
with

$$_1^0=\left(_1^{}_1+\frac{\gamma }{2}_0^{}_0+\frac{\gamma }{2}(\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma })_0+\frac{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma ^{})^2}{4}\right)$$
(42)
The operator in (42) can be cast in a form similar to the operator $`_0`$ with a measure of $`1/\sqrt{\gamma }_0`$. However, this does not modify the final answer, and one gets a very similar analyses as above, except for a change of factor 2. And the contribution to the effective potential is of the form $`𝑑t1/\sqrt{\gamma _0}`$. The rest of the factorised operator in (41) does not contribute to the potential (see Appendix C). The full form of the potential is determined above, the contributions due to nonzero $`\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma }`$, will contribute to the derivative terms in the action. Though one may think that a constant $`\gamma `$ can be absorbed into a rescaling of the coordinate, note that the conformal anomaly precisely prevents this. To determine the derivative term in (32), we resort to the demand of locality of the action as previous work in other gauges  have local actions. To see what such a term in the action should look like we make a scaling of just the $`t`$ coordinate to go to conformal gauge with the metric

$$ds^2=\gamma (dt^2+dx^2).$$

The local term in these set of coordinates would be $`𝑑t^{}\frac{1}{4}(_t^{}\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\gamma })^2`$. Translating this back to original coordinates we conclude that the effective action can be written as:

$$I=𝑑t\left(\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\gamma (t)}}\left(\frac{d\sqrt{\gamma }(t)}{dt}\right)^2+\frac{\beta }{\sqrt{\gamma }(t)}+\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{\gamma }(t)\right)$$
(43)
The constant $`\beta `$ is finite. Remarkably, the above coincides with the effective action found in . To extract the finite part of our effective action, the observation of separability proved crucial. In principle we have not argued for the absence of higher derivative terms, however conditions of locality are stringent. A full determination of the determinant for nonzero $`\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma }`$ should ultimately give (43), and shall be interesting to evaluate.

Once the action has been determined, one needs to complete the evaluation of the propagator

$$G(l_1,l_2,T)=_{l_1}^{l_2}\frac{𝒟l}{l}exp(I(l))$$
(44)
where we are now using the variable $`\sqrt{\gamma (t)}=l`$. Though the action is quantum mechanical, it is not clear that the evaluation of (44) is simple. An exact evaluation is left for a future publication. Instead, one resorts to the following representation of the propagator.

$$G(l_1,l_2,T)=<l_1|e^{HT}|l_2>$$
(45)
Where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian corresponding to (43). This is similar to the approach in , and one refers the readers to the calculations there, and quotes the final result.

$$G(l_1,l_2,T)=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(l_1+l_2)\mathrm{coth}(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}T)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}T)}I_a\left(\frac{2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }l_1l_2}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}T)}\right)$$
(46)
This amplitude is the same obtained in different approaches in , with $`a=1`$ coincides with the result found in . However, the interesting part is the rotation back in the final result to get a physical Lorentzian answer. The Wick rotation initially involved setting $`ϵϵ=1`$ to get the Euclidean set of metrics to be summed over. In the final answer, this rotation is hidden in the definition of proper-time $`T`$, or the Euclidean time is $`\sqrt{ϵ}T`$. (This can be traced back to equation (22), and the fact that $`\gamma `$ is independent of $`ϵ`$). Substituting $`TiT`$, a physical Lorentzian answer is obtained.

In two dimensions, we implemented all the properties of Wick rotation stated in section 2, and succeeded in getting an exact and correct answer for the non-perturbative path-integral. Hence it is interesting to see how far we can implement this in higher dimensions.

### 3.2 In higher dimensions

Our formalism crucially rests on the proper-time gauge. In higher dimensions, as discussed in , the action is as given in (5).

The Euclidean and Lorentzian actions are related by $`ϵϵ`$. We will set $`ϵ=1`$ in what follows.

As discussed in , we showed that the above helps in the identification of the negative definite part of the action, which is real unlike what a complexification of the Lorentzian metric would achieve.

$$S^{\mathrm{ND}}=\frac{(d1)(d2)}{16\pi G}d^dx\mathrm{e}^{(d1)\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}(_0\stackrel{~}{\lambda })^2$$
(47)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\lambda +\frac{\mathrm{log}\overline{g}}{2(d1)}.$$
(48)
($`\lambda `$ is the conformal mode $`g_{ij}=e^{2\lambda }\overline{g}_{ij}`$). The full action can be written as $`S=S^{\mathrm{ND}}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })+S^{\mathrm{rest}}(\overline{g}_{ij},\stackrel{~}{\lambda })`$, where we refrain from giving the remainder $`S^{\mathrm{rest}}`$ explicitly .

The main task is to now deal with the presence of the $`e^\lambda `$ dependence in the measure for $`\lambda `$. In other words we need a transformation which is similar to that used in 2-dimensional gravity :

$$𝒟\stackrel{~}{g}_{e^\lambda \overline{g}}𝒟\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{e^\lambda \overline{g}}J(\lambda ,\overline{g})𝒟\stackrel{~}{g}_{\overline{g}}𝒟\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\overline{g}$$
(49)
We assume that this is achieved with the Jacobian $`J`$, a local function of the fields and is of the form $`e^{S_L}`$. For obvious symmetry reasons the local action is of the following form

$$S_L=d^dx\sqrt{\overline{g}}\left[A\left(_0\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\right)^2+B\overline{R}+C(\overline{R}_{ijkl}\overline{R}^{ijkl})+D(^2\overline{R})+\mathrm{}\right]$$
(50)
where A, B, C, D.. are constants whose value will depend on the regularisation chosen. What is however clear that the kinetic term for the conformal mode appears in the same form as in the original action and can be absorbed back into the action with just a renormalisation of the coupling constant Thus inspired by a conjecture lying at the heart of 2d Liouville quantum gravity , we now assume that an elimination of the conformal factors from the space-time measures in the exponent and the determinants (such that $`\sqrt{\overline{g}}e^{(d1)\lambda }\sqrt{\overline{g}}`$) is equivalent to a renormalization of the action. We now pull all Jacobians and other $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$-independent terms out of the $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$-integral. The leading divergence of what is left under the integral is of the form

$$𝒟\stackrel{~}{\lambda }e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^dx\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_0^{}_0\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}}.$$
(51)
This formally yields $`1/\sqrt{det_\mathrm{S}(_0^{}_0)}`$, which is badly divergent, since $`_0^{}_0`$ is a positive operator. Nevertheless, it is of exactly the same functional form as the inverse of scalar part of the Faddeev-Popov determinant as determined in . One can then cancel the two divergent determinants, leaving behind the integral in $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}`$. This completes the argument for the cancellation of the conformal divergence.

## 4 Discussions

In this article we argued for a novel type of Wick rotation which seems particularly suited for a non-perturbative treatment of the gravitational path integral. It is an example of how the need for going beyond perturbative treatments in quantum gravity forces us to abandon a well-loved, but essentially perturbative concept like imaginary time. As an application, we gave a 2dimensional non-perturbative path integral calculation and outlined how in higher dimensions, the conformal sickness of the Wick-rotated path integral is cured non-perturbatively in this new framework. The two dimensional path-integral revealed that the choice of proper-time gauge was crucial in our arguements as the Lorentzian restrictions can be imposed manifestly here. The final result confirmed that the Wick rotation on the space of proper-time metrics does work in a non-perturbative set up. It shall be interesting to see how the Lorentzian conditions obtained here translate to other gauges like the light cone gauge, and this answer reproduced from quantisations used in. And in higher dimensions the cancellation of the conformal mode divergence leads to the hope that the path-integral can be evaluated to yield exact results.

Acknowledgements: This paper grew out of extended discussions with R. Loll. The author wishes to thank her for a careful reading of the manuscript, pointing out of errors, criticism of arguments, many helpful comments and encouragement to publish. The author also thanks B. Mcinnes for bringing to attention typos in eqns 6-8 in earlier version.

## 5 Appendix A

The non-zero Christoffels:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}g_{ij,0}`$ (52)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0j}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{ik}g_{kj,0}`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lj}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{ik}\left(g_{lk,j}+g_{jk,l}g_{lj,k}\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lj}^{(2)i}`$ (54)
The Ricci Tensor components

$`R_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(g^{ik}g_{ik,0}\right)_{,0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{jm}g^{kn}g_{jn,0}g_{km,0}`$ (55)
$`R_{i0}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij,0}^{(2)j}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(g^{jk}g_{ik,0}\right),j+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{(2)k}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{jm}g_{km,0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{(2)j}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{kl}g_{il,0}`$ (56)
$`R_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{ij}^{(2)}+ϵ\left(g_{ij,0,0}+g_{ij,0}g^{lm}g_{lm,0}g_{ik,0}g_{jm,0}g^{km}\right)`$ (57)
Scaling the time coordinate by $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$, and putting the above in Einstein’s equation, the entire $`ϵ`$ dependence is removed from them (we also need to use $`ϵ^2=1`$). So, one obtains $`g_{ij}=g_{ij}(\sqrt{ϵ}t,x)`$

## 6  Appendix B

Though the 2 dimensional classical action is a total derivative, one knows that dynamics can be induced in the quantum corrected effective action due to the conformal anamoly. In anticipation of that, one can try and see what the classical reduced space can be, by looking at the constraint $`T_{01}=0`$. This can be imposed by using

$$\frac{\delta S}{\delta g^{01}}|_{g_{01}=0}=0$$
(58)
with $`S=\sqrt{g}R+\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{g}`$. Thus using the non-zero Christoffels, one finds

$$S=\sqrt{\gamma }\left[ϵR_{00}+\frac{1}{\gamma }R_{11}\right]+O(g_{01}^2)$$
(59)
With(quoting only the terms proportional to $`g_{01}`$) and $`ϵ=1`$,

$`R_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`_x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}_tg_{10})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma ^2}}_tg_{10}_x\gamma `$ (60)
$`R_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`_x_tg_{01}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\gamma ^2}}g_{01}_t\gamma _x\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma }}\left(_t\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_{01}}{\gamma }}\right)_x\gamma _t\gamma _x\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_{01}}{\gamma }}\right)\right)`$ (61)
Using the above in (58), one finds that

$$T_{01}=_x_t\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\gamma }=0$$
(62)
is solved by $`\gamma =\gamma (t)\gamma (x)`$

Thus classical configuration space is reduced by the above constraint. We can try to see what this implies for the conformal gauge: The coordinate transformations relating metric components in conformal gauge (15) and (10).

$`ϵ\dot{t}^2+\gamma \dot{x}^2`$ $`=`$ $`ϵe^{2\varphi }`$ (63)
$`ϵ\dot{t}t^{}+\gamma \dot{x}x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (64)
$`ϵt^2+\gamma x^2=e^{2\varphi }`$ (65)
Dividing (63) by (65) and using (64) one obtains:

$`\dot{t}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\gamma }x^{}`$ (66)
$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\gamma }\dot{x}`$ (67)
Putting the above two in (63) and (65) one obtains (16,17).

To follow on the heuristic arguement, and Equation (21), we show why the condition $`<T_{00}>\frac{1}{\gamma }<T_{11}>`$. The conformal anamoly equation, and the conservation equations $`^\mu <T_{\mu \nu }>=0`$ can be used to solve for the energy momentum tensors. For clarity we denote the the conformal anamoly in this gauge as $`<T_{00}>+\frac{1}{\gamma }<T_{11}>=F(\gamma )`$, where $`F(\gamma )`$ is an arbitrary function of the metric, and is usually proportional to the scalar curvature. In the next few lines $`<T_{\mu \nu }>T_{\mu \nu }`$. The $`T_{01}`$ component of the energy momentum tensor can be eliminated, yielding the following two equations:

$$_1\left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}_1\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}T_{11}\right)\right\}+_0\left\{\sqrt{\gamma }_0\left(\frac{T_{11}}{\sqrt{\gamma }}\right)\right\}+_0\left\{\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma }T_{11}\right\}=_0\left\{\sqrt{\gamma }_0(\sqrt{\gamma }F(\gamma ))\right\}$$
(68)
$$_0\left\{\sqrt{\gamma }_0\left(\sqrt{\gamma }T_{00}\right)\right\}+_1\left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}_1\left(\sqrt{\gamma }T_{00}\right)\right\}=_1\left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}_1\left(\sqrt{\gamma }F(\gamma )\right)\right\}_0\left\{\gamma \dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma }F(\gamma )\right\}.$$
(69)
The above two equations can be solved in principle to obtain a solution for the energy momentum tensor components, however it is obvious that $`T_{00}=\frac{1}{\gamma }T_{11}`$ cannot be a solution of the above. Hence Equation (21) are disallowed.

## 7 Appendix C

This is a summary of the Faddeev-Popov determinant calculations in our gauge. An ab initio derivation of the determinant is required as our gauge is non-covariant and two dimensions is the easiest place to demonstrate that.

By ab-initio we mean that we start with the Gaussian-Normalisation condition:

$$𝒟\delta g_{\mu \nu }e^{<\delta g,\delta g>}=1$$
(70)
where $`\delta g_{\mu \nu }`$ is fluctuation in tangent space around a given base point in the functional space of metrics.

We assume that our gauge fixed proper-time metric, is of the following form:

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \gamma \end{array}\right)$$
(71)
with the following non-zero Christoffel symbols.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^0=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}^1=\frac{1}{2}\dot{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^1=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )^{}$$

$`\dot{\gamma }_t\gamma ,\gamma ^{}_x\gamma `$ denote the derivatives and $`\gamma =\gamma (t)\gamma (x)`$.

Using the above:

$`<\delta g,\delta g>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2x\sqrt{\gamma }\left[(2_0\xi _0)^2+\frac{2}{\gamma }(_0\xi _1+_1\xi _0)^2+\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}(\delta g_{11}+2_1\xi _1)^2\right]}`$ (72)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2x\sqrt{\gamma }[{\displaystyle \frac{(\delta g_{11})^2}{\gamma ^2}}+4\dot{\xi }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\gamma ^2}}\left(\left\{(\xi _1^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\gamma }\xi _0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )^{}\xi _1\right\}^2+\left\{\xi _1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\gamma }\xi _0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )^{}\xi _1\right\}\delta g_{11}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma }}(\dot{\xi }_1+\xi _0^{}\dot{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )}\xi _1)^2]`$
Using partial integrations, the above can be written in a more convenient form:

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2x\sqrt{\gamma }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}\delta g_{11}^2+4\xi _0(_0^{}_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma }}_1^{}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )}^2}{4}})\xi _0`$ (73)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\gamma }}\left\{\xi _0\dot{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )}(_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\gamma ^{})\xi _1\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\gamma }}\left\{\xi _1\left(_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )}\right)_1\xi _0\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\gamma ^2}}\left\{\xi _1\left(_1^{}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}_0^{}_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma }}{2}}_0+{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma ^{})^2}{4}}\right)\xi _1\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\gamma ^2}}\xi _1_1^{}\delta g_{11}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma }}\dot{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )}\xi _0\delta g_{11}]`$
(where $`_0^{}=_0+1/2\dot{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )},_1^{}=_11/2(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )^{}`$)

One can then complete the squares to do the $`\xi `$ integrations and obtain:

$$=d^2x\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}\delta g_{11}^2+\xi _0^{}_0\xi _0^{}+\xi _1^{}_1\xi _1^{}W_0W_1$$
(74)
where,

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`4(_0^{}_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma }}_1^{}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )}^2}{4}})`$ (75)
$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\gamma ^2}}(_1^{}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}_0^{}_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\dot{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )}_0+{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma ^{})^2}{4}})`$ (76)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}(_0^{}\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma })_1(_0)^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}_1^{}(_02\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma })`$
$`W_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}\delta g_{11}\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma }_0^1{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma }}{\gamma }}\delta g_{11}`$ (77)
$`W_1`$ $`=`$ $`\delta g_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}\left(_1+\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma }_1^{}(_02\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma })_1_0^1\right)_1^1`$ (78)
$`\times `$ $`\left((_0^{}\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma })_1_0^1{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma }}{\gamma }}+_1^{}\right)\delta g_{11}`$
After this, one can just evaluate the gaussian integrals in $`\delta g_{11}`$, $`\xi _0,\xi _1`$ in the (70) to get the Jacobian in terms of three scalar determinants,
$`det_S(_0)det_S(_1)det_S(_{11})`$, with $`\delta g_{11}(_{11}1/\gamma ^2)\delta g_{11}=W_0W_1`$. For non-zero $`\gamma `$ it becomes a Herculian task to determine the exact form of the effective action. Following the zeta function regularisation methods used in , the form of the effective action can be guessed by examining around a value of the metric for which $`\dot{\mathrm{ln}\gamma }=0`$. This gives precisely the same action found in  for the determinant $`_0`$ as explained in section 3.1. For the rest of the determinants of operators (76) and (78), we also do a zeta function regularisation. But most give diverging results due to presence of inverse of operators, and we absorb these in an infinite renormalisation of the effective action.